At first I thought russian_bots name was tongue in cheek, but then after reading several of their comments since becoming a regular reader of Caitlin's articles I remembered the adage: When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
They've become inconsequential to me, but certain messages need rebutted, and they usually fall along the lines of individual thinking. In this case its "only read information that is spoonfed to you from information presenters that confirm your biases." and thats simply dangerous advice if we're trying to get out from under propaganda.
Like, I love Democracy now and Truthout, but thats because, in addition to sharing values I hold (like, you know, not supporting genocides), when I follow the raw sources and compare them against others, they hold up. But I'm not foolish enough to not checkout underlying referenced materials if its something like fox news, msm etc. Nor am I foolish enough to think that an outlet that serves my needs when it comes to analysis can't change hands, change ideology, or start to get scuzzy in its messaging.
I know if I click into an MSM, CNN, Fox news, Business Insider article what slant I might be getting, and I know that because I've seen them, not wholly avoided them. I don't tend to seek them out for my general news and tend to avoid them for that (if I see a headline that interests me, I'll seek out a different initial source), but I do occasionally click in to see what they are saying about a topic and how. Especially if thats where others I'm interacting with get their news.
Because its essential I be able to talk to my peers about whats going on, and if I *never* check out how their getting their materials, it leads to very awkward and confused conversations.
With Caitlins' newsletters, which I love, if she writes about how mainstream news rewrites headlines, while I might not verify every single piece, I'm checking out the original sources, as everyone should when they get their news synthesized, to see if it lines up with what I'm being presented. (Though I love it when its in an archived method so I don't have to give the original place click impressions).
At first I thought russian_bots name was tongue in cheek, but then after reading several of their comments since becoming a regular reader of Caitlin's articles I remembered the adage: When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
They've become inconsequential to me, but certain messages need rebutted, and they usually fall along the lines of individual thinking. In this case its "only read information that is spoonfed to you from information presenters that confirm your biases." and thats simply dangerous advice if we're trying to get out from under propaganda.
Like, I love Democracy now and Truthout, but thats because, in addition to sharing values I hold (like, you know, not supporting genocides), when I follow the raw sources and compare them against others, they hold up. But I'm not foolish enough to not checkout underlying referenced materials if its something like fox news, msm etc. Nor am I foolish enough to think that an outlet that serves my needs when it comes to analysis can't change hands, change ideology, or start to get scuzzy in its messaging.
I know if I click into an MSM, CNN, Fox news, Business Insider article what slant I might be getting, and I know that because I've seen them, not wholly avoided them. I don't tend to seek them out for my general news and tend to avoid them for that (if I see a headline that interests me, I'll seek out a different initial source), but I do occasionally click in to see what they are saying about a topic and how. Especially if thats where others I'm interacting with get their news.
Because its essential I be able to talk to my peers about whats going on, and if I *never* check out how their getting their materials, it leads to very awkward and confused conversations.
With Caitlins' newsletters, which I love, if she writes about how mainstream news rewrites headlines, while I might not verify every single piece, I'm checking out the original sources, as everyone should when they get their news synthesized, to see if it lines up with what I'm being presented. (Though I love it when its in an archived method so I don't have to give the original place click impressions).
Thank you for this well-described example of how one can navigate the current environment.