So where are they and what are they doing? (page 23 of 33)

If I follow your reasoning, the press is under government orders.

So why this? (It’s just one example among many.)

Would this kind of article be accepted by Putin in his country? By the mullahs in Iran? By the dictator ruling North Korea?

I don’t think so...

And then you write yourself that you find media with dissenting voices.

So there are necessarily multiple opinions accessible to everyone.

Finally, if Putin is described as a monster, and if that’s the truth, it’s normal for it to be stated everywhere. No serious journalist would claim the opposite of what they believe just because others think the same way. That’s absurd.

People are completely unaware of how mass manipulation methods have progressed over the last 70 years.

The media are honest and always tell the truth, I swear it to you straight up and with my boots on 🤪

The media can be dishonest Sputnik, for example....

If I follow your reasoning, the press is under government orders.

No, it's more nuanced than that, and I think that's precisely what you're missing—the nuance. Subsidized "opposition" media know how far they can go without being under orders.

So why this? (It’s one example among many.) This article is an example of what’s still tolerable.

Would this kind of article be accepted by Putin in his country? By the mullahs in Iran? By the dictator ruling North Korea?

Of course not; but beware of the phrase: "comparison is not reasoning."

I don’t think so...

And then you write that you find media with dissenting voices. Yes, on the internet, there are plenty—thankfully, otherwise it would be stifling.

So there are necessarily multiple opinions accessible to everyone. Yes, for those with internet access.

Finally, if Putin is described as an ogre, and if that’s the truth, it’s normal for it to be stated everywhere. If Putin *were* an ogre, it would be normal to denounce him; but *is* he an ogre?

No serious journalist would proclaim the opposite of what they think just because others think the same way. That’s absurd.

I didn’t understand that last sentence. I think editorial pressure on journalists is very strong.

I wanted to say that no one’s gonna write the opposite of what they think just because everyone else thinks the same way.

Example:

The whole forum writes 2+2=4.

A newcomer arrives.

They think 2+2=4. They’re not gonna post 2+2=5 on the forum just because everyone else wrote 2+2=4—even if they feel like being contrary or don’t wanna look like they’re following the crowd...

People are absolutely not aware of how mass manipulation methods have progressed over the last 70 years.

The media is honest and always tells the truth, I swear to you, cross my heart and hope to die

+++1

For example, today it's clearly "Trump is evil," yesterday it was "Putin is evil," the day before it was "Zelensky, brave captain" or "Raoult, conspiracy theorist." The timing is perfect—you go to meeting places where they serve you the phrase of the moment about the "good guy" or the "bad guy" of the day. As for the arguments, they're simplistic, absent, or just plain wrong.

I don’t know which press would take its readers for idiots (that does exist, but it’s another topic), nor which meeting places you frequent, nor who this they is serving you such... basic statements (euphemism). But it’s easy—yes, easy—to look elsewhere.

Far from the caricature presented, if you’re willing and able to spend a little time—perhaps at the expense of time lost here tilting at windmills—if you’re a bit curious, cross-check information, aren’t put off by length or the sometimes dense erudition of articles that analyze the substance without ideology, and don’t shy away from less conventional sources—like the internet—it seems possible to form an informed opinion without giving in to the trend of the moment: picking a side.

I could point out topics that don’t appear in the written or audiovisual press. Is that a consensus too? I’m thinking in particular of a serious issue with major implications that the whole world is talking about but is completely absent from national media. Radio silence, as they say.

You’ve piqued my curiosity—will you shed some light on this?

@Jojoone

People have absolutely no idea

But you, of course, you know best.

I don’t know which press—assuming its readers are idiots (that does exist, but that’s another topic)—or what meeting places you frequent, nor who this "they" is that feeds you such... basic assertions (euphemism), but it’s easy, really, to look elsewhere.

Meeting places: these are my friends, acquaintances, or conversations with shopkeepers. Readers aren’t idiots, but they’re incredibly easy to manipulate if we go by the results. I don’t trust print media or mainstream outlets at all. I confirm the current trend: it’s "Trump is evil"; Putin has dropped off the radar for now. What’s your experience?

Far from the caricature presented, but if you’re willing and able to spend a little time—perhaps at the expense of time lost here tilting at windmills—if you’re a bit curious, cross-check information, aren’t put off by length or the sometimes dense erudition of articles that analyze the core without ideology, and don’t shy away from less conventional sources—internet and others—it seems possible to form an informed opinion without giving in to the current trend of picking a side.

I confirm that by taking the time, it’s possible to form an opinion from open sources, carefully cross-checking information or trusting reliable sites, or reading essays on a given topic. That way, you avoid basic propaganda or LCI.

"I could point out topics that don’t appear in print or broadcast media. Is that a consensus too? I’m thinking in particular of a serious issue with major implications that the whole world is talking about but is completely absent from national news and airwaves. Radio silence, as they say."

You’ve piqued my curiosity—will you shed some light on it?

Sorry for not saying more; it’s a topic that will eventually come out. Alternative media are covering it. We’re not going to flood this travel forum with comments on such a trivial subject.

But you, of course, know all about it.

All I know is that you have a regrettable tendency to use inclusive writing, even though the Académie française has dismissed it for excellent reasons. That said, it probably doesn’t stop you from being a great traveler. Most participants on this forum are likely good-natured and pleasant to meet while traveling—let’s not forget that. Holding a grudge against someone isn’t good; it doesn’t make the person involved any better.

They hide everything from us, we’re told nothing?😇

If I wanted to get treated or get an informed opinion on a medical question, I’d turn to a doctor or a qualified scientist—not Riss. The article doesn’t rise to the occasion. This mask story reminds me of the infamous former minister Agnès Buzyn, who had placed a quinine derivative on the list of dangerous drugs and then claimed that wearing a mask wasn’t necessary. Her predecessors had destroyed the mask stockpile!

I’d like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and set the record straight about Professor Montagnier regarding COVID-19. When he died, people said he was senile for suggesting the virus had escaped from a lab. Now we know the truth, thanks to the so-called "conspiracy theorists."

Tu quoque Franciscus... 😮

First, a clarification: when Tatra used the phrase "presse officielle française" last night, I understood it as "state press," as he usually means it, because no antonym of "official" would make sense in that expression. He justifies it, as you do, by pointing to state subsidies whose goal is to maintain diversity of opinion, not to stifle expression—which wouldn’t make sense anyway, since it would be enough to cut press subsidies to thin the ranks. Besides, this phrase is insulting to journalists and reflects the populist "all corrupt" mindset. Note that France isn’t the only country that does this, and there are plenty of countries today where the press is controlled by the state (that’s the definition of state press) and would better suit your outrage.

Now, could you explain how and why alternative media would be spared from the flaws you identify in mainstream press?

It’s not accurate to say that the French print media is unanimous about Trump, Putin, or Zelensky. Just read it. The shortcuts and simplifications you observe in your meetings likely reveal that your interlocutors are more interested in confirmation bias than in information that might challenge their beliefs.

I don’t know if there are "far fewer journalists than before," but I agree that individual standards aren’t improving and that raw agency dispatches are too common.

No doubt that comparing our sources could be mutually enriching... at first. I suggest we do this elsewhere because we’ll soon be asked what we’re doing and where we are. Out West?

To conclude, my belief is that we must force ourselves to diversify our sources and tackle this stripped of our certainties, vulnerable and open.

P.S. I never get my news from TV, not even for Nivat. 😏

Since we need to diversify sources.

Since we need to diversify sources.

Why not?

What I do know is that I can’t keep myself informed the way I used to with the print press. The most dramatic drop in trust is for *Le Monde*.

For example, when it comes to the Ukrainian conflict, I have zero credibility in the French print press regarding military operations. I get my information from *Military Summary*, even though it’s run by a Belarusian.

Fair enough, sure.

But that’s a step too far for me to suspect all mainstream media of spouting nonsense.

Fair enough, sure.

But suspecting all mainstream media of spouting nonsense is a step I won’t take.

You can also err by omission, though! !

I confirm the current trend; it's "Trump is evil"; Putin has dropped off the radar for now. What’s your experience?

I don’t know if Trump is good or evil, but all I know is that his understanding—and thus his logic—of macroeconomics is disastrous... I assume, as I’ve already written here, that the measures he’s taking regarding the trade war he wants to start were done after consulting Musk. Who, in turn, consulted an artificial intelligence platform to get statistics. We’re seeing the disaster that’s coming. Given that these two guys are making decisions alone and apparently without consulting advisors, well, once again, it’s a catastrophe. Even a 15-year-old high school student would be better at running the American economy 😉

More stupid than mean, you think?

I don’t know.

But given his questionable taste in hair, his love for foundation and tanning beds, and his Strauss-Kahn vibe with women, I’d say he’s got a few wires crossed.

Mild Tourette’s syndrome too, maybe.

(Sorry for continuing the off-topic discussion you started by calling me out instead of addressing the actual topic.)

It’s not good to hold a grudge against someone; it doesn’t make the person involved look any better.

Who is holding a grudge against whom?

To feel resentment, there must have been an offense, harm, or a perfectly aimed arrow hitting a sensitive spot... do you feel like you have that kind of skill? Have you recently shown it in an exchange with me?

But you wrote offensed. Maybe it was you who felt that way?

excellent reasons... excellent traveler

You often tend to hand out certificates of morality, excellence, intelligence, good or bad taste, politeness...

distressing tendency to use inclusive writing,

If a little middle dot disappoints you that much, just let it go... and use what it challenges you with to try broadening your perspective.

That probably doesn’t stop you from being an excellent traveler. Most participants on this forum are likely good-natured and pleasant to meet during their travels—let’s not forget that.

??

Why do I sometimes feel like I’m reading someone else when I come across some of your comments that seem to come out of nowhere?

.../...

People are absolutely not aware

So, who are these people, and what is it they don’t know, don’t see, don’t understand... are absolutely not aware of that you seem to be informed about?

Isn’t there a hint of arrogance in lumping people together into a shapeless, uniform mass just to feel like you stand out from them?

Hi everyone, I’m replying to Kola just because it’s the latest message, but this is for everyone.

Zorba got what I meant: sure, it’s not the ORTF of the golden age, but the state subsidizes a press that wouldn’t survive without its support. While some media outlets are clearly state-run public services, almost all the others serve an institutional and official narrative. Regional press has published—and probably still does—plenty of disguised prefectural advertorials, often wrapping up articles with copy-pasted reminders of what we’re not allowed to question when it comes to climate and ecology. Health and economics are more subtle, but the dogmatism is still there. The groups that own the media are few, and they share common views and interests. In France, it’s really hard to step outside this accepted worldview. You might say it’s the same everywhere—and you’d be right. In Russia or Belarus, for example, people chat by the photocopier just like we do here, most of them genuinely surprised or offended that anyone would dare question the official worldview. A few years back, when I was teaching media studies, I had a conversation with the editor-in-chief of a Breton regional newspaper that left me chilled. She explained her job like this: she saw the press not as a tool for objective information, investigation, or opinion, but as a way to educate readers on the right practices and values. I dropped that teaching gig right after, but recent years have only confirmed this trend. Statements like "health is a value", "life must be sober and virtuous", "freedom can only be a collectively granted exception", or "a good society can only be inclusive" can’t be discussed—they’re set in stone as dogma.

Michel

PS: Inclusive writing is a different story—it’s a kind of activist stance based on a misunderstanding of the language’s grammar, which actually includes a neuter gender. Using language to serve a cause really bothers me; it’s my "natural law philosophy" side. Occasionally Rousseauist, in fact.