Walter Kirn: “Censorship is Just for the Prisoners who’ve Escaped the Info Dome.”

Walter Kirn: "In a way, censorship is just for the prisoners who've escaped the info dome. You know, censorship is just shooting the escapees but keeping people inside the dome and playing that 24 hour news act like music as maybe the main imperative. That is the part that I think will truly blow our minds." Walter has perfectly expressed something that distresses me every hour of the waking day. There are vast numbers of people in the US who ingest only the high-calorie low nutrition version of information. I've referred to this type of "news" hundreds of times as "corporate news" or "legacy news," to distinguish it from the work of journalists who rely primarily upon the contributions of individuals who value the quality of the work. The legacy news includes five major players who I have often featured in my posts about the legacy media walking in lockstep to withhold information or to propagandize us. Once upon a time these outlets practiced something more akin to journalism, but we can see and hear with our own eyes and ears (I have posted hundreds of examples) that these outlets are no even trying to tell us what is going on around us, no longer offering conflicting perspectives, no longer putting their stories into historical perspectives and no longer pointing out the hypocrisy of public figures who make claims that conflict with their prior statements each day. Rather, in coordination with the U.S. government (and its many agencies, such as DHS, DOD, CIA as well as CIA's cutout USAID) our major news outlets work hard to convince consumers of pre-determined narratives--they write these plot first, then they go out to construct the facts. They do it like lawyers representing their clients in court--their is no attempt to be even-handed.  In short, they engage in Censorship and Propaganda: The modern day versions of Scylla and Charybdis.

People who continue trust legacy news outlets have been convinced by these big corporate-monied narrative-purveyors that alternate opinions and dissident voices are radioactive. As they did throughout COVID, they argue that dissidents are far more nefarious than people, way worse than people you merely find disagreeable. Dissidents must be avoided at all costs because the dangers they pose with their facts and opinions are existentially dangerous. This way of promulgating news is a great danger. For example, by pounding a simplistic narrative about Ukraine-Russia, as many as one million people have died and the US Treasury funds have been diverted from helping Americans to going into a big black hole.  As a result of stifling COVID dissidents, they got almost everything wrong (I found this on X recently:

Dozens of people with whom I once experienced mutual warm feelings have cooled. If we bump into  each other, they look at me with suspicion. Some of them have accused me of being a Republican, even though my views are largely consistent with what I've always believed, including this: for the 40 years during which I voted almost entirely for Democrats. That said, I have spent my entire life declaring my independence from tribes, political, religious and otherwise. I'm proud of that and I have a lot of criticism for Republicans too, for instance the elimination of the CFPB. My acquaintances on the new Left tend to show intense unwillingness to consider alternative facts and opinions. They are locked down and in fetal position. This is not happenstance--this behavior is the result of one the tectonic plates underlying their media ecosystem. In earlier times, their information diet might have been more varied, but they are now victims of Stockholm Syndrome:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWalter Kirn: “Censorship is Just for the Prisoners who’ve Escaped the Info Dome.”

About the Illusion of Information Adequacy

What happens when to a person who fails to expose themselves to only a few "news" sources? What does it do to their world view when they fail to take affirmative steps to engage with a broadbased news ecosystem that includes viewpoints they disagree with? For instance, what happens when they only follow legacy (corporate) news outlets? What happens when they refuse to consider independent journalists? What I've noticed is that they are much more confident in their opinions, not less. What's going on? At X, Owen Gregoian offers an explanation of the "Illusion of of information adequacy." Excerpt:

Why We’re Confident with Only Half the Story | Neuroscience News

Summary: A new study reveals that people often overestimate the amount of information they have when making decisions, a phenomenon researchers call the “illusion of information adequacy.”

Participants who were only given partial information about a situation were just as confident in their decisions as those who had the complete story. They believed they had enough facts and thought others would likely make the same choice. However, when some participants were later presented with the opposing view, many were open to changing their decision, suggesting that having more complete information can bridge misunderstandings.

Key Facts

- People feel confident in decisions, even with only partial information.

- This “illusion of information adequacy” leads to overconfidence in judgments.

- Additional information often leads to more informed, balanced decision-making.

Source: Ohio State University

Of course, the same problems result with the government or the legacy news consortium limit your access to alternate viewpoints. In these circumstances we are fooled by a false consensus. It looks like everyone agrees, but this is only because everyone else has been censored. That leads to such things as allowing others to put a dangerous so-called vaccine into your arm.  When free speech is limited, it leads to things like this:

Continue ReadingAbout the Illusion of Information Adequacy

Another Oopsie in Favor of the Narrative by Legacy Media

This is not a new low for legacy media. This is what they do all day every day. They are serving their masters. Journalism has absolutely nothing to do with how they handle stories with political implications.

Continue ReadingAnother Oopsie in Favor of the Narrative by Legacy Media