clueless

I've realised the downside of having no TV.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on in the world.

It's inexcusable really. I should read the news on the Internet or read the papers or something. The problem is: who's to say whether those sources are any more or less reliable that TV? Each paper has its own agenda. Radio stations too, I suppose.

The only way to be absolutely sure is to go to the war zones and talk to the people living through it. Although they're probably badly informed by bastard media and givernment too.

Will we ever know what's really going on? I should read everything instead of nothing I suppose and try and draw the best conclusions I can from that.

Sigh. I'm off to buy an Independent. Probably the best of a bad bunch.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Radio

You don't need a television: television will only distract you with pictures. What you need is a decent radio with the tuner glued to BBC Radio 4. I think if you're going to get your information from only one place it had better be BBC Radio 4 (although it's just occurred to me that if you glue the tuner you'll have to listen to Women's Hour and you won't be able to enjoy The Burkiss Way on BBC Radio 7 - but I suppose into each life some rain must fall).

Learn about what they're telling people not what the truth is...


I find the best way of looking at it is taking in as many different forms of news as possible and then use your knowledge/intuition to try and discern for yourself what you feel is really going on, i.e. find some kind of middle ground. Alternatively, another way of approaching it is trying to be in tune with what the masses are being told rather than perceiving it as gospel. It is important to know what people think is happening whether it is happening or not. Only then can we challenge preconcpetions, misconceptions and....err.....bugger......what the hell is 'truth' anyway........

Truth

Truth! Truth is what you do when you tie up people who lisp.

It's reality that I've found annoyingly hard to define: is reality as it is perceived or is something only real if it possesses characteristics which cannot be altered by whatever anyone thinks those characteristics to be? The trouble with both definitions is that they both allow practically everything to be regarded as REAL, which can't be. Or can it? Can everything be real?

O God.