Tuesday, July 11, 2017

MLM and Sources of Information (MSM Part 4)

Today's blog post is about the sources people choose to cite when writing about a topic. Sources are extremely important because they can make or break the validity of an article. In recent events we have seen a rise in "anonymous sources", and these "anonymous sources" seem to have perfect information when it comes to fulfilling a particular news network's agenda. The most notable, and controversial, current news organization to get into trouble with "anonymous sources" is CNN as they have been using these sources to continue their Trump and Russia narrative. Unfortunately, it would seem the New York Times (NYT) has taken a page out of the CNN handbook and has also started their own "anonymous sourcing" to push a different Trump and Russia narrative involving his son, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. Even though every named source, including Trump Jr. and the lawyer have evidence to suggest this isn't a collusion story, the NYT seems to have found three "anonymous sources" that say otherwise. At this point, as long as these organizations say their information came from an "anonymous source", it may as well be fiction.

This shameful tactic of using "anonymous sources" to further their agenda against Trump isn't working, as CNN has dropped to last place in cable news and the NYT has been hemorrhaging money for years. In fact, the NYT just had a staged walkout because they were threatening to cut their editorial staff in half. And yet these organizations continue to falsify this narrative, because their agenda seems to be more important. Both CNN and the NYT had previously been considered two excellent sources for news, and in a short time, they have destroyed their reputations and joined the ranks of Buzzfeed and TMZ.

CNN has also tried to play both sides of the fence on this situation. While they get most of their anti-Trump and anti-Russia narrative from "anonymous sources", they also claim that people do not have a right, but rather a privilege, to be anonymous (which is incorrect) in the case of "HanAssholeSolo" and his clip featuring Trump slamming the CNN logo into the ground from a wrestling segment. CNN claimed that the person cannot be anonymous because they created a threat against CNN's employees, and yet their constant anti-Trump "news" that is fueled by "anonymous sources" is allowed to go unfiltered because they are supposed to have credibility. On top of this, the only reason CNN had an issue with the clip is that Trump had retweeted it. Had Trump not put the clip on his Twitter, then the clip probably wouldn't have been noticed. Below is a short clip explaining the hypocrisy.

This is also common place from MLMers as they regularly practice the distribution of misinformation. MLMers talk about fake or inaccurate statistics and bad analogies, and if they are confronted about these statistics or analogies, then they will either utilize a propaganda source or will leave the source "anonymous" as they disappear. MLMers do not care about the source of the information they are espousing, and as long as the information fits their narrative, then they will discount any other sources that may disprove their story. This is important because it allows the information creator to have complete control over the people receiving the information. Making sure a source is credible is as important as the information itself. If a person chooses not to check the source, then they are voluntarily giving up their right to accurate information.

MLMers emphasize obedience and an unquestioning loyalty because they are selling a scheme, and there is lots of information available to prove MLM doesn't work. They do not want people to search the internet for other perspectives, and they do not want people to check the validity of the information they are given. It is imperative to question everything, look objectively, and understand why the source is giving the information. Only after those criterion are met, can a person make an informed decision. 

No comments:

Post a Comment