Pretend you have one hour to convince a random normie that the mainstream media is propaganda rather than a collection of well-meaning, objective journalists who sometimes get it wrong but overall try to deliver fair and accurate reporting.
If you fail, you die.
What's your approach?
It's a stupid hypothetical for several reasons but I'm very interested in this topic and I'm curious to hear your thoughts, so I'll ask for a pass on the overly dramatic scenario.
I'm guessing the most common response will be, "It won't work no matter what you do", and fwiw I think that's correct. But for the small group who can be reasoned with, what do you think is the optimal approach?
I've thought the same. Find out what they're knowledgeable about and use it to basically force them to have a Gell-Mann effect moment. But I suspect most will still compartmentalize so they can continue believing things like orange man bad.
Yeah you're probably right. I do think a forced Gell-Mann effect is the most sensible place to start.
I also like people's advice to try and stay clear of politics at the beginning.
It's not their opinions.
If you start citing arcana, then you are losing. But if you say "turns out that journalists give positive coverage to the products of people they're sleeping with" - it's concise, it appeals to people's pre-existing moral compass.