Best journalism writing reference books according to redditors
We found 199 Reddit comments discussing the best journalism writing reference books. We ranked the 76 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 199 Reddit comments discussing the best journalism writing reference books. We ranked the 76 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Hey, I am an academic who uses Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model constantly to make sense of the media. I wrote a book about the media coverage of Venezuela and am now finishing a sequel of Manufacturing Consent in collaboration with Noam and some other contributors that updates the model considering the great changes that have happened in the media (social media, smartphones, internet, newspaper and TV decline, fake news etc. It should hopefully be finished for the 30th anniversary of the book's publication.
I'd echo /u/Prince_Kropotkin 's suggestion that the prologue, introduction and first chapter are by far the most important chapters to read. The other chapters are case studies putting the theories and ideas of the first part into practice. However, they are from the 70s and 80s and might not be that relevant to modern readers. Still interesting, though.
> I listen to a lot of AM talk radio (to study how they mange their base), and the rhetoric is just astounding.
And consider, so called "conservative talk radio" has been doing that since the 80's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio#Deregulation_of_talk_radio
Combine that with Fox News, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Twitter, Facebook, etc
Then add in the right wing politicians who have parroted the rhetoric and spin and lies
A large % of the country is brainwashed and needs actual deprogramming.. they are in a cult
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/movies/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-review.html
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Effect-Network-Propaganda-Machine/dp/0307279588/
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy/dp/B000FVQV16
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5tkxq4/trumps_supporters_believe_a_false_narrative_of/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/opinion/republicans-hold-on-to-a-myth-to-hold-on-to-power.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-paints-a-picture-of-a-dystopian-america-that-doesnt-exist/2017/02/11/a1f3daaa-efc6-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-supporters-see-a-successful-president--and-are-frustrated-with-critics-who-dont/2017/02/19/496cb4b4-f6ca-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html
You might find Mick West's book, Escaping the Rabbit Hole, to be helpful. It's all about how and why otherwise smart and reasonable people can fall into conspiracist beliefs, and how to approach the topic with them. It also goes into some of the details of the arguments behind specific conspiracy theories like the 9/11 ones. And it's a surprisingly good read, IMO.
Here's a write-up, with sources, on why the narrative on that is absolutely rife with bullshit and not nearly so simple. Originally by /u/A-MacLeod:
I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of “if you like socialism look at starving Venezuela” comments all over the media, most recently with Meghan McCain on The View which the Chapo Boys talked about in the last episode and someone asked me for a response to her comments.
The reason they asked me was that I have a PhD in sociology and more specifically looking at how the Western media covers Venezuela.
I recently wrote a book called “Bad News From Venezuela” which details the enormous disparity between the image of the country and the empirical reality and features interviews with journalists where they admit to not being able to speak Spanish, not leaving their penthouse apartments very often, paying locals to write their stories and knowingly printing fake news about the country.
I also write about the media coverage of Venezuela at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
Firstly, I’ve yet to see any credible study about how much weight Venezuelans have lost. I’ve seen plenty of organizations linked to the local opposition spouting out numbers though.
Venezuelans are hungry in good part because capitalists in the country are intentionally trying to starve them by withholding food in order to provoke an uprising, as they have done numerous times in recent history, for example, before the 2014 elections and in the year of the 2002 and 2002/3 attempted coups. After decades of neoliberalism, Latin American countries’ food systems are dominated by often a single massive multinational which creates, imports or distributes most of the food. For instance, the company Polar dominates the food market, controlling over half the flour controls over half the flour in the country (the staple) and also owns a network of supermarkets.
Secondly, Venezuela is also suffering because of the US sanctions, which the UN General Assembly condemned, noting they were deliberately designed to “disproportionately affect the poor and the most vulnerable classes” , calling on all states not to recognize them and began discussing reparations that the US must pay to Venezuela. None of this has been reported anywhere in the US media; I have checked.
The Venezuelan people, unlike us, of course, know all this, and that’s why even during this period the government’s popularity has gone up and they convincingly won the recent election. Of course, none of this is to say that the government is good or doing well. I'm actually highly critical of where the government has gone. But if we actually care about facts and context and discussion, this stuff needs to be known, otherwise we are completely ignorant of the situation.
These are not the only reasons why the economy is bad, you can read a longer explanation here.
Finally, if this is proof socialism failed, then Ecuador must be proof that socialism works, as under the socialist president Correa, unemployment fell to a record low of 4%, poverty fell by 27% in 7 years all while beginning to bring in universal free education and healthcare and reducing its debt. Of course, none of this is ever brought up by these people because they don’t want an honest discussion about “socialism” and they don’t want people knowing about these countries.
So a response in 140 characters would be Venezuelans are hungry because big capitalists in the country are intentionally trying to starve them and because of illegal US sanctions. This certainly doesn’t tell the whole story but is a quick comeback.
Oh yeah, and if you are interested in the book but balk at the price, DM me your email address and I could send you a copy of my PhD which is pretty similar to the book.
This has been done. A French scientist during the age of the guillotine would take the heads of freshly-executed prisoners and attach them to the bodies of dogs. The heads were pretty brain dead by the time he could get it hooked up though, as the state required that prisoners pass the gates of the cemetery before being public property. He did, however, find that the fresher heads could respond to the sound of their name. The head would inevitably be rejected by the dog's immune system though.
I read it in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
It's hard to tell if someone is consciously inventing slights here. I would attribute it more to the fact that loss of privilege and oppression against your group feel very much the same. Evangelicalism is no longer the dominant force in US culture (and never mind the fact that they have not been dominant for much of the history of our nation, they've taken up lying about that too), and they feel that perceived loss of cultural hegemony in similar ways whites in the south did.
The great thing about Evangelicals is, as one of my favorite progressive Christians points out, they haven't learned a darn thing from the experiences of the past 100 years:
> From my own liberal perspective, conservative churches have time and time again found themselves on the wrong side of issues, and yet seem to learn nothing from the experience, viewing the issue of women in ministry, for instance, the same way they viewed slavery, even after they have admitted their forebears were wrong about that issue. They seem not to grasp that the reason why they were wrong about that issue is intrinsically connected to their conservative approach to religion and social norms.
There is probably another effect involved also. We all use motivated reasoning to protect our values. This effect is called cultural cognition, well explained by one of the researchers in this podcast.
Everyone displays this effect, and we are much less critical of any data that supports our values and much more critical of data that goes against it, to the point that better reasoning ability actually seems to increase the effect of the bias.
Fox News and other conservative media is the best at using this modern psychological data: If you can turn everything into a values fight, values trump data 99% of the time. Anything you can wrap in the flag or in terms of individual or religious liberty will be way more salient than graphs and charts. Leaked emails and public statements show this is often purposefully done even when they know it is a lie.
We'll gladly murder people in other countries, torture people in our own, destroy the environment, the economy, and the social safety net if you can frame the issue in values laden language.
But now I'm ranting, probably motivated by the defense of my own values. ;-)
Been a lot longer then 5 years since free speech and anti-censorship was a liberal aka progressive value. Libertarian yes. Classical liberal yes. The people you're talking about on the right pretty much tossed those people out 20 years ago in most western countries. In the late 90's, you could see this pro-censorship stance in the left here in Canada with the Liberal Party, and NDP.
What you missed, and a lot of people missed is that the right moderated itself tossed out a lot of the shitty people. Many of those shitty people however were welcomed with open arms by the left no less. There were various reasons, they were big names(had media pull), were well known pundits, had access to lots of donors for money and so on.
If you need an example over the last 10 years just in the US? Look at the RINO's who were 'big time bush' people, and couldn't find a war they didn't like. Yeah, open arms by the left. Probably one of the big names you'll recognize is David Frum. Progressives absolutely love him now that he's on their team, but his policies haven't changed. He sure was screeching that "the republicans left me!" They sure did, that was the point of the Tea Party groups, despite the attacks by the media. Something every GG should recognize by now.
While I'm at it, I'm going to plug Sharyl Attkisson's book, The Smear. Read it.
This interview was aired in the beginning of August, he survived, finished his book. Sadly, no MSM, except for one, picked it up. He also participated in a much more detailed interview more recently (Language Barrier).
Note that he worked for the FAZ, one of the most respected newspapers. And he also points to other huge media outlets that are compromised.
This took place, after in spring a comedy show exposed the influence of American think tanks on German media and even politics. One of the most corrupt individuals even wrote a speech for the President, which he later praised in his own news paper.
> If you want honest news, subscribe to the New York Times.
That made me laugh. The same game you engage in was started over a hundred years ago with published newspapers.
There is no such thing as honest news.
For more information, consult Flat Earth News by the same guy who uncovered and pushed the Murdoch press phone hacking scandal when no-one else would touch it.
> He was a senior fellow for 8 months in 2013, I don't know what to make of it or if he is still connected to Brock.
It was a LOT more than that.
Before he was a Senior Fellow for 8 months, he was Executive Vice President/Senior Advisor for Media Matters for nearly 2-1/2 years.
And before that, he was Vice President for Research and Communications for Media Matters for 1-1/4 years.
He co-authored two books with David Brock: The Benghazi Hoax and The Fox Effect.
And he co-authored Lies, Incorporated: The World of Post-Truth Politics with Media Matters as recently as April 2016.
Just as Nixon's henchmen informed the young Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, Brock will have informed the thinking of Ari Rabin-Havt in ways he may not even fully realize himself. But if he's looking for forgiveness, he should step out of politics and find another line of work. He is definitely not someone who should have Bernie's ear.
Not my original content, but taking this comment from another sub and posting here:
>I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of “if you like socialism look at starving Venezuela” comments all over the media, most recently with Meghan McCain on The View which the Chapo Boys talked about in the last episode and someone asked me for a response to her comments.
>The reason they asked me was that I have a PhD in sociology and more specifically looking at how the Western media covers Venezuela.
>I recently wrote a book called “Bad News From Venezuela” which details the enormous disparity between the image of the country and the empirical reality and features interviews with journalists where they admit to not being able to speak Spanish, not leaving their penthouse apartments very often, paying locals to write their stories and knowingly printing fake news about the country.
>I also write about the media coverage of Venezuela at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
>Firstly, I’ve yet to see any credible study about how much weight Venezuelans have lost. I’ve seen plenty of organizations linked to the local opposition spouting out numbers though.
>Venezuelans are hungry in good part because capitalists in the country are intentionally trying to starve them by withholding food in order to provoke an uprising, as they have done numerous times in recent history, for example, before the 2014 elections and in the year of the 2002 and 2002/3 attempted coups. After decades of neoliberalism, Latin American countries’ food systems are dominated by often a single massive multinational which creates, imports or distributes most of the food. For instance, the company Polar dominates the food market, controlling
over half the flour controls over half the flour in the country (the staple) and also owns a network of supermarkets.
>Secondly, Venezuela is also suffering because of the US sanctions, which the UN General Assembly condemned, noting they were deliberately designed to “disproportionately affect the poor and the most vulnerable classes” , calling on all states not to recognize them and began discussing reparations that the US must pay to Venezuela. None of this has been reported anywhere in the US media; I have checked.
>The Venezuelan people, unlike us, of course, know all this, and that’s why even during this period the government’s popularity has gone up and they convincingly won the recent election. Of course, none of this is to say that the government is good or doing well. I'm actually highly critical of where the government has gone. But if we actually care about facts and context and discussion, this stuff needs to be known, otherwise we are completely ignorant of the situation.
>These are not the only reasons why the economy is bad, you can read a longer explanation here.
>Finally, if this is proof socialism failed, then Ecuador must be proof that socialism works, as under the socialist president Correa, unemployment fell to a record low of 4%, poverty fell by 27% in 7 years all while beginning to bring in universal free education and healthcare and reducing its debt. Of course, none of this is ever brought up by these people because they don’t want an honest discussion about “socialism” and they don’t want people knowing about these countries.
>So a response in 140 characters would be Venezuelans are hungry because big capitalists in the country are intentionally trying to starve them and because of illegal US sanctions. This certainly doesn’t tell the whole story but is a quick comeback.
Number 1 New Release From Our Girl!
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote Hardcover – June 27, 2017
by Sharyl Attkisson (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Actually, they rounded up a bunch people who were not actually communists, prosecuted and persecuted them for being traitors to the country, while actual treasonous communist plants ( not to be confused with non treasonous people who just ascribed the philosophy of Marxism ) Went largely unmolested through our legislature. I recomend you give this book a glance. http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/product-reviews/0966410076
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
This book detail the dog experiments and the resulting scientific discoveries.
Seen it before and watched it again. Glossed over her twitter feed and she's BASED AS FUCK!
She retweeted this pic: free at last
She's got a book out: The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives & Fake News Control What You See What You Think & How You Vote
> Now, the hard-hitting investigative reporter shares her inside knowledge, revealing how the Smear takes shape and who its perpetrators are—including Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal and, most influential of all, "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin" (National Review) political operative David Brock and his Media Matters for America empire.
> Attkisson exposes the diabolical tactics of Smear artists, and their outrageous access to the biggest names in political media—operatives who are corrupting the political process, and discouraging widespread citizen involvement in our democracy.
https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162
AND a show that will air this Sunday :
> This week on Full Measure in The Sum of Knowledge, we dig into the tactics used by paid forces to manipulate opinion. These include fake social media accounts operated by software and paid actors; zombie profiles; zombie likes; and “Fake News.”
And:
> Also Sunday, Joce Sterman examines what changes in police work could be in store under the Trump administration. Under President Obama, some police say they felt unsupported and, as a result, it’s feared that some backed off of using aggressive tactics in communities that need policing the most. Will things be different under a Trump Department of Justice?
https://sharylattkisson.com/the-sum-of-knowledge-fakenews-bias-censorship/
We must embrace this centipede! Why is she not mentioned here more often?
Two problems with the article that you cited. One, the author has admitted that he himself is very conservative. While that in and of itself shouldn't disqualify him, it's definitely something to keep in mind. Especially since it undoubtedly helps his books sales, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind
Two, this score system that they use considers people like Nancy Pelosi to be 100 on the scale. If Nancy Pelosi is a 100 on the liberal scale, then no wonder the media has a "liberal bias". In other words, this scale is heavily skewed so that a 100 is fairly moderate. As a result, the media appears to be liberal as well.
Highly recommend Escaping the Rabbit Hole by Mick West which was written with exactly your situation in mind. It is written in a sympathetic way to help 'friends' discuss conspiracy theories in a way that is non-confrontational and should maximise dialogue. He also includes some very thorough debunking of popular tropes about 9/11 (including AE911 Truth and the insurance claims, IIRR). Sections ask you to 'ask your friend...' to help give you the tools to raise issues.
I disagree with other people here that 'truthers' don't listen to evidence. That is categorically wrong and counter-productive. Everyone goes through stages in their life when they believe certain things that turn out to be poorly informed. Although it won't always work, making your friend aware of counter-arguments against his claims is very important. Sure, sometimes they will just reject your claims out of hand, but often they are not aware that there is a counter-argument. It's always worth giving it a go.
Source: Used to believe in plenty of conspiracy theories.
For any who are interested, Mary Roach's book Stiff is a great, in-depth look at this subject, partially through the eyes of medical/lab students but from many other perspectives as well.
Ages ago I picked up a book called "You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths" and read about Vince Foster in there. That chapter blew my mind and had my wearing red pill glasses whenever I read or watched the news ever since.
I'm reading Spook right now. There are people that research kids' reincarnation stories. I wish more non-Hindus would contact them, since most of it comes from India where reincarnation is pretty much fact.
My mom tells me when I was little I always asked questions like, "when I was a chicken, did I . . . ?" or "when I was a brick, was I . . . ?" I don't think you can get reincarnated as a brick though.
https://www.amazon.com/Gekaufte-Journalisten/dp/3864451434
You're reading Stiff, aren't you? Hot damn, I loved that book!
Anyone found an english translation of the book that got him killed?
Apparently,it was due to be published in English over 2 years ago but keeps getting delayed.
book is called: Gekaufte Journalisten or Bought Journalists
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gekaufte-Journalisten-Geheimdienste-Deutschlands-Massenmedien/dp/3864451434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484601847&sr=8-1&keywords=Gekaufte+Journalisten
> Hate Fox News as much as you want, but you can't rule it out as fake just because it's a conservative news network.
People are ruling Fox out for their lies, not their politics. Well, for their lies that support their politics, really. The continually report things that just are not true to support the GOP.
If you have the time and an open mind this is an excellent read
The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine
If you don't have the time just read any of these articles
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Fox+news+lies&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
EDIT: New anecdotal evidence: "CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract... Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air." Attkisson was responsible for the investigative report on the ATF Gunwalking Scandal where ATF agents knowingly allowed guns illegally purchased in the U.S. to be taken into Mexico by buyers associated with drug cartels; one of these rifles was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol officer. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn over documents relating to the scandal, and President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold them.
Start here:
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Journalism-Revised-Updated-3rd-ebook/dp/B00DAD25I4
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Last-Reporter-Please-Lights-ebook/dp/B0053Q1VU4
went to college in Notts.
there is a very dark underbelly to that city...or at least there was 20 odd years ago.
'This all began quite unexpectedly one rainy autumn evening a couple of years ago in a fairground near to the centre of Nottingham...'
In amongst the bright lights and bumper cars, Nick Davies noticed two boys, no more than twelve years old, oddly detached from the fun of the scene. Davies discovered they were part of a network of children selling themselves on the streets of the city, running a nightly gauntlet of dangers: pimps, punters, the Vice Squad, disease, drugs. This propelled Davies into a journey of discovery through the slums and ghettoes of our cities. He found himself in crack houses and brothels, he befriended street gangs and drug dealers.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Heart-Shocking-Hidden-Britain/dp/0099583011
a lot of this book is set in Notts...the bit at the goose fair is doubly creepy for me as I was living directly opposite when he describes what was going on in those public toilets. I used to walk across that park rather than round the edge as it cut about 30 minutes off my journey; but I kinda know how to blend in...a lot of other students I knew got mugged in there. and though we knew there were hookers working from there...and the local area (including right outside a few mates houses) we never realised that underage stuff was going on...makes me shudder to even think of it.
the hookers used to actually be useful when we wanted some weed or whatever. other than a friend from home deciding to bring one home back to my rented place one night (much to my gf's 'amusement') we never had any issues from them...
knowing what I know now tho...shiiit...smh.
Some 4 year olds in India dream of reincarnation, so I guess that's real too.
Or maybe it's bullshit.
Inside Reporting was a book I found really useful in some of my intro classes. I highly recommend it.
>A lot of Trump supporters unfortunately do not get correct information and are deliberately misled by the news sources they do follow
The Fox Effect
Kisses. 😘
Also, sorry you suck so very badly at Googling shit. While I erroneously added the word "News" to the book title (mea culpa), the Google search of the book with "news" in the title yielded this as like the third result.
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Effect-Network-Propaganda-Machine/dp/0307279588
Mary Roach does a pretty in depth analysis of this claim in her book SPOOK: Science Tackles the Afterlife. His scale was actually extremely accurate, however the number of individuals exhibiting the weightloss was abysmally small compared to the number of experiments and as yet no one has been able to reproduce his results (although ethically it would difficult to reproduce.)
A long time ago, there was a scientist, Dr. MacDougall.
interesting book about death,
also this, also that. The reasoning is legit, but it was not scientific and was unable to be reproduced. So the commentor's statement of "poop" is more accurate :)
I can't watch these shows. I think it's because they break some social/psychological rules. In trying to be "reality TV" they violate the suspension-of-disbelief for me. I can, and like to, do that for a movie, but not for TV for some reason.
However, if you find this sort of thing interesting, I would recommend the book Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife by Mary Roach. It's not going to blow your mind, but it's a good read.
There was a best-selling book about how anything that matters in the entire German media is controlled by one or the other intelligence agency: Gekaufte Journalisten. English translation is promised for June 2016.
Hate, Inc. - Matt Taibbi
https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/1949017257
I would start off with Stiff and then Bonk. I liked Spook but on amazon it doesn't have as good of reviews as the others so I'd read that one later if you aren't as interested in it. I've yet to read packing for mars but if it's anything like her other books, it's wonderful.
your life will change
In the book "Stiff" They talk about this. Apparently, a brain transplant was performed with a monkey. Thing is, as sotek pointed out in another comment "When we transplant other organs, we mainly have to reconnect tubes (blood vessels, intestine, etc.)" So when they transplanted this monkey brain, they didn't connect it to anything except the blood vessels in this other monkey.
So it's kind of like plugging in a gaming system to a powersource and turning it on, but not connecting the monitor or the controls. The brain was "on" and alive, but no information was going in or out of it because all the nerves had been severed. They had an EEG connected to it, so they knew thoughts were being produced and the brain was still alive, there was just no way to know what exactly was going on. They suspected the monkey brain probably went insane with having no outside stimulation coming in.
I've made a list of 50 things I'm trying to accomplish before I'm 50, and one of those things is to read all the winners of the Booker Prize (I'm a big fan of British lit). I'm off to a rough start, because the second winner, The Elected Member, from 1970, is out of print and not available in regular book stores. A used copy would be cool with me, and a great bargain.
I write for a living, so my income depends on a lot of the questions raised in Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Off the Lights? Is print dying? And even more importantly: can it be revived?
If I were a book, I hope that I'd be a great one.
http://www.amazon.de/Gekaufte-Journalisten-Udo-Ulfkotte/dp/3864451434
Mary Roach is great. I also loved her books ["Bonk"] (http://www.amazon.com/Bonk-The-Curious-Coupling-Science/dp/0393334791/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1409258621&sr=8-7&keywords=mary+roach) (about sex-related research) and ["Spook"] (http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393329127/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1409258592&sr=8-6&keywords=mary+roach) (about research into the paranormal).
>I feel so lost thinking about where to start.
Don't worry. Here's one real big piece of advice from the get-go: Don't stress too much about having to go about this one specific way. There's a bajillion paths into journalism. You're on a different from others. That's OK.
> Do I go back to school to do a Journalism masters or another degree in Journalism?
In a perfect world, my answer would be to go take some undergraduate courses in journalism to learn the basics. Because you are currently employed, that gets difficult, so you may need to approach this more from a self-taught direction.
Pick up this book.
It's the most dirt-simple introductory journalism textbook that I've come across. Pay attention to story structure, sentence structure, lessons on interviewing people, and most of all, "newsworthiness," or the criteria that makes news, news.
Another big suggestion is to work through some of the self-guided courses over at NewsU.org
>Some peers I've spoken to suggest freelance writing
Big warning here: Don't pick up freelancing gigs until you are very, very confident in your ability to write news. Don't go into it without that foundation of news literacy. You don't want to burn bridges before you get going.
But, when you are confident you have the skills, you can make enough money to survive by freelancing. And it's a good way to get your foot in the door for something more permanent.
I'm a high school journalism teacher, so in addition to those offered up before I'll suggest:
Yeah, it's strictly a biography, but it's still very worth checking out just because the guy was such an evil and relentless slimeball. If you wanted something more about the phenomenon/psychology itself you could check out something like this (but keep in mind who the author is)
What convinced me was how US media talks about Latin America. I'm Brazilian and that's a little fundamental to my understanding.
First is the deep understanding of how problematic media is. Here in Brazil we have some sort of major monopoly by Globo. They are not exactly Fox News but they are able to change mainstream opinion quite easily.
Since the major riots from 2013 I have been noticing more and more how media very slowly would create narratives and enforce points of view.
The absolute maximum happened in 2016 during Dilma's impeachment.
The central political place of Brazil, our "Washinton DC" would be Brasília. And all the political class is within the Esplanada.
Esplanada is quite huge, it was made really wide so any kind of protest made wouldn't look big like in other places from the country, like Avenida Paulista, the most important place in São Paulo, the financial capital of Brazil.
During Dilma's impeachment, the country was split in two, and the Esplanada was divided in two to acomodate pro-impeachment and against-impeachment protests. I mean literally divided in two with a fence.
If you're not updated on Brazilian politics, Dilma was indeed impeached, and mainstream midia used this kinda of image during the impeachment to talk how the pro impeachment crowd was bigger.
The problem is that we have aerial evidence about the event. The anti-impeachment was clearly bigger.
I know this sounds conspiratory, maybe even a minor detail in a bigger picture. But it's with these small details that you start to notice that the midia has their own agenda. It's not so left or right, it's capital.
After these events I started reading about more leftism, started hanging out in anarchist spaces and eventually finding myself reading Marx and other Marxists authors, like Adorno, Paulo Freire and Gramsci. Basically every time any Brazilian politician made any sort of criticism about any Marxist author, I'd try to read it.
But there's a particular author that I read before turning communist that can explain all of this midia control in a more -dare I say- liberal way:
Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
There's also an Al Jazeera video that serves as a nice introduction to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
It's good to remember that while the main author (Chomsky) is not a major Marxist scholar, the propaganda model is basically a reflection of capital power.
And while Chomsky founded the concepts, it's Alan MacLeod's work that should make Americans open their eyes. He wrote the book "Bad News from Venezuela: Twenty years of fake news and misreporting", and while I haven't read it, he did an amazing AMA on Reddit, with tons of solid evidence showing how news outlets would print misinformed news, specially because journalist felt like they were fighting the evil dictator Maduro.
When I connected the Brazilian impeachment situation and the writings about how the media misrepresents Venezuela made me realize how imperialism works in South America and how powerful media really is when it comes to shape our perception of the real world.
Fast forward to today. The same midia managed to elect a fascist using a gigantic anti-Worker's Party discourse, which include half leaks of illegal recordings of Dilma's telephone and so much drama and plot twists that many Brazilian feel that House of Cards is just too simple compared to our situation.
I'm not even sure we will have another election.
But I'm sure we will have resistance! =)
Ha, good luck winning a war after they have voluntarily disarmed themselves and flocked to cities with no independent sources of food. What will they use as weapons, vegan burgers and plastic Guy Fawkes masks?
The Dems have no solution, only identity politics. The problem is with the 24/7 news cycle the public is getting overdosed with this kind of predictable attack. I don't think the Zimmerman thing and Ferguson thing helped the left at all, both instances made them look like reactionary idiots. The War on Women thing is also wearing pretty thin, the race card is dog-earred all they really have are the young people but liberals aren't reproducing so that's going to dry up as well. We've already seen demographic shifts concerned abortion due in a large part to the fact pro-life people have more kids and pass those values on.
You might enjoy this book, the author and economist, makes the claim, and backs it up that the media basically pulls the country about 25 points to the left. Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind - Tim Groseclose
Here he is on Freakonomics discussing his model.
transcript
Listener questions with Groseclose
God might be hiding somewhere too. Pixies might. Fairy dust too. Until we come up with something that is provable, however, it's useless speculation. There is not even a shred of proof of anything that even remotely resembles a soul. And I'm not just saying that to be contrary, I really wish there was something. I'm the kind of guy that reads books like Spook - which is a great book, by the way - about the earnest search for... something. It just isn't there.
Might be something published by The Disinformation Company - stuff like You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myth, Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies), or Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult. They publish other guides with secrets and facts.
I could only find a bootleg PDF which looks weird and unintelligible. Bootleg pdf: http://www.agmiw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/GekaufteJournalisten-UdoUlfkotte.pdf
The only official version I can find is the German book on Amazon but it's twenty dollars. https://www.amazon.com/Gekaufte-Journalisten/dp/3864451434/ref=pd_sim_14_1/135-6879697-5879016?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=3864451434&pd_rd_r=baa083fb-8892-4434-8ef6-8e49892b1f4c&pd_rd_w=IY1d6&pd_rd_wg=e1Wih&pf_rd_p=04d27813-a1f2-4e7b-a32b-b5ab374ce3f9&pf_rd_r=4BRBSJD9CKQJ9GBBANFQ&psc=1&refRID=4BRBSJD9CKQJ9GBBANFQ
Last month it seems a very small independent publisher seems to have copied the original book in English and published it under a different title which is sold here at a very expensive 30 dollars: https://www.amazon.com/Presstitutes-Embedded-Pay-CIA-Confession/dp/1615770178/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0/135-6879697-5879016?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1615770178&pd_rd_r=3e0a83df-f0f1-4ab1-bde6-298b65c9a020&pd_rd_w=QdjMV&pd_rd_wg=8EyBK&pf_rd_p=5cfcfe89-300f-47d2-b1ad-a4e27203a02a&pf_rd_r=7SD24B75M7DGK0K7P3VD&psc=1&refRID=7SD24B75M7DGK0K7P3VD
>All i'm saying is, Scientists would never even begin to try to study a soul, life after death or any such things because it's a taboo subject
Actually, while I almost entirely agree with everything you've said so far (I avoid the /r/atheism circljerk like the plague), science has tried to tackle at least some of the spiritual unknown. I personally have not read it, but it is highly recommended and I have read other books by Mary Roach.
You might be interested in reading Spook. If basically goes through and takes a look at various beliefs of what happens after people die. It covers near death, ghosts, reincarnation, etc.
Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers was incredibly humorous and I also learned a lot of gross and interesting facts I can never bring up at dinner parties.
Stiff, Curious Lives of Human Cadavers
You may want to read this just before Gross Anatomy.
A german author released a book about this topic, but I don't know if it's available in english
Edit: https://www.amazon.de/Football-Leaks-schmutzigen-Profifu%C3%9Fball-SPIEGEL-Buch/dp/3421047812
> Nur weil ich jemandem in die Haare fasse, diskriminiere ich denjenigen doch nicht und denke, er wäre aufgrund seiner "Rasse" minderwertiger. Ich glaube da gibt es auch ein Definitionsproblem.
Es ist das Problem des Verobjektivierens. Schwarze Menschen machen die Erfahrung, dass ihnen Leute ungefragt in die Haare fassen weil sie schwarz sind. So, wie es eben manche Frauen erfahren (früher die Mehrheit), dass man sie nicht ernst nimmt und im Diskurs übergeht weil sie Frauen sind.
> Vielleicht liegt es ja auch ganz einfach an Erfahrungswerten, dass Frauen auf technischem Gebiet nicht so bewandert sind...
Und genau dies ist die Definition von Vorurteil. Woher weiß ich als männlicher Verkäufer, dass die Frau, die vor mir steht, keine Ahnung hat, ohne dass ich mit ihr gesprochen habe? Warum gehe ich automatisch davon aus, dass der Mann neben ihr sich auskennt? Warum werden schwarze Menschen in teureren Autos viel häufiger von der Polizei angehalten, als weiße?
Weil ich eben meine limitierten Erfahrungswerte universalisiere, ohne mir über die Einschränkungen meines persönlichen Datensatzes bewusst zu sein.
Und genau dasselbe passiert, wenn ich als weißer Mann sage: "Also von Sexismus und Rassismus krieg ich hier wenig mit, schon gar nicht in meinem Bekanntenkreis".
Deine und meine Ego-Perspektive auf die Welt und das Leben beleuchten sehr begrenzte Aspekte - und wir sind uns dessen meist nicht bewusst. Das ist es, was Leute meinen, wenn sie von "white" oder "male" privilege reden.
Falls es Dich interessiert, wie die Sicht von anderen aussieht (jenseits bloßer "Definitionsprobleme"):
> This here is their official website.
That is the site where they announce new document sets and updates. They used to post each document there - but the site was getting taken down.
What they done now is gave journalists access to the archive via the European Investigative Collaboration - the homepage for that project is here (18.6 million documents - pretty crazy)
It now means the documents can't be taken down but they will be reported on
It's similar to the difference between what Wikileaks does and what Snowden did. Wikileaks publishes raw documents while Snowden gave access to the archive to journalists. Football leaks was the former and is now the later.
There has also been one book written based on the documents - but its only in German at the moment.
A really good book to check out would be Mick West's (2018) Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect. Mick West is the founder of MetaBunk.org. His book is really designed to bring conspiracy theorists back out of the rabbit hole in a very respectful fashion. Chapters 9 and 10 focus specifically on debunking the controlled demolitions conspiracy along with a story of former truther. You can check out the section of MetaBunk debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories here.
Rob Brotherton's (2015) Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories is also worth checking out. However, I think that Mick West's book is more what you are looking for.
Michael Shermer's (2011) chapter on conspiracy theories in The Believing Brain: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time focuses on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
possibly not true. If you read Spook, there's a fascinating conversation with a physicist in which he uses thermodynamics and information theory to argue that your consciousness might not just disappear... instead, it may get "recycled" by the universe. So there may be a sort of afterlife, though not in the "spirits floating around and interacting" sense.
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
Everything you've ever wanted to know, and then some, about corpses.
> Basically people from Forensics dept's around the world come to America and dig up donated bodies then figure out what killed them..
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
Highly recommended book. Amusing, yet dealing with an interesting subject.
Stiff.
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, All links must be Archived. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
I want to learn about the afterlife. What happens when you die? What are some of the ideas people have of the afterlife? It's both terrifying and fascinating, but it's something I like to think about. This book would help me tackle the subject with more depth.
You got a source for that? I highly doubt most of the national press is owned by right wing investors. You have a couple of single large ones like News Corp (which even that is arguably not "right wing" in many areas of the company) but the rest are small independents like Breitbart or Rush. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and all the network affiliates are far larger combined.
This UCLA professor on the other hand concluded the exact opposite - that national press in the US is overwhelmingly liberal and distorts towards the left.
Go read this book. I could care less what happens to my body. I'm gone. Same for you regardless of your beliefs your are done with your body when you die. Maybe somebody else can use parts. Become an organ donor and know that someday you may help someone after you're gone.
http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939
If you're really interested, try the book Dark Heart: The Story of a Journey into an Undiscovered Britain by Nick Davis. Over 10 years old, but completely relevant now.
Ok, I didn't explain myself. I didn't want to reveal big details about myself, but the hectoring tone in your reply....makes me want just be totally honest. I never said anything about money=happiness. Look what I wrote: ''having lots of cash won't make getting a gf any easier but at least I'd be able to date a whole lot more often!'' Right now I spend about five nights a week sleeping outside a public library. That is on the street. I have sometimes have money for food, but not for a bed to sleep. On Friday and Saturday nights I don't feel safe on the street so I go to the cheap all night internet cafe and try to pretend that I'm still using a computer after my money runs out.Sometimes they turn a blind eye. To be blunt, I don't smell too fantastic, and it's obvious from looking at me that I sleep rough. Although I have severe depression, I can talk to girls generally. I'm not so good after the first date (I tend to talk too much), but one thing I know for sure; If I won the lottery I'd be able to clean myself up, sleep regularly, and be in the situtation where although I'd still be depressed, I'd be able to go to places to meet women and not feel self conscious. That was the point I was making.And dating women, even a succession of first dates, sounds pretty good from where I'm sitting.
The mistake you're making is that you believe that every African citizen is poor ''imagine just a single person in Africa'' and every Western citizen is rich: ''Relax and realise how good you've got it'' Let me ask you a question.Have you been to Africa?My parents are from Ghana, West Africa.In 2008 I was fortunate enough to visit the country of my ancestors, and stayed in the biggest house I've ever had the luck to sleep in.I met my cousins,who have experienced a MUCH better life financially (not to mention in other terms) than I have.They have never known homelessness.(This is my third and longest bout of homelessness). They have never had to steal food to survive. (Fortunately I'm not in that position this time around).They are dual nationality Ghanain/Nigerian citizens.I am a British citizen. ''Because you're living in the Western world you're still in the top 15% of the world population'' No my friend. That is not true. I believe you were trying to say that I'm in a COUNTRY that is in the top 15%. That does not mean that that lifestyle trickles down to me. Please read ''Dark Heart'' by Nick Davies. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Heart-Shocking-Hidden-Britain/dp/0099583011
That's all I have to say about that.
The day I wrote my entry I bought a lottery ticket with the little money I had and fantasised about living the life of riley. I also did a youtube search on lottery related subjects.So it was a funny co-incidence that a lottery winner was on reddit.
''Relax and realise how good you've got it'', you say.It would be fucking NICE to relax-maybe I'll do that when I can sleep somewhere that isn't on the street.In the meantime, please don't talk about people you know nothing about (African citizens) and of THINGS you know nothing about (my personal circumstances).
If any of you are further interested in the topic of burials and how we treat the dead, eco-friendly options, and/or the tradition of burial, I HIGHLY suggest Stiff, by Mary Roach. I had to read this for a Anthropology of Death class in college. It is an amazing read. Good stuff.
This story isn't new at all. In fact, it's covered in this rather fine book book by journalist Nick Davies, whose efforts to expose the workings of the Murdoch press and expose the failings of journalism in general (with a focus on British journalism) should be rewarded by everyone buying this book.
Seriously. Do it now.
Farsisr9k, Yes I do believe that the public shares the blame with the media for turning the “free press” into a cess pit of salacious idiocy. I implore you and anyone who is interested in journalism today to read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies (no affiliation to myself, just a bloody though provoking read ). By asking tabloid junkies, “true crime” readers and all manner of other CSI watchers to share a smidgeon of the blame I am in no way apologising for Murdoch. He and his followers have done as much lasting damage to the decency of one human being to another as Hitler and the Nazis ever did.
What I was getting at is that the News now markets murder and other horrific events at us like an entertainment product; but we can chose to be entertained by it of not. Please allow yourself to imagine a world where Murdoch and Co don’t “saturate” you and everyone else with their corrupt commercial imperatives… Its not difficult if you try :-)
Fun book! Funny woman investigates scientific studies that have been done on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393329127
Better grab a copy of this book while you're at it.
In her book Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife Mary Roach explores the OOB/operating table phenomena, among other things. Conclusion: inconclusive, all reports are anecdotal.
There is one scientist doing a controlled study, by placing a computer monitor on top of a shelf in the OR, aimed at the ceiling. The images change randomly. The theory is that someone leaving their body and looking down at the scene should be able to describe the image on the monitor; to date, this hasn't happened. Study has been running a few years now.
I don't want to be rude, but quite frankly - if I were going to base my opinion on all Libertarians by a few anecdotal experiences like you're doing here - I would have to conclude that most of you are dangerously naive, extremely ignorant in American history believing that your strict adherence to the Constitution is some kind of strength (it is not) and that the majority of you are indeed crypto-racists and anti-Semites (I say this because so many Ron Paul supporters I come across all seemingly have a neurotic fixation with Jews, Israel and our monetary system, which you are also dangerously ignorant on ).
So if you don't want me to assume that about you, I would kindly ask that you not base all your opinions on Liberals on your one friend who - well meaning as she might be - does not represent an authoritative voice on our wide-ranging beliefs and how they fit into the broader question of Constitutional muster.
In a nutshell, you have been duped by Ron Paul and his cohorts of Libertarian propaganda masters who have weaved a mythical tapestry of Early America that simply never existed.
The Early Republic was NOT this laissez-faire paradise that Ron Paul et al. would have you believe.
The Founding Fathers were STATISTS through-and-through. I don't give a damn about what you want to believe. I'm telling you cold. hard. facts. You want to believe in the Easter Bunny? Go ahead. I don't care.
But you cannot choose to believe or not believe in facts; they do not require your belief, they are facts that need to be accepted.
Much of the first half of the 19th century, the United States' economy was run under the American System. Which involved active intervention in our economy.
Thomas Jefferson (among others) was a supporter of printing and postal subsidies in order to foster an independent press
John Adams signed the Healthcare law of 1798 mandating that privately employed sailors HAD to buy health insurance/
And early on corporations were only chartered so long as they provided a public interest such as the building of roads or canals.
And this is all just the tip of the iceberg.
The entire narrative that the Early Republic was this mythical land overflowing with milk and honey with the population unburdened by state intervention is simply the same well-worn propaganda that has been thrown around since 19th century in order to lure cheap immigrant labor from overseas.
For most Liberals the Constitution is indispensable - particularly the Bill of Rights - which is the bed rock of modern Liberal values. Though it may not seem this way to the political extremists known as Conservatives and Libertarians, but unfortunately when you only see things in black and white, nuance and shades of gray appear alien and threatening. I'll leave it at that since this comment is much longer than I originally intended.
Wenn du tatsächlich nicht versteht was Ebow mit einer weißen Position meinst, solltest du demnächst mal wieder in einem Buchladen vorbeischauen (hier, hier und hier findest du aktuelle deutschsprachige Bücher). Falls du daran kein Interesse haben solltest, reagiere bitte nicht mit einem Zitatgewitter - die Zeit können wir uns beide sparen.
Edit:Typo
Chris Wallace is the best of them, but his reporting is biased. Check out his interview with Jon Stewart on youtube. Bret Baier is pathetically biased. Shepard Smith has his moments, but none of them are even close to objective. It's not just in the way they present the news, it's the news Fox chooses to present, what it ignores, the terminology used.
Fox is institutionally one-sided, propagandistic, and as I said, Fox viewers are consistently misinformed, under-informed and ignorant when they re polled. Consistently. Dozens of polls, dozens of years. No question.
Watch the documentary Outfoxed. There are examples of many interviews with reporters who worked there.
Why do you think right wing neocons and Republicans always choose Fox to grant interviews exclusively? It's because they get softball questions. Why do people like Sarah Palin and Huckabee and John Kasich and many other GOP politicians end up getting jobs on air at Fox and no where else? Because Fox is biased, and they can be their party hack selves there.
If you don't know this, you don't know anything. Google around you will find endless information to back me up on this, and no credible sources making the case for Fox's impartiality. Look at the myriad conservative assholes who work there. Hannity, O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, those three shitheads in the morning that Douchy guy, the stupid lady and the overgrown mutant five year old, Brian Kilmeade. Look at the management, the megalomaniacal Rupert Murdoch and the party hack Roger Ailes, who brought us Rush Limbaugh.
Why did Rush Limbaugh endlessly promote Fox on his program when it was new? Because it's to "fair and balanced"? No, because it's a biased propaganda machine for conservatives and Republican greedheads.
Studies find that Fox news tells the truth about 18% of the time. On a good day. And here are endless other articles to back up my claim. I haven't parsed them all, so there may be some opinion pieces in there, but my point is undeniable. They include sources like th Temple foundation, Pew Research, Quora, NY Times, Brookings Institute and so on. there
s just no question about this.
A video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrWGgBKv8go
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
http://www.alternet.org/story/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed
http://guides.temple.edu/fake
https://forwardprogressives.com/fact-checking-site-finds-fox-news-tells-truth-18-percent-time/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/08/fair-balanced-fraud-exposed-94-fox-news-viewers-republicans.html
http://aattp.org/university-professor-do-not-use-fox-news-as-a-source/
http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/bad-news.html
http://www.justice-integrity.org/1094-fox-news-spews-mind-changing-propaganda
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/how-fox-news-destroyed-republican-party_b_9644594.html
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/02/peak-propaganda-fox-news-creates-an-alternate-reality-and-cnn-perpetuates-it/
https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Effect-Network-Propaganda-Machine/dp/0307279588
Before you listen to this guy you should read what A. Macleod, an academic who wrote his PhD thesis on Venezuela and media manipulation wrote about this topic in an AMA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/ak1wtu/hello_im_dr_alan_macleod_i_have_studied_venezuela/ef1a624/
His book is on amazon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-News-Venezuela-misreporting-Communication/dp/1138489239
It's also worth remembering what the same media and these same NGOs (HRW/Amnesty) led us into destroying Libya
There are many write ups of this, but the jist of it is coming out of the Nixon admin, a media staffer saw the potential of a news org to swing public opinion. This jr Nixon staffer was named Rodger Ailes and he became a major DC republican operative thru the 80s and 90s. He was the head of Fox from its beginning in the late 90s until 2016 when he was ousted in a sex scandal and died later that year - all the while advising the Trump campaign right up until his death.
Can read about it here in much more detail or on many sites online. The key is to look into the career and goals of Rodger Ailes. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307279588/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_oncxCb6CR3D5K
Autogenerated.
We work for Der Spiegel and broke Dozens of stories from our Football Leaks research – AMA!
Hi, we’re Rafael Buschmann and Christoph Winterbach from DER SPIEGEL. We recently worked on #FootballLeaks for eight months. With 3.4 terabytes of data, including 70 million documents, it’s the biggest leak that journalists have ever investigated. It wouldn’t have been possible without a fantastic team here at Der Spiegel and without our media partners from the research network European Investigative Collaborations (EIC)!
So far, we published stories about...
and many more.
In the past couple of years, there were actually quite a few big stories that we published with the help of data from Football Leaks. We revealed...
There is also the Football Leaks book, written by Rafael and Michael Wulzinger. It’s available in German and English, and there will be a new one come spring time.
As you see, there’s a lot of ground to cover! Good thing we’re two people to answer your questions on here. It’s really us, by the way: @Rafanelli_Spiegel and @derWinterbach
Let’s get this going... We'll collect questions starting now and start answering at 8pm.
Ask Us Anything!
-----------------------------------------------------------
IamAbot_v01. Alpha version. Under care of /u/oppon.
Comment 1 of 1
Updated at 2018-11-12 19:06:58.236289
Next update in approximately 20 mins at 2018-11-12 19:26:58.236325
And this is the book if you are interested:
http://www.amazon.de/Gekaufte-Journalisten-Udo-Ulfkotte/dp/3864451434
Yea that's a problem but it's definitely not the problem with Reddit. The real issue is the fact that this site is an astroturfer's paradise. Create a thousand bots, have them create a thousand accounts, post a thousand reposts, then post comments from the original posts in the reposts and upvote upvote upvote. Do this for 3 months and sell the accounts to social media marketing companies. The absolute worst aspect isn't even the corporate advertising which I think is as benign as commercials. The real sinister astroturfing is the political type. Whether it was r/the_donald posts on the front page daily during the election or the daily anti-trump r/politics posts today. These are almost certainly not organic and there is evidence for it. It is propaganda pure and simple. Social and political manipulation on a mass scale.
I strongly recommended anyone who reads this post check out the book The Smear by Sharyl Attkisson. The book is truly eye opening and you will never look at social media the same way again. The media in general too. There's a reason the media seems to reflect reality so poorly, it's because it doesn't.
In the book she outlines how partisan political groups game internet algorithms to put their content in front of as many eyes as possible. She even interviews some of the people involved in the work. Reddit really makes it easy for them. They even prepared for 2020 by quarantining the only pro Trump sub on this site so that democrats are the only ones who can successfully game the system during the next election.
A large percentage of viral events on the internet are staged these days. Considering the potential profit of making something go viral, why wouldn't they? It's like a multi-million dollar ad campaign that costs a few thousand dollars. It seems people have no imagination when it comes to these things. A perfect example is that Popeye's chicken sandwich that people were mysteriously obsessed with beyond rationality.
You need a ladder to climb out of this rabbit hole you've found yourself in. If ladders ain't your thing, perhaps try a book? Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about this and the history of cadavers/medicine/ethic of the dead while NOT being a med student. Highly humorous at times and very informative.
Stiff?
It has been written: the fox effect
Yeah the end destination of the data in this application is an AWS cloud server, but why couldnt it be your local post office instead? The truck dumps all with addresses in that particular local meshnet (and all those which need transferred to trucks headed other directions), picks up outgoing messages according to its next destination, and keeps on truckin.
The US Postal Service is hurting pretty bad right now. A retrofit of their existing fleet and stations would enable them to carry the packets and parcels of the 21st century - a new product which might sustain an institution once vital to the US democratic system (citation)
edit: too many words
Read Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife by Mary Roach. She goes into detailed research about infrasound and electromagnetism being the causes of ghost sightings.
Good book. Love Mary's stuff. Stiff is also great.
I saw this picture in a post in pics about the Romney/Obama divide. I'm not American, but this seems to me to be a form of brainwashing. It implies you're either with us or against us. There is no middle ground for you. I'm sure this kind of poster wouldn't go up in NY or California.
Brainwashing isn't really about strapping you to an electrode machine and shocking you into submission. The real messages that are being sent are far more subtle than that and come from your TV, radio and the internet. Everyone operates with an agenda. The news corporations are there to make a profit. They provide the news that sells. They tell the people what they want to hear. There is a great book called Flat Earth News which goes into great detail about the news is served to largely ignorant public.
I think it's fine if he means it. If not, I agree he shouldn't be saying it. However, ISIL has lost 1/3 of its territory under President Trump's strategy for the military. President Trump also wasn't afraid to bomb a Syrian airbase after Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons.
He's clearly not very patient--and nor should he be.
> Hence, other world-leaders could use mere words as a prod, rendering Don-Don's actions & replies as both predictable and VERY susceptible to being twisted and used for propaganda.
Well, as a matter of fact, HR 6393 passed by Obama in 2016 legalizes counterintelligence propaganda to be used on American citizens and against foreign countries such as Russia (Russia is especially specifically stated in this bill). So you're right about it being twisted and used for propaganda.
This was when Obama found of the pre-existing evidence of Trump's relation to Russia. There is no "new evidence" of the past; the tailored ops group had already captured and analyzed it.
The media are playing games. Some members of Congress acknowledge this (i.e. Trey Gowdy).
The fact that this is the book that the quote is sourced from makes me understand why such peculiar wording would be used.
It also made me lose just a little more faith in Wikipedia's validity.
You can donate your face so aspiring plastic surgeons can reconstruct your dead nose -- see book Stiff. I want to be composted. I used to want my corpse dropped in an active volcano from a helicopter but that's totally impractical, probably not legal (but you can probably chop my parts up and get away with it).... not to mention it's such a to-do for someone who doesn't really think about the afterlife too much. Composting though, that sounds useful. David Cross will do this
I highly recommend this book -- http://www.amazon.com/Stiff-Curious-Lives-Human-Cadavers/dp/0393050939 -- it's a very well researched discussion of all of the possibilities for cadavers. You'll be quite surprised at what "donating your body to science" can mean. My favorite part was the need for human bodies to calibrate crash-test dummies.
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/0966410076/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450211&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Drug-War-Dan-Russell/dp/0965025349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450271&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-3rd-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450315&sr=1-1
Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. Opened my eyes to the broken state of the global media.
I just finished The Emperor of All Maladies and just shortly before that Stiff. I really enjoyed both of them! Emperor is a long read, but well written and very thorough. Stiff is a quick, enjoyable read that's a less academic, but still really interesting. I'm about to start My Sister's Keeper. The PI across the hall recommended it. And I'm reading Introduction to Statistical Thought by Lavine for a class. I added a few of the books other people listed here to my to-read list
I read an article in my school paper about a year ago, but heres the book the article was talking about. Its actually like 86% from what this says. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1568586051/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/180-9785174-4663364
	
	
	
> # Why Venezuela Reporting Is So Bad
>
>
>
> Bad News From Venezuela
>
> Alan MacLeod’s Bad News From Venezuela
>
>
>
> For almost 20 years, the US government has been trying to overthrow Venezuela’s government, and establishment media outlets (state, corporate and some nonprofit) throughout the Americas and Europe have been bending over backwards to help the US do it.
>
> Rare exceptions to this over the last two decades would be found in the state media in some countries that are not hostile to Venezuela, like the ALBA block. Small independent outlets like VenezuelAnalysis.com also offered alternatives. In the US and UK establishment media, you are way more likely to see a defense of Saudi Arabia’s dictatorship than of Venezuela’s democratically elected government. Any defense of Venezuela’s government will provoke vilification and ridicule, so both Alan MacLeod and his publisher (Routledge) deserve very high praise for producing the book Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting. It took real political courage. (Disclosure: MacLeod is a contributor to FAIR.org, as am I.)
>
> MacLeod’s approach was to assess 501 articles (news reports and opinion pieces) about Venezuela that appeared in the US and UK newspapers during key periods since Hugo Chávez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1998. Chávez died in March 2013, and his vice president, Nicolas Maduro, was elected president a month later. Maduro was just re-elected to a second six-year term on May 20. The periods of peak interest in Venezuela that MacLeod examined involved the first election of Chávez in 1998, the US-backed military coup that briefly ousted Chávez in April of 2002, the death of Chávez in 2013 and the violent opposition protests in 2014.
>
> MacLeod notes that US government funding to the Venezuelan opposition spiked just before the 2002 coup, and then increased again afterwards. What would happen to a foreign government that conceded (as the US State Department’s Office of the Inspector General did regarding Venezuela) that it funded and trained groups involved with violently ousting the US government?
>
> MacLeod shows that, in bold defiance of the facts, the US media usually treated US involvement in the coup as a conspiracy theory, on those rare occasions when US involvement was discussed at all. Only 10 percent of the articles MacLeod sampled in US media even mentioned potential US involvement in the coup. Thirty-nine percent did in UK media, but, according to MacLeod, “only the Guardian presented US involvement as a strong possibility.”
>
> Venezuelan Media: Caged or Free?
>
> Source: Alan MacLeod
>
>
>
> As somebody who regularly reads Venezuelan newspapers and watches its news and political programs, I thought the most powerful evidence MacLeod provided of Western media dishonesty was a chart showing how Venezuela’s media system has been depicted from 1998–2014. Of the 166 articles in MacLeod’s sample that described the state of Venezuela’s media, he classified 100 percent of them as spreading a “caged” characterization: the outlandish story that the Chávez and Maduro governments dominate the media, or have otherwise used coercion to practically silence aggressive criticism.
>
> There is a bit of subjectivity involved in classifying articles in a sample like MacLeod’s. From my own very close reading of the US and UK’s Venezuela coverage over the years, I’m sure one could quibble that a few articles within MacLeod’s sample contradict the “caged” story; perhaps reducing the percentage to 95 percent, but that would hardly assail his conclusion. It is truly stunning that Western journalists can’t be relied on to accurately report the content of Venezuelan newspapers and TV. How hard is it to watch TV and read newspapers, and notice that the government is being constantly blasted by its opponents? No background in economics or any type of esoterica is required to do that much—simply a lack of extreme partisanship and a minimal level of honesty.
>
> MacLeod acknowledges that the Carter Center has refuted a few big lies about the Venezuelan government, including the one about government critics being shut out of Venezuela’s media, but he also reminds us that a week after the perpetrators of the 2002 coup thanked Venezuela’s private media for their help installing a dictatorship, Jennifer McCoy (America director for the Carter Center at the time) wrote an op-ed for the New York Times (4/18/02) in which she said that the “Chávez regime” had been “threatening the country’s democratic system of checks and balances and freedom of expression of its citizens.” Venezuelan democracy deserved much better “allies.” The Carter Center may have sparkled at times compared to the rest of the US establishment, but it’s a very filthy establishment.
>
> Drawing from the work of Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky, MacLeod provides a structural analysis of why coverage of Venezuela has been so terrible. Corporate journalists, with rare exceptions, reflexively dismiss common-sense analysis of their industry. Chomsky and Herman therefore resorted to proving various common-sense propositions, identifying “filters” that distort news coverage in ways that serve the rich and powerful. For example, it matters who pays the bills. (In other news, water is wet.) Corporate-owned, ad-dependent media will tend to serve the agenda of wealthy owners and corporate customers who provide the bulk of the ad dollars. Such media will usually hire and promote people whose worldview is compatible with the arrangement. That greatly reduces the need for heavy-handed bullying to enforce an editorial line.
>
> Business pressures also drive media outlets to cuts costs, and therefore rely on governments and big corporate outfits as cheap and readily available sources. Losing “access” by alienating powerful sources therefore becomes expensive, even before you consider other forms of flak that powerful people can apply.
>
> Beyond the general “filters” that Chomsky and Herman identified, MacLeod described others that are specific to Venezuela. MacLeod pointed to
>
> > massive cuts to newsroom budgets, leading to reliance on local stringers. Local journalists recruited from highly adversarial Venezuelan opposition–aligned press, leading to a situation where Venezuelan opposition ideas and talking points have their amplitude magnified. Anti-government activists producing supposedly objective news content for Western media.
>
> He also explained that
>
> > journalists are overwhelmingly housed in the wealthy Chacao district of Eastern Caracas…. This, combined with concerns over crime, creates a situation where journalists inordinately spend their work and leisure time in an opposition bastion. Hence, it can appear to a journalist that “everyone” has a negative opinion about the government.
>
> I wish MacLeod had more forcefully stressed another factor explaining why Venezuela reporting is so bad: impunity. A structural analysis explains why biased coverage results even if journalists are usually honest, but being able to say anything you want about an adversary without having to worry about being refuted (and discredited) encourages dishonesty. Media bias in Venezuela’s case could more appropriately be called media corruption.
>
> (continues in next comment)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273503/average-paid-weekday-circulation-of-the-new-york-times/
https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/1949017257