I wasn’t upset at all until people started claiming that the unsubstantiated speculations by some irrelevant person is the same as world news.
It’s a great thought provoking piece of work. It’s just not news.
It’s fine. If the rules of this forum are no longer relevant, I just won’t subscribe to it anymore. The internet sucks.
What’s the difference between an opinion section and what you deem “speculative conspiracy theories”?
That’s wholly irrelevant. If you want to be an investigative reporter and get real facts to report, have at it and post it as news. You have not done this. You are making guesses. Guesses, by someone with no qualifications or influence, are not news.
Anything spoken / written by a political leader is news. If you were someone who influenced millions of people, your opinion would be news.
If I sat down and wrote out a blog about how I believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated, would that be News? I mean, I guess you would argue that it is but I am telling you, by definition, it most certainly is not.
I don’t know what makes you believe your armchair speculation is NEWS. The disconnect is so vast that my brain is breaking. I don’t understand how people on this earth have chosen to ignore the definition of words to suit their own narrative and feelings.
OP has written an article speculating how explosives could have been inserted into pagers. It’s not news, it’s speculation. Speculation is not news, it’s opinion.
Did you check his identity, papers or such?
Someone reporting news. OP is NOT reporting news. They are speculating. This is an opinion piece. They’re a fine writer and thinker but not a journalist and not reporting factual news.
News outlets very specifically include sections such as Opinion. They do not include speculative conspiracy theories on the front page (or anywhere) labeled as News.
How broken are you people to not understand what is news and what is speculative opinion? This is not a debate. This is a matter of facts.
You’re not a journalist and speculation is not news. You’re a basement dweller with no first hand account of anything.
There are appropriate places for your work. This is not the place.
Speculation from some random on the internet is not world news.
I have a strong opinion about people promoting their own speculation blog in a forum where that does not belong.
This most certainly is not “World News”. This is a self-promoting opinion piece bordering on conspiracy theory.
To me, this attack has the master’s prints all over it — the USA had to be involved.
Edit: I really don’t understand how this article is still up. This is written as a theory of how explosive material could have been inserted into pagers. I find the piece compelling and of interest but it is not news - it’s speculation. Is it now okay to post recipes from around the world in worldnews?
How do you decide on which news sources to read?
If a news outlet has indicated to me that they care more about ad revenue than reporting news, I avoid them.
If the only way an outlet feels they can get readership is with use of clickbait headlines, I avoid them.
If the headline is something like “you’ll never guess why ___ hates this” or “the reason you can’t blahblahblah” or some other salacious bullshit or they have a super cringe thumbnail on their YT video, I avoid them.
If a writer misconstrues the words of a celebrity or political leader for their own narrative, I avoid them.
If their bias prevents them from reporting the facts of an event, I avoid them.
“Avoid” does not mean never visit. It means I try not to and if I do I proceed with caution and skepticism with the intent to get another source.
If I’m searching for a news story, it’s probably because I came across it on social media (Lemmy) or a blog and want to get credible information. Or because someone here is quoting a story and I have a hunch they’re misinformed. I use DuckDuckGo and generally get decent reputable results at the top. At its face, I will never trust Google for fact checking. If I end up at a wiki page, I often check their sources.
I have an extensive list of reputable and/or diverse outlets in my RSS reader. The only “mainstream” American sources are NYT, AP, NPR, and Reuters. I’ve been using BigNews as my RSS reader for a year or so now. I really like its simple interface and ability to subscribe to newsletters. Newsletters are sometimes the best way to get a blurb off the news without subscribing to something like NYT. If I’m compelled enough, I’ll run a paywalled article through archive.is.
I don’t feel that people publishing on substack or medium, etc are reputable outlets for general news. That’s great for specific topics, opinions, and focused reporting.
The only news I pay for is my local newspaper. In addition to local reporting, they curate AP articles.
While I do have Ground News installed on my iPad, I only use it as a widget to let me know what’s going on. The sources it uses are generally not that great. Either the site is severely biased or the site is riddled with ads and pop ups. Basically every time I go to read an article it’s full of shit. I’ll give it credit as a substantial aggregator but it’s still pulling from sources that use click bait headlines. It’s not any better than social media.
I’m just here thinking, someone is asking a small group of people what they believe to be the definition of a word rather than use the vast wealth of knowledge published by experts in their field on these here internets.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/articles-heterodoxy/202208/inside-the-minds-the-incels
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06236-6
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/new-paper-explores-the-rise-of-incels/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/
Wiki: A portmanteau of “involuntary celibate”. A term associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white, male, and heterosexual who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. The movement is strongly linked to misogyny. Originally coined as “invcel” around 1997 by a queer Canadian female student known as Alana, the spelling had shifted to “incel” by 1999, and the term later rose to prominence in the 2010s, following the influence of misogynistic terrorists Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian.
Thank you for the most thoughtful and direct answer.
I’d be curious to know how some of your friends and family responded to the shot taken at Trump’s ear.
I see.
Iraq - the country, had nothing to do with 9/11 - the attack.
Not, Iraq - the invasion of, was disassociated with 9/11 - the attack or national moment.
I mean, 9/11 and Iraq are indeed magically linked, thanks to Bush. “Magically” is actually a great word to define the link between the two. Look - Cheney just pulled a Saddam out of a Bush!
If it’s your understanding that Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2002 “had nothing to do with 9/11”, you are grossly mistaken.
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ243/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
That is not what I recall. What I do recall was both republicans and democrats having serious concerns that the government knew something we didn’t and that we were attacking a country for the president’s personal vendetta. This is based on my personal interactions with friends, family, and coworkers, as well as national and local news and newspapers. Granted, I’m from central NJ so perhaps we on higher alert and more “purple” than the rest of the country.
batshit insane morons
Was it birtherism or just Sarah Palin?
I think we can say most of our modern conspiracitardacy was fairly quiet till the social media wave.
I fully agree that social media has made things worse in this, and almost every, regard. Though, I’m trying to understand the mindset of Americans in 2001, not today, not post 2008.
The conspiracy around 9/11 was that the government knew more than they were telling us. That perhaps they were well aware of the event, possibly took part in it, and/or used it to manipulate public sentiment for invading Iraq for no other good reason or perhaps (ok, this I admit is crazy) setting up a new world order where we give up our rights for the sake of “national defense”. There would be no Wikileaks if there was no 9/11.
I admit this are a bit fringe-sounding but we were all aware of this back then. Didn’t most people believe there was some plausibility in these theories?
Don’t most people today believe the government knows more about 9/11 than they’ve told us?
So your evidence that it was only spoken about in my social circle is that your social circle didn’t talk about it?
MacGyver
The Secret City
Mr. Wizard
Great question. I could list dozens of shows that were favorites, or have special meaning to me, or that I watched the most, or ones that had a more longterm impact on who I am. But, specifically about impacting my world as a young person, I’ll say these three.
Honorable mentions: Looney Tunes, Cheers, MASH, Family Ties, The Young Ones, Doctor Who, You Can’t Do That on Television, Ren and Stimpy.