2 of 8

Write now Article Tools

The question begs the issue; Who is making it up and on whom do you depend to determine if the news is real or not?

In most instances you learn the truth of the lie only after the lie has been given extensive coverage.

Often we never know we were lied to. We can listen to conspiracy theorists or those who disagree with the item or person being reported upon but then they have their own reason to spin the story in their favor.

Some writers here say the answer is to depend upon yourself.

Thats a nice idea, but decisions are made only after the facts are laid out for us.

"Yes." you say to yourself. "What that reporter says makes sense to me." Then you hear another journalist tell the same story but the slant is completely opposite of the first one.

Your decision is easy. 9 times out of 10 if not 10 out of 10 we will go with the one whose story matches our prejudices or predilections.

Where do facts take us anyway?

Let us look at 9/11.

The administration tells us that the towers were blown up by the airplanes hitting them. The ones who piloted the vessels were Al-Queda operatives.

The conspiracy theorists tell you it is the U.S. who caused and executed the destruction of the towers.

Most of us saw with our own eyes the planes (apparently) hitting the buildings.

But read this passage: "Until recently, few people had seen video footage showing the collapse of the 47-story WTC building seven. But the event was recorded from several different angles by the major US news networks. The collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, and an extremely professional one at that. Nothing else can explain the perfectly symmetrical collapse, at free-fall speed, onto its footprint.
Why was it demolished and who planted the explosives? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and randomly distributed fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically, and that asymmetry would have caused substantial tipping."

Whose story is believable? You have to decide for yourself. For a number of people the second is as plausible, if not more so, than the first.

I just opened my aol to find the lead story "Weekend's Full Moon Offers Illusion." I was looking up the conspiracy theory when I saw this. It seemed to be totally apropos of the question presented.

What is illusory? What is real?

"This weekend's full moon hangs lower in the sky than any other full moon of 2007, according to NASA, and it's a good time to be

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Whom to rely on when the news is made up?
We want to hear your view. Write now!