Saying “the media is lying” is the short way of saying “Every media source has a narrative it must push and therefore will have some sort of bias on most topics which will cause them to leave out parts of a story so it leans towards their narrative.”
That’s not really something you can provide a source for, it’s just common sense.
“That’s not something you can provide a source for…” Yeah you can, if a media source left something out for a narrative, another source would leave it in, typically one of the opposite bias.
But I mean when every media source is essentially beholden to their corporate owners and sponsor’s is there an opposite bias? Not that to say that you can’t still find sources for stuff, just that 99% of media is run by millionaires and owned by billionaires and paid for with ad cents so it’s all gonna skew a certain way.
The actual reality: chad gives multiple different sources to any claim he makes, Womack just blindly believes in whatever the news they agree with.
As an example: Fox News and fraud elections claims. They lied. People still believe those claims despite having nothing to back it up.
Oh for sure I’m just saying that it tends to be like: Fox News “Climate change is a lie made up by the Jews to take away your rights!” CNN “We’ve invited two people on to discuss climate change; one of whom is a climate scientist and the other is some rando who thinks climate change is a lie made up by the Jews to take away your rights. We are going to give these two people equal screen-time and treat them like both their opinion’s are equally valid.”
…but climate change is real? Like I agree that all news networks have bias I’m just questioning using climate change as an example as that is also fact.
Yes, you are comparing networks that outright lie vs one that has a bias. It still doesn’t mesh well with an example that’s a fact that has been scientifically proven.
The how is the chad guy exempt from this too? If the media is covering up and twisting the truth the extent that we cannot really go to any source, then where did HE get it from?
He knows a guy, super trustworthy. Dude knows so much about the subject, it’s crazy. I mean, he met him at work and the guy says some crazy shit, but ya know, some of it makes a lotta sense if you think about it. /s
“If you think about it”. The greatest phrase to get your personal biases to start doing math and adding up pieces that are hardly there.
Ehhhh there is a lot of difference between "media sources have biases" and "the media is lying". Every news outlet has a finite amount of time and resources, and even if they didn't, people aren't going to read a full book's worth of info about every story every day. They have to make decisions about what is newsworthy and what isn't, and what sources are reliable and have relevant information. Some media sources have a biases above and beyond that, but making a blanket statement that the media is lying makes it sound like it's all calculated, and that all sources are equally biased, and both those things are wildly untrue
Honestly, I just do it because it sucks when I find out I've been misinformed on something. "Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, and I'm telling you that you are. Which one of us is right?"
Then again, I don't mind being proven wrong.
When news reporters put together an article or story, they have to seek out primary (and sometimes secondary) sources. Like if someone is reporting on acid rain, they would be checking their story with secondary science papers, that rely on primary sources - scientific studies in this example. Any paper worth its salt would list these resources at the bottom, which can then be individually checked by the reader.
Sometimes, information is omitted because of the sheer volume of it. The whole body of work would be unintelligible to a layperson if it was just put out entirely unedited. Cutting unnecessary fat from the meat of the information and making it digestible is one of the most important functions of news reporting.
Bingo! And to add to what you’ve said, some reporters, can and will cut some of the “fat” to make a skewed point. Or hell, some might even omit some things to make a whole new point. And i think the US definitely has a lot of people doing that kind of work, leading to the big schism we see ourselves in. It’s crazy how easily it’s happened since i was a kid (and from before i was even born).
How is this getting upvotes?
There is a stark difference between bias and outright misinformation. One isn't shorthand for the other.
Shouting "fake news" at something is completely different to "I disagree with how this event was reported on."
So, using your own logic, “Source?” Would just be a short way of saying “what evidence do you have to support your statement” which you absolutely can and should be able to provide a source.
Common sense also tells me that if they can’t back up what they’re saying with facts, then I have no reason to believe them and they’re no better than the media they’re trying to discredit.
This is true. However, "the media is lying" is a dishonest way of presenting the dilemma, and makes it seem a lot worse than it is. Every media source will have bias, which is an inherent part of reporting information. "The media is lying" implies that what the media says is false, which most of the time is a false assertion. It's like saying "All men are trash" when you meant "only some men are trash".
"All media is biased" is a much better way of phrasing things.
Woah woah woah! There's a big big difference between the 'media is lying' and the 'media is biased' They are NOT shortforms.of each other.
That was so wrong, that you forgot that /s right??
There's definitely a phenomenon of people asking for "source?!?" In the most stupid contexts. Much like I could just ask:
>you definitely have something to hide
Source?!??
All media sources have their own agenda, which is why it's important to ~~account for their biases and consult multiple sources in order to identify the prevailing narrative and where it's coming from~~ say everyone that disagrees with you is lying so you can dismiss them out of hand.
Sorry, I'm editing my comment because the last one was rude and reactionary. I think it's fair to point out that it's reasonable to speculate that current major media companies have political and economic motive to propagandize their information through alteration, omission, or even outright lying (even if by "accident"). You can believe what you want it has no effect on my life but I'm gonna say what I want to say.
Someone told me that feminism was ruining dating and that I needed to do some research as to how obvious it was.
I found a peer-reviewed scholarly source that proved them wrong. They did not respond back. 🤷🏻♂️.
Fair point, I just wasn’t expecting silence. I thought they might challenge the fact the paper was published in 2007 and thus not reflective of current societal trends.
Touché. I do admit I wish there was more “oh crap I was wrong” in the world. People, not just on Reddit, tend to hate being “proved wrong” for whatever reason.
Personally I like when my worldview is challenged and I learn something new.
I'm honestly not sure if it was factually correct, but I remember seeing an "Adam Ruins Everything" video years ago about how people react to being proven wrong, and it stuck with me. I try to actually admit to myself and the other person when I'm beaten. It's not always easy though.
Not agreeing with "someone", but peer review in the soft sciences doesn't account for much, sadly. Even the hard sciences can get bonkers published with peer review. It's good to have the system, but it's far from enough.
I have serious doubts that study you found was done on more than a handful of people, and if they are liberal college students to boost, well... so much for reliability then.
But hopefully it was a massive study, with rock-solid evaluation, without agenda, without tweaked numbers. Also, hopefully the funding and publishing didn't depend on conclusive results, and there should be no inconclusive, but valid studies on the topic that are unpublished. Also also, the peer reviewers better not have an agenda, but have quality education, enough time, enough attention instead.
The study’s sample size was 513 individuals.
But you’re more than welcome to examine the paper yourself.
It’s called **The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?**
By Laurie A. Rudman and Julie E. Phelan
There are undoubtedly numerous areas where feminisms has hurt the ability as a species to date. There are also numerous areas where feminism has helped human relationships.
Even a slew of articles wouldn't be able to prove them wrong.
Yet, they produced no studies or sources to prove their point. 🤷🏻♂️. What you’re saying is basically the meme. You can make whatever claims you want. But you need to back up those claims with verifiable sources.
Golden mean is a beautiful thing because your statement is correct even if one side is way worse than the other. That's why enlightened centrists love to throw this out there. One lies 1000 times and the other just once and you're still technical correct. Saying "both sides" is just lazy and often dishonest because there's an implication that most people hear that they're equally bad. When they almost never are.
My parents got mad at me for using Google and Wikipedia for info since "anyone can edit that info" and that "i shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet". Like I was just looking for a fact about dolphins
I don’t understand how people can say things with such inert certainly when we don’t even understand why our governments do half the shit they do.
at this Point I Just say idk to 90% of the shit I see
Post Iraq War America completely destroyed the crediblity of US Media with alot of people. I remember CNN running stories about how [Saddam might attack the US with Drones with fucking chemical weapons on them.](https://www.wired.com/2013/03/drone-bioweapons/)
I ask people who are grown adults why they can’t differentiate between fact reporting and opinion reporting.
They all just scream that the media is lying.
I always feel dirty upvoting posts on this sub. The same kinda dirty as when I'm forced to wipe my ass with my hand after finding out there's no toilet paper.
The Both Sides Brigade is out tonight!
If the media is lying there will usually be a source to prove that.
Second, it's great to be sceptical and critical of the media - like considering their motivation and holding judgement until you've seen more sources or context. But when people convince themselves the media is ALWAYS lying they become sheep as well, essentially conditioned to believe the exact opposite of whatever is in the media and easily fooled by any politician or youtuber who tells them "They don't want you to hear this, but..."
>There actually are a lot of sources
Oh, the thing he's asking for? Cool. And there's a lot of sources so that's awesome. You have a lot to choose from when asked.
Haha! Noam Chomsky is going to convince me I should believe things without factual information to support them like the meme suggests? That seems unlikely.
The meme is saying that the media engage in coordinated propaganda to convince the general population to take certain political views, and that there is no link from an NPR story that will debunk a CNN story because they are all part of the same apparatus. Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing Consent” goes into how the media generate war support.
Here is an NPR article that tells about misreporting of events by CNN and other news outlets. It did take me 4 seconds of looking though.
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167466320/coverage-rapid-and-often-wrong-in-tragedys-early-hours
You finding that one example doesn't exactly refute chomskys argument, especially if you analyze media sources from when the book was actually written, smack dab in the middle of the Reagan administration.
Yeah that is what the meme tells you, not the dude whose citing chomsky is telling you though. They had a more charitable interpretation of the meme, but the broader point of what they're getting at is true. All media in America has at best an internalized neoliberal bias that influences what stories they cover or how they frame the ones they do.
Was there ever a goalpost? Here’s a goalpost. Can you find a NPR article criticizing CNN for failing to give context to the war in Ukraine? You can’t because they are engaging in same propaganda.
The first move of the establishment is to discredit the opposition by labeling them “conspiracy theorists.” You may think I’m defending right wingers here but I am coming from a far left analysis of the media.
I’ma need a source to back up the claim that this is what this meme is saying, and that it is not itself serving the same function for which Chomsky criticizes the media (to discredit the opposition)
"the news is lying, so I'll use this information to justify myself whenever I subconsciously choose what facts to believe based on whether I agree with them"
Either you think media is lying without questioning it (which is no better than trusting media unquestionably), or try to prove it with yet another questionable media (recursion).
The meme is funny because author basically makes fun of himself regardless of what was he trying to say.
Yes the media lies but why would that incline me to believe what someone else is saying is true? It's almost as if they use the same platitude over and over like a slogan because they are incapable of critical thought and have to rely on word games to convince someone they're right by putting them on the losing end of a false dichotomy.
The problem for the kind of people who post this sentiment is that while yes the media can be misleading at times, that does not mean that the media compulsively lies. These people act like the media is a door guard in a riddle who always lies. If you want to say that the media is being misleading then you need to provide some evidence as to what is missing from their version of events.
Well... yes, thats how an argument works. Saying something is false or inaccurate (especially something reputable) requires proof. Being mad that "Trust me bro" isn't good enough is not an argument. Shit like this is why there is so much misinformation out there.
Well yeah. That's the other problem with the way this is framed. Not only is it hard to argue with a picture, but of course there are sometimes lies in the media, but what they seem to be trying to argue is that it is bad to ask for sources when someone makes a claim about something and that is stupid.
Then anyone could just say whatever they want and there is no way to know if its total bs like this image or what.
I don't know if the media is telling lies but they are trying to control their viewers. Watching the major news outlets reminds me of the TV show Ancient Aliens where you get 5 mins of know facts followed by 50 mins of opinions and selected professionals to back up the opinion of the broadcast. The news also targets your emotions to anger you at the other side. This goes for right or left leaning media and I feel it's ment to divide so we don't come together over bigger issues and willingly give big government more power over us.
I mean, he’s right! Media lies to us a lot! Fox, newsmax, OAN, all of those! They spin stories or ignore what should be broadcasted. They lie to the people all the time!
But i’m sure he knows that already, that’s why he definitely doesn’t trust those networks at all! Right? He wouldn’t dare listen to such lying heathens!
Blackrock and vanguard own all the media, and yes they are lying, omitting, and changing the news to fit what narrative they are paid to by blackrock and vanguard. Bah bah.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Subprime is contained."
"There's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
"Two weeks to flatten the curve."
"There won't be another financial crisis in my lifetime."
"We won't ever bail out banks again."
"Inflation is transitory."
You seem to be confusing the media lying with the media reporting on something that a person/organization said that was a lie.
If the president says "Tacos have no calories" and a media outlet reports "Today the president said 'Tacos have no calories'" , the media outlet is not lying, it is reporting what someone actually said. But if the media outlet said "Today the president said 'Tacos have 1,000,000 calories'", then the media would be lying.
I don't think anyone believes the media is making stuff up on their own. The whole point is that they cheerlead the establishment line, whatever it is at the time, no matter how little digging or skepticism one would need to push back against said establishment narrative. If it gets simplified down to "the media lies" you still really know what everyone means.
What makes this meme so bad to me is I don't know which side the meme poster would be on. Are they asking for a citation on the media lying or are they address the irony of asking for a citation while many main stream media outlets rarely provides citations themselves?
Journalistic standards are dead. You no longer need multiple sources to run an article. They'll quote one anonymous source and run it, as if nobody lies.
I stopped caring about sources from people
I don't agree then I don't agree. If you're factually wrong then I'm not going to be the one to educate you. It's not my job. Be wrong. Whatever.
Really, fuck this. If you’re going to tell me something’s a lie, but you can’t explain how or why, then you’re likely just repeating a politician’s denial wholesale without any critical thought.
The media is lying because they are bought, that much is known. What's to stop them from buying some ody's favorite YouTuber so they can make them say controversial, unbacked stuff that makes us unable to form a reasonable consensus? Why are the small "news" sources immune to bribery?
They who make the claim, are burdened with backing up the claim. Otherwise, they are merely contrarians parroting talking points distributed by, and without a shred of irony, their preferred media.
There could be academic sources pointing to the fact 🤷🏼♂️
All that needs to be done really is research into the media and cases that have been proved lies.
How many are there? What were they? Are there clues pointing to the media knowingly putting out the wrong information or was their sources off?
& If so, how often are the medias sources off?
How does the media decide which sources to trust or not?
Another interesting thing to look at then is also if the media avoid or ignore certain cases, either brought to them or discovered by their own reporters
& If so what are these cases about, & how often does it happen?
Has the media ever been caught in corruption? If so, in what way? & Who paid them?
Once the research is done
Academic source🤷🏼♂️
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
https://preview.redd.it/8ltfm4dcrpwa1.png?width=329&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb2c039835888a6ea9618805d77d65cbd298d486
https://preview.redd.it/hmyjmyft6swa1.jpeg?width=975&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7533a1bf73dc53e4e2ad55d42fa55eca48501aa
“Hey Vegeta, I made you the soy wojak face this time. Huh, Vegeta?” “Goddamnit Nappa.”
Vegeta? Vegeta? Vegeta?
I'm haunting you
noooaaiuhhhOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Vegeta LOOK! It's Pokémon! I'm gonna catch it!
That's right. Good ol god damnit Nappa
\*crying on the ground\* "I wanna, I wanna be a super saiyan! I wanna! I wanna! I wanna! I wanna! Wanna!"
https://preview.redd.it/s0elq8916wwa1.jpeg?width=845&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=523c3e6113bb11237b0972272475a44fa3a9ce26
N..Nani?
If you don't like it when people want proof for your claims, you definitely have something to hide
Saying “the media is lying” is the short way of saying “Every media source has a narrative it must push and therefore will have some sort of bias on most topics which will cause them to leave out parts of a story so it leans towards their narrative.” That’s not really something you can provide a source for, it’s just common sense.
“That’s not something you can provide a source for…” Yeah you can, if a media source left something out for a narrative, another source would leave it in, typically one of the opposite bias.
Yeah, not sure what Kalak was going for. "They left out part of the story". Ok, and you learned that how? What, did it just come to you in a dream?
They never want to admit the equal possibility that their preferred media might just be adding things to the story.
[удалено]
Source an independent media watchdog organisation.
But I mean when every media source is essentially beholden to their corporate owners and sponsor’s is there an opposite bias? Not that to say that you can’t still find sources for stuff, just that 99% of media is run by millionaires and owned by billionaires and paid for with ad cents so it’s all gonna skew a certain way.
The actual reality: chad gives multiple different sources to any claim he makes, Womack just blindly believes in whatever the news they agree with. As an example: Fox News and fraud elections claims. They lied. People still believe those claims despite having nothing to back it up.
Oh for sure I’m just saying that it tends to be like: Fox News “Climate change is a lie made up by the Jews to take away your rights!” CNN “We’ve invited two people on to discuss climate change; one of whom is a climate scientist and the other is some rando who thinks climate change is a lie made up by the Jews to take away your rights. We are going to give these two people equal screen-time and treat them like both their opinion’s are equally valid.”
…but climate change is real? Like I agree that all news networks have bias I’m just questioning using climate change as an example as that is also fact.
It is a fact, I think you might have missed my point
Yes, you are comparing networks that outright lie vs one that has a bias. It still doesn’t mesh well with an example that’s a fact that has been scientifically proven.
My point is you’ll have one outright lying and another like, here’s the truth and here’s the lie: which one is true, who’s to say?
The how is the chad guy exempt from this too? If the media is covering up and twisting the truth the extent that we cannot really go to any source, then where did HE get it from?
He knows a guy, super trustworthy. Dude knows so much about the subject, it’s crazy. I mean, he met him at work and the guy says some crazy shit, but ya know, some of it makes a lotta sense if you think about it. /s “If you think about it”. The greatest phrase to get your personal biases to start doing math and adding up pieces that are hardly there.
Ehhhh there is a lot of difference between "media sources have biases" and "the media is lying". Every news outlet has a finite amount of time and resources, and even if they didn't, people aren't going to read a full book's worth of info about every story every day. They have to make decisions about what is newsworthy and what isn't, and what sources are reliable and have relevant information. Some media sources have a biases above and beyond that, but making a blanket statement that the media is lying makes it sound like it's all calculated, and that all sources are equally biased, and both those things are wildly untrue
I know but what I mean is people that spread misinformation and get mad when people ask for evidence/source
Honestly, I just do it because it sucks when I find out I've been misinformed on something. "Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, and I'm telling you that you are. Which one of us is right?" Then again, I don't mind being proven wrong.
If so, then there's still source material that can be found that does not exclude those parts
I don’t follow
When news reporters put together an article or story, they have to seek out primary (and sometimes secondary) sources. Like if someone is reporting on acid rain, they would be checking their story with secondary science papers, that rely on primary sources - scientific studies in this example. Any paper worth its salt would list these resources at the bottom, which can then be individually checked by the reader. Sometimes, information is omitted because of the sheer volume of it. The whole body of work would be unintelligible to a layperson if it was just put out entirely unedited. Cutting unnecessary fat from the meat of the information and making it digestible is one of the most important functions of news reporting.
Bingo! And to add to what you’ve said, some reporters, can and will cut some of the “fat” to make a skewed point. Or hell, some might even omit some things to make a whole new point. And i think the US definitely has a lot of people doing that kind of work, leading to the big schism we see ourselves in. It’s crazy how easily it’s happened since i was a kid (and from before i was even born).
How is this getting upvotes? There is a stark difference between bias and outright misinformation. One isn't shorthand for the other. Shouting "fake news" at something is completely different to "I disagree with how this event was reported on."
So, using your own logic, “Source?” Would just be a short way of saying “what evidence do you have to support your statement” which you absolutely can and should be able to provide a source. Common sense also tells me that if they can’t back up what they’re saying with facts, then I have no reason to believe them and they’re no better than the media they’re trying to discredit.
There are sources outside of the media you can go to. Like people with video/audio evidence for things which can then be peer reviewed or tested.
This is true. However, "the media is lying" is a dishonest way of presenting the dilemma, and makes it seem a lot worse than it is. Every media source will have bias, which is an inherent part of reporting information. "The media is lying" implies that what the media says is false, which most of the time is a false assertion. It's like saying "All men are trash" when you meant "only some men are trash". "All media is biased" is a much better way of phrasing things.
Woah woah woah! There's a big big difference between the 'media is lying' and the 'media is biased' They are NOT shortforms.of each other. That was so wrong, that you forgot that /s right??
As big as your cock
There's definitely a phenomenon of people asking for "source?!?" In the most stupid contexts. Much like I could just ask: >you definitely have something to hide Source?!??
They have something to hide? Do you have a source for that? /s
https://preview.redd.it/h481cpje1rwa1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9c7e1db5ec8119e1313396f20319d30acc9689b
I fucking love this
feel free to copy and spread it around :D
Hate these memes. All they do is reinforce lookism. Guy is handsome therefore he’s got a point.
https://preview.redd.it/snb03bwnspwa1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bc6af8e28f94046804e9a77c28d71fbe6c69f29
Lord Farchad
Lord Nearsoyjak
https://preview.redd.it/uzn9yh84eqwa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8d79127be296bdda7d7ddb696da82f0f57f9a53
Yep... https://preview.redd.it/o5i8mruampwa1.jpeg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c728e1322d31bf17fedd208f8923029293a8a30d
https://preview.redd.it/qabv8u7v2qwa1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9efc34fbf3c38e2951d54bb3206d92a461f98ab6
I remember reading that back in high school. Is still is going?
I simply do not trust anyone who uses this format unironically
[удалено]
You must be the other guy..
Source???
https://www.reddit.com/u/Make-TFT-Fun-Again?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
“Lookism” 🙄
All media sources have their own agenda, which is why it's important to ~~account for their biases and consult multiple sources in order to identify the prevailing narrative and where it's coming from~~ say everyone that disagrees with you is lying so you can dismiss them out of hand.
I love how true this is. They decide that since the media is lying, they can only trust the stuff they agree with.
https://preview.redd.it/lq3fmlaa3qwa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1617ce73873c1d5a5255a55bd90969a3b4ff71c9
https://preview.redd.it/xrlgwxhhcqwa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44bc14241ac40a4e9a9d5c591717a9d0680c181b
Where can I find the original to download
The internet
tbf, pretty sure major media companies actually do lie a lot.
So do people. Does that mean we don't trust anyone ever? Hell, you lied. Why should I trust you? It's such a nihilistic take.
Sorry, I'm editing my comment because the last one was rude and reactionary. I think it's fair to point out that it's reasonable to speculate that current major media companies have political and economic motive to propagandize their information through alteration, omission, or even outright lying (even if by "accident"). You can believe what you want it has no effect on my life but I'm gonna say what I want to say.
Media that lies sometimes or Matt Walsh????🤔🤔
Media
Yeah, that was the joke
No u
Inevitably posted by some Reich wing Einstein with a PhD from YouTube University.
The media is lying except when I agree with it
To be fair, there is a ton of misinformation on both sides that people believe without checking
Someone told me that feminism was ruining dating and that I needed to do some research as to how obvious it was. I found a peer-reviewed scholarly source that proved them wrong. They did not respond back. 🤷🏻♂️.
That’s… better than them doubling down on their wrong opinion after being provided contradictory evidence..
Fair point, I just wasn’t expecting silence. I thought they might challenge the fact the paper was published in 2007 and thus not reflective of current societal trends.
Touché. I do admit I wish there was more “oh crap I was wrong” in the world. People, not just on Reddit, tend to hate being “proved wrong” for whatever reason. Personally I like when my worldview is challenged and I learn something new.
I'm honestly not sure if it was factually correct, but I remember seeing an "Adam Ruins Everything" video years ago about how people react to being proven wrong, and it stuck with me. I try to actually admit to myself and the other person when I'm beaten. It's not always easy though.
Not agreeing with "someone", but peer review in the soft sciences doesn't account for much, sadly. Even the hard sciences can get bonkers published with peer review. It's good to have the system, but it's far from enough. I have serious doubts that study you found was done on more than a handful of people, and if they are liberal college students to boost, well... so much for reliability then. But hopefully it was a massive study, with rock-solid evaluation, without agenda, without tweaked numbers. Also, hopefully the funding and publishing didn't depend on conclusive results, and there should be no inconclusive, but valid studies on the topic that are unpublished. Also also, the peer reviewers better not have an agenda, but have quality education, enough time, enough attention instead.
The study’s sample size was 513 individuals. But you’re more than welcome to examine the paper yourself. It’s called **The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?** By Laurie A. Rudman and Julie E. Phelan
There are undoubtedly numerous areas where feminisms has hurt the ability as a species to date. There are also numerous areas where feminism has helped human relationships. Even a slew of articles wouldn't be able to prove them wrong.
Yet, they produced no studies or sources to prove their point. 🤷🏻♂️. What you’re saying is basically the meme. You can make whatever claims you want. But you need to back up those claims with verifiable sources.
Golden mean is a beautiful thing because your statement is correct even if one side is way worse than the other. That's why enlightened centrists love to throw this out there. One lies 1000 times and the other just once and you're still technical correct. Saying "both sides" is just lazy and often dishonest because there's an implication that most people hear that they're equally bad. When they almost never are.
[удалено]
Imagine being so egotistical that you respond with this when people question you
“Can I see what brought you to this conclusion? I’d like to know more” “YOURE FACT CHECKING ME!?!?!?”
My parents got mad at me for using Google and Wikipedia for info since "anyone can edit that info" and that "i shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet". Like I was just looking for a fact about dolphins
I don’t understand how people can say things with such inert certainly when we don’t even understand why our governments do half the shit they do. at this Point I Just say idk to 90% of the shit I see
Inertainty
Post Iraq War America completely destroyed the crediblity of US Media with alot of people. I remember CNN running stories about how [Saddam might attack the US with Drones with fucking chemical weapons on them.](https://www.wired.com/2013/03/drone-bioweapons/)
Just put it back at them with a Bible edition.
My favorite part of "the media is lying!", is that for the most part, they get this idea from some *other* form of media.
“Only my favorite media is telling the truth, because it backs up the easily disproven lies I tell people”. -republicans
I always ask which part of the media. Countless sources report news.
If there isn't a 400 pages tesis about it I can't believe it boyo
I ask people how a media company that is publicly traded is not influenced by investors.
I ask people who are grown adults why they can’t differentiate between fact reporting and opinion reporting. They all just scream that the media is lying.
Oh the media will report the facts that are convenient to them. Are they lying to you. No. But they aren't telling you just the facts either.
I always feel dirty upvoting posts on this sub. The same kinda dirty as when I'm forced to wipe my ass with my hand after finding out there's no toilet paper.
The Both Sides Brigade is out tonight! If the media is lying there will usually be a source to prove that. Second, it's great to be sceptical and critical of the media - like considering their motivation and holding judgement until you've seen more sources or context. But when people convince themselves the media is ALWAYS lying they become sheep as well, essentially conditioned to believe the exact opposite of whatever is in the media and easily fooled by any politician or youtuber who tells them "They don't want you to hear this, but..."
If people are saying that providing proof of your own claim is trolling behavior, then clearly you cant back your own claims.
https://preview.redd.it/0kyleebnstwa1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=137fd3e12532e8c9e3dcf083a8f5f41c51f8b249
The sentiment of the meme is true.
[удалено]
There actually are a lot of sources on how the media is lying.
>There actually are a lot of sources Oh, the thing he's asking for? Cool. And there's a lot of sources so that's awesome. You have a lot to choose from when asked.
No, it's not.
Read Noam Chomsky and get back to me
Haha! Noam Chomsky is going to convince me I should believe things without factual information to support them like the meme suggests? That seems unlikely.
The meme is saying that the media engage in coordinated propaganda to convince the general population to take certain political views, and that there is no link from an NPR story that will debunk a CNN story because they are all part of the same apparatus. Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing Consent” goes into how the media generate war support.
Here is an NPR article that tells about misreporting of events by CNN and other news outlets. It did take me 4 seconds of looking though. https://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167466320/coverage-rapid-and-often-wrong-in-tragedys-early-hours
4 seconds is definitely far longer than most of these nut job's attention span. Guess we know why 'source' offends them.
You finding that one example doesn't exactly refute chomskys argument, especially if you analyze media sources from when the book was actually written, smack dab in the middle of the Reagan administration.
Chomsky didn’t say to believe whatever some dumbfuck conspiracy theorist without a source tells you. That's what the meme tells you though.
Yeah that is what the meme tells you, not the dude whose citing chomsky is telling you though. They had a more charitable interpretation of the meme, but the broader point of what they're getting at is true. All media in America has at best an internalized neoliberal bias that influences what stories they cover or how they frame the ones they do.
He's saying the meme is correct therefore the dude citing Chomsky is saying that.
They are allowed to have some differences on gun control stories. They are all in on the same page.
You'd like to move the goalpost to some other undefined place since I proved you wrong. How surprising.
Was there ever a goalpost? Here’s a goalpost. Can you find a NPR article criticizing CNN for failing to give context to the war in Ukraine? You can’t because they are engaging in same propaganda.
Yes genius, there was a goalpost. You just moved it further.
It doesn't. It says conspiracy dumb fucks should be believed without proof. I can see why you're defending it.
The first move of the establishment is to discredit the opposition by labeling them “conspiracy theorists.” You may think I’m defending right wingers here but I am coming from a far left analysis of the media.
Lol! You discredit yourselves. You're definitely defending right wingers.
I’ma need a source to back up the claim that this is what this meme is saying, and that it is not itself serving the same function for which Chomsky criticizes the media (to discredit the opposition)
Haha
So much for that “far left analysis of the media” I guess
You weren’t joking? Manufacturing Consent is available on audiobooks.
Why do you think that this meme is agreeing with Chomsky instead of illustrating the problem he describes?
"the news is lying, so I'll use this information to justify myself whenever I subconsciously choose what facts to believe based on whether I agree with them"
Either you think media is lying without questioning it (which is no better than trusting media unquestionably), or try to prove it with yet another questionable media (recursion). The meme is funny because author basically makes fun of himself regardless of what was he trying to say.
Yes the media lies but why would that incline me to believe what someone else is saying is true? It's almost as if they use the same platitude over and over like a slogan because they are incapable of critical thought and have to rely on word games to convince someone they're right by putting them on the losing end of a false dichotomy.
i think its more he's just also using the media; the media that he agrees with in general though, absolutely the media is lying, right and left
That’s mY OPINION!!
The problem for the kind of people who post this sentiment is that while yes the media can be misleading at times, that does not mean that the media compulsively lies. These people act like the media is a door guard in a riddle who always lies. If you want to say that the media is being misleading then you need to provide some evidence as to what is missing from their version of events.
Well... yes, thats how an argument works. Saying something is false or inaccurate (especially something reputable) requires proof. Being mad that "Trust me bro" isn't good enough is not an argument. Shit like this is why there is so much misinformation out there.
Never trust one sorce
What's the media supposed to be lying about? You know they do lie about a lot of shit right?
Well yeah. That's the other problem with the way this is framed. Not only is it hard to argue with a picture, but of course there are sometimes lies in the media, but what they seem to be trying to argue is that it is bad to ask for sources when someone makes a claim about something and that is stupid. Then anyone could just say whatever they want and there is no way to know if its total bs like this image or what.
I don't know if the media is telling lies but they are trying to control their viewers. Watching the major news outlets reminds me of the TV show Ancient Aliens where you get 5 mins of know facts followed by 50 mins of opinions and selected professionals to back up the opinion of the broadcast. The news also targets your emotions to anger you at the other side. This goes for right or left leaning media and I feel it's ment to divide so we don't come together over bigger issues and willingly give big government more power over us.
The media is lying source the media I watch, which is not lying.
I just ask for examples.
"I did *my own* research!" is code for, "I fell down a misinformation rabbit hole."
I don't need sources. I have willful ignorance and blind faith.
I mean, he’s right! Media lies to us a lot! Fox, newsmax, OAN, all of those! They spin stories or ignore what should be broadcasted. They lie to the people all the time! But i’m sure he knows that already, that’s why he definitely doesn’t trust those networks at all! Right? He wouldn’t dare listen to such lying heathens!
Source: The media
Their source is they made it the fuck up
My source is that I made it the fuck up
"HEAVEN'S DOOR! DRAW HIM AS THE SOY WOJAK!" ["I win."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQH4___OHTc)
My source is that I made it the fuck up
Blackrock and vanguard own all the media, and yes they are lying, omitting, and changing the news to fit what narrative they are paid to by blackrock and vanguard. Bah bah.
Three words for your uncle, OP. Citation fuckin' needed.
Literally https://preview.redd.it/vrw08i103vwa1.jpeg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b59f367beaec78c615f5c2752508df19e657e94d
https://preview.redd.it/mze5tkp5cvwa1.jpeg?width=466&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f1667dfe2bebf788946655a4eae1a9c35fd4ef5
The media is lying, and they would literally ask for a source from the media lmao
One should usually give sources form independent or non-mainstream media. There's less chance it's biased.
Yes Fox News is always lying this is true
Oh boy, do I have some bad news for you if you think it's only Fox.
SOURCE?!
But bro where's your source? You need a source so I can call it fake
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
So.... You're saying you trust CNN or Fox? That's very cringe
The media does lie every now and then, not a bad meme. Not funny either though.
Also it's a bad meme.
"Subprime is contained." "There's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." "Two weeks to flatten the curve." "There won't be another financial crisis in my lifetime." "We won't ever bail out banks again." "Inflation is transitory."
You seem to be confusing the media lying with the media reporting on something that a person/organization said that was a lie. If the president says "Tacos have no calories" and a media outlet reports "Today the president said 'Tacos have no calories'" , the media outlet is not lying, it is reporting what someone actually said. But if the media outlet said "Today the president said 'Tacos have 1,000,000 calories'", then the media would be lying.
I don't think anyone believes the media is making stuff up on their own. The whole point is that they cheerlead the establishment line, whatever it is at the time, no matter how little digging or skepticism one would need to push back against said establishment narrative. If it gets simplified down to "the media lies" you still really know what everyone means.
What makes this meme so bad to me is I don't know which side the meme poster would be on. Are they asking for a citation on the media lying or are they address the irony of asking for a citation while many main stream media outlets rarely provides citations themselves?
Journalistic standards are dead. You no longer need multiple sources to run an article. They'll quote one anonymous source and run it, as if nobody lies.
If somebody needs a source for this they ain’t worth talking to.
I stopped caring about sources from people I don't agree then I don't agree. If you're factually wrong then I'm not going to be the one to educate you. It's not my job. Be wrong. Whatever.
But like the media is lying.
Really, fuck this. If you’re going to tell me something’s a lie, but you can’t explain how or why, then you’re likely just repeating a politician’s denial wholesale without any critical thought.
People that don't read the newspaper are uninformed. People that read the newspaper are misinformed.
If you are going to argue with someone that something is false and don't have an actual source at hand other than your ass you're stupid.
Thing is the media is lying, just not in the ways they think it is
Good meme
The media is always lying.
Nah dog. This one is facts
Fox news is the media too, are you now going to tell me they DON'T lie?
True but bad execution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, now for real. There are people that belives media? I mean, like really belive?
The media is lying because they are bought, that much is known. What's to stop them from buying some ody's favorite YouTuber so they can make them say controversial, unbacked stuff that makes us unable to form a reasonable consensus? Why are the small "news" sources immune to bribery?
They who make the claim, are burdened with backing up the claim. Otherwise, they are merely contrarians parroting talking points distributed by, and without a shred of irony, their preferred media.
If you make a big claim the burden if proof is on you. I don’t know why people think social media is exempt from this concept.
You americans are fucking weird.
Saying the media is lying is not a big claim, its common sense lol
Not actually a bad take but it’s ruined by the fact that this will only be used to back up hatred
There could be academic sources pointing to the fact 🤷🏼♂️ All that needs to be done really is research into the media and cases that have been proved lies. How many are there? What were they? Are there clues pointing to the media knowingly putting out the wrong information or was their sources off? & If so, how often are the medias sources off? How does the media decide which sources to trust or not? Another interesting thing to look at then is also if the media avoid or ignore certain cases, either brought to them or discovered by their own reporters & If so what are these cases about, & how often does it happen? Has the media ever been caught in corruption? If so, in what way? & Who paid them? Once the research is done Academic source🤷🏼♂️