Alternative American perspectives

Daily Pickings has covered the mendacity of mainstream news sources and pointed to a number of alternatives, particularly UK Column. It provides a UK perspective and is an honest alternative to the BBC which, according to an independent survey, is distrusted by 83% of people in the UK.

We've recently been alerted to a US source of alternative news which is punchy and honest.

So, if you're looking for a daily "fix" of current news, The Last American Vagabond and UK Column are good places to start.

"Breaking News" is not the best way to understand the world, we need deeper and wider perspectives but once we have thoseĀ perspectives, it is easier to discriminate between fake news and sources which focus on trying to get to the truth of events and issues.

Comments   

 
0 #6 Clive Menzies 2018-02-11 18:01
Quoting James Walter:

You are, in effect, arguing against democracy, arguing for blind obedience to our kings and aristocrats. Now don't take that too badly. I have, in effect, argued the same, that the common man and woman do not have the time or inclination or ability to really know.
The problem that remains is that how do they pick whom to follow.


Yes to the first part. But suggesting the only alternative is blind obedience to a dictator/aristo cracy is way off target.

I don't have time to reiterate what I've been trying to share/convey via Daily Pickings now but essentially we're talking about anarchy in its real sense - ie. no ruler.

www.freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/1971-in-a-moving-river-nothing-can-ever-be-set-in-stone

I agree too many are too distracted/dumb ed down to grapple with this and what it entails but a small, growing number are grasping this essential concept.
 
 
0 #5 James Walter 2018-02-11 16:04
Quoting Clive Menzies :
Quoting James Walter:
We need more than you, me, and Janos doing it.
People interact on multiple channels/platforms/media and expecting everyone to jump aboard Critical Thinking's "band wagon" is unrealistic: it's also debatable as to whether it's desirable.

Critical Thinking is more of a filter and disseminator of information and ideas than an organisation. It is one manifestation of CoCreative Learning and it's the sharing of information and ideas which is paramount.
cocreativelearning.org

Beyond the group email list, the weekly sessions and the website, we can see our work rippling out like the ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.

For example, we've now got some 1500 followers on Twitter, yet we only follow 25 - so our followers are motivated to follow by what we share rather than by "follow-backs".

The diversity of followers is what's most encouraging and exemplifies communication with "others", people who wouldn't normally congregate anywhere else.
twitter.com/FCriticalThink


As long as we are in dialogue with the "other" we are making progress, rather than preaching to the choir.

So don't despair at the lack of interaction here - as long as it's happening somewhere :-)


You are, in effect, arguing against democracy, arguing for blind obedience to our kings and aristocrats. Now don't take that too badly. I have, in effect, argued the same, that the common man and woman do not have the time or inclination or ability to really know.
The problem that remains is that how do they pick whom to follow.
 
 
0 #4 James Walter 2018-02-11 16:02
Quoting Clive Menzies :
Quoting James Walter:
And I take it that you don't think Huffington, Alex Jones, Daily Kos, et. al. qualify as good sources? That Corbett is not enough?


Hi Jimmy

Few sources are without an agenda/ideological baggage or blindspots. Some are more tainted than others. It's best to look at as many independent sources as possible and prefer those recommended by people within your "circle of trust".

No one person can know everything or cover sufficient ground to get a deep or wide enough perspective on everything and so we are dependent on each other.

It's a question of building up layers of filters, being other people/groups whose analysis one comes to trust. Corbett is one such but he, like all of us, has blind spots. The CoCreative Learning wiki covers the process, principles and sources in much greater depth.

cocreativelearning.org

In response to your question, where there is merchandising or advertising involved, we should be especially vigilant. Huffpo is very much mainstream. Alex Jones smacks of Psyops/controlled opposition. I don't know Daily Kos which means no-one within the Critical Thinking community has pointed to useful articles from there that I can recall - draw you own conclusions but there may or may not be legitimate reasons for that.

There are few general sources of good information but many excellent researchers/analysts looking at specific, topics, issues and events who together provide corroborated narratives which can be relied on, at least until new information emerges to refine or change the narratives.

Critical Thinking's snapshots of the political economy are a useful framework to assess information. If information challenges our narrative, we need to dig deeper and wider to reassess our latest snapshot but if it corroborates our analysis, we can usefully point to it.

Daily Pickings references numerous, diverse sources.

HTH


I saw Huffington, herself, in LA right after W stole his first election. Her message was that it was our fault, that we had to try harder. She did not try to rally the troops against the blatant crime that his election was. From that point on, I knew she was "the loyal opposition".

As for Alex, he goes out of his way to look crazy and completely ignores the Israeli crimes.

I like Corbett, but he is very limited.
 
 
0 #3 Clive Menzies 2018-02-11 14:26
Quoting James Walter:
We need more than you, me, and Janos doing it.
People interact on multiple channels/platfo rms/media and expecting everyone to jump aboard Critical Thinking's "band wagon" is unrealistic: it's also debatable as to whether it's desirable.

Critical Thinking is more of a filter and disseminator of information and ideas than an organisation. It is one manifestation of CoCreative Learning and it's the sharing of information and ideas which is paramount.
cocreativelearning.org

Beyond the group email list, the weekly sessions and the website, we can see our work rippling out like the ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.

For example, we've now got some 1500 followers on Twitter, yet we only follow 25 - so our followers are motivated to follow by what we share rather than by "follow-backs".

The diversity of followers is what's most encouraging and exemplifies communication with "others", people who wouldn't normally congregate anywhere else.
twitter.com/FCriticalThink


As long as we are in dialogue with the "other" we are making progress, rather than preaching to the choir.

So don't despair at the lack of interaction here - as long as it's happening somewhere :-)
 
 
0 #2 Clive Menzies 2018-02-11 14:13
Quoting James Walter:
And I take it that you don't think Huffington, Alex Jones, Daily Kos, et. al. qualify as good sources? That Corbett is not enough?


Hi Jimmy

Few sources are without an agenda/ideologi cal baggage or blindspots. Some are more tainted than others. It's best to look at as many independent sources as possible and prefer those recommended by people within your "circle of trust".

No one person can know everything or cover sufficient ground to get a deep or wide enough perspective on everything and so we are dependent on each other.

It's a question of building up layers of filters, being other people/groups whose analysis one comes to trust. Corbett is one such but he, like all of us, has blind spots. The CoCreative Learning wiki covers the process, principles and sources in much greater depth.

cocreativelearning.org

In response to your question, where there is merchandising or advertising involved, we should be especially vigilant. Huffpo is very much mainstream. Alex Jones smacks of Psyops/controll ed opposition. I don't know Daily Kos which means no-one within the Critical Thinking community has pointed to useful articles from there that I can recall - draw you own conclusions but there may or may not be legitimate reasons for that.

There are few general sources of good information but many excellent researchers/ana lysts looking at specific, topics, issues and events who together provide corroborated narratives which can be relied on, at least until new information emerges to refine or change the narratives.

Critical Thinking's snapshots of the political economy are a useful framework to assess information. If information challenges our narrative, we need to dig deeper and wider to reassess our latest snapshot but if it corroborates our analysis, we can usefully point to it.

Daily Pickings references numerous, diverse sources.

HTH
 
 
0 #1 James Walter 2018-02-11 13:30
"we need deeper and wider perspectives but once we have those perspectives, it is easier to discriminate between fake news and sources which focus on trying to get to the truth of events and issues."
Hear, Hear! We need more than you, me, and Janos doing it.

And I take it that you don't think Huffington, Alex Jones, Daily Kos, et. al. qualify as good sources? That Corbett is not enough?
 

Please register to post comments