We all know that there are theories and constructions through which people can be influenced by the news and media. Think of subliminal messages or certain photos that are seen through videos that allow you to feel emotionally in a certain way. But does the media also use this and how? You'll find out here.
We're going to talk about fake news, but what does it mean exactly? When newspapers were first printed, many years ago, it gave journalists power and control over the public. But power and influence can also be misused. The media got bigger and bigger and got more influence and power. People used to be more dependent on newspapers, but since the rise of the internet this has changed. Before the internet people were forced to believe what was in the newspapers, but with the rise of the internet people could also fact-check what they were told in the media for themselves.
With the rise of the internet the traditional journalist lost more power and influence, but they found a term that helps them to keep more control over the population, which is: : Fake news. This allows them to decide for themselves what is real or fake. The question is of course whether this can be trusted. Are the media objective and honest and do they tell all sides of the story?
What is the media hiding?
I don't think so. Certain political parties are almost only portrayed in a negative way, while they have kept their promises and in most cases it turns out that the negative news is not the truth, while certain political people, who have done some pretty bad things are kept a hand over the head and you almost never hear anything negative about them unless they can't deny it anymore.
Opinions (which are mainly from the left political parties) are also mixed up in the media and are represented as ''the good side'', while right political parties are often portrayed as wrong. Why would they do this if their intention is only to inform citizens in a truthful and objective way?
Are you not yet completely convinced or does this not seem familiar to you? Then I have an example here. Almost every day nowadays, the media reports on global warming, how much mankind is destroying and polluting, and how the earth is warming up as a result. Probably you've heard it pass by: ''97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made''.
The US government spends 2.5 billion dollars annually on global warming research every year. That money is only given to scientists who produce scientific evidence that supports the global warming hypothesis. Therefor 97% of the scientific reports that are published support global warming, because the government pays for it. If scientists were also paid to produce reports on the conflicting sides of global warming or for counter-arguments to the hypothesis, it would by far not be 97%.
basically this means that literally only one side is shown by the government and the media. There is no payment for counter-arguments, while there are plenty of counter-arguments.
I challenge you not to click on the first link that pops up when doing research on global warning (or anything), but to specifically look for counter-arguments that are hidden deeper in the internet. Don't believe the media, don't believe me, but research all sides of the story yourself and form your own opinion out of it and don't assume that if something is told to you it is instantly true.