Why Can't We Trust the Media? (AKA Propaganda) || Peter Zeihan
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Before I answer the question about what news sources I use, we must understand how our society became so uninformed...
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zei...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the RUclips Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#msm #media #propaganda
"If you don't read the paper, you are uninformed. If you do read the paper, you are misinformed" -Mark Twain
brilliant
A civ fan I see.
“If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”
-also Mark Twain haha
Just because Mark Twain was a well-regarded writer does not mean his insights into public discourse and information dissemination hold any greater validity. Very similarly, you could look at someone like Morgan Freeman, who said the best way to stop racism is just to not talk about it. Him being black and famous does not imbue him with added validity on matters of race. Insight cannot be gleamed from catchy quotes of celebrities.
Nice 😂
My tagline for 15 years has stayed the same: when news is for profit, reality is for sale.
To a degree, I agree with you. But the flip side of that coin is also true. If you are getting your news for free, you're probably getting that for which you paid.
Maybe if we let the government do all the news the people will be better off? Let’s ask China how that’s working for them
That's true but a not for profit media would still be corrupt. It will just happen with a different kind of currency.
@@larryclemens1850 not for free, tax funded and independently audited. You need to pay for essential services. A fire department that is paid for their service on a by-fire basis is bad news. What this really means us that we as a society did not understand the value of an independent press, and we are paying the price because of it. Markets serve in investers, not customers.
That's a beauty!
A thing to ask yourself while watching the news: Out of all the stories they could have presented why did they choose this one?
If you’re really good at one certain thing watch a news story on it and you’ll quickly realize to be skeptical about every news story you hear going forward. 😅
Agreed!!! And right afterwards, we believe the next story that covers something we aren't familiar with. It's called the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. I wish everyone knew about it! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect
If it bleeds, it leads...
This is true. If you're an expert on a subject and you see MSM reporting on your subject of expertise, you will be shocked by how much they get wrong and how little they get right. They easily come to conclusions that are the opposite of the truth.
Yet as soon as they start talking about a subject you're not an expert on, then the BS sounds perfectly reasonable and informative, and you will walk away feeling informed. Yet what really makes you think that the people who got it all wrong on the one subject you really understand got it all right on the subjects you don't?
Yes.
I have said exactly the same myself, and years ago.
Also which they chose not to cover
My issue with media comes from personal experience in which it not only got the story wrong, they published the opposite of the facts. When offered information to demonstrate that what they had published was inaccurate they refused to respond. And it wasn't even a controversial issue, they just didn't want to accept correction.
Recently submitted a letter to the editor to a local paper which directly refutes their guest column, with evidence. Of course they simply didn't publish my letter even though it would be buried with all the other letters and they promise to publish all reasonable letters on their site. They have a narrative to push, can't have the truth in the way.
What is "the media?"
Can you be more specific. There is no way you have spoken to every TV station, Newspaper, cable news services and other sources of news. So your criticism is meaningless.
Give specific details of your story: Who specifically did you speak to (organization name & reporter). What was it about? ie the topic and be precise. When did it happen? ( date and time). Where did this happen ( location: city, state if USA otherwise equivalent for other countries). Why -
You answers should be factual -facts are necessary to include for a report to be considered complete. Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no.
Otherwise you complain about the “media” is meaningless because all you did was give a biased opinion with nothing rooted in facts.
I worked for a major newspaper in the mid-80s, and it was literally print to fit. Advertising was the priority. I was on hand every shift and watched editors take out lines that would completely change the real meaning of the story.
Very sad for America
I was a paperboy in the mid seventies. I see no paperboys today.
@@daniellarson3068 they still make papers?
Yeah this is not a new phenomenon
When I was an editor, I ruthlessly enforced the wall of separation between editorial and advertising. I never edited an article to be more favorable to any advertiser, and I got several people in ad sales either written up or fired for demanding we write articles promoting or advertisers.
People in ad sales are con artists - and they should be. What better way to sucker advertisers into shelling out money for advertising. However, that also meant I had to be very vigilant to make sure they stayed out of the newsroom.
The sad thing is people no longer want to be informed of anything that conflicts with their preconceptions and viewpoint. This is why both media on the left and right constantly churn with news pieces to keep their audience constantly outraged at the other side. It is good for their business, but corrosive to society and contributes greatly to the extreme polarization in our country.
That's true, but copping to is to be overloaded with fault
Americans generally don't hold both sides to the same standards.
I want to be here both sides wither I agree or not. How else would I make the best decision moving forward?
But it seems to start with "We won't entertain a debate with X,Y, or Z... Because they are clearly wrong!". That's the problem Debates. Real Debates. But the people in power do NOT WANT the other side to have a voice. Every Climate Model has been proven erroneous, and over estimating the heating of the planet. But we STILL can't debate them. Without debates on topics, how are we ever supposed to hear good and bad arguments? But once you ALLOW debates... It's hard to push Agendas that cannot survive the debates.
It's the catch-22 of competitive free for-profit news media. People don't want to read things they don't like or that is boring. Unfortunately most of life is bad news and boring news that is still significant. The catch-22 is that with a free press that is profit driven and competing for people's views is that since people don't want to read boring things, then it becomes a race to the bottom of attracting viewers.
The news media isn't just competing for views/clicks but also for investor dollars. And if another outfit is willing to be dishonest and siphons away your viewers by being sensationalist or catering, then your outfit really has no choice but to do the same. The alternative is having state controlled media which can't be considered free and unfettered.
So we have to choose between free and competing dishonestly, or state owned and interfered with by the state. If anyone has a solution to this problem, then you can probably save the human race from itself.
I don't want to be given a story and instructed on how to feel about it - I just want to be told the truth, and make up my own damn opinions.
As they say - "If you don't read the news you're uninformed - if you do read the news, you're misinformed."
How would you know whats the truth? Most people just accept what makes them feel better.
Watch a few contributors and the habitual liars soon turn up.
Peter is great but I resent his attitude towards NewsMax and by omission Epoch Times.
His attitude towards the new Twitter X is very telling. Musk is not perfect by any means but he has removed the extreme Leftist/Woke bias of the old Twitter. That can only be a good thing.
Swap out the word "facts" for "truth" in your first sentence, and it's a more plausible request.
The word truth is overly charged with connotations.
Zeihan has always held a hard left-authoritarian bias, and has long since stopped caring about hiding it. So everything he says that relates to politics specifically, rather than economics, has to be looked at through that lens.@@davidelliott5843
Newsmax and epic Epoch are neither factual nor editorially independent…. Echo chamber caliber gobbledygook propaganda produced to manipulate and exploit the low intellect, sans critical thinking skills, of the aging and paranoid Merican electorate
As a Canadian I can also confirm our news is crap. Go outside the country as Peter suggested for somewhat decent coverage of what is happening in Canada and elsewhere.
Totally agree. “News” is heavily opinionated and biased. Peter Z better watch out. CBC might cancel him.
You dont have to think, little Fidelito will tell you what is STATE approved reality for you.
State funded CBC. What could go wrong?? 🤫🤫🤫🤣🤣🤣🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Defund the CBC.
I just shared this clip in a Reddit sub that I'm not banned in. Sadly too many Canadians think it's perfectly reasonable to tax hyperlinks.
@@misterserious3522
Sez you. Have another shot of your Kool-Aid. How's life in Redland?
Peter is pretty well informed for a homeless guy.
he doesnt even know what X is! how informed can he be
If I had money I would never stay home either unless to rest.
@@richardyu5283 I think you missed the joke. The smirking and sarcastic intonation when he said “Twitter” gives it away. “Everyone” is till calling Twitter “Twitter”. Translated: “Everyone” is still calling X “Twitter”.
@@WillieBloomcould just be me but I thought both were jokes. Who uses twitter to inform themselves about the world and geopolitics?
@@rexplorer.officialpeople who want info sooner than the people on RUclips, I guess?
Years ago I read about a study of journalism majors. The #1 reason students wanted to be journalists was because they wanted to "change things." You'd think they'd want to better inform the public, but no - these young people had a superior vision of what the world should be like, and they were intent on making it happen. That study totally changed how I viewed the media.
Maybe the study was biased.
Man, i was one of those majors. We did want to change things. Specifically how the media worked. We wanted to get into positions where we could influence the media to cover actual news instead of the constant stream of dirty laundry and puff pieces.
Depending on your moral compass,..wanting to "change things" is either a welcome concept or a threatening one!
If you define "better informed public" as the type of mindless dribble Fox News feeds its army of angry baby boomers then that definition doesn't work either
There are also catalyzing factors which exacerbate the bias we all see in modern media (regardless of political beliefs).
Clicks and other "engagement" metrics (like view time for visual media) are the yardstick by which advertisers evaluate where to spend.
Drama and extreme views score highest on that "engagement".
Like it or not, the polarization of media reveals a flaw in human nature - we feel compelled to investigate possible dangers, whether it be physical or societal danger.
So, pile editorial willingness to exaggerate on top of the explosion of media sources people have to select from...and you get our modern shitstorm of biased information catering to their rabid target audiences.
I think once most of us realized exactly how hard it is to "change things", especially if you are not stacked with cash, then we just went into career survival mode and dropped into the consumer mindset.
I was in Annapolis once back during the Obama administration, while there was a huge protest taking place there with probably 2,000 people at least (they were against some legislation being voted on in the state legislature). I watched a news crew doing a street interview right around the corner from the protesters showing one lone wacky guy protesting against Obama. The wacky guy interview made it on that night’s local news broadcast. There was absolutely zero mention of the other, huge protest going on. That moment was a real eye-opener for me, concerning how the media dishes out only what they want people to see, and how they want issues portrayed.
turns out the whacky guy was right. obama is bad juju for america, and for chefs.
CNN no doubt….
First time I heard someone say what I’ve been telling people for the last 2 decades.
I’m 71 and in HS my favorite subject was history - and my favorite teacher was a tough old lady ( probably 50 LOL , from the perspective of a 16 yr old ) who required us to read the news from 5 major newspapers per week …. Our NJ state paper, the NYTIMES, the LA paper, the Atlanta paper and the Chicago tribune. Our school library had subscriptions to these. She tell us the topics she wanted followed weekly and the librarian would make copies of those stories from each paper which we all had to read . At the end of the week we had to report on the week’s news and she gave extra points if we could point out which paper(s) had small twists or different perspectives on or anything that stood out from the others.
Seemed like a pain at the time but it did teach us that some papers were better than others- some gave more details and some might even give a back story as to why it happened etc.
Which looking at the thinned down papers & news shows today - lack of competent & competing editorial boards & editors -. Just means lots of facts etc fall by the wayside.
Which if unbiased news is the 4th branch of government ( leading to an educated, intelligent voter decision) -- we as a country are totally screwed !!!!
Next to Fox News which spent 25+ yrs dividing the electorate against each other ( Liberal/ Conservative are terms that now as damaging to be known by as Communist/ Fascist were in the 1930-40s ) …. And Facebook in 2016 opened the door to extensive foreign interference in our elections and Congress is near helpless in its fumbling to correct it …
I’m fact there is nothing more embarrassing to watch than having our uninformed and in many cases aged Congressmen/ women try and query Zuckerberg, etc
For one, news reporting across the board is divisive.
Secondly, every foreign policy mistake that's been made in your lifetime has been initially popular due to the media's coverage. This is because the mainstream outlets are captured by the U.S. government.
Thirdly, the " foreign interference" was soldto the extreme. People didn't vote for Hilary because she did nothing of value in her political career. You need to update your programming.
“And Facebook in 2016 opened the door to extensive foreign interference in our elections and Congress is near helpless in its fumbling to correct it …acebook in 2016 opened the door to extensive foreign interference in our elections and Congress is near helpless in its fumbling to correct it …” You are too credulous because you repeat the oft repeated claim of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Analysis shows that tossing a $100,000 into a US national election in social media cannot buy even Indy influence on the vote. Thus, by implication you’ve repeated The Biggest Lies about Trump - that Russia bought his Presidency. Shame on you. It The Biggest Lie of his term in office.
This is why we are watching you to get an independent information/view. Also, absolutely confirming Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the rest of Canadian media are total corrupted mess. State is giving them taxpayer money so they'll say whatever state demands
Have you figured out yet that Peter is also propoganda? Your mind will be blown...
Prove it. If u can't do that stfu eh.
@@M8Stealthit's opinion editorialism, using propaganda to describe this is like saying a coworker with an opinion is propaganda, it destroys the meaning of the word to the point it loses its specificity, then you become dumb.
@@whatdawhatda9272Yea i wish he would take more confrontational interviews or debate but at least he's good on most things and not a retard like 99% of people and youtubers
CTV - Bell
CBC - government funded
Global/city tv - Rogers
This is the problem. The government and the oligopoly are controlling our news.
The fall of media can be seen in the schools that teach the journalists. They are taught about the impact the media has so most journalists care more about the impact they have instead of the actual truth of their statements. Combine with a general contempt for uneducated normal people and the media is the fourth branch of government and you vet what we have today.
Look up the new York Times during the 1950s, they were completely objective. The issue is people protested objectivity during the late 1960s because they said it didn't change the world for the better as there was no fighting against injustice in those publications, as there were no opinions written in them.
@@Dimitri88888888Sounds like a progressive push. Good find.
Its ridiculous how anyone could make the argument that objectivity is bad. I am still baffled that this has happened.@@exquisitedoomlapointe185
My father built printing presses, so I paid attention to media since the 60’s
Edwin Bernays book PROPOGANDA really molded journalism schools’ curriculum.
I noticed Peter Zeitgeist omitted LIBERAL MEDIA (cursorily mentioned all the drug ads. Come ON!)
Nobody trusts liberal media. 11% is almost nada.
And trashing Fox? The ONLY voice for conservatives?
Cut the crap Pedro.
(And cut the “mountain climber shtick”. It’s OLD now)
I mean that objectivity started in the 1920s, reactions to Mccarthy put a change in that attempt of objectivity in the 1960s.
As a Canadian I can confirm our news is awful 😂
Naah... Trudeau is such a honest and reliable "head of state" guy. It would never cross my mind he is letting media and Tv show "fake news" 🤣🤣
Truth. It's embarrassing.
I almost believed in the relative integrity of the CBC until the Trucker Occupation… when it became disappointingly clear that all of our news outlets were biased.
Taxpayer covid relief funds were used to bribe practically every outlet if they followed the party line.I think rebel news was the only one to refuse.
The hockey coverage has remained its standards. There was that incident with the guy with the 6” shirt collars, though.
What I've learned is to stop listening to reporters trying to quickly break a story, start listening to people who take their time to research a subject before covering it, and make long-form content every week or so rather than every day. Perun, for example, has done an outstanding job covering the war in Ukraine and defense generally.
Absolutely correct.
Agreed, and I second the Perun recommendation. The "Ukraine the latest" podcast by the Telegraph is worth listening to as well. Unfortunately they do try to cover breaking news, so it's not as well researched, but they do have moments.
Perun is awesome… love his channel… he may be a week late on braking events but you can trust what he’s saying… love it
Perun is incredible.
I've watched literally every video he's made on the Ukraine conflict. I have spent many hundreds, if not thousands of hours researching the Ukraine conflict from many different sources, and I believe Perun is arguably THE best creator on RUclips (or anywhere else!) for military economics.
Nuance is necessary, and we need journalists/educators who are willing to avoid sensationalism for profit.
If only there were Perun clones covering local news. This is another issue with the modern media landscape is many small stories are not covered. School boards, city boards, county committees, and state legislative sessions used to have a reporter if not multiple attending and it kept the general public informed about everything. Unfortunately after the internet revolution we decided (as in corporate America) that was no longer important because far too often those local reporters were invaluable resources for those pesky investigative reporters. Those reporters really hurt the shareholders and we can't be having that.
At 71 I watched all this happen. Journalism schools used to be about fact finding and who what where. Now there is a "narrative" and "journalists" cherry pick facts to fit it.
I agree that the for profit news ended any drive to report investigative journalism. News rooms were all supported financially by other entertainment. No more. Thanks Peter.
Ridiculous, prove it
Peter: remembers immense data, figures, facts, and dates about a vast number of complex geopolitical forces and distills to his audience in a manner both informative and entertaining.
Also Peter: “where am I?”
NEVER change Pete!
TBF he probably reviews the data before making a video to get a refresher. But still, very knowledgeable.
He was joking of course. He ALWAYS knows where he's at...it's just a little showmanship.
@@InglouriousBradsterdof course…still humorous though
Teleportation is discombobulating, as demonstrated at 3:17.... "where was I?"
Being above 12000 ft elevation can do things to your mental abilities.
Former broadcast journalist here… 🙋🏽♂️… he’s pretty much spot on with how news/fact checking has disintegrated (and yes, it started in the 80’s) into a puddle of who’s first as opposed to who’s accurate… second, he’s right about it being largely opinion based, but I’d add in personality driven… very disappointing because I’d rather be given the (irrefutable) facts and make up my own mind as opposed to being spoon fed someone else’s “opinion” about “opinionated” facts… 🥃
Considering that there is a limitless number of true facts accumulating all the time, I would say that a news agency can, using only true facts, push virtually any narrative, by selecting the facts that they wish to present during the 30 minute evening news (20 minutes after you subtract out advertising time)
@@larrym2434 That’s not journalism… journalism is/was fact checking - not just via one source, but multiple sources who could/would confirm - and sometimes even by denying that a story was accurate/true… further, you wouldn’t want to face your editor or producer with a story you half-assed and there were additional facts you left out (or didn’t bother to confirm). You’d be fired on the spot… but point made… any broadcast network can manipulate the facts as they wish. The point was they didn’t do it back then.
The problem is that the list of truly irrefutable facts starts and ends with "I think, therefore I am."
@@Yogsothoth85 😂😂😂… In journalism it starts with “who else can confirm this…” and ends with “can you confirm the following”… lol
@@CycoWarriorx Another way it can happen is by choosing what to report or not report. So, any given story can be factually reported, but it draws the viewers' attention away from other stories that remain completely unreported. This is more common than factually incorrect reporting.
Incredible, straight to the point, no holds barred analysis.
While I was active duty and informed about what was going on in the wars I was involved with, I noticed that if I read a news article, the best strategy for getting the "truth" out of an article was to imagine something as opposite as possible to what was being reported.
It's been shown in studies that the more mainstream news a person consumes on a specific topic the less accurate they get when their knowledge of reality is tested. Proper academic studies
I had a friend who worked with CEOs and other top executives - it was his frequent experience that was true for them as well.
Peter, it's more than that. During the 20th century, there was an ethos, taught in journalism schools, that it was the job of a journalist to report "all sides." This meant that reporters were expected to actually seek out multiple points of view and that stories were supposed to acknowledge dissent.
This standard wasn't always applied very well, but it at least existed, and there was a mutual expectation between journalists and consumers of news media that mainstream publications would try to be balanced and fair. When it was revealed that Dan Rather was doing sloppy journalism in order to "get" George Bush, that was considered a scandal because that's not what the public expected professional journalists to do.
Sometime in the 1980s, this ethic started to be viewed by a lot of elites as both quaint and problematic. The very notion of "objective" truth was rejected by post-modernists, and journos in many institutions were taught that they should be "authentic" instead of "objective."
Add to this the splintering of the media landscape, where we went from 3 major networks and 1-2 big papers in every city to hundreds of cable channels and eventually, hundreds and then thousands of "news" web sites. Consumers could now seek out news that was presented in the way that *felt* best to them, and all of these competing outlets had a major incentive to give people slanted news. Not just because they were ideologically biased themselves but because commercial success came to outlets that were more biased.
All of that said, American journalism has always been flawed. Walter Duranty and the New York times won a Pulitzer for reporting Stalin's propaganda chapter and verse and absolutely smearing, burying, or discrediting anyone who tried to tell the truth about the famine and genocide that occurred after the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. The New York Times still proudly takes credit for the Pulitzer even though it has acknowledged that his reporting was "misleading."
good summary of the problem. I like that OMG is sending citizen journalists into the fray with hidden video cameras to uncover local corruption. Since the immunity deal for hunter biden was in the non-reviewable gun diversion agreement; has he now lost his 5th amendment rights over the crimes for which he has immunity, and can he now be forced to testify against Joe, Jim, and Jill?
Excellent comment. Thanks.
That is plausible, but you fail to mention groupthink in newsrooms that purge dissenting views and the growing arrogance of elites who believe they need to tell you what to think rather than trying to present facts in a neutral manner and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. You are right about local news.
Peter cannot acknowledge that as he has former ties to the Stratford group (a contractor for the CIA) which still restricts him from criticizing the actual deep state apparatus pulling the media.
It isn't "groupthink " that's creating news bias its corporate greed !
The "elitists" don't give a rats ass what the common folks think one way or the other because they've got the financial resources to out maneuver any standard bull or bear market and invest in what ever way maximizes their profits.
The "newsrooms" your referring to aren't really "newsrooms" there entertainment committees whom maximize profits by providing that ever versions of "outrage culture " is most profitable to the demographic they are targeting
What an incredibly important topic, and I'm so glad you covered it. The last ten years as news coverage has shrunk so dramatically, I feel almost a sense of disorientation and gaslighting. Glad to hear of some other resources!
Welcome to the post truth dystopia
There are some people who STILL think there are WMDs in Iraq...
Peter, as a longterm resident of CO your videos always make a bit homesick, and remind me of hiking trips of my own. So thanks for being us "on location."
I agree on Al Jazzrera. Their panels are actually informative.
Found France 24 for its Ukraine coverage and it is very good. Cannot believe how bad the BBC is now compared to 15 years ago when I did my PhD in the UK. A good example of what you are talking about.
Al Jazeera is the worst piece of Arab state propaganda. Coming from Qatar of all places (much worse than BBC). France24, on the other hand, seems pretty objective, unbiased and informative, even when it comes to news in France. I think the left usually lies by omission, while the right lies by commission (making things up).
The thing that really pisses me off about the BBC nowadays isn’t just the editorial agenda, that’s common everywhere, it’s the dumbing down of news that really makes it unwatchable for me. Naturally they are following the US model, they are way ahead of us…😂
It is funny, Al Jazzera used to be considered so biased. I can't tell if it is just the degradation of other news agencies or if they simply have improved. I do agree with Peter, they are useless when it comes to reporting in the Middle East, but otherwise they do a decent job.
I heard the UK now has average wages like Mississippi and housing prices like California.
The BBC has been 100%, extremist, antiwhite, leftist, trash for at least 12-15 years.
I'm unaware of anytime in US history where news outlets cared much about informing the populace with objective facts
Yeah they've always been trash. All over the world. The supposed letters written by Jack the Ripper were later proven to be a hoax by a journalist. Sabotage of a murder investigation was not beneath journalists 150 years ago. But we talk about the bygone era of responsible journalism. It never existed.
Walter Cronkite, maybe. Sadly, people want to watch the news that suits them and the objective ones go out of business.
That may well be true, depending on how young you might be. Believe it or not, there was a time when the media was rather trustworthy, human flaws aside. If you were born after, say, the 90's, then I don't blame you for thinking that they've never been honest, because for you they haven't.
That died with Benjamin Franklin.
yeah between political machinations and sheer ignorance it seems there never was a time where they disseminated trustworthy information
Being informed is a do-it-yourself project. The first and most important thing is to read many books on many different subjects. Then you get a good cross reference of knowledge. Once you learn enough science, you no longer trust anyone who says follow the science. The second thing is to travel, see, hear, and smell it for yourself. The third is listen to the locals in faraway places. The Internet is actually a huge help. In the early dark days, as it looked like the Russians were about to roll over the Ukrainians, a young woman in Kiev posted a picture of herself at a checkpoint holding a bouquet of roses. She explained that it was International Woman's day and that the soldiers manning the checkpoints were handing out flowers to women in all the cars they stopped. She took it to be a sweet gesture, something to cheer her up. Anyone with a read on history recognized that. These were men getting ready to fight and die for their country. That told me something none of the talking heads did, which was that the Russians were in for a hell of a fight
Science is no longer the same as when you and I attended University (I am making assumptions about your age). Science is no longer about discovery and the relentless pursuit of the truth. Science is now about digesting and regurgitating established narratives that have to be the correct narratives or you will lose funding/tenure very quickly.
"Once you learn enough science, you no longer trust anyone who says follow the science"??? Hmmmm, posing as an enlightened being, yet it seems most of your "wisdom" comes from conservative sources and that's a very dangerous, misleading thing.
@@ratbatnufftime2861I don't think you have much of a kick coming, Peter Zeihan is quite comfortable with the establishment. It's unfortunate, from my viewpoint not from yours, that he conflates President Trump's refrain of fake news with historical cults of personality, because the phenomenon of crying wolf is valid WHEN THERE IS A WOLF.
PP tapes is fake news. Russian collusion is fake news. Overfeeding koi is fake news. 51 Intelligence Community/Interagency Consensus luminaries 'pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor' to the effect that because of "earmarks" you didn't see what you saw on Hunter Biden's laptop. I haven't seen another document with equal publicity signed by the 51 saying they were wrong.
Fake news. Go ahead and say in 50 words what is said in those two, if it makes you feel better. Or something shorter and more Anglo-Saxon, produced by bulls among other animals? You know, Bovine Scatology?
The modern sense of honor in this respect seems to be the practice of whatever is legal is right, which has never really been the case.
The media, or parts of it, tell us what they want to tell us when they want to tell us. You don't have to go back as far as Walter Cronkite crying our defeat in Vietnam, let alone Walter Durante denying the Holodomor and getting a Pulitzer for it which the NYT will not relinquish to this day. The apocryphal " You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war " of William Randolph Hearst.
Anyone who has gone to college has been taught that the media manipulates the information space of the public. This should not be controversial, this is trite.
And specifically this now applies in what I would have to regard as the post Cold War era, wherein perhaps the news or its masters were, mostly, cowed into playing it relatively straight because of the existential threat.
Now there are no more enemies so we can screw around and play with fire without knowing that fire is hot.
@@ratbatnufftime2861 It was a great advice, regardless of your political preferences. Thesedays we hear terms like "scientific opinion", "scientific consensus" a lot. Learn enough about the scientific method (hypothetical conjecture -> isolated experiment -> empirical outcome) to understand that science is not a matter of opinion, regardless how many support such opinion. The phrase "scientifically proven" is one of the most misused in current circulation, to the point it is shorthand for "I don't know what I'm talking about, but here's my opinion anyway and I Googled a study that 'proves' it".
@@ratbatnufftime2861liberals have weaponized science. If your accusation is true, it’s still the correct way to go. Conservatives know how to govern and keep us strong. Liberals let criminals roam free and think they can tax all of our problems away. I’ll take conservatives, even the bad ones, 100 times out of 100 over a liberal. The ideology of the left will destroy us.
I totally agree with your ranking of Al Jazeera. Watching AJ is like being in a time machine: reports from around the world by locally resident journalists who are given the airtime to provide a deeper understanding of the issues they are reporting on. For mainstream media on the internet I do sometimes look at DW and France 24 but far more often, on certain topics like the war in Ukraine, I get my info from independent media and vloggers that I believe to be providing something close to the truth in their reports.
AJ English stole the senior BBC reporters and took them off the leashes. The only thing you're not going to get an unbiased opinion on is internal matters to Qatar which makes up an insignificant portion of what I'm interested in.
I'd love to see Zeihan talk about "Prestige media" like the New York Times or Washington Post, and their failures and problems over the past decades and currently.
Both of these publication WERE ONCE well respected for their unbiased reporting.
@factchecker1980 they were never unbiased. They were able to hide it better because they were effectively the only game in town.
@@TheCharlaton No news is ever unbiased. But there's a difference between the natural biases we all have seeping through, and just outright riding a political party's D like they're paying your tuition.
People love news they agree with…you are not alone.
He won’t because He IS Prestige Media. Notice how he is immediately blaming the failings of modern journalism on US, the general I’ll informed populace “who are being mislead by single strong voiced politicians” yeah f’ing Bullshit Pete. Spend an hour watching CNN, MSNBC or even Foxnews, or read one issue of the New York Times or WaPo and you’ll see where the real problem lies. It’s in Single Party Control of the Media. And guess what Pete! It’s your Party.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
-George Orwell, "1984"
People don't want the truth. They just want what makes them feel better.
Truth for me is informative and positive. Not negative. If it's negative then it's opposition talking
And this is how authoritarianism rises unfortunately...
@@johndoe-vc1we what if the truth is not positive news? Would you rather hear lies?
@@aruak321 in my experience 9/10 times the negative news is lies
@@johndoe-vc1we that definitely not true. Positivity or negativity of the news has no bearing on the truthfulness. The sensationalism of the news maybe though.
The media is almost entirely worthless- which is why alternatives are becoming so powerful, I get 90+% of my news from podcasts. Long form conversations are so much more interesting and thorough
Any recommendations on podcasts?
problem is the alternatives are just as bad or worse than MSM... I've seen folks hold up Newsmax as a credible source for news... wtf LOL
Yes, even more opinion is what we need.
Please note, podcasts and one man show news sources are not immune to the same corrupting forces as establishment media. Not only that, they have their own unique factors that can cause poor information quality. For example, Joe Rogan is an absolute moron, by his own admission, and objectively. Peter going on his program is not the same as some crackpot pseudoscientist, yet they are presented in the same light.
Establishment media is also not automatically 100% invalid just because it's establishment media. Sure, it has degraded over time, but that does not make literally everything they say a lie or misinformation. This is a reductive view.
"A man who tells the truth will shortly be the most hated," nothing will change without knowing all the facts and all on the tables of decision makers.
Who said that?
Donald Trump
Plato
It's great to hear your opinion on Canadian news. Very refreshing to hear an outsiders opinion.
I taught media studies based primarily on Marshal McLuhan at university in the 70s and 80s and I always played an Eagles song with line “It’s the same old murder movie, they just call it the news.” McLuhan observed that the content of new media are typically an older medium. So early motion pictures were filmed plays, and early TV was mostly movies. But what is less obvious is that all those different forms are forms of drama. So they depend on the dramatic manipulation of emotions to grab and hold attention. Thanks for the tips on best news outlets.
in what way would news be best conveyed so that they are not inherently dramatized?
@@theshark4120 Raze journalism faculties to the ground.
@@theshark4120The main problem I see is that now adays many channels and sites jump on sensationalized headlines or good sounding stories, instead of investing in legitimate journalism and having a journalist physically go somewhere or do research to develop a useful summary which would bring value to the reader. But the incentive for profit has made it so companies priorities raw viewing numbers over quality of content
I'm Canadian and watched or listened to the CBC for over 40 years but over the last few years I had to give it up. I can't stand identity politics, so devisive and toxic. I'm always looking for good journalism!
I like how he says Twitter is bad now.
Like it wasnt a cesspool of misinformation before Elon bought it
This video is like CNN telling everyone the rest of the world is full of propaganda but not CNN, you can trust us.
He doesn’t mention CNN for a reason
Exactly, shifting the propaganda machine from one side to the other.
As a Canadian, it is quite disheartening to hear that we are the worst. Truly saddening and only to get worse with the government’s recent actions.
Haha! The Conservatives want to shut them down completely, so maybe CBC Liberal love is survival strategy? They adopted the CNN entertainment model about 10-15 years ago and have been crappy ever since. Radio is a bit better.
CBC's content is decided by the government, they have a board that does content curation.
I've read English news from all the major English speaking countries. Unfortunately, Canada's is far and away the worse.
I would say the Globe&Mail is solid still. The post is owned by a NJ hedge fund and just spews trash opinion pieces same with the Sun. TorStar is sliding now as well. LaPresse is solid as well if you are in QC
Hi there doc! I didn't know that the not your everyday Ortho was also a fan of Mr. Zeihan.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
Especially when Twitter and Facebook are a thing.
Twain? It has to be......
Anymore the truth is beat to death on the floor.. no chance its ever getting out the house.
I don't normally comment because it just gets lost in the abyss but I feel like you neglected how bad CNN has gotten. I'm really not super partisan but they consistently run opinion pieces as if it's objective journalism and they're one of the biggest major news media outlets to do it. Agree with what you said and it' spot on, really appreciate the content.
Another issue, so many news pieces are all from one source (usually reuter's) so much for multiple sources or fact checking...
A major factor behind the decline in media quality is that the rise of Internet advertising has greatly reduced the advertising revenue of other media, in particular newspapers. That's been a major driver of staff reductions (and therefore quality).
It also has sped up the spread of information, largely reducing the need for televised media. Knowing that the lazier, less educated people are the ones most likely to rely on TV for news, the elites in government and media take advantage of it.
I'd disagree, I think the cost cutting would have happened regardless of budget declines, just maybe not at the same speed
More staff = lower quality
😮Duh!
@@nightpups5835- no logic, no facts, Know Nothing. Blah blah, fake noise with no point.
Woke colleges collapsed reporting.
The more things change the more they stay the same. I remember before the internet, in the late 80s, my father would read foreign newspapers to get a better perspective on things.
I'm smart enough to know propaganda when I hear it. I hear it a lot from you.
As an american I watch all foreign news. French 24, DW News, and almost anything but american news. Also long form discussions where people dont shout about bullshit for 30 minutes.
I do as well but remember your just watching there propaganda as well. I watch Breaking points and I wish I knew an equal in Germany and India.
Lets not be naive here....that is absolutely propaganda as well.
The bbc is completely gone. They push a bias narrative, they selectively report, they straight up dont report anything they dont like and they are riddled with people that can only be described as ‘wrong uns’. Couple this with the literal extorting of money from the public to pay themselves huge sums and an arrogant attitude that they can do no wrong ... then you have a complete fail of a news channel.
DW is iffy, but I'm not judging as I read Reuters & Forbes. The former clearly has some left bias and the latter some right bias, but it's a bit less slanted than BBC & Spectator respectively.
DW is state propaganda.
Yes!!! I thought I was crazy for thinking Al Jazeera is the most even handed news I could find.
I started following right from its beginnings as an alternative to balance Western media, I soon realized that, while it is biased on Its own regions news (seems a human fault), it does an excellent job on the rest of the world’s news.
"Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Some opinions are worth more than others. These tend to be backed by facts and voiced by intelligent people.
Opinions are like ash holes, everyone has one.
@@factchecker1980 that is what those on the losing side of an argument will say. If you do then you've conceded because you are out of ammo
Appreciate the shout out to Canadian news being the bottom of the barrel. It's pathetic what's become of Canadian journalism.
Fix it kido
25 years ago, they were trying to be even more informative than BBC, a nice competitive thing.
Then somewhere around 2007 things started to get weird.
When it comes to competing for the bottom of the barrel, I would back the BBC against anyone - without exception.
I’ve seen a few influencers promote Ground News. It basically gives you articles from both sides of the political asile and shows articles that your side may not be writing about. Seems like a good resource.
I would agree. It's not just that news reports are false or have a bias, but oftentimes outlets simply won't report something if they don't want to. Being able to see who's willing to report it & who isn't doesn't necessarily present you with all the facts, but it's a wonderful starting point. I think that with time, we'll get better at understanding the truth. Technology creates problems, and we use technology to solve them.
I’ve been using it, and it’s very helpful to get an unbiased understanding of things and see stories that would normally be hidden from you.
Thank you so much Peter. This video is gold.
As a Brit I stopped watching the BBC about 15 years ago, but it's immensely frustrating just how many people haven't. I tend to get my news from the Daily Telegraph, but I am fully aware that they are very often telling me what I want to hear as a right-leaning Brexiteer. I will definitely be checking out your recommendations.
Oddly enough, I subscribe to the Telegraph. Almost every outlet has a biased outlook, but some are much more egregious than others. The Telegraph at least tries.
@@john_in_phoenixFor all the hate telegraph gets in their comments, they're rarely "wrong." Authors most certainly add their opinions, but I feel as though they always make it quite clear that it's an OPINION. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but I would argue it's one of the more reliable sources - even if there's a bias sprinkled in.
The BBC is the worst kind, because ever since their foundation they've seen themselves as the arbiters of morality in the UK. Combine this with the ludicrousness that is both the TV license and how the TV license is enforced, and it's just laughable that anyone would entertain their bullshit.
Whatever you do, do not follow the Guardian - it is complete crap and facts are no longer relevant or required.
If you still believe Brexit was a good move you need a new source of news man
I noticed the change/decline in media a different way. When I was younger you would NEVER see a typo or misspelling or poor vocabulary or punctuation choice anywhere, not ever. Back in the late 80's, early 90's, as the many layers of media review were dissolved, those started slipping through. That's when I knew we were in decline.
Have you noticed people on newscasts who are younger than 40 mispronouncing words that everyone over 40 knows how to pronounce? This irks me. Does anyone tell them later how you're supposed to pronounce these words? I doubt it somehow...
I noticed that in my local newspaper in the late 2000s. As it has to cut back staff, typos started appearing that would never be there before. My mom noticed it too. I still subscribe to it because it still does a relatively good job of being accurate and complete and is locally-owned, but the online/google era has definitely hit it.
Thank you Peter for the heads up on the news organizations. I'm always looking for an unbiased take on things. One of the reasons I enjoy your work.
There's a new news aggregator that I've been liking that does a pretty good job of cutting through these issues. It's called Ground News, they're not an outlet but they work with over 50,000 outlets across the world. They show you a story, and then all of the outlets that are covering that story, and they use multiple independent verification / bias services to show how each outlet leans and how factual they are. This way you can tell if the story is being mostly covered by 1 side, or across the spectrum. They also provide the headline from each outlet, and they provide links to each outlet and tell you about that outlets bias and factuality of each outlet. It's been fantastic at being able to see how each side is choosing to cover a story, as well as having the ability to read different sources to get a better sense of what's going on.
Of course it's not perfect, but given all of the issues you mention in this video, it at least helps me make a more informed choice of how to read a story, and to see the different angles about it.
Their ranking of left/center/right is quite misleading. Not only because they miscategorize the news outlets, but also because the reporting of many of those outlets is very uneven. And frankly, people already have their preferences, nobody cares what the media they think is biased is reporting.
Billing varies by one of three plans from 6 Euros to .91 Euros a month, billed annually. Watch your cookie settings carefully. Otherwise it pretty much does what it says on the tin.
Yes! The circumventing of the editing staff (b.s. detectors) has allowed so much conspiracy, dubious information and flat out lies seep through and be packaged in ways that look legit. Add in the fact that many people lack critical thinking skills and it's the recipe for the mess we have.
The Editing Staff *are* the purveyors of BS! We no longer have the institutional mores of the "5 Ws" in the newsrooms, we have political promoters in charge of the news.
It ain’t just editors/fact checkers… the major establishments are so skewed…
In the corporate media space, the editors choose stories and narratives for eyeballs and attention, not factuality or journalistic merit
You just have to look at the national/editorial interests of whoever's funding the source.. I am continually surprised by the independence and clarity of FirstPost, as Indians will continually call b.s. on rafts of lies because it's been done to them in the past, and they won't have it again.
Totally agree, I've always said the modern day citizen needs to almost have Sherlock Holmes like investigative skills just to get the truth about the world. Just ridiculous
There are two kinds of perverse incentivization in modern news-media, and you mentioned one: the need to reflect views that the audience already agrees with.
I was surprised you didn't mention the other dimension to this problem which is at least as prominent: the need to broadcast and generate controversy (i.e. even where there is none).
In a sense these two techniques work hand-in-hand, the first sustains an information bubble and the second turns all the information outside the bubble into noise.
If it bleeds, it leads. And ... Dog bites man, not news. Man bites dog -- news.
The only good news is bad news.
Soooooo glad you did this! Been wondering about this for sometime as I tend to avoid news in general. Thanks so much Peter!!!
Peter didn't just throw CBC under the bus. He was the driver.
Just watch the CBC coverage of the 2016 US Presidential election night, it is comical!
WOW, for those that don't know, there is NOT much OXYGEN at that elevation, this guy is in shape.
There’s plenty of oxygen, the same as at sea level, but just not enough partial pressure to push it though your respiratory membrane into your blood. 😊
He makes nearly 50 years look good. And me bad.
🤓@@kenpickett9317
I always knew you were based, Peter. I used to force myself to read news sources that went against my bias, but they just got so bad at dividing opinion from factual reporting, I couldn't put up with it several years ago. I have had Straight Arrow News pinned to my bookmark links for a time now. It is tough finding quality reporting, which is why I consume so many long form podcasts now.
First line, "based" or "biased"?? Big difference.
@@lowndeswhatley960he likes his men based. Esp. Pete
Yes he is biased like everyone. The president is not a crook. 😂😂
Peter is center left from what I have seen.
@@lowndeswhatley960 Based. I did not misspell.
Peter, Thank you for this. Democracy Now is free and covers a wide spectrum of topics. She interviews a wonderfully diverse group of people and politicians from all over the world including for example Israeli and Ukrainian peace activists. This program should top any best of news list.
Apparently you have never seen Citizen Kane and how propaganda has been around forever.
William Randolph Hearst was the Godfather of tabloid journalism.
just read some of the Babylonian inscriptions to see that 'YES' propaganda has been around literally since the written word has been around...
Thanks Peter. I don’t always agree with your recommendations, but your identification of the problem is always spot on. I have some misgivings about your evaluation of what’s reliable media. For instance, I found publications on the right pushing back about all things Covid. I worked for the Chinese Academy of science for about six years, and I lived through the first SARS epidemic in China. I’ve been to Wuhan many times. I’ve seen this manipulation and control of critical information up close and personal. The only people who were digging into that and pushing back against a clear narrative, at least initially, were people in the so-called right wing media. I try to hear and listen to what people say, then I listen to what the media says that person just said. It’s not good, but I’ve found more center and right media coverage to be more accurate, even with their bias.
Well, if you actually lived in China, you're probably conditioned to disbelieve what is reported to you, rather than accept it. Just like someone from Russia. That would have a tendency to make you more receptive to a right wing viewpoint, especially in America. Not that the information you're receiving from them is any more accurate. And the profit motive also tends to color the editorial stance of many news outlets, shifting them towards a pro-corporate stance on any given issue. Bias is built into the news 'business'.
@@garyspence2128 I listen to what people say, then I compare it to what they say that person said. It’s a pretty simple gauge, Gary. 🤣
That's rather where I Am at now as well. I know both sides lie but it seems that it's now ~ 80 -90% left lying VS 10 - 20% of the right based on everyone else (The independents) who calls both sides out with the more complete info.
Depends on where you are. Comparing the US to China, or Venezuela wouldn't be the same. The 'right' media certainly isn't more accurate in, say, Hungary right now. They are 100% controlled by the right-wing government.
The problem is that right wing media had the golden opportunity to be the main source of good critical reporting for COVID but instead what they did was cater to the worst segment of their audiences and feed into all the conspiracy theories you can imagine: qanon, replacement theory, climate change hoax, etc.
Liberal media perhaps was not critical enough with the main stream narrative but, in the end, was and has been way closer to reporting on the facts.
Can I just say I love basically everything peter Zeihan says? He’s just so rational, factual and open-minded, willing to learn even though he knows a ton and willing to keep searching for better data while carefully explaining his (mostly) factually based opinions? I’m not the only one fanboying over probably the greatest “don’t trust the media” video, right?
he also says Ukraine will win the war. Let's see how that goes, shall we?
Um it probably will; but even if he’s wrong that doesn’t detract from the other stuff he’s said that’s really smart nd thought provoking@@djinjis
Palki Sharma on Vantage!!
Top notch, covers the world...
Ages ago I subscribed to a daily newsletter that compared how major US newspapers treated selected events. (Cannot recall the title for sure.) It was remarkable how different slants made such a difference, about the same event. That has always been with us. It's the inability of readers to think and evaluate for themselves that has brought us to the "who cares about truth" of today.
Can we just appreciate the man has covered like five 10,000+ peaks in an afternoon for this video 😂
Something I find myself remembering more and more is a line from the first Mirrors Edge. At first I remembered it because it was cringe, but now as time goes on it becomes more and more true. The scene was the main character talking to her sister and the sister asks if she'd seen something on the news, to which the main character responds "It's not news anymore. It's advertising."
Like I said, back then it was a cheesy line in a lack luster "Plot because we have to have one" but as time goes on it definitely becomes more poignant.
The daily beast has been mostly paid-for-pr stories for a while now, so yes, that quote is quite valid these days
You do realize that is exactly what this channel is, right? Advertising for his other works, his books, a reminder that you can pay him money and he will come talk at your conference?
Why exactly do you think so many youtubers go to such pains to try and manufacture a difference between mainstream news outlets and themselves, who are in the process of BECOMING the mainstream news outlet?
Good stuff Peter. Thanks. I find Real Clear Politics does the multiple view thing nicely. The fundamentals, which you scrapped over but at least mentioned, is the essential need for a balanced liberal arts education. It must include the history of philosophy and imo a deep personal grappling with TRUTH.
Without this we are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Personal agency and responsibility is the foundation for self rule, and morality is key. Thanks for what you do. ❤🎉
RCP does offer multiple viewpoints, which is obviously helpful, but in general it does seem to lean to the right IME. I’m not saying it’s worthless, just that the lean to the right should be taken into consideration. I do refer to RCP here and there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Once again Peter is good in his area of expertise. Outside of that, he’s a conventional member of the left of center chattering classes. The best way to know what is going on is to read a number of sources across the spectrum and ask yourself what you are being sold.
I have to agree; his praise of Bloomberg and WSJ (which are predictably biased towards their respective special interests) left me wondering "what the hell is he thinking?".
Left of center? LMAO! I'm not sure where you think the 'Center" is, but Zeihan is and has been unabashedly on the Right and a Republican. I believe he voted for Trump in 2016, but has since soured on him. I further think that the Left/Right spectrum don't really apply when you are talking about Geopolitics: Reps and Dems who know what they are talking about tend to be on the same side.
No, the best thing to do is identify sources that are accurate and unbiased, and then only listen to those. There are tools available to do this. Listening to a range of BS doesn't help, it only hurts your understanding. Diversity is not the answer. It is accuracy and unbiasness with accuracy most important.
@@TL-qr3ii I agree with you about the accuracy, but if you're looking for what you subjectively feel is unbiased, then you are either chasing a unicorn or don't recognize your own biases. I don't mind if a news source is biased because they all are and have to be: They are (still) written by humans with their own viewpoints no matter how objective they try to be.
As long as I understand what the bias is, then I am able to think critically about the facts and arguments presented and make the mental adjustments to take into consideration the biases...
News sources that make mistakes, but immediately correct the mistake fully, I will allow, but a news source that lies even once is lost to me and I go back and question every other thing they have ever said.
I don't disagree with Peter's assessment of international news but one point he left out is: of US domestic coverage in the 80s, there were 60+ different news organization owners. That's since consolidated to 6. Large industries (like pharma) now advertise heavily to those six.
yes this consolidation was legalized in the 1996 telecommunication act
Also he could have mentioned the slow death of independent local news. Since 2005, the US has lost more than a fourth of its newspapers (2,500) and is on track to lose a third by 2025. The largest chains control the fate of many of the nation’s surviving newspapers.
Peter, thanks for you presentation. I am a loyal, 82 year old , British, male. I agree with you on the decline in of news reporting and the BBC is guilty of a sad decline in their news. I don’t even listen now. I agree about French news’s and Algezera. Keep it coming.
I spent several years living in Africa and listening to the bbc on the long wave radio illustrated and was shocked just how biased and selective the news is. Regards Ron Sweeney.
BBC lost its credibility because they got involved and infiltrated by the lobby a while ago
What happened to the BBC? I (American) listen to the World News sometimes, and it seems to be doing what it always did.
I remember when we used to think of journalists as a respectful profession, but since journalism became a form of political activism (whatever side) I think most people view journalists as akin to used car salesmen or real estate agents.
Well said Peter. I was thinking the same thing. AJ being a relatively credible news source with a major bias towards the middle east (don't trust their middle east coverage), and France 24 is very good as well. It's really hard to find real these days.
No, they are not a credible news source. None of them are that is the point they all have biases, and their biases will bleed through over the truth when it is necessary to further the ideologies and policy desires of the ownership. This is universally, true, you don’t even need the profit motive NPR has been shoveling shit for years and they’re supposedly a nonprofit, though the term nonprofit may have a different meaning to URI than it does to nonprofit employees making in excess of quarter of $1 million a year salary’s.
Thank you Peter we need your help and much appreciated for speaking out.
As a Canadian, i totally agree with the comment about Canadian news is the bottom of the barrell. They are Liberal sponsored entities and anyone who believes anything they say is blind. Love the talks you do. Please keep them coming.
Little did I realize that I was really listening to a plug for straight arrow news until the end. Despite that I’ll check it out 😅
That was all Peter, not requested by us. Thanks for checking us out.
I think Deutsche Welle (DW News) are a solid bunch too. Thank you Peter!
I also would include DW in the mix: calm, sober delivery of the news. Rather than fill the dead air time with personality-based opinion programming, they just air documentaries.
Some of the Indian websites like Wion are just horrendous. They are basically using a hectoring, shrill style of delivery and it has no particular emphasis, it's just a full-on barrage continually and is very similar to the style of that female North Korean news reader. The problem with news delivery is also the short attention spans of viewers and disengagement. The news grabs are measured in a few minutes if not seconds. There is very little in depth analysis and more importantly you have people customising their news so they simply don't know enough general news and lack curiosity. Plus you don't have enough specialists which means they lack the research to make an educated comment or ask penetrating questions.
Plus confusing opinion with facts. A huge problem. I get my news from the Guardian newspaper, The Age newspaper and a variety of radio sources including Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC Radio National which has in depth analysis plus a documentary program 4 corners. But some topics I've overloaded on. You just cannot keep up and live your life with equanimity it's too overwhelming. But I do go to some channels like I subscribe to some excellent services, a couple just for China, some on Ukraine, etc. German news is often very good. The Brits are disappearing up their own fundament with the BBCTV really. So sad.
That's why *I* like DW calm, sober, not hyper or alarm-y.
I'm sure..... Calm and bias.
DW is my favourite source of news about Europe and the war in Ukraine. The fact that they broadcast both on their own site and here on RUclips is a plus.
Some, many of, DW "documentaries" are heavily propagandised, biased, and unwatchable, especially regarding climate change nonsense. They pretend completely unproven, or disproven issues are solid facts when they absolutely are not.
The best one can say about DW is that its not as bad as the psychotic extremist, BBC, but barely watchable.
agree completely with Peter on this, AJ is very good if you can discount its obvious bias, France 24 is also very good. I'd also throw DW out there as reasonably good. BBC unfortunately has gone downhill over the past 20 years, you still get a few good radio programmes but the actual broadcast news has descended into the pits.
Edit - There's an App called Ground News which you can use to triangulate how different outlets are covering different topics.
The 1440 newsletter is also solid. It's a news aggregator, but it's entire mission is to deliver unbiased articles on the day's headlines.
Al Jazeera is the worst though. They are funded by Qatar and get info from literal terrorist groups
interesting i never watched DW = Deutsche Welle much as a german
@@geheimeWeltregierung I'd also watch a good bit of DW on youtube (as well as France 24)
As a Canadian I appreciate the blunt and honest assessment of the state of our mainstream media. We certainly have work to do but it’s only possible once people acknowledge the reality of the situation
One thing which very much is helpful to get in-depth information are industry news. Media directed at the average Joe can't justify publishing deep dives on niche issues, industry news aimed at people already in the business can.
It also is important to differentiate between persuasion (which opinion pieces are generally) and propaganda (which, among other things, mean that the news outlet in question withholds and obscures information that runs counter to its opinion, outside the context of it's opinion piece).
"Unbiased" reporting runs a risk of a false middle, as well as straight-up repeating false information: For example in case of the Ukraine war, if Russia claims to have destroyed material before it arrived, or more material than existed to begin with, it's disinformation and actual propaganda. Trying to appear unbiased by reporting Ukranian claims as equivalent to Russian claims does a worse job at informing the public than a more biased-appearing piece which clearly contextualizes the Russian claim as disinformation.
What does he mean with Twitter (X) being colorful and then laughs?
The community notes is the best solution I have seen on any media platform (and news organization) to fact check.
It's excellent coverage on the war in Ukraine.
Peter is showing his left wing bias. He doesn’t like that the Left’s monopoly over social media has been broken
This is why people like you are so important Peter.
Yes it's so important that overstuffed codpiece for the regime Zeihan tells us that we should trust the mainstream nonfaxmachine sources. Victor Davis hAnson, the federalist, no don't listen to them, they're just bad men parroting some orange cult of personality. You should listen to CREDIBLE sourceS like the New York times and MSNBC and Peter Zeihan. You know, sources that never parrot the global corporate agenda!
NON-PROPAGANDA sources like that. No Sirree you'd certainly never get a propaganda line about ukraine or Pfizer or Hunter Biden's laptop from good people like that! Or from Peter himself.
He is just so important. SO important. What a great man.
What an independent thinker you are Simon. It's that Boomer Independence that we all treasure so much. Thank you thank you so much for your invaluable insights.
The internet is so lucky to have people like yourself with your fabulous wit and sarcasm keeping us all on our toes. I’ve framed your comment and put on the wall so I can read it every day.
@@simonwilson64 the fact of the matter is that anyone who thinks Bloomberg is a trusted source of news means you harm unless you are a globalist billionaire. I'm not a globalist billionaire. Are you?
@@simonwilson64 if you haven't figured out by now that it's the lying elites versus the rest of us in a battle for total control as opposed to left versus right, there is no help for your worldview or your epistemology. Zeihann is very clearly a tool of the former.
Ground news does a good job of pulling multiple sources for any given story and ranks where the sources sit on the political spectrum. Good way to get a more rounded view on the news.
RUclips has been a great resource for news and opinion- Your channel is a perfect example!
Exactly, wonder why he didn't mention it???
RUclips has a definite horrible side in what it suppresses. Take a given independent news source and compare to Rumble or other.
@@decimgames2163
because RUclips is rather a platform - not content - provider.
It’s sorta like saying use satellite rather than cable tv.
It's being got at and manipulated now. Rumble had some good stuff. Glen geenwald etc
@@decimgames2163 Because youtube is paid for by ads.
It logically follows that his advice would apply to this channel as well.
This video is at least a good break from "USA is doing great the rest in the world is in trouble and will soon burn" theme Zeihan have.
@@lubricustheslippery5028I couldn’t agree more
He is spot on this matter. AJ is probably the best in terms of unbias reporting. I would put CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and the BBC in the catagory of badly written novels with 30 seconds commercials which are generally selling snake oils.
AJ except AJ Arabic, that shit is is more wild than RT. Like Antisemitism and shit
Putting Fox on the same level of CNN and MSNBC and ABC is a joke, one was sued and their argument was "we're just entertainment, no claims to factual news here", and we all know which one that is.
Putting BBC on the same level of CNN and MSNBC and ABC is also a joke, as is grouping ABC with MSNBC and CNN. ABC barely even covers news so much as it offers Morning Shows, Live Sports, AP reposts, and free Disney ads. They aren't really offering news or pretending to 90% of the time.
Pretending that "bad" is an equal quantity is half the problem. There are levels to "bad", and some outlets lie more than others, or in more extreme ways, or far more frequently and insidiously.
Yeah fck AJ. They lie about the middle east, so I am not supporting the jehad.
Very true in context of Indian media and society today.
There are some very good Indian news services, in fact for international news, up until about 18months ago, I pretty much always sourced Indian news services - because I trusted them. Not now. I agree about Al Jazeerah.
Trust the govt, trust the mitary. Stick to pro govt sources and you will be less confused and generally more informed as to what the govt is doing.
Ignore Al Jazeera as they never have anything positive to say about India. They usually get ripped by the pro govt sources I follow.
I get all my unbiased news from Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. Reasonable centrists.
😂
Lmao
Fellow Marshalltonian: thanks to you I now understand what has happened to global media, and why we do not receive the actual news today. I will check out Straight Arrow.
Then, of course, there is no more confirmation from 2 or more independent sources, just an echo chamber regurgitating the latest sensational hyperbole that grabs the most amount of eyes and ears!! As always, great stuff from Peter!!!!
Grays and Torreys Peak behind you in the second half of the video are my favorite mountains in Colorado.
Stopped reading newspapers 15 years ago and even getting fed up of the BBC doing social engineering when it should just tell us the facts and let us make our own minds up.
Are you not enjoying the bright red 22°C weather maps? Don't you know there's a crisis. Quickly, give us your freedoms and pay more taxes!
The problem is 1. stating a news station is biased is always a statement coming from bias anyway and 2. just because a news station is biased it doesn't mean they're wrong. The best thing you can do is get your information from a wide range of different sources, from mainstream media to social media and make conclusions based on sources cited and the logic of what is said. Luckily we can do that, unlike some countries where all social media and mainstream media that doesn't fit the government's narrative are censored....
"Luckily we can do that"
Except there are quite a few information voids with some of the worst sources filling those voids.
It used to be that if there was no information from any verifiable source there would be no information. Now when there is no verifiable information, we get fiction.
the rule in the OSINT group i belong to is bias is irrelevant, facts matter and original sources are gold standard. if a source has been innaccurate in the past and doesn't publish retractions or corrections, then it can't be trusted now either. just searching back a couple of years to see how an oulet handled contentious topics at the time, knowing now how they played out now, is a devastatingly effective way to audit your sources
No. Describing that something is biased, when it is, is stating a fact. That's not an opinion, and only the opinions can be biased
@@Obsidian-Nebula The problem is very rarely does anyone objectively state a source is biased. Also what is biased, you mean the whole station is always biased or only on certain articles? What is the bias, towards what? You can't just say they're biased full stop...doesn't make any sense.
The Movie Academy has the same definition for documentaries: They can be biased in their views, but it cannot lie. Unfortunately, over the years lying has become okay as long as it fits the Progressive viewpoint. Michael Moore's 2002 anti-gun Bowling for Columbine is unfortunately one such example. Heavily criticized for portraying untruths, it was still awarded the Academy for Motion Pictures Documentary of the Year. As part of his "demonstration" of how easy it is to get guns, he had someone enter a bank, open an account, and walk out with a gun. However, in that state, gun purchases need a background check through an FFL - which is exactly what the Progessives clamor for. So the reality is exactly opposite of what he is showing. Especially with documentaries, while you can have a point of view, you should not be able to portray untruths so to advance your thesis, and still be called a documentary. What that is called is fiction.
Thanks Peter for the honest reviews and the recommendations!
Great job, keep up the good work! Your open approach to sharing content with us is appreciated. It's also enjoyable to see the local trails and mountains featured as a Colorado native.
As a Canadian,Canadian media is so mind numbing bland and repetitive that a viewer would more likely be bored than influenced by any of it.
If it has an effect it may be that, we never react to any news in the end. And the people who do react look immediately crazy left or right wing whichever floats your boat. You'd have to be crazy to think the news wasn't going to be biased.
you can counter bias by picking 2 articles with known (but opposing) biases. understanding then how the 2 news services are spinning a story may assist in gleaning the truth
Stating a news station is biased and therefore wrong is a logical fallacy anyway, you can be biased af and still be 100% correct about what you're saying.
Not nessasarily. You can just as easily be lied to twice.
@@Winter-CIG I don't see how since they will have opposing views. They can't really be both wrong. You watch a news station that says Trump sucks and then you watch another that says Trump is great...there aren't really many more choices than that.
How about those situations where one side is reporting on some issue and the other is ignoring it entirely? Seeing a lot of that lately.
@@bevpotter9938 If you think there are only 'two sides' then you're not watching a wide enough range of media sources. There's always another source reporting it somewhere. Like if all the major US news are saying nothing about some bad news about Biden, there's always Sky news Australia who will cover it.
I find that following specific people is most helpful now, pn Twitter or RUclips, find good journalists and follow them, and some who you disagree with and follow them too. You usually get a good mix of news and views that way
WSJ subscriber here. Great paper. Peter is a brilliant man. Cuts through the noise