Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ChezGiven

Pizzagate & Fake News

Recommended Posts

I've come across pizzagate - fucking crazy development, that one. But probably an inevitable end point of where we're ending up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we've got the language to discuss this. Like its hard for journalists to articulate the hypocrisy of the press attacking judges in the Supreme court, so much of today's world is not yet framed for us to understand it. We ignore it until it is framed then immediately all assign ourselves expert status once it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we've got the language to discuss this. Like its hard for journalists to articulate the hypocrisy of the press attacking judges in the Supreme court, so much of today's world is not yet framed for us to understand it. We ignore it until it is framed then immediately all assign ourselves expert status once it is. 

 

Sorry, run that past me again :lol: You mean the framing of particular stories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Reading it back not sure what i mean. What is pizzagate basically? And all the thousands of other stories like it, it's hard to frame them and say what they are with any meaning which allows us to understand them. I think this is the defining feature of 2016 for me, not the deaths and he destruction, humans have been doing that for millennia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean that we can't establish them as a separate category from non-fake news because there is so much misinformation in the news generally or because there are elements of truth within even the fake news stories?

 

If it's not either of those then I must just be slow on the uptake today. I think my question is, why can't we just call them fake news stories? What is incomplete about that label? Unless you mean consideration about how we label and perceive not just the story itself, but also the ensuing hysteria and the narratives and actions that these develop into...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we've got the language to discuss this. Like its hard for journalists to articulate the hypocrisy of the press attacking judges in the Supreme court, so much of today's world is not yet framed for us to understand it. We ignore it until it is framed then immediately all assign ourselves expert status once it is. 

Bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not much real news out there these days. Every media outlet has their own agenda or political bias which influences the spin they put on anything. Those with a modicum of intelligence can accept that and make up their own minds on the information presented with them but there's a worryingly large proportion of people who lap up everything they are told to believe

Edited by StraightEdgeWizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean that we can't establish them as a separate category from non-fake news because there is so much misinformation in the news generally or because there are elements of truth within even the fake news stories?

 

If it's not either of those then I must just be slow on the uptake today. I think my question is, why can't we just call them fake news stories? What is incomplete about that label? Unless you mean consideration about how we label and perceive not just the story itself, but also the ensuing hysteria and the narratives and actions that these develop into...?

It's gone beyond just fake, this isn't just made up stuff that gets shared, it's political and controlling. The narrative was used in this case to further a political outcome. We can't say if it had an influence but the assumption was that it did. Also in this case it's widely held that 4Chan started the story so how come no one thought it was a laugh? Loads of other fake stories are being pushed from alternative news sites and the provenance is now known to be political and controlled by organizations linked to Cambridge Analytica and Republican hedge fund managers. That's my point, it's not just fake news it's a network of dark influence with known and unknown provenance.

 

Unless of course you think Clinton is a satanic paedophile, in which case it's just news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gone beyond just fake, this isn't just made up stuff that gets shared, it's political and controlling. The narrative was used in this case to further a political outcome. We can't say if it had an influence but the assumption was that it did. Also in this case it's widely held that 4Chan started the story so how come no one thought it was a laugh? Loads of other fake stories are being pushed from alternative news sites and the provenance is now known to be political and controlled by organizations linked to Cambridge Analytica and Republican hedge fund managers. That's my point, it's not just fake news it's a network of dark influence with known and unknown provenance.

 

Unless of course you think Clinton is a satanic paedophile, in which case it's just news.

 

I'm with you now, yes. I would tentatively suggest that the MSM themselves set the groundwork for this by playing fast and loose with the truth in the first place of course (see the Mail and on some days, the Guardian), and that, having lost people's trust over a lengthy period of time, they have in effect invited this state of affairs. Which isn't to say that the whole matter isn't very worrying.

 

Very hard to police without just instilling basic critical thinking skills in people though. Although maybe I'm wrong actually, and perhaps Google and others can make more of a dent into this than I think they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was shared on my feed by loads of people who i know who immediately started discussing the cover ups about Fukushima and nuclear explosions.

 

The subtle message about climate change being made up must have gone in but no one mentions it. So i find out who Dixon Diaz is and see he has links to Breitbart and then i remember that Breitbart are linked to Cambridge Analytica and that according to the Guardian on Sunday they have been conducting OCEAN tests on everyone and targeting political messages to them. The key funders described by the Guardian were Hedge Fund managers who are mainly supporting and funding think tanks designed to combat the climate change agenda. 

 

Tenuous enough link for me to be described as hypocritical but i think the insidious power of the internet is just beginning to be properly understood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was shared on my feed by loads of people who i know who immediately started discussing the cover ups about Fukushima and nuclear explosions.

 

The subtle message about climate change being made up must have gone in but no one mentions it. So i find out who Dixon Diaz is and see he has links to Breitbart and then i remember that Breitbart are linked to Cambridge Analytica and that according to the Guardian on Sunday they have been conducting OCEAN tests on everyone and targeting political messages to them. The key funders described by the Guardian were Hedge Fund managers who are mainly supporting and funding think tanks designed to combat the climate change agenda. 

 

Tenuous enough link for me to be described as hypocritical but i think the insidious power of the internet is just beginning to be properly understood. 

 

Tenuous but feasible. I can see your point and certainly with respect of climate change it makes things difficult. I think Monbiot was arguing not long ago that think tanks that don't publish their funding backers should be considered lobbying organisations as their advice can't be treated as independent. 

 

People are easily corralled generally and if there is a widespread move to manipulate people through information such as what you've just cited, it should be a worry for all of us.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we've got the language to discuss this. Like its hard for journalists to articulate the hypocrisy of the press attacking judges in the Supreme court, so much of today's world is not yet framed for us to understand it. We ignore it until it is framed then immediately all assign ourselves expert status once it is. 

 

 

Who framed Roger Rabbit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×