Ideology – its there you just need to recognise it… Look again at your national press and starting from a position touted as ‘common sensical’ look for images and texts that promote a view that could be misleading.
The link to the Guardian article which was published in the physical course book is a 404 and is missing in the revised online PDF PH5SAO_090320 but a quick google turns it up here:
That was October 2014 and I suspect (unreliably, probably) that the population has polarised further since then, leading to more misconceptions and greater entrenchment of views.
Here are some images and texts which may promote a ‘misleading’ view. From my common sense standpoint of course. It does look like the ‘common sensical’ position is meant to be that of the publication itself, but wouldn’t they all consider their position as common sense?
This from the Telegraph today. You really need to already know so much in order to read this in any way at all. First, the header – is the world (all of it) really erupting? Do the figures add up – twelve arrests out of 1000 demonstrators in one city doesn’t really constitute a world eruption. So I’d say the subs have been following the usual Telegraph line, which (to my view) is that social disruption is unwelcome, it involves young people who are scary, they are disobeying the police who must always be obeyed and this is newsworthy because it directly affects you, in Sherborne. It also says it’s a weekly event but I’d say an eruption is singular and spontaneous.
You also need to know about facemasks, police with crash helmets but no motorcycles, young men in Guy Fawkes masks among other more obvious signs.
This view is misleading because it implies that social unrest is widespread when it isn’t (I don’t think. Yet)
While perusing the DT online pages I come across:
Here’s a good one from the Mailonline:
It’s true there will be an asteroid event but whether 4 million miles away counts as a fly-by I don’t know. I suppose that’s close in astronomical terms. One thing I CAN be sure about is that it really isn’t wearing a mask of any kind. But I suppose it distracts the Mail from its avowed purpose of dividing the world’s contents into those which cause cancer and those that don’t.
In the NYT a story appeared about an Israeli soldier who had been stabbed and killed by a Palestinian. The NYT chose to publish a photograph of the assailant’s mother to accompany the story. This provoked considerable consternation among the readership, who were quick to point out that it did not accurately reflect the tenor of the events; basically it was too sympathetic to the Palestinian side. The story and the photograph are factual but the choice of picture may disclose a world view which rankles with some readers. The NYT is regarded as somewhat left of centre in its political stance and certainly on the liberal end of the scale. Trump considers much of their reporting to be ‘fake news’ but independent fact checking rates the content quite highly.
In times when those in authority can make pretty much any claim they like without acknowledging the burden of truth it can be difficult to negotiate a path to veracity. I don’t think there can be a solution to this; it will always be largely matter of personal emphasis.
Over on https://www.davidicke.com an interesting social experiment is in progress involving the elasticity of truth and its interplay with a range of personality disorders. Icke’s ideology is convoluted but largely centres around the invisible but influential control of the world by a powerful elite. The concept of robust evidence-based investigation is notable by its absence but he has a huge worldwide following which he energises with audio visual aids:
Alarming report reveals nearly half of all Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, yet no one talks about weed killer in the food supply
There is truth here; cancer diagnoses really are increasing everywhere in the western world, not just Canada, but it has nothing to do with weedkiller – it’s due to an aging population. I make that assertion without referring to any actual evidence but I’m sure I could find it if needed. But this doesn’t serve Icke’s purpose well at all. If you believe you have been “sent” to save the world, boring old epidemiological studies aren’t lively -or simple – enough to serve your cause.
I do feel sorry for David because I suspect he is unwell, but the recent decision by Youtube to pull his channel on the grounds of ‘dangerous misinformation’ seems reasonable.