The Main Stream Media: Detecting Error and Discerning Truth

Written: 7th November 2016  Qld., Australia

Sadly, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is no longer a balanced portal through which we are given an accurate summary of the activities taking place everyday in our very fast-paced and diverse world.

Once upon a time, the MSM was the vehicle through which professional journalists, well trained and skilled in presenting the news, without being part of the news, were able to give us an excellent overview of the news and issues of the day so we could be well-informed and participate in an effective democracy.

While I believe I have been witness to the decline in this general professionalism over many years, it seems the situation has reached a new low to the point where the argument that the MSM is just a puppet of the political, and perhaps, corporate elite, seems to ring very true.

I see this as a part of the whole issue of detecting error and discerning truth. I presented on this over a decade ago – see http://www.circumcisedheart.info/OneGod/Discerning Truth v2.doc

I think my understanding now is more deep, nuanced and comprehensive than it was then, in 2006, but the basic argument is still the same, and the basic impact has not changed.

In fact, though it was never my choice or intention, I seem to have 'detected error' in over a handful of very significant issues, such as the Abortion, Darwinian Evolution; Anthropogenic Global Warming; Anti-Semitism, and so on. I have articles on many of these 'issues' and errors at circumcisedheart.info and on my other websites and blog sites.

But returning to the bias of the MSM, today in a video posted on Facebook of one of Donald Trump's speeches, I heard the argument that the MSM is part of the political elite, rather than just a puppet or blind transmitter of their 'truths'.

While I can't vouch for the veracity of this statement in relation to the USA, it certainly appears to have some merit here in Australia. Take for example News Corporations, popular online media service news.com.au. During this election period, it appears that for every 5-10 articles on the election, at best only one will have anything positive to say about Donald Trump; most will paint him in a very negative light, and the odd article will have something positive to say about Hilary Clinton.

In the US, regardless of which polls you read, there is at least 40 - 45% of the population favouring each of these candidates. Therefore any valid reporting, to be even close to representative, should surely give a balance, both in positive and negative news feeds about both candidates. Of-course we have even more biased media outlets here, such as our extremely left-leaning, socialist ABC Radio, which is surprisingly, a tax-payer funded media service.

As a word of caution though, it is important to allow such voices to be heard, as there are many different, and often reasonable perspectives on many topics.

But at the same time, not only does the general public need to have access to the full range of views, but also they need to be able to discern if a media outlet has an agenda, or is trying to present a balanced and accurate view of the news and events it is reporting on.

For example, within the whole area of Biblical Studies, the interpretation of Genesis alone is fascinating and diverse, with many different arguments having some merit, and with some difficulty distinguishing which are more likely to be the 'truth', if there is one such truth on the whole question of origins.

I trained as a Physicist, and so when, after becoming a 'born-again Christian' in 1986, I first looked at reading Genesis in as literal a manner as possible, there were a number of Christian voices assuring me that Genesis informed us that the Universe and mankind was only some 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

This was extremely difficult to accept, even though at the time I wanted to. When I read articles from Young Earth Creationists (YEC) that told me the radioactive dating methods of Physics were seriously flawed and that the Speed of Light has changed substantially, I found myself in a very uncomfortable and discordant place until I stumbled upon the work of the Physicist and Christodelphian, Alan Hayward who emphatically demonstrated that I did not need to reject all my physics training, as the Bible really did not date the Universe to only a few thousands years of age.

I have taught on this topic for many years now and have promoted the Fiat Theory (a version of Old Earth Creationism - OEC) as the best interpretation of Genesis (see my introductory articles here https://globaltruthinternational.com/2012/10/11/the-hebraic-mindset-and-the-fiats-of-god/

and https://globaltruthinternational.com/2012/10/12/the-fiats-of-god-genesis-re-punctuated/

and https://globaltruthinternational.com/2012/10/14/genesis-repunctuated-part-2/)

In recent years, after having read a number of books by the MIT Physicist and Jewish theologian, Dr Gerald Schroeder, I have also found his 'frame of reference' interpretation to have a lot of merit.

And then, a little over a year ago, thanks to the recommendation of Greg Deuble, I read John H Walton's ''The Lost World of Genesis One’ (http://luke443.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/an-hebraic-approach-lost-world-of.html) and again had to re-evaluate my understanding to factor in his impressive scholarship.

My point in regards to the Creation narratives in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible, is that I don't believe we can be too dogmatic about our understanding. For example, if Schroeder's interpretation is correct, then there is a sense in which the OEC and current position of the Physics community that the Universe is some 13.7 Billion years old, is actually in harmony with the YEC and Judaism's argument that the age of mankind is only 5777 years old today (7^th November 2016).

So the conclusion is?

We need to help our neighbours, friends and family to better discern the many varied voices from the MSM to Social Media apps, etc., so that we can all make better informed decisions on important matters that affect us all. All these sources have their place, but it is important to know their agenda's so that we can better balance the filtered information they each provide, and look to a number of competing sources to find a better balance.

Thus when it comes to the US election, we would be advised to listen not just to the New York Times and CNN (part of the very biased MSM), but also to outlets such as Briebart.com and to commentators such as Brigitte Gabriel.

Or when seeking to be informed on Israel we need to recognize that Haaretz, like the NY Times, is a very left-leaning, seriously socialist Jewish media site, with the Jerusalem Post offering a more centrist perspective and the Israel National News media outlet offering a more conservative and traditional orthodox perspective. And here we might also appreciate the integrity and balance of journalists like Matti Friedman, Martin Sherman and Caroline Glick.

The challenge of the Internet and Social Media today is that we are really swamped in information, with much of it of dubious accuracy and value. Finding the narrow path of accuracy, honesty and integrity through the great maze of conflicting sources is not easy, and is compounded by the tendency we all exhibit of 'confirmation bias' (we tend to only view sources that support our existing pre-suppositions and pre-dispositions).

I think it is important to earnestly seek and prayer for the gift of discernment in these challenging times.

Update (10th December 2016):
I have added a number of supporting articles below in the comments section. Today though I came across one of the clearest examples of how bad the lies of the MSM are. In recent weeks they have been arguing for social media companies like Facebook to somehow restrict the promotion of 'Fake News' sites, yet these MSM journalists are just as guilty as any others of promoting and disseminating false information! This article makes that abundantly clear:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

It opens with a very profound and accurate analysis:"THE PHRASE “FAKE NEWS” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it."