By "Red" I mean a newspaper which challenges group thinking and comes up with alternative theories backed by facts.The word Red comes from military intelligence agencies around the world generally calling such a unit a Red unit.<p>For a clearer picture imagine the tenth man rule from World War Z which says that in a council of 10 men if 9 men agree, the tenth man has to disagree.<p>If such a paper was to exist what would stop it from simply becoming a conspiracy theory newspaper? Would people be interested in such a newspaper?
Anything sufficiently challenging and plain-spoken will experience external forces that attempt to dismiss, discredit or co-opt it - starting with one's own self.<p>As well, ideas that are serious and challenging require the reader to make a great, intentional effort to understand them. Rationalization mechanisms will always find ways to avoid understanding otherwise. A narrow band of "interesting" is allowed, but not something which triggers defensiveness.<p>Thus, the optimal way to teach the reader is to find a way for them to engage in play with the idea and solve a mystery that unlocks the real information, creating the intentional effort without waking up the rationalization guards.<p>Conspiracy theories act as the foil to "mainstream" propaganda by presenting a story which is just fractionally harder to follow, but not tremendously so; the initial reader effort is basically one of "what if They are lying to me?" Subsequently the reader is showered with evidence that yes, they are being lied to. This point and counter-point effort allows people to remain anchored in a binary, yes-or-no, right-or-wrong framing of events and actions, where their identity and opinions can remain stable and confident.<p>There is an inevitability that a popular medium will hew close to surface dualism. Anything that achieves more in that realm hides something of itself.<p>Another way to think about it is that understanding is concentric - the group in the innermost circle can't directly speak to the folks far in the outside. They have to teach the people they're adjacent to, first. In the process the understanding may become a little more basic and limited, but still more "correct" to the expert's understanding.
If I were to take you literally, I imagine the newspaper would serve as a few things<p>1) Devil's advocate - This would be the worst it can do<p>2) Speak the opinions people would rather hide - This would be the best it can do<p>3) Break Down pros and cons of equal two sided debates - I'm a big believer in give people as much information as possible to make decisions<p>Maybe more. Conspiracy enters into hidden opinions however, if we are talking about the "tenth man rule" then I doubt leaking private information would be this newspaper's bread and butter.<p>Honestly, I skim through things to try to get to the meat of materials. So if you provide information that was easy to sort through, about current and heated topics and attempt to hit every angle with logical arguments, I would read it.
Theories backed by interpretations of the facts that most experts disagree with? You mean like scientific racism, anti-vaccing and climate change denial?<p>There would certainly be an audience for such a publication, though whether you'd want to pander to it is another question...
<i>If such a paper was to exist what would stop it from simply becoming a conspiracy theory newspaper?</i><p>As long as the people that make the paper are on the premise that the facts gathered and presented are verifiable (in principle) by anyone, there is little danger.
Your main problem would be getting enough paid subscribers to cover the cost.<p>Also, you should do it as a website rather than a print newspaper.<p>There already are several "conspiracy theory" websites.