Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I find it highly ironic that 98% of the threads on here link to MSM sources and yet I always hear ATS members yelling at people who trust these
Do you trust the MSM? If not, then why do you post links to the stories backing up your posts? I know many people who break down the articles posted
on this site line by line and that is awesome! Thumbs up to you guys!! If you truly didn't trust the MSM, you wouldn't post articles from the MSM
giving them more hits on their websites and giving them more money in advertising money ....
Because after all, without the MSM there would be no ATS.
I can see your perspective clearly, and the subtle humor is not wasted on me....,
Not be a wet blanket though; the irony is only half-met.
ATS is among the most driven of internet communities. As a result, our collective expository standard has engendered an interesting paradigm. Which
is a fancy way of saying I think ATS is different, and in some senses, unique. (After all you're here. )
The "Main Stream Media" (MSM) is, in effect
, the reason for many of the member-contribution gems we often find here on ATS. That does not
make them 'responsible' for it.
Perhaps if they were not so tragically trapped in a "commercial production" paradigm of there own, they would engage in actual journalism as a
matter principle... true reporters engaging in investigative journalism is quite the rarity today. Don't mistake this as a criticism of journalists
in general, as the flaw is virtually systemic.
But rather than digressing on the flaws of MSM's "product." I wanted to say that in a display of synchronous irony, the answer to your question is
"Yes, I do trust the MSM; but not necessarily to tell the truth."
"News" used to be reported. Now it's produced. As a result, it is more often than not corrupted.
But even in a corrupt message, we can learn. As people, in general, we are truly no where near as stupid as the relatively recent 'cultural
narrative' has led us to believe. We may be ignorant, but given the requisite information, we tend to overcome most obstacles. I think it may be
safe to say it's part of denying ignorance... and it has a cost which cannot be avoided.
So yes, often we mock the MSM, we eschew their vacuous presentations, or marvel at their ability to utterly destroy the ideal their profession used to
embrace. Their "craft" (which has, at beast, devolved from its ideal - to gross incompetence; and at worst, to pure propaganda) damages the story;
we confront that as part of denying ignorance.
More irony; if they reported accurately in an unbiased and meaningful manner - we would likely not need to present their facts, stripped of
pretension, and we would be free to simply discuss the ramifications and application of the information they convey.
The opportunity to share the perfect contrast of what the MSM delivers and what we would want, is often to tempting to pass up. Schadenfreude has its
Nevertheless most of the content on this site, I suspect, is original; the proportion of members' contributions to the occasional cited quote must
certainly heavily favor originality. This is why self-congratulatory or vapid dialog meant to coddle childish egos and e-hooliganism is shunned by the
members. This is what makes us able to discuss the MSM's frequent folly, or failure to fully hash out a story (probably because they cling to the
idea that "we" - you and I, are too stupid to want, let alone need, the whole story, without their annoying tendency to speak down to us.)