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?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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))).