Is Journal.ie Opinion Piece Fake?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That said when I lived in the US in 2003 I relied on internet sources to disabuse the idea of WMD having been proven. All cable news and even the NYT were leaning the other way.

I refer you to my opening sentence in the very post you quoted.

mcmoustache

biko wrote: »

Maybe it boils down to "can media corporations be trusted?"
There seems to be two sides here, the doubters and the non-doubters.

For instance - the doubters will doubt this Journal article, while non-doubters will not.

I don't think anyone believes the article. Even those of us who get the point of the article have pointed out that it could just be made up.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes the article. Even those of us who get the point of the article have pointed out that it could just be made up.

I think he just sees what he wants to see... unsurprisingly.

For Forks Sake

hotmail.com wrote: »

Let's not import American crap into our country then.

That ship has long since sailed

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I refer you to my opening sentence in the very post you quoted.

But I went to a random internet source. That was what your second sentence suggested I shouldn’t do. The entire mainstream was wrong. And I bet by the way if the situation were to happen today the anti war types would be dismissed as conspiracists.

That said I don’t think they conspired. I just think modern journalism is sh1te. Even 20 years ago. Worse now.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But I went to a random internet source. That was what your second sentence suggested I shouldn’t do. The entire mainstream was wrong. And I bet by the way if the situation were to happen today the anti war types would be dismissed as conspiracists.

You're only partially quoting me which is extremely disingenuous.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

This post is beyond parody. Libertarians who love Putin? haha. It's like you've conveniently thrown every group you dislike into one.

I’m not saying they are libertarians. They aren’t that bad. More they believe in libertarian fringe woo. It’s all mixed in with the crypto thing - the distrust of central banks, the hatred of Government, be your own bank, don’t trust - verify.

A book was even written about it: The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is behind the conspiracy pushing and how we can fight back against them is the more pertinent question.

States, political groups, vitamin salesmen and their useful idiots. It's not that difficult to trace a lot of them back to their source.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

That said when I lived in the US in 2003 I relied on internet sources to disabuse the idea of WMD having been proven. All cable news and even the NYT were leaning the other way.

I lived here at that time and the NYT was one of the biggest cheerleaders of the war. However, their stories were alarmist nonsense backed up by quotes - things like "Saddam could attack with WMDs right now... according to this guy with a vested interest in promoting the war". They weren't outright reporting that Saddam had WMDs, they were heavily editorialising. The thing is, even with such a heavy spin and an effort to drum up support, you can still figure out the factual parts without much work, even if one was only reading NYT at that time.

Marcos

banie01 wrote: »

Donie's report on Qanon and effects on family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjnu5pj1Ku4

Looks to me like Donie could sue for plagiarism.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m not saying they are libertarians. They aren’t that bad. More they believe in libertarian fringe woo. It’s all mixed in with the crypto thing - the distrust of central banks, the hatred of Government, be your own bank, don’t trust - verify.

A book was even written about it: The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism

Depends what one means by "Libertarian". It's a much abused term.

Most, so called, "Libertarians" are the American sort who are basically just right wingers who don't agree with everything that the Republican Party stands for.

They're still the type that would have children back up chimneys though...so long as it only pertains to other people's children.

But, yes, that type are often beholden to some or all of the usual YouTube algorithmic gibberish they see from the usual pushers of baloney. Grifters who feed people nonsense to massage their own base, poorly formed, opinions and making money off of them.

That article seems fake but the story being told is very similar to the relationship I have with my oldest friend

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Scratch the surface of these conspiracies and it's all about the usual enemies "the Jews" etc.

So, Labour?

conorhal

I always get a good chuckle when one of their e-begging pop up ads ask me to 'support journalism by donating'.

Sure if I one day see any journalism on their clickbait site, I just might!

Tork

Deleted User wrote: »

You don’t have to personally know a conspiracy theorist to know many of them are:

Men. Overwhelming men. In their 20’s or 30’s.

Of below average intelligence.

A deep distrust of mainstream media.

Big into cryptocurrency and libertarian woo.

Putin as some sort of strongman figurehead.

Essentially radicalised as a result of watching YouTube videos and following similar Twitter accounts.

Heightened sense of victim hood - it’s not my fault my life turned out this way. It’s the Jews, Dr Tony, female politicians etc etc.

Who is behind the conspiracy pushing and how we can fight back against them is the more pertinent question.

Neither of the conspiracy theory men I know fall into these categories. They're both middle-aged men who are married with kids. Both have done well in their careers and are well educated. At a guess, both would be of a conservative/right-wing bent. I think both initially got annoyed at the way the mainstream Irish media covered certain issues that bothered them and they went looking for material that was less leftie. One, in particular, liked (maybe still does) the likes of Tucker Carlson on FoxNews. I haven't spoken to him for a long time so I don't know what he's watching now. I reckon that was just the gateway to what he found elsewhere. When you go down the road of confirmation bias, there is no shortage of resources.

hawley

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It just reads to me as a made up piece to play into the “ incel parable”

You see it all the time on the internet , women using the word “incel” to insult men for holding viewpoints they disagree with , applying a value system that possessing certain views or disagreeing with women in general makes you less attractive , and in these peoples heads sexual attraction is the only unit of value / self worth.

Stories like this implying that if youre in to conspiracy theories / right wing politics etc.. that you will either lose your partner or never have one (to these people, usually women but sometimes men) this is a fait worse than death , remaining alone and being considered unattractive.

However to the people down these rabbit holes, they've either usually given up on the idea of relationships, don't care or are wise to this trope. It really says more about the author than the intended target that the worst possible outcome they could muster for going down a conspiracy rabbit hole is ‘you'll be single’

This part of the article is ridiculous, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists of every color and creed:

"Believers of conspiracy theories have been preyed upon and radicalised to further the aims of extremists; to spread division and in turn keep con artists, mostly white men, powerful and wealthy".

Why would a young liberal feminist who works in the media be involved in a relationship like this:

" I also took on a strategy of acting like I was innocently asking open-ended questions, such as “why did that happen?” or “what interests you about this theory?” But too often I would be left vexed after listening to him for hours, and end up snapping at him with a “but why do you care about x, y or z?”

My partner’s defence usually came in three forms: freedom of speech for when he was rattling off racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and other prejudiced theories; libertarian “whataboutery” based on circumstantial evidence to the point where nothing said could be true or untrue; and projection, when I was deemed the intolerant one.

I did see moments of hope when he would critically think through a falsehood, but it would be one step forward and at least two back.
He believes these hate-filled conspiracy theories despite him being smart, having dual nationality, gay and mixed-race family members, and apparently loving me – a feminist who’d worked in the media and international development.

Tork

What human writes like that anyway?

Mad_maxx

Tork wrote: »

What human writes like that anyway?

The kind left wing madrassas ( journalism college courses) churn out by the truck load these days

What’s interesting to be actually is how the anti war left disappeared after Obama got elected. And what would have been considered fairly normal skepticism about American claims in wartime (WMD, yellowcake) are denounced as conspiratorial now. Similar claims, I mean.

Then there’s the people who think China deliberately released the virus. And that Trump was a Russian chosen candidate. These seem more respectable than anti vax but all are bollocks.

Then there’s the tendency to lump in any opposition to the lockdowns, which you would expect in democracies even if misguided, as alt right. I wonder if doing this causes some of the other stuff.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The kind left wing madrassas ( journalism college courses) churn out by the truck load these days

Eh, the writer of the piece isn’t a journalist for the Journal. Did you even read the thing before going off about lefties? They often have guest writers and opinion pieces from politicians.

I’m not a leftie myself, but there’s a modern type of ‘reds under the bed’ thing developing around here from some posters.

ThunbergsAreGo

The journal is an awful rag that is up its own hole.

Thats a made up piece that needs a "factcheck" like omg.

The article seems like a conspiracy theory

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eh, the writer of the piece isn’t a journalist. Did you even read the thing before going off about lefties? They often have guest writers and opinion pieces from politicians.

I’m not a leftie myself, but there’s a modern type of ‘reds under the bed’ thing developing around here from some posters.

You don't know that at all.

Its anonymous....

Wibbs

Tork wrote: »

Neither of the conspiracy theory men I know fall into these categories.

Same for me. The ones I know would be pretty successful guys(one very successful), all hitched with kids and apparently happily with it. In most cases their wives would tend to agree with at least some of their positions too. They would tend to be "soft" libertarians, though not quite as bad as some of the US types where their sociopathy is masquerading as a politic. They would be early to late middle aged and I have found that's an age demographic that tends to be very set in their ways and resistant to novel considerations(particularly with men I've found).

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m not a leftie myself, but there’s a modern type of ‘reds under the bed’ thing developing around here from some posters.

+1. The imported identity politics at work with quite a divisive "left/right" split. The "left" have their own reds under the bed angle too as they tend to see alt/hard right everywhere and see it as a major threat to our society. It isn't. Two cheeks of the same arse really. If someone holds a fervent position on one side of the spectrum or the other and is convinced the other side is XYZ, then they're just as bad as the other.

Silentcorner

Wibbs wrote: »

Same for me. The ones I know would be pretty successful guys(one very successful), all hitched with kids and apparently happily with it. In most cases their wives would tend to agree with at least some of their positions too. They would tend to be "soft" libertarians, though not quite as bad as some of the US types where their sociopathy is masquerading as a politic. They would be early to late middle aged and I have found that's an age demographic that tends to be very set in their ways and resistant to novel considerations(particularly with men I've found).

+1. The imported identity politics at work with quite a divisive "left/right" split. The "left" have their own reds under the bed angle too as they tend to see alt/hard right everywhere and see it as a major threat to our society. It isn't. Two cheeks of the same arse really. If someone holds a fervent position on one side of the spectrum or the other and is convinced the other side is XYZ, then they're just as bad as the other.

The male (particularly middle aged )demographic would have traditionally been the biggest consumers of news media...this would have been evident across radio, tv and especially newspapers....

I think any person, male or female who has consumed media for a few decades can see the deterioration in standards, even though on account of our addiction to our phones, all ages are consuming news content at such a rapid pace it has allowed an hysterical news cycle....

I would argue, there are demographics who are consuming media now that don't understand that shift from balanced based news coverage to hysterical news coverage.

And I've no doubt there are many who have filled that vaccuum with content that is not reputable, the problem is, there is now no such thing...the smartest thing to do is consume as little as possible and rely on your own acumen, allowing yourself to be wrong or misinformed on any given topic.

It's no accident we have seen the rise in outrage culture, oppression fantasies and it isn't the traditional news demographic that are getting sucked into that, it is the young and particularly female demographics...our societies can't sustain it, the industry cannot sustain it...none of it is healthy.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, the writer of the piece isn’t a journalist. Did you even read the thing before going off about lefties? They often have guest writers and opinion pieces from politicians.

I’m not a leftie myself, but there’s a modern type of ‘reds under the bed’ thing developing around here from some posters.

Some posters on here have just the one note that play continuously.

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, the writer of the piece isn’t a journalist for the Journal. Did you even read the thing before going off about lefties? They often have guest writers and opinion pieces from politicians.

I’m not a leftie myself, but there’s a modern type of ‘reds under the bed’ thing developing around here from some posters.

perhaps/perhaps not but the opinions and style of writing is perfectly in keeping with your typical common or garden orthodox progressive who are ten a penny nowadays in journalism

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Then there’s the people who think China deliberately released the virus. And that Trump was a Russian chosen candidate. These seem more respectable than anti vax but all are bollocks.

I'm sorry but one of those things has no evidence for it while the other has heaps and heaps of it. They're not even close to equivalent.

Kermit.de.frog

I think this has become a much more serious issue in the last 5 to 10 years.

I actually find it quite alarming.

Perfectly normal seeming people descend in to all sorts of weird and deranged theories if your chat is long enough and it's all coming through the Internet, it's all the same stuff just repackaged depending on the person.

Not a good omen for society.

If you go to the coronavirus forum, for example, a lot of posts these last few months are conspiracy after conspiracy about the govt, NPHET or whatever and the posters don't seem to realise they are engaged in outright conspiracy theory.

Very slippery slope.

keano_afc

Its pretty common knowledge that you're not meant to take the Journal seriously. Its like a university newspaper - copy and paste pieces put together by people who hold their book shelves up with cinder blocks.

The constant holding the cap out asking people to support their "journalism" gives the impression that the end might be nigh. Fingers crossed.

donaghs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seems perfectly plausible to me - the hatred of mainstream media, introverted man in his 30’s, the isolation, Bitcoin, deep state. All pretty standard stuff I’d imagine in the conspiracy theory world.

I just don’t see her being with him though. I guess we can’t prove or disprove it, but it reads fake to me. Unless it was written in a style to condense events and tick boxes about icke, rothschilds, maga hats etc. Basically i know people can slip into paranoia and conspiracy, but I find to hard to believe these two people started and maintained a relationship. It more like an article which pushes the right buttons for some people