Interviews, why isn't anyone asking for the data?

I have been listening to a lot of interview podcast and i stopped listening to the MSM a long time ago but i watch interviews here and there and i am always asking myself questions.

The questions im always asking myself are;

Where is the data to back your position?

What are the names of the studies?

Where did you get your statistics?

What institution fund the study?

WHY ISNT ANYBODY ASKING THESE QUESTIONS!!!

Isn't it more important to know where the information is coming from then to know what the information is in the first place? Why isn't anyone in the alternative community asking hard questions? If someone has a valid point and there is conclusive evidence and data to validate their position then why are they afraid to be asked the hard questions?

Don't you think someone wouldn't have a problem providing this information if their point was valid and they actually had statistics and data to validate their sometimes outrageous claims?

HELLO?

reply to post by onequestion


WHY ISNT ANYBODY ASKING THESE QUESTIONS!!!


Because they aren't members of ATS, so they don't know any better...


HELLO?


Hi...

reply to post by onequestion


It's been shown that this how today's media works. They don't actually fact check anymore and none of them know the first thing about what they report on. If someone spits out something that sounds impressively plausible with an era of confidence, a reporter will buy it, especially if it confirms that reporter's already built-in preconceived bias.

The NFL head trauma notion is one of these. The original study? It's a sham. They managed to track it back to the original guy who made the allegations, and he can't back up his own assertions with any real data, but because someone who wanted to believe it found him and took his word for it and presented his word as good, then everyone else looked at the first news source as legit and figured they'd done the vetting work and ran with their story ... so now it's gospel truth, playing in the NFL causes way too many head injuries and makes old NFL players get dementia too early or get depressed and suicide too young.

There are other instances of this, but this is the most immediate one I can think of. However, because the media has gone from reporting news and information that is accurate to changing the world, they don't bother to vet what they're reporting as much as they should.

reply to post by onequestion

Why isn't anyone in the alternative community asking hard questions?

Because it's subverted by the same people driving ignorance in the MSM. The only ones really pushing are truly independent journalists (idealists) like Scahill and various others that really push for information.

Then you have the other state news agencies like RT, who yes, ask tough questions and are critical but only if it does not involve making their own state look bad.

So in the end you are only left with a very small handful.

As more and more revelations come out though you do get a sense of what's pushing what or who is behind who, then again, it get's even more confusing.

Look at OWS, when so many people in alternative media were saying "You're doing it wrong".... (Not sure if I was ever critical of it, but maybe made the mistake of...) In reality, we know now it scared the piss out of bankers, financial corporations, police and government. It was a legitimate stand by the people.

Lots of confusion in there with so many attempts to turn it into something else though...

In my view, it is because the truth is such a far away place that mentioning facts and documentation to confirm things isn't supporting agendas. So it is all faux information.

Just by looking at news in other countries, using that country's version of the story, it has been fairly easy to see that public perception is always being manipulated and even controlled.

I very lucid example would be how the MSM pretended that Ron Paul wasn't even on showings at all, when he was winning them, (polls or whatever else).. It controlled a certain segment of the population quite well, so you could say it was cooperation by the public to promulgate the deceptions.
If the public refused to cooperate with deceptions, we would probably really be a free country today.

The average person just buys into whatever they sling their direction.

The news in the USA is now even more spun and sequestered than at any time previously.. (that's a lot)

The old stories about the CIA putting a desk in every news network comes to mind.. The license to broadcast revocation threat is a government favorite. They started using that almost as soon as a license was even required. Connie Chung getting fired for outing the country wide policy of allowing politicians to first approve any news before telling the American public..

Public perception being controlled is only important IF you want to deceive.
If it is happening at all, then you are not getting the truth.
And the majority in America still doesn't even seem to mind.

Robot minds of robot slaves lead them to atomic rage.

OneQuestion
I count nine question marks in that opening post.



















I remember back-in-the-day the discussion of Art; what is it,
is it possible to define it, was one of the mainstays of a
healthy philosophical debate. This was before the era of
daytime television. Back when people knew how to have
conversations. Philosophical inquiry was something even
us commoners practiced.






People generally choose the position that art cannot be
defined.





Or that (in a nod to Einstein) it's all relative.
Anyone here old enough to remember the days before
the saying "one mans garbage is another's treasure?"





Anyway.





The "art cannot be defined" position has been blown
out of the water.



With the new Beauty algorithms the most attractive
face can, in fact, be quantized.

Mind hacks .com / the beauty algorithm




But the question itself remains.

What is art.



In fact, is it even possible to insult artists anymore?
I remember a day when even daring to define art
for one's self would raise the ire of musicians and
painters alike.








Or is the lack of discussion in the post digital world
a symptom of something worse. Something deeper.
That we have no more artists.
That art, as we knew it, is dead.

And that it never really mattered anyway.

Is this our future?

ATS / Stolen Picasso and Monet art Burned



Maybe it's no coincidence that just at the
moment that each one of us has sufficient
computing power to really create lasting
art, is exactly when the main stream media
stops talking about it all together.

The auto-tune,
the 4/4 time
the cyclic rhythms
the beauty algorithm



Look,
I'm not saying anything for or against.
I'm asking.
I'm just asking.
What is art.

What is art to you?
And,
do you even care to have a definition.

Or better, the larger question...



Is it against the law for us to create art in this surveillance state we live in?










Maybe art is against the law.
Particularly when it is done as graffiti on corporate property.

But I didn't know it carried the death penalty.


Mike

Colombian-born Israel Hernandez-Llach died on Tuesday after police shocked him with a Taser as he ran away from officers who caught him spray-painting the wall of a shuttered McDonald's.

yahoo.com / hundreds mourn tazered miami graffiti artist
2013

My take on your question is that investigative journalism passed away some years ago when the media was combined into the hands of a few large corporations. Those corporations won't pay journalists to take the time to actually study a subject long enough to learn what they need to know before opening their mouths or hitting the keyboard. Combine that situation with the fact that the education system no longer teaches students to think critically and you have the current state of media---sad indeed when we consider the fact that we have made such large leaps in the methods of disseminating news---and yet every corporate media source has exactly the same material, most of the time in the very same words on each outlet.
Think about it---Richard Nixon was brought down by investigative journalists for bugging a hotel. The past few residents of the White House have bugged the WORLD---and the guy who exposed them had to flee to Russia to avoid jail. Think about that for a bit.

reply to post by onequestion

Its just how todays media is presented. It use to be for factual accounts or analysis, but now, everything is streamlined and tailored down to fit in timed segments that allow for break-a-ways for commercials selling products.

MSM and media in general is no longer the format for "news" or "insight" or interviews for "opinions". Not at all. It is to sell products.

When someone mentions a favorite show being taken off the air, that emphasizes my point. Its not about quality-content-or evidence or research for interviews...its that no matter what the viewer likes...its about what he'll BUY after watching commercials.

Those commercial breaks in tv promote a format of jamming as much info-good and bad, complete or non-sensicle...into 3 minute portions before and after the next commercial.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. We find something interesting and wonder "Where did he get THAT? What research did he do? How do he come to this conclusion?" At about that moment..we get a commercial about car-insurance.

So...we get limited research, limited content, limited documentation, limited conversation, limited alloted time...but we still get that cut-a-way...for a commercial break for sanitary products (sorry ladies...only making a point here).

I do enjoy a great interview or discussion with facts and data and comparison charting to discuss and emphasize points...but all we seem to get on MSM...is trimmed and edited "snipets" in place to barely make a point...before the next commercial.

'May not be the case with them all...but still...a lot of facts, verification and data are all in limited numbers on MSM presentations. Its all about sales.

PS Oh, I think we viewers DO ask for data. But it seems its all about jamming as much infor into small time-spaces and viewers-be-damned. I mean hey! Show us how you got there! Please!

reply to post by onequestion


It is because the modern civilized educated human being should be able to track all of that stuff down by themselves!

If any of the witches up on capitol hill say 1 + 1 = 2 then it us to us to determine if that is true or not and to not just take it at face value even if we KNOW the answer is 2.

Things get more tricky when they says 1 + 1 = 3 as this is not the common answer BUT it is true for large values of 1 in the realm of statistics as 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 but then rounding off occurs and 1.4 is less than 1.5 so it is rounded down and 2.8 is higher than 2.5 and is rounded up therefor in statistics 1 + 1 = 3 and it takes some research on ones own to find that out.

So people can say stuff that generally at face value seems to be false but IS specifically true!

Its when they say 1 + 1 = 4 and research shows that there is no logical explanation for that, then that is an issue to do with false reporting.

It is up to us to determine that for ourselves and education is PERSONAL and requires one get up off their own butts and find out for THEMSELVES!

Don't forget that the devil can quote scripture as well so to speak. That they quote it doesn't belie the fact that they are the devil and are trying to trick us [into mainly generating ad revenue or taxes].