How The News LIES To You

How The News LIES To You


What you just saw was groundbreaking director
Alfred Hitchcock discussing the power of the montage to influence, even change a viewer’s
opinion. This is known as the Kuleshov effect. Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov showed the following
clip to an audience. Then he showed them this clip. Finally, this. The audience fervently remarked how the expression
on the man’s face was different in all three sequences, one showed hunger, the next sadness
and finally lust, as though they were all shot independently. This was not the case, the only difference
between the three shots is the image spliced in between the closeup. Across all three examples, the closeup shot
itself was the exact same piece of film, the man’s expression did not change. Kuleshov used this experiment to demonstrate
how the considered assemblance of completely unrelated pieces of film and images, can significantly
alter a viewer’s emotional response. This simple yet powerful technique has been
used in propaganda, to wage wars, win wars, spread tyranny and keep it at bay. It has been used in humanity’s greatest
films to make audiences laugh, sob and scared senseless. But there is one force in our modern world
that holds the deftest hand, the slimiest skill, the most astute ability to rearrange
information, to influence nations, change narratives and breed mass contempt. The media. The ability of the press, TV news and increasingly
digital media to take the truth and warp it to align with their ideological agenda is
unrivalled. Fastidiously straddling the legal boundaries
as they do so. How you may ask? I’m sure you’re all too aware of fake
news. Well, I’m not talking about fake news, I
mean to draw your attention to a far more underhanded means of deception utilised by
what you may consider the “genuine” media. Like most people, you have probably long suspected
that the big six media giants that control traditional news or the new generation of
digital media haven’t always reported stories to you in the most genuine and factual way. But it’s likely that you’ve never quite
been able to put your finger on how or why. This is because the techniques they use to
subvert the truth are crucially subtle. They are required, even mandated by law, in
certain countries, to be subtle. So allow me to enlighten you with just a few
of the many masterfully subtle subversions big media uses to sabotage the status quo. The media loves statistics. Why? It’s not because statistics offer absolute,
empirically factual truths in a concise and easily digestible format, it’s quite the
opposite. The media loves statistics because they can
easily be modified to support the narrative they wish the current story to tell. In 2005 the state of Florida introduced the
controversial “Stand Your Ground” law, permitting people to use lethal force against
an attacker even if it would be possible to safely retreat from the situation. Reuters published the following chart showing
the number of gun deaths in Florida over time. “Wow” you may remark, gun deaths dropped
drastically following the introduction of Stand Your Ground in 2005. Wrong. Notice the y-axis has been inverted so that
zero is at the top, ergo as the line-graph flows down the chart, the number of gun deaths
increases. This is purposely opposed to the way in which
we have been normalised to expect the progression of data to invariably appear on an x/y-axis
chart. We naturally expect up to mean more, not less. We also expect zero to be at the bottom-left
of charts. So then, at first glance, it would appear
that following the 2005 statute, Florida gun deaths dropped to almost zero. Another trick is truncating the y-axis. The news loves to use this tactic with crime
statistics to make them sound more rapturously apocalyptic. How many times have you read or heard news
similar to this “murder rates up 100% on last year”. What they often fail to report are the actual
numbers. What if there was only one murder last year? If this year there are two murders, that is
indeed an increase of 100%. But to the dismay of professional fearmongering
frauds, crime rates are usually extremely low, to begin with, except in a few rare places
in the world. Two murders in even a small city of say 200,000
people is not a statistic to give you cause to organise a sign-writing party with your
belligerent blue-haired buddies. So when you’re shown a chart such as this
you would be forgiven for thinking that interest rates shot up drastically between 2008 and
2012. If this were true we would have started donating
our organs to pay our mortgages by now. Notice how the y-axis is severely truncated
to exacerbate the most minute increments of data. Plot the same data on a chart where the baseline
is set at zero and what we can now observe is that interest rates, in fact, stayed staunchly
static. It’s not always appropriate to start a y-axis
at zero. Sometimes to demonstrate a huge shift in data
within a far greater range the y-axis must be truncated. But always be aware when you suspect that
it has been done to mislead you. As it has in an even more devious way in this
chart published by the Ministry of Health for New South Wales in 2013. What’s going on here is more subtle than
simply truncating an axis. 43,000 nurses are graphically represented
by just four nurse graphics, yet 28 nurse graphics are then used to represent 46,000
nurses, a numerical increase of only 3,000 nurses. Making the increase in nurses seem astronomically
higher between 2010 and 2011, when in fact there was only a 7% increase. Another way that information is often misleadingly
visualised is through false correlations. This graph humorously suggests that there
is a positive correlation between ice creams sales and murders. But of course, correlation doesn’t imply
causation. Just because I usually take tea around the
same time that the pope holds morning mass, it doesn’t mean that I am in any way persuaded
by the supreme pontiff’s pious utterings to enjoy a delicious pot of steeped tea leaves. Nor does it imply that my tea consumption
is some kind of religious ceremony. The deception that can be reeked by slapping
arbitrary false correlations on a visual chart has been turned into somewhat of a fledgeling
internet meme by some witty individuals. As can be seen in these frankly brilliant
examples. A lower GDP increases penis size. Using Internet Explorer leads to murder, which
to be fair could seem entirely accurate to anyone who has ever used Interment Explorer. And my favourite, that global warming has
been caused by a decrease in the number of pirates. When the media isn’t distracted with developing
duplicitous graphics then it is usually divulging duplicitous discourse. One method by which journalists fool the general
public is by using very broad assumptions to slap incendiary labels on individuals whom
they don’t agree with. Take a look at this headline by left-leaning
British newspaper The Guardian. This is the story that three YouTube free
speech defenders, Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Meechan “Count Dankula’ and Carl Benjamin
“Sargon of Akkad” have joined the United Kingdom Independence Party “UKIP”, the
party responsible for instigating the series of events that led to Brexit. Now I can’t speak on behalf of these individuals’
political views, because I don’t know, I cannot definitely say whether or not any of
them personally identify with the alt-right, any more than I could say whether or not Kim
Jong Un believes in pamper days. Followers of these YouTubers would argue that
they are simply defenders of free speech and they all seek to rationally object to the
irrational ideologies of the extreme left that is so pervasive throughout contemporary
culture. Claims that these individuals are linked to
the alt-right are widely unsubstantiated and even the most prominent rumours are pathetically
flimsy. But that doesn’t matter, because, sure,
they have impressive support online, but the majority of the general public and especially
Guardian readers, have never watched any of these three mens’ videos nor is it very
likely they were aware of their existence, before reading the subject article. So by writing in the headline that they are
“linked to alt-right” the damage has already been done. Most people will instantly conjure mental
images of what we typically associate with the alt-right, pointy hood white supremacists,
neo-nazis etc. etc. Claiming that UKIP has “welcomed” these
supposed white-supremacist hate mongers with a red carpet seeks to dexterously defame UKIP. Notice also, how the carefully chosen image
to accompany this headline is a particularly smug-looking Mark Meechan, who, and I’m
sorry Mark, is definitely the most typically “alt-right” looking of the three men,
based on appearance. Why does it matter if headlines are misleading? Because multiple studies concur that a headline’s
bias hugely affects the way the rest of the article is read and interpreted. Headlines provide us with the setup for the
story we are about to read and no matter if that story contains conflicting information
we still view that information through the lens of the bias that the headline has pre-constructed
for us. Clinical studies have proved that how a news
headline is written positively or negatively affects our opinion of something or someone
far more than the actual content does, the body of the article. The wording of the headline also dictates
what we remember most from the news story and how we will report it to our friends. That’s assuming the person ever reads the
article. Researchers found that in 59% of occurrences
online people read only the headline of a news story and never click on it to read the
full article. News outlets know this, that’s why headlines
are and always have been designed to be captivating and often deceptive. Slapping unsubstantiated labels on public
figures to skew the views of that individual in the eyes of the impressionable general
public, thus undermining the figures’ authority is one of the most widely used modus operandi
mobilized by the media. In today’s heavily divided political climate
“alt-right” is a particular favourite label, because, with that one short compound
word, so much hatefully imagery can be instantaneously attached to an individual. Even the most moderate of social commentators
such as Canadian Clinical Psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson has received this treatment. NBC News happily slapped the alt-right label
on him in this damning piece. So apparently, having a rational, fact-based
approach towards cultural and social issues and inspiring people to take responsibility
for their own lives is synonymous with being a Nazi. There are other examples available. Jordan Peterson also famously clashed with
Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman and it perfectly illustrated another trick that journalists
do all the time, use manipulative language to put words in the interviewee’s mouth. In this fascinating interview that has been
watched by over 14 million people, Peterson carefully and logically deconstructs many
commonly believed fallacies about inequality in the workplace and general life choices
between the two genders. To which Cathy Newman simply responds with
“So you’re saying..” then a general inflammatory statement that she knows the
viewers will react negatively to if she can convince them that this is what Peterson actually
meant. Whereas his actual meaning was something entirely
different from what Newman suggests, which is perfectly clear to anyone with a pair of
ears and a brain in between them. Why does she repeatedly attempt to draw false
conclusions from Peterson’s rhetoric? Because she is intellectually outclassed,
and she knows it, she has no rational counter-argument to Peterson’s statements. But she cannot do the valiant thing and admit
that Peterson’s arguments hold some ground because both herself and the network she represents
have a certain ideological agenda to push, so she instead attempts to put words in Peterson’s
mouth, seeking to besmirch his moral character. Other linguistic tricks are commonly used
by journalists when interviewing an adversary. I would love to show you example clips of
the following techniques in use but I’m sure you can appreciate how increasingly rigorous
copyright laws make it difficult for me to do so, however, there are thousands of examples
out there for you to seek out if you wish to do so. I’m sure you will have noticed these in
use on a daily basis anyway. So, for instance, anchors and presenters,
will often fall back on binary injunctions such as “Yes or no”, “just answer the
question YES or NO” when the opponent gives a lengthy answer to a deeply nuanced question
that cannot possibly be answered with a simple yes or no, without coming across as a belligerent
fool. When an opponent uses empirical evidence or
commonly known axioms to support their argument it is common for the interviewer to come back
with the ignorant response “well that’s your opinion”. This is commonly used when the interviewer
knows their opponent just made a substantial and valid point that they cannot intellectually
retort. So, by instead chalking it up as “their
opinion” it undermines the factual foundations of the entire argument that person just laid
down. When introducing a guest it is common for
a news anchor, talk show host or other journalists to preface the interview with something similar
to “John Smith claims he is an avian expert but his critics say he molests pigeons, let’s
find out”. Notice the critical syntax here “but his
critics say”. Which critics? It is very rare the critics who supposedly
said that are actually identified. A broad generalisation such as this rarely
attracts calls for substantiation and it doesn’t matter anyway, the damage has already been
done. In the eyes of most people watching, listening
or reading, Mr Smith is now a pigeon molester. When in fact those “critics” could consist
of no more than the journalist who made that statement witnessing a homeless man shouting
“bloody pigeon molester” at Mr Smith as he innocently walked down the street. It is then legally justified for such a conjecture
to exist, even if it does not represent greater public opinion. Subtle phrasing such as “but their critics
say” is necessary in a world with libel and slander laws, because the journalist themselves
are not making the vilification, some mysterious critic is. I’ll let you into a little secret, almost
every time a journalist uses the phrasing “but his or her critics say” prepended
to a string of particularly incendiary pejoratives. It is actually a means for the supposedly
“impartial” journalist to out their personal views or that of their company’s on the
character in question, without personally risking legal defamation. An example can be seen here on torontolife.com
“When U of T professor Jordan Peterson pledged never to use gender-neutral pronouns, he sparked
a vicious campus battle. The free-speech advocates say he’s combating
the tyranny of political correctness. His critics say he’s a privileged, trans-phobic
bigot who must be stopped”. Also, if a journalist uses the word “allegedly”
before a statement, then it’s usually the same damn thing, it’s just another way to
say “their critics say”. Subtle linguistic tricks such as this that
cunningly transmute opinions into facts are especially important and thus often utilised
in British news. In the UK impartiality laws exist under the
Communications Act of 2003 that legally mandates news in any form to exercise “due impartiality
and due accuracy”. In 2017 British regulator Ofcom ruled that
Fox News’ Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight shows had breached these laws. But since Fox News no longer broadcasts in
the UK they could not be fined. News is the mechanism by which public opinions
are formed and ideologies are built, it is therefore imperative that when we see wild
claims and incendiary headlines that we choose to dig a little deeper, consult other sources
and build one’s own balanced opinion on the matter instead of blindly copying that
of a single biased journalist. Especially in a world where we have misleading
headlines such as this “Girls’ school still offering ‘something special’ – head”. Thanks for watching.

100 thoughts on “How The News LIES To You

  1. I actually had this discussion about jordar peterson and the headline saying he would not use gender neutral pronouns. It was a discussion with one of my friends who claims to be a feminist but she just went totally radical and wasn’t ready to take anything when I tried to explain the context of things. It was and enraging experience where every fact I put was not entering her mind. She said it’s a matter of opinions but then when I put opinion she said it’s the opinion of a man and it doesn’t matter when talking about gender neutrality. So I said gender neutrality also includes men and from there on it was all about male ego. I lost brain cells because of that conversation.

  2. Great video (as expected on your channel), although I don't agree on the “allegedly“ part: at least here in Austria it is mostly used in reporting crimes if there is no conviction yet. I find that to be an important and fair use of the word

  3. I want to know why journalists always have such shitty headlines that are just poorly written sentences.
    It's not poorly written in a "I'm trying to relate to stupid people" kind of way. It's poorly written in a "Journalist Thinks Word Gets In Way" type of way.
    Why must they capitalise every word too?

  4. Example:

    And there stood 2 beasts over each other,and they where talking.
    they where both with the light,and had a white glow around them.
    but then the one lied,and his head turned not to look the dragon in the eye.
    and his glow turned to black.
    then the still white beast became angry for he spotted the lie.
    and the light became dark,and both where with the dark.
    for the one was angry and the other ashamed.

    explanation:

    and god seen the light and it was good,meaning better then the darkness.
    a simple shift from white to dark,means something bad.

  5. 'The Guardian are manipulating the thoughts of the British Public' Oh the British know – politicians & journalists are the two of the least trusted 'professions' in the UK. An election there is generally a 2nd least worst option contest…

  6. So you're saying that people with one ear and a brain can't see Newman's dishonesty?

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

  7. Correlation vs causation is in major use in propaganda to insinuate that Muslims do everything bad they do because of Islam and everything good they do despite it. So if a Muslim rapes someone, their religion is broadcast, but if they discover a new medicine or find a star, it isn't. In fact, there probably isn't any correlation in either case.

  8. You were doing fine until you defended charlatan windbag Jordan Peterson and extremists like Sargon and Watson. They are destructive and dangerous to society, feeding on people's fears and animosities.

  9. you look so cute at 8:45 but I still prefer you without mustache.

    Great content as always. High respect for this guy.

  10. I have to say after watching all his videos he should be president of this country and be giving dictatorship and put this county back in check with are freedom and get ride of all the corrupt media and left people against are freedom. and I am being serious he is smart and has common sense and puts the blunt truth out there. he should run for president.

  11. I've been sharing some of your videos all over the Internet… Especially THIS one… People need to THINK and you definitely give them something to think about… because you tell it like it is… and you do it SO well.!!

  12. In German we have a saying: traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast ("Do not believe any statistic that you haven't forged yourself")

  13. Calling Jordan Peterson 'fact based' is pretty hilarious. He tends to be able to make low hanging fruit look silly, but when up against someone with critical thinking skills he looks like a biased idiot. A prime example of this is his debate with Matt Dillahunty. Matt is a very skilled critical thinker who exposed J.Petersons tactics.

  14. I'm surprised that more people didn't pick up on the political bias in this supposedly unbiased video. The phrase, 'unintentional irony' springs to mind. Or, was it unintentional? 😉

  15. 11:41 That's why everybody is a Nazi these days, once one is labelled it becomes impossible to even try to defend them without being called one yourself.

  16. I used not to read the headlines but then the articles themselves became so full of meaningless banther that I have indeed mostly given up. Now you have the headline and the "subline", it appears that wgat you are supposed to read is there..

  17. The suppression of knowledge seperates us , corporations own and control the world , sickness is the biggest industry and the news is SSDD …… crap …..

  18. Just….. Bravo! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏…..not to mention… great use of the the word ‘besmirch’ ! – which went over the heads of most Americans who have watched this video. That’s known as dialogue in this country! Bravo 👏 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

  19. Am I the only person who has ever wondered; why have I never heard about a study about how people think while driving?

  20. usa most fake and evil…they talk about islam according they thinking..islam is not like they show.if they christian ?why they allow LGBT.? dont talk about religion if you dont understand about your own religion,bible said death for gay…they make russia,china ,pakistan look bad..if you see vlog about travell and you know the truth..usa always play victim actually they are biggest terrorist,,example you can buy guns anywhere and they proud about that!!…if you want brings peace ?why you dont attack drug cartel??why you must go so far to middle east..erm i know ,because arab have oil…usa people so easy to be fool by media

  21. Instead of teaching this, along with how to balance your budget or pay your taxes, schools now teach the answers to 'standardized tests'. 'I may not know how to balance my check book, but I know the Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!'…

  22. http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/05/19/mainstream-media-dying/
    It's really a shame that our school systems essentially do no education in the art of critical thinking. That would go a long way to solving this "news" catastrophe we live in. As always the "trusted news media" proves itself no more than a 2-bit charlatan. If we want our minds manipulated we can go to a hypnotist. The fact that these pitiable jackals masquerade as our "trusted" informers is the greatest contemporary ruse going. All these "news" programs are no more news than pro wrestling is wrestling. So, the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) was forced to change its name to WWE (World Wrestling ENTERTAINMENT). Yes, partly for infringement on the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), however, they had been "infringing" on that since 1979 (even though no one really gave a crap until the 1990s…) Anyhow, also playing behind the scene was that they were nothing but a show, scripted by charlatans, for however the audience might be sucked in to buying their marketing; hence making them richer. Wrestling is one thing, entertainment is another. News is one thing, whatever these propagandists pedal is something else. The "something else" is astoundingly similar to "scripted by charlatans for however the audience might be sucked in to buying their marketing, making them richer." The only responsible thing to do is demand every one of them be renamed in the same spirit of the WWE. Case in point, the "NBC Nightly News" would be forced to rename itself to "NBC Nightly Entertainment." And it's not partisan, which is why I say every one of them should be forced to rename. This is why they are all dying; nothing but cheap sensationalism trash…The chickens are truly and deservedly coming home to roost.

  23. Looks like you read the classic "How To Lie With Statistics". I have noticed that most of the conductors of polls are hardly impartial. And statistics are almost always presented with an agenda. 67% of statistics are made up on the spot (not sure where that comes from, but I didn't make it up). News has always been served with a generous portion of propaganda. They love to tell us that most people don't have the time to, as a for instance, read the Mueller Report and then proceed to infantilize a complex issue to an abbreviated series of factoids and sound bites, thereby validating your lack of an attention span while simultaneously using it to manipulate you. The propaganda used to be more homogenous. Now it is more targeted to specific demographics. Neither MSNBC or Fox is a good source of information, but one or the other will be more appealing to you based on your personal biases. I watched alleged leftist Rachel Maddow denounce the "dictator" Modero in Venezuela. Modero was elected, whatever you think of his policies. So a "leftist" sneaks in a right wing talking point in a diatribe against Trump, apparently because Trump's meddling in Venezuela hasn't been draconian enough for her. Fox panders to social conservatives, but their real agenda is corporate deregulation and less taxes for multinational corporations and the super rich. The authors of the propaganda are opportunists, not idealogues. They provide us with echo chambers to suit our prejudices.

  24. There are Lies, Darn Lies and then there are statistics!
    These tricks are why the founding fathers of the United States chose to build a Republic not a Democracy!

  25. I don't know when you went from cool facts to politics, but I'm liking it. You'll get hate no matter what though. You're cunning and people won't know how to argue against you, so they'll make broad claims like, as I read in these comments, "…but he just evolves into a hysterical, vapid drivel." Super broad, no examples, just another broad claim. And then anyone who supports you (such as myself) will be known as kiss asses. That's ok. You can't rationalize with irrational people, so there's no point in even trying. Just keep spreading the word. Those who will listen will listen. Those who won't are a lost cause.

  26. But… isn't this form of news as well? With sequences of information that could/could not relate to one another and your opinions on them?

  27. I've only read a couple news articles and books. Two of the author's being professional witnesses Massaad Ayoob and Marc Macyoung. But my interpretation of stand your ground tells me the worst part of it is what the name implies and what people lie about it. What's really disturbing is that people lying about it are in favor of it, but might not even know what it is. Maybe the reason why gun murders started decreasing after shooting back up is because people are learning the truth first hand.

  28. "It's a curious thing about people in the west, because everyone claims that they don't trust the media, yet everyone believes everything the media tells them"
    -Pat Condell

  29. One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
    thank god,
    the British journalist.
    But seeing what the man will do,
    unbribed,
    there's never reason to.

  30. The stand your ground law didn't decrease the amount of gun deaths, it increased the amount of criminals killed in gun deaths while decreasing the amount of law abiding citizens killed by criminals in gun deaths

  31. The UK's idea of what an "alt-right' man looks like sure is different from what the USA's idea is. All of those piercings would make us think either Left or Libertarian. The speaker in this video would've done better to have pointed out the stupidity that the "alt-right" does. in America, the NSA crap that linits freedom and the fascism that strips citizens of freedoms are a few easy-to-see points. I would think those issues are similar in the UK and other European countries. To kiss the arse of either side is to think 'all or nothing' which is rarely the case in ANY aspect of life.

  32. The FBI has zero evidence 12 Russians attempt at influencing US elections, are tied to their government. Yet we take it as fact.

  33. Every media outlet, regardless of political, religious, race based, or other, has always, and (sadly) will continue to skew the facts, making the facts "alternative facts". (aka, lies). In my opinion, it should be illegal to intentionally mislead the public, in any way, shape or form. But sadly, the media companies would call that alt (insert negative stereotype), against free speech. Free speech should never include misleading the public.

  34. You seem to constantly defend conservative tabloids and personalities, Be careful Thoughty2 your bias is showing. Will your next video be on how climate change is a hoax and god is definitely real?

    Notice how Jordan Peterson is the ONLY physiologist in the news lime light, where are his peers backing up his views?

    Regarding your wind turbine video, yes they do kill birds, however more birds are killed by cars, cats and people 100 fold. Wind is clean, cheap and abundant.

    Storage can easily be met with in home batteries or utility storage. Look into zinc-bromide flow batteries, or the liquid metal batteries.

    The tech in batteries follows the manufacturing curve not the mining curve. ( [The more you make the cheaper it becomes] Mining becomes more expensive as time goes on as the resource becomes increasingly harder to find and you have to dig deeper and expend more energy extracting the resource ie. oil Canadian tar sands, coal, uranium, and yes rare earth metals]) Also highlights why recycling existing materials is very important.

    The point is using the same thinking that got us into this mess, isn't going to get us out of it. – (Albert Einstein)

  35. Why did you say you did not know if the guys you listed were not alt-right but then proceeded to say that the documentation was not substantial? How would you know? Did I misunderstand? You seem to be sympathetic in your presentation even though this is only the second or third video of yours. And your assessment of Jordon Peterson by immediately declaring him to be moderate (using manipulative language). Then pointing out his "carefully and balanced". More manipulative language …because i have not watched the interview. Then set about considering her "outclass" and not "valiant" and her media is biased. You just did everything you objected too. WOW.

  36. Thoughty, are these the principle you;ve used to create your 'Renewable Energy is a Scam' video? https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA

  37. Reeeeeee, I'm triggered that you point these facts out. Also I've noticed an increase in the size of my three left nipples that seems to be directly related to the amount of propaganda I intake! Critics say I'm a crazy but don't listen to them, I have a graph that shows I'm not.

  38. They also seem to be influencing law making. Ather the news gos on and on about one small crime the government makes it a felony like the water throwing at nypd

  39. Also after a news paper told a story about Harvey Weinstein the news started showing sexual assault cases since the 70s on each news cast then everyone started acting like its 1st degree murder

  40. I’m from Colombia, what he said it’s 100% true! My grandma taught my mom that superstition and my mom tried to pass it on to me. I found it kind of stupid having to let the seat cool down just so I can sit, especially when buses get crowded.

  41. Please…..Peterson is intellectually outclassed by an insect. You also pronounced preface incorrectly. Whilst this is interesting I noticed you didn't mention how right wing outlets like the Mail do this also.

  42. My motto has always been, "consider the source" and it most often pays dividends. Great stuff, keep producing these wonderful videos.

  43. I was actually looking through Wikipedia, and noticed some inconsistencies in word choice that suggested political bias. When searching up misogyny, for example, the title for the segment of frequent concerns by detractors of the concept was called “criticism,” but misandry brought up “asymmetry with misogyny.” Now, I’m not going to debate the accuracy of these claims, but one comes across as strictly factual, while the other seems subjective, making both seem subjective in a biased manner (unless you’re using these articles as a means of confirmation bias). I feel like word choice often can play a key part in media misdirection as well, if anything is to be taken away from this

    EDIT: he actually brought it up.

  44. We had to watch News and sum it up for Homework, and now we found out that's just a complete waste of time and effort.

  45. "Follow the money" that'll give you the answer to pretty much anything to you want to learn about the modern world

  46. Some critics allege the news lies to you?

    I get tired of people point out the pointless. The whole scheme of things works because people are too lazy to really research anything, and as long as that is the case (will be for the foreseeable future), it will not change. Sure, it can be mitigated, and rephrased, or just rearranged into something more complex, but it's ALWAYS going to be the case that the mass majority of people scan the headlines, and go about their day on incomplete information, feed to them by whatever source makes them feel most comfortable with who they already are. Such biases are even present here, in this video.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *