Media is and has always been propaganda. All of it. You have to start from there to make sense of the world.

We ran into trouble at some point with critical thinking. I believe prosperity and comfort for three generations in the West may have led to this type of thing by default, unfortunately. To flip it around...you can also make an argument that PR and propaganda itself has led to prosperity and comfort. Or at least it was something to do that filled time and created some cool apps and fashions. Which is awesome until you realize you're not safe from war.

> Media is and has always been propaganda. All of it. You have to start from there to make sense of the world.

How does any amount of critical thinking get around this, assuming it is true? If you hear the same bit of news a dozen different ways from many outlets, it must be true? If all media is propaganda, you can't trust anything that you have not experienced personally.

Propaganda isn't all false, it's all advocacy. You interpret it based on that fact; you don't ignore that fact to make the world feel stable and secure.

Just because it is propaganda doesn't mean it won't have actionable information within it. It just means that you cannot shut off your brain and consume any of it - ever. Every last creator has an angle, even your good guys.

I'll use the Postman questions, because they apply to every piece of media, which is always at its base a technology:

1. “What is the problem to which this technology is the solution?”

2. “Whose problem is it?”

3. “Which people and what institutions might be most seriously harmed by a technological solution?”

4. “What new problems might be created because we have solved this problem?”

5. “What sort of people and institutions might acquire special economic and political power because of technological change?”

6. “What changes in language are being enforced by new technologies, and what is being gained and lost by such changes?”

You can ask these questions about every Wall Street Journal or New York Times article or opinion piece - or Vox or The Verge, wherever. It's not always a clean answer to each question, but the consideration itself is important. What is this person's argument, and how may this person or institution sponsoring this argument benefit from presenting this information this way? And it's not a "wing" thing - these questions need to be asked about your favorite writers and thinkers as well.

> We ran into trouble at some point with critical thinking

I’m more worried about democracy than I am about a seeming decline in critical thinking skills. The latter is more than likely just a flawed perception created by the internet giving the masses a voice they’ve never had before. As for the former: the very fact we perceive “our critical thinking skills” to be in decline based on the musings of the masses is evidence of the perils of democracy.

Goes hand in hand.

If some event doesn't have a direct personal effect on you, it's probably nothing you need to know about or be concerned with. If it does have a direct personal effect on you, you'll find out about it without being told.

I just don't see how you can trust "what makes sense to me". Personally I don't pretend to think I have a deep understanding in most topics to be able to tell true from made up. It's too easy to get fooled by your own confirmation bias.

when you're being told to not think critically about anything and just believe what you're being told at face value, and you're capable of thinking critically enough to notice this, then this is the result.

pretty much the same conclusion here.

i believe what makes sense to me. thank you for writing this out. we have built a system that incentivizes all the wrong things. or leaves people engaging in those with no clear consequences for their actions, which reinforces their behavior.

i am not too optimistic about online discourse at this point.

I mean, that's a really bad position to take. You can't evaluate news based on the medium. Evaluate based on the credibility of the source. MSM reporting on COVID has been very consistent and very accurate. Almost all of the mis and disinformation is coming from political sources or unqualified opinionators. If you just follow the most obvious sources like the NY Times, BBC, NPR and the like, you'd be right over 95% of the time.