Why trust in the media is declining

47 comments on “Why trust in the media is declining ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ad 1

   10 April 2022 at 2:46 pm

   It will be particularly dark if the newsrooms of TVNZ and RNZ merge into one.

   Some of the decline in trust would be assisted if Biden generated a bipartisan bill to treat all social media corporations like a publisher and subject to the same regulator.

   Musk's recent stake in Twitter is also a very dark signal that its' algorithms will be even more permissive.
   • weston 1.1

     10 April 2022 at 3:19 pm

     even more permissive. ?

     Is that bad ? give us it all please warts n all . Surely better the sanitation of sunlight than the festering in the dark .

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1ApETGUVc&t=4s
2. Puckish Rogue 2

   10 April 2022 at 2:58 pm

   Remember Russian collusion, the Steele Dossier, Hunter Bidens Laptop, Tara Reade, January 6 'insurrection', Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse, Brett Kavanaugh, Epstein cover up

   Yes its very surprising why trust in the media is declining
   • gsays 2.1

     11 April 2022 at 10:23 am

     Not to forget The Guardian framing the Spotify/Rogan/Young brouhaha as Spotify choosing Rogan over Young. Instead of 8t being a case of Young demanding his songs be removed from the platform.
   • Ghostwhowalksnz 2.2

     11 April 2022 at 1:42 pm

     Not so fast .

     Media Watch says the figure of 41% includes social media as part of the 'media'

     When its asked about 'traditional media' the numbers become 58% trust

     https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018837570/measuring-trust-is-tricky-with-suspicious-minds

     Its a bit vague about numbers in the survey and when. Then there is this

     A bigger international survey picked up a different trust trend last year.

     The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism annual survey found trust in news grew by 6 percent during the pandemic, powered by news outlets known for reliable reporting.
3. Tiger Mountain 3

   10 April 2022 at 3:15 pm

   In analogue times there was a truism–“the freedom of the press belongs to those that own one” and in many respects that has not changed, moneyed up capitalist bastards, one way or another, own and operate many media channels.

   Study upon study has shown how algorithms work, and that is what has changed in my view. From a definable pool of media outlets, regardless of class bias, and with some accountability, we now have the equivalent of a busted mirror–believe what you want or believe in nothing. Nihilism is becoming increasingly acceptable.

   The goal for authoritarians and right wingers is the absolute opposite of truth seeking–it is the driving down of popular interest and participation in politics.
4. Dennis Frank 4

   10 April 2022 at 3:33 pm

   Good choice of topic. As usual, I'd rather go deeper though. The world that is disappearing into the dustbin of history is the one in which everyone took the msm at face value. Critical thinking has exited acadaemia & is now percolating thro society.

   You can see that in those comments. Vox pops means voice of the people & in the TVNZ newsroom I noticed how journos routinely sought to integrate it into their stories. It was a new trend masterminded by Paul Norris, the departmental head in the early '90s, but was driven by globalisation of the latest fashion trend: photojournalism.

   Since I went to work there due to disgust at their chronic failure to include kiwis in the news I was delighted of course! Even thro the '80s the default was reliance on US propaganda & Brit (so-called) objectivity for balance – the most we ever got from here was carefully selected authority figures as talking heads. That neocolonial status quo shifted.

   So now there's a deeper shift under way, in which many folk are self-selecting their sources. Broadcasting has been replaced by narrowcasting. Niche marketing, if you want to view it from the corporate perspective. But the joy of a media consumer lies in the internet freedom residual from the days when the originators & creators were often cowboys in perennial evasion of control systems.

   https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0712703D:US

   https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=131

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation

   https://www.eff.org/about/history

   The ethos that drove the early internet development was liberation from original US military control (DARPA), use of universities to network, then take it to citizen users.

   So money didn't kick in until the early years of the new millennnium. That's why you can still find useful sites that don't require viewers to pay. Such providers tend to be motivated by altruism. Ethos is therefore the key. Young rebels offended by system providers will look elsewhere. They may see normal but they operate like free radicals.
   • In Vino 4.1

     10 April 2022 at 6:40 pm

     Dennis – I sometimes get irritated by your talent for linguistic effulgence, but at times you leave me in admiration. This is such a time – in-depth food for thought.
     • mickysavage 4.1.1

       10 April 2022 at 7:05 pm

       Yep agreed. It is a heavy duty topic and our democracy relies on us sorting this out pretty quickly.

       I wrote this post in a bit of a hurry. Dennis's comment dives considerably deeper. If he wants to make a guest post I would be happy to put it up.
       • Dennis Frank 4.1.1.1

         10 April 2022 at 7:22 pm

         Thanks for the offer. I'll contemplate the possibility awhile. The trend is escalating & I feel diffident about any take on where it's headed – so may be better to wait for events to precipitate a fresh take on it. Also, writing as a radical centrist here makes me feel diffident about being too declarative. Someone in middle age with a career in news media would be best to sound out currently…
     • Dennis Frank 4.1.2

       10 April 2022 at 7:14 pm

       effulgence happy to admit I had to look it up!

       But yeah, this shifting in our deep social context is a remarkable thing to contemplate. I'm sure there will be more instances indicative of the trend.

       What does concern me tho is the tower of Babel motif that looms in our culture from the distant past. A metaphor (?) that seems set to become relevant again. Think it originated in a biblical term for Babylon where the jews were captive for 40 years. As a multicultural center of empire, perhaps they were impressed by the inability of ethnicities present to talk to each other in a common tongue.

       The more diverse our sources of news media, the more competing narratives get generated, the greater the difficulty to discern common ground. People may end up spending lots of time arguing – or avoiding each other.
     • Incognito 4.1.3

       10 April 2022 at 7:48 pm

       Nice word, effulgence, although I couldn’t help myself thinking of a better descriptor of my emotions when reading comments.
5. Jenny how to get there 5

   10 April 2022 at 3:45 pm

   The rise of far right influencers and conspiracy theorists might have something to do with it.

   That 'you can't trust the news media' and that 'all politicians are corrupt,' is a time tested far right strategy to undermine democracy.
6. Incognito 6

   10 April 2022 at 4:14 pm

   I know the OP is about trust in the media, but the much bigger issue is that trust in general is and has been declining for quite some time. Trust in just about anybody, be it a so-called expert or authority or just a fellow human, has been eroding slowly. With declining trust comes declining respect and with that people stop listening to each other altogether.

   Weka said yesterday “we are losing the ability to both form arguments and tolerate them” (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09-04-2022/#comment-1881976), and this is both a symptom and cause of the misery we find ourselves in. On this site, debate and strong argument are key, but it comes at the cost of losing sight of the person, i.e. the commenter. The art of having a conversation between people without point-scoring or winning the argument has been lost completely, it seems.

   The above is the ‘kind’ version of my cynical jaundiced view of this dog-eats-dog world that we have created.
   • Anne 6.1

     10 April 2022 at 6:39 pm

     From weka’s comment:

     The art of having a conversation between people without point-scoring or winning the argument has been lost completely, it seems.

     I have the distinct impression there are some on this site who are playing an intellectual one-up-man-ship game which is as boring as sitting on a lawn and watching it grow.

     Its a turn-off for many people who want lively debate – preferably with a bit of humour added from time to time – where everybody feels they can participate.
     • In Vino 6.1.1

       10 April 2022 at 6:44 pm

       Humour here can be influenced by some participants' partisan nature, resulting in outright nastiness.
       • Anne 6.1.1.1

         10 April 2022 at 7:09 pm

         I was not referring to such humour unless a person has asked for it which does happen from time to time.

         I recall at the start of the Covid pandemic in 2020 there were some wonderful quips, cartoons and videos that were designed to bring smiles and laughter across the board. They were sometimes aimed at Covid deniers – including Trump and co. – but they deserved to be laughed at.
         • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1

           10 April 2022 at 7:54 pm

           I agree, things have got a little grim around here too.

           Who said that quick wit is the sign of a sharp mind? Doesn’t matter, but our minds seem to be dull & blunted by Covid, at least mine is
     • Incognito 6.1.2

       10 April 2022 at 7:13 pm

       That was actually my comment

       Some folks here indeed seem to have very little to no interest in the other person except as a target/opponent to take down and increasingly by whatever means it takes. The anonymity on the site means, of course, that we know very little about other commenters except for what they choose to share with us. This makes it easier and perhaps too easy to become non-personal; some have a go at Putin, for example, as easily as they have a go at another commenter aka adversary because both are just abstract names to them and not people they actually know well (although they might think so, in a mono-dimensional way, of course!). Just as with abstract art, there are no rules for interpretation and everything becomes subjective and individualised. Except that we all know that personal taste is not really up for discussion. It does, however, make a good topic of conversation

       Anyway, we’re getting a little off-topic here with regards to the OP.
       • Anne 6.1.2.1

         10 April 2022 at 7:19 pm

         "That was actually my comment."

         Yes I know. Couldn't be bothered with the minutia. 🙂
   • RedLogix 6.2

     10 April 2022 at 6:44 pm

     Agreed. One of the ideas I have been playing with recently is to introduce a whole extra layer into the debate. We have done reasonably well in requiring contested claims of fact to be backed up with a reference. The rule is not fixed in concrete, but it certainly is being used and invoked often enough to make a useful difference.

     Next level idea is to require that before you are allowed to attack another commenters argument that you have to summarise your theirs first – to their satisfaction. Only then can you put forward your own opposing case.
     • Incognito 6.2.1

       10 April 2022 at 7:45 pm

       I know what you’re proposing and it is a foundational principle of good debating. Unfortunately, in debate here sometimes commenters re-phrase or para-phrase what the other has just said and sometimes (!) this is done so badly that one wonders whether they really have misunderstood or they’re not debating in good faith. Nobody has the time to second-guess people’s motivations and nobody here is a mind reader, so it would help if people would just say what they mean (and mean what they say).
       • RedLogix 6.2.1.1

         10 April 2022 at 7:50 pm

         Absolutely there is nothing original about this idea – and I accept that implementing it would not be easy. But still it is something worth aiming for I reckon.

         The tricky part is establishing good faith during the setup. But then failure would be diagnostic of motivations in itself.
         • Incognito 6.2.1.1.1

           10 April 2022 at 8:05 pm

           Agreed. I think it would take more time & effort and I wonder how many current commenters would stay around and hang in there. This blog site is a bit of hybrid between social media such as Twitter and Facebook and more conventional blog sites with a comment section rather than free-flowing debate (aka rants). The beauty is that it offers something for ‘everybody’ but the downside is that it is not the optimal format for anything in particular, e.g. anything goes, more or less. This is not so much criticism but more an observation and my opinion.
         • gsays 6.2.1.1.2

           11 April 2022 at 10:30 am

           Great idea Red, this is a step taken in conflict resolution. Great tactic before conflict arises.

           Perhaps best for some of us to practice the concept to start impacting the culture postively.
           • RedLogix 6.2.1.1.2.1

             11 April 2022 at 10:37 am

             It isn't of course my idea, but I think the first time anyone has seriously suggested trying it out on the TS comment threads.

             Honestly I have no idea how it might work out in practice – but I guess starting with a baby step somewhere would be the way forward. I cannot see this technique being universal, but it could be very applicable to those longer exchanges between only a few people.
7. Nic the NZer 7

   10 April 2022 at 5:00 pm

   Didn't Mike Hosking think he was unbiased enough to host the leaders debate a couple of cycles ago?
   • Dennis Frank 7.1

     10 April 2022 at 5:21 pm

     Yeah but that was then and now, as the above picture shows, he's currently not in service. As in serving as host, I mean. Puzzling, since folks have referred to him as host of a ZB radio show. Since that radio station was once owned by the state, I wonder if it got sold off & if so when. Could be he's actually serving corporate owners and just wears that logo on his forehead to pretend he's independent.
8. Psycho Milt 8

   10 April 2022 at 6:15 pm

   Funnily enough, the people who think govt contributing some funding to media companies means those companies will run propaganda for the govt never seem to have the slightest qualms about media companies being owned outright by private corporations or billionaires.
   • In Vino 8.1

     10 April 2022 at 6:57 pm

     Oh no! The private sector is pure in its lack of any kind of contamination. Profit is not a dirty word, and there is no such thing as a profit-gouger! Nor would private Boards of Directors ever think of influencing who was appointed Editor, and those who influence the way the media present the "news".

     Moreover, anything funded by the state is obviously sinister, Marxist state ownership and control!

     Who is actually propelling us towards 1984, Big Brother, and Brave New World?
9. Kiwijoker 9

   10 April 2022 at 6:31 pm

   Nice to see reasoned, intelligent respectful debate. Thanks team
10. Peter 10

    10 April 2022 at 7:20 pm

    If listeners and readers of Mike Hosking find him most trustworthy what does that mean?

    If listeners and readers of Mike Hosking find him most trustworthy compared to other outlets and people in them, what does that actually say about those consumers?
11. LarusDominicanus 11

    10 April 2022 at 7:56 pm

    Trust is now an empty word; philosophically, religiously, socially, politically and epistemologically speaking. Credence/credulity seems to have ‘trumped’ the acceptance of authority, itself ultimately ungrounded, in favour of the centrality of subjective ‘belief’. Hosking’s audience trust him to the extent that they want to believe that what he says is true. The will to believe, and not the grounds for belief, is the issue here.
12. tsmithfield 12

    11 April 2022 at 7:17 am

    Without taking a political stance on this topic, I think there are a number of reasons why trust in the media is declining:

    Firstly, our media just isn't very good due to the limited amount of time available for news and current affairs. This means often very complex topics are covered in sound-bites. A lot of people are just too lazy to look much further than that.

    Since taking an interest in the Ukraine situation, I have been incredibly impressed with the indepth news coverage of topics on stations such as France 24 and DW, which provide a continuous news services. We simply don't have the population base to allow for that depth of news coverage.

    Secondly, as a product of the first point, our news has become more infotainment rather than news. This means the emphasis is blowing issues into scandals to try and grab viewer attention. This means grubby tactics such as taking a few words from an interview and broadcasting them completely out of context to create the impression of something that was never intended to be meant.

    Thirdly, there simply isn't time on our news channels to explore the various sides and arguments on a topic. This means that topics tend to be covered in a very superficial way. Those of us who do actually bother to dig a bit deeper and read a bit wider often are aware of this, and hence become very skeptical of what we see on MSM.

    Fourthly, there has been a major decline in print media over recent years. At one point it was common for people to be subscribing to their local newspaper and having it delivered every morning. Print media had the space to cover topics in more depth. These days people have to be motivated enough to go online and seek out coverage on the topics that interest them.

    Fifthly, due to the general decline in media over recent years, I don't think journalism is that well paid these days. If pay rates are low, then the quality of people getting into the trade is also likely to be low. If the people producing the news don't have the smarts or incentive to understand the issues at hand, how can we expect them to produce high quality news productions?

    So, taking all that together, I think a lot of the reason for declining trust in media is that our news has descended into sound-bites due to the lack of time available for issues to covered. And that many people seem much more interested in being entertained these days rather than informed. This means news needs to be made exciting and scandalous enough for people to bother watching. However, as issues start to unfold, it starts becoming apparent that the superficial attention media were giving issues painted a picture quite different to what people eventually see unfold.

    I guess the reporting of the Covid crisis in NZ is evidence of that. It seemed that the news was simply regurgitating the government line with very little question. Perhaps that type of coverage led in part to the protests at parliament.

    Having government funding of media isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as there is strong protection against political influence of the funding. So, an independent body to administer funding should ensure that. However, if a government were able to stack that body with government stooges, it would definitely be a problem.
13. RP Mcmurphy 13

    11 April 2022 at 8:02 am

    the media is in the business of selling goods and doing what it is told. of course cracks are there in the media construction of reality but they get papered over soon enough before the next edtion.
14. tc 14

    11 April 2022 at 8:07 am

    Hoskings sings for his supper filling a void Faafoi should have already with a code of conduct that pings management not the shock jocks.

    A broadcast licence carries social responsibility. The owned media hate public broadcasting as it's not subscription based and tends to be objective.
15. Adrian Thornton 15

    11 April 2022 at 9:59 am

    “This is a deeply important subject. It deserves more than the likes of Mike Hosking throwing unbalanced barbs at the Government for failing trust in the media primarily linked to the polarisation caused by the likes of Fox News and Rupert Murdoch”

    It say volumes that Mickey Savage finishes his piece with that line….obviously completely oblivious to the outrageous hypocrisy that he has neatly packaged up in that one paragraph….

    The Liberal Centrist class and their media are so polarised politically themselves, so deeply fundamentalist and dogmatic that they cannot see that they themselves are at least equally to blame for the current polarisation that infects politics/society as the Right and their media arm are.

    Sure Fox might have begun this disgusting media environment of division, half-truths, misinformation and extreme biases…but Liberal media learnt fast..until here we are now…with no difference between Right and Liberal media.

    Let’s take our own RNZ’s coverage of the Trump years…in all the years of his leadership I cannot remember RNZ doing even one positive story on him…in-fact it was worse than that, throughout that time RNZ seemed to only employ US correspondents who were openly hostile to Trump…is that not causing ‘polarization’?…or doesn’t it matter if the people you are excluding and vilifying are people who you disagree with your politics…seems a lot like that to me.

    As pretty much all Liberal media come from the same Class, it should actually come as little surprise to anyone that it is filled to the brim with a closed circle of self-perpetuating, self-gratifying, deeply narcissistic people who have absolutely no interest in fairness and balance in reporting…and that is a serious problem for us all.
16. tsmithfield 16

    11 April 2022 at 10:44 am

    Looking at a lot of the comments here, the general opinion is that the media is heavily slanted to the right. However, most commenters on kiwiblog etc would claim that MSM is incredibly slanted to the left, and could provide plenty of examples to back up their points.

    So, I am not sure that complaining about the political alignment of journalists is particularly helpful. I think it is better to look at the quality of our journalism. As, if our news media is doing its job properly, the quality and balance of what is being presented to us shouldn't really be overly affected by the political perspective of the media people.

    Further to my comments above, I think a good example of the decline in serious, quality journalism and broadcasting can be seen by what has happened to the 7-7.30 slot.

    That used to be the domain of reasonably serious, insightful journalism with the likes of Paul Holmes and John Campbell. But these days, we have Seven Sharp, which is now very light weight and much more at the entertainment level of the scale.

    So, when there is such a decline in serious, investigative journalism, how can that enhance trust in the media?
17. alwyn 17

    11 April 2022 at 12:08 pm

    You state " Over the past two years Newstalk ZB’s rating dropped from 6.2% to 5.7% and in the Herald the decline was from 6.3% to 5.7%. RNZ’s trust rating at 6.2% is significantly higher than either rating."

    Those are not percentages. They are ratings out of 10 where 1 was don't trust at all. Can I suggest editing it to remove the % symbols?
18. Ghostwhowalksnz 18

    11 April 2022 at 1:38 pm

    Also the 'trust' in the media also included 'SOCIAL media

    'The 41 percent figure is for all media, including social media. ' says media watch

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018837570/measuring-trust-is-tricky-with-suspicious-minds

    It was 58% trust for 'traditional media'
19. Sanctuary 19

    11 April 2022 at 3:21 pm

    In my view the biggest cause of a decline in public trust of the media is the deliberate blurring of editorialising with news to elicit a primarily emotional response, the promotion of personalities and certain journalists as celebrities in their own right and the subsequent promotion and use of comment and opinion of these high profile personalities as sources of both news and authoritative editorial content. The blurring, too, of the presenting of comment from ex-politicians and lobbyists as sources of information and the reliance of PR from understaffed news rooms further undermines the line between editorialising and news.

    This is corrosive because journalists are not elected, yet seek to insert themselves into the political process for reasons of status and controversy (making rather than reporting the news, obvious to much of their audience) and because readers/viewers/listeners can pretty easily discern the political leanings of journalists and publications via their opinions and opinion pieces.

    Since the MSM in general is completely unrepresentative of the general population – more white, more middle class (and thus supportive of the status quo), and (usually) more liberal – it easily alienates any segment of their audience that isn't part of the same class with them and makes it much easier for their audience to simply dismiss the news as the opinion of someone/group you don't like.

    The net result is "last reader capture" – where increasingly strident polarisation, siloing and radicalisation of a declining audience is required to keep up engagement of a shrinking audience.
20. Corey Humm 20

    11 April 2022 at 6:02 pm

    Why would anyone have faith in NZ media? Even our state broadcaster has weather presenters reporting news now and as superficially as "Russia is threatening the world with consequences it has never seen , but in our top story Kim Kardashian has broken the internet again with a racy selfie" it's embarrassing and peak cringe how superficially our journalists understand stories.

    Unless there's a serious event going on noone under thirty is watching NZ media unless they work in media or can't afford the internet and even in time of disaster my generation will stream the press conference directly from the social media so we don't have to see any NZ commercials or previews for NZ programing. Ugh peak cringe

    My generation are working, reading, gaming, streaming or memeing, we ain't watching the news , baby we are the news. A bunch of smug self important neoliberals superficially giving us their hot take ain't it for us.

    And if getting comedians and influencers to speak down to us and use catchphrases could save NZ media spin off tv wouldnt have died. Cringe.

    The govt needs to however actually on this an every issue stop letting other people take the narrative for them, they need to constantly remind the public as do media that the media relief package was to provide advertising revenue by buying ads for the COVID response. Those annoying ads weren't cheap. Advertising which is the only way media makes money, during a time when no retailers , hospo providers were buying advertising . It didn't buy media, in fact the media were nastier than ever screaming at the pm so much at the time the public got disgusted with media, Winston Peters who signed off on the package needs to be asked why he signed off on the media package if he didn't like it.

    I never agreed with buying media. I said then and I say now that those neoliberal outlets who have spread propaganda and fear about unions, housing regulations, bashed every racial and sexual minority on the planet should have been left to sink or float on their capitalist beliefs

    As for tax payer funded journalism I don't see how "the joys of an unplanned walk" "every biscuit in NZ ranked by taste and texture" and endless pathetic reports on jeggings , yoga and the countless brain farts from upper middle class idiots is an appropriate use of tax payers money. Cut it. Let the spin off survive on its own two feet.

    As for tvnz again noone watches it unless there's a meme or were taking the piss out of it. I'll watch BBC or CBC because they have charters that tvnz doesn't have and the second it starts costing a cent more than it should privatize it too.

    Why should my generation pay taxes for this crap? We don't watch it. We're already paying taxes for pensions for the cradle to the grave generation who stupidly voted to get rid of their own super plans in the 70s for a quick buck, who have opposed anything that would make housing more affordable, who pulled up every ladder they went up and have the audacity to think my generation is entitled and lazy, why should we fund boomers tv shows just cos half of them can't work out Netflix?

    Stop funding crappy lifestyle reports on jeggings, stop funding neoliberal programming and while you're at it, if my generation are going to be locked out of pensions, home ownership, means test the pension.
21. Jenny how to get there 21

    11 April 2022 at 10:23 pm

    '

    The Fake News Casters

    Fake News, False Narratives, Conspiracy Theories, Disinformation Campaigns, Useful Idiots, The Far Right and War.

    ……The next world war may begin with a grainy, contested, online image launched onto the pages of a newspaper that has recently sacked all its journalists.

    Searching for facts in the fog of Syria's propaganda war

    James Harkin

    February 10 2019, 8:32 a.m.

    …..it achieves its best results when it seeds false claims and then amplifies the disinformation produced independently by third parties, thus exploiting the concerns—or paranoia—of actors on the fringes.

    ….the claim that the US was producing bioweapons in Ukraine to target Russia, just as it had produced the coronavirus to target China, and that Russia’s invasion was aimed at neutralizing this threat. The allegation was not new and had in fact been made a year earlier by a security advisor to Vladimir Putin and amplified by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, a Bulgarian journalist with a history of channelling Kremlin-friendly disinformation. The claim was immediately debunked by Snopes, but it spread through QAnon networks all the same….

    How Russia’s Disinformation Apparatus ran aground in Ukraine

    Idrees Ahmad

    22 March 2022

    …..fueled by Russian state media outlets that had become a go-to source for alternative news for many of these conspiracy groups — are based on common ideological roots between anti-vaxxers, QAnon believers and the Kremlin, including a distrust of traditional media and political elites, and a hatred of either NATO or the U.S….

    …Some QAnon followers — as they turned their attention to the war in Eastern Europe — embraced Vladimir Putin as the successor of former U.S. President Donald Trump in the fight they envisioned against a shadowy "deep state" global elite.

    …..Multiple misinformation analysts and fact-checking groups told POLITICO there was no evidence of direct coordination between Russia and these groups to spread online falsehoods. Instead, groups already enmeshed in fringe narratives that question mainstream thinking are more inclined to believe other variations of the anti-Western themes coming from Russia….

    Anti-vax conspiracy groups lean into pro-Kremlin propaganda in Ukraine

    By Laura Kayali and Mark Scott

    March 17, 2022 5:26 pm
22. Jenny how to get there 22

    12 April 2022 at 7:07 am

    [Too many links – deleted in full]
    • Incognito 22.1

      12 April 2022 at 9:07 am

      Mod note
23. Jenny how to get there 23

    12 April 2022 at 11:06 am

    '

    Post-truth politics

    From Wikipedia

    …Post-truth politics' historical nature has also been discussed with regard to more traditional areas of communication and journalism studies such as propaganda and disinformation.[8][9]

    As of 2018, political commentators and academic researchers have identified post-truth politics as ascendant in many nations, notably Australia, Brazil, China, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others…..

    But for real post-truth politics, instead of competing narratives, only one narrative is allowed.

    Jenny 13

    11 February 2017 at 2:25

    Hero singer throat cut and voicbox and tongue cut out….

    ….his body was found dumped in the Assi River (also spelled: Isa River), with a big, open and bloody wound in his neck where his adam’s apple and voice chord had been removed. A clear message to those who dare to raise their voice against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    [Sick and tired of you habitually posting mostly irrelevant comment upon comment on the bottom of threads that mention Syria in any way. I’m banning you for the weekend so I don’t have to keep an eye out, and I’ll ban you for a very long time if you ever pull this bullshit again.] – Bill

    Jenny13.2

    14 February 2017 at 5:20 am

    [Sick and tired of you habitually posting mostly irrelevant comment upon comment on the bottom of threads that mention Syria in any way. I’m banning you for the weekend so I don’t have to keep an eye out, and I’ll ban you for a very long time if you ever pull this bullshit again.] – Bill

    …..If I put up a post in defence of the Syrian revolution too early in a piece, I get accused of “diverting the thread”.

    Now I get accused of putting my comments at the end of threads, and still get banned.

    Accompanied with a threat that if I don’t agree to self censorship I will be banned totally.

    Sorry Bill, ain’t gonna happen. There is no way that I will agree to be my own censor to suit you.

    Bill 13.1.1.1.1

    11 February 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Oh, I fully believe that Syrian civilians were subjected to chemical agents and that gas canisters and water heaters were packed with both explosives and chemicals before being ‘lobbed’ into civilian areas (eg -western districts of Aleppo). I think we disagree on who the perpetrators are or were and what would constitute a reasonable motive (and the absence or presence of such a motive) for employing such a tactic.

    But that aside – well, it’s not ‘aside’ so much as in a similar vein – maybe ask yourself this. Would it be at all likely for a collaborator to have their throat cut by the likes of AQ? Would it be more or less likely for someone singing songs to have their throat cut by security agencies?

    Jenny 20

    14 February 2017 at 6:41 am

    Hero uncle – Dahi Al Musalmani

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQni3qn6GIU&ab_channel=HumanRightsWatch

    [For ignoring moderation and lying about authors…continuing with the same old tiresome pattern of bullshit – 1 year ban] – Bill

    [What is your point dredging up Mod notes from more than 5 years ago from a Mod who’s no longer a Mod here? Instead of again spamming the site with comments with too many links you’re now spamming a good Post with irrelevant nonsense that seems to suggest your fragile ego is still hurting after 5 years. Stop playing the victim, as nobody is interested in your personal baggage and feelings of how unfairly you’ve been treated here. You’re not even close to being some kind of freedom fighter or truth crusader on this site, so stop that pretentious behaviour too. You’re really testing my patience with this – Incognito]
    • Incognito 23.1

      12 April 2022 at 1:10 pm

      Mod note

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS