Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
"However, for decades, many on the left, including many in the mainstream media, have intoned that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative; everyone has his or her own truth, his or her own reality and far be it from anyone to judge another’s truth or reality.
The problem for the media now is that, in a world they helped create, many ch ...[text shortened]... p://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/369429-dear-media-you-started-the-fake-news-game-now-play-it
You seem to have a few base axiomata (seriously? That's the plural? Good grief...) mixed up.
Everything is relative. I'm a fat bastard. Well, compared to my daughter I am. Compared to Trump I'm probably reasonably normal.
Absolutes do exist (even on the left). It's called mathematics. Like 2+2=4 (or 44 if you really want to be pedantic, obtuse and wrong). One tries to find absolute truths via the scientific method. Look up "a posteriori".
Everyone has their own truths. These are deductions based on a whole scala of components (genetic make-up*, upbringing, education, milieu, etc.).
And there are facts.
These are either mathematical (2+2 = 4), scientifically proven (2 extra researches come to the same conclusion as a first) or a posteriori reasoned (you see something happen and use that as a basis for a conclusion).
Now, if Trump says: "My inauguration was the most crowded ever."
And you can view films of all other inaugurations, and they're more crowded.
You are using a posteriori reasoning to come to the conclusion that Trump is wrong.
Now, if Trump tells us: The media is just saying that and it's fake (still about the inauguration... just as an example). Then we can view the other films of the inaugurations and consider the evidence. And the evidence we witness is that other inaugurations were more crowded than Trump's. So him calling it fake is wrong.
See where this is going?
So, when you watch "The media" (and I'm pretty certain you're comparing Fox and Breitnews to the Al Jazeera, Reuters and the BBC here) you have to make sure their "facts" are correct.
You do this, basically, using the scientific method (of sorts... let's just keep it simple): you "fact check" the source. Do more outlets give the same information without adding their truth to it.
"The greatest astronaut ever landed on the barren moon for the first time today."
Greatest, barren, etc. are truths added to whatever the hell is going on.
So, down to the basics:
You say "the media's facts". There is no singular media. There are media outlets. If various outlets come to different conclusions: which come to the most common conclusion, which come with provable conclusions, which have invested interests, which come with provable facts?
So, take Trump's mental health as an example:
1. Which media outlets are claiming he's as mad as a hatter? Which are claiming he's as sane as a... well... as someone's who's incredibly sane?
2. Of the outlets you see, what's the most common conclusion?
3. Which outlets have invested interests?
4. Which come with provable facts (and what is speculation based upon what they claim is proof)?
So, as I see it:
1. The media outlets I trust report what people are saying about Trump's mental health from both sides. They also explain matters such as: A professional can't give an opinion about Trump's health if they haven't met him in person and interviewed him personally.
2. The most common conclusion I find is that opinions (not facts) on the media I've viewed is that the man is completely crazy.
3. Not sure about this. If I watch FOX, for example, I'm not sure what they're getting out of anything exactly, other than a general recommendation. I've said it once, I've said it twice... Al Jazeera is very good (just don't go to them for Islamic matters), the NOS is very good generally (just don't go them for history about WW2), the BBC is very good (just don't go to them on British politics).
4. I see a lot of media about Trump. I hear him. I see him. I see him changing his truths and ignoring facts.
All in all, my truth (if you want to call it that) is that the man is completely mad. As mad as the madhatter at the mad tea party in Madtown.
But the fact is... he's not been proven insane in an acceptable form (so, much like innocent until proven guilty, technically... factually as far as it goes... he's sane).
His doctor said so. And then said: "with his genes and a healthy diet he could live to be 200."
No, he can't. The man has invested interests. Nobody lives to be 200.
So, the doctor is exaggerating and not be trusted. Why the hell the president would let such a moron declare something like that is beyond rational.
Hope I helped clear it up for you.