RE: It Is Always, Always, ALWAYS Okay To Question Official Narratives
It's always right to question... Absolutely imperative to question. But as a journalist, I'm seeing a TON of backlash from people calling me "biased" and "paid for" when I point out the clear facts that David Hogg was NOT a crisis actor. I wrote a detailed story about it that clearly lays out the facts, point by point. It hit a nerve. Was shared 55,000 times and viewed more than 500,000 times.
It is completely understandable to question the narrative. Heck, I was the only reporter pointing out that the Nevada DNC chair story was fake for awhile. I was the reporter who first helped The Young Turks learn about the election fraud questions that were coming up during the DNC primary. I'm ALL FOR questioning the narrative.
But there's also a problem when a person gets to the point of almost wanting a narrative to be true. Or ignoring clear evidence just because it might back up something a mainstream source said. People start losing credibility if they cling to any narrative despite evidence to the contrary. And credibility and an honest, objective searching for the truth is paramount these days, in a world where there is so much truth hidden from us.
So yes, it's good to question the narrative, and we should. But just plugging our ears and saying "your fault MSM!" and not engaging in critical thinking (or excusing others who don't) won't help us, in my opinion. (I'm not saying that you're doing that -- I really enjoy your writing and your work. You engage these topics far more than I have the time or ability to do. This is more about comments that I'm getting.)
I've gotten a lot of hate comments from people who declare that I'm biased and "paid for" because I'm not pushing a narrative about crisis actors in Florida that they almost seem to want to be true. That is a sign of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. In my opinion, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.
There are layers of disinformation and psyops at play, and I have noted that this particular event seems to have become the starting point for a certain class of disinfo, such as calling the Parkland shooting a hoax, or involving whether Hogg and some of the students are crisis actors. When people begin seeing through the first layer of psyop 'Iraq has WMDs', and then know the enemedia are just liars trying to fool them, they automatically assume opposition stories are true. Many people aren't capable for multiple reasons to independently verify facts. Astroturfing is a thing, and people are lured into trusting Q for example, by releases of information that was true.
This causes them to loyally remain convinced of the source, despite evidence contrary.
Then a second layer of psyop becomes useful,and that's happening now. Deliberate false opposition that is provably false is disseminated to those populations, and then proved false, discrediting them.
I'm not familiar with your work, but look forward to having a look asap.
Thanks!
Edit: I've read that article now, and am convinced that more folks should see it. I made a post that points folks to it. Hope it helps!
Thank you for the response and for sharing my story in a post! Very, very good points. I agree. When one thing is proven inaccurate, like Iraq WMDs, it's easier for some to just assume everything is inaccurate instead of independently verifying facts. (And like you said, not everyone is capable of doing that, for a variety of reasons.)
The deliberate false opposition is a great point too. I found a fascinating book detailing corporate "hacking" tactics, and it included disseminating provably false information that might tempt a competitor to use, and then pointing to that as proof that the competitor's information couldn't be trusted. I'm going to have to dig up that book and share it on Steemit sometime.
I hadda give you a follow, so I can see what you come up with next. I deeply admire both your intention to examine the context and sources of stories, and the hide requisite to suffering the slings and arrows of popping the bubbles of the deluded, yet well-intentioned.
That's a tough row to hoe, and it's an admirable trait.
Thanks!