The Guardian is a daily fictional story service that pretends to report the news. They’ve tossed the IPCC official terminology of “climate change” and replaced it with their own creation of inflammatory rhetoric “climate crisis” and “global heating”.
When is something a “crisis” and when is it not? “Crisis” is an intentional word used to evoke emotions – or to call for action. One can choose to use the word “crisis” to suggest something awful (even if not really) or can deliberately choose not to use the world “crisis” to minimize the optics of the situation.
The bogus World Happiness Report is back. The news media loves to run stories about this annual nonsense report that defines happiness as living in a Scandinavian country. I analyzed and demolished this report back in 2016.
Laziness leads to Reuters showing a thumbnail graphic that is badly out of date, and which may mislead readers into thinking the Covid situation is much worse than it is now. This is not nefarious or intentional propaganda – it is most likely just laziness.
“Tear gas” and “Pepper spray” have been redefined by riot enthusiasts as “chemical munitions” and “chemical weapons” as they seek to ban the use of crowd control measures by police, when employed at “mostly peaceful protests”. Changing the language is one of the first steps taken in a propaganda campaign. Language redefinition goes on all the time, and lately, with increasing frequency.
A “report” by an advocacy group opposes “vaccine nationalism” and says we need “a massive course correction” on vaccine distribution by redirecting “excess rich-country doses” to “poorer countries”. But they pulled a little trick in their description – twisting the facts.
According to the NY Times “Unfettered conversations” are taking place on a new cloud-based app. Is the NY Times suggesting all conversations should be monitored by the secret police or their proxies, the tech companies? This seems bizarre.
Not at all what was photographed: “”1930, A British Official being carried by a Bengali woman in a remote area of United India where no buses or cars could go.”
Newsweek and the Washington Post have both done stealth edits to long ago articles and did so for political reasons. Trust journalism? Why?
When an organization suffers an embarrassing fiasco of their own making, they often respond with the silly “This is not who we are” claim, just after they’ve demonstrated that this is indeed who they are. This is known as the “Begging the question fallacy”.
Today, a PBS legal counsel was caught advocating for fire bombing the White House and sending children of Trump supporters to re-education camps. PBS has apparently fired the counsel, and made the usual “This is not who we are”, just after their own counsel demonstrated that this might be who they are… begging the question once again.