Why are you arguing? I am not arguing: I am presenting facts you do not like. Learning the ways of media skepticism.

Ideologues prefer propaganda to facts, and when someone presents a fact that challenges their theory, they immediately accuse the other person will accuse the presenter of the fact of arguing. picsart_01-18-10422453057.jpg

That's not arguing. That is showing, for instance, there is a confirmation bias tainting the ideologue's argument.

It is showing an alternative to the sink or swim fallacy. It is showing their personal attack or appealing to authority is not divine decree.

Media skepticism is not about disbelieving journalism: it is about rejecting their methods of information-gathering and demanding a more disciplined profession. It is demanding that reporters show how they come to their conclusions than merely accepting it without question.

It is about looking directly and critically at journalism and demanding a better defined report.

Decades of television news has not improved over time: there is still happy talk, kickers, and stupid stories telling viewers that it is hot or cold outside.

Why hasn't television news ever changed? Why does every outlet do the same thing? Why is the structure still patriarchal?

Why does the press all walk lockstep structurally?

That is a fact. Not an argument.

Facts are not just answers: they are questions to challenge ideologues who wish to mindlessly stick to rules instead of venturing out into the world of understanding reality and truths that do not adhere to hypothetical constructs or sanctioned insanity.

So no, it is not arguing when challenging faulty theories with facts. We need to find facts to challenge lies and propaganda.

It's the only way to ever find the truth.