There is a reason why I have the word criticism on my list of words and expressions.  I have defined it like this:

Complaints about someone or some people doing something specifically wrong.

Unfortunately, there are some believing criticism is calming someone is evil.  That I don’t call that criticism but demonisation.  One paints someone as a villain without any attempt of nuances.  An entire group painted as evil is called hate speech.  (This expression is on the list too.)  An individual making that error probably thinks he or she does the right thing.  But as I have pointed out before such homogenous groups are impossible.

This misconstruction of “criticism” is relevant because it is part of a myth about the mainstream mass-media’s content.  Some believe this content to be centrally dictated by the government.  The argument is them not accusing the government of deliberately destroying for most of the population.  As if the government would earn from large part of the population being harmed.  As far as I can tell it does not.

I mean that mainstream mass-media criticise the government daily.  At least according to the definition I have written in italics above.  Some examples of headlines:

• Call for more action on 'pernicious' romance fraud

• Refugee 'humiliated' by denial of free bus travel

• Relax rules on research into illegal drugs, say advisers

How would the content of mainstream mass media look if it was centrally controlled by the government?  Then they would contain constant homages to existing conditions.  That is what would be needed for the claimed purpose of them to defend an unchanging society.  Something they definitely don’t.  On the opposite suggestions of how something can be done better regularly occurs.  Which is something mainstream mass-media gives opportunity to convey too.

This is related to the belief that the content of mainstream mass-media would be made up.  A small number refuse to trust certain things they themselves lack experience of.  However, own experience can’t prove something not existing.  It can only demonstrate something more specific exists.  I have thought about this many times.  How can I personally experience things others are so convinced don’t exist?  Then it is not anything supernatural or what can be called paranormal.  Instead, it is about the like of individuals which are not unquestionably white doing services for me.  In some cases, I have seen them doing services for others too.  For this reason, it to me appears reasonable most in fact work.  Oneself lacking experience of such does not make it right to deny it.

My educated guess is it being about belief in the law of small numbers.  It is the belief that a small fraction of something has to be representative of the whole.  In reality it is random chance playing a larger and larger part the smaller the fraction is.  If one only knows about a couple of dozen they are rarely or ever representative.  Still, it is supposed that what applies to them also applies to the entire group.  Alternatively, it is supposed to apply to the great majority of it.  Presumably someone does not consider random chance if one believes in such misconceptions.  Or that individuals with similar mindsets would seek out each other.  In such a case it becomes even less representative.

 

Uploaded on the 25th of December 2023.