72% of Canadians say traditional outlets ‘report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading’, and half of them feel that people choosing to use more credible news sources is an effective way to tackle fake news.

“Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes, but when you look back, everything is different…”

From “Prince Caspian”, by C.S. Lewis, 1951

 

 

That’s from “The Chronicles of Narnia”, which I read as a youth. I got the hardcover books out of a library. I loved reading, and went on to major in English in college. I recently moved to Brooklyn, N.Y., and take the train over to midtown Manhattan for work each day.

People are starting to read books, again.  The change happened within the last month or two, I called it out the first time I saw it back in this thread.

There are multiple reasons why I’m repeating this stuff all the time.

One is that the Ministry of Truth is largely not reporting it, and, if a continuous written and oral record is not present, things can be engineered out of society, and have been, over a very long time.

A second is that the programming refuting a subject such as, say, the Ether has been laid down repetitively over a very long time. And so it “gives it the superficial appearance of being right”, to quote Thomas Paine. Getting past that programming is like learning to play a music scale – it requires repetition for one to become fluent, to become fluid.

It’s like a hitch in a golf swing. Often, one doesn’t even know one has it, until a coach or pro films it and points it out in slow-motion, and then it takes repetitive training and mental drills to break it. It’s an example of what I have heard referred to a “nested complex in the subconscious”.

The third reason is that this is not currently a dialogue, and I think it should be. But I believe that it will soon become one, and I hope to still be writing this thread when it starts.

Actually, no, this already is a dialogue; I’ve begun it, and you have engaged in it by reading this.

It’s October 2018, and we’ve come a long way from that little library in Emmaus, PA. About fifty years, remarkably. Through those years we’ve been pressed to the darkest of places, and have now passed the dark nadir of the Kindle, and people are reading books on the subway again. In less than one man’s lifetime, our dark and about-to-be-former dark masters’ last and most horrible gambit is failing. And, to my great joy, I have lived to see and to document it

The Borg earpeace flared briefly, and went out, and has now reappeared as the current must-have technology item: the miniature, white Borg earpeace.

How long until we evolve past the behavior? I don’t think it will be long, now.

I just drove by the Emmaus library the other day, and saw that there is improvement and restoration work going on. Great, epochal positive changes are taking place at every level of our reality, including the local-library level, and the reading-on-the-subway level.

To play a successful “confidence game”, the self-professed con artists who run them must first select a rube or rubes to take advantage of. Then they must think up a misdirection ploy that will work on those people. And then they must put on fair guise and gain the confidence of those people. Here, confidence is a synonym for trust.

All of the recent news accounts I’ve collected below show graphically how the folks in charge are losing control of the con. The rubes are getting wise.

These things don’t take a long time, once they start.

 

 

 

June 6, 2017 – Why we can’t trust academic journals to tell the scientific truth

Hundreds of thousands of scientists took to streets around the world in April. “We need science because science tells the truth. We are those who can fight the fake news,” a friend who participated in one of the March for Science rallies told me. I really wish this were true. Sadly, much evidence suggests otherwise.

The idea that the same experiment will always produce the same result, no matter who performs it, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to truth. However, more than 70% of the researchers (pdf), who took part in a recent study published in Nature have tried and failed to replicate another scientist’s experiment. Another study found that at least 50% of life science research cannot be replicated. The same holds for 51% of economics papers (pdf).

The findings of these studies resonate with the gut feeling of many in contemporary academia – that a lot of published research findings may be false. Just like any other information source, academic journals may contain fake news.

 

April 25, 2018 – Americans’ Trust in the Healthcare System Low … – HealthPopuli.com

 

July 13, 2018 – Trust in the Pharmaceutical Industry at a New Low, how to recover

 

June 27, 2018 – 92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news – Axios

(But cannot grasp yet that they’ve been conned by the orange guy. Please notice I said ‘yet’. We all only have to learn something once, and then we can teach others. – ed)

 

July 31, 2018 – The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer showed a 13-point drop in consumer trust in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

July 30, 2018 – INMA: Research: Lack of trust in media perpetuates belief in fake news

What is fake news?

The Trust in News Study shows nine out of 10 Canadian adults are aware of the term “fake news,” but the term seems to mean several things to Canadians:

Six out of 10 believe fake news means a mainstream news organisation has deliberately fabricated news.

(They ran with the softer “six out of ten”, to avoid using the harder “60%”. You’ll see that they used the two lower percentages, but softened the highest one. That’s careful, deliberate hedging. – ed)

43% believe it is a story put out by someone pretending to be a news organisation.

42% also believe it implies a story is factually incorrect (possibly by mistake).

(No, it doesn’t mean different things to different people. If that were true, the percentages provided would have added up to 100%, showing people had three distinct points of view. But that’s not the case, here. They’ve deliberately posted as it it was. Doing this sort of stuff in the middle of a story about fake news shows you just how tireless and gymnastic these guys are, and it’s impressive, but it will lead to their undoing, as it is also formulaic and predictable, part of a criminal modus operandi.  – ed)

The Ethical Journalism Network defines fake news best, as disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information. However, looking beyond the proper definition of fake news, one out of four Canadians say they now trust mainstream news organisations less. But all is not lost, as audiences do see the importance of quality news and journalism.

Building on a heritage of trust

Eight out of 10 Canadians believe the health of our democracy depends on journalists reporting the facts accurately.

(There’s that deliberate softening again, just like “six of ten”, above. – ed)

Also, half of the adult population feels people choosing to use more credible news sources is an effective way to tackle fake news.

(They used the softer “half” instead of the harder “50%. That’s another careful, deliberate hedge. – ed)

This is where traditional media, such as newspaper brands, begin to matter.

Poll: 72 percent say traditional outlets ‘report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading’

(Including this very article – ed)

 

August 25, 2018 – It’s not science I don’t trust – it’s the scientists | The Spectator

(Implies it’s a few “bad apples”, vs. systemic, and a con. – ed)

 

September 12, 2018 – Most Americans say they have lost trust in the media

 

September 12, 2018 – Number of Americans who trust Trump over the media hits a record low

 

October 11, 2018 – Dramatic drop in public confidence after Philippines dengue vaccine controversy

The Philippines’ highly politicised response to newly-reported risks of a dengue vaccine led to a dramatic drop in public trust in vaccines overall, according to new research published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics.

Led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), the study measured the impact of the Dengvaxia crisis on overall vaccine confidence before and after the manufacturer highlighted a risk associated with the vaccine and the associated political fallout.

The study of 1,500 participants revealed a dramatic drop in vaccine confidence, from the majority (93%) “strongly agreeing” that vaccines are important in 2015 to a third (32%) in 2018. The researchers say the findings highlight the importance of identifying gaps or breakdowns in public confidence in vaccines in order to rebuild trust before a pandemic strikes.

(They avoided wording it more strongly, like this: “The percentage of Filipino’s who strongly agree that vaccines are important dropped 61% in the last three years, from 2015 to 2018.” – ed)

Subscribe Share on Facebook

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *