The Media is the Message > Trust in News falling precipitously; Are Forbes and Mother Jones Deep State?

..

Canadians Increasingly Losing Trust in Media, Study Finds

Only 29 percent of respondents indicated that the media is free from undue political influence, compared to 39 percent in 2017

By Isaac Teo June 18, 2022

A study on how people globally engage with the news found that Canadians are increasingly losing trust in the media.

A report released Wednesday by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that Canadians who place their trust in the news fell from 58 percent to 42 percent over the last four years.

The study is based on an online survey of 93,432 people, conducted in 46 countries at the end of January and beginning of February by YouGov, a UK-based market research company, on behalf of the institute.

USA last

Canada ranked 18th in overall trust out of the 46 countries surveyed, which include Australia at 20, the UK at 36, and the United States taking the last spot.

“Large numbers of people see the media as subject to undue political influence, and only a small minority believe most news organizations put what’s best for society ahead of their own commercial interest,” wrote Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of Reuters Institute, in the report.

Among the Canadian respondents, only 29 percent indicated that the media is free from undue political influence, compared to 39 percent in 2017. And a majority of 73 percent believe the media is not exempt from undue business influence, an increase of 9 percentage points since 2017.

The report added that dissatisfaction with the governments and pandemic fatigue may have contributed to the negative attitudes toward the media, and the perceptions that media outlets have not been critical enough of official sources such as public health authorities.

A February study by marketing consultancy firm Edelman Canada found that 61 percent of Canadians believe journalists and reporters purposely try to mislead them “by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations,” with business leaders (60 percent) and government (58 percent) not far behind.

In addition, less than half of Canadians view government leaders and CEOs as trustworthy, at 43 percent and 36 percent, respectively, said the Edelman report, which is based on an online survey with over 1,500 Canadians during the period of Nov. 1–24, 2021.

Meanwhile, the Reuters report noted people around the world were increasingly avoiding news that affected their mood negatively (36 percent), and those that focused too much on politics and COVID-19 (43 percent).

In Australia, 41 percent of the respondents said they selectively avoided the news, a jump from 30 percent in 2017. In the UK, the response nearly doubled, from 24 percent in 2017 to 46 percent in 2022. The increase in the United States was more moderate, with 42 percent avoiding the news, compared to 38 percent in 2017.

The difference in the US is probably due to the fact that it has an alternative to the left-wing BS that comes out of most global media. Right-wing BS might not be any better, but, at least it's a place to go when you are tired of the woke stuff.

To win public trust again, media could try to provide factual information and to “simplify language and better explain or contextualise complex stories,” the report suggested.

“The need for reliable information, careful context, and considered debate has rarely been greater, but so too has the desire for stories that inspire and give hope of a better tomorrow,” the authors said.

They completely missed the point here. The point is that almost all news media are made up of people with either a right or left-wing bent. Their reporting presents, for nearly all outlets, the liberal perspective as if it were the God-given truth, and anything the rings of conservatism is presented as being absurd. 

===========================================================================================

This is how Deep State works in the media!

Tulsi Gabbard Latest To Push Russian-Backed Conspiracy

About U.S.-Backed Biological Labs In Ukraine

Derek Saul, Forbes Staff

Mar 13, 2022,03:30pm EDT

TOPLINE Former presidential candidate and Congress member Tulsi Gabbard shared false information Sunday about U.S. involvement in Ukraine biological laboratories Sunday, giving credence to an unfounded Russian-backed conspiracy theory the U.S. has warned could serve as justification for Russia to use biological and chemical weapons against Ukraine.

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) shared misleading information Sunday that supported a ... [+] GETTY IMAGES

In a two-minute video posted to her Twitter Sunday morning, Gabbard said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine and called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens.

Gabbard’s concern about the spread of pathogens is supported by fact—the World Health Organization called for Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens this week to prevent the spread of disease if a laboratory is attacked—but there’s no evidence of the U.S. supporting biological labs in Ukraine and the U.S. has consistently denied doing so.

Military Madness > China wants answers on USA's Biolabs in Ukraine;

Russia has revealed details behind the sponsorship of the secretive research

Russia claims US tested experimental drugs on Ukrainian soldiers

Hunter Biden DID help secure millions in funding for US contractor in 

Ukraine specializing in deadly pathogen research, laptop emails reveal

Gabbard’s comments notably give apparent credibility to a particularly dangerous Russian-backed conspiracy theory.

This week, Russia spread a conspiracy about the U.S. developing biological and chemical weapons in Ukraine laboratories, a false claim that the White House and NATO have warned could be justification for a Russian attack of its own.

The theory became popular on Alex Jones’ InfoWars platform and on social media several weeks ago, and since was co-opted by Russian and Chinese state-run media.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“As we have said all along, Russia is inventing false pretexts in an attempt to justify its own horrific actions in Ukraine. The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price Thursday.

"Does not own or operate" leaves a hell of a lot of wiggle room for financing two dozen bio-labs.

SURPRISING FACT

Elena Branson, charged Tuesday by American authorities for allegedly acting as a Russian agent, made donations to only one American politician, according to election filings by the Daily Beast: Gabbard.

TANGENT

The Kremlin sent a memo to state-run Russian media calling on outlets to use as much footage of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson sharing his controversial stances supporting Russia and criticizing the U.S. and NATO as possible, according to Russian government agency documents obtained by Mother Jones and published Sunday. Aside from former President Donald Trump, Carlson and Gabbard have emerged as perhaps the two most prominent Russian sympathizers in the U.S.

"Russian sympathizers" is what Deep State media calls anyone who dare speak the truth. You don't have to be a Russian sympathizer to know that the USA and NATO have been working since 2014 to force Russia into attacking Ukraine. If you can't see that it's because you're not looking. Choose to look for the truth!

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

Peter Ferrara
Contributor, Forbes

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.  That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago.  I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations.  See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data.  In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.  With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC.  You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered.  If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

In 2015, I discussed a 30 year temperature cycle that I had read about in the 1970's. It would appear that this is the cause and confirmation of that cycle.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1960s.  The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age.  Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen.  The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010.  Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer.  He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010.  He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook.  Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?”  Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.  All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening.  That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future.  Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase.  Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically.  You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so.  Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years.  He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

But that is not all.  We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity.  That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures.  The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).

Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times.  The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850.  The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death.

Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun.

Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get.  Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s?  Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum?  He says it is impossible to know now.  But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.