TODAY. Who can be believed?

Government pressure, whether strong or subtle, makes the “mainstream” media toe the “correct ” line, especially when it comes to Israel, Ukraine, or the nuclear industry.

As for “social media” with its various founts of information - well – it is way open for lies, distortions, exaggerations. And it’s getting worse. Take Elon Musk’s “X”. Twitter used to monitor tweets for lies and hate speech. Musk has sacked 80 per cent of its trust and safety team.

There’s no proper fact-checking for social media, nor for the thousands of “alternative” media sites.

And every information site is subject to bias, whether that be by obviously biased information, or by simply omitting the facts that might give the other side of the story.

So – how to work this out?

Well, I don’t know, really. But I can try.

Here are some suggested steps:

1 Does it make sense to you? . A current example: when Israel says that not so many have died in Gaza, and that they are “avoiding civilian casualties” - you can ponder on the blanket bombing of cities, and on whether Israel’s statement is likely to be true.

2. Language. Is the language especially inflammatory ? The repetition of highly emotive words – e.g “atrocity” should cause you to wonder. Or is it bland, vague and not clear? – that’s an equal sign that it might not be trustworthy.

3. The source – the media outlet or journalist. For example -a Russian outlet – Rt.com or Sputnik. You can expect their information to be biased – pro Russian. The Chinese news - South China Morning Post – likewise – pro Chinese. But the tricky thing is - these outlets can still provide factual information. The thing is – to be aware of their bias.

I myself post items on nuclear-news.net. Nuclear-news.net is clearly biased in its opposition to the nuclear industry. At least you know what the bias is.

4. Be aware of corporate media. At least they do fact-checking, and that is a good thing. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that if a news medium wants to keep its access to government information, and its sponsors, it has to be mindful of government policy and mind its “p”s and “q”s.

5. Be aware of “think tanks” and other so-called “not-for profit” advisors, who tell you what is “safe” to read, and what isn’t. 

There is a growing trend for organisations to word their media message in consistent and repetitive phrases that back up the corporate and government agenda. I have previously written about the Atlas Network , which specialises in exactly this- its main function is to provide the “suitable” wording to the organisations.

6. Finally – make your choices, and be ready to change your mind. You can find outlets, and individual journalists who seem to make sense, and to take trouble to get accurate facts. Some are clearly biased, but admit this. Some are very persuasive, but you might find out later that they are dodgy in some way - e.g sensationalist, or paid to push a particular opinion.

I guess that approaching everything with a healthy scepticism is the way to go.

January 11, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes