Can we really trust mainstream media any more?

[blackbird]

Well it becomes obvious mainstream media has greatly mis-represented the residential school graves report.  It seems they were very quick to report and sensationalize the story without any background investigation or reporting.  They reported on it repeatedly in a way that caused hysteria among the Canadian population and did not present the true facts.  As a result many people reacted in a predictable way, with anger and hysteria.  Some went as far as pulling down and destroying statues.  Others defaced churches and others burned churches down to the ground.  Many politicians seemed to have accepted the media reports at face value and many did not strongly condemn the illegal acts and arson.  As a result of these inflammatory reports, many cities even went as far as to cancel Canada Day celebrations.

This new report goes into the details of what the misinformation was.

Six things the media got wrong about the graves found near Residential Schools | True North (tnc.news)

Since mainstream media got this issue so wrong, can they really be trusted in anything they report?  Are they prone to automatically take the side of the left wing radical woke anarchists who seem bent on tearing down Canada?

"A recent study by the consultancy firm Edelman found that 52% of Canadians believe most news outlets are more concerned with promoting their own ideology than telling the truth.

Another 49% of Canadians surveyed believe journalists are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” 

CBC restricts comments section to hide opposing voices | True North (tnc.news)

Edited July 8, 2021 by blackbird

[ironstone]

I don't have much trust in the MSM and I agree with those that think promoting ideology is more important than simple reporting of facts. The MSM is also more about entertainment and flashy headlines, just like clickbait.

There are too many Charlie Chester's running the news/entertainment industry.

[QuebecOverCanada]

Never trust anyone by its word. Always doubt and be critical, even if it seems cynical but it isn't. Both political spectrums are absolutely retarded. You probably are retarded too, just like almost anyone, or at least very badly informed about subjects. But we're arrogant and think 'we know' better. Or we're else very interested in the subject matter which forces us to lie unconsciously to ourselves and everyone around us.

Mainstream, independent, everyone has interests, bias, intellectual limitations. You can't base your opinion on blind trust in people, that's dumb.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/8/2021 at 6:55 PM, ironstone said:

I don't have much trust in the MSM and I agree with those that think promoting ideology is more important than simple reporting of facts. The MSM is also more about entertainment and flashy headlines, just like clickbait.

There are too many Charlie Chester's running the news/entertainment industry.

There are 3 major things wrong with your argument.  Click this article to find out why!

[blackbird]

On the question of fear mongering bias of the media, a good example is their use of emotional arguments and fear-mongering to con people into believing their narrative that man is the cause of climate change.  They would destroy people's livelihood and the economy of the country to further their objectives.  Their belief that man is the cause so what's wrong with punishing him is their thinking.  The media practically never allow experts with a counter view to speak or make presentations.  The media seldom just presents views and counter views.  They simply make no attempt to be unbiased and fair.  It is always strongly biased with only a certain narrative.  This is why many refer to them as "fake news".

The use of a young girl, Greta Thornburg, is a good example also.

"Polar bear numbers, it was predicted, would decline, and were even threatened with extinction due to a shrinking area of Arctic sea ice. Such dire predictions were used by Al Gore, Michael Mann, and others to play on the emotions of the public to support radical action on climate change. Mann even published a children’s book in 2018 using polar bears to capture the imaginations of children. Since 2005, the global polar bear population has been stable or likely risen.¹⁹ Even so, we wonder why a typical evolutionist would be at all concerned. If polar bears go extinct, so what? Something else will evolve to fill their place, or not, but it does not matter either way if life on earth is nothing more than a cosmic accident. The fact that they are trying to make emotional moral arguments when they have no basis for doing so only shows that this is more about manipulation of public opinion than about science."

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

School children in public schools are constantly being brainwashed too.  That's why we sometimes have seen thousands of them demonstrating on the streets.  They have obviously been given or heard only one side of the issue.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

Climate change is real.

The media has got worse, but mostly because of pressure from worse media.

I never understood people who say that the Globe and Mail, for example, is biased and then embrace conspiracy media.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Climate change is real.

The media has got worse, but mostly because of pressure from worse media.

I never understood people who say that the Globe and Mail, for example, is biased and then embrace conspiracy media.

That's how they know it's biased.  It doesn't agree with the sites they go to to be told how right they are.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

That's how they know it's biased.  It doesn't agree with the sites they go to to be told how right they are.

An article says "In 1989 the UN said, “Entire nations will be wiped out by the year 2000 if sea level rises are not stopped.” Did this happen? No! Tuvalu, a Pacific Ocean nation of atoll islands, is a favourite poster child for this claim. However, Tuvalu has increased 3% in land area over the last 40 years."  the statement comes from an article on climate change at the website creation.com

A different source says 

"United Nations “Climate Refugees”

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth."

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry - The New American

Since there are various websites that show predictions by the U.N. and other organizations were false, how do you deal with it?  Since the U.N. is the central and biggest proponent of man-made climate change and is religiously followed by our Liberal and NDP government as the last word on the subject, how do they reconcile the big lies from the U.N. in the past with their claims today?  Or do you cherry pick which claims you will believe based on whether the Liberals support it or not?  Or do you look at the hot weather lately and say yea it must be man-made?

Edited July 12, 2021 by blackbird

[Guest]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

An article says "In 1989 the UN said, “Entire nations will be wiped out by the year 2000 if sea level rises are not stopped.” Did this happen? No! Tuvalu, a Pacific Ocean nation of atoll islands, is a favourite poster child for this claim. However, Tuvalu has increased 3% in land area over the last 40 years."  the statement comes from an article on climate change at the website creation.com

A different source says 

"United Nations “Climate Refugees”

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth."

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry - The New American

Since there are various websites that show predictions by the U.N. and other organizations were false, how do you deal with it?  Since the U.N. is the central and biggest proponent of man-made climate change and is religiously followed by our Liberal and NDP government as the last word on the subject, how do they reconcile the big lies from the U.N. in the past with their claims today?  Or do you cherry pick which claims you will believe based on whether the Liberals support it or not?  Or do you look at the hot weather lately and say yea it must be man-made?

Yeah, lots of articles have got lots of stuff wrong over the years. 

I don't believe any specific predictions until I see them happening.  What do you do about stuff you have no physical evidence for?

Edited July 12, 2021 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, lots of articles have got lots of stuff wrong over the years. 

I don't believe any specific predictions until I see them happening.  What do you do about stuff you have no physical evidence for?

Depends what stuff you are referring to.  We know there is such a thing as gravity, heat, radiation, microwaves, radio waves, etc. although we cannot see them. They have proven they exist even though we might not be able to explain them in absolute terms.  Science can only go so far and a lot of science is theoretical.  Scientists cannot actually see sub atomic particles, but have given them names and described how they operate.  I believe they say particles are basic energy (protons, electrons, neutrons) but they described only in theoretical terms.  They don't really know what this energy is.  It is all described in a theoretical manner.  Mathematics can even put numbers to it and describe things mathematically, but still it is not something we can see or describe in human terms that clearly explain it.  Nobody has seen energy, gravity, etc. and knows exactly what they are.  But I believe they exist.  Gravity is a tough one.  Nobody can see it.  Nobody really knows what gravity is and what makes it operate even through the vast distances of outer space.  What is it that holds the moon in it's place as it circles the earth?  What holds the earth in it's place as it circles the sun? Yet we have given these phenomena names and know there is something there we call gravity.  Same as God.  God exists and the evidence is all around us in the creation and beauty of the universe.

Scientists who claim to be atheists are really irrational if you look closely.  Where did all these sub atomic particles, radiation, gravity come from if not by God?  Of course they would have to have a designer and creator.  Since they exist, someone (a rational being we call God) had to have designed these things and how they operate and bring them into existence from nothing.  Some things we accept on faith but it is not a blind faith.  It is based on reason or rational thinking.  Things do not create themselves out of nothing.

Edited July 12, 2021 by blackbird

[Argus]

On 7/11/2021 at 4:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Climate change is real.

The media has got worse, but mostly because of pressure from worse media.

I never understood people who say that the Globe and Mail, for example, is biased and then embrace conspiracy media.

The Globe and Mail keeps pushing stories which I believe they feel they need to in order to qualify for government cash.

Recognizing that doesn't mean I'm going to embrace conspiracy crap though. I'm a little too cynical for that.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, lots of articles have got lots of stuff wrong over the years. 

I don't believe any specific predictions until I see them happening.  What do you do about stuff you have no physical evidence for?

I include this because it's apropos and amusing and informative and because MH adores this guy.

 

[Michael Hardner]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

I include this because it's apropos and amusing and informative and because MH adores this guy.

 

I'm sure if I had decent internet here I'd watch it.

[Michael Hardner]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

The Globe and Mail keeps pushing stories which I believe they feel they need to in order to qualify for government cash.

Like breaking the SNC Lavalin scandal? ?