Asklemmy

51689 readers

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

21 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

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If it's all propaganda and nothing happened, then why the fuck is China so draconian about preventing any and all conversation about it?

I mean, if it was all made up lies, certainly they would want people talking about the truth of the matter, rather than banning and prosecuting anyone who dares mention that it was anything other than a normal day.

Now, some people might see this and easily be able to tell that something stinks and clearly there is something they are trying to cover up. We call this "Not having the critical thinking skills of a dead goldfish"

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

no one is immune to propaganda and both goebbels and bernays have demonstrated to the world how effectively critical thinking can be shaped through controlled narratives.

china exhibits draconian measures to issues like tiananmen because it was a genuine protest and DEEPLY inconvenient for the chinese government. it was only one of many protests that caused civil unrest throughout the entire country (ie it was much bigger than just tiananmen square) and they really don't want a repeat of that violence.

in typical western fashion, the legacy media latched onto a kernel of truth and shaped the narrative of that a fledgling neoliberal democracy movement when the truth was that the protesters that pushed for such a thing were an overwhelmingly small minority when you consider the huge number of protestors taking to the streets during that time throughout the entire country.

china doesn't have oligarchic ruling class solidarity like the united states or the rest of west does so it's silencing of dissent is much more blunt and direct through government apparatuses where the western oligarchies prefers to employ significantly more subtle and easier to hide dissent silencing like deplatforming and sanctions against individuals like francesca albanese or 9 of the icc judges.