What seems to happen is that you come across a compelling set of evidence. The evidence is faked, or skewed heavily, but it might be hard to know this. And, as presented, the cases are usually pretty good. If you're unable to immediately dispute them, it isn't totally irrational to think they might be real.
This is the reason I don't watch documentaries on modern "issues". The story presented is all very manipulated and you're certain to get an incorrect set of evidence.
What is boggling is how smart people _stay_ convinced by conspiracies, after contradictions are pointed out. But changing your mind is a hard thing to do, so perhaps it's not that surprising?
An effective tactic to prevent people from looking into something is to promote obviously false information, bonus if it's offensive, and associate it with information that can be verified. Another related tactic is for people who have a long track record of promoting false information promote something that's verifiable. That way people will dismiss real information that has been associated with bs. There is a paper, by a good friend of mine on this "Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11", and links to much more info in my profile.
And I agree, there are many documentaries on modern issues that are pure junk.
> This is the reason I don't watch documentaries on modern "issues". The story presented is all very manipulated and you're certain to get an incorrect set of evidence.
That's true of essentially any source but I don't know that becoming ignorant of anything that happened during your lifetime is the right answer.
This is the reason I don't watch documentaries on modern "issues". The story presented is all very manipulated and you're certain to get an incorrect set of evidence.
What is boggling is how smart people _stay_ convinced by conspiracies, after contradictions are pointed out. But changing your mind is a hard thing to do, so perhaps it's not that surprising?