- Remember recently how Reuters News Service
reported that hackers had seized control of one of Britain's military communication
satellites and issued blackmail threats?
-
- (See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,33023,00.html)
-
- This absurd story was quickly dismissed
by the British Defense Ministry, and was posted here: http://nt.excite.com/news/r/990303/12/tech-hackers
which curiously no longer exists - but the original "hacker"
story can still be found posted on other news websites:
-
- http://www.news.com/bigpicture/0,306,33023,00.html?st.ne.ni.knwmr.bp (note the "no related stories" tagline)
-
- For the original dissmissal by the British
Defense Ministry, click here).
-
- An example of the latest nonsense from
Reuters is entitled, "Solar flares pose millennial threat". The
article is supposed to scare people into thinking that solar flares are
going to cause more trouble in the year 2000 than the millennium computer
bug. Reuters quotes a "senior British Y2K planner" saying, "A
burst of solar flare activity around the millennium could wreak more havoc
on satellite systems and power grids than the Year 2000 computer problem....Solar
flares could do damage far beyond anything the Year 2000 could do, and
it could hit us on that weekend."
-
- Now, why quote a "Y2k expert"
instead of an expert on solar activity? We covered this topic some time
ago, fearing that this would get out of hand - and of course, it did. The
reality is that the current solar cycle is not nearly as active as the
two prior cycles and is expected to peak at far less than that of 21 and
22 (See: http://www.borderlands.com/y2k/cyclcomp.html). I used to think MSNBC was a little more discerning
than most of the major news sources, but now MSNBC is reprinting the mummery
Reuters spews out.
-
- These supposed trustworthy news sources
(The AP News Service can be included in the list as it has long been known
as "The Assimilated press") are now being used by the alternative
media (late night talk radio, underground zines, etc...) as credible sources
for information, and substantiation for many of of their far out topics.
Borderland Sciences was actually guilty of this under previous directorship
in the 60s and 70s by quoting such tabloid sources as The Weekly World
News and The National Enquirer, but at least these sources were never considered
credible.
-
- Talk radio and their associated websites
are just not a trustworthy source of information, and are generally as
tabloid as any of the supermarket checkout-stand rags. I don't need to
mention any names as a quick perusal of their websites will indicate they
have no ability to discern fact from fiction - and could really care less
- as they continually state they are merely reporting...not investigating.
They also have a tendency not to post links given to them which present
an alternative point of view, or one that may be more credible.
-
- We now have AP, Reuters, MSNBC spreading
a similar brand of disinformation or maybe it is just misinformation, but
I suspect the former, and it draws more attention to them and their websites.
They have caught on the the power of hysteria and are using it as an effective
propaganda tool for whatever purposes they deem necessary to mislead the
public. This is not a new tactic by any means, but is surely escalating
as the millennium approaches.
-
- So where are we to get credible information
today? Are we simply to rely on our 'inner Bell' to distinguish fact from
fiction? No, what we really need to do today is to check out the facts
for ourselves. Although many do not have the time for this, it is essential
for getting to the truth of the matter - otherwise we are left bleating
the same hokum as those 'reporters' on late night radio shows and in the
tabloids.
-
- Here is a brief outline one can use when
trying to obtain clarity on any topic presented on the internet:
-
- Things to look for:
-
- 1. Does the article, statement, or information
provide active and accessible links to reference information? (If links
are excluded, there is no fast way to verify the info, and it may as well
be discarded)
-
- 2. If it does contain links, how do those
links relate to what the article presents? Are they within the context
of the information presented?
-
- 3. Does the article, statement, or information
use one of the seven basic propaganda devices? (See: http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm
)
-
- 4. Does the article, statement, or information
refer to an anonymous source? (These anonymous sources seem to be employed
by certain reporters to pump up weak stories in the attempt to impress
those who believe in the reporter's God-like integrity.)
-
- 5. Look at the rest of the website. Does
the article, statement, or information follow a pattern towards a general
agenda presented by the website?
-
- 6. What are they selling? Is the article,
statement, or information presented designed to sell a product or service?
Does it lead one to believe that one needs said product?
-
- There are many more things one can do,
but these should suffice and are quick to implement. The main thing to
do is check out the associated links. If there are none, you may search
for links related to that topic, for example, if you read an article on
solar activity, do a search for that topic to see what those in the field
have to say. It really doesn't take that long.
|
