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, each news, about their manipulations in their environment, veto the right to reply to other news (within the same news: the news, as RTVE) or allows but in unequal conditions (to an article, You can add in the comments area, one that can be No. 20 by going in order of time).
And also every informative veto, individually and as a whole, the right to be vetoed [by an honest informative; or by a higher regulatory body in ethics and journalism, such as the National or International Journalism College, or the UN, or above all, the Club of Intellectuals that does not depend on any Government that Colegie or Descolegie, but on donations and some State subsidy fixed in the state budgets (that is not in exchange for approving or suspending whoever suggests the current government)].
Example: if I divulge on this website (directly, or through a puppet journalist who hires) that the Earth is flat (either because it is created by tradition, or because of economic interest, or because of malice and mockery), then the conjuncture is that neither an honest news agency nor a regulatory body 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.
This presentation of all self-proclaimed information as a final product, allows many to use, to a greater or lesser extent, techniques of informative manipulation, whose use differentiates the news, the pseudo-informative and the disinformative. These techniques are used to earn their monologues, without reason (knowing, normally, sometimes, not). Some of these techniques are also used by ordinary people to pseudo-inform (or misinform) in any field (work, neighbors, family, couple), so it is useful to know them, even those who do not read news.
Steps to combat the disinformation techniques. There are 3:
1º) Know them.
For that, here I will add the ones that I have noticed that they use in the news (along with some real example).
2º) Disclose each informative, the list of informative manipulation techniques, which are committed not to use.
That is, it is not enough just a "generic statement of intent", but you have to go into detail. You have to link (link) to the list of disinformation techniques, your website or a page of a website, journalistic ethics, intellectual or an organization. Options (not exclusive) for a newscast:
- Display a written web link.
- Display a QR code, pointing to the mobile camera, the web browser opens and takes you to the web link.
3rd) External audit.
Accept every honest newsletter, that an external organism (ex-professio, or the rest of informative) audits if that informative one uses techniques of informative manipulation, and if affirmative, which and how many times each one. And add the guarantee seal that that external organism gives you, whose click (or a link below) takes you to the auditor's website, to the page that says that this informative has been audited by them, and they have granted that seal. Examples of stamps: UN ethics; ethics of the International Journalism College; ethics of the Spanish Journalism College, etc. The disinformation, to the maximum that should be achieved, would be the ethics of "my mother says I'm very good".
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").
It gives non-negotiable plurality by method: one who wants to be the smartest of the class, he must achieve allowing himself to compare the answers of his examination with those of others, instead of self-proclaimed after not allowing comparison "; Nor is it the best if he follows philosophies such as: "I want to do an examination of this, but not of the other or that"; or "that is easy and they approve me for my pretty face, or I approve myself".
One that no longer updates its RSS is RTVE, which is very serious since it is public television (paid with taxes), and therefore, it is a biased political decision, so it must be reversed, since it must be mandatory. Above, without announcing that it takes away or justify it (whoever is silent, gives).
A scam is to issue an award-winning news, and share share other headlines (by RSS) worse (less important or less updated or less), for the audience to trust that the prize is a guarantee that those RSS owners They are the best you can find among all other news feeds.
This is as if in the example of the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture for the same disease, a different medication, one will disclose the information of yours (its success rate, its rate of side effects and what they are), but then it turns out that it is not the it is disclosed to all, but one modified, so that a possible comparison between medicines from different manufacturers for the same disease is not representative. This could make the real drug worse, so that if in the comparison that they made the worst, then they can challenge it by saying that they did not send the medication they market, but a worse version (and repeat it, with the new one).
Another swindler of an informative swindler (by manipulator of policy, in defamation to the opposition and flattering of theirs), would be that he shared by RSS a less sectarian version to be criticized less on social networks (which tend to be more active and savvy) than those who see the whole newsletter).
2) Total disdain of journalists to intellectuals No. 1 (which deal with the issues in a constructive manner (compilation of arguments or debates and conclusions that they deduce).
The citizens [from the normals, to the intellectuals nº 1 (Doctorados cum Laude)], who use the constructive methodology, deal in groups, topics, in 2 possible ways:
- Collection of arguments.
- Debates: everyone is more than convinced if it seems beneficial, which gives 2 risks, as street arguments against, and deny the objectivity of the conclusions if they are contrary to their initial position. Therefore, the contribution of arguments is better than the debate.
In both cases, after completing the stage of contributions, then we must deduce what percentage importance to give each argument, and then compute (add the percentage of the arguments in favor, and then subtract the against), which shows whether something is altogether beneficial or not). Both constructive treatments, give some transcriptions, and above all some conclusions, which in turn should serve as a basis to deal with more advanced topics and those for others (as in science).
Journalism deals with issues of ethics and political efficiency, therefore, should be very aware of the constructive treatments on these issues, and use them as a basis for more advanced ones. However, they are not used by the majority; that is to say, that anyone can go out on an informative and start telling lies (same or different) every day, with an image as serious as possible, and not sanction him. Some, without even taking the race, but if they demanded it, they take it out, or better hire a complacent journalist.
Examples: climate change does not exist; the Earth is flat; tobacco does not cause cancer, etc. The Doctorates gathered their evidence and arguments (physically or online), and came to the conclusion that climate change exists, the Earth is round, tobacco causes cancer, etc. But then there may be a lot more on the TV disinformation on his television set, denying each of these conclusions, based on the views of a supposed "smarter and / or honest or prestigious scientist", and even defame the dissidents , by insinuations that they are bribed (or threatened) by "big economic interests".
3) Overvaluing the mediocre journalists their intellectual abilities over those of other better journalists [with a Doctorate; or 1 additional career (laws or politics, or history); or equal to simple Bachelor: more intelligence and honesty (and perfect replicability 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).
This I think should be eradicated, both those who prevent it altogether (Informational 1.0, such as paper), as the 2.0 news, which always allow, but in the form of comment as a normal person [instead of as an expert or witness or person with the same credibility as the disinformer (for studies, or their lack in both), which is enthroned as the "hired and screened for opinion, for its alleged superior intelligence, honesty, and titling"] .
5) Encourage the audience on a scope, introducing certain cases of previous outsiders, of the same type of event, carried out by other people, in which the reason in those cases is very clear that it is in favor of the field you defend. And once you have created a climate favorable to your environment in the spectators, you give the news, achieving in many spectators a follow-up.
Types of incitations:
a) Defamed protocols:
Police example: if a policeman shoots at someone who has not stopped after giving him a halt, and who is running over him with a knife.
There are honest informers who look for evidence, and improve protocols and use simulations, after which in some cases they exonerate a policeman, and in others they condemn him. The sensationalists, they give the news, because they know that it gives audience, and they do not get in if the protocol used was adequate or not. The biased, some are positioned pro and others anti the poli. And the biased inciters to follow-up, before a video like the one mentioned, show others of clear police crime, such as a video of one shooting in the back to one fleeing, and another video of one shot despite having arms raised , or another with a knife but which is kept at a distance and which is flanked by several policemen, etc.
b) Comparison with a controversial one, biased the owner to hide that it is only of one scope; and to suggest that, if the comparison is negative, "admires"; if it is positive, "dare to match".
- Negative reference example: if Hitler had as favorite such choice, food (breakfast, lunch, dinner) or cultural work (such series, which, etc), or such belief (smoking spoils health, the Earth is round ), as some seek a match with their opponent (or obtain it from the opponent himself, trustingly), and then take out the biased information. Concrete example: if the President of the opposition Party usually dines Macedonian, and Hitler also, because the disinformation titles "is comparable to Hitler" or "admires Hitler".
- Positive reference example: Jesus Christ. If you want goodness in the world, they defame you "compare yourself to Jesus Christ" (in a tone that incites "equalizes" Jesus Christ).
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).
Typical example: when the opponent makes an ugly face (silly, or sad, or drugged or orgasmic), even a tenth of a second, they capture that photo at a resolution of 24 Megapixels (and if they fail, they use plan B of a video camera up to 4 megapixels, and then pass the video frame by frame, and publish the one with the ugly face (we all put an ugly face on a frame every few seconds: you can try to download a video (or record) to any presenter-a of the news , while giving the news, and then pass the extract to a program that lets you see frame by frame (VLC player, video editors like VideoReDo ...), and in any 10-second cut, it will give you compatible frames with drugged people, silly, depressed, and orgasmic, expressions that you see are not representative of their
been at that time, which shows that anyone who take a photo at night, looking like drugged (drunk, porrero), does not mean at all that it is, even if it is next to a bar.
This disinformation technique to defame the rival, some use it together to hide a defect that they promote (and even give a good image). Example: habitual drinker; They insinuate that a rival politician is, by preference to show him with a photo with a glass of alcohol (wine) in hand, that day in public, while his rival, to whom this newsletter supports, and who has been all night caught to the bottle, and he has drunk it whole, they do not record him while, in favor of when he put on the face of intelligent or kind or had the bottle still full at the beginning of the act.
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).
An honest and intelligent critic is a person who makes an honest and intelligent criticism, which can be for or against the analyzed; if 2 people disagree in one opinion, they are dissident with respect to each other, but a priori, at an objective level, it is not deductible which position is the most critical (if negative or positive).
- Example 1, the critics of films: it is not more or better critic the one that scores more under a film. Therefore, if 2 critics disagree of an opinion to a movie, because the one that scores worse, or deserves to receive respect to the other more acclamation treatment by other news, it does not make sense to call it "the best Critic", or "Critical" ( to the detriment of the dissident, implying that he is not, and yes a sold or a fool or a fool with the analysand, or a politically correct facing society).
- Example 2, the jury of talent television contests (singing and others). There are those who hire the most professional jury, to say if they would buy a disc from the analysand (or go to see his show), and sometimes that jury says yes, and usually says no. But others always say yes (the soft ones).
So we must demand that informants give the same treatment to politicians and informants who do not agree with them, so that any informant does not call their supporters (informants or politicians) critical, to the detriment of opponents of those that the informant despises; and encourage them to be called "dissidents" with respect to the politician (or the informer), instead of dissidents, otherwise, he would convey that the normality was what the informant publicized.
For the same reason, it makes no sense to speak of the "Critical Sector" of a political party (or of an informative or medical), unless it is scientifically proven that this sector is right and at the same time the rest are wrong. The correct thing is to say "Dissenting Sector".
Political and informative example: from the former Secretary General of the PSOE, in all the news I heard that the "Critical Sector" was rebelled, instead of "Dissenting Sector", as if those who disagreed were critical, and those who were in favor , were sold or silly or soft with the analysand, or politically correct facing society.
There are also news reviewers who disagree around the world and / or with the least kind words, hoping to be hired simply for programs that have a more eager audience for show than for constructive news. So, if you dedicate the thickest words to today's topic, in your social network, maybe a scout hires you, for its pseudo-informative one that looks for the person with the least qualms about shouting and / or insulting the country (instead of the greater precision and honesty and intelligence).
8) Arbitrary demonstrations according to whether the informant is interested or desires.
Example: one person suing another, and the viewer does not know if the defendant will go to jail. To clarify this, the best information seeks the opinion of a very expert expert in judicial sentences (like a former judge emeritus of the Supreme Court, like Mr. Payín); and from among those who find, hire the best possible (if you do it for free, well better, but you could not require daily assistance).
But although every day there are demands or new tests, because these experts sometimes appear once a week, or every 2, or once a month. Therefore, there is a null methodology, arbitrary, and you might even think that it is interested.
And it is not that I ask that jurist No. 1 appear in each program of each chain, but he does have an opinion on his website, and others reproduce it after agreeing on an agreement or something. Instead, many pseudo-informants one day bring the expert (or echo their opinion on the website of the expert or another information), and another day they replace him with a simple Licenciado en nosequé (lawyer, or journalist).
And above, without giving explanations of why they brought one, and why they stop bringing it (does it demand too much and it is cheaper to bring in a non-expert? disposition of payers).
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).
I do see an acceptance that someone has made a mistake, I infer not that it is silly or malpensive, but that it has been corrected, so it is to be trusted. But another will think that the confessor is stupid or malpensive, so he does not trust anymore; and as everything that the media do after studying it a lot, because of the news that choose to make clarifications with the small mouth, I deduce that the percentage of those who prefer this information, is greater than that of those who prefer a clarification more of cover.
10) Hiding evidence (an argument, statistics against what the disinformation says ...), either directly or by misrepresentation.
That is to say, the intermediary (the one that transfers the information from the origin point to the point where the audience is), takes advantage of this stage to remove what they want and then deliver the resulting.
11) Opinions falsely deduced from anything (both defamatory and exculpatory).
Many informants overvalue their intellectual abilities over those of other better journalists, or other expert Doctorates in the field they think of. Antiscientific examples: "the Earth is flat because I do not see the curvature" ( by Saquille O'neal ); "Climate change does not exist, it is an invention of the Chinese" ( by US President Donald Trump ).
12) Double standards to the same fact of a politician, if it is from party A or B.
Examples: appropriate public money; drive drunk Idem if now benefits or not (surveys ...).
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).
Of the injustice of some law, there are those who complain publicly (in interviews, press conferences, or on their websites, or in communiqués). And of those, some, after a time (short or long), disobey that law; That is called ethical coherence with oneself. But there are some, who do not complain, and then disobey it, they get caught, and only then is it when journalists find it justified to ask them about their ethics with respect to that law (or norm), before which the questioned are justified by the fact that they They already believed that this law was unjust.
I believe that journalism has to ask politicians about their values before they even accept a position (using standard and egalitarian forms, and better, than between the politician in a web). And if he has not divulged any dissent, then when he commits an act of breaking the law (or norm), do not go back and ask him as if it were worth some excuse. Examples:
- Drive drunk ("who has told you, that you can control the glasses that I have to drink").
- Do not stop before the height of the urban guard and / or the mobility agents, and / or run away despite being chased and ordered to stop you.
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 "; obviate that the previous intention of both is to misinform.
This happens a lot in cases where they put the microphone in hand to the creator of the news [whether famous in whatever field (political - pink press) or not (police against civilians - doctors ...)]. And they multiply the effect when they are approached without witnesses (above all honest reporters), since they can not refute them. Even some misinforming reporters, they broadcast the video but they differ from the opinion, and they sentence on that video, with superiority, because they were in person.
Types of scams of "I saw everything and you did not, so I tell the truth":
a) Witnesses of what interests them. Various examples:
- A legal demonstration (in Madrid), against terrorist violence, which was progressing normally, and a reporter from the opposite side, stands before them, preventing the passage, waiting patiently to be overwhelmed, the demonstrators, to then enter direct and simulate that the opponents are violent who are against the informants and the "freedom of expression", when the reality was that the 1st protesters were stunned, 2nd patients and peaceful waiting, 3rd angry until they advanced. And the same, the previous ones to some manifestations, in which the camera shows total tranquility and normality, but the reporter says that he sees that "the tension in this manifestation is felt in the atmosphere".
- "The President of the Partido Ciudadanos had sparkling eyes, as if he had taken something" (and he touches his nose with a gesture typical of those who have snorted cocaine).
b) Deductors of what interests them.
It is a subset of point 7 ["Arbitrary demonstrations according to whether the informant is interested or he likes"] , but applied to the reporter who has filmed exclusively, the event that will comment.
15) "If he does not let himself be interviewed by me, he is an anti-informative person, anti-freedom of expression, and / or knows that I can dismantle his arguments, and / or have some dirty rag to hide (and he has scared because he knows that I can pry him out with my subtlety). "
This is an extortion, legal and camouflaged, but extortion, since speaking clearly is: "or you come to my interview, or I defame you".
Example: sometimes we all see that a politician the same day has gone to 7 interviews in 7 different informative venues by 7 different informants, who have asked the same questions, and he has answered the same to the 7 informants. And that, many acclaim it as a great achievement of freedom of expression and information, but I always ask myself: will they leave you with so many interviews of identical questions, time to work on solving the problems of the country? Because one thing is a politician who avoids giving explanations, and another is that the politician has to give them to each one of the journalists who want an interview, since some would like an interview with the President of the Party.
And if there were 7 news, the politician could still make the effort to be interviewed for each news, and not make an ugly one. But there are hundreds of news programs [not to mention that there are some 40,000 journalists in Spain (about 3,000 new graduates each year), so every day has to deny interviews to 39,970 journalists].
So in my opinion, the best thing is to make constructive press conferences, where every accredited journalist can ask constructive questions, that is, different from those already made by those of previous shifts (either to qualify something, or derived, or from another topic ); and in which at the same time, all journalists can observe the ethical behavior of the rest (recidivism, contemptuous or sententious attitude).
Honestly, I think it is much quicker and easier to follow a single press conference per day, than to disperse a politician's statements in gazillion different newsletters, without even clarifying that he will not respond anything new regarding the 1st interview of the day.
This unconstructive way of working in journalism, differs totally from that of science, where:
- The work is divided into tasks, and each one does his own, and then it is put together in something unique, with follow-up of versions, and of the one that has done each task in each version. Computer examples: the Linux operating system; an emulator of a videogame console, like Dolphin (from Wii and Gamecube).
- In cases in which anybody (amateur or not) makes a profitable contribution, it is used, disclosed and promoted (with money and prizes according to the value of the contribution). On the other hand, in journalism, if that person contributes an argument to an issue, journalism lets it go completely unnoticed, since there is not even a single support where the list of arguments for and against each subject are unequivocally and univocally reflected. .
16) Reconvert conditional statements, the disinformation "carrier" of information.
Example: "if such a country attacks us, we will crush it", some would convert it into "it intends to crush such a country". Or "if front striker No. 1 is injured, he will play such", convert him to "he intends to line up such instead of No. 1".
17) Reconvert "respond" to "declare".
To declare is to say what you want, and it is usually something new, whether it is interesting or not, which is why it is usually constructive. On the other hand, answering, at a statistical level, does not have to be something new, so if a politician makes an institutional declaration, and there are 40,000 journalists in the country, and if one hundredth part would do it in turns, the same question, but outside about something other than the institutional declaration, then many citizens add that this politician has made 800 statements that day, when in reality he has only made one (repeated 800 times to different journalists). The difference is that saying that you have made 1 statement, it is possible for the citizen to follow the statements of that person, while if journalism equals statement to answer, then there are 1 + 800 statements, which is impossible to follow .
Fictitious example: the President of the current government, declares something accurately (or not) and demonstrated (or not), in an institutional statement [verbal; by mail; by email; or on your website (normal or Facebook)], like what you think about the imputation (or not) to the man, of his party. Then, a journalist could, that day, ignore the statement, and put a hand microphone in his mouth, and ask him questions about another topic (his favorite dish ...); or ditto 800 journalists; or one 20 banal questions. And then, they divulge the banal question and its answer [when in fact it has made a statement on a serious subject, and 821 answers on banal subjects, that it has not removed he, but to question of journalists], which harms him when not showing him problem seeker, and also show him banal (even seems to spend the day having fun, if he answered 800 banal questions).
Reconvert "respond" to "declare", they do it even in the most prestigious news. And although it deviates from the issue, the worst are the misinformation that not only do not use the existing statement and only for everyone, but after asking alone, they often cross-examine him to see if he gets upset or tires the politician (who has already answered them antes), y así ponen el vídeo de él pasando de contestar, y alejándose a toda prisa, dando a entender a su audiencia que no ha declarado nada sobre el tema por el cual le han preguntado, ni en general, ni a ellos, y que si huye, será que algo esconde.
In some extreme case, there are even videos recorded by passers-by or related to the politician, of the camera hitting with it the head of the politician, with the "excuse of it has escaped me" ( here one against Monedero, co-founder of the Podemos party, those of Telemadrid de Esperanza Aguirre, of the PP party).
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. Example of informative techniques OK:
a) Has it allowed to speak to all the parties involved, or only one?
Examples of areas where the other party is not usually allowed to speak are:
- Non-enslaved prostitutes who feel feminist, for freely exercising the profession they have chosen, even if it is not politically correct. Nobody wants to consult them, but journalists and casitodas speak on their behalf (one exception: Samanta Villar, from Conexión Samanta).
- Shot by the cop, as advised by the protocol, after warning him not to hide his hands, to put his hands on his waist (back or front), where he could carry a weapon. Nobody wants to consult the regulation, to see if it has been followed, or if in a physical simulation (with soft balls) if the suspect had taken out a weapon, he would have killed the agent (or agents); and by extension, all the suspects would shoot down all the agents easily.
19) Sign the news when you agree with the deal, and not present it if not.
In a telenoticias, when a journalist presenter of the TV news is against what they make him read (because he believes it is an obvious political manipulation), then he reads it the same, so the viewer does not notice any difference. The only difference is that it does not sign an act (nobody reads).
This is like a politician forcing a doctor to prescribe a nonsense as a treatment for cancer (example: the potatoes of his people), and that the doctor, instead of refusing, extend that recipe but do not sign in an internal act that it is not required for the recipe, and that nobody reads.
What should be done is that the journalist pressed for his news, immediately requested protection to the Journalists Association, and the latter will immediately review the case, and if it fails in favor of the journalist, rescind the informative title to that newsletter, legally degrading it to the level of propaganda.
And if that information managed to degrade or dismiss the rebel informant, because the College of Journalists, immediately, was the one who was responsible for sending another honest to that news; that is to say, that the informative one can not contract the one that wants (one docile by cowardice or seguidista or unemployed).
20) Self-criticism does not mean you have to blame yourself if you do not have it.
It does not have to be self-blaming when one is not guilty, so it is incorrect to inform that if the informant disagrees with the politician of whom he reports, then such a politician has not made self-criticism.
21) Misrepresent the expression "sometimes" by "always"; and "some" for "all that collective".
Some translate a certainty (as it is "sometimes" and / or "some") into the discovery of a falsehood (such as "everyone" and / or "always"). Examples:
- "Sometimes such a group of delinquents", make it "such a person has accused such a group of always committing crimes" (whether that group is blacks, women, men, members of such a party or religion).
- Some of this group of delinquents "turn it into" such a person has accused all of this group of delinquents "(be that group blacks, women, men, members of such party or religion).
22)" I do not understand how someone do this "(in the sense of" so wrong ", but without saying it.)
Well, look for someone # 1 on that side, and ask him, and if not, ask a neutral 3rd and # 1 in intelligence according to some criteria equal, previous and transparent (and if you do not find someone to enlighten you for free, pay € 1,000 and you'll see if you speak).
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.
- Know what values and specific objectives are each informative.
- Give example in transparency and answer, before starting them to demand transparency from others and to answer them.
- It cools the viewers swallow the false visual attitude of the informants (and politicians), to be able to solve everything: both forgiven newly embedded in our teles (by Dictatorial politicians, or rebellious or humorous attitudes that have fallen into grace , although they are not funny), like those that have been decades (and they believe that this is a guarantee, as if a Dictator who had been governing for 10 years had already changed his ideas to some more human than at the beginning).
Example: save an old woman (female, and who has worked all her life to enjoy a little freedom now) or a black teenager.
24) Challenges to the self-transparent (judges, politicians, journalists, managers), about leisures and / or ideologies / vote:
- He went up years ago, uploads or pretends to upload, to Internet videos of himself, doing things of leisure or not of his work): singing; cooking, videojugando.
- Does topless (on the beach, or in perched).
- He still likes things suitable for children (traditionally for children): movies and animation series; eat candy instead of smoking.
- He likes things +16 or +18, which were traditionally versioned only for children: Superhero comics; Animation movies with sexual scenes similar to the normal filmed movies.
b) Ideologies / vote.
Examples: religion; left or right; vote to which particular party.
Example 1: the judge who disclosed long ago that he votes to another ideology, if he is then assigned to judge a corrupt politician, of the opposite ideology, because the defense challenges him as biased (and many citizens see it as appropriate: that is, they mythologize the obscurantism of the person to see only an idealized character, instead of a person).
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.
Avoid that "the President has not heard such news known," because it does not appear in your favorite newspaper (so change the news!) Or because only read the sports newspaper (well read normal newspapers!).
26) Plurality as an excuse to affirm lies (example: Earth is flat ...), despite the fact that scientific methodology has proven falsehood.
A news program says that the Earth is round; at the same time, that of the following television network affirms that the Earth is flat; and scientists, all claim that it is round; a high school teacher says that the Earth is round, and in one of his exams he corrects one of his students, who affirms that the Earth is flat.
Given the correctness of the scientists and the television news broadcaster (and the teacher), to the news of the land-planners (and the student), as those of the news program Tierraplanistas (and the student) organize a victim campaign that "is attacking the freedom of expression and plurality. " And they receive the support of many news programs, and of some Press Associations (even perhaps the national one).
Therefore, they are informative pro-plurality understood as an excuse to lie (since it is demonstrable and demonstrated with scientific methodology, that the Earth is not round). Therefore, they are really defending the denial of any truth, and consequently, the futility of their own work (consisting of affirming the truths, and omitting the lies). Idem of the student "negacionista" of the scientific method: no student would suspend any subject, if both sides were comparable.
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).
Therefore, a wrong positioning in a topic, is at the objective level, not representative of the quality of the disseminator, although conventionalism is associated representative, and attacking each other by showing their biggest error, and associate explicitly or implicitly, as a habitual way of working for that person. And not only in the same information fields (astronomy ...), but above all in general.
Examples in general are television networks and schools, state or not, that do not teach a science (astronomy), in favor of utilities for self-sufficiency and personal ethics and maturity: if you are given the choice to take your child to learn in a school (or TV chain) in which they teach personal ethics and maturity, or another in which they teach only Astronomy (from each element of space, very difficult data to memorize: what weighs, its volume, and its distance ), because I would prefer to take it to the one that teaches what is not only Astronomy.
And even if the one that does not teach Astronomy, affirms the lie that the Earth is flat, it would still seem to me a better option (than the one that teaches only Astronomy), since it prioritizes matters much more important to 99% of people (Astronomy, only they are useful data to 1% of people).
Therefore, it is not really objective to sentence another person, informative or school, as less intelligent than us because they do not know a fact to which we give an excessive importance, in spite of being that useless data. So do not make fun of them (perhaps, rather than those who teach a single true, scientific, useless and veto of the other subjects).
28) Open news, Reality, at least the state, and especially television: show every day their entire day [what each one says in the meetings of what comes in, and what not as news, to see how they work so much the heads of government or shareholders, like journalists (some submissive, ethics, some protestors who comply, and others intransigent willing to be fired, or to be degraded explicitly or implicitly).
The science is always true, but there are 2 types:
A) Open Science: is the one that divulges every detail of how they have obtained the true result, so that others can replicate them (with knowledge and adequate material) and convince themselves; In addition, it does so through the most transparent and accessible scientific processes. In return, it obtains revenues from patent rights and to attract future clients thanks to the prestige achieved.
B) Closed Science: it is the one that does not disclose details of how they have obtained the true result, so that others can not replicate them (with knowledge and adequate material), but (usually) they do verify that they work.
Example: a phone battery, announced twice as long as the one included in the phone, because anyone who tests or buys it can verify that it lasts much longer (twice as long) than with the original; and if the vast majority of analyzers prove to be true, since the statistics gives that is true (although no one knows which active ingredient and / or manufacturing process has been used, or knows it, but does not know the details that allow replication).
This method is used to avoid espionage, although spies use very successful techniques that are usually skipped (bribery, infiltration, blackmail, threatening children ...), which is also not very useful.
Similarly, the news is open and closed, and others that according to the subject, are open or closed. In the open, they let you see them work until they enter the building, so you see:
- What sources they use to get information [the best news, or the worst; one, or several (either going to each web, or with an advisor such as elmejorinformativo.com). Example: Reuters news agency. And consequently, see that if they have not heard of such news, it is because it does not come out in its usual source.
- If they have not added such news that they have arrived, see the order of most to least important that has been made of the news of that day, and who has created it (the boss, or the "internal democracy") to know if it is for censorship, or incompetence, or respectable difference of opinion with the spectator.
An example of television news that I would like to see the discussions to prioritize one news on another, or to veto one, is RTVE, since the RTVE News Council is the one that presents the most complaints of manipulation, and as RTVE is an organization public (dedicated to the common good), and depends on the government of the day, it is very interesting to see how censorship and information manipulation is gestated [especially since after leaving this website, it has removed the disclosure of its news RSS link ( since Christmas 2017), so that it can not be compared with other news items by putting both followed].
The broadcast of the whole day, can be limited to meetings (when it is decided what is news and what is not, and how to prioritize) and Orders of the boss [always in video or in writing, and disseminated (RTVE vetoed it when it reached the can the PP)].
The Reality of the orders, allows that after each affirmation of an informative TV, you can demand that they link to the demonstrator debate, without making them pause the news (or it would eternalize it). This is not the total solution, since many indoctrinates will not use it, so it will be like a TV con man (TV clairvoyant or TV disinformer) that uses that method, to lie, but that laziness and previous indoctrination cause many to swallow his lies, because few enter the demonstrative web, and less read it thoroughly, and unless the scammer has really included the arguments and evidence against him, on equal terms with those in his favor. But there will be people who will seek the demonstration, both in the case of the seer, as in the television news.
Non-exonerating methods, linking the informant sentencing, to the demonstrator debate:
- QR code for mobile camera: it is better, since you do not have to type a web address (and less, if it is long, at: wwww.lasexta.com / news / debates / communismovscapitalismo o / ppescorrupto o / izquierdaesparoeincompetencia).
- Web address: it is worse, because it is usually long; but it does not require a mobile phone with camera.
Those you want, request it on their websites (example: rtve.es), and / or on websites such as change.org.
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).
I believe that everyone should start from the fact that they must scientifically demonstrate their abilities, and depart from equality of incompetence.
I think that the vast majority of journalists would selfishly accept not pass any test that guarantees their intellectual or ethical capabilities, if a unique opportunity were offered to the union, and it would be the worst, such as: interview the President of the Government, and then sentence him. Therefore, not having modesty is not a guarantee of being the best journalist.
Neither is it a guarantee that you will be treated in favor of one (handsome, son of a lineage journalist, akin to the ruling party, popular with the public) to interview the President, or sentencing without interviewing. And that the President, interviewed by every journalist in the country, would be a waste of time to the President, and to the audience (who does not want to see the same interviewee for each journalist in the country, but to cast them and not to broadcast them to the audience, but only the interview by the professional better out of that casting).
And being unrepeatable for lack of time and benefit, the test of interviewing the President 40,000 Spanish journalists in turns of one, it is not egalitarian, so it is not a test that one has interviewed, or that he has done very good, not too bad; neither the best in Spain, nor the worst in Spain.
On the other hand, the challenge of the simplest possible test, scientifically verifiable by Schools of Scientists (biologists, engineers), would be better. Example: the same challenge to the College of Journalists and the College of Biologists, may give different results, to the detriment of journalists, for malpractice (bad methodology).
Concrete example: if hypothetically, you will order 1000 scientists and 1,000 journalists, to show you if such a substance is poisonous (concrete example: cyanide), and you give each one an encapsulated sample of that substance, and you emit how each group demonstrates and set of strategies, then:
- 1st, the scientists would work it out (they would take it to a laboratory and give it to a laboratory rat), while the journalists, they would taste it (without moving a step), in a . º multiplier of 2 figures (example: x10 to x99), with its corresponding poisonings.
- 2nd, the scientists would trust each other, or more specifically, in the scientific methodology, for which, they immediately come to the conclusion that the product is poisonous, after which, then they spend their time and financial resources they have been assigned (the State, companies ...) to another work task. That is, scientists reuse the conclusions of others' work, which does so much good in science. On the other hand, journalists follow a non-scientific methodology, in which they do not trust each other, so that the ones who sentence in one direction do not paralyze others, so they continue to consume resources and time, and never arrive to no conclusion as a collective. That is, journalists do not reuse the conclusions of others' work (a methodology that does so much good in science).
In this example, for journalists a good demonstration option from the scientific point of view, is to record the scientists, and then repeat what they do ... because the scientists supposedly will use a better methodology: debates in which it is detected and discards the wrong contributions, both well-intentioned and saboteurs alone (and to which it is marked, degrades, and according to the crime, is expelled by fraudsters). This means that:
1st, journalists do not have to be opinion leaders, since they can limit themselves to divulge the opinion of scientists.
2nd, when recording a concrete scientific case, there is evidence of the scientific methodology used by scientists, and its result, so they can compare it with journalistic methodology, and see what differences the journalism guild needs to correct (I mean, at bad journalism, since good journalism is scientific), as it does not bother to expel scammers, and does not even bother to rank all journalists (gives not knowing which is the best, or the worst), and neither It even makes 2 groups: rigorous and no.
So in comparison, the current methodology of journalists in general, approved for everyone, regardless of whether they lie or not, means that they can not guarantee even the most obvious deduction; especially, for their refusal to accept guaranteeing methodologies, and to show the seal of which ones they use, and which organizations comply with them to watch over them.
Therefore, if you are not able to prove to me and guarantee that you use a scientific methodology that demonstrates that cyanide kills, how can you ignore it and even pretend to be the ones that will enlighten you on whether the president's ideology is right, or that of the news which of the President must deduce a correct or erroneous behavior!
And it must be said that for the audience that they keep, they do not do too badly (it is not due to the lack of alternatives) not to demand the journalistic guild to its members, a scientific methodology that guarantees it.
I, if I find one that has a 3rd seal to follow (even one of its own will to follow), guarantees methodologies, and shares its news by RSS as the rest of the news that this website shows, because I will include its cover in a place even more privileged than even the award-winning publications.
30) Endorse Scientists about non-journalists (President, majority of journalists, majority of voters in democracy).
The truths are true regardless of who they are (they can even be in some country and at some time, despite the President and / or journalists and / or the majority of voters).
Science is dedicated to verify the truth, and to demonstrate it, neither more nor less; and he achieves this thanks to the use of scientific methodology. This means that scientist is the one who correctly uses the scientific methodology; therefore, it does not mean that scientist is someone to whom a politician (or democracy) grants him the title of scientist; It usually coincides, but not always.
An example of mismatch is President Trump and climate change, in which all the great experts in the field say that climate change is mostly the fault of man, and that we must reverse it. Trump denied it, and then he won the elections; and replaced in favor of a denier, the director of the state climate agency. This gives that those who trust in the position instead of in the tests, feel safe because there is still someone in charge of that agency; On the other hand, citizens who trust in the evidence feel terrified and distrust the new leaders.
And it is not for less, since that disavowal of all scientists by the President (with or without the previous electoral promise), once initiated and demonstrated the intellectual level of President (and "majority" of voters), can extend it on President (and voters) to other areas, such as Health.
An example of Health very close in Spain is the former President of Catalonia, Jordi Pujol, which came to light his hidden love for quackery and clairvoyance, which brought him the "witch" Adelina (search Google Pujol + Adelina ). On top of that he has the aggravation of having a university degree as a doctor, which is the only case that I know of, a doctor who, in order to heal himself instead of going to the doctors (scientists) goes to the healer (and witch, who said to remove the bad luck and break the curses that your enemies have thrown at you).
If the curanderismo and the magic that Pujol breeds that he was doing well, he would have imposed it as President in all of Catalonia, and democracy would have swallowed as it has done with Trump for climate change, because then in hospitals and outpatient centers, I would have added healers with the same rank as a doctor, who would treat you. And worse if in any case of discussion in a mixed team, gave the reason to the healer. And worse if doctors had been replaced by healers.
Therefore, I believe that we must fight to degrade the scientists, and above all to degrade the scientific methodology, and even more to the explicit methodology (wrong or not), in favor of methodologies that promote opacity, and the alternation of values .
This, applied to the news gives that citizens, news, journalists, and the College of Journalism must repudiate non-scientific, opaque and arbitrary methodologies, and give, 1st, public notices to unprofessional informants who follow them sometimes, to to create (the College of Journalism or users or other journalists), a list ordered from best to worst (a ranking) with which to deduce who is the best journalist and publication with which to inform with guarantees, and use them; and that only in exceptional cases do you use the 2nd option; and idem the 3rd.
And above all, just as we want the Medical Professional Association to revoke the title to an incompetent doctor (who does not detect deadly diseases easy to diagnose, or goes drugged) or scammer [kills you to sell your organs on the black market; metemanos; gives you false magic solutions not available anywhere else (spells, homeopathy)], we should hope that the Professional Association of Journalism revokes the title to the misinformers who use the disinformation techniques as a rule; even define them as misinformers, as science does with those who spread scientific lies but are scientists (whether they have a university degree or not).
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).
And the very honest ones, add: "whether they are representative of the day, or not"). And if they do, unless there is a scientific body that uses scientific methods to ensure that this publication is considerable informative or not (pseudo-informative or disinformational).
In the Dictatorships, there is only one ideological opinion, although it is camouflaged among many publications (they are of identical ideology). And in democracies, there is a lot of blessed freedom, but that makes it possible for you to get scammed by a scant summary of the news of the day.
Example for vagrancy (since I have given many examples of the others): if your reporter fell asleep or got stuck in a traffic jam, and did not arrive at such an event, then that informative instead of giving that news, and recognizing that they have failed in cover it, because they replace it with the 2nd, and the 2nd with the 3rd, until the one that was in principle outside the informative by less important, is added as the last one. Or they start remembering a generic issue with no visible ending with habitual deaths, such as hunger somewhere in the world, or refugees (nobody will accuse you of covering up a story in which your reporter did not arrive on time, if the with a news of deaths, because the accuser risks being accused of being insensitive).
Whether the omission of a news item is a censorship or a technical problem, its replacement by another is a common occurrence of which no one in the audience of that newsletter realizes, since people do not usually compare an informative one. source with another (basically, because they do not have an instrument to contrast the owners, at the time they want, apart from trusting them).
Thus, if a nuclear bomb explodes in such a place, and an informative replaces it by the one that the harvest of oranges is foreseen good, because its hearing does not see the censorship neither the substitution, and thinks that the day has been "tranquil" of important 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). If you do not respect it, because the law may prevent you (by induction to commit the crime of spying), hire a journalist or detective to inform you of dirty rags of your rival (imperfect, but much better person than I), although it is secret, and a journalist has the right not to reveal his sources, in the end they do not process or absolve you, or the punishment is laughable.
And if the punishment were greater, simply by not hiring anyone, in favor of saying that you would pay for certain information that harms your rival, and some heroin-addicted junkie will come out and spy on you in exchange for that drug money; or a "starving man" who sleeps in the street (and if they imprison him, he eats free in jail, and with a blanket); and the instigator (you), free.
Therefore, informants and politicians who report facts extracted through the suppression of the right to privacy, should be for equality and poetic justice, be spied on by others, since they should set an example with themselves.