Mainstream Credibility: Where’s the Proof?

three-monkeys-media

The alternative media is constantly being called “crazy conspiracy theorists” whenever they write articles talking about government corruption or anything going against the national narrative being portrayed. I find this to be quite disturbing considering how whenever they (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) write articles and almost never show any proof, whatsoever. How is it that the American people have come to trust them so much? What happened to trust but verify? Something is wrong here.

Maybe you don’t read the news as often as I do, or maybe you get all your news from places like Facebook and Twitter where trends and memes are more important than supporting facts and sources if information. If that’s the case, you’re not used to seeing proof, so I can understand your confusion. Let me bring you into my world for a moment and share some mainstream articles I found with no supporting evidence where I believe there should be some. Afterwards, I’ll show you some alternative media websites and how they’ve reported on similar stories. Maybe then you will see the point I’m trying to make.

Mainstream Media Examples

Here’s a story from CNN on February 20th, 2015 called, “DHS Intelligence Report Warns of Domestic Right-Wing Terror Threat“. Reading that title, you’d expect to see an explanation of what the report said, maybe a description of what DHS considers to be a “right-wing terror threat” and a couple quotes from it. All of those things are present, but what’s not in the article is an actual copy of the report… what!? So CNN is willing to quote this document and give you their spin on what it means, but they’re not willing to share it’s actual content with you. Just trust them.

How about this one… August 29th, 2014, the Washington Free Beacon reports, “FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism“. Once again, everything you’d expect to see in the article, except for the actual document. You’d think that a report supposedly identifying “white supremacists, black separatists, militias, abortion extremists” and others as a domestic terror threat would be shared, but it’s not. In fact, the only piece they do show is the cover page of this 60-page report. Wow, how informative! I guess we’re just supposed to trust them too.

Alternative Media Examples

Back on March 11th, 2009, so-called “conspiracy theorists” over at Infowars.com wrote an article titled, “Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians Are Terrorists“. Sounds crazy right? Well, if you follow the link, you’ll see not only quotes from this memo, but the full text as well. Not only do they provide you with actual documents, but if you continue reading, you’ll see that they also provide links to other news articles (not just their own stories either) supporting the claims they’re making. Imagine that… not just news… proof too!

Another alternative news outlet, Judicial Watch, constantly breaks news stories and scandals with supporting documentation. In fact, these “conspiracy theorists” are so “crazy” they actually have an archive of documents and reports they’ve obtained where you can search their database anytime you wish. A recent story published on May 29th, 2015, “JW Gets TSA Files of Lost Badges Used to Enter Secure Areas at Airports” not only claims that the Transportation Security Administration has lost hundreds of uniforms and badges since 2012, but they actually show you the proof they’ve obtained to support those claims! Investigative journalism at it’s finest, at least in my opinion.

Similarities and Differences

If you actually looked at these articles you might say, so what? It’s not like CNN and the Washington Free Beacon made up those stories just to push some agenda. Many other mainstream outlets covered those same stories, obviously they thought it was credible information, right? It’s not a fake story, so what’s the point of all this?

In all of these stories, mainstream or alternative, each outlet claimed to have an exclusive scoop on the story they were reporting on. In the case of the mainstream media, they just assumed that you would trust them, so they didn’t bother showing any proof. They told you their interpretation of it, made a couple comments about what it means to them and left it at that. In the case of the alternative media, they not only told you what they thought about it, they showed you the evidence to support their claims. By showing the actual documents they’re referring to, the reader is able to look at the evidence and form their own opinion on what it all means.

Next time you’re reading a news article or a comment someone’s made on social media, ask yourself this one question, “where’s the proof supporting these claims?” Nine times out of ten there won’t be any proof. In most cases it’s just another talking point from another talking head. Stop listening to people who treat you like an idiot! News is meant to question the official story, not support it blindly. Next time you think about sharing an article or post, ask yourself, “where’s the proof?”

Final Thoughts

If a news outlet can’t support their argument with factual evidence, it’s just another opinion. Starting this blog post, it was my opinion that the mainstream media is less credible than the alternative media. I’ve shown you how the mainstream and alternative media’s treat exclusive/breaking news stories. I’ve also provided links to each news story so that you could decide for yourself if what I’ve claimed is true. Therefore, I feel comfortable saying that my original opinion is not only accurate, but substantiated by evidence of their own behavior. Disagree? Comment below.

Be the first to comment on "Mainstream Credibility: Where’s the Proof?"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*