Asklemmy

51306 readers

417 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

53 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

[–] pyria@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 1 day ago

Information is about as rapid as money exchanges. There's so much going around because News is 24/7 and there's so many outlets that it will burn out anyone's minds trying to follow it all. It was like with the Hong Kong protests, it got traction for a while, then something else happened and it was dropped within weeks.

And we have all of these wikis in existence where the legitimacy of the articles written, are constantly challenged through the edits of those that believe differently in how it should be written to the reliable sources conflicting with those beliefs.

And we have generations of people who do not remember the time of certain events as they've happened where previous generations did. So it can be harder for someone who wasn't born around the time of Pearl Harbor and WWII to relate and take in information as opposed to the one who actually lived it.

Then we take into account of instances of history being re-written by revisionists, some sections of history is white-washed, censored, redacted .etc

Top it all off with how incredulous and sensationalist projections the media reports that just shits all over it.

And we have ourselves one big, informational train-wreck where almost nobody knows what to believe. So what most people do anymore is if a news report aligns with their beliefs, they're going to take it at face value.