Watch out for disinformation! Responsibilities of a reporter

Note: One of the reasons we talk about this is because at least as a result of Benya's report of October 13, 2015, which contains quite wild allegations that the US military had taken over the FRS, we have seen several articles on the net, filled with joy, excitement and hope that we are finally beginning to see some real changes related to the "banking mafia", suffocating the world, parasiting on it and waging all these utterly unnecessary insane wars, terrorist attacks, causing massive migration, among other things, and all sorts of other madness.

This implies that these writers simply accepted all the typical and quite wild proclamations of Benya on their face value, without any efforts to verify any of it, and, as a result, might have become the disinformation agents themselves, knowingly or unknowingly, distributing falsified information and even making further conclusions out of it.

This, in turn, means that Benya, for whatever reasons, might have become a popular and widely quoted disinformation agent on a global scale, unless we see some evidence of his claims. That is about the LAST thing we need at this particular junction, if ever.

And this, in turn, means that Benya, at least potentially, could be massively deluding people. For one thing, he is widely praised and quoted by all sorts of widely followed "talking heads", publishing all sorts of disinformation myths, tales and wild "prophecies" about the "bright future", which, for some strange reason, seem to forever remain behind the horizon.

But the fact of the matter is that we have not seen even a shred of any kind of evidence of the FRS being taken over by the Pentagon, and, if anyone can provide such an evidence, we would appreciate you sending us the links to the articles containing the pertinent information from the trustworthy sources, at least in your opinion. We would like to look at it with our own eyes and see what it means to us. No need to bother about all sorts of talking heads or any kinds of opinions. We are only interested in authoritative information that can be further verified.

Contact:

Our position on such matters is quite clear, at least to us: about the LAST thing the world needs right now is disinformation about major events and the issues the world is facing at this junction, and, it is precisely our "job" to identify and expose any kind of disinformation that might create a distorted view of reality. We have chosen to do it as our contribution into the global information war that engulfed this planet and which has been going on for several years now.

Basically, a trustworthy reporter can not just report all sorts of "prophecies", rumors, myths and tales, and would never resort to dictatorial tone or threats, because, first of all, it is not his "job". And, even in cases when some reporter makes some claims and/or conclusions, it is a matter of intellectual and human honesty to at least clearly state that this is just his opinion or his own view on it, but to never claim in definite terms that this is certainly so.

But what we see with Benya is some kind of "trademark signature" of his and that is to make the proclamations of all kinds, unsupported by any evidence and throw around all sorts of his personal interpretations and unprovable myths of all kinds. Moreover, most of his myths and proclamations simply do not manifest, at least soon enough to be verified, if ever.

A trustworthy reporter better realize that there might be some consequences for effectively deluding people by representing myths and tales and wishful thinking, at best, as some kind of issues of fact and the actual state of affairs, thus creating a totally wrong perception in their minds.

Because it is one thing to be deluded, but it is utterly different thing when you delude the others, simply because you may effectively force them to take the mistaken route in their way of understanding the situation and its meaning, thus affecting their free choice on which way to proceed because of mistaken or totally false conclusions they might make as a result of blindly trusting the information without utilizing their own intelligence. Yes, in a way it is ultimately their own personal responsibility to check and verify the information and not to allow to be deluded.

But, when you combine a certain force and/or conviction of some statement with the alleged "authority" of the author or his "sources", and, especially when you see all sorts of unverifiable claims, allegedly made based on the "information from our source", then what is reader to do but to blindly believe it, simply on the basis of some mythical "authority", because to verify any of it is simply impossible in most cases.

Thus, the reader may either take a critical position of "unless proven or logically obvious, I am not going to believe a word of it". Or, alternatively, the reader may simply trust it and accept it all in bulk, simply based on that mythical "authority", or the force of conviction of the author.

So, in a way, an author may effectively jam some desirable conclusions with force of "authority" into the minds of the readers, even though those conclusions merely delude the readers and lead them astray. As we can see in the media, it is not that difficult to jam all sorts of utterly false or misleading images into the minds of the readers, going as far, as to totally not report the most significant things and exaggerate utterly meaningless things to the status of some undeniable Truth.

"The bottom line" here is that any author, and especially the reporter, bears a certain personal responsibility for creating the artificially distorted picture in the minds of readers, and that responsibility is greater than one might suspect. Moreover, it has to be eventually rectified, regardless of anything, and it will be rectified, pretty much inevitably. It is just a matter of time. But Truth can not be destroyed and it will eventually and inevitably come out. But there is a price to pay for any kinds of lies or deliberate distortions. Because that is the Law.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1177