Asklemmy

51314 readers

319 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why aren't more people re-examining past conspiracies as trust in mainstream media declines over Gaza coverage? (reddthat.com)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn't it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don't question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?

What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FugaziArchivist@hexbear.net 12 points 3 days ago

What's stopping a re-examination of historical cover-ups? I think you answer your own question when you say: where's a good place to discuss this without going into conspiracy spirals? I mean that any time topics like this come up, people who are sincerely interested have to constantly militate against the "conspiracy theory" stigma. If you're hit with that label, you're persona non grata in academia, news media, and mainstream accounts on social media. That's what stops people. The places to discuss conspiracy adjacent topics would be alternative platforms like this, until news media slowly come around on accepting anomalies many years after the fact: Jack Ruby did have mob ties; the Saudis did seem to fund hijackers, etc.