Jul 072013
 

Have you ever wondered why the alternate media is often so wrong?

I’ve spent a lot of time over nearly 25 years reading alternate media “news” on thousands of sites and printed publications. In that time, I’ve come to view much of the alternate media with the same distrust that I reserve for the mainstream media.

I’ve shared with readers before that I don’t subscribe to much of what is reported on any website as being accurate. But this is not to say that the main stream media is accurate either, because it’s clearly not. It’s the reason the alternate media stepped forward, but many of these sites left journalistic standards behind.

The alternate media goes out of its way to claim that it is the “only truth”.  That’s a pretty high standard.  In point of fact, it’s too high – an impossible bar to be reached by anyone. This is the first clue however, so watch out.

Any site that does this is undoubtedly a liar and is setting you up for propaganda. It’s a technique used to create blind followers, often found within religion. Question nothing, accept everything, only “we” know “the truth”. Your job is to simply follow along.

The truth does not require an announcement by the site owner or the author(s). It will be self-evident in time. Perhaps not right away, but in time as you assess facts, reports, information and stories, and combine this with other sources and experience, you can determine the accuracy of what you’ve read.

Much of the alternative media however, does not operate on this principle, even less so than the main stream media does. This is critically important when identifying a website for accuracy.

This serves the bias of the author(s) and site owners, who are generally trying to sell you something, or simply gain advertising revenue from affiliate links and page views.

Alternative media sites to avoid share these common characteristics:

#1. They do not present any real evidence. Spinning a story around a pet theory is preferable to real evidence.

#2. Conjecture and “second-guessing” fills their “news”. This makes for entertainment and supposedly a “good read”, but it’s lousy reporting and unenlightening. It’s also incredibly inaccurate.

#3. Conspiracy “sells”. Ridiculous yarns make for motivated (fearful) buyers. The real motive here is not “truth telling”, but “profits”.

#4. The bigger the conspiracy, the better. Anything will do, since actual facts (evidence) don’t matter. This accounts for the explosion of  many “alternative media sources” found online.

#5. Journalistic standards are non-existent.

Here’s an example of this “conspiracy conjecture” bullshit that I came across today.  Please read this first before continuing: Fake and Faker.

We’ll easily uncover what is “fake” and “faked” now. Below the “fold” is some evidence about Julian Assange that some of you (including me) never heard before. Continue reading “Too Many Coincidences” »

 Posted by at 2:43 pm