it was a hard listen. i commented on X after 40 minutes not knowing where the conversation is headed. A lot of strong opinions on X :D
and the only thing i commented is how weird Murray was with going 100% on experts for WWII and against experts for the virus origin. From trust all the way for one and don't trust for other.
Hard to debate when there is heart or money involved. and even harder when really awful things are the subject of the debate.
You were not there argument works if you actually saw the thing happening. I can tell you i felt the shock wave, i can tell you where the bomb dropped, who dropped it, maybe even why (from info on the spot), but about something that happened 500km away, no way, and i could claim in a debate that i was there (as in the country).
And to be honest, really hard to know what the truth is. In the past it was lack of information, now it is to much of questionable information.
I remember seeing a News clip from two TV station (it was on youtube so it had to be at least 15 years after the war) the same footage on both TV stations with exact opposite report. One TV station for one side, second for the other side, and no way for most of the people to see both and go "i think they are laying to us"
Yeah, I really appreciate this comment — especially your point about how overwhelming it is now with so much questionable information out there. That shift you mentioned — from not enough info to too much — really does make finding truth harder, not easier. And your story about seeing the same footage framed in completely opposite ways? That’s chilling. I've come across things like that too, and it really sticks with you.
As for Murray, I think you’re absolutely right to flag that moment — it stood out to a lot of people. That said, I don’t actually think Murray was saying “trust the experts” across the board, either then or now. From what I understand, he’s not deferring to expertise — he sees himself as having done the due diligence on that particular subject. He’s not a medical expert (like on COVID origins), so maybe he questions more there. But with WWII, or the Middle East, he sees himself as someone who's done the legwork: reading history, being on the ground, talking to people. So I think his view is more like, “If you’re going to speak confidently on something, you’d better know what you’re talking about.”
That can come across as gatekeeping to some — especially when the tone gets sharp — but I think he’s trying to make a point about depth of understanding, not just deferring to authority.
Really glad you took the time to write all this out. Conversations like this are why I wanted to write the post in the first place.
i can't really say were the news in the old days the same as now, or are the people saying that before news people were just telling us the news with no spin on it just not true :D
At the moment there are student demonstrations / blockade in front of our national TV (something like BBC for example, every household pays ~ 4$ a months to finance it) and it is going on for 150 hours now.
So there is a lot of conversation should news people just tell and show us what is going on, without giving any opinion about it, and let people make their own minds. Because it feels like all the media has an agenda now.
With all the technology now, there is a lot more of "information" but it is also harder to lie. Especially with something that is factual.
One of the examples.
Month and a half ago students also announced they are going to block the national TV station for 22 hours. it was a late night unexpected thing so they also caught police by surprise. They were afraid students could brake into the station so they had to get to the entrances but they arrived almost at the same time.
There was some minor pushing and showing but nothing spectacular. Until our president posted a photo with a police officer in the hospital with a pretty fucked up eye, saying he was attacked by the students. And all the pro media shared it right away.
And if that happened 20 years ago, most would believe the "official" story. But everyone has a camera now, so in 30-40 minutes we saw that the police officer was not in uniform and with no police identification.
30 minutes later we got a video of what happened and that it was friendly fire. Of course they just played dead after that.
That's frickin' crazy man. Wow, that is not even media spin, they're just flat out lying. Yeah, you're right that the problem used to be not enough information, and now it’s too much questionable information. It's not just a volume problem, it's a trust problem.
Anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to lay this all out. I’m still thinking about a lot of the same questions — especially how to rebuild any kind of shared trust in public conversations.
Would love to hear more if you have other thoughts about where you think things could actually get better from here.