Grazyn wrote:I'll never understand those who say "Don't trust journalists and the MSM, always do your own research to find out the truth".
Like, if western media says "Russian planes bombed a hospital in Syria" and Russian state media says "No we didn't" how are you going to verify that on your own? You can't trust journalists because they have their own agenda, are you going to fly to Syria and check for yourself? Actually, even if you could do that it won't help because usually even videos of the thing made by locals get discredited as well in those situations. And this applies to a lot of other things that are just too complex or too difficult for the common joe to verify on his own, not unless you make it a full-time job and at that point Bingo! you've become a journalist yourself.
That's why I just assume that those who say that sentence actually mean "Don't trust *that media*, trust *that other media*". If you are so convinced that journalists are barking buffoons you should just accept that sometimes you cannot and will never know the actual truth, instead of getting conned by other barking buffoons who want to sell their own "truth".
/pol/ has several times investigated 'Syrian artillery attacks' on residential neighbourhoods, then checked pictures to find out from the shadows, sky and impact markings that the shells would have come from rebel or ISIS held areas. Or maybe the Syrian army has artillery shells that can change direction mid-air.
An attack may have happened. The western news may have reported it as best they could find, but that doesn't neccesarily mean they're right about it. And it doesn't mean they're not being fed this information by someone who does have an agenda and is fine with twisting facts either. But they do try and for many things they are right or at least have enough information to consider checking them out.
When I say "Don't trust the MSM", what I mean is "People are fallible and you should find multiple sources and try to work out a reasonable idea of what happened by connecting likely truths together in ways that are consistent at least. Find the truth of the matter such as 'Residential distract was shelled, 4 casualties', not the emotional appeal of 'Assad bombed a children's playground and kills four!'."
And of course, be aware of emotional language in news articles. That's always a sure sign that they're trying to steer your opinions rather than inform you of something that happened
I don't expect random people to figure out what was is north/south in a picture by the shadows and from there identify impact craters to determine the shells' origin. But I do expect them to ask "How are you sure that it was the Syrian military that did this and not ISIS who is also active in this area?"
And from there, I expect the MSM to have an answer that is something other than "Our rebel-aligned source says it was Assad, so it's probably Assad"