my point is that if you have four networks all receiving their information from one source, you can't cross reference.

you need actual reports actually on the ground looking at the actual event live and unedted.

and news networks don't really do that anymore.

it's all commentary.

thats what twitter is for!

horrifyingly enough

Are we really at a point where people honestly believe a mass shooting could be manufactured and not disproven within a few hours?

well i don't think so, but some do

I guess?

people don't think we landed on the moon

People know 9/11 was an inside job

how is this surprising?

we are actually at a point where elections can get tampered with and can't be proven or disproven

i mean think, think it was an inside job

people also think falcon 9 rockets are UFOs

specifically those in California for some reason

also, this <https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent>

I mean, to be a pedantic asshole, if they can't identify them, they are UFOs

while i'm not so far gone as to believe that a shooting with video and victim testimony has been fabricated, i definitely believe that people will falsify records and statistics for political gain.

and we have proof that tech giants have experimented with manipulating people's access to facts to change their opinions.

and we also have proof that media outlets collude with both each other and the democratic party to manipulate public perception.

again journolist and cabalist as well as the podesta hack.

information is power

'credibly accused'

media outlets collude with each other to push a particular narrative, to the point of coordinating the phrases they use.

if you're the kind of person who isn't particularly stable or logical to begin with, once presented with proof of this sort of collusion and manipulation it's not hard to take a wild leap to the idea of staging entire events.

Yeah

again, i'm not the kind of guy that believes that crap, but it's not hard to conceptualize of people who do

I know

But why there has the be a reflexive denial that something bad happens rather than simply reiterating that when shit happens it doesn't justify dumping more shit on shit. And then providing support and compassion to those shat on.

like we have some photographic evidence of factions that were fighting in the syrian civil war of fabricating photos of dead kids (chicken blood and a cooperative kid). the goal being to stoke western outrage and intervention.

But to deny the original existence of children is a very horrid form of evil.

yeah, it is. but if you believe in one conspiracy it gets easier to build other conspiracies into it. everything trying to convince you the conspiracy theory is wrong is ***THEM*** trying to trick you. whoever you think ***THEY*** are.

its it really that hard to conceptualize people believing highly politized events are false flags

"That's a crazy conspiracy theory. You shouldn't believe in that kind of nonsense"
"GASP! You're in on it aren't you>?!?"

before you know it, the jews are behind everything

False flags can happen. I won't deny that it is important to investigate the actual facts behind terrible acts.

It could probably be pulled off, if someone put in a lot of effort

But to deny that the terrible act happened in the first place when we have corroborating reports is damaging.

but it would need to have some sort of payoff

We need more actual reporters to actually physically go on the ground where events happen and film the details themselves. But that doesn't make money. Hyper-partisan commentary does.