Objetives of this web

Email of the web: elmejorinformativo@gmail.com ; Usable for:

- Informational requests of "add me to me (optional," instead of to such informative ", since the number of tabs to show informative, it is wide but limited.) Or requests of users to add to such informative.
- Notices that such information does not show anything for hours (because its headline RSS link has changed, or has decided to stop updating at all, or updates every several days).

Web created entirely by me, Jorge Pascual Romero. I do not add my photo, because it is not what defines me, but the opinions that I have and spread on this page of this website. I already know that we are in the age of the image with words (or without, as in the advertisements of perfumes), as journalists of beauty level models (presentainformativos and moderatertulias), but I believe little in the photos, yes in the arguments, and in see the headlines at a glance (the motto of this website is: "to me, give me headlines"). Anyway, I'll upload it someday.

In short, the objectives of this website are 3:

1) Give power (empower) to the citizen who wants to be informed, to inform himself in any way he wants, since in this web the news can be read in different ways.

To do this, on the left above this page, there is a menu of ways to find out about the news of the day, in which to choose between " by Sections ", " by Selection ", " Compare Covers ", " by fulfilling (all or part of) the code of ethics "," by source by Awards No. 1 (to the newsletter) "," by source by number of Users "," by Source in alphabetical order ", and over time," by source by Votes (from the visitors of this web) " . And additionally, a sports newspaper (whether you think it is so important that it deserves a separate publication, or if you think otherwise).



2) Alert in a "pseudo-apocalyptic" but real way, how easy, daily and unpunished it has been, and is (and will continue to be) informational manipulation, in all areas of information, especially in the news daily news .



3) Be the 1st that the reader finds when entering elmejorinformativo.com , for 2 reasons:

- Encourage the goal to be read before starting to read for years, the daily ration of information.

In this case, it is news, but it is also advisable to other areas of information, such as state education, religion, leisure, etc; Many of those who skip the informative objectives in any field, then lament that they thought they read the approach they were looking for (that was on a scientific level: objective, plural, face, constructive, etc.), but they are after a long time that they do not inform them with those objectives, while other informants that they repudiated (explicitly or not) did include them at the beginning, and they were what the citizen wanted.

And all for the rush to give up information about the objectives, in favor of not getting lost or postponed, a one day information disclosure (which only gives for: some classes in a state education, a daily religious ceremony in a religion; or the daily news in an informative one). Another reason is the resignation for irrational fear of learning about the objectives, even if the citizen has time (both those who use this information daily, and those who never use it).

- Do not condition every citizen reading daily news, that a 3rd (the "journalistic tradition", or me as a webmaster) choose for him to show the news in a format instead of others, but encourage empower them (give them the power ), by making it possible that from this page without news go to a with, choosing themselves actively the format. That is, to ensure that information evolves from associating with a passive act (above all, television newscasts), to associate with an active act.

To an important% of people indoctrinated not to choose (in the field of information that is: state education, religion, leisure), if you suddenly empower them with the possibility of choosing, they will be confused, and they will renounce to choose and they will leave, not accustomed to actively choosing (and accommodated in it). This also happens in the field of information, so I understand perfectly those who are confused with this web: I myself was not empowered when choosing a religious option (I was not educated in reading all the alternatives before deciding myself for a ), but it was considered normal to indoctrinate in a sectarian way, without reading the others (and even today it is the majority methodology in religion in our society).

So I, despite defender of reading all the options, not even today I have read the basic book of casitodas the rest, although I have downloaded them from the Internet; I have only read the Christian and those of the pre-Christian [those of Mother Nature; the Greek (Zeus ...); Viking (Odin ...); Egyptian (Ra ...). Therefore, even defenders of plurality we submit to imposed "barriers" of difficult deprogramming.

Personally, of the forms that this web offers, of reading the news, I read daily only the form " by Sections ", and if that day I do not have time to read it whole, because with the navigator I keep the page to my hard disk, for another day.

Surely that mode is what most visitors will do (and I will prepare a survey), but other visitors may prefer another way, such as " by Selection " [it is a much faster format to read, shorter, and loads much more fast (and consume less mobile data); and even then it is better than the best informative publication]. Lying-seekers will prefer the " Compare Covers ." Even some visitors, prefer to read several formats a day (examples: " Compare Covers " + " by Selection " or " Compare Covers " + " by Sections ").

The subtraction of this page from this web, are basically more and more detailed explanations of those 3 previous objectives, so whoever wants to, can skip them (although I highly recommend reading them).

[The order of the following modules is the one that explains the manipulation of information in news, precedes it, complements it, informative manipulation in other areas. I recommend that order; but if you have little patience or you are not interested in an area now (or never), or you prefer another order, it is equally functional: they are not mathematics, you do not need some parts to understand others (or agree, what matters is the debate and putting the focus on subjects that are taboo and are often vetoed (usually with the excuse of talking about other wildcard problems in another continent)].

Objectives of this website and and Possibilities given .

Modes eligible by the user, to show news .

Training (or qualification) .

Types of visitors traumatized by this website (promoting plurality and activism when informed) .

End of the module of the basic objectives (and start of the long ones) .

MOST IMPORTANT FIELDS OF INFORMATIVE HANDLING:

1) Sports as a method of indoctrination (in conformity with watching a boring game instead of an exciting one (win or lose), and in giving up to see the "best" team match, in favor of the "local").

2) Lying Games (educational, or not?) : Are the favorites of the powerful (above all, poker).

3) Partisan vendors (who hide the arguments that harm them) .



4) Religions (taught in a sectarian way) .



5) State teachings and their possibilities of fraud .



6) Politics (many are indoctrinators instead of debaters) .



7) INFORMATIVES VS DISINFORMATIVES .

- Sense of copying some information to an optimal one .

- Objectives of all informative, are 0 (none) according to their own statement of objectives .

- Informative Manipulation Techniques (only names, in a module much below, explanations) .

- Need to Compare Publications and / or Sections .

- Informative Methodology 3.0 that is this web .

- Objectives of the Informative 3.0 that is this web .

- Informative 1.0 .

- Informative 2.0 .

- Informative 3.0 .

- Goals of this web .

- Informative Manipulation Techniques (+ examples) .

Hi. My name is Jorge Pascual Romero [so I am not the one in the photo of the menu on the top left, nor any other photo that accompanies each option that is pressed from the menu on the left; simply, they came with the template of the creation program of this website (Web a Day), and I thought they looked good: I felt they transmitted positivity, kindness, simplicity and intelligence, without being pretentious; and transcendence, without going beyond transcendental (qualities, which I wanted to convey in the design of this website , and that the photo of them does much better than mine, so here they stay)].
Also, since I'm shy, I do not want to be recognized on the street; nevertheless, in a few days I will change the photo of the person of this web page of objectives.

Welcome everyone to the web "the best information" ( www.elmejorinformativo.com) . It is intended for all Spaniards (at least, the news of the "National" section, and part of the "Opinion" section, although it can also be useful to other Spanish-speaking countries (the advance sections such as "Technology", "Health "...), and in the future, this website will also be adapted to other countries and will redirect them (automatically, or give the option to click on their country names and / or their national flags).

The web elmejorinformativo.com is the Informative 3.0 : the adjacencer of the most important sources (= publications) Spanish, and sections (cover, opinion ...), of the news of the day .

Above all, on the left there are several options to see the news today, according to the criterion chosen by the visitor , which provides these main BENEFITS :

- Get more exclusive, than using any monolithic information (including the best ones): thanks to having more sources (each publication can be the best in a section, maximum 2, but it is not better in all sections).

- Much more comfortable plurality: concentrate on a single web, all (or almost) the sections and / or best publications, with respect to reading each section you prefer, in each web where you think you better inform about that section. Do not have to type more web addresses. And it shows them in a common design [which neutralizes the news that invest little in honesty and / or brain, but that usually survive by investing a lot in supertractive design, exploiting the need for beauty and power of the audience, since sometimes , it attracts more a design (the form) than the content (the background) of the subject].

- Compare some sources with others, so that the visitor is the one that deduce easily, which is better:, and if the usual one that reads is better or worse than others. This encourages the criterion itself (increase it in some, and create it in others), compared to the traditional information model of sectarian and exclusive reliance on an informative, that medium (which may be interested, or incompetent).



This initial page of this web:

- It is only of objectives and methods (questionable and not), and wants to break the (in my opinion, bad) informative tradition of "having no objectives, and less explicit, and less disclosed, and less as an initial page".

- It is not necessary to read it to enjoy the news of the day.

- It is enough to read it once (or every so often).

- It is not advisable to read it in one go, for the union of its very long extension with the "great depth" of the basic topics, which it treats (since it is better to be conscientious in the objectives, and the scope of informative manipulation in the news). has encouraged us to talk about other areas of informative manipulation, and because I do not comment on news, because at least I'm desquito with this page of objectives).

1) " By Sections ".

It is dedicated to addicts in certain sections (such as Cover, Opinion, Sport, Technology, Celebrities, Health, Tele, Culture ...). Compared to any monolithic news, add more sources (= publications) and / or areas.

More sources gives:

- Less chance of being cheated on certain news, in the disinformation subgroup.

By censures or misrepresentations or concealments (of arguments or evidence), either by mediocrity or sensationalism (pseudo-informative), or by confabulation of the leaders who give them [political orders in public information; groups of businessmen (with sectarian ideologies that pretend to disclose, usually traditionalists, or who want to censor news contrary to them, or who help some political party by vetoing unfavorable news, in exchange for receiving public contracts].

- More exclusive.

5 news items cover more than 1, so if each one achieves 2 exclusives, you would get 9 exclusive ones more than informing you with only one. It also gives exclusives for difference of criteria (between honest and capable professionals) in the importance of whether news is more relevant than another [of which some news agency (EFE, etc.) makes all the news; or of a news that all have covered, but then some have decided not to issue].

- More styles.

Formal or not (tutear or de tu); respectful [elegant (insubstantial or not); ironic educated)] or not (acid and satirical, bronco and spectacular, to the TV show "Sálvame", they insult themselves, they raise their voices, and sometimes they make the gesture of "I gave you a guantazo" ...). Example of journalism with multiple styles: the pink press. Even legality allows some "disinformation" and some "disinformation", covered in that they graduated in journalism, exercise in spite of every day not only lie and distort, but even say atrocities like that politician of ideology contrary to his " I hope someone shoots him in the head "and even that" the same journalist would shoot him if he were found in the street ".



More areas gives:

Specify more in the field of what you really like. Example of more areas, to the celebrities section:

a) Self-created by a medium (Telecinco: Big Brother, Survivors,, MyHyV ...).

b) Singers or actors No. 1 (rich, who maybe do not waste or are stylish, or poor, after wasting or investing wrong or stolen by their manager).

c) Top wasters (in mansions, cars, vacations ...):: glamorous or not; heirs or workers; famous for their work or just for their waste and money.

d) Better or worse stylistics on the red carpet (rich or not, No. 1 in their profession or not).

e) Opinions, or not.

- Opinions: that is, those who make positive or negative criticisms of any real issue that may interest a large part of society (human values, playful topics, news news, news of playful themes: movies, series, products that they like and those that do not (food - fashion - leisure - entertainment - culture ...) or in a reality of their day to day [as an object of anthropological study, the Reality of the famous has become fashionable, above all in bloggers and videoblogueros (Youtubers ...), and lately in some traditional celebrities of the USA (Lindsay Lohan ...) and Spain (Ana Obregón ...)].

- No opinion: they are the politically correct that only speak about the scope of their profession; and usually, only what they star in (in whole or in part). They already have a traditionally loyal audience, even if they do not think of anything (of the news ...), so they do not bring their society to talk about problems (or solutions), but they do not say anything that could offend (therefore, they do not they get into trouble, they cause loss of audience to their jobs, and even boycotts).

Since I have mentioned the subgroups of opinion leaders and non-opinion leaders, in the meantime I take the opportunity to give my opinion, in an extensive manner, of which one I consider most worthy of following; but not to mix it with the ways of being informed, I comment it at the beginning of the web of Objectives (2º of 2) , in which I will group all the reflections on the scope of the " Education and Culture" (basically, State) . According to that article, I write, another in which I reflect on what subset of films I find most interesting: that of opinionated characters, or that of silent important things . Which leads me to write under that module a 3rd, my opinion to the traditional, legal and social censorship, to some acts in a cultural supports at the same time that does not censor them in others . And then, basically I explain extensively the manipulations of information in the field of "state education", both in the television (vision that the educational Realities of 4 in the afternoon are those of animals, not those of people) and especially of compulsory classroom teaching (which I received at least) from Primary (schools) and Secondary (Institutes).





2) " By Selection ".

For each section: of the multiple news programs that offer their version (and visible in the " by Sections " mode), because in the " by Selection " mode, this website chooses the best information and discards the other news. So this mode gives an informative appearance and traditional extension, but with the advantage that it is much better than the traditional best (since neither the best traditional, is the best in each informative section, while the mode "by Selection ", yes, being guaranteed at the structural level).

It is also as quick to read as any traditional newspaper, which is why it is much faster to read than the " by Sections " mode; therefore it is optimal to those who do not have as much time or desire to read as to use the " by Sections " mode; and those who inform themselves with their cell phones and have restricted data consumption.





3) " Compare Covers ".

Transparency is a necessary requirement, but not enough to neutralize a disinformation : illusionists (magicians) act before the eyes of everyone (that is, with transparency), and deceive the entire public.

Therefore, we must also know how to interpret with extreme precision, which shows us transparency. The "Compare Covers" reading mode allows you to easily read and compare covers and opinions, by displaying, in 3 adjacent blocks, up to 3 covers (or opinion sections) from sources that are eligible by the user . It makes it possible to compare the one that each one usually reads by custom, with other 2 (they are of similar ideology, or 2 of opposite ideology, or one similar and another opposite).

This mode allows to neutralize lies. If a disinformation deceives you once, the fault is yours; but if he deceives you 10 times, the fault is yours (for continuing to aspire to inform you through that option, having other better ones available). The lies and concealment at the time of reporting, are totally legal and daily in the field of journalism in our country, and in many other areas, especially those of power.

Moreover, unfortunately we have built a society, in which "to speak the truth is of the poor and of Don Nadies, and even of criminals: to be transparent, to be seen by some small scam or defect", while lying is of rich people , glamorous (costume), powerful, and paradoxically it is perceived as more "good people", since it is not transparent, it does not show you that you have scams much worse than the transparent; and many people decide based on the scams that each candidate knows about something, for which transparency is often punished.

Consequently, most people like the thief who tells us that he has not stolen anything, and the one who makes mistakes sometimes but never recognizes it (even if the evidence is obvious), who steals the hundredth part and admits it; and that the one who is wrong sometimes admits it. Therefore, transparency gives votes only to parties whose electorate really appreciates it.

[This is strengthened if the scammer is in a suit (with jacket and tie) until August: it is a deference that the vast majority greatly appreciates, to perceive the corded as a person with the maximum spirit of sacrifice towards us. All the polls say that those who do not always wear ties at home, will not win the elections, even if they are the only one who is not licensed and that the informants reported that they made scams during their time as mayor. And ditto for non-politicians: all, corded, we are better and "more important": more "experts", more "dedicated", and impossible to be perceived by passers-by as "street delinquents" (scammers, rapists, hooligans ...) ]

Examples of areas of social and legal tolerance to lying:

a) The nocturnal television programs of clairvoyance: one informed me that I should avoid all those that I like and like, that I am destined to one Vanessa.

b) The door-to-door commercials: that they change my telephone or gas company every 15 days, which with the excuse of asking me to show them my bill to see if your company already applies "the discount", they say (always) that I have not applied yet, fill out a new contract taking my data from that invoice, and ask me to sign it as if it were the authorization to a discount instead of changing company.

c) The Bank, who telephoned me to visit their nearest headquarters, to offer me to buy preferred shares, because "I am one of their preferred customers and they give me preference".

d) A television advertising, of a bankrupt company: that went out in every advertising break of the day for months, and that advised the whole country to buy shares with the lie that it was a unique opportunity for a very solid company (Nueva Rumasa. ..); the State did not prevent the broadcast of those ads that people saw accidentally (without wishing them), and only warned of fraud in a statement on a website that nobody saw, and less accidentally (which is how you see television advertising ).

e) Politicians, who are even vague: the government, only decides to investigate or not (and condemn or not) someone who has hired the Government itself, which is why the citizen sees a suspicious discrepancy to condemn a judge in 1st instance, and then exonerate the Supreme Court put to finger by that Government; but condemnation, what is condemnation, there is not.



f) Journalism, of course. The reason for the legalization of lies, in journalism, is that it is protected by "freedom of expression." Thus, in the set of journalists, the subset of lying journalists, are one of these 2 things:

- Someone with the right to lie, with respect to any person (so, to guarantee that you receive sincere news and sincere opinions, it would be better to ask someone who was not a journalist).

- Someone without the right to lie, and therefore is like anyone; but that is presented not as an ordinary person, but as a "journalist", implying that this title (Bachelor's Degree, in 99% of the most well-known cases) made him more apt to comment (for honest, intelligent and / or read) that non-journalists (Graduates in other careers, or not), which does not have to be true. Example: of your ex-classmates of the Institute, after listening to all their opinion on such topic or news, perhaps you value more the opinion of a lawyer or philosopher or engineer, than of the journalist.



In both cases, this tolerance of legality to the subset of lying journalists (which substitute information for misinforming), sinks the usefulness and average credibility of journalism to the suspense in the surveys (it even became the worst valued profession ), just like that it would sink the average valuation that citizens would give to Health in a society that would not rebel against the Government tolerating and / or equating all healers (homeopaths, santeros ...) with Doctors of Medicine (or students) of Medicine that they suspended, with those who approved).

In a module at the bottom of this page, I list a list of information manipulation techniques, most commonly used in pseudoinformation and disinformation, so that everyone can be prevented, and also can deduce what means are disinformative to see that apply those techniques (instead of being indoctrinated by a person, which may be corrupt). List of disinformation tactics: only mentioned ( here ); and mentioned + explained + examples ( here ).

And I have created a copy in the reading modes " Compare Covers " and "by" Code of Ethics ", to facilitate the search for techniques of informative manipulation in those ways of reading the news, so readers will have the necessary tools to allow themselves to wonder if the covers and opinions refer to the same day (due to omissions of news in some news programs) and to the same facts (due to the omissions of evidence and arguments that others give, and the distortions of the same facts). compare journalism with areas where it has consequences working unfairly, like medicine, and comparing a journalist with a doctor, it makes one wonder, how is it possible for a doctor to lose his license for prevaricating one day, but for journalists, the misinforming subset does not lose it by misinforming almost daily (according to statistics).

The " Compare Covers " mode of reading the news, allows each reader to deduce for himself (not because he relies on popular and large awards, but does not facilitate comparing information) that there are news reports, there are pseudo-informative, and there are disinformation, and which are .

And deduce consequently that disinformation have a very hard face, and that the State does not protect us from them: sometimes, encourages them, creates them, promotes them, and even saves them from bankruptcy, even with money not declared to Treasury and possibly of commissions in exchange for adjudications) [like the PP to the half Digital Freedom ( news in "the Country" )]. That is, instead of promoting a "technical" journalism, some parties encourage partisan journalism.

Even, not even leave it to your choice, by choosing some good technical information (free of politicking) to make the income statement, when deciding to allocate a part of the taxes: I get the only choice if NGO or the Church. And lately, apart, if the Church or nothing, and promises that it does not cost me money (apparently, the managers of my taxes, have invented the magic machine to create money from nothing, because if "I do not cost money", that include each of the other causes: technical journalism, education, health, fire, transportation, research ....).

So in the end, screening them depends exclusively on the reader, instead of relying on information, to use any self-proclaimed information, trusting that someone has sifted through the misinformation scammers [the law; or the Government, at its own request; or the journalism college; or the Government, at the request of the citizens; or simply the citizenship, after other news will alert the people about them, stop using them (although sometimes, the criterion of the audience is tradition or aesthetics), and become unsustainable due to lack of income [a government could still save it with public money, buying shares (such as the PP Government to the Libertad Digital newsletter, and in a transparent way, or with money in B, of at least 3% in commissions in exchange for awards).





4) " By Source, in alphabetical order ".

This mode makes it possible to read the traditional information that the visitor prefers, in the same module [switching between sections by means of tabs (above the module) with the name of the eligible sections].

And in addition, it loads in adjacent modules (some above, others below), the other most important news, in alphabetical order, which guarantees an order with total ideological neutrality (against the order for "quality award" or "prize for greater audience ", since they are" questioned "by the distrustful, rightly or wrongly).

This mode is useful for those who:

a) They are sectarians who never read another newspaper (paper or digital) that is not their usual, and they would never go to another website of other news of opposite ideology, because they understand that these news programs are "the devil". Using this mode, the sectarians can approach the plurality, without feeling "traitors" for giving up using their favorite news in favor of another website that does not contain it [since this website includes it: the adjacent news are added from their usual, no substitutes; Nor is your regular newsletter reduced, unlike the " Compare Portfolios " mode (which only includes the "Cover" and "Opinion" sections).



b) They are not sectarian, but they are adjacent to intransigent sectaries, which at least eliminate the joy (or normality) of the environment prior to when they were caught with another news item. Types:

- Prejudicial bosses: who would insult you or veto your promotion or you would be fired.

- Parents: that they would prohibit you the Internet or leisure, or they are violent, or you would inherit.

- Known (neighbors, classmates or colleagues): that you gossip in the back what you read, in a public place (bar, park bench, bus ...).

- Violent strangers: they gossip in your back what you read, in a public place (bar, park bench, bus ...), and they attack you without saying a word (or after a parody of conversation).





The way of reading news " By Source, in alphabetical order ", makes it possible for those at risk of being adjacent, easily hiding what information they prefer (by going a little further on the page), and if they are caught in that "forbidden" news, to lie :

- That now he has just finished loading the page and now he was just going to go to the module related to the harasser.

- That has advanced by the page by mistake (turning too much the wheel of the mouse), and that by inertia has put to read what it has found, but that it was already going to the module that pleases the stalker.

- That they had already finished reading the informative that the intransigent likes, but then he has advanced through the page to read another adjacent medium, to form a more plural opinion, but that the intransigent one is better. Or to alternate the order: to say that he was reading the "demonic" newsletter, and that he did not read "the correct information", but that he was going to read it right away, that he always read only that of the harasser, but that today he wanted plurality, in absolute replace the stalker's.

These precautions may seem exaggerated for our country and nowadays, having people who live in respectful and peaceful places, but not all places are like that, nor all the people of a place are. I highlight 3 facts:

- The news almost every day shows intransigent people who assault others for no reason, or mediate a word, both in our country, as in others of the 1st world.

- Some leftists are intolerant violent (verbally, and some, physically).

- In this country, the war won the side that suppressed democracy and installed the manipulated news; there are still people who have grandparents shot for it (and buried in ditches, denied their right to exude the corpses and give them a dignified burial). Therefore, the "non-shot" and their descendants (both the winning side and the loser) are by-products of a repressive dictatorship, and many even today, for traditionalism, admire it (in areas such as its absence of objective and free news).





5) "By Source, in order of Awards (journalistic, but in the middle) "

I do not award a report, nor to any person, but to the publication, to the regularity, to do things well all by norm every day. they want to choose a truthful news, without comparing covers (to deduce which is better), but by trusting that "if they have given the best informative prize to such information, it will be because it is the best."

Examples of news awards to the news :

- National: the Iris prize (from the Academy of Sciences and the Arts of Television, in Spain) In 2017, RTVE has won it (in 2016 it was won by laSexta).

- International: the most prestigious prize in the world to news is the TV News Awards, which the last Spanish news that won it was RTVE in 2009 (specifically, it won Telediario 2, when governing Zapatero's PSOE party).





6) " By Source, in order of number of users ".

For those who trust the news with more users (that is, for the followers, which believe that it is easier for one to make mistakes, than the majority).



7) " By Code of Ethics " (for compliance with all or part of the journalistic code of ethics).

Of the group of journalists, and apart from the subgroup of pseudo-professionals (unprofessional without bad intention), there is a group of journalists sold to the lack of ethics (ABOVE, for threats to replace them, politicians and businessmen who are their bosses), who know the theory of what journalism should and should not do, but then they skip it olimpically.

Well, in the way of reading the news " By Code of Ethics ", it is made explicit in that page:

- 1º, the requirements that the journalistic ethical code demands.

- 2nd, all the Spanish national mass news bulletins, which comply with them. As it seems very difficult, and for now there is no achiever, because I will establish 2 more categories, with fewer requirements each (silver, and bronze), to see if there is a winner of some category.



The explanation of these ways of reading a daily news, and its inclusion in this website, is the lack that fills this web in the information landscape. If this website does not contribute anything to what already exists, it would be simply repeating what is there, which would be useless, and would not have created it (unlike many other copying news programs, which are those that do not take into account what has already been said and what has already been created, as opposed to the constructive information, and the sciences, which are constructive: a scientific discovery is invented by the 1st, and is the greatest expert, the merit of the discovery is not shared with the copier, nor is the range distributed of expert to who makes a short-stick without even reading the content).

Training (= qualification), in every field, must be demonstrated, so we must all start from the fact that one is not capable, and at the same time, that the rest are incapable, until we prove otherwise [with a degree (university ...) or a transparent exhibition (the one that badass of being a great cook, since winning a cooking contest among friends or at a local level)].

A Doctorate in a field (Medicine, or other), is a person who has proven to be capable in that field (it does not have to be in others); the others, we are not in that area. And both in areas of traditional regulated study (Bachelor's degrees, Diplomas, Doctorates, Chairs), as well as others: cooking, being good people, being a good couple, being good parents, etc.

And the same in the field of information: we should not be enough with those who have an attitude and an image of competent and honest, but must be previously demonstrated with appropriate mechanisms, instead of endeavoring to defend the 1st that we offer . And whatever that area of ​​information is, in any country and time in the world:

- Religion ["mine is the best" (even if it is the indoctrination of traditionalism and my ancestors)].

- State education ["mine is the best" (even if it is indoctrination by a Dictator)].

- Daily news ["the one I use is the best" (even if it is indoctrination by a Dictator)].

- Politics ["my ideology is the best"; and my current President of the party, is the best possible ("ball").

- Sales ["the product that I bought, one that has appeared on my doorstep, is the best" (although you have not bothered to see a comparison on the Internet, and you do not even know if it is a counterfeit product; Even if it is cheaper in any physical or online store, the last thing that I have tried to strain, in the week of this writing, is a water filter for the tap, of € 2,000, and with demonstrations such as newspaper clippings that did not say neither which newspaper was comparative, nor showed that the water in my area needed it, but if I had bought it, so as not to look like an idiot, I would say that the difference is very noticeable)].



In all these examples, there are somepartisan vendors (whether of physical product or not) that hide all the arguments they know, that make it not a good idea to buy your product (the one of the competition has more virtues, and / or fewer defects, better trajectory, and greater guarantee ...) . In the case of those who are backed by force, they can be allowed to start from not being friendly; but normally, in all cases, all smoke sellers are very nice and educated, especially in news, politics, and traditional sales.

Themechanisms of truthful information, ways should be found to attract all the people of the world, to be informed through these mechanisms so that the vast majority of people are able to repel the tactics of swindling salesmen, in all large areas (religion, state education, politics, and daily news), to whiten the lies of tendentious sellers, as endorsed truths [by rigorous non-existent comparative studies, rigorous non-existent debates, the "State guarantee" of any country, which is not guarantee of nothing (since some guarantee a posture, and in the next country guarantee that the certain are the opposite, only you have to think about the dictatorships), aesthetic elements (costume, face of honor, great kindness, etc.).

Come on, that the mechanisms of truthful information have to be "proof of stupid receivers (without having to be stupid most, but 'if there is any'), and party vendors distorters to commission ('very smart') "

So we must fight the idea that all informants are equal (of good, or bad: swindlers or incompetent); and above all, combat the idea that a swindler informant has "right" to estofarte : science books (mathematics ...), and their authors, have no "freedom" or "right" to fraud.

The swindling salesmen of information, as much the taxes by the state like those that no, are the:

- Disinformative swindlers.

- Pseudoinformativos: sensationalist or cowardly, or not daily.

- Weather vane: those who change from an objective to the contrary, every so often: you do not reach any good destination when you go by boat paddling under the orders of a captain who tells you one day that you are aiming towards that goal, and others towards the opposite ; You only get tired, and it's worse than going to the worst destination of any of the 2 destinations. They are the ones that change according to the surveys of the population or their audience; or those of journalists at random or those in the hands of producers who change their opinion often (or owner).



In addition to choosing a good way to read, it also raises the desire to learn the power to choose the order of information, and even veto the one that does not interest you (irrelevant, not false). And this, whatever its scope (religion, politics, state education, daily news).

I record the TV news, and after I finish I see it; Well, I skip the news that does not interest me. The same benefit is obtained by going to the informative website that I trust, and clicking on the news that interests me, and disregarding the ones that do not. The State or an information company could potentially draw a law and mechanisms that would prevent it, which would seem to me a foolishness, a paternalism, and an attack on your freedom; but it is precisely the educational method of the State in the State Teaching: to force those who are not interested, to study that something, instead of motivating him 1º, and as a result he will forget it after 2 weeks of study.

If you do not want to veto the news that you are not interested in (in case you keep all of them, and in the future you change your mind and that one seems relevant to you), you can at least choose the reading order: 1st, the important ones for you, and then the least important ones , and if you have time you go for the unimportant ones.

That power to change the user's order, does not really contribute anything at the intellectual level (be that high or low level), but it does improve the motivation, which means that it does not finish considering that acquiring knowledge is a waste of time. It's like an ineligible menu, compared to an eligible one: the cook is the same, and has the same skill, but sometimes one prefers croquettes, and another day he does not fancy croquettes at all; and if there is a free buffet, one day take 2 croquettes and 4 meatballs, and another day no croquette.

Unfortunately, there are also areas of informants that require you to inform them, even in cases where they are shown to be incompetent in explaining it (by objectives and / or by methodology and / or lack of intelligence and / or lack of effort in thinking the best way).

Example , compulsory state education / education [Primary (School), and Secondary (Institute):

Claiming to choose the order of information, in the State Teaching they do not let you do it. This gives that in the Institute, of the subject of History of Spain, they forced us to a very deep study in 1º of BUP of the Prehistory, followed in 2º of BUP of another of similar depth on the Romans, so that in 3º of BUP it was necessary to compact 17 centuries (the centuries in which more things happened on top); and everything boosted exponentially with dictations, to lengthen it much more unnecessarily [it can be said, that in my learning of history, I changed one Dictation for another (Franco's, for the dictation of unprofessional teachers).

They only read me the book that I previously bought, without showing me an educational video: reports, cultural works (movies, theater), scientific effects [recorded or in computer animations (physics, chemistry, etc.), and a pleasant tone ( even motivating)] despite having them at that time, and although once a work already exists, to disseminate it is enough to copy and disseminate it [including teaching: the teacher can record a year (at home or in the class ) and project it for the rest of the years, in class or disclose copies to the students so that they can see it at home. Example: a spectacular, motivating, and dangerous expensive chemical experiment, it is better to see it engraved so that the professor replaces it with a boring and demotivating one].

Thanks to the Internet, then, and above all now, I have seen educational videos of all the subjects in my house, and without the help of the State; or rather, without the opposition of the State [which separated me from a constructive methodology of learning, based on books and that included videos, to force me to a destructive methodology that:

- Discarded all the educational videos own or of 3ºs [of channels television, or Internet websites, both long and short, but both cases curated the content (videos of the explained, computer animations), and the form (pleasant and pleasant, even the aesthetics).

- It slowed down the learning with books, through repetitions of the previous year, and above all, with dictations.

- Vetaba something of the agenda that at that moment you were interested, while it forced you to learn something that at that time did not interest you, instead of encouraging the "letting yourself free" so that you take advantage of your motivation [and feel free, in instead of an enslaved to the service not of you, but of your owners; which incites you to forget to overcome, your stage of enslavement (which implies forgetting what you were forced to study: no one in a meeting of alumni comments on how well the professor taught such prehistory (there are extreme cases of the world, there are pederast, or violent, or contemptuous, or that are shot to the roof, frightening the class despite unharmed, and holding the other hand to a bottle of whiskey, but usual cases are enough, as it vetoed to teach the S.XX , which was the one that interested you),because to think about it can rekindle the memory of their abuse, and in the balance, it weighs much more the mistreatment than the benefit that contributed to them].

I can think that I studied secondary school a long time ago (20 years, in the 90's), and therefore, everything has changed for the better. But I do not think so, after reading that President Rajoy will not write his autobiography of his time as President of the country (if he has a candidate for President, presented in 2011).

What loyalty can a student of primary or secondary, of the State, expect in subjects such as History, if it turns out that the head of compulsory state education said in 2017 that everyone who has dealt with him is calm, that he is not going to write his autobiography? (At least, the scope of his work as a politician, and especially his time as President). His left ancestors did write it; even his predecessor of rights (Aznar, 3 small volumes, nothing less).

Do not write a President his autobiography, is to veto information, and therefore:
- If it is almost current, that is to be against the news, so those who want to know the truth, should not support.

- Over the years it will be history, for which reason, it is against teaching us history, for which reason, it is a mistake to elevate (or maintain it as) the highest authority when deciding what the State teaches us, in History.

- If he does not want to teach us history, and still mounts the paripé of not suppressing the history class in the schools and institutes, to me it seems an unworthy (or at least not reliable) person to believe me that he will do the maximum to teach my children in the other subjects, for which, I believe that any determined person should take their children out of the classes, until they rule another person who thinks otherwise. If not, you can find paripés in philosophy, mathematics, sciences, etc.



To the visitors who want to read more techniques of informative manipulation in teaching (at least, the one I received), and the culture, then the page of this web, of Objectives (2º of 2), is dedicated to it. And if the reader wants to go directly to the field of Education, I explain it (at least, what I received) in the module " State teachings and their possibilities of fraud ".

Plurality and individual freedom, like many in theory and in practice; but also many like it in theory and then not in practice, or directly, they do not like it either in theory or in practice (I have not found percentage surveys, and I would not dare to predict them).

This applies not only to a news section of a source (such as "cover" or "opinion"), or to all sections of a news source, but above all to the objectives themselves: that is, many prefer not to compare (or by 3ºs certificates, not by themselves) the objectives of an informative, with the objectives of another; and both at the level of what is scientifically proven, as well as scientifically demonstrable, as well as what is not demonstrable.

Many people will find it harder to read all the objectives of this website, than an equivalent amount of text during the days that are necessary, from the sections "cover" and "opinion" of a random newsletter that after reading another one that Like them more, make them feel that they could have read the best and that they have lost a little time. I believe that reading the explicit and extensive objectives of an informative is much more important than reading the news of that day; and that if he does not show them, it is that he does not have them or they are some who try to cheat me in some way.

And the same in other areas:

- University student: the eager to study, instead of focusing on what to study, focus on filling his head with the knowledge that is offered, so he enrolled in the 1st specialty of the list of specialties (Architecture, for example) .

- Father who takes his children to the school closest to his home, teach what he teaches: and that it turns out that this educational center indoctrinates them in the adoration of Satanism, because instead of bothering to read the cumbersome objectives, he preferred to be alien.



It is different who would have liked to read objectives but because of laziness they do not do it (and they regret it later), than the "seguidistas" (those who copy what others do), which, if the others do not regret not having them read, and transmit happiness, well they too.

It is also different from those with active objectives not to learn; that is, those who want to be not deep (do what others do); and normally they do not repent later. Examples:

- Studies: those who want an "insubstantial" school: not deep, but superficial; to learn useless and politically correct things, such as Geology and similar things. And if it can be, pedants (traditional of the rich, like painting and playing the piano).

- Cinema: those looking for stories in which the main character not only does not read anything (or is not necessary for the movie), but even glorifies not reading (nothing of any vital area: personal, couple, family, work , educational, state, social, etc.), and the lack of "educational" or "formative" or "informative" objectives (which, if enemies come out against those to combat, weighs down their type until they are reduced to a serial killer, and sometimes to a corrupt politician, come on, that the conflicts are not due to the lack of debates, ignorance, or the difference of contrary opinions).



Overall, I created this text module as a warning "health" so that the types of visitors "traumatizable" by this website (through its plurality and ability to compare sources), take action: relax (and let yourself be carried in plurality) , or go to another less plural and more indoctrinating web.

So that people "traumatized by plurality" who do not know they are, they know, simply enough to be recognized in one of the following 2 sets: undecided or sectarian (= indoctrinated).

A) Undecided .

Of those that when they have the opportunity to choose between several options, they become confused and incapable, although all those around them encourage them to make free decisions.



B) Sectarized (= indoctrinated).

The sectarians of the world are divided into 2 subsets:

B.1 Contentos for sectarian living .

They do it voluntarily. Subtypes:

B.1.1 Economic interest.

"If you worked in such a company, and it pays you, then it is the best" (that is, they pay you the best), so if all scientists, journalists and prosecutors accuse you with irrefutable proofs of all kinds, be a polluter and / or unprofitable, and close and you go to unemployment, because "everyone lies less you", and you would vote for any populist politician who promises to cheat that situation. Example: many who worked for a polluting and unprofitable company (dirty coal mining, as opposed to renewables in 2016), who listened to the US Presidential candidate who denied climate change despite all the scientists and all the news, voted him and he was elected President.



B.1.1.2 No economic interest. Subtypes are:

- 1st option that chance brings them.

- Local traditionalism (usually coincides with the 1st option that chance brings them).

- Follow-up to parents (and usually to family predecessors). Usually coincides with local traditionalism (and with being the 1st option that chance brings them).

- Image that falsely associates more professionalism and honesty: serious face; suit jacket and tie until August, and shaved in a hurry; eyes reflecting honesty of the soul, which transmit honesty; in the case of television news, as a serious and grandiloquent television set.

The sectarian volunteers, both those of economic interest and others, reject (or degrade) science and the evidence that refutes those concepts in which they believe, which gives cases such asone out of every 4 Americans rejects that Earth revolves around the sun . And some superfamous even as Shaquille O'neal, has claimed that the Earth is flat (often ego and idiocy, believing itself smarter, despite no evidence, than all the scientific intellectual elite that has also provided demonstrations of all kinds).

Thus, when we think about sectarian, we associate it with people from other cultures (religion, traditions) of the 3rd world or the 2nd, but the reality is that the 1st world is still half of the native people who, instead of generously rewarding the advances that intellectualism brings, is very influenced by sectarianism and by the repudiation of: the debate; store evidence at least at a specific site and public access; The science; the confrontation (educated) of tests.





B.2 Discontent for living sectarian .

They are the non-credulous of the 1st option that shows them, and they do appreciate the plurality, but they are afraid that if someone discovers that they do not accept like sheep they do not listen to more sources, in favor of listening to more parties than the one they "recommend" your physical environment (be it family, state education, labor, neighborhood, social, religious, military ...), they will get great reprisals from their environment: from looking at them with disappointment, not talking to them anymore, and even to be seen or imprisoned or killed (in some countries).

I already said in the module of ways to see the news that this website offers, that for these people to be able to inform themselves more secretly, their best option is " By Source (Alphabet) ", because if the intolerant review the link of the browser (bookmark or favorite), or see them on that page, because there are several written information (and not ordered from best to worst, or more awarded unless, but in alphabetical order), it is not clear that he was not seeing the "forbidden".

You have finished reading the basic minimum objectives of this website. If you are already "tired of reading objectives", and you go for the news, I am satisfied that you have read them.

All the following from the following text module are:

1) areas of information manipulation, which are not about daily news, but are related to influence your perception of news and reality: sports; sales; games of lying (poker); religion; state education; politics.



2) Informative vs disinformational (in the field of daily news).

- Sense of copying one another (I think you have to be constructive and contribute to a base what is missing).

-Explicit objective of all informative [is 0 or a slogan (and if there were exceptions, there is no one to prove it with an audit of a 3rd independent)].

- Need to compare publications .

- The fable of the Emperor's new suit (he is naked and the only one who dares to denounce him is a child).

- Information Methodology 3.0.

- Objectives of the Informative 3.0 .

- Technological evolution of journalism from the point of view of the possibilities of misinformation used by scammers: in news 1.0 (those without the right to replicate the defamed or the defamed position), in the news 2.0(which has the right to reply, but like any other, in a comment No. 15, against the defamer treated as an intellectual) and in this one ( informative 3.0 , where there is a certain equality between journalists and different opinion media).

- Goals of this web .

- Techniques of informative manipulation, + examples : explained, enumerated, and ordered by potential misinformation from most to least.

- Techniques not manipulative on purpose .





All these points, in a constructive world, should already be debated, transcribed, disseminated free of copyright, and always displayed by all the news, especially the conclusions; and decades before I started writing them, so that I just had to say that I totally agree with the objectives and techniques for and against journalism, available on the website of the organism as such (those of the School International Journalism, or the National College of Spain or the US, or the UN, or such news, or the famous journalist such: Iñaki Gabilondo or Luís del Olmo or Carlos Herrera or Jiménez Losantos (or another that is your favorite) .

And then, I put here a link (link, for non-fans of the Spanish language) to the statement of objectives of that organization (or person); or to make them explicit without doing a redirection, do in several text modules of this page of this web, some copy-paste to that statement (noting that it would do a copy-paste).

But surprisingly, in this time of flirting serious news with some lie, and daily submission of the disinformation to the lie as a goal, I have not found any damn statement of objectives detailed, nowhere, absolutely nobody (or news, nor disinformation). So, to my regret, and to the shame of all the aforementioned, I had to write it myself from nothing(if someone finds a better one, for some text module of the ones on this page, tell me, and add the links, or replace my modules by means of a copy-paste if it is freely distributed (and this way, surely, this page improves in writing quality and in detail.)

I continue, I said a moment ago that you have already finished reading the basic minimum objectives of this website, and that if you are already "tired of reading objectives", and you go for the news, I am satisfied that you have read them,

but I think that in any project it is always better to invest in reading the objectives completely (including the fine print, which is where you are most often scammed)., rather than start reading 10,000 news sheets, publications that can be scammers or support some goals that you do not share. The paradise of a partisan seller, of a product, is not to have the best exclusive product for sale; it is not even that the people believe the first scoundrel (who smiles at him with the face of an honest person and a suit) while it is not shown that his product is worse; No, the true paradise of the seller is to find a place where people buy the product of the seller, even after explaining to them informed people that their product is the worst (even, then redouble their efforts to continue buying the same product worse, for a blind and stupid trust) .

That is to say, that the quality of the product does not matter to them, and they buy it equally, for other reasons [traditionalism - imposing salesperson (dress costume and / or self-confident and / or attractive and / or expression of decent and / or domain loquacity and / or show).

Examples of mistrust in scientists:

- The Earth is flat, not round.

- There is no climate change, although all scientists No. 1 and previous US Presidents say so, so you vote for the candidate for President of the United States to give you the reason.

- Vaccines, it is better not to spend money and to be wrong and have to need them, than to waste: from the treatment of the flu of that year that had risk of deadly epidemic, many were vaccinated, and there were hardly any deaths, and now you have nightmares that you they take away the dream, of researchers and directors of that company dancing because they earned a lot of money with their work (like anybody); and they do not listen to those who say that 1st, there were no deaths because they were vaccinated, and 2nd, it was an all or nothing risk, so we have to prevent the whole (as if there is a hurricane risk); and 3º, the economic balance may be negative, since that same year they lost money in research to 100 other diseases, of which they did not get cure or improvement. If all the dissidents, so easy to see the business,so they set up a pharmacy to see if it is so profitable; or easier, to buy shares, and next year expect it to multiply (but maybe, lower because another pharmacy has achieved better drugs).



Returning to the issue of reading the objectives of a text before starting to believe it, and the alternatives to that text (example: a novel ...), if applied to sell any "information product" means that paradise The seller is to find a population that does not compare the product that the seller offers, with other 9 to the physical disposition of that buyer, of which very likely some will be much better than the one offered by that seller very kindly.

Informative areas, in which one usually indoctrinates instead of contrasting possibilities [by means of debates, or by turns (1º you finish reading a book and then you read the alternative one), or compilation of arguments).

I have ordered them from shorter to less, and / or less related to news, to more:sport; sellers; religion; education / state education; politics; informative (public or private).

Next, I explain them briefly; then explain extensively in different modules, each of these 6 areas of information (susceptible tools of indoctrination as well as utility and commitment to the truth) :

1) Sports [to conform their fans to see a boring game instead of an exciting one (win or lose); and in giving up to see the "best" team match, in favor of the "local")].

2nd) Sellers subset of those who hide the arguments that harm them (I do not know whether to call them unethical, or those of capitalist ethics, practically, they are all).

3rd)Lying Games (educational, or not?): Teaching by turning something into a game is the best way to teach. The news shows that the powerful (Presidents, Entrepreneurs ...) lie, but the state teaching does not teach that, nor the games that encourage lying, so the games of lying, like poker, are educational aids, or aberrations?

4th) Religions.They are the statistically most flagrant field of success in indoctrinating without plurality: the difference between religions and sects, is that religions are ideologies, and sects are ways of spreading ideologies of whatever scope (religious or political or historical or ludic or informative) , by encouraging not to debate or read alternative books. In practice, normally all religions teach in a sectarian way.

5th) State Teaching.

In many societies, along with the disinformation (public and private), it forms the basis of the clamp with which to sustain a Dictator, instead of promoting the one that is overthrown. So the most glorified in the whole world, state education, is not intrinsically good or reliable, but everything depends on the leader being honest, as it can be directed by a dictator or a skilled democratic swindler. The state education determines to the future voters to have or not the necessary intelligence to objectively express on the same fact (and the teaching of basic knowledge, if that fact requires it); and even, whether they are interested in the news (and / or textbooks), therefore, I have made a criticism of the one I received (and it is very negative) in the module " State Teaching and its Possibilities of Scam", on the Objectives page (2nd of 2),

6th) Policy (which governs almost every area of ​​our destinations . ) The techniques and purposes are identical to those of the disinformation (in fact, it is the corrupt politicians who ride disinformation). There is a great coincidence between the techniques of the unethical "vendor" and those of the politicians Example: indoctrinate instead of debate The unethical vendors are a good quarry of unethical politicians

7th) Informative (which form the scope of this page of objectives and of this web . ) It is the last, so that the reader is already "trained" in techniques and areas of manipulation, with the other 5 areas.

A sport can happen that one sectarian access, in the sense that one refuses to try all that can be allowed, in favor of one (the 1st that you see, or the most social viewers). And whether you choose it yourself, or if you impose a 3rd (your father played such, it prompts you to play that, and / or watch the games on TV).

So the sport can be a case of some indoctrination, in this case in a leisure that is not idle, because to guess is not your goal, but to integrate into others although they require you to choose for him ".

Example at the level of social majority: being a local team to the king of your country sport (usually, one with a ball, in Spain, football). First let's see a comparison between seeing cultural works (movies, series, novels ...) and watching football between two teams, before the assumption that your future self comes and tells you what cultural works that you saw and which games will be boring (they had no quality ):

- Case of boring cultural works: I would not see them, and I would focus my time on other things (see what I do not know are bad, or do other activities). But I would not see them either if I had bad reviews on ratings media sites (like Metacritic.com) or I would not like their trailer; on the other hand, others if their future self does not come, they would see it, going from knowing the average of scores on websites, or their trailers.

- Case of boring parties: I would not see a game that someone trustworthy told me that was boring (recording because I worked at that moment, or if it came to warn me of my future).

But I do not usually see sports either (I'm more of series, and modern leisures). In the case of bored parties, those who would give up would be a much smaller percentage (x10, forecast) than in the case of boring cultural works, since part of their goal is to be together the fans (and encourage the team ).

This gives rise to think that the group of fans to watch football, is more predisposed to "buy" bad quality in leisure, so, if you were a salesman, and you were given a choice between selling cultural products-ludic to an anti-soccer group or a pro-soccer group, the statistics would recommend choosing to sell your leisure-cultural products to pro-soccer.

And by extension, if the pro-soccer collective has bought a bad product, and does not demand responsibility (return of money, as in a physical book or movie, score negatively on websites, so that others are warned and do not buy that product), because this group can buy other defective "products", such as misinformation (state education, religion, political ideology, tolerated political corruption, etc). And there is always a swindler with a good image and a persuasive monologueist, willing to put it on (free, and sometimes even paying).

Returning to the case of football, there is also another case of conformism, and that is that others choose for you your team: according to the statistics, it is the one of your city of origin (in which later one usually lives). Suppose football fans lived in one neighborhood, and non-fans in another. A seller at home, a mediocre product, if you had to choose between going to sell your product to one neighborhood or the other, would choose the football fans. Reason: they are satisfied with a worse quality product, if it is at the expense of being local; therefore, as a seller you can exalt the patriotism to sell something of worse quality or much more expensive (a mobile phone, a car ...).

Sports in principle, do not impose on the citizens that are of such or such a team, so there are many people in a locality who is a fan of a team from another locality, for purely sports issues (fair play, play touch or patadón up or go out against); or humanity of its stars (when winning: humility vs bravado); discretion or exhibitionism of economic waste of its stars ...).

That hobby of the citizen to that team, by the values ​​of that team, may be permanent or changing each year of the team that has more of that characteristic that most appreciates. But in any case, the soccer fan, who is not fond of the local team, is a very minority percentage, since it is badly seen locally to be from a team other than that of that locality; to the point that some criminals fans of the local team, assault them by going with the shirt of the rival team of that locality.

Consequently, the sport is a case that for you to integrate, normalizes:

- The one that "others choose for you":

- That you agree even with the worst quality (if your local team is the bottom of the league of 1st division, or even the 2nd division), even if it is of an inconsequential and playful scope.

And once you see a vendor that a group accepts products of poor quality, then try to sell their most funky products (mobile from 5 years ago ...) with techniques such as: impeccable suit, friendly smile, honest face, etc.

Accepting bad quality of a match if it is from a local team, contrasts with, for example, movies, in which you put quality first (before deciding which one you want to see, watch trailers, and listen to the opinions of a film critic, or the average of film critics on websites like Metacritic.com or Rottentomatoes.com, or the friends you value your opinion, although there are also many people who see an ad on TV or a newspaper, and you're going to see it ).

So I have already explained a precedent of transitioning in a field (not informative), so you may be in one or more of the information fields: if you already swallowed to give up watching football of the best quality, then maybe you swallow with a non-plural vision in religion, or / and education-state education, and / or information (public and / or private).

The information is one more product that the partisan commercials sell on commission, exactly like any other concrete material product (mobile, car ...) or service (telecommunications ...). Therefore, although it may seem shocking, every area of ​​information (religion, politics, state education, daily news) is from a legal point of view, treated in a way as little guarantee as any sale of any other product, since the legal line that in a capitalist society (or rather, "budding capitalism") separates a legal partisan seller from an illegal fraudster, it is very fine (and I do not want to say that others are better, such as Communism, since I have lived, and the other yes).

The2 groups of legal techniques (at least, not impeded by the law) of sale more used and useful (and questionable from the ethical point of view) in all areas of sale (announcements in the media, door-to-door sales; fixed store sale ...) are:

- rival product: not disclose the virtues to the client, and exaggerate the defects.

- Own product: disclose to the customer exaggerations of the virtues of your product, and hide the defects.



These techniques, the sellers disclose them to potential customers preferably through non-interactive means regarding the arguments against them, such as the TV ads (of which, if you have seen it 100 times, they have not given you a vision Constructive of 1st explain the pros and cons, and then repeat, but it is a loop recording of the pros, so 100 units of time (one ad x 100, gives 100 ads) when you could have issued the 1st and then 3 announcements that qualify the 1st

So, do not listen to the cons of a product, it is not a matter of time, or that the longer issue (that is, expensive), but a technique in which is based on the sale (therefore, the Economy, and therefore, our society). That is, "that Economists and Legislators and politicians and voters say that this sales model is the best possible, so if you start to tell the truth, this society collapses, and a worse one would arise, for which the sellers patriots, they 'do us the favor of swindling us' "(a similar reasoning, they usually give you in the field of daily news, the manipulators of newspapers and news).

Personal example of how a product is sold that is not information, not physical, but a service.

A few years ago I worked a few weeks, from door to door salesman, specifically from phone calls, a little before the flat rates, but just after when the monopoly of Telefonica went to liberalization (through the client to register others, and call by default with one, and with the others by a prefix before dialing).

And the company for which he worked, gave better rates for a few slots (most), but worse in others; However, they did not tell us to sell it that way honestly and clearly, but rather that our product was the best in everything, period. In return, they paid us € 30 for each new discharge (potentially achievable in 5 minutes of work, for which the potential per hour was 60/5 = 12 high per hour, so € 30 x 12 = € 360-hour; and € 360 - hour x 8 hours = € 2,880 - day: a bundle that tempts anyone to omit the defects of your product

, and every day the local boss gave us an instructive demonstration to all (300 vendors) of how had to sell that product (with a subordinate who was a potential client):

1st, to be opened by the door of the building, to bite all at once (so as not to waste time in waiting), and to say on the building's intercom, to those who answer, that they were from the Telefónica company (really caught with tweezers, for the game of words of the guild and the name of the telephone monopoly company that everyone knew).

2nd, once inside the building, tell everyone who opens you, who is going through the area to verify that all the neighbors were already "applying the discount", for which, he needed the neighbor to teach him a invoice, the seller told him that he did not have it activated, and he "activated" it by copying the data of the invoice to another contract, and giving it to him to sign hiding that it was another contract, and of another company.

And if the neighbor did not trust and did not bring it, and asked what was the requirement for that discount, because the boss taught us that we had to respond to the client, with kindness and security of a professional who seeks the best for their clients, which was of the ancients (without going into technicality).

Others, with less honest and security image, opted for their own solutions testable by the customer, and after a large percentage of failures, opted to tell the customer before they went to find the invoice, lies like that "the number of contract to which you can not apply the discount is the one that ends with the digit # 3 "(which, having 10 possibilities, gave a 90% accuracy, and the client relaxed and was lucky that his contract would not end at No. 3, and he would bring you the bill, after the "demonstration").

Obviously, if the techniques of deception that I mentioned before (the product of the competition: not highlight their virtues and exaggerate their defects, and their own: exaggerate their virtues and hide their defects), a seller for this product, adds the technique "apply the discount if we bring the bill", and if there is no legal protection for the citizen, because you multiply the sales exponentially with respect to the vendors who explained to customers the pros and cons of their product: € 30 per day or 60, you can get to charge € 300, or more.

So widespread is this way of acting, that I have counted that they have passed through my house, at least 50 times to "apply the discount" (although it has not been only that company, but the technique has been extended to others of the competition and others from other sectors, such as energy), so that, if cheating when selling was illegal, at least the domes of the sales companies would be stopped, and the contracting companies would be fined with a sum that really made them not continue acting like this (even if they claim "ignorance" after delegating sales to companies that have not shown sales ethics, and that being public, and selling to each citizen, we all know how they work).

A sales strategy applicable to the field of information (religion, politics, teaching, information), which that chief instructed us every morning, was that we did not waste time with the "debaters", nor with the "bounces", but rather we sought the "confident of the image" who still believed in trusting the 1st person who "knocks on their door": kind and honest person face; and above all if you are wearing a suit, and are daily shaving. Come on, we looked for those who preferred to get face to face instead of using the cold machines (computer connected to the Internet) to know the rates and small print (permanence or not, etc); and those who do not use the Internet or the telephone to inform themselves and hire those services.

I was honored in that job, saying that my product was better for the day, but that at night they used the usual (marking a prefix); but after a few weeks, I left, since I did not earn much, for 2 reasons:

- Compared with my colleagues: the less ethical, the more they earned. This, as I say a few lines below, is a flaw in state education, since it fills your time with nonsense, so as not to teach you what is useful for life, which in ethics, for sales, is that it does not repudiate the omission of information. When selling, nor encourages you to be the one who omits information when selling.

- The people are very closed: even though that job had a potential of income of up to € 30 every 5 minutes, the reality is that 1st, people do not open the door to strangers, and 2nd, those who open it, the 90 % would not sign anything even if it was the receipt that the visitor gives them money. And the other 10%, does not appreciate the truth and transparency, because if you tell him that your product is better, in almost every hour or use, the possible client is left with that you have recognized that your product is not better in everything, than the one that already uses, so for what to get involved to change, if later, "with the liars that are all the sellers, I'm sure there's been some more problems".



To teach that the Economy of our society works by means of which the majority of the sales make them commercial that do not look for the benefit of the client, but make all the possible sales, to take their corresponding commissions, it seems to me the most educational possible, since it reflects how the Economy (the engine of society) really works, and therefore what is the prevailing ethics in society.

So it should be an activity to study in state education, as a subject, or as part of the subject "top useful knowledge" (those that change your life to sink if you do not know), since the school should teach how Our society really works, instead of being politically correct, for which lies to the students that our society, which is a wonder without problems, or dilemmas or sad endings (like the Disney movies: all end up optimal): so that the State not teach you and overdo you indoctrinate in the lies that please you, stay at home, do not go to a state school to receive state education (the bad, is that it is mandatory by law).

And after the state education imparts the fact that omitting information is the majority in sales, then there is the applause or repudiation. And if the result is applicable to the other areas, or is an exception.

For example, soccer: in state education they teach you the rules of soccer, but they do not say anything about tactical mistakes (or deny their existence, with the aim of perpetuating your innocence), therefore, a defender who applies only the philosophy to be taught in school, then it will not be professional (since it is a basic technique according to statistics), so it would have been better not to have received that state education. Thus, his nemesis in the other team can:

a) Stop a striker against a safe goal, seen by the referee.



b) To injure your striker when the referee is on his back. This gives the dilemma to respond by:

- Not returning the aggression (equaled or + the punishment, ie, increased): and loses the game, with one less in the field.

- Return aggression (means repudiating the ethics that you were taught in state education, considering it childish, unfair and useless).



State education should teach the philosophy of sales, prevailing in this society; and very much before much more inconsequential matters such as minerals (the characteristics of feldspar ...), Prehistory (not recent history), or the paintings that Fulanito painted; and not only in Secondary (the Institute), but even in Primary (School), so that those who leave school, have learned something really transcendent, instead of the little useful and uncool that is the feldspar mineral.

Therefore, it is much more priority to see a report (from the sellers themselves, from the State, from journalists, and from the front or with a hidden camera) of examples of how "partisan" vendors usually work, from which to deduce the sales philosophy, that study silly things for your life as Geology (be reading the book, or see a report, or a trip to a Museum), since in one your quality of life can depend on it (they can deceive you so that you legally give them all the money: in preferred, the Bank, in shares, a TV ad, of a bankrupt company, such as Nueva Rumasa), and in the other one (and above, nor is it leisure: in Geology, after 4 minutes you have had quite).

Well, the partial information, as in sales, also occurs in the field of daily news: if that boss of mine and my former colleagues home salesmen without scruples, they will pay € 30 for each subscribed they get, to each service informative for which they worked (Sports A, Religion B, State Education C, Daily Information D), because the sellers would present them to each neighbor in a sectarian way: highlighting their virtues, but not their defects (nor do they have to believe in them ).

And even exaggerating its virtues, because the Law allows it [even if the Law forbids it: or it gives a ridiculous multitas that does not equal even one hundredth part of the benefit, or even condemn them, due to lack of applicants (a lot of economic investment and time for claim € 30); and in any case, these judgments are not priority, and are so slow that they prescribe before a sentence; and that, not to mention that the Governing leaders on duty].

Therefore, door-to-door salespeople, if they charge € 30 per affiliate to the information service, sell you sectarian (without contrast):

- Sport: the most exciting is the one they promote (if they charge € 30 per member). Example: handball

- Religion: the good one is what they encourage (if they charge € 30 per member).

- Policy: the best political party is the one they promote (if they charge € 30 per affiliate).

- State education: the good one is what they encourage (if they charge € 30 per member).

- Informative: the good ones are what they encourage (if they charge € 30 per member).

Lying games, and my reflection on their suitability as educational material). Poker:

The favorite board game for men in the US is (according to polls, and all US movies) Poker. And especially, it is the favorite board game of the sellers (politicians included) that omit the clients, data (of damage of their product, and of benefits of the competition), since it allows them to "train themselves in lying and in do not be noticed. "

There are many genres of games:

- Playful [physical skill: football; of luck: letters (brisca, guiñote ...), board (Monopoly ...)].

- Intellectual ingenuity [chess (match or discover mate in 3 movements), sudoku, Rubik's cube, hieroglyphs, escape from such room with such objects, etc].

- Intellectuals to memorize: definitions of words [crosswords, television (Pasapalabra ...)].



I do not repudiate any genre: neither the intellectuals (of wit and memorize, and who have a reputation for being boring), nor the ludic ones [unlike many politicians and journalists, who hide their leisure to please the part of the citizenship that believes that repudiating leisure (from the post-work time) multiplies your image as a worker (competent and dedicated), as well as wearing a suit with a tie]. And I do not repudiate Poker, because of its ludic and "educational" nature: our capitalist society is based on the fact that the most powerful must run companies, news and governments by deceiving (lying, censoring, omitting a part of the truth), to which you can (If you buy a product worse than the one that sells the competition, then it is annoying, for gullible).

There are schools that promote only playful games, and others that promote only intellectual games, and others that encourage both types; but in the state education does not reign that explicit recognition so useful, that the powerful use deception techniques. And even less, state teaching encourages teaching to lie (so that students can go far in life: a President ....). And even less the state education encourages games that teach to lie without being noticed, although it gives these benefits:

a) Detecting it (playing "tell me a lie, without pretending to lie"), gives viewers the benefit of learning to detect it ).

b) Lying (practicing it gives yourself to start polishing yourself in lying to be prepared for, for example, your candidacy for President.) Obviously, there are parties whose voters do not usually punish the lies of their party, but you can join parties that do. Examples of usefulness to the President:

- In the US spy movies, if they get caught, "the government denies all knowledge."

- Envelopes with commissions in exchange for public contracts: if "old dog does not learn new tricks" and you will limit yourself to what the state education teaches, you would confess to the 1st, instead of denying everything, then before the evidence blame a subordinate (your treasurer ...)



These 2 teachings of lying (detecting it, and practicing it) give the games of lying, being the most educational for survival in this corrupt society in which we live, but despite this educational value, almost no school fosters it, State education is not governed by coherence (of training for the "real world"), but by being "politically correct".

The game King of the lie, is poker; and it is considered undesirable to many adults, probably because although normally it is played with fictitious money, there are adults who play with real money. And it is still considered more unwanted for children to play (Secondary), since many parents want a politically correct education for their children, that does not give imitable ideas, of (possible) bad behavior, and therefore are distanced of lying and playing with money (even if it is with fiction). But surely those parents do not forbid their children to play Monopoly, in which they also play with fictitious money [or real, if the players agree on it (but nobody does)].

Normally, that arbitrariness of prohibiting a game with fake money to children, is usually because they have seen several movies in which a character, in a poker game session, loses a lot of money, or directly is ruined [the bad guy, usually; the good always wins (at least, at the end); and because in these movies you often play surrounded by alcohol (and sometimes in slums with violent people and low-cut girls and looking like light morals).

Returning to the topic of this website, which is to provide accurate information and tools to detect manipulations, poker is a great tool:

a) At the level of acquaintances: it seems that such a person is unable to deceive you (for good or clumsy), but a day you propose to play poker, and surprise ... deceive like a professional.

b) At the vendor level: you play poker with friends (at home: online or face-to-face) or strangers (online or face-to-face championship), with an honest face, and those you assume honesty ... and you see that they deceive you; so if they can, what can not the opaque commission salespeople. Then the next day you start to look more to detect real scams to you, even in people with an honest face.

Example: a guy with an honest face appears at the door, who says he is checking if they already apply the discount on the invoice (telephone, or energy), and let him see one, which at a moment sees him (If you ask what is the criterion for the discount, it tells you that you are entitled to a discount if the invoice number ends in 3,), the type sees that you are entitled to a discount, so you create a discount request, copying the data of your bill that you already have in your hand, and then asks you to sign.

So, you start thinking: what if this guy is a liar and a professional con man, which is based on a very trustworthy face of honest and polite and calm, like yesterday's poker buddies, who were of the same suit and then turned out be a scammer (he saw when asking them to show the letters, and agreed, or when he resigned to the hand, follow them 2, of which, both usually show the letters if not resign any).

And then, you start thinking: what if this guy at my door, what he wants is to change my company (phone or light) in exchange for a good commission (€ 30), and he does not give a shit if he saves or if payment with surcharge? And seriously my company can not lower rates unilaterally, when even to raise them do not ask for my signature or my verbal consent, and if not even pass door to door to inform us? And also, is not there any propaganda campaign on TV by that company, that they are going to apply "a discount", but that they can only apply it when you plant a type of them at the door?
Or that guy tries to change you in a scamming way to another company, or is not from that company; In both cases, bad business. And thanks to games of detecting lies, such as poker, you save (concretely, thanks to seeing people with an honest face, going from a roll of security and joy that you better not challenge them, and check yourself by putting face up the cards that you should have challenge them, since they have tried to deceive you).

And then you see more cases: that call from the Bank that tomorrow go to the branch of the neighborhood, and ask for the director, since "I am one of the clients that best falls to them, so they give me the opportunity to buy preferred, that it is a sure value "... because then, or I do not go, or if I go is already critical (not closed, eye), and accuse them of scammers (instead of being shy, and quiet).
So, if someone wants to enjoy poker, once commented my opinion of its advantages, and dismantled their myths as "not educational", then who wants to start or enjoy online games, even free, leave a link to the Sports section , in which there will be some poker advertisement.



POKER RULES, summarized.

There are several ways to play poker: Omaha and Texas; The most common is Texas by far. In Texas, the dealer of that round gives each player 2 cards, and turns face up in the middle of the table to others, in 3 turns (adding, not replacing), so that the players have to try to combine their hand with the common to get the best hand ... or make it believe the other players (cheat).

At a mathematical level, each player has very little chance of having a good hand, so, you have very few chances of having a good hand, but each of the other players also, so prudence prompts you to be cautious and wait to risk when you have a good hand, especially if instead of playing against another, you play against 2 (the risk of having a losing hand is doubled); and even more against more players (3 or 4 or 5).

But the rules require that "only by being alive in the game", you have to pay a tribute, and that additionally, if you are the adjacent right to the dealer, at the beginning of that game you have to pay another tribute (the task of delivery changing in each game, to the adjacent right, in the order of the hands of the clock).

These tributes, at a mathematical level, require that then the best alternative is no longer to wait for good cards, but for deception: that the player's face does not transmit the burden and cold sweat, of having received bad cards [so he has mathematical level more probalities to lose (especially if the character plays with real money, which is no longer just a game, and if you have played a lot of money, like the equivalent of your car, or even your house, gives to sweat, having leg or eye tics, of loosening the tie, of drinking half a glass of what he drinks, etc)], but transmitting with total naturalness, an appearance of sudden tranquility, joy, and above all of honesty (of being incapable of deceiving someone, by kindness and lack of ability).

Come on, he is playing his house, and he has bad letters to get on his nerves, but he knows that the other at the mathematical level is the same, and he looks deranged, so if he keeps calmly inward, and reflects naturalness, tranquility , and even joy, as if he had received good letters, perhaps his rival resigns as cautious, and you remain his tribute, without having finished that round altogether.

You can even raise the bet, both at the beginning, and when the dealer puts 3 cards of his hand face up (with which you have to make the combinations), and of which, you have not obtained anything powerful; and the next letter, and the next one. The more letters, if you have not caught a great combination, more chances that the other yes, but he does not know that you have nothing, and statistically, he has no chance of having much, so even near the end, with the 3 common cards face up (from which the croupier deals), and playing whatever it is (to your home), the person or character that conveys confidence and naturalness and joy, makes the opponent renounce the bet for not equal the last bet (the one of the common card 3rd or 4th or 5th),since the logician does not go casinunca [with his (bad) cards and when you look at them, you are more cheerful, as if you had touched the cards you needed).

There are those who re-raise the bet a lot at the beginning, hoping to keep the taxes in each game; there are those who wait to re-raise the croupier's face and place the first 3 cards face up. And there are those who wait for the 5th to re-raise the bet very strongly. This go for the tributes, is very useful especially in tournaments (online or in person), in which maybe you play 500 people, and nobody knows anyone, so it is very easy to fall in fear of the rival for his appearance to have good letters, and to renounce the taxes and what has already been waged.



MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE TO THE POKER.

I play for seasons, but since I was a teenager I always play in electronic format (never a table), either alone or with others: a few months ago he gave me chess; others before I decided to learn to solve the Rubik's Cube; others, I went back to the Solitaire card game; Now I only play Sudoku and Clash Royale for a few minutes every day.

But for years it did give me the venazo of Poker; there are many PC and mobile programs to play, alone or with several, and for free; but as in football, we all look for the transcendence of a reward [even if it consisted only in a ranking of points from which to see all you are better than rivals who start similar [whether you are the amateur footballer of a town or neighborhood (who competes with nearby teams), as if you are a spectator (of 1st division professionals)].

In addition, you can earn money, without investing money, as every day there are free online championships, among hundreds of people (about 500 per championship), elimination, of which the top 10 (the survivors who arrive at the "final table" ) get free access to another low-cost payment (€ 50), with prizes to each finalist of the final table, € 500, and you can play the day and time you want (there are many a day); and that also entitles one seat to another of € million prizes.

I won many times the free championship, so I got enough access to the € 50, without having to pay that money. But come on, I only passed a couple of times to the next level (seats of € 500, which give access to prizes of approximately € 1 M), and in both I did not win any final prize, although it was already a lot, and very exciting (and free).

Obviously, you have to spend many hours to get a big buck without investing, so it's not a magic solution; but many unemployed, especially during economic crises, and put to waste time, and sink into self-pity, they use it to survive.



THE LOTTERY AND CASINO GAMES, WITH REAL MONEY:

It is clear that the subset that gets more money, as in any bet, are those that play with real money, but that is a risk, since in the long run it is just as likely that one ends up winning than losing (at least, it is not the concept of a part for the Casino, as in the game of roulette, which remains the bet if the ball, of the ¿36 squares, falls on the 0); but at the mathematical level it is just as likely to lose it as in any other casino game, or any bet among friends, or any investment in the stock market (buy shares of the company such ...).

Of course, although losing money (or winning) at the mathematical level is just as likely (easy or difficult) or more, in Poker than in buying shares of the company, at a social level the news and the state education convey that it is a madness, while investing in "well-intentioned" companies is better, as an ecological solar energy (like Acciona, which went bankrupt), which may only be desirable to be profitable, but to date such (example: 2014) they did not begin to be so (for that reason, many of those who invested since 1980, were ruined more than if they had bet it (to the poker or to the sport).

So if you tell your family that you are an investor, they do not look at you as well (whether you won as if you lost) if you bought shares of green companies, if you went to poker with some linnets (from your office or your neighborhood or in a physical or online Casino).

If at the same probability level, in a bet (sports, or Casino) one would pay what you bet, and in one stock market investment another would pay only half of what you bet, because any good mathematician would prefer to bet on the sports or casino. On the other hand, the news programs would convey that it is an error, like this:

- If both win, the investor is an "intellectual genius of finance", while the Casino bet is "a gambler and a daredevil, who has had luck "(although at a mathematical level, it's just the other way around).

- If both lose, as the investor has had bad luck, while the Casino bet is a "gambler and a daredevil, and it was clear that he would lose" (although at a mathematical level, it is just the other way around).



Actually, those who enjoy poker the most are the rich (actors ...), since they can afford to lose the bet (if they lose, they spend it fatally but not as much as if they were ruined), and when they play they get a healthier emotion (and less intense, of course): the tension of uncertainty before a bluff, the joy of winning after deciding to continue, the relief when retiring and not being crushed by a winning hand. And at the same time, the winners achieve, apart from recovering financially, because they get the pride of coming out as winners, on TV (in specialized programs), either locally (if the tournament was local and of minor awards). ) or national or continental or even worldwide.

This website is financed with ads of all kinds, and I thought about putting some of lottery games and / or sports bets and the Casino. To me, the Casino game that I have most played lately is that of 21 (Blackjack, the planting before the sum of cards that the Croupier serves, exceeds the amount of 21); but since the web is about news and information manipulation, and poker is going to learn to lie without being detected, I decided to put a poker ad, because it is more related to the web (not because it pays me more, nor less than any other Casino games announcement).

Some pseudo-informants often comment that the game with money is always bad, but the reality is that obviously, it is bad ... only the loser, since the one who wins, fixes his life as much as the loser bothers him, and for every loser who enters poverty, we must inform that there is a winner that comes out of poverty, just as when buying and selling shares of companies in the stock market (with the difference that the news does not remove losers from the Stock Exchange, like some gamblers who ask that they prohibit investing in the stock market, so that they do not end up poor like the whistleblowers).

The only exception they make is to the lottery, since there they do the winner, and only the winner (although it is because they all play, and everyone loses, but the amount lost is tiny compared to what the lucky one has won) .

It is an informative partisanship as with firearms: the pseudo-informants do not usually report the innocent people who are saved from an assault, thanks to a firearm (whether or not the assailants armed with a firearm), while report innocent people killed by a firearm held by an assailant; I am in favor of the prohibition to carry firearms, but I am also against the manipulation of information (the interested or the little objective): in Spain a weapon is not required (since the police arrest the bad guys who carry them , after finding them at a roadblock, or after an anonymous report if they show it, while in the US they are legal, so you are surrounded by people who, in an outburst of anger, are physically able to liquidate you. in the US until they are banned,it is not so clear that it is not appropriate not to go armed.

Religions are the most potent example of submission to what they offer you and to indoctrination; even in the free countries of the first world:

- No one reads the official book of each religion (say 10 religions, gives 10 official books): some, for lazy people; others, because they do not want to waste time with something they think is a lie.

- Nobody reads even the official summary (sometimes, because there is not even an "official summary", but versions of a summary).



As a result, virtually no one changes their religion from that of their parents, to another that decides oneself (without counting atheism). So, if I now choose a random one among 10, and in the future I will indoctrinate my future children, they would believe that "it is evident that this is the real one", despite having the same possibilities in number of options (and even of adepts) than the other 9.

Therefore, humanity allows itself to be indoctrinated with wonder, even when what is played is as important as going to paradise or hell, and throughout eternity. And if even that prize does not stimulate the first world to read 10 books, then why bother us all in reading anything else, much less beneficial [study books (of state education, or not) or newspapers of the day (that at next day are already outdated)].

As this issue has gone a little long, and I do not want this page to seem eternal to each visitor, and deviates a bit from the informative manipulation of the daily news, because I have placed it here in a module named "State Teachings and its possibilities of fraud ", and located within the page" Objectives (2º of 2) ", referred to Education (both the state, as the non-state: movies, series, television networks ...).

Politics is fundamental, because it governs a large part of our destinies: state education, labor rights, health, economic policies that prevent us from entering into a crisis, etc.

Politicians are divided into several types:

- Useless but decent.

- Useless and indecent.

- Useful and decent.

- Useful but indecent (we have to watch him with a magnifying glass or as soon as you neglect him, he sells everything to a friend).





Of the indecent, there is a subgroup that even though it is public that they are, they get the favor of the voters, of being the most voted party (and sometimes, the majority). And sometimes even if that party does not reach the absolute majority, the other parties do not agree to join and add absolute majority, and cast them, because they do not want to give up part of their ideas to not seem sold to their own voters.

As a result, there are parties that are the dream of every scammer (literally, the scammers perceive it and join those opaque parties, with voters who do not punish corruption).

The trinque of money, can be public, or private:

a) Stay public money, and use the opacity to not leave traces or justify it.

It's more risky, but in some game, even if you catch one, people keep voting for that party ... and even the one who has lashed the money. In addition, then your party colleagues, you change judge 7 times until you touch a "gullible" with which he played the lottery 7 times (which is even more serious, and even more reason for the voters of that party to leave to do it, but it does not happen).



b) Keep money private. Some methods that have come out in the news are:

b.1% commission in exchange for granting the right (to an event organizer, as in Gurtel, to a builder as in a few cases, to an electric company that wants to raise prices; to a motorway company that ends its 40-year amortization, and they renew it for no reason). Example to a constructor:

- Build on protected land.

- Adjudicate him contract to finger, and confess it to the news, with pachorra and normality.

- Adjudicate the contract by pretending to be a party that there has been a public contest, when then the police wiretaps show that they have written the requirements to the extent of the construction company they wanted to award, after analyzing the candidates.

- Other: future position of director offered after the end of the term [(if he retires, or loses the elections, and if he wins, because he delays the offer when he retires (and thus prescribes at the social level, although he is still accepting money)] In that managerial position, he usually has to appear 4 days a year, not have to do anything, and he charges € 100,000 or more.



But this section does not go on to enumerate and explain the techniques and purposes of politics, in the context of theft, but to enumerate and explain the techniques and purposes of politics, in the field of indoctrination (in front of the debate), which are identical to those of disinformation (not surprising, since it is the corrupt politicians who disinformation ride).

And since they are identical, so as not to repeat myself, I will not expand, in favor of explaining them in the next module, which is that of "information manipulation in the news"; but I will highlight the parallelism of the way of convincing the unethical politician, with the unethical "seller", since both consist of:

- Basing on indoctrination instead of relying on debate.

- Hide the virtues of "rival product ".

- Exaggerating the virtues of the "own product".



Unethical sellers are an excellent quarry of unethical politicians.

Finally, I want to comment that the lack of universal values ​​in society, which is evident in the fact that they are not taught in state education, is also evident in politics, in what I consider to be a lack of a sense of state: if a a politician the President assigns him the position of Minister (example: of Education), and that politician defends that this Ministry is the one that deserves a bigger budget increase (at the expense of the other Ministries), but after 6 months Reposition Minister in another area, it seems that the society and parties are urging that, without having retouched the budget items, now that Minister defends that this new area (Ministry) is the one that deserves greater budget increase.

And if you reposition more times, the same thing happens. Come on, that only the President is a statesman (a statesman) that weighs the importance of each Ministry, while even the politicians at the highest level (Ministers) down, must have "changing" values ​​as they benefit them, so publicizing yourself on social networks as a "person of inalterable values" can be a determining factor in not being chosen for Minister.

Although this website is a grouper of publications, I have to throw a stone against my own roof, because before commenting on the objectives, ethical code, and the lack that this website brings, first I want to delimit the contribution of social benefit that gives informative copied to another previous optimum (and to which this web to the best group). There are 2 cases:

1) Copiers of an optimal one.

I think it's a myth that having many news is always better than having a single news, because although the copy was perfect and all were optimal and keep the genius of copying, they really do not contribute anything, and it is easier to get lost if they are corrupted. Example: Health, I prefer a single website [the WHO, the UN; or one of the USA (leading country) or one of my country], of optimal information (latest advances, dismantling false myths, tutorials), that those named websites dissociate from their responsibility, and depend on 20 volunteer blogs, one day they are, and another not.



2) Copiers of a non-optimal one.

- If the only informative is not optimal, and the copiers themselves, it is an optimal advance (and they are no longer "copiers" but "optimizers").

- If the only information is not optimal, and the copiers do not, but improve it a bit, it is also an advance (and are no longer "copiers" but "enhancers", without reaching "optimizers").

- If the only information is not optimal, and copiers are literally copiers (in depth, or in substance and form), it is not an advance, since they do not add anything to what already exists and already available to the citizen.





Therefore, the answer to how many news a country needs, is how many math books you need in a single year, a primary or secondary student:

- According to many parents, it would be "the more the better, so you can choose and compare" (although all were mediocre).

- According to mathematicians, it would be "an optimal one". Consequently, mathematicians (and other scientists and people of letters) do not recommend any student to buy 10 sources (a book from each publisher), since it would disperse their attention, and it would take 10 times longer to read 10 different sources, and would work 10 times more for the same result; and because although the explanation of a point on the agenda of that year has different words in each book, it is usually equivalent. And only when some student has not learned a point with the optimal book (that is, punctually), would you recommend consulting another book also optimal, but with other words, and also endorsed by mathematicians.

I note that I did not say "supported by State teaching (also)", since in mathematics,the deductible and demonstrative science is the only guarantee, while the State is not guaranteeing anything (neither for governing, nor for wearing its members suits with a tie, nor for issuing conformist announcements of "this Government has optimized the teaching, and / or other areas "). They tend to coincide state and intellectuals, but not always, so when you find the dilemma that they do not coincide, sometimes you have to be clear in advance in whom to trust: in whom transparency and being constructive in analyzing your project from the basics to what is advanced, allows you to deduce the honest, the swindler propagandist.

Example 1: deny climate change.

The No. 1 country in power and science in the world, the United States, now denies since the majority voted that (it was in the electoral program of President Trump), despite the fact that it is affirmed and demonstrated by the entire scientific community, for which reason it has been Involved to do what the scientific evidence and transparency say, to live in inopia; and of having scientific-State agreement, to discordance.

This involution anticiencia, has taken to withdraw funds to the state scientific agencies that analyze the climatic change, and even worse: that the head is the one that does not believe in the scientific tests, and can veto the reports, or not to order any, or order redo them to affirm what he wants (even at the cost of dismissing or degrading the best scientists, and replace them with some without advanced studies, or slightly worse studies but complacent about having a higher salary or position). Consequently, its citizens must choose who to support in that dilemma.

The involution of US anti-science, reminds me of the saying "it's better to fall in grace, than to be funny" (that is, that science must search for forms of marketing, to convince anti-science (for example: through certified books and reports such as "entertaining" and "foolproof")

Example 2: demonstrations

When journalists ask mathematicians and give a similar amount to each other, whereas when journalists ask others, they do not:

- Organizers: the figure is always very superior.

- a opposition: the figure is always much higher.

- the government (a government delegation): the figure given is always very biased towards what interests the government, compared to the figures of mathematicians.

Therefore, if mathematicians are the ones who know, what for (coj, cough) to ask interested parties not committed to the truth, instead of the mathematicians themselves committed to the truth; and now, that the journalists show us the mathematicians explaining the calculation, so that we learn, and so that there is evidence as proof that the figure is correct (and if it does not fit in the news for lack of time, so that they inform that the demonstration is on the televised news website).



Therefore, in my opinion a society without an excellent math book is not only the one that does not have math books, but also the one that has 10 books of different publishers, but none is optimal.

And also, a well-covered society of optimal books of mathematics of the same level and agenda, is the one that has copies for all those who want, but it can be of these 3 not equally optimal forms:

a) The same optimal book. It makes it possible to follow any one speech (page 25, paragraph in the middle, is the same in all discussions, idem the illustrative mathematical exercise, located on page 15).

b) 10 optimal books from different publishers. Optimal, but less, since it is complicated that anyone can follow the same debate [if I ask the neighbor to explain it to me, my book does not coincide with his (examples: page 25 of my book, which contains the example exercise such, that I do not understand).

c) 1 optimal book and option of 9 more non-optimal, which many use, attracted by the legal self

-advertising , of: - Self-assessment: "This book of mine, is 10, while the rival is 6 ... according to me "

- Take advantage of the belief that the new is always better and the old is old.

- Enjoy a false sense of freedom by going out of the way recommended for all by freely choosing some explanations: "do not be one of the masses of the ewes, choose such."



Having 90% of non-optimal books, with 10% of optimal books, of that scope, gives that 90% non-optimal contains explanations and worse examples (ambiguity, gaps, etc). This option is optimal, only to the one who chooses the optimal book, since those who choose any of the other 9 non optimal books are self-limited no matter how much they study, since the objective score to the explanations of those 9 books, can be:

- 3 books, remarkable.

- 3 books, enough: errata not corrected in 5 years, like some books of the University in which I studied (the UNED and the UOC), and that was remote and freely modified (and printed without color photos) , so it was very easy for them to create a decent material.

- 3 books, very deficient (author liar or lack of training: the Earth is flat, because if not, we would see the curvature on the horizon ...).





This demonstration that you only need an optimal book of mathematics for each level, applied to the copying information of another optimum, means that if there is an optimal information, it is not necessary anymore, and it is even harmful, since most of them renounce inform oneself in the optimum, in favor of the deficient (or very deficient), either due to ignorance of their objective score, or not: many try to fit as an optimal ethical principle of an informative, explicitly or not, not the objectivity, but a social traditionalism or its ancestry, or an egoism, or a stylism, or a charlatan who transmits magnetism (security and verbal fluency).

This is as if at the time of choosing a science book, they ignore the recommendations for quality, in favor of a book that contains what they want to hear, like that the Earth is flat, because they want to perpetuate that statement that indoctrinated them (without a book or with), its social traditionalism or its lineage, or selfishness, or a style. And then, they feel that since they read books, because they are no longer the continuity of the stubbornness of their illiterate parents, but they are cults, and they go for cults.

And at the same time they feel that they are the same as those who read objective books (since they believe that "all books are the same"). And they even equate the scientific book with the falsifying book they have bought, as if both books had the same possibility of certainty, and as if they had the necessary knowledge to be the intellectuals who should judge whether they are both comparable books.

In the field of mathematics, spaces (physical and online) are encouraged to discuss differences and demonstrations, but consensus is reached on which book is the best informant (and whoever is not, is labeled a fraud, without contemplations). Instead,in the field of news, online spaces are not encouraged with mechanisms to compare them easily (except this website, by showing the news of the day, by solutions such as " Compare Covers " or " by Sections ") , so while some, objectives, they compare them in a simple way, others do not, so that some sectarians (informative and their audience) show you their propagandistic pamphlets as a final product, using the strategy "disinformation with the appearance of an informative of their property, and hide behind the freedom of opinion (not affirmation) and the right to property ", instead of as a semifinal product, which still lacks the possibility of being compared, in search of lies and little professionalism.

Consequently, the sectarian audience of an informative lives with the fantasy that the best news is such, and other sectaries with which the best news is what, without even comparing them in a rigorous way (and do not talk about seeking consensus in scores of 0). to 10).



The less bad objective of the copying news of another optimal news , although they do not confess it, can be:

- The banality: "admire me the ex-companions of the Institute or the University, I direct a newspaper as good as the acclaimed one" (although in reality, it only makes a copy-paste).

- The economic benefit not linked to social benefit (provide intellectual solutions to the problems of society): so they may not be created to benefit the reader, or the original news (hurt, because they "remove" audience, economic income, merit, awards), but to its creator.

But the baddest objective of the copying news of another optimal information, is the scam to society by getting their control the control of political power, to put the vote back influencing citizens: copy their appearance, and many news (or the way to inform), except those that harm their generic ideologies [ politics (socialism ...); economy (capitalism, communism); religion (such, or none) or the people who support them (President of the political party, such Bishop, entrepreneurs such and such ...). In those cases, the news is vetoed or softened or replaced or misrepresented. Example: I remember Camps, from the PP, a President of the Autonomous Community of Valencia, arrested, and opened that news all the national news, except that of that Autonomous Community (which is the one that has more interest in the news of its territory), which gave it as fifth news, and in a non-objective way.



As a result, many copywriters, in their self-declaration of the need for their own news to fill a gap in the information landscape, or left blank, or give a generic paragraph of concepts that claim to contribute more than the competition (such as "justice", "objectivity", "courage", "wisdom"), without naming what other news programs or what techniques they achieve.

Fictitious example: "we are the ABC news and we are better than Reason", since we use according to the independent body such (the National or International Journalists Association, the UN ...), less information manipulation techniques and / or more means (which will give more exclusives) and / or lower price and / or better value for money).

In medicine, before a new drug that is a breakthrough compared to everything that already exists for that ailment, the manufacturer is presented with information and announcements from the manufacturer, as the best option for citizens. But a better information than the existing ones according to objective criteria, is never advertised as the best, nor is news as the best: neither by the other news, nor by itself (it would seem unassuming).

Example: since 2015 hepatitis has a cure, so that treatment is much better than what was before, and there is consensus on that, so there is no danger to your pharmacist that another (the previous best treatment), try to fraud or equate it [by losing: the new manufacturer, income; and to citizens, health (up to life)].

Some news, they highlight some difference in what they say to be better than their competitors naming them, but sometimes they are only aesthetic differences, and it is questionable that it is a benefit, such as:

- Youth versus old age. Example: the news of the TV, as soon as their presenters reach a "mature" age, they replace them in favor of other younger ones, although they are in full possession of their intellectual faculties, because the audience wants it (without audience, there is no continuity).

- Beauty versus normality. All the main news reporters, they are beautiful model top level, although to study the career of Journalism, nobody warns the student girls not beautiful, aspiring to present a newscast, that the notes are much less important than the appearance, on the contrary that in science (medicine, engineering, etc .: example: the president is not operated by the most beautiful surgeon, but the most skilled).

- The set of the television news, even more colorful (be it expensive, or modern design) than the original that you copy.

In the previous module I commented that the news does not explain what they think they contribute to their competition, so the best can go unnoticed (example: "the news for which I work, is better than the information such", or " I am a better informer / opinioner than the informant / opinionator "), be it from a company:

- Different.

- The same [example: from the laSexta TV channel, because the programs of Jordi Évole (Saved) vs Antonio García Ferreras (Al Rojo Vivo) vs. Ana Pastor (The Objective) vs the debate of the NightSexta].



But it is even worse: it is very rare that an informative website has an initial page of its explicit statement of objectives, its ethical code and the lack that fills that web in the information landscape.

Well, it's rare until you have them in some hidden half page, and even that you have one of those 3 things (objective, ethical code, lack that fills), since we live in a time when objectivity is less profitable than sensationalism or partisanship, for which, news programs do not commit to anything.

- Objectivity: very slow and very expensive to contrast; and if they still have a lie, the objective news programs must assume responsibilities such as asking for forgiveness, or degrading the journalist or self-punishing the journalist (degrading, or resigning). In addition, sometimes, objectivity does not give to prove something, despite having invested a lot of time and money, so if you do not get an article in which you have invested a lot of time and / or money, then you have to report a little proven truth important, while others of the competition use a headline hook of a false news (and the objective informative ends up losing money).

- Sensationalism to obtain more audience:rumors usually false, but that some pseudo-informants give more audience than if they were objective, because such falsehoods are often tolerated by their audience, for entertaining; Even if the rumor or affirmation is proven to be false, the journalists who disclose them afterwards are not punished, nor do they keep track of their number of errors, and even amount to liars if their lies raise the audience.

- Partisanship:is to speak well only of some and bad of others, even if you know that it is a lie, and even if the "crime" committed is the same (misappropriation, aggression, flight of a traffic ticket ...). It serves to favor the journalist who prefer, either by ideological affinity, or money (a pack now, and / or a promotion that gives a higher salary), or not to receive reprisals (that the reporter degrade or dismiss). In partisanship, if you get a lot of audience, well, but if not, because the politicians already have a lot of support with what you get, and have prevented that in that license (frequency of TV chain ...) an objective information to unmask them



To the promoters of sensationalism or partisanship, if they close an informative (paper, web, news) for lying (or get bad reputation for not contrast), because the lack of ethics and objectives gives them open the next day another with another name (Whether they warn that they are the same, or not, and so return to 0 the legal counter of tolerance or their informants regarding the lie, and many sectarian audience that they kept, also voluntarily reset their tolerance counter to the new rumors are false, and / or lies [are journalists, or director, or owner of the medium or the temporary owner (the ruling party, in the case of public)].

well,this web wants to put back the protocols of ethics, objectivity, plurality, and transparency, at the top of the objectives of the news, by giving example, regardless of whether other websites follow it or not. Thus, this initial page of this web (elmejorinformativo.com) is the one that specifies its objectives, ethical code, and lack of information of the current panorama that this web fills.

These objectives will be explained in the following modules; although it is not necessary that you read them in one go (they will not disappear), nor that you read them every day (the serious objectives do not change every day, but they are perfected), but only "from time to time":

- When you ask (or, above all, they ask you), why do you dare to inform yourself with this "unknown and simple" website, instead of any other more famous and colorful news (with photos, and jquery code that gives you a move? animation): because it has sincere and explicit objectives and how extensive it is needed, while the other informative, no.

- To those who believe that "all news programs are the same" (competent and decent, or incompetent and corrupt), and therefore, it is not necessary to change the traditionally used: that they use the way of reading news " Compare Covers ", that allows to compare covers and opinions, and many will stop believing that "all are equal".

The need to complement sources and sections of a single newspaper is understood by itself, and I have already explained it before : it always gives the addicts to the news, to cover reading a lot more news than those contained in a single publication, whatever it may be. (both in general, as in any specific section, such as Sports), which favors above all more exclusive and see the difference of criteria in the importance of choosing one or another news (which makes it possible to choose, 1st the criterion you prefer, and 2nd , the information that is ruled by him, for example, the famous, there are to discuss every day of his personal life, and there are silent).

So I will argue more extensively the need to compare sources and / or sections, for the purpose of neutralizing lies. In my humble opinion, although there are many informative of all support (radio, TV, paper newspaper, digital newspaper), and size that they report with 100% rigor, and even combat misinformation, journalism as a guild does not combat misinformation ( or at least, not enough).

Even worse: it is society that does not fight misinformation, since in many cases, journalists are only "puppets" (or "errands"), the Director, which dismisses disobedient decent journalists, and promotes obedient journalists (indecent or cowardly), according to not their criteria, but that of their superiors, who are one or both of:

- Politicians: of all (by creating censor laws) or only of the public (after winning the elections, they screen the decent ones ).

- Shareholders and entrepreneurs (if private).



The great problem of journalism is that neither the law nor the journalistic guild forces the restoration of a decent and capable journalist, dismissed in favor of another more docile one; they do not even force to replace it with another objective one too.

And in the case of public news is worse, because voters, instead of punishing the purging party that day, with demonstrations, or at the latest in the next election by voting for another candidate of the party, or if not another party, because in many cases they do not take it badly, and re-elect the same politician.

In addition, the puppet journalist pretends that he is not a puppet, because if he defines himself as a puppet of his director, nobody will read him (after confessing that he sold himself, but no longer, no one will give him a second chance), and he will be fired for repelling to its readers / who want to maintain the illusion that this information is true), apart from the director's dismissal (for giving him away).

And to the one who is not a puppet, a large part of society demands modesty and that is equated in importance to that of the subset of their puppet companions (even if it is the only one who left the corrupt news, in favor of another more modest news, or to leave that profession before participating in spreading lies).

In any case, journalism is accommodated in inefficient structures, unlike in all Sciences (medicine, mathematics, computer science, engineering, chemistry ...), since the Sciences make the changes that are needed to improve , and also the bases of science are objectivity, precision, economic reward (substantial) and prestige to those who find mistakes of their colleagues (or of themselves), the only basis of content (constructive background), where to go to contrast contributions from someone[that there is no oneness of form (books), such as those of Institute and University, which can be purchased from different publishers, but contain the same concepts)], and the obligation that the rest of the guild search there before affirming with rotunditude that does not exist or has not found, such demonstration, argument, statistics, side effect, or fact.

These measures that use all the sciences, facilitate the reuse of the work of others , and therefore give the world (scientists and non-scientists) advance rather than stagnate in empty work with the appearance of doing something constructive useful (when the arguments are lies, or they do not clarify that they are a repetition of what has already been disclosed, either by others, or by the same informative or journalist).

Example: the debates are usually moderated by a journalist (and other journalists participate as "experts"), last 1 hour, and always start from 0, never gives time to reach conclusions because another TV program awaits turn; and a month later, in another chain, they recreate the same debate, and without reusing what has already been said, by saying what has already been said. And if one day they miraculously reach conclusions, or immortalized somewhere (web compilation of debates, be it unique or the news itself); and if they immortalize themselves in a web, then an informative presenter when affirming something that was demonstrated in that debate, does not make reference to him.

Example of the usual journalistic formula of gratuitous affirmations: such (person, political party, association) is an adjective, because he said the thing nosequé [without adding: which such debate, visible with this web link or QR code (for camera of mobile), demonstrated that is what I affirm]. Concrete examples: Communism is a proven one (solution, fantasy); such a person for doing such thing proves to be (macho, centered), etc.

Thus, the methodology of scientists is serious in the sense not of wearing a suit and tie, but it would be in the sense of objective, constructive and to the test of interested parties (saboteurs or liars, be non-scientific citizens, or even scientists), for which it is almost impossible to leak a lie to the scientific community; Another thing is that a significant percentage of citizens distrust the scientists, in favor of glorifying other criteria that I mentioned: local traditionalisms and / or what your parents believe, and / or the 1st option that you find, and / or eyes that convey honesty and / or suits with ties.

There are many great professionals (scientists, journalists, NGO volunteers, etc.), who never wear suits (yes cowboys, or even tracksuit): when the suit is mixed with objectivity, it is not clear whether each follower follows suit or objectivity ( which is increased to see the citizenship that all those who work (paid and / or voluntary work after work) usually without a suit, if they have to receive a prize dress, so it seems that are the suits that solve all problems social and scientific).

Science, unlike usual journalism, resists contributions that were really attempts at sabotage (or foolish foolishness with delusions of greatness), which try third parties not married to objectivity (like journalism), but in theory you could have tried you or me.

Examples of maintaining optimal results despite contributions that were really attempts at sabotage (or foolish nonsense with delusions of greatness):

a) Medicine.

A medicine based on a "new active ingredient". Biologists and chemists would take the lie; but if the saboteur accused them of being false, and managed to get someone (or him) to go through the experimentation phase with humans, then the statistics and all the patients in the experiment would testify that it did not work, so in no case would it be marketed for all country.



b) Computing.

Computing is ultimately sequences of ones and zeros, so you think you can sabotage a program by writing a random sequence of ones and zeros (01011101 ...) and advertise it as one:

- Improvement in a collaborative open source program (that is, anyone can send an improvement). Example: an emulator of a videogame console, such as the Dolphin emulator of the Gamecube and Wii consoles.

- Solution of a fault that does not exist in the most common Operating System.

- Better alternative to the most used program (example: an Operating System).



In all these cases of IT, even citizens can run the program and see if it has improved or not, and protects the antivirus. But aside from that, there are accredited contrasting entities, programming (validating the truth, and refutation of the false), because they refute you when you see that you do not give what you advertise. And whether the accredited entity is a volunteer, or an NGO, or a State or UN agency.



But it seems to me that journalism as a guild, prefers the methodology of not showing anything, and allowing self-proclaimed to any news as better than others; and look like the worst of the Arts, in the sense that many citizens believe that art is subjective, so many artists without objective talent paint an abstract painting in 5 minutes spilling drops or / and compose a melody without lyrics, and self-proclaim artists nº 1 of their discipline, which degrades objectively nº 1 of that discipline. Myself, I have self-proclaimed the best painter with my work "impregnated big hands", and the best composer (with Fa repeated 3 minutes), and the experts (Doctorates) and textbooks that do not agree ... it's just another opinion as valid as mine, but no more.

All this is due to the fact that there are many self-proclaimed informants who usually lie (some, even daily), and / or who nevertheless self-proclaim no. 1 without demonstrating it, thanks to the fact that they do not receive any punishment from their guild, nor from the Law, resembling those self-proclaimed artists No. 1, and unlike the scientific guilds.

Thus, journalism as a guild prefers not to impose verification structures, or forceful punishments to the lies unmasked with evidence: the trade union letters of objective journalist, in practice, do not revoke them either temporarily or permanently (unlike guilds of the sciences), although that would not impede their freedom of expression as citizens who give their opinion, but would prevent her from exercising as a journalist, as a liar and manipulator. To not cease their license, they hide behind pseudo-arguments such as:

- "The more journalists there are, the better the society will go".

- "Those who are against a journalist working as a journalist, are the irrational."



But of course, if those pseudo-arguments that no journalist should be ceased or resigned, for equality and coherence will be applied by other unions, and journalists suffer, would journalists suffer to those who pretend to be scientific (saboteurs or useless or sold ), like: the worst doctors who would not cure them something easily curable, or the engineers who design or maintain the transports in which they travel (planes, trains ...). The bad scientists would shield themselves from the attacks on journalists, with the same arguments as bad journalists, adapted to their guild:

- "The more scientists there are, the better society will go".

- "Those who are against a scientist working as a scientist, are the irrational."



In comparison, in a case of scientific liar, they make him leave the post for a 1st lie, but in the case of journalism, there are disinformation (and journalists) that accumulate hundreds of contradictory lies, and remain in their posts, denigrating the good name of good journalists, since every union is defined by the worst of its members legally accepted (and by the trade union, which sinks in the case of journalism because of liars).

From always, and even now, in the journalism the Law allows that there are "algorithms" not only nonconstructive, but even liars, and which have allowed to create nonconstructive structures and even liars.

And nobody solves it, in favor of acting with complete normality, so that if they denounce, they will not be crushed by those who are accommodated to lies, as in the fable "the Emperor's new suit". So I will assume the risky role of the 1st corrector-agitator to face it and 2nd solve it, to the shame of the well-to-do, and with ridiculously simple and cheap technological means (like the cry of the child of the fable "the Emperor's new suit" ), since journalism requires more of scientifically demonstrable and ethical objectives (social and professional), than of economic and / or technological solutions (like a page programmed in such a new code, but that is still a lie).

Come on, thatthe journalistic guild needs to clean its own shit, as do all the other guilds of all the sciences mentioned above. And I say it as an end user, just as I would say as the end user of any medication or doctor who uses techniques that are not constructive.

At the end of the previous writing, I mentioned it, so for those who do not know it, and because it is convenient to remember it from time to time, I explain it briefly.

A swindler tailor lies to a vain Emperor, who gives him a lot of gold, he will weave the most magnificent suit in the history of the world, because apart from being the most beautiful, the fools will not see it, so he can use it as a tool to distinguish the fools from the rest (which will serve to separate the fools from positions of responsibility).

The Emperor accepts, and when the tailor brings him the suit, the Emperor does not see it, so instead of believing that he has cheated, he thinks he is stupid, and that he has the duty to disclose it in favor of him doing his job ( govern) someone more capable (or who are all aware of the intellectual limitations of the utility of it, so that they do not fantasize that when they have a problem, the Emperor will find the solution and protect them).

But out of vanity, he decides to cheat all citizens that he is not stupid, and that he is useful to them. So pretend to see the costume and praise it as the best thing in the world; and likewise its Ministers and Councilors (all, trying not to be pointed out as fools and incompetents).

The Emperor, thirsty to receive more compliments (in addition to being happy for having avoided an essential situation of hiding his incompetence), calls a parade of his for the people to see him wearing that suit, the next day, on the main street of the city more next. And when starting to parade, each citizen, seeing him, afraid to be like fools, pretend to see the suit.

Until a child, by innocence (not yet vitiated by social indoctrination), I common sense of justice, or by believing in what you see, is the first to break the general trend to silence the lie so as not to leave the complainant ; and complaint shouting, that the Emperor is parading naked.

And some ball spectator of the current status and the Emperor, recriminates him. But a couple of people, brave, but not as much as the child, because after the moment of indecision between following the current of making fun of the child, or the Emperor, they embolden themselves and shout what they think: that he is naked; and that encourages other 6 to decide to scream what they think (that goes naked); and that act is emboldening more a little less courageous people, and more levels, until in the end, (almost) all the spectators recognize that they believe that the Emperor is naked, which means that they denounce the falsehood that the Emperor has tried I have to colan, in spite of having to implicitly recognize the embarrassment that they have initially believed the power of the suit, and they have lied in that they saw it, so as not to appear foolish.

Although the worst remains is the Emperor, since he was not only the initiator, but is the person and the essential tool of his country to ensure that the truth reaches citizens, and he had chosen to betray his essential mission, in favor of a system no longer constructive, but to spread lies that appear normal; and for selfish reasons. The parallelism with non-constructive journalism is evident.

1) METHOD OF OBTAINING ALL THAT INFORMATION:

All the newsletters give links to the owners of all its sections, for the symbiosis that:

- 3ºs add them to their own websites (and give their visitors the added value of information related to the theme of your website).

- The visitors of these webs are directed to those of those informative ones to which they do not have interest habitually in accessing [like this, the informative ones receive additional visits, and charge of the publicity that those indirect visitors see (and pulsates) in them].

This is done thanks to the RSS links: for each section that the newsletter wants to share, disclose the link (for those who prefer English, then link) of the section, which provides the owners of that section and a link for each owner (to the page of your newsletter). Point; Each webmaster, on his own website, then selects the owner's letter, its color, size, and typography.

The RSS links have allowed this website to compare for the same section, 2 eligible news, which inevitably shows that no, because within excellence, some are worse than others, but there are some that are simple informative appearance , which really are propaganda and defamation.

Consequence (or perhaps chance), is that since this website has appeared (it was not disclosed, but available, in tests, since the beginning of 2017), some news, without giving explanations to anyone, have decided to stop sharing (to all the world) your RSS feeds (Tele5 in mid 2017; RTVE at Christmas 2017).

Others only update every several days (like El Periódico); and others update every day, but only offer some news (while many more are seen on their website). Therefore, there are great news (and others questionable), which at the same time suppliers without good intentions, RSS news, for which I penalize, those who have removed their RSS, not removing them [and specifying it under each cover module (so as not to repeat me in other sections)], and those that do not update, ditto or putting them in the final tab.







2) METHOD OF GUARANTEEING COMPLEMENTARITY AND NEUTRALIZING BELIEVE THE LIES:

Is to ensure that there is a place in the information landscape (at least) in which the methodology used ensures that all relevant daily news is included, through at least these 3 ways:

a) Assign a block to each newsletter.

(Examples: newspaper block "El Mundo", TV news block "LaSexta"). And show adjacent Informative blocks, one under the other, separated by the informative name; and to toggle between each "section" (Cover, Opinion, Sports) by clicking on the tab of the desired "section" (located above the block).

In addition, visitors can previously choose to view that informative according to another sub-criterion, to choose between: by Source (alphabetical order) ;by Source (order Third-party awards for the best News) ; by Source (number of users last year) ; by Source (vote after compare) .



b) Assign a block to each usual section of an informative.

(Examples: Cover block, Opinion block, Sports block ...); and show in each block that corresponding section that has disseminated each Top Newsletter [making it possible to toggle between each publication, by clicking on the tab of the desired source (located above the block)]. And show adjacent blocks of Sections: one under the other, separated by the name of the section (instead of each section in a different website). It's the " By Sections " section.



c) Triplicated block, from the "Cover" section (they also include the "Opinion" section) ,

It makes it even easier than the other options, the comparison of covers, since it allows them to be compared in adjacent blocks (not the same), enabling a triple vision of that day, on the same page (both 3 on the left, 3 on the right, and a confrontation). Therefore, it helps to neutralize the lies and omissions on purpose, which are a scourge of journalism since always, which is the time to put real obstacles (both in our country, and in the rest of the world). It is the " Compare Covers " section.





3) QUALITY GUARANTEES:

1st) Guaranteed Plurality at a structural level.

Multiple sources, compared to traditional newspapers with false promises of plurality, or real intentions that are gradually deflated by order of the director of turn (which is simply a lackey of politicians or a businessman or shareholders, or a combination ).



2º) Quality guaranteed at the structural level.

Each newspaper is outstanding in some sections and (to a greater or lesser extent) deficient in the others. This website allows you to eliminate corporate obstacles and read the best newspaper imaginable, as a result of selecting the best source for each news section (the one that obtains the most prestigious award for that section), resulting in a virtual newspaper that, if there were journalistic prizes to the best section, the "win" all (and of course the best newspaper).It is the way of reading "by Selection . "



3rd) Guaranteed Freedom at the structural level

If you think that the experts who award the prizes are wrong, and you want to follow other criteria (daily sales, or voting on this website), or have your own criterion already unalterable and you prefer to read News sources not awarded, as you can do it: choose your favorite sources.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE, VERY SUMMARIZED, OF THIS WEB:

1º) Of the means 1.0 and 2.0 punctual or usually disloyal to the journalistic ethical code (and that they create informative sectarianisms).

Neutralize with plurality of quality the lies that they promote, and thus avoid the social damage they generate. Thus, if society is confronted, it is only because we have read the other's opinion and we have drawn different conclusions, and not because sectarian means manipulate us by transmitting an intentional misinterpretation of the position of their opposition.

2nd) Media 1.0 and 2.0 loyal to the journalistic code of ethics.

More of everything:more opposing points of view (left vs. right), more complementary points of view, more exclusive front pages, more examples, more styles, more areas (example: La Prensa Rosa, for the magazine Hola is the glamor of famous super quiet ones (actors , singers, celebrities), and for Telecinco it is more the coexistence of people of the daily talkative street (MyHyV; Big Brother) and of famous people who speak (well treated, as in Big VIP Brother, or bitten by nature and hunger, as in Survivors.)



GENERIC OBJECTIVE, IN DETAIL, OF THIS WEB:

Journalism has always been based on what the scientific methodology calls a scam: the use of a format that prevents the comparison (or contrast) of an option offered by one, with that of others, and thus be able to traditionally prevent citizens get a demonstration of which is the best, so that each source sells its informative product, even if it is not very beneficial, and even a brazen swindle to the viewer about using other news.

To highlight the stupidity and exception in our lives that represents this example that uses non-scientific methodology, it is best to make a simile with the pharmaceutical sector: suppose your child has cancer, and you want to be cured if technically possible; and the doctor tells you that there are 4 medicines that advertise that can cure that disease; each, from a different (and rival) pharmaceutical company.

And you ask the doctor what is the best medication, and he replies that they do not know it: neither he as a doctor, nor the other doctors of that hospital, nor the Ministry of Health, nor even the Pharmaceuticals that manufacture them, even agree. because (in this invented example) no Pharmaceuticals disclose their rates of success, nor is there an organism (Government or not) that is dedicated to contrast (in trials or when they were sold) which medicine is better. And that consequently, the doctor can not compare both medications (or rather, both success rates, or side effects) because he has no resources for it.

Surely, your answer would leave you perplexed, and you would decide that the system is corrupt or incompetent, and that you have to change it without excuses, to one that does the opposite to the previous thing: publish each company the rate of successes, and in case they scam ( both during the study phase and in the sale phase), review the State, these companies, and the discipline of Medicine.

But perhaps they tell you that the policy used is "Neoliberalism", that is, the corrective nonintervention on the part of the State, so that each entrepreneur takes out the product that he wants (and while perhaps the State issues advertisements stating that it ensures the safety of citizens).

The position to the test of drugs, applied to the case of pharmaceuticals, gives to that of the medication that is worse (example: 10% of cures and 40% of annoying side effects), does not interest economically, and opposes to be a clear scam company; but the one that is better (example: 80% of cures, and no side effects), maybe also shut up, because "it is not a snitch" and / or "is too vague or immobile to change guidelines if you already earn enough" , and / or "it can not cope with the manufacture of this drug, so it gives up the surplus of the market to the competition" (with the hope that in the future, if the tables turn out who makes the best, she sells the worst without the other it was chive, since it was in debt).

In all these cases, the Pharmaceutical of the best medicine is also a scammer, because although it could not manufacture more, it is misleading the patient (or his family member), by not testing and disclosing that his product is better, so which, your silence or unwillingness to distance yourself from a much worse competition, can cause your family member to consume a drug with an effectiveness of 10% instead of 80%, for which the company should be sued, and end up in bankruptcy, even providing an excellent product and far superior to the other.

Well this is how the discipline of Journalism serves the information: without providing rates of success, or failures, or quality rankings of news, or which information is better than 2 (at the most, they name you the best, but not the order (ranking), nor the arguments and proofs, and neither does the State, neither NGOs nor the journalism union (both during the phase of study of the creation of the medium and in that of sale).

And the news, all indoctrinate that not contrast is the worst ... except in its field (journalism), in that issue (contrast information), because in the pharmaceutical, they recognize that it is clear that it must be very clear that if there is order from least to greatest (and with its arguments and proofs), therefore, a double standard is shown, which they try to disguise by not talking about both examples at the same time (journalism and medicines), to make it less obvious the incoherence

The aim of this website is to add to the paradigm of using the daily news, a place where information is, for each day and for each section, an active act that makes the visitor feel a living being and with power of decision and active that selects between sources that you see at that moment, one just for that moment. Especially, to those of us who have been treated all our lives as animals without the right to decide: I now, enjoy every time I choose a source or change between sources, because it is something that I have always been denied; and even once to select them, I dedicate a thought to those who denied me (specifically, fuck, well, actually, 2 thoughts, and the 2nd is: I hope you see me now those bastards, and saw that they have failed).

Come on, that this website allows for plurality, but through the decision of the visitor, the chosen source among other visible ones, in front of formulas to create an account, choose a source, save preferences, and that will keep you away from browsing a headline that would seen by inertia with another source by default, or that can compare it (and not 3ºs if such a source is worse or is still worse than the one he usually uses).

This is opposed to the other websites, in which there is one of these options:

- A single publisher. Example: the newspaper "El País".

- Allow you to create an account (by choosing the username and password reader), and then select the reader the publisher that you want to serve each section. This at the end gives a false sense of plurality, since the reader usually chooses his usual (1) or a mixture of his usual ones (example: Country + laSexta), resulting that he never sees other covers by default that are not his, which gives that 1, does not read other sources or by inertia, and 2, does not strengthen internalize information by being the active reader every day, by being the reader who replaces for each section, the default publication, in favor of the one that chooses at that moment.

Therefore, the objective is not for everyone to see the sources that you like, nor for people to find that they default to the sources they like most (for this, there are already many websites that create an account and choose the sources that you like most).

All the information sent to us by the "powers that be" is internalized in a submissive manner, so repudiating a state or traditional option as the correct one, as if it were a scientific deduction, is also applicable to other areas:

- "Teaching" and "schooled" (instead of "state teaching"): for example, all news stories from each country usually say "some teenagers are throwing their lives in the trash, because they are not in school and do not receive teaching ... " If you saw each one of those news stories, you would affirm that you would not voluntarily send your children to state schools in many of those countries, since they teach indoctrination, instead of teaching.

- "Justice", instead of "judicial system". All the news stories from each country usually say "the judge has handed down a sentence, so justice has spoken and justice has been done". If you saw each one of those news stories, you would affirm that you would not consider that the judicial system of many of those countries, really imparts justice, since the Dictaduras also keep the judges dressed in their toga; so we must not mythologize the figure of the judge.

- Religion.

To me, "my religious beliefs are chosen by my parents" (as in casitodos: if you choose another, they almost "disinherit you"); and that I could not think of buying other books, to "compare" (not even browse the pages). If you give each person on the planet a packet of books, one book for each majoritarian religion today, surely there are more people who are uncomfortable than those who appreciate this offer of plurality, since they feel that you aspire to liar them with false things.

- Study the state education.

The State never consulted me to adapt himself to me, in what order I wanted to study what the State imposed on me. And even less what subjects I wanted to do and what I did not (to replace the ones that do not for which yes). Neither showed me what I needed to study youth in general (and less I in particular): much more practical subjects, such as surviving without parents (cooking ...), and less bullshit, such as Geology.

State education, some Leaders (Dictators or not) mount it as a religion: they and their subordinates put face of transcendence, of enlightened, with their forearms somewhat raised palms to heaven divine, and then it seems that they hear the voice of God, that he tells them ... that we study only Geology (or that and 4 politically correct subjects), and that what seems like little compared to what can be studied, they say, keeping that transcendent face and with closed eyes, like meditating or thinking deeply in that small moment, that "the reasons for state education are inscrutable to students and harsh, but accurate" (emulating the religious phrase of "God's reasons are inscrutable to humans, but accurate").

This website has been proposedgather different information (by complementary or contrary, or simply different) and show them adjacent, so that they are in equal conditions, to be chosen by each visitor; and also, free and without barriers (nothing to register, to save your preferences, which in the end leave a trace, and sectarizas and waive the other options, so for that, go to that page opicón).

And additionally, that adjacency is done by several complementary methods: " by Sections "; " by Selection "; " Compare Covers "; by Source (either " by Awards ", or " by alphabetical order ", or " by sales ",or "in the order that visitors to this website vote . ")

And in the future, this website will enable a Forum with a new entry per day, including the newspaper of that day, and the comments of that day that visitors want to make. that news (so it will also be a news archive.)

All this is possible thanks to the fact that in recent years, most of the best media have made it possible to share their contents, which has made it possible to bring them together to obtain the true media revolution of the S. XXI: plurality, not immediacy, since it is very nice not to wait until tomorrow to see the news that does not appear in your paper newspaper, since it has been printed (or an equivalent digital edition), but it is not essential to inform yourself, to wait a few hours (a an offender does not prescribe a crime because you take a few hours to find out about his crime) -

It is true that information immediacy is a technological innovation of the Internet and not of paper, and it is also true that, with democracy, journalism on paper and it made possible the plurality, but it was too expensive (it involved buying 2 or more newspapers), and the press itself played down the importance of the information contrast (assuring each newspaper that with them the citizen already had everything necessary to know, or at least, not recommending reading news from the competition).

This has degenerated in that any sold and / or any stunned can take out a propaganda pamphlet and call it newspaper, to the detriment of the unsuspecting ones who read it, and call their opposition illiterate and / or sold.

For that reason, I think that going from 1 day to another to divulge a part (possibly tendentious and interested lies), to guarantee to divulge everything (which guarantees the truths, somewhere) is more important even if you had to wait until dawn to leave the news, regarding to be informed of the same content but instantaneously, in a manipulative (or mediocre) newspaper.

The news (newspapers or not), at a structural level, have always had the potential to tell the whole truth, but they also have deficencies that allow some news programs to impose what they are interested in as truth, to the point that some news is simple propaganda ( in favor of a party and / or slanderers of the opposition).

Current technology has also led to the spread of lies from anonymity (or not) , as those chains of lies camouflaged as news, not contrasted, type "supports the brave source, who has just published the contrasted news, so before that the corrupt censor that news (or that medium), pass it to your friends by email or instant messaging, or social networks, or you will be an accomplice of the misinformation if you do not do it ".

Lies that multiply their success if they are illustrated with a photo (and it is already credible if someone runs a fake cover, from an unreal source or supplanting it).

Types of false photos tests:

a) Real ambiguous decontextualized.

Example of the drugged: "the President of the party so, drugged (drunk, or worse) according to what reflects his face". The reality is that it is only an ambiguous frame of a sequence in which it proves to be perfectly, and that can be obtained from anyone at any time if you record it 10 seconds in a row, while it speaks to you, and then you pass it frame by frame; I record the news that they broadcast on my PC, and then I keep the news that interests me, and leave a small margin, until the hostess starts to open her mouth for the next news. Well, going from frame to frame with the cutter program, I always find some that seem drugged, so, if with a program editor copied his head and paste it in a picture of a junkie, and tell someone in that photo is a retouch,nobody recognizes that it is the head, because it hits very well.

Sometimes, when I find a frame like that and I'm in the mood, I keep it in a folder of optical effects of expressions, and as I record several chains, because I have photos of many presenters "drugged". And the same if the photo has not been manipulated, but it is at night, and it implies that yes: if that face is presented by all the news anchors, every day for one hundredth of a second, and they are not drugged, why we believe the same photo of the same person if one day is at night walking with his partner, or after leaving a restaurant.

Should each informative, create a gallery of the worst frames without wanting, of each informant presenter, of a same day; that way they would raise awareness of themselves, and the audience, and journalism students, that the photos also lie.

Example of the false cover: I can ask anyone to take a happy photo, and manipulate a cover page with a text editor, in which my photo replaces a cover photo, and the text of the replaced photo is replaced by my text.

Example: I am happy after receiving the news that I have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which gives 1 Million € ... and prestige, of course), thanks to this very unifying web. "Then, many demand responsibility from the information supposedly popularizer (as a victim), rather than the deceiver person.



b) retouched.

Example: "party chairman such impunity today after caught yesterday, leading to 180 km hour on a donkey down the highway "





In both cases, even if the photo is presumably the cover of a newspaper (with its name and date) should be allowed to contrast the source quickly without diving in that source among the news of the day, for which, we would have to add a web link (of text, to write, or clickeable, to press, or a QR code, to point with the camera of the mobile). If not, it does not deserve credibility, however much audience it has, so it does not even deserve to waste time listening to the following cases of other days, since there are news programs that do use information contrasting techniques.

Fortunately, the technology applied to journalism, used by honest and capable journalists (and not hiding), is useful: it makes it increasingly easy to unmask the disinformation (and the pseudo-informative). This I will demonstrate now with the order of technological evolution of Journalism against misinformation, and the scamming deficiencies that have been covering each version. And each step I will exemplify it with:

- Cases of the scientist (simile equivalent to the journalist) that can be silenced, against the "Government of the country" and the society of local traditionalist majority .

Example 1: the most famous and ancient, of whether the Earth orbits around the Sun (according to Galileo and some newspaper of that time, or the current one) or vice versa (according to the Pope of Rome at the time of Galileo, and according to some information of that time, or the current one).

Example 2: one of the most current, is climate change, which despite being certified by the entire scientific community, was denied by US Trump candidate on many occasions, and then won the elections, so now the acclaimed US scientists that the last legislature were promoted to project managers, and Environmental Agencies, are now being replaced or demoted by their supreme director the US President (and the intermediate directors he has appointed). This demonstrates thatone is scientific by the rigorous use of scientific methodology, not because a Governor awards you a position (and a journalist).



- Cases of legal equivalences of the methodology of the journalistic profession, with swindling professions that are also legal (in my opinion), such as seers, swindling healers, and preferred sellers bankers.

And even, with some sporadic professional criminals, of a profession in principle of totally faultless objectives and methodology: medicine. And if we want to limit the ability to maneuver for the scam of these professions, and at least we refuse to equate healers with doctors (and work in the same hospitals), why do not we do anything against the scam of the subset of journalists who misinform.
In any guild, the professionalism of that guild is worth the most useless accepted, not the most useful.

- Cases of legal equivalence of the methodology of the journalistic profession, with scientific projects, which are sabotage-proof because: they are constructive, they work as a team, and they adapt to the novelties; for all this, they provide real and unquestionable value.

Is one whose structure is completely closed, so that the support can prevent the slightest dissidence (right or wrong) of anyone (journalists, politicians, professors, citizens) within your space. Example: a paper newspaper (since it does not allow corrections of others than the manufacturers).

The set of news 1.0 forms Journalism 1.0 , which is the most outdated, the traditional since the invention of printing. First it was only on paper, and after inventing the Internet the paper format coexisted with digital.

Some have a section of "letters to the editor", in which it is perhaps possible to read some of dissent (among others of compliments to their work), but apart from being a tiny section in comparison with the amount of news in the newspaper, the director you can choose the flattering ones, or the most argued dissenters, or the most threatening ones, and so the day that the readers talk about the dissidents (person or newspaper next to yours in the kiosk), they associate with that dissident:

- Silly and as a consequence they refuse to redefine, because of a constructive spirit (if you have already lost, you have to know how to lose, and use deduction as a basis, but do not get stuck in repeating the debate indefinitely until you win it).

- Threatening: better not to give rise to debate with one of a group "famous" because at a given time, threatens or assaults.

Example: this web, is "the best one that has found to inform itself", according to Antonio, of Madrid, Miquel (of Barcelona) and 1.000 more; on the other hand, it disgusts Paco, of ¿?, who says that "hojalá eztubiera dead, or bibiera Jitler (or Estalin) and fuzilara". Paco, you are the new symbol of my dissidents, so I will associate the Professors against me, with whom they have the intellectual level and the violent spirit of Paco.

Thus, since the invention of journalism, some scammers mounted without the slightest information problem 1.0 to coax gullible facts and / or deductions :

A) Facts .

Such an event occurred (it never happened) I did not occur such a thing B (it did happen).



B) Deductions .

Bad journalism supplants the experts, in favor of colleagues of profession. Thus, imputations are always commented on in an informative by a member emeritus of the Supreme Court, but in the majority of the news just another journalist. And the same with Philosophy.

Consequently, from real facts A and B, it is usual to see some invent against all logic, deduction C; and those who reproach them (by means of letters or self-published videos) of storytellers and illogical, ignore them in that newsletter.

It is more: to extract the deduction C of some false facts (distorted) or in everything; and knowing that they are false facts (precisely, the obligation of a journalist is to contrast facts, not to echo rumors, or make deductions of untested facts).

And even worse: if anyone wants to read on Sunday the alleged debates on which they base their categorical statements, and asks (by letter) to the pseudo-informative transcripts of those debates, because they ignore the letters or reply that they only talk about news of the day, and that "it was demonstrated in his day".

Examples of invented or incorrect deductions, in informative, on the scopes of ideologies and behaviors:

b.1) Ideologies.

"Such a political ideology is proven to have failed." "Religion which, is nonsense, unlike the one that adores this news".

Although it is true, and was discussed 50 years ago (or 10,000 years), the current ones have not read the debate, for which they have not been shown, and revisionism does not give anything bad; so the affirmations of informative sentencing of ideologies, should be considered indoctrination unless:

1, link (using QR codes or web addresses) to ideological debates: reading available to all, and preferably, unique and "open source" (to follow it in a more fluid way: that the 5th argument is the same in the whole world).

2º, the debate has managed to arrive at the conclusion that affirms the informative one: I can mount a debate, then falsely say that we have concluded by means of demonstrations, that such an ideology is the good one, and then mount an informative one that affirms that falsehood.



b.2) Behaviors made by whoever does them: such person is -ista or -fobo.

Example: the judge who judges a corrupt politician, and who disclosed long ago that he votes to another ideology.

A judge, like any citizen, votes, and has the right to disclose to which ideology he or she votes (left, right, center), and even to which party; So if you have to judge someone from a party, then disinformation related to that party and have enough to know who you vote, to use that piece of excuse to ensure that it is partial, and demand your disqualification (to be removed from the case , we go), whereas when it is the other way round, they do not have a problem (when one of the opposition is judged favorably by a judge related to the ideology or party that defends this news). Idem a journalist interviewer.



b.3) Behaviors according to who does it.

Example 1: the judge who judges a corrupt politician, and who did not divulge long ago that he votes to another ideology.

Even a disinformation does not even need a judge to disclose to what ideology or party votes, to challenge him: if he sentences against the side that promotes the pseudo-informative, he is corrupt, even though he votes to that party; but about the same type of crime, if it sentences the same against the opposing side, it is competent. Idem a journalist interviewer.

Example 2: intense bombing of a peaceful neighborhood.

There are countries that no longer sentence previously if it is justified or not, but wait if they are the ones who do not commit it (and then, it is bad) or yes (and then, it is good, and whoever complains, is antireligion on the side bombardier).



In summary, in facts and in deductions, news programs, unlike sciences, are not literally "constructive" in using a web page [yours or 3ºs (international organizations such as the UN, international journalism or philosophy association, etc.) ], in which:

1st, compile and order from most to least important, a unique list of arguments for and against, by intellectuals, open to everyone, with scientific filters, and quickly updated (if anyone provides such reasoning) that exceeds the scientific filters).

2º, all the newsletters have the obligation to disclose that ordered collection of arguments, and their corresponding conclusions, and to use them as a basis for other more advanced issues.



Being "unconstructive" is just the opposite of what science encourages, which, invites, challenges (and REWARDS) anyone to prove that current theories are wrong, and encourages those who disagree on the outcome of something (an equation ...), they can retrace it until they reach the conflict step (example: consider mathematics books as good as this level), to know how to solve it.

And if they do not reach a consensus, then they resort to a higher intellectual establishment (example: a Bachelor in case of university students, a Doctorate in the case of graduates). This solution is opposed to that both dissidents are judged correct, and start to print pseudoscientific pamphlets promising "science of good" and defame the other who disagrees, especially using megaphones that drown the voice of the other, which is the mode of act of most news.





THE LAW ALLOWS THE LIE IN JOURNALISM (AND IN POLITICS, COMPANIES, BANKING, VIDENCE ...).

The cajoled by the disinformation, many know they are a scam, but do not care:Some allow themselves to be ripped off by local traditionalism, others by flattery, others by economic interest, others by follow-up to their predecessors (parents, grandparents), others by obeying what seems to be the "most macho of the herd" (loud, loud, menacing, fast word ...), etc.

But others fall in good faith, because they believe that if such information was a scam, then the misinformation con artists, not hiding from the state, or the law, or citizens, and living in a state of law, and be a Massive scam, they would be judged by the state of office (private individuals), and they would be imprisoned and closed down, as Murphy's law is evident: "if you allow something to go wrong, it will go wrong", which, applied to the information, is equivalent to "if the State and society allow by law that the information methodology can lie, many will lie".

But it turns out that in journalism there is "freedom of judgment" or "freedom of belief", which means that if you have taken the university degree of journalists (the degree is enough, the PhD is very rare among the most famous journalists), They already have "legal permission" to lie if they want, with the excuse that they believe in the deductions they disclose. That is, the journalist who tells the truth is not because the law requires him, nor the Journalism College, but because he chooses to tell the truth.

That right to lie and that methodology 1.0 of the journalists, not to accept dissent in the information support, also enjoy them other collectives:

a) Seers: many TV channels have reigned for years (sometimes illegal), after midnight. If you disagree, they hang you.

b) Healers: those who while waiting turn, hesitant, an old man enters a wheelchair and with the face of dying and aching, and you see that they give him a pill (or they pray him, or they give holy water), and you see him walking away and with a painless face (and the credulous thinks he has seen a demonstration of fitness, or a miracle, but not what it is: a scam). And to finish convincing you, they reveal to you that "the doctors are all corrupt who charge of an international conspiracy, of which only that healer is aware". And if you still disagree, and ask for demonstrable medical and statistical evidence of their cured, they dismiss you as disrespectful and lack faith (necessary to heal).
c) Doctors: if there is no right to reply (or review by another independent doctor), it is possible that some scammers get away with it, in the long term, or at least in the short and medium term. Fortunately, there are very few cases, but there are; and of which, the press has been informed for years (searchable on the Internet), such as:

- Sobón gynecologist.

- Drug-addicted anesthetist with hepatitis who used the same needle with which he used drugs in patients.

- Doctors who prescribe a worse medication knowingly, because the laboratory manufacturer, through medical visitators, gives them a commission (money or paradisiacal vacations ...).

- Doctors who let die a salvageable one (that nobody claims): some, to extract the organs to transplant them to another that pays them a lot. And others, not to exceed this budget per person in treatments: and that savings are shared with the director of the Hospital (or the politician who gives orders, which obeys the order of savings of a superior politician).

d) Politicians: delay economic aid to dependents who need them already, so that people die (slowly) and save money, despite the warnings of patients, their families, associations, lawyers, and many news. And that punish doctors for authorizing expensive treatments to patients who need them, while those who reject them, reward them with a part of what was saved.

e) Preferred sellers bankers: people of impeccable image to look trustworthy, and who told you that they did you a friend's favor and that they had thought of you because they appreciate you more than other clients. No one warned you that this was a scam (it's a product that did not interest you, and that they sold to everyone they could, because they took a large commission and demanded it from the central bank).

f) Climate change denied by the new US President: that change, despite being certified by the entire scientific community, was denied by US Trump candidate on many occasions, and then he won the elections, so now the acclaimed US scientists , who were promoted to project directors (or government agencies), are now being replaced or silenced by their supreme director the US President (or lackeys he has appointed as directors). Therefore, these scientists have changed from writing articles in digital magazines (and being seen as experts by those who do not know the subject, by working for the Government and being assigned to write articles), to be replaced by people from opposite opinion (and consequently, lose to those who do not know the subject, all credibility,not being speakers at conferences or government magazines).



Therefore, if those who today share methodology with the 1.0 news are scammers, it is like to uncheck the 1.0 news (and its audiences) as soon as possible a methodology that allows scams of all scope to the citizen, in favor of another that restrict them; and if it did not exist at that time due to technological limitations, change as soon as that technological improvement arrives, such as Journalism 2.0 and 3.0, which will be the next thing I will explain.

It is the first one that gives the right to reply (on the same page of the same information in which the article was written). Its set forms Journalism 2.0 (also called citizen journalism). Existing since 2009, it is exclusively digital (at a structural level, it has never been possible to have an equivalent in the written press, replicated on the same page, readable by the entire audience of that newsletter).

More in detail, the characteristics of Journalism 2.0 are:

1) Update as soon as a news item arrives, instead of once a day (in my modest opinion, a feature very much admired by everyone, but very overrated).

2) Related news:each article links to others (news or opinion article), which deals with the same topic or is part of the same sequence of events, or of the same person.

3) Citizens can provide the article with reaffirmatory evidence of which they are witnesses (writings or photos or videos): usual fact especially after the invention of the smartphone (for carrying a camera). Example: when a Dictator expels the foreign press: the mobile allows each citizen of that country, if he is a witness or a victim, to record each act judged, and issue it; in recent years, even in real time (streaming)], to the website of an informative (also to your own), which gives more certainty that at least a part will be retransmitted, if you requisition your mobile.

3) Dissent accepted at a structural level, automatically, on the same page of the article (news and opinion): be that dissidence in the form of a written document, or a photo, and / or video, in Journalism 2.0, every citizen with something that contribute, you can do it, in the comments of each news item. And if not, that case of censorship is easily demonstrable and denounced in other media. Of course, does not give the same importance to the writer that the commentator, although the commentator is more expert and sincere (journalist or not).



Therefore, you can find that, in the comments section, the most expert and sincere commentator journalist, have your comment in the post No. 20 (which few would read, by low reading / benefit ratio position) or later (page of comments, 4th), no matter how bright the arguments that the commentator contributes to the writer.

The reason is that the comments are classified by order of submission ; and although classified by user ratings, sectarianism can make sectarian visitors to a site vote against a dissenting opinion; and even if it was the 1st,Many see an insurmountable distance between the alleged "superior reliability" of a journalist against a "simple" commentator (although he was also a journalist).

In a simile with the example that the Earth is flat: if the columnist of a newspaper says that the Earth is flat, it inspires you more confidence (being a "professional chosen and who gives the face"), that a chosen stranger by anyone, who in the comments zone rejects the idea with arguments and scientific demonstrations that it is round; even if you knew that the commentator is a university graduate more expert in that subject (you would presuppose more knowledge to the writer). That is, thejournalism 2.0 does not completely crush a scam or non-expert journalist, the appearance of "being superior on an intellectual level" with respect to the one that comments on his article.

In a simile of journalism 2.0 with professions such as television seers, healers, and swindling doctors (a mini-subset of doctors): - TV seers

2.0:the citizen who plans to call him, because before forming a definitive opinion with which to make the decision, he would have the right to have a decent 3rd (journalist or other career) speak live, without the call being cut if he argues against the seer. But respecting the right of the seer, of being No. 20 among 25 commentators (of which, many are clairvoyants of the seers); and respecting the right of the citizen to not listen to him, for the citizen to think the dissident a "pringao" compared to the seer [(alone, or after listening to the first 20 commentators (not very successful on average, some in favor of the seer, and others against with arguments to the best weak)]

- - Swindler quack 2.0 (not any healer):the citizen who considers to be cured by him, because before forming a definitive opinion with which to make the decision, he would have the right to receive the opinion of an honest medical advisor, before deciding if he wants to receive a treatment from a healer. The bad thing is that the adviser, even an honest doctor, is forced by the "2.0 system" not to enter the consultation, and to be in the waiting room, and to comment from there to the citizen (before he enters the consultation , or after leaving), and also to wait turn (may be the opinion No. 20, as they say before any other citizens, despite being the most qualified honest doctor, since the order is by chronology). But respecting the right of the citizen to not listen to him, for the citizen to see the dissident as a "pringao" compared to the healer (alone,or after 20 unsuccessful commentators on average, those in the waiting room). Idem the scam cures, without a healer, like homeopathy.

- Medical delinquent 2.0:the citizen who considers to be healed by him, because before forming a definitive opinion with which to make the decision, he would have the right to receive the opinion of an honest medical adviser, before deciding if you want to receive that treatment. The bad thing is that the adviser, even an honest doctor, would force the "2.0 system" not to enter the consultation, and be in the waiting room, and when allowed to speak spontaneously, to comment from there to the citizen ( before you enter the consultation, or after leaving), and also wait turn: it may be the opinion No. 20, because other citizens think before, because the order is by chronology (despite being evident the scam of the delinquent doctor and / or be the most qualified honest doctor). And on top of that, the citizen has the right to not even listen to him,for the citizen, the dissident seems to be a "pringao" compared to the delinquent doctor (alone, or after 20 unwise commentators, of opinion patients).

- Preferred 2.0 selling bankers: people of image taken care of to appear reliable, and who told you that they did you a friend's favor and that they had thought of you because they appreciate you more than other clients .No one warned you that this was a scam (it's a product that did not interest you, and that they sold to everyone they could, because they took a large commission and demanded it from the central bank). The citizen who planned to invest in that, because with the 2.0 method, before forming a definitive opinion with which to make the decision, would have been entitled to receive the opinion of an honest banking adviser. The bad thing is that the "2.0 system", the honest advisor, forces him not to enter the consultation, and to be in the waiting room, and to comment from there to the citizen (before he enters the consultation, or after leaving ), and also wait for turn (may be the opinion No. 20, as they say before any other citizens, despite being the most qualified honest banking advisor, since the order is by chronology).But respecting the right of the citizen to not listen to him, for the citizen, the dissident seems to be a "pringao" compared to the banker who sells preferential services (alone, or after 20 unsuccessful commentators on average, those in the waiting room).



- Climate change denied by the new US President at 2.0:climate change is certified by the entire scientific community; despite this, it was denied by US candidate Trump on many occasions. In a 2.0 system, the opposition would have had the right to reply, through similar electoral announcements (televised, on posters, on radio, on the Internet), and similar debates. That happened ... and then he won the elections, so there's still a lot to improve in communication. As a result, yesterday's acclaimed US scientists are now being replaced or silenced by their supreme director the US President. Therefore, those scientists have changed from writing articles in digital federal journals, to being replaced by their opposites [at least, passing the originals to, at best, writing a dissenting opinion (if they are left) in the comments section of the article] .

It is this web, the 1st 3.0 of the country, and the only 3.0 necessary, since it is simply the grouper of the most important sources (publications) and / or sections (covers, sports ...), which makes it the new informative reference , since it encompasses all the good that Journalism 2.0 brings, and also adds 2 advantages at the structural level:

1st) More and better WAYS to read:

- By Source, in alphabetical order : this section of the web presents the publications in a comparable format, by information media (1st Newspapers, 2nd TV news), and within each one, in alphabetical order. Gives a neutral appearance:

- On the web [therefore, it is a great meeting point for society, since you do not divulge that you are neither right or left, unlike any newspaper (paper or digital)].

- Of the one who reads it: if a repressor with whom you do not want problems (boss, relative, violent in the bar ...) catches you in that secondary page of this web, reading a newspaper that hates, you can lie that you had already read the one that he prefers, or that you were going to do later, or that you were checking how bad the "forbidden" news is, or that you were simply moving with the mouse wheel, until the right one.

- By Source, in order of most important Informative Awards(not to such journalist nor to such concrete investigation): Prize of the Academy of the Television (self-denominated Iris Prizes); Prize for the highest average audience; International Award No. 1 [(TV News Awards): if you win or win a Spanish news program, as it is a feat much greater than a national prize, it will be shown forever); until 2018, only RTVE has achieved it in 2009 with the PSOE].



- By Selection (= the best information imaginable): on that page, each section shown is exclusively the best chosen among that section of each newsletter [by voting (in the future) on this website; or sales; or prizes; and in the absence of the previous, or until then, well my humble opinion).

Example: if the voters say that the best Sports section is made by the Marca newsletter, then in the informative "by Quality" section, in its Sports section there will be only the Marca newsletter). It gives a much better information than the best available; and regarding the reading mode "By Sections":

- Those of us who do not want to spend excessive time, but we are addicted to news (like me), we are less tempted to click on so many sources for each section (which is in).

- To the undecided (those incapable of deciding, or suffer if you make them decide) when choosing for each informative section, what informative to supply it, thus removing that burden.



- By Sections:it is for the addicts to each news of such section (cover, sport, technology, famous ...), to which the reading mode " by Selection " falls short , since they want more sources for one or several sections ( because they know that in other sources of that section, there are always several news that would have been lost if they had only read one source). And for those who need to make sure that in other sources there is no other news in that area. This way of reading the news, gives the maximum of exclusives, plurality, areas and styles.





2º) More and greater GUARANTEES:

Guarantees at the structural level (that is, automatically) plurality, truthfulness, and quality (and freedom to choose information), which is a great improvement over journalism 2.0 [which only enables (does not guarantee) plurality, truthfulness and quality].

The methodology of the informative 3.0 is to adjoin ("put one next to another") to the most important information (and optional, of different ideologies), allowing to choose which ones (by means of a tab with its name), so that it locates them to each one in equal conditions to be read.

Thus, it allows to evolve from the traditional method of reading (the cover or another section of) a disinformation that read only, "seems to have good intentions", to read that and another (s), which makes it possible for you to really be informed ("heal yourself") ) reading a non-disinformation, either in the same module (selecting the information by clicking on its name, example: way of reading " by Sections ") or in an identical module adjacent to the vertical (example: reading mode " by source, in alphabetical order ").

Thus, honest anti-informants dissent is no longer the poor journalism 2.0, which was simply the possibility (in contrast to the 3.0 guarantee) that to confront a misinformation journalist who had written a new article, the dissident ( journalist or not) could only write in the comments area, and on top of many other previous ones (because they are in chronological order), of untested intelligence, and that reaches a few, because those who read them usually get tired when they reach the 5th comment [since it does not compensate the average of the relation (benefit of each contribution) / (effort to read it), whether they are of appreciation to what the disinformation writer says, or if they are of dissidence].

Journalism 3.0 provides proof in person (regarding rumors of 3ºs), that another information did not manipulate such important information [by: veto chanchullazos of affinities, distort, or show when there is news of greater importance, an irrelevance against the opposition party to stain his name at national level (at suspicion level of € 50 unpaid in such town)].

Journalism 3.0 adds plurality of quality to the traditional way of reading (plurality allows you to reaffirm or correct yourself in that the newspaper you used to read is the best). Thus, the misinformers fail to hide a story, or misrepresent another, since:

- Newspapers: right next to or just below the citizen can read the version of a decent news (of the same ideology, or different), and consequently remain uninformative unmasked.

- Television news: honest dissenting informants with disinformation, will inspire visually at least the same confidence as the disinformation, since now the informant is indistinguishable visually with respect to the disinformer: the same suit with a tie, the same shaved in a hurry, the same face of an honest person with a clean look, etc. And whether he supplied you with a video from another channel, or if you sat at the same table as the television disinformation, adjacent, and reported in turn the same news (or absence of it).

Therefore, in journalism 3.0, the factor "field" in favor of the owner of the medium vanishes, since there is no partisan use of either the owner or the opponent. That is to say, it is eliminated the so used "the reason I have it, because the news is mine, and who disagrees I expel him from the set or the newspaper, because it is my property".

In Journalism 3.0, the news (honest or not) it contains, automatically become informative 3.0 (whether they are newspaper or television news or radio), regardless of whether they want to leave or not next to another information that qualifies them .

Example: I remember that when the police arrested a President of an Autonomous Community, it was news of the beginning of all the national news programs, except in the public of that Autonomous Community, which appeared with total normality that day there was no relevant news about that Community, and simply replaced that news by the 2nd most important (and the 2nd by the 3rd, etc, and as the final news added an inconsequential).

Continuing with the simile of the example that the Earth is flat, applied to 3.0 (newspaper or telenovelas):

- If in a newspaper a columnist says that the Earth is flat, because with journalism 3.0, in the same module (or in the adjacent vertical zone up or down (not in the comment area) comes another article that says it is round This is what is shown in different ways in elmejorinformativo.com (this web)

- If in a television newscast a disinformator says that the Earth is flat, because with journalism 3.0, in the same video there will be at least one informant adjacent to that same table (not in the far-off comments area of ​​your website) that replicates that it is round, and argue it.This has not yet been created by anyone (not even this website).



I return to the simile of the professions that allow the lie, as the seers, healers, swindling doctors, bankers selling preferred, and deniacionist Presidents of climate change:

- Scammers seers 3.0: it would be as if the clairvoyant forced him to share a table on the set with scientists who lie with arguments every lie to every citizen. Or by turns in a row (in the same office, or in one next to it).

- Scammers healers 3.0: it would be as if the healer forced him to share a table in the consultation with honest doctors who supervised every phrase and act of the dishonest doctor with a magnifying glass, and they would lie with arguments every lie to every citizen. Or by turns in a row (in the same office, or in one next to it).

- Medical delinquent 3.0: it would be as if the delinquent doctor forced him to share the consultation with honest doctors who supervised with magnifying glass each phrase and act of the dishonest doctor, and they will lie with arguments every lie to every citizen. Or by turns in a row (in the same office, or in one next to it).

- Bankers selling preferred 3.0: similar.

- Climate change denied by the new US President at 3.0: similar. He had opposition that made announcements after his, and despite that he won.

EYE:

- In journalism 3.0, the citizen "idiot" still has the right to silence the plurality, so it is not a legal duty of the citizen to listen to honest news (and in the similes, either: seers, healers, and delinquent doctors) . Simply, it facilitates objectivity and plurality to whoever wants to obtain it; and gradually hooks most of the sectarians who want to not get it ... but it does not "cure" them all.

- The plurality is achieved, obviously, at the expense of reading double (or more), which takes more time than reading only an informative or disinformation.

- There are people who already read the best news (according to themselves), and maybe after reading several days several alternatives, you can rightly believe that you already read the best, and that you have just wasted your time.

Do I believe that this website will be the most visited to be informed now or in the future?

I wish so, but it is not probable, according to the Statistics. The reason, shown on 2017-01-08, with a magnetic resonance study in the brain, is that many if they give arguments against your ideas, because if the ideas are political or religious, they activate their own areas of perceiving threats to physical integrity (the amygdala, the insular cortex, the neural network by default). Thus, changing beliefs is more an emotional than a rational process; therefore, in the field of information, in the event that one changes from one informative sect to another source, it is just as likely that this new one is also a sect [that takes great care of its aesthetics to seem more "cool" (cool) ] that a plural and rational informative 3.0 at the structural level, as is this web.

But due to the fact that it changes to a percentage of educated in sectarianism, it is already worth this web; In addition, the "new readers" are sure to see the usefulness of plurality; and also some readers will recommend it to friends, and thus attract others. Therefore, more than I believe in a change in a year, I think it will come, but gradually with the years.

Examples that the plurality does not change the majority:

a) Leisure: in some town that I know, people have been enjoying playing cards for centuries (then, they had no better alternative). Ten years ago they put a library with the best books by age and gender (novels, biographies, ethics and religion, etc). But not only the letters are still the preferred entertainment, but "Don Quixote" accumulates dust. Therefore, quality and success do not have to be accompanied. It is true that in that town there are some neighbors who enjoy reading books, and that is what I want for this informative 3.0: that those who know how to appreciate it can enjoy it.

b) Religion: Religious people (or not), the vast majority is local traditionalism (or local seguidismo), not plurality. That is to say, they adopt that of their parents, whatever it may be. Thus, if every citizen of the world (including those who do not believe in God) is given a batch of books in which each book is the basis of another religion (including religious the book that defends not believe in God), sure that more than 90% will not even read them; and I do not tell you as they change their religious option, from their traditionalism to an option they read). In addition, to the religion casitodo the world tries to camouflage its affiliation "by local traditionalism", by means of, of greater to smaller abundance of cases (and of effort):

- To buy the sacred book of that local traditionalism, and to simulate that they have become " after reading it. "

- Read the basic batch of books each of each major religion, but really willing not to replace the religion of their local traditionalism with another although objectively consider it better.

- Study and achieve university studies of thought (Philosophy - Law - Theology - Politics), in the maximum degree they can (Professor, and if not, Doctorate, and if not, Diplomate, and if not, Licensed) and convey that their option Religious is the fruit of those university studies + of a deep meditation, when in fact they have the will not to replace the religion of their local traditionalism with another that they consider better.



Therefore, if more than 95% of land we do not use plurality or Religion (which in theory we play the eternal life of suffering in Hell), because many feel that proportionally does not compensate "challenge" the established powers (Dictator - local traditionalism - parents - pseudo-intellectual journalists indoctrinators ...) to inform themselves with the maximum guarantees.

So, let's suppose that I submissive, through bribes and punishments, the religion of my parents (whether the traditional local, or not); and then I buy and read his official holy book; and then I get the university degree of Professor of (Philosophy and / or Law and / or Politics and / or Religion), and they invite me as an expert to a debate, for being a Professor: I would be mistakenly presented as "the Professor" , as if I were such a religious option, for being a professor, when in reality what has molded my ideology would be to be obedient to the ideologies imposed in childhood (by parents and / or state and / or local tradition). So it would be a false presentation, therefore a defect of the current majority journalism, which prefers not to be as rigorous as science, despite being its obligation,since they get enough audience acting like that.

Each newsletter renounces being literally constructive, in favor of presenting itself as finished, finished products, instead of presenting each one as a simple contributor of some piece of the puzzle [for lack of intelligence, or for partisanship (self-recognized, and / or recognized by a 3rd)].

That is to say, each one on his manipulations in his environment, vetoes the right to reply to the other news; and more the right to be vetoed (by an honest newsletter, or by a higher regulatory body in ethics and journalism, such as the National or International Journalism College, or the UN, or the Club of Intellectuals that does not depend on any Government that les Colegie or les Descolegie).

Example: if I said on this website (directly or through a journalist who hires) that the Earth is flat (either because it is created by tradition, or because of economic interest, or because of evil and mockery), then the situation is that neither an honest news agency nor a regulatory agency could correct me in this medium, if I decided not to allow it; let alone to speak out on that subject; and less, close the chiringuito.

I ordered from most important to less, I argued extensively, and exemplified, a list of the techniques of information manipulation most common in journalism, here [in the section "Compare Portfolios", below, in the title module "Techniques of Informative Manipulation ( + examples) "]. Now, I will only mention them:

1) Do not provide daily headlines to other websites (via RSS), to make it as difficult as possible to compare (on websites like this one) those headlines with those of other, much more honest news, so that it is not obvious that they have omitted (or manipulated) ) very important news against the interests that they support (political party, such company) and have replaced them with irrelevant ones (optional, against the interests they support).

Providing headlines by RSS, and a website where you can compare some news with others, is the best tool to eliminate indoctrination, defamation, manipulation, and omission (what is now called "fake news").



2) Total disdain of journalists to intellectuals No. 1 (which deal with the issues in a constructive manner (collection of arguments or debates, and conclusions that deduce.)

Be constructive intellectualist, applied to journalism, is 1 to collect arguments from each side the journalist (whether investigating, or setting up a debate, or taking advantage of the debate that another person set up), 2º, reaching conclusions, 3º, using these conclusions as a firm basis on which to settle other issues through other thematic rounds (of compilation of arguments that we find among all, or debates), and reach conclusions, which in turn are the basis of the following, that is, proceed with scientific methodology, as in all sciences (for example, in mathematics).



3) Overvaluing the mediocre journalists their intellectual abilities over those of other better journalists [with a Doctorate in Journalism; or 2 careers (laws or politics, or history); or equal to simple Bachelor: more intelligence and honesty and ability to reply when interviewing] .



4) Denying the owner of the information, in the middle of his property, the right to reply to the accused or dissident (be it political, or intellectual of renown, or a simple citizen).



5) Encourage the audience on a scope, introducing previous cases of the same type of event, carried out by other people, in which it is very clear that the reason in those cases is in favor of the side that defends this news (but that statistical level those cases are very minority), to convey to the audience the idea that the behavior of that group is the usual option instead of the exception, and thus achieve in many viewers a follow-up.



6) Punctual moment of a rival (recorded in photo or video), present it as your usual norm (examples: booby face, always drinking alcohol at lunch or dinner).



7) Word "Dissidents" replaced by: "critics" (if they go in favor of the disinformation side) and by "sold" and "slanderers" (if they go in favor of the opposite side).



8) Arbitrary demonstrations according to whether or not the informant is interested (or not).



9) Clarifications much smaller than the accusations. And / or the accusations place them in a place of maximum visibility (the cover, above), even the buyer or passer who looks at the covers in the kiosk, while the rectification is small and sometimes inside, not visible to the scout. covers, but only to the browser (of sheets).



10) Test hiding (one argument, statistics against what the disinformation says ..), either directly or by misrepresentation.That is, the disinformation pretends that it acts as a simple intermediary (the one that transfers the information from the origin point to the point where the audience is), but takes advantage of that stage to remove whatever it wants before delivering the "package".



11) Opinions falsely deduced from anything (both defamatory and exculpatory).



12) Double standards to the same fact of a politician, if it is from party A or B (appropriate public money, driving drunk, etc).



13) Ask about the moral principles of a politician, not before an event, but only afterwards (when there is no longer any remedy or excuse).



14) "My reporter was there, and the rest (dissident citizens, and / or honest news, no), so the rest do not know the truth because you were not witnesses, while my reporter yes, so only this reporter and the disinformation for which he works, we know the truth of what happened, and of what should be deduced "; they obviate that the previous intention of reporter and boss can be misinformed, or that perhaps the reporter is silly or sectarian, so he does not have the intellectual capacities necessary to inform.



15) "If he does not let himself be interviewed by me, he is an anti-informative person, anti-freedom of expression,and / or he lies (and he knows that I can dismantle his arguments) and / or he has some dirty cloth to hide (and he is afraid of me because he knows that I can coax him with my subtlety) ".



16) Convert "conditional" to "affirmations", the disinformation that should be "simple carrier" of information.



17) Reconvert "respond" in "declare".



18) Unique record of the ranking of informative techniques, assign it to each news item, and that a 3rd independent check whether that news meets the entire record.



19) Sign the news when you agree with the deal, and not present it if not.



20) Self-criticism does not mean you have to blame yourself if you do not have it.



21) Misrepresent the expression "sometimes" by "always"; and "some" for "all that collective".



22) "I do not understand how anyone can do this" (in the sense of "so wrong", but without saying it).



23) Recommend especially news directors (since journalists do not send and are more replaceable), fill out a universal (identical to all), dilemmas (of 2 options each, to simplify) on which to position, and in which no option is politically correct.



24) Challenges to the autotransparent (judges, politicians, journalists, managers), about leisures and / or ideologies / vote.



25) Demand / Request of what informative reads (unitary, and if it also reads the
adjuster elmejorinformativo.com) to the President (and to Ministers and leaders of the opposition, including to public opinion leaders). That is, the requirement of transparency for the leaders, in what means they are informed.



26) Plurality as an excuse to affirm lies (example: Earth is flat ...), despite the fact that scientific methodology has proven falsehood.



27) Denial of a proven truth (Earth is round, climate change exists), can be altogether much better than another popularizer (not denial of that truth); and idem the affirmationist of a lie. And be the disseminator: person, informative or school (state or not).



28) Open news, to the Reality, at least the state, and especially the television: show every day his whole day (or the meetings decision):what each one says in the meetings, of what comes in as news and what does not, to see how the heads of the Government or shareholder work, as well as the journalists (some of them, submissive, the ethical ones, some protestors who comply, and others intransigent willing to be fired, or to be degraded explicitly or implicitly).



29) Show the journalists to the audience and to the journalists, what is to show (and what not), before starting to pseudo-show news of today. One way is a duel: demonstrators journalists vs scientific demonstrators (biologists, engineers), on the same field that does not require scientific knowledge (yes scientific methodology).



30) Endorse Scientists about non-journalists (President, majority of journalists, majority of voters in democracy).



31) Self-published news as "providers of the day's headlines (or news)", instead of "suppliers of what they consider to be the day's headlines (or news).



32) Right to privacy.

Casitodos, about electronic espionage (hidden camera, voice recorder) to an opponent or any famous person, do not encourage it (because they say they are in favor of privacy), but then they broadcast any recording that comes to them. Therefore, decide: if they issue, claim to be against privacy. And then, for equality, I think they have an obligation to spy on opponents of spying, since they encourage the idea that spying is worse than opponents, when in fact they have not scientifically proven it, and for which they would have to do an active espionage. The best thing is not to issue espionage (if not for respecting the right to privacy, at least for respecting the right to equality to be spied on all or none).



HANDLING TECHNIQUES NOT A PURPOSE:

These are more for lack of professionalism than for the will to cheat. In the "Compare Covers" reading mode, I explain these techniques more in depth (specifically, in the module " Manipulative techniques not on purpose "); here I simply name them:

1) Spanish words, replaced by other Spanish words that mean something else (according to the Dictionary), which gives inaccuracy or incoherence to the message transmitted (whether to misinform, or by pasotism).



2) Spanish words, replaced by foreign words (English), to seem more important (if a manager is defined CEO, because you waiter define you waiter), technical, playful, or modern; Apart from impoverishing the language, it does not know when to stop.