Elon Musk has a sense of humor. Still and all, the writer makes a fair point:
All this bickering and squabbling about whose voice should be uplifted as trustworthy and whose voice should be squelched as untrustworthy is just a manifestation of the fact that powerful people understand something most ordinary members of the public do not: that whoever controls the narrative controls the world. If you can exert control over the way people perceive reality, then you can control reality itself.
Until the public becomes more aware of this fact, our lives will be subject to the whims of oligarchs, government agencies, and mass media propagandists. Not until then will we be able to awaken from our propaganda-induced coma enough to shake off the psychological manipulations which keep us marching to the tune of oligarchy and empire, and use the power of our numbers to force the emergence of a healthy world that benefits us all.
One should be skeptical of all media content, regardless of source, but it is an immature skepticism to view the world of media content as divided between “good” and “bad” sources.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Elon says it, Caitlin believes it, Caitlan tires to prove it. JTR adds his two cents worth. 🥱
Lots of little strings strung together to back up Elon’s accusation.
I’d still rather listen to NPR than the former state propaganda machine known as Faux News and their constant lies to keep their viewers happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If NPR was state propaganda, then should we have noticed different coverages under Bush and Trump versus Obama and Biden?
Also, funding is mostly corporations and foundations in addition to individuals at the local and regional levels.
RFE, etc., are tasked with evangelizing American values and interests in global markets. What would be the role of NPR?
LikeLiked by 2 people
OK, Deep State Affiliated media.
Presidents come and go, the bureaucracy is immortal.
LikeLike
Deep state conspiracies are just that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Presidents come and go, the bureaucracy is immortal.”
As it needs to be. Institutional memory is a vital glue in any organization. Don’t believe me? Watch what is happening at Twitter after that memory has been purged.
As for NPR being “affiliated” with the deep state – where does that come from? If you ever actually watched PBS or listened to NPR you would know that they are real journalists who do not give anyone a pass nor try to steer them to safe waters as Fox News does with its MAGA guests.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Twitter is fine and getting better every day.
The people who were used to being unopposed because contrary views were censored or throttled aren’t so happy, but it is a far more vibrant debate than before.
LikeLike
“Twitter is fine and getting better every day.”
Yeah, sure.
Elon Musk paid $44 Billion for Twitter and then proceeded to wipe out its institutional memory. According to this expert it is now worth $20 Billion and is in danger of insolvency in a matter of months.
https://tinyurl.com/3w5ckyar
LikeLiked by 1 person
Musk has provided an invaluable service to the country, and hopefully will make it profitable.
Twitter is now transparent, and posts its algorithms for those who are able to give advice.
As Musk said, there would be blunders, but they will be corrected. It is already mush better and improving
LikeLike
“Musk has provided an invaluable service to the country, and hopefully will make it profitable.”
Your opinion that lying liars have a legitimate place on Twitter does not change the fact that it is floundering in the only way that matters in a capitalist country. Losing half its value is the opposite of “Twitter is fine.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Twitter is fine and getting better every day.”
You really think so? Even a couple of Musk’s “trusted agents” who reported on the “Twitter Files” have turned on him. Bari Weiss criticized the removal of journalists from Twitter by Musk. ANd Matt Taibbi has left the network after getting his ass handed to him by MSNBC for his “inaccuracies” and getting called out for not criticizing Musk when deserved.
Yep. Better every day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What journalists has Musk removed?
The NY Times is pulling back because they don’t want to pay $8 a month to have a verified account but that was their choice. I pay my $8 a month because a free speech Twitter is worth it.
Matt Taibbi is still on Twitter, though most of his writing is on his substack account.
LikeLike
https://www.thebulwark.com/so-much-for-elon-musk-free-speech-warrior/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem there is that Substack has started Substack Notes, a Twitter competitor.
Substack participants were posting links to their articles, which then directed the conversation to Notes. effectively parisitizing Twitter.
LikeLike
Free speech for me, but not for thee?
LikeLike
It’s more a matter of using twitter accounts to divert users to a competing platform, but it still doesn’t seem right.
LikeLike
Pure rubbish.
There IS a clear difference between trustworthy and untrustworthy media. One conforms to reality and evidence and one does not. Pushing the idea that there is no important difference is one of the oldest plays in the fascist playbook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Pushing the idea that there is no important difference is one of the oldest plays in the fascist playbook.”
What in the world are you even talking about?
LikeLike
“What in the world are you even talking about?”
History. Subverting the legitimacy of the free press is the first step in elevating “alternative facts.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “History. Subverting the legitimacy of the free press is the first step in elevating ‘alternative facts.'”
Yeah, I guess. But your comment strikes me as a typical (for you) overreaction. No one here is trying to subvert the legitimacy of the free press.
On the contrary, the source writer and I both want to encourage well-informed consumerism. Do you mean to suggest that the only well-informed consumers of media today are ones that agree with your specific ideological prejudices?
LikeLike
” . . . specific ideological prejudices?”
Opinions are different than facts. Facts do not give a damn about your ideologicial preferences. Gaslighting people with bullshit is not making the “well-informed.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which one would that be?
Conforming to consensus and conforming to reality are two entirely different things.
LikeLike
“Conforming to consensus and conforming to reality are two entirely different things.”
You flatter yourself. The bullshit you spread is just bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your cursing shows you have nothing to say.
LikeLike
So, consensus is reality?
LikeLike
That is the puzzle. What if the Enlightenment was altogether wrong?
LikeLike
We are told that everyday by MAGA acolytes. A consensus of the right wing believe in incredible stories of satellites, Chavez and mules. To them consensus is reality.
I feel certain that you wanted to paint climate issues with that broad brush too.
Unfortunately in our “post truth world”, reality is the red headed stepchild to dogma.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That may be true in lala land, but it is not so here.
Here at least I expect reason to prevail.
Remember that the consensus at one time was that Yellow Fever was caused by bad air? Walter Reed proved it was carried by mosquitos
LikeLike
“Here at least I expect reason to prevail.”
You show little sign of that as you constantly trot out “alternative facts” again and again. Your egregious disrespect for reality-based truth is on display on almost every subject.
A recent example – you constantly repeated the outright LIE that Michael Cohen personally settled with Stormy Daniels out of a pre-existing “fund” that he controlled and which was replenished monthly by a $35K payment. You were repeatedly given the truth by me and others and yet you kept repeating the same LIE. THAT is NOT reason prevailing. And that is just one example.
So, if you expect “reason to prevail” you can start with your own contributions. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You supported the “mules” theory. You keep saying “we’ll never know” about the election when the evidence indicates we really do know, quite well and accurately. You touted the “broken pipes” conspiracy in GA when it turned out the story was bogus. You mentioned AZ as an example of a broke system when all but one motion, a legal technicality, by Lake was ruled against.
Oh, there are plenty of “la la land” ideas here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Destroyed evidence may prevent proving what happened but it does not prove it did not happen.
LikeLike
That is Conspiracy 101.
What “destroyed evidence”? If it is the shredding of registrations in GA, that involved about 300. As we know from Trump’s attempted extortion via threats in GA, he need over 11,000 votes to be “found”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Being a contrarian does not make you right. It usually makes you wrong.
It is not about consensus. It is about evidence. Or the lack of it. And evidence is derived from reality.
For example, the “consensus” is that vaccines are safe and effective. The contrarian view is that vaccines are dangerous if not deadly. Treating those two as somehow equally valid or promoting the second idea so that people are “better informed” is patently absurd. And so, too, with a wide variety of “alternative facts” on which the MAGA movement is based. Ignoring evidence is how dangerous ideas such as the danger of widespread “grooming” take root and are then can be used to subvert our Constitution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The consensus on vaccines was wrong, repeatedly as knowledge was gained, It never caught up.
They were certainly valuable to people like us, older, fatter, with other health issues.
They were never really useful for people under 30 in good health. natural immunity from recovering from infection was always better.
They are abuse for healthy children, the risks exceed the benefits.
They are of less value as treatments improve, even for higher risk people.
They never protected others from the spread.
Adhering to the consensus as knowledge evolved was counterproductive and certainly cost lives.
Einstein once said that 100 experiments could not prove him right, but one could prove him wrong.
A consensus is of value only until a single fact proves it wrong. Stubbornly clinging to consensus after that only erodes confidence and encourages opposing consensus that is even less grounded in reason.
LikeLike
“The consensus on vaccines was wrong”
That is ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? The FDA is currently pushing vaccines for babies.
The risk the infants from COVID is near zero, and the Antigenic Original Sin problem will actually INCREASE their odds of serious infection.
The only proper view for science is Feynman’s
LikeLike
“Really?”
Yes, really. The “consensus” around vaccines is that they are safe and effective. The contrarian view which you people say is just as good is that they are dangerous.
CDC says that everyone should get vaccinated. You say they should get sick instead. Because “natural immunity is better.” Ridiculous. It is NOT better and it comes at a far higher price than getting vaccinated.
FWIIW I find your constant reference to Feynman a joke. It would be less of one if you yourself were not immune to evidence you do not like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet actual data shows the risk of vaccination to exceed the risk of COVID itself,
The CDC reports a total of 335 child deaths but ALL of those were children already hospitalized for ither conditions, mostly leukemia .
Basing vaccination on healthy children on severely immunocompromised exceptions is not evidence based.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868?st=pb9k2lknor4r6pe&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
“And yet actual data shows the risk of vaccination to exceed the risk of COVID itself”
Baloney. No it does not show that at all.
How many children died of the vaccination? None. How many of those 48,000 who survived Covid infections had lesser symptoms or survived because they had been vaccinated? How many vaccinated children did not get sick at all?And how many people did not get Covid because the children around them were less effective in transmitting the virus?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The CDC statistics were from before the vaccines were approved for children, so no.
DIO you just not understand that children vaccinated against the extinct, original variant will have a less effective response than had they not been vaccinated?
The extent of the Antigenic Original Sin problem was not anticipated so the original error can be excused, but persisting in pushing for ever earlier vaccination of children now that we know is abuse.
But bureaucracies like the CDC and FDA are slower to turn than aircraft carriers.
LikeLike
“The CDC statistics were from before the vaccines were approved for children”
Of course, vaccination against an extinct strain is not a reasonable thing to do. But is that what is happening? I do not think so. The vaccines keep evolving along with the threat. The “abuse” you refer to is non-existent but is typical anti-vaxx hyperbole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope,
The current BiValent vaccine being touted for children is about 60% extinct strain and 40% Omicron original strain, and 0% XBB 1.5 which id the current strain. There is some overlap between the original Omicron and XBB, but it is still primarily the extinct strain.
You really have no understanding of immunology and time on Google will not replace that.
LikeLike
“You really have no understanding of immunology and time on Google will not replace that.”
And you do? And so much better than the people who have spent their lives fighting infectious disease. As in so many areas, you really know how to flatter yourself.
What has really happened is you have siezed on a small part of the big picture that suits your political purposes. And blow it out of all proportion. In this case, that is the phenomenon of Original Antigenic Sin and trot it out as if only you and a few select geniuses from the dark corners of the internet even know what it is. And based on YOUR superior understanding you accuse public health officials of child “abuse.” With all due respect, you are ridiculous.
I get your dig related to Google. It is your way of saying that getting things right is not particularly important. And that is because I fact-check what I write and you don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing is that Antigenic Original Sin is widely recognized, and I don’t doubt the FDA and CDC are well aware,
They are just incapable of admitting their policy is wrong.
A scientist can say, new data shows we were wrong and leads us to …
But a bureaucrat ends his career when he does that.
Merging science and the bureaucracy does not work.
LikeLike
“The thing is that Antigenic Original Sin is widely recognized . . .”
Yes, I know that because I have used the resources of the internet to research it. You know, Google. In that research I have learned that the danger AOS theoretically presents is real enough but does not outweigh the benefits of even the earliest vaccines, much less more current ones.
You have siezed on one side of an ongoing and still unresolved debate and blown it up to the level of “child abuse.” Without any evidence you attribute CDC’s recommendations to bureaucratic defensiveness when the reality appears to be they are doing their best to weigh all the evidence when making their recommendations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know you can understand the concept if you try really hard.
AOS is a risk, in a way, but it is also a handicap to the immune system in every case. Everyone, including me who takes repeated doses of the old vaccine will have a reduced response to the new variant.
For me, the early benefits of protection were worth the price. But for a young child, who has near zero risk from the disease with an unimpaired immune system has all cost and very little or no benefit.
LikeLike
“But for a young child, who has near zero risk from the disease with an unimpaired immune system has all cost and very little or no benefit.”
I get it that such is YOUR opinion. The scientists and doctors who are charged with public health do not currently agree and their position is not without evidence to support it. Disagreeing with YOUR opinion is not a sign of “corruption”, or bureaucratic inertia, or a form of “child abuse.”
Again and again you ignore the risk to others of children running around infected with the virus. They may not be at grave risk but they put others at risk. CDC has to consider ALL risks. In my family it is the two families with kids that have ended up with both parents knocked down by Covid-19. Kids are disease vectors. And that’s a fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Babies don’t run around much.
None of the vaccines prevent transmission.
LikeLike
“Babies don’t run around much”
But they do encounter people. And frequently in close contact.
“None of the vaccines prevent transmission.”
They reduce transmission. Somebody who is exposed and quickly recovers is less of a danger to others than somebody who is exposed and gets very ill.
You are welcome to your opinions. But differing with you does not make someone “corrupt”, incompetent, a child abuser, or ignorant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, I just don’t see any ethical basis for increasing the likelihood of serious disease in babies and young children for the sake of marginally decreasing their ability to transmit the disease, if that exists at all. Most transmission takes place before the immune response kicks in, whether you are vaccined or not.
LikeLike
“Sorry, I just don’t see any ethical basis for increasing the likelihood of serious disease in babies and young children for the sake of marginally decreasing their ability to transmit the disease”
As I said, you are welcome to your opinions.
Marginally decreasing? Cite?
Just kidding. It is obvious you just made that one up.
A child who is sick with Covid is INFINITELY more able to transmit the disease than a vaccinated child who fought the virus off quickly.
It is a fact that vaccinated children are less likely to become ill and will suffer less if they do compared to unvaccinated children. So, no matter that they will likely survive in either case, vaccination is less risky overall than staying unvaccinated. THAT and the protection of the community are sound ethical bases for vaccinating them. And that’s MY opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What if the Enlightenment was altogether wrong?”
And the only source of Knowledge is Revealed Truth conveyed to us by whom – the Church? Dear Leader? Big Brother?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your sarcasm meter needs recalibration
LikeLike
“Your sarcasm meter needs recalibration”
So, if the Enlightenment was “altogether wrong,” what is the source of knowledge? Here is a hint – It is not “what some people are saying” or “what many people believe.” Or what you are told it is by Dear Leader.
LikeLiked by 1 person