I was just yesterday arguing with a colleague about the Nigerian Christian killings, and he completely denied it happening because the news comes from Breitbart, Neonnettle, etc., and he won't accept anything other than news straight from Nigeria or from 'approved' MSM media outlets. I eventually sent him an article in The Telegraph from 2018 pointing out the bloodshed going on between the two religions in Nigeria, so I managed to talk him into understanding that there was undoubtedly conflict in the area, but he refuses to believe, and is adamant that the '120 in the last 3 weeks' story didn't happen simply because of the source.
This question obviously extends to any other news actually, because I've come across this issue a lot when arguing with these people, where they simply won't accept something because of the source. Is there a way to fight this, or should I just hope and wait for the truth to come out in the MSM?
Sort: Top
[–] Charilko 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Try non-US news services. Typically you can follow the links in Breitbart stories to an “official” source that is not in the US, or an AP article.
[–] Yuke 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Here's one source - https://www.csw.org.uk/2019/03/14/press/4249/article.htm
Here's a second - https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/03/13/herdsmen-kill-85-people-in-kaduna-communities/
It seems to be predominatly the Fulani (muslim) who are killing others. The Adara are majority Christian. One of the articles gives a little more info on why this is happening..
And yes, there are many examples of this happening. Some places like wiki refer to them as "Herd-farmer conflicts" rather than what they really are.
[–] JustAnotherUser [S] ago
Brilliant, thanks for the info.
[–] puggy ago (edited ago)
Mention the Holodomor. When he asks what that is, remind him that the NY Times and almost all "respectable" news sources and history books for 50 years covered up Bolsheviks purposely starving millions of Ukrainians. He probably hasn't even heard of it. Refer him to this Wikipedia page as a main stream source. Then ask him how he can trust main stream media if they willingly hide mass murder for political reasons. Then keep feeding him examples of media bias.
edit: Next ask him why the holocaust has thousands of books, movies, museums and memorials about it while the Holodomor remains off limits to (((Hollywood))), (((publishers))) and museum (((donors))).
[–] EpiPendemic ago
I heard boomers and normies(I am both of these I am neither of these) are using this site https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news I haven't checked it out I am betting it is still left leaning but I'm told it provides bias visibility or helps reader be cognizant of source bias.
Mostly have to wait for it to get to the MSM like jussie "ya smelt it ya delt it" smullet
[–] Sosacms ago
Tell them if they only accept data that's been filtered through specific sources, they aren't interested in the truth.
Even then, you can use MSM as sources more than you'd think. Trump refers to their reporting all the time because their reporting changes so frequently/drastically. So they go on a big old fit about how Trump is full of shit... Even though he's using their reporting as the source.
[–] Wharleas ago
Sounds like the first problem you need to solve is to convince the person the all media can lie, not just designated "evil" outlets. A lot of people these days are trained to find the most trivial reasons to discount a story, like quibbles about the source, which they of course selectively apply only to stories contradicting their own view.
[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI ago
Stop talking about politics at work you dipshit
[–] JustAnotherUser [S] ago
By 'colleague' I mean a person that I know that I wouldn't necessarily call a friend. It can mean both in the UK, like an acquaintance.
[–] slwsnowman40 ago
You can't. That's the hardest nut to crack as well. I'd just keep sharing them, would avoid sites like (((InfoWars/Breitbart/TheBlaze))).