The right wing has spent years putting up front groups to dis-inform. How do you filter for that?

[EFerrari]

This morning, we had a flap over a Scaife group, Judicial Watch. I once did some digging on Freedom's Watch that wound up on SourceWatch. Recently, Human Rights Watch was busted for fronting a guy who apologized for Pinochet (and, The Nation used his assistant as a correspondent. :crazy:) The wing nuts have put up websites and fake "think tanks" that are really propaganda mills and basically have hijacked the corporate media.

So, how do you move among the media outlets that you rely on? Do you use more than one source or look up the bona fides of the outlet or search for their other stories or material?

I guess I'm asking, how do you do a gut check before "going" with information you read or hear or see nowadays? I spend a lot of time doing that -- much more time than reading the original report. I was wondering how other people manage.

[leftofthedial]

1. I usually just post it here.

If the usual gang of DLC apologists start screaming, I know it must be pretty close to the truth.

[EFerrari]

2. Lol.

:spank:

[leftofthedial]

3. seriously, it is hard to know anymore

false flags, disinformation campaigns within disinformation campaigns.

the raygun-bush era has turned this into a Disneyland of Stalinism.

Over half of the mainstream media talking heads work for or have ties to the CIA.

Who knows about print media anymore.

The Internet is completely unfiltered.

I basically don't believe what I read unless it is consistent with foreign sources or the few sources I still "trust." (And that trust is highly subjective.)

[EFerrari]

11. It IS hard to know, that's why I asked what you all were doing. n/t

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

32. Well, when they get together near me...

I infiltrate and piss in their punch bowl. It's a modest but satisfying effort. ;-)

[EFerrari]

33. There's a book there with a big graphics budget.

:)

[Greyhound]

27. A very good gage. Kind of a reverse dog.

:D

[EFerrari]

28. Except, sometimes DU "goes" with an initial report

that turns out to be nada. We correct eventually but by then the mods are on life support. lol

And that's DU, which has the best bs detector I've ever seen in a group.

[Cleita]

4. I try to figure out where it's coming from.

I try to find out where the authors come out of. Since I usually am doing this with health industry astroturf, if the author turns out to have ties to RW thing tanks or financial journals and very little knowledge of medical issues up until the offending article, it raises my BS meter and then it isn't hard to debunk claims that seem journalistic and sourced from there, but are basically spin with some small truths behind it. For everything else I rely on you guys. :dunce:

[EFerrari]

14. The most effective lies/propaganda do have a grain of truth, don't they? n/t

[Cleita]

23. Yep. My favorite is the hip surgery story about Canadian national health care.

A new version of this story seems to pop up every year. It has to do with a patient being forced to wait in line six months to a year to even beyond that for hip surgery. In the latest version, the truth is that the patient did have to wait that long but when you dig into it, it turns out they aren't telling you the whole story of this hip surgery tale. It seems that the patient, was mentally unstable, and postponed surgeries himself. Then he had a heart bypass operation and the surgeon felt that it was too soon to have the surgery so it was postponed again. There never was a line that he had to wait in as the astroturf would have you believe.

[EFerrari]

26. Exactly. That's a great example of the kind of spin I'm talking about.

It takes time to sort it all out and / but, once you do, sometimes you can find a pattern that takes less time to spot next time.

It's time consuming, sorting out the astroturf from the news. :shrug:

[Capn Sunshine]

20. Yeah, that's about all you can do

source back to the original then cast about for a friendly who may know a backstory locally.

It's kind of like journalism used to be, if you have the time.

[EFerrari]

24. I figured out today that my assessment is upside down because

it used to be, the more well known the source, the more I trusted them.

Now, it's the less the source can gain from the story (and that usually means, the less well known the source), the more I'm apt to take it at face value even if I do a little checking along the way.

I miss Huntly and Brinkley!

lol

[Idealism]

5. Cross check information with as many credible sources as you can

Don't repeat something you deem suspicious as the gospel truth

[kristopher]

6. Peer review

The type of literature you are talking about is "gray" literature that should always be taken with a dose of skepticism. I track the information from any media or gray source back to the original studies referenced. The first test, in fact, is whether the media or ray source provides adequate information to enable easy verification. When they don't, the interpretation of the original material is more often than not a crock.

Google Scholar is a great resource IMO.

http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ns

[EFerrari]

15. Thanks. I'm not familiar with that page. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. Until the corporate whore media is brought down, nothing will change.

Sure, there would still be World Nut Daily, and Newsmax and Drudge. And it might go from there to Limbaugh and the other right wing radio hacks, but it would be contained there at least.

Right now, current policy is that it goes from the far right toilets listed above to FAUX Noize. And if FAUX runs it, then CNN will run it because they don't want to let FAUX have a scoop. And if CNN says it's true, then MSNBC will take their word for it (Keith, Rachel, and maybe Tweety notwithstanding) And of course MSNBC giving it legitimacy takes it to the NBC network, and naturally ABC & CBS have to take it then. Hell, ABC picks it up directly from FAUX anymore.

And how many times in the last decade has the story been completely out there, dominating the so called 24 hour news cycle, and then proven to be either totally a lie, or a ridiculous distortion?

Media ownership is the problem. The media doesn't even have to be "left wing" (as opposed to "right wing") just be objective. Whatever happened to getting a story verified by three independent sources before going to press, or TV as the case may be?

[Cleita]

9. This will be a huge trick, making the media honest while

still not interfering with their First Amendment rights. There has got to be a way.

[metapunditedgy]

13. I doubt it. Media wants to make money. There goes objectivity.

Information is getting easier and easier to find... just cast a wide net, realize it's mostly biased, and draw your own conclusions.

[metapunditedgy]

8. I read sources from across the political spectrum and try to watch

how things flow. Over time, you can calibrate a given source's political slant. I realize there's nothing profound about this, except that it works.

In the internet age, I think that's the only way to do it. It's too easy for some interest group to get a press release printed as news, or whatever.

A lot of "cat-herding" sources, e.g., Rush Limbaugh, depend on people using them as a primary source of information. Their natural enemy is a wide range of information sources.

[EFerrari]

19. I admit that I don't read right wing sources at all.

But when I do run into a source I don't know, I search their funding, their prior work, their readership. That's not always enough to figure out if they are believable. Over time, though, the outlet lays down a pattern, imo.

[Karenina]

10. Watch out for Politico.

Something about their reporting triggers my bs detectors.

[EFerrari]

16. Yep. And it doesn't always break along partisan lines.

They trip my triggers, too.

[azurnoir]

12. There are "topic forums" here on DU

where the more specialized ones tend to be and I did not realize the extent until the recent elections This forum which tends to have 2 distinct groups, folks from one side even a couple of the nonUS people put in a good word for Obama, but crickets from the "other" group.

[EFerrari]

17. The topic forums do have specialized information.

They don't get updated as often as the big forums, so it's a trade off, isn't it?

[azurnoir]

37. I was to honest was thinking more

specialized "informers" who keep quite updated on their talking points, but are perhaps just very dedicated

[bananas]

18. SourceWatch and Consumer Reports have a joint website "frontgroups.org"

http://www.frontgroups.org/

[EFerrari]

22. bananas baby, thank you!

lol

:hi:

[FormerDittoHead]

21. The part *I* love is that they're.... TAX WRITE OFFS!

That's right! *WE* FINANCE THE THINK TANKS!

Follow along:

The VAST majority of money used to finance think tanks is from rich people.

Their donations lower their taxes.

The burden of paying taxes is then shifted to... US! So, instead of paying for the government which protects their wealth, they divert the money to finance talking heads who go out in the media to convince us to lower taxes on those very same rich people!!!

[EFerrari]

25. We're going to have to admit at some point that the right wing

has one or two non-idiots in their corner.

[santamargarita]

29. If I smell Republican on a person or in an article...

...everything they ever said or wrote gets instantly tossed in the Bush shit heap!

[EFerrari]

30. Does that work for you? What about topics that have no visible slant?

Like the stories about paramilitaries in Colombia?

Or, the reports about Pakistani involvement in Mumbai?

Or, the state of banks in Greenland?

[Jack Rabbit]

31. If the information comes from the AEI, the Heritage Foundation or PNAC

If the information comes from the AEI, the Heritage Foundation or PNAC, it is disregarded as quickly as if it came from Rush Limbaugh or the Bush White House.

[RandomThoughts]

34. This is what I do.

Well many reporters and journalist are filled with integrity. So they usually show it if they think something is wrong, so learn to read body language. This is so important if you want to know whats going on. And I don't mean the Oreilly stuff, you can't just take one gesture and think it means something. You got to really read them. And then still know its only added info.

Watch the live broadcast of an event, then watch how it is reported 12 hours later, the live version (minus the notorious 'first info is bad info') But watch for the actual words of people, and images, they get cleaned up many times. This can tell you what it is that they might not want you to see. Within two or three days, the story is many times much different. Look for what they emphasize.

If you can learn what they don't want you to see, you can go look for that info.

Unfortunately many news agencies only hire people that have the same ideology as they want presented. And then the only source they ever read is talking points or teleprompters from their own news agency. Imagine a Fox TelePrompter reader, they might actually be kinda smart, but they get bias 'set up' info before interviews, and they already have a frame of reference. In these cases all you can do is bookmark the bias on issues in your head.

And last, but just as important, know your own bias.

Thats what I try and do.

I also note how many times I see Chris Mathews do a promo for his show in two hours, then in my area I see someone else filling in for him, and I never get to hear what he said he was going to talk about. :(

Which says much more then what he promo'ed that day.

[Dark]

35. You gotta use various sources, and know that if it sounds like bullshit, it verywell could be.

n/t

[RandomThoughts]

36. One more thing

Its all perception. And the vast right wing machine is just a herd.

One of the most effective ways to put people in appathy, is to make them think their is some uber conspiracy that they can not stand against.

Many pro-conspiracy people feed into this hopelessness. Know that 'they' are no smarter then you. And most people really are good honest people. Their is an ideological conspiracy, people with same ideas and values herding together. But not a blueprint on how to do everything.

Just lots of scraps that get cologued together with heard mentality. Think about it, that uber conspiracy machine of supper rich secret society people... it is really just another herd, no better then the other herds with other ideas. And many got promoted because of connections and never had a tough field to plow in their entire life, so you might be alot stronger then you think.

Also it is not world wide, you can constantly see different countries jocking for influence and prestige within events. If this was controlled, it would be managed better. You can also see them flip and flop a bit, something that also shows it is not scripted.

[KoKo]

38. I TRUST NOTHING and have to spend time going all over to VERIFY...

I think sites like Politic and Huffington Post are now more "mainstream" than the "mainstream" so I am wary of both (even though they would "seem to be" opposite ends of spectrum...how do I really know where Arianna Huffington got her money to create that big web site that competes with the Bushie funded "Politico?"

I read the same stuff I read after Selection 2000 when I trusted NO ONE ANY MORE IN THE MEDIA. I read the sites that told me the TRUTH that I EXPERIENCED and I watch them morph into a COUNTER to HUFF and POLITICO. I read Salon, Nation and Alternative sites like "Corsortium, Alternet" and many Blogs like Firedoglake, Open Left, Democrats.Com" plus the stalwarts like "Free Press, Amnesty International, Common Cause, ACLU and FOOD BANKS..Random Harvest (who just changed name) and even some so-called "Conspiracy Sites."

I read the "Alternate News" as I have done in the past for a Composite.

I'm a Lefty/Progressive. I'm not giving up what I know because we suddenly managed to get a Dem in the White House. Been there since Kennedy...when I was a kid..through Carter and Clinton. I'm not going to be left out of it, anymore. :grr: EMPOWERMENT TO THE PEOPLE!

[EFerrari]

39. That's a good question. How is HuffPo funded?

I don't know. :)

[KoKo]

40. I just edited my post.. and yes...how was "Huff Post Founded."

I added some sites I rely on after you posted.