The conspiracy theory pandemic is a massive species-level problem, as if we needed another one. I’m surprised I don’t see this covered more urgently by trustworthy media.
@Floppy What media do you consider trustworthy?
@pettter naming specific plays into the hands of the anti-mainstream-media conspiracists, but how about “reporters at established media organisations with a track record of accuracy and integrity”.
but will such a coverage by "trustworthy media" get its message across to the anti-mainstream-media conspiracists? I would guess at "no", as what one person calls trustworthy another calls "fake news". And then it would turn in to a preaching to the choir moment, no?
Also, as I am interested in the phenomenon of conspiracy theories and their rise myself (not following them, but reading/learning about them etc) I think there actually is some coverage out there, from sources I mainly "trust", and by most are considered "not-overly-biased" (to remove that factor from it too).
It is an interesting dilemma for sure, I'm not trying to kill the debate/argument, more to voice/test my own thoughts on it.
A healthy distrust of the information we are offered is important and the phrase "conspiracy theory" is often used to undermine that skepticism.
Cultures have many ways of reinforcing their perspectives, most of them unconscious. Journalism has its hand in this, as does a more networked society. We see less and less with our own eyes and rely more and more on the reports of others.
In order to be credible, this network needs a certain critical mass of practicing scientists/doctors/etc. within the community. Without this, such as in a poor neighborhood, what does one see?
State enforced curtailment of freedoms, accompanied by assurances of politicians who you feel have fucked you over time and again.
I would be more concerned by blind obedience than misinformed recalcitrance.
