Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eupolemos | Hacker News Reader

> The real problem isn’t fake news; it’s that people have given up on that search for truth.

This is where it almost gets profound. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt pointed out, in his "On Bullshit", that the greatest danger isn't lack of truth or even direct falsehoods - it is when we give up searching for truth, or don't care about speaking truthfully. I.e. Bullshit.

However, whatever the people can do to demand rigour and educate themselves on the matters, pales next to a media trying to hold itself to standards. When the media gives up, we are in dire straits indeed, if not utterly lost.

Where I am from in Europe, we have pretty good media standards. But at least one of our biggest newspapers is actively working to muddle the waters for a party.

Without being any kind of expert, other nations do not seem so well off.

View on HN

Those who’re spinning this narrative definitely don’t want the public to be immunized against all propaganda. They just want to be in control of the propaganda machine.

There is a difference between editorial bent and journalistic integrity on the news side.

Members of my family were on the wrong side of an editorial board 30 years ago. The reporters didn’t report anything that wasn’t true, but the editors chose to publish certain stories and editorials at times that were helpful to some and hurtful to others.

The difference today is that news organizations are using propaganda blogs or worse first person tweets as content. That’s Trump’s secret — his stream of consciousness drives the news.

There is the Western media mindset which is as brain-washed in its own special way as the craziest of religious cults. Most of the official government history is a lie, it has been one big fight for oil and other resources, not this 'war against terror' or whatever the clown in chief says.

To escape the Western media mindset usually involves being brain washed with something else. Or living in a country where the truth does not match the reality on the ground. For instance, Syria, people that live there know that what all is told on the news on the television in the West is utter rubbish written and presented by people who have made up minds and don't care.

The Western media mindset is cunning in that the better educated people that read broadsheet newspapers have indoctrinated themselves further into it, even if they think of themselves as being the educated, questioning one.

Most people do not have the capability to appreciate the criminality that has gone on in Washington, London and elsewhere over the years. So this criminality goes on and the Western democracies exist in their special lawless way, preparing for war and actively beating up the world for profit.

The funniest bullshit is the 'al-qaeda' nonsense. Not one person has ever met an al-qaeda person even if dead people in brown parts of the world are obviously al-qaeda. In previous wars you at least knew the enemy existed, now it is just fake news that you have to believe, on the Koolaid.

So we are just dancing puppets. Well, look at all these presidents, who didnt like the vietnam protest muppet show. Why does such a event never occur in all those other free countrys?

Why was there never a reported protest against fake news in Syria, in china, in the Caliphate, in Russia?

The problem is that other countrys use the public debate and free media as attack vector- and in a very subtle way undermine democracy. Its not that free markets and free speech would undermine dictatorships, quite the other way around.

PS: You are free to draft and propose a better democratic system and public debate concept.

> Most people do not have the capability to appreciate the criminality that has gone on in Washington, London and elsewhere over the years. So this criminality goes on and the Western democracies exist in their special lawless way, preparing for war and actively beating up the world for profit.

The problem is that the idea of law is one of the Western definition. Unless I'm not aware of something, it is almost certainly (domestically) lawful for Washington to act in a way that allows for expansionist and imperialist policies. Whether it is a good idea in the long term (winning hearts and minds) is another debate to be had.

> The funniest bullshit is the 'al-qaeda' nonsense. Not one person has ever met an al-qaeda person even if dead people in brown parts of the world are obviously al-qaeda. In previous wars you at least knew the enemy existed, now it is just fake news that you have to believe, on the Koolaid.

I'm really not sure if I have understood you correctly. I'm inclined to believe Al-qaeda was a thing. Whether it was an existential threat the the US is certainly questionable and whether the military response was therefore justified is certainly questionable, especially given that they have so far included four of the six countries listed in Rebuilding America's Defences [0]. I am inclined to agree there was a degree of dehumanisation of the civilian casualties of the ensuing wars that had at least the undertones of racism.

[0] Rebuilding America's Defences was a 2000 publication by "The Project for the New American Century." It contains a a list of countries the think tank argued the USA should invade, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea. Afghanistan was mentioned as a training ground for terrorism. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmeri...

Your only knowledge of the existence of 'al-qaeda' is from what the people that brief the news men have chosen to tell you. For instance, there was a stand off between India and Pakistan during the glory days of The War Against Terror where it was alleged that there was 'al-qaeda' in between the two countries causing the trouble and that Uncle Sam could fix it. Obviously there were also the fake terror warnings where it could be red or orange depending on what random rubbish had been told to the media that day. Then there are independence movements in Africa where it is too complicated so 'al-qaeda' gets 'affiliated' so the story is explained that way. Then there is the actual creation myth of 'al-qaeda', wasn't it made up on the testimony of one unreliable witness in a New York court room? Wasn't there motive for inventing 'al-qaeda' in trying to prosecute Osama bin Laden under RICO laws, for which some organisation needed to be invented? Or did I imagine that?

I think you need to be checking primary sources for this 'al-qaeda' and doing some checking of facts, 'inclined to believe' is fine if it is a religion, but history is not a religion.

I had no idea this was contentious, but it really does seem it is. Robin Cook, a former UK Minister who I had immense respect for due to his stepping down over the invasion of Iraq, had this to say shortly before his death:

> Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. [0]

As you imply you know of some, could you give some pointers for primary sources surrounding this?

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

The younger generation of the left is all-in on postmodernist philosophy. They’ll happily tell you that the concept of objective reality was fabricated as a tool of the patriarchy. This is the right direction to look in to understand what’s going on - valuing the truth for its own sake is an antiquated notion. Now facts are simply instruments of power, to be deployed when useful.

I hope to see a resurgence in my parents’ brand of liberalism, but it isn’t going to come from my politically active college classmates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com