JT do you think these so-called alternative media sources are somehow purer and more truthful than their established mainstream counterparts? Surely like everyone else in the game of flogging copy they deliver a version of the truth (generous description) designed to maximise commercial gain and as such should be trusted no more or less than any of their rivals?
I gave up reading news years ago so there is a chance that a new type of genuinely altruistic truth-seeking source has been established, but I doubt it: it wouldn't sell.
Look at prisonplanet, for instance: the tone, the layout, the colours, the banner ads, the smell of fear and conspiracy, the name itself, the deliberate flattering of the reader to make them think they are superior for digesting the 'real' news etc. and tell me it hasn't been perfectly tailored to gratify a certain audience and keep the money rolling in.
This is only your perception of it, far from a definitive conclusion.
Advertising pays the bills just like with mainstream news.
Alex Jones has made many films, you can buy them all from prisonplanet, but while trying to "sell" them on radio, he usually states - or, you can go and watch them for free at google video. So for him, people seeing his work is the most impoirtant aspect, not the "fiat currency" that he can generate.
Obviously, like with any other source, there is scope for exageration etc, thats why viewer/reader self-analysis of content is important - looking at evidence/sources etc.
That's not to demean anyone for reading it, far from it. If news is your thing, then it's surely better to read as many sources as possible, especially if they prickle & challenge, rather than stick to the one or two that always comfortably reinforce one's beliefs.
But to hold 'independent' as naturally superior to or more authentic than 'mainstream' is to miss an obvious trick, imho. Perhaps I'm too cynical.
