In the US, there are only two viable political parties and each influences news stations. There are also only six corporations that own 98% of the media. So, people believe the media they are watching because they are looking for ways to defeat the opposite side. They are looking for reasons why the side their on is better.
Usually American families have some members of their family that vote for one political party and some for the other. So, it is always in someone's personal financial interest to back one news network and not another.
I find that even for similar opinions you have that fight. Like Radio vs. TV vs. Internet. Do you tell how much poisoned with propaganda TV is and you get your news through the inet, you will have to hear cursing about "not everything is real that they say in the internet". When you talk to a believer of the radio and you remind someone who pays his radio station and that there is a bunch of propaganda on a topic too, you also make him snapping. Do you tell someone his internet also doesn't always tell the truth, you get small mind to go for you.
On the other hand, if you rather believe in the sources than the medium itself because they maybe deliver good material, you also have to face hostility because of the medium it distributes its news with. Because someone else only learned to trust a different kind of platform. This can often be experienced in the fights between old media and new media (Radio / TV vs. internet). Like everything that comes from internet is wrong because in the internet everyone writes a lot if they day still has hours to go. Like everything functions like Facebook.
But the established media don't look any better, if someone anatomizes their reports, like verification of the material displayed, who the reports made by, the backgrounds of the reporters, the general background of the subject they report on, and who it is who pays this whole project. Seen enough reports of some attentive eyes which went searching on the internet and found out, e. g., that 120th report about evil separatists attacking their people in the Ukraine is hoaxed by editing video material in a certain arrangement, stealing material from other sources and putting a new interpretation around it. (Not to speak of the several claims of Russian military having entered the Ukraine - and the pictures that always should present the proof were pictures that had already been released during the conflict in Georgia in 2008).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
mandarinsun.livejournal.com - (no subject) +1 response
(no subject)
Date: 24 February 2015 11:54 pm (UTC)Usually American families have some members of their family that vote for one political party and some for the other. So, it is always in someone's personal financial interest to back one news network and not another.
(no subject)
Date: 25 February 2015 07:59 am (UTC)Like Radio vs. TV vs. Internet.
Do you tell how much poisoned with propaganda TV is and you get your news through the inet, you will have to hear cursing about "not everything is real that they say in the internet".
When you talk to a believer of the radio and you remind someone who pays his radio station and that there is a bunch of propaganda on a topic too, you also make him snapping.
Do you tell someone his internet also doesn't always tell the truth, you get small mind to go for you.
On the other hand, if you rather believe in the sources than the medium itself because they maybe deliver good material, you also have to face hostility because of the medium it distributes its news with.
Because someone else only learned to trust a different kind of platform.
This can often be experienced in the fights between old media and new media (Radio / TV vs. internet).
Like everything that comes from internet is wrong because in the internet everyone writes a lot if they day still has hours to go. Like everything functions like Facebook.
But the established media don't look any better, if someone anatomizes their reports, like verification of the material displayed, who the reports made by, the backgrounds of the reporters, the general background of the subject they report on, and who it is who pays this whole project.
Seen enough reports of some attentive eyes which went searching on the internet and found out, e. g., that 120th report about evil separatists attacking their people in the Ukraine is hoaxed by editing video material in a certain arrangement, stealing material from other sources and putting a new interpretation around it. (Not to speak of the several claims of Russian military having entered the Ukraine - and the pictures that always should present the proof were pictures that had already been released during the conflict in Georgia in 2008).