Just because there are oddities in the photos from the moon landings, that doesn't mean that they were mocked up in the Nevada desert. Favour the simplest explanation that fits the known evidence. So just because you see a weird flying saucer and the OV claims it's marsh gas, don't assume it's therefore an alien spaceship. But assume it is true if you do see decent proof.' The September 11 CT that said 'Flight 93 was brought down by the airforce not the passengers' was once a widely held internet CT, but then decent taped evidence came along and undermined it among all but the most cynical.Ģ Use Occam's Razor - which means that the best explanation of any event must make as few assumptions as possible. But for a reader or viewer, rule one is 'Don't believe the OV until you see proof. So when they 're told that Iraq has chemical weapons, journalists tend to publish it. No-one ever got sacked for printing the OV, and, let's face it, challenging it takes a lot of graft for a busy reporter. So we present our net veteran Adam Livingstone's personal rule-of-thumb guide to believing CTs and OVs:ġ Journalists usually take government facts in good faith, albeit they're somewhat spun and edited. You lot can say what you like about Diana and flying saucers and JFK, but hacks stick to the evidence, at least until they get down the pub.īut as the internet takes over the media mainstream, conspiracy theory (CT) journalism is getting a much wider airing than it ever used to, whereas the official version (OV) is no longer shifting copy like it did. Not because they're arch-rationalists who never entertain such notions in private but because if they publish something controversial and can't back it up, big trouble follows. Most journalists use the phrase 'conspiracy theory' as an insult.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |