+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 9507
Total Topics: 234
Most Online Today: 0
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 25, 2018, 06:58:50 pm »

Truthdig

APR 23, 2018 ARTICLES

Unconditional Love for Israel 👹, Silence 🙉 🙊 for Palestine

SNIPPET:

In truth, after seventy years of failure, and the long track record of one-sided support America has shown toward Israel, I’m no longer optimistic about the prospects for a two-state solution. That said, as a lowly soldier who spent countless hours receiving ear-fulls of criticism of U.S.-Palestine policy from distant Afghans and Iraqis, I am certain of one thing: America’s unjust favoritism of Israel places U.S. servicemen at risk in the Middle East.

Israel has a choice. It purportedly desires to be three things: Jewish, democratic, and expansive—encompassing all territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. It can be any two, but not all three. If it is to be expansive and democratic, then it must absorb millions of Palestinians—at which point it ceases to be Jewish. If it continues to deny statehood or full civil rights to the Palestinians, but remains expansive—it is no longer democratic. The best path seems obvious: a less expansive Israel that allows a genuine Palestinian nation-state its own sovereignty. Only, so long as the right-wing Likud Party 😈 of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 🦀 is paramount, that solution is off the table.

And so, America too, has a choice. It can be a fair arbiter , truly the “beacon of democracy” it boisterously bills itself.  Or, it can continue to favor Israel and ignore the plight of Palestinians.

Full article with links to the accurate history of heinous actions by Israel, CONTINUING TO THIS DAY, and the evil people in US media, and in our government, that support Israeli injustice and cruelty:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/unconditional-love-for-israel-and-silence-for-palestine/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 10, 2018, 05:35:00 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 29, 2017, 01:06:56 pm »

EcoWatch

Does Record Snowfall Disprove Global Warming? 'Exactly the Opposite,' Scientist Says

By Lorraine Chow

Dec. 27, 2017 11:06AM EST


The lakefront city of Erie, Pa. has been inundated by several feet of snow this week, “shattering many records," the National Weather Service said.

The historic storm—a whopping 62.9 inches since Dec. 23, with more flakes to come—prompted the city's police department to declare a “Snow Emergency" due to dangerous and impassable roads.

While climate deniers might point to the cold weather as more proof of the "global warming hoax," climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe  begs to differ.

"What's with all the snow?" she tweeted Tuesday. "Does it mean global warming is finished? Nope; it's exactly the opposite, in fact. Warmer temperatures are increasing the risk of lake-effect snow."

According to the National Weather Service, "Lake Effect snow occurs when cold air, often originating from Canada, moves across the open waters of the Great Lakes. As the cold air passes over the unfrozen and relatively warm waters of the Great Lakes, warmth and moisture are transferred into the lowest portion of the atmosphere. The air rises, clouds form and grow into narrow band that produces 2 to 3 inches of snow per hour or more."

Hayhoe went on to explain over several tweets that both natural cycles (i.e. the North Atlantic Oscillation, La Niña) and human factors (i.e. rising temperatures from man-made climate change) have exacerbated this weather phenomenon.

     Katharine Hayhoe
    ✔
    @KHayhoe

What's with all the snow? Does it mean global warming is finished? Nope; it's exactly the opposite, in fact. Warmer temperatures are increasing the risk of lake-effect snow, and here's how: (thread)http://buffalonews.com/2017/12/26/you-think-its-snowy-in-buffalo-check-out-what-erie-pa-got/ …

    Katharine Hayhoe
    ✔
    @KHayhoe

If the Great Lakes aren't frozen, when cold winter weather systems sweep across the lakes, the air warms and becomes more humid. It then rises, the water vapour freezes, and gets dumped as snow. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake-effect_snow
    9:53 AM - Dec 26, 2017

        2 2 Replies
        31 31 Retweets
        60

     Katharine Hayhoe
    ✔
    @KHayhoe
    Replying to @KHayhoe

What's the connection between lake-effect snow and global warming? First, as the world warms, it's harder for ice to form, and it isn't lasting as long. For 15 of the last 20 years, Great Lakes ice cover has been below the long-term average. pic.twitter.com/RUDn5dXcoe
    10:01 AM - Dec 26, 2017

Second, this is increasing the risk of days when it's still cold enough to snow, but the lakes aren't ice-covered. So lake-effect snow is on the rise.
    Source:http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jglr.2008.11.003 … pic.twitter.com/DyM8TeCPlT
    10:03 AM - Dec 26, 2017


What do we expect for the future? Some continued increase in lake-effect snow over the next few decades, but also a transition from snow to rain, particularly in late fall and early spring. Read more: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/less-lake-ice-more-potential-lake-effect-snow
    10:05 AM - Dec 26, 2017

     Katharine Hayhoe
    ✔
    @KHayhoe
    Replying to @KHayhoe

So what's happening this year? Both natural and human factors are at work: the influence of natural cycles like La Nina and the NAO + exacerbated by a long-term warming trend driving increased risk of lake-effect snow = very low Great Lakes ice cover forecasts for this year. pic.twitter.com/mIQl3NCu90
    10:08 AM - Dec 26, 2017


 At the end of her twitter thread, Hayhoe joked, "When two feet of snow's just been dumped on our driveway, we all think—I'd like a little global warming now, please!"

Recent studies have shown the effect of climate change on regional precipitation. In a study published earlier this month, researchers from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine and the University of New Hampshire revealed how they were shocked to find that the Alaska Range has received an average of 18 feet of snow per year—that's more than double the average of eight feet per year from 1600-1840.

The likely culprit is none other than climate change. The authors suggested that warmer waters from the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans caused a strengthening of the "Aleutian Low" pressure system with its northward flow of warm, moist air, driving most of the snowfall increases.

https://www.ecowatch.com/snowfall-global-warming-2520296568.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 06:56:18 pm »


Is Azozeo on the Trump Alternative Facts payroll? (see wild bears and woods poop habits question)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 06:37:51 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Now for the last sequence with the typical baloney about being "victimized" that Trumpers like azozeo love to wallow in.

The website is an eyesore and apparently has been created by someone who taught themselves web-design in the 1990s and decided anything beyond garishly coloured static HTML is just giving in to them.

That's the understatement of the year.  That is the ugliest website I have seen in a long time.

RE

That's it....
You've had all fu cking day to work me over like a cheap suit & all I get from
you is poor website design, REALLY ?
Well it's better than Surly's bullpen oration. That wasn't even worth a reaction.
Hope you enjoy the fireworks as much as I do.


Life's a stage & we're merely just bit players.
Sir Francis Bacon.

So, AZ complains about being "beat up". This is typical baloney about being "victimized" that Trumpers like azozeo love to wallow in. You certainly are doing a great imitation of your Hero, Trumper.

You've had all fu cking day to work me over like a cheap suit & all I get from
you is poor website design, REALLY ?

What's to work you over with?  You just drop on these links to tweak people who are anti-conspiracy website.  The only thing that struck me visiting the link was how god-awful ugly it was.  I read about 3 paragraphs on the first page which had nothing of interest to me.

RE


Well it's better than Surly's bullpen oration. That wasn't even worth a reaction.

Then next time, read for comprehension. Or get someone to read it to you.
;D

http://aprillajune.com/rogue-cia-gives-nuke-tech-north-korea-via-uranium-one-iran-deal/

ROGUE CIA GIVES NUKE TECH TO NORTH KOREA VIA URANIUM ONE AND IRAN DEAL

Let's put this bullshit to bed once and for all.


Let's put this bullshit to bed once and for all.

What Is the Uranium One 'Scandal?' Well...
Would you like cheese with your nothingburger?


Getty

BY JACK HOLMES
DEC 21, 2017
585
Periodically, we hear about the so-called "Uranium One" scandal, a conservative fantasy in which Hillary Clinton somehow engineered the sale of nuclear materials to Russia. Strangely, it seems to crop up every time there's a damaging news report about President Trump's own ties to Russia.

NBC News reported Thursday morning that the Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, is once again looking into the Uranium One deal—and even whether a special counsel is needed to investigate. Notice how eager Republicans are to work "Russia," "special counsel," and "Hillary Clinton" into a news story. And notice that there's also a report today that could bolster the obstruction of justice case against President Trump:

Caroline O.‏ @RVAwonk
FollowingFollowing @RVAwonk
More
Welp. WH counsel Don McGahn discussed with Trump his concerns about Flynn lying to the FBI (& potentially violating Logan Act) in January — well *before* Trump fired Comey. Prosecutors say these records may bolster obstruction case against Trump. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/20/white-house-counsel-knew-in-january-flynn-probably-violated-the-law



You'd want people to talk about uranium, too. NBC provided a lowdown on what Republicans say the Uranium One scandal is:

At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia's state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security...As the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated with the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction.
What NBC doesn't mention up top is that the story was fed to the Times from a book called Clinton Cash, which was written by a Breitbart editor and funded by a political action group tied to Steve Bannon and his billionaire benefactor, Robert Mercer. Essentially, this story is the product of a verifiable swamp of Trumpists. It is not real, which NBC lays out farther down:

Nonetheless, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, approved the deal by a unanimous vote, according to public reports. Clinton was just one member of the nine member CFIUS by virtue of her role as Secretary of State. The other eight members of CFIUS came from Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of Science & Technology, and the Justice Department.
Defenders of the deal point out that the Russians don't have a license to export the uranium out of the U.S., and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found no risk to national security. Clinton has said she was not involved in the deliberations and played no role in the decision. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the Times that he represented the department on the committee, and that "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter."

This story was also debunked months ago, and more recently. Those debunkings include one by Shep Smith of Fox News:



 

They also include an expert cross-examination of a conservative talking head by MSNBC's Joy Reid:


This scandal is not real. It's a distraction. You know that because, as usual, Donald Trump has made the political machinations of the Republican Party explicit. In his eagerness and his foolishness, he spelled out the plan to reporters:

"That's your Russia story," said the president . "That's your real Russia story. Not a story where they talk about collusion—and there was none. It was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium."


Hey, Mr. President: You're giving away the game again. The Republicans' goal here is to get another Russia storyline going that targets Trump's vanquished opponent, or get a second special counsel appointed, or both. That way, they can muddy the waters and say that there was all kinds of collusion, and Russia was everywhere, and why is the Fake News Media and the corrupt Robert Mueller (whom, when he was first appointed, Republicans almost universally praised) only concentrating on the president?

This is classic authoritarian politics, where the line between fact and fiction is gradually erased until all that matters is what team you're on. Oh, you say Trump colluded? Well I say Clinton colluded, and she gave them uranium! Never mind that they can never export the uranium, and that there's no evidence Clinton had anything to do with the deal.


The Republican caucus.
Getty
 
This isn't the only way Trump's authoritarian lackeys are trying to muddy the waters, either. Just yesterday, Politico reported that House Republicans are trying to gin up corruption claims against officials at the Justice Department and the FBI. The move is led by Devin Nunes, who now has an extensive record of trying to obstruct Russia investigations that includes switching cars so he could go to the White House grounds late at night, undetected, to receive classified information from an unidentified source. Talk about embracing your role providing oversight of the executive branch.

If authoritarianism does take root in this country, it will be thanks to pathetic hand servants like Nunes and other Republicans in Congress, who are terrified of their own base—or who are perhaps worried that someone has leverage over them. For now, there is only one Russian issue subject to formal probes, and one special counsel. If they get their way, there will be however many are necessary to get the Don off the hook.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 06:10:24 pm »

The website is an eyesore and apparently has been created by someone who taught themselves web-design in the 1990s and decided anything beyond garishly coloured static HTML is just giving in to them.

That's the understatement of the year.  That is the ugliest website I have seen in a long time.

RE
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 06:08:51 pm »

Hot off the fuckin' griddle bitches...

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2459.htm

Indeed.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sorcha_Faal

Sorcha Faal

Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. There is a high chance that "Sorcha Faal" is actually David Booth, the owner/operator of the website, or someone collaborating with him.

The primary audience of Sorcha Faal's reports and the only ones who take them seriously are usually other conspiracy theorists, but in a few cases the site has been noticed outside of the fringe, such as in 2016 when a few Russian news sites reported Sorcha's inane speculation as a straight news story (see below).

Contents
 [hide]
1WhatDoesItMean.com
2Purported identity
2.1The Irish name
3The reports
4Reception
52016 Russian media circus
6Worst pages
7See also
8External links
9References

WhatDoesItMean.com[edit]
The website is an eyesore and apparently has been created by someone who taught themselves web-design in the 1990s and decided anything beyond garishly coloured static HTML is just giving in to them. Besides publishing Sorcha Faal's reports, WhatDoesItMean.com functions as a news aggregator, collecting links to news published elsewhere as "Top World News Now," neatly sorted by country in a large table on the front page.

Its current "About" page reveals almost no info about its owner(s), other than saying that "WhatDoesItMean.Com is a wholly owned of [sic] subsidiary of Oculus Miranda."[1]

Purported identity
[edit]
In 2004, the site claimed to be by Booth.[2] In 2005, it claimed to be by a Russian scientist named Sorcha Faal,[3] about whom none of the corroborating details like workplace or academic affiliationschecked out. By 2009, the site was claiming "Sorcha Faal" was the title of the head of the "Order of Sorcha Faal,"[4] whose real name is Maria Theresa of Dublin.[5] (The Russian scientist version of Sorcha Faal has been retconnedWikipedia's W.svg as being merely the person occupying the "Sorcha Faal" position at the time.)


We could go on, but really, why?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 06:02:37 pm »

Have someone read it to you, or better yet, have it printed, rolled into a tight cylinder, and pound it up your ass. And feel free to insult me some more: I'm just warming up.

Barfight!

RE

Not really. Just warming up in the bullpen.

Surly comes out of the Bullpen.

RE

 ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 05:59:56 pm »

Have someone read it to you, or better yet, have it printed, rolled into a tight cylinder, and pound it up your ass. And feel free to insult me some more: I'm just warming up.

Barfight!

RE

Not really. Just warming up in the bullpen.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 26, 2017, 05:57:47 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Surly is a good man, an expert in journalism and a powerful debater. Watch him take the Trumper azozeo apart piece by piece.  ;D

Not 1 but 2 flat earth f u ck-tards lurk here at the diner.
First Surly, Now Ag
.

I'd be angrier, but you soil your pants with every such post. You were are better off posting images of lens flares and arguing Planet X/Nibiru. Keep licking those windows on your short bus.

I beat MKing to a TKO by consistently going to the body with facts. And he was smarter and a whole lot more clever. Your primary admins have trolled and done battle with trolls for the last decade. And to refer to me and AG as "flat earners" is to torture meaning, which is part of the standard toolkit of Trump acolytes.

As long as you wish to chew, swallow, and regurgitate precious right wing talking points, and offer slurping blowjobs to Trump's useful idiots, you will find your offerings challenged, refuted and corrected. And your ignorance thus exposed. A belief system is no substitute for knowing the truth, and weighing the evidence.

Since you want to bring up the "Uranium One" nothing burger, that North Star of the easily led, here is a corrective:


Alternative Fact of the Week: Uranium One and an Actual Fact All-Star
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-1117-alt-fact-uranium-one-20171115-story.html

Have someone read it to you, or better yet, have it printed, rolled into a tight cylinder, and pound it up your ass. And feel free to insult me some more: I'm just warming up.




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 25, 2017, 08:19:19 pm »

Not 1 but 2 flat earth f u c k-tards lurk here at the diner.
First Surly, Now Ag.

Ad hom ain't right, CLOSET TRUMPER!  ;)

You is in deep doodoo.

AZ is very pissed.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 25, 2017, 07:58:02 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: azozeo (AZ for short) is a closet Trumper specializing in false, distracting, meaningless and sensationalist clickbait to get people's attention off of the in-your-face fascist destruction of the USA by Trump and his wrecking crew . Often, ridicule works better on these malicious propagandists than censure (see below).

Here's a nice bit of clickbait for ya, AZ. I just thought of it but I'm sure you can get a pack of views before people figure it out:  ;D


Giant Interstellar Turd Proves God Exists and Uses Our Solar System as a Privy - Scientists Voice Concerns Over Coming Divine Diarrhea Disaster   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 25, 2017, 07:50:20 pm »

Thank you Surly.  Those gifs gave me the best laughs  I've had for quite a while, especially imagining the look on AZ's face when he viewed them. 



AZ's editorial policy is "we don't need no stinkin' FACTS, just a good CLICKBAIT headline."  ::)
RE

I got yer' facts Cha-chi....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/




ROGUE CIA GIVES NUKE TECH TO NORTH KOREA VIA URANIUM ONE AND IRAN DEAL

California is an experiment to see what people will do. So is Chicago. Expect tomorrow and the coming weeks to be very violent and the liberals to be out of control – eaten up by a few groups which will be more ferocious than you know.

Expect distractions and false flags and the media to ignore important events.
It’s happening and it’s happening fast.

Bahahaha... all those violent liberals. Remember all the Nazis who died in Charlottesville?
Anything to distract from the Trumprussia treason bunnies.



Agenda 21 for Dummies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnBmbrPVBmg

"agenda 21..." Ooh. The UN plan to steal all our golfs.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 20, 2017, 10:02:00 pm »






December 19, 2017

How Did We Wind Up in a Post-Truth World? And What Can Be Done About It?

From coal’s astroturfing online to an artificial intelligence’s both-sides equivocation, when we talked about denial in the age of AI last week, things didn’t look promising. Fortunately, the December issue of the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition is here! It’s a special edition, focused on a lengthy article and featuring nine responses, all offering some help navigating misinformation in the post-truth age, with an eye towards technology.

Given the importance of the matter and depth of the research, and that all but the initial paper are behind a paywall, this will be the first in a rare three-part roundup. We felt it fitting to end this post-truth year with a rumination on our post-truth past.

Our journey through the truthiness landscape starts with a target article by Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K.H.Ecker and John Cook, summarizing the state of scholarship regarding how the public deals with misinformation and offering some suggestions about how to address the problem. The authors argue that key to surviving in this new “post-truth” landscape is “technocognition,” or the combination of psychological principles and technological solutions.

For those who want a crash course in the tenets Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook’s piece is based on, see The Debunking Handbook. But the three authors move past the summary to a much more interesting analysis:  they argue that American society must look at the socio-political context of fake news to fully understand its impacts and solutions, expanding the current focus from online interactions to the full IRL experience.

“The post-truth problem is not a blemish on the mirror,” they write. Instead, “the problem is that the mirror is a window into an alternative reality.” In this reality, elites and their evidence, like the multiple independent lines of research proving climate change is caused by human activities, are cast aside in favor of socially shared alt-news. The election of Donald Trump shows just how these misinformation ecosystems have moved from the fringe corners of the internet into the mainstream.

But the creation of these new realities is not a bipartisan problem: rather, it’s a curiously conservative phenomenon. Whether it’s a NASA-run child slave colony on Mars or the decades-old conspiracy around the UN’s plans for a global government or climate change being a Chinese hoax, the authors advise on the need to consider misinformation through “the lens of political drivers that have created an alternative epistemology that does not conform to conventional standards of evidentiary support.”

This is a fancy way of saying that sometimes conservative leaders just make bullshit up and people believe them. While this reckoning may seem new, the authors demonstrate that it’s been a long time coming (Karl Rove’s admission that the Bush administration actors “create[d] our own reality” is a particularly poignant example). The authors’ reference that Republicans “have moved towards the right in a manner unprecedented since the 1880s” follows with the fact that the right appears to be more susceptible to the pseudo-profound bullshit philosophical nonsense we’ve talked about before.

One important effect of creating alternate realities on social media, the authors explain,  is the invention of intense, imaginary conflict. Did scientists really discuss manipulating data in hacked emails? Of course not, but arguing about it makes for good TV! Fanning the hot flames of these conflicts, in turn, pushes politicians towards extremism. While nominees have traditionally hewed to the center for the largest possible share of votes, modern politicians now focus on their echo chamber to rile up the base. In this new post-truth world, “lying is not only accepted, it is rewarded,” Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook write. Falsifying reality is no longer about changing people's beliefs, it is about asserting power.”

These concepts make it crystal clear that climate denial is not an attempt to build a base of knowledge contrary to the consensus. Rather, the authors write, climate denial is “a political operation aimed at generating uncertainty in the public's mind in order to preserve the status quo and to delay climate-change mitigation.”

So how do we get people (conservatives) to care about truth and reality again? Technocognition might just have some answers.

But, uh… what is that? Mind melds with a Mac? Uploading our consciousness into the Matrix? Studying climate change while listening to the latest techno jams? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
 





December 20, 2017

Technocognition: Countering Fake News and Denial with Science and Technology

Yesterday we charted the course that led us to Post-Truth Land. How might we find our way out? Hard to say, but fortunately, the second portion of Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook’s piece offers some suggestions. They also coined fun new phrase to embody the changes that need to be made: technocognition.

As the authors explain, technocognition is the idea that we should use what we know about psychology to design technology in a way that minimizes the impact of misinformation. By improving how people communicate, they hope, we can improve the quality of the information shared.

Fundamentally, the authors argue for the need to educate the public about trolls and fake news, and improve journalism to better fight the misinformation. In addition to common sense steps like disclosing pundit and writer’s conflicts of interests and encouraging more participation to collectively reshape the norm into one where facts matter, media outlets should hire myth-busting fake news reporters, and consider forming a common “Disinformation Charter” of what’s acceptable behavior and standard of accuracy.

But the authors recognize that we can’t expect everyone to start playing by the rules which is why there is a need for independent watchdogs to act as the fake news referees, calling out errors and identifying when stories go past the truth. The climate world, which had already formed important defenses against deniers even before one was elected president, have a couple key actors already in this space, including Climate Feedback  . More broadly there’s the UK’s Independent Press Standards Organisation, which recently forced a correction of a Daily Mail climate conspiracy.

Then there’s the techno-side of the equation. These are the Silicon Valley fixes, like algorithms that can automatically fact check content to prevent fake news from showing up in searches or feeds, or mechanisms to flag fake news on social media.

Website moderators, the authors argue, need to do a better job containing trolls in the first place. From screening certain phrases that are primarily used as fake news framing to eliminating comment sections all together, there are lots of potential ways of curating the comment section so it’s not such a cesspool of hate and lies.  But more important than the comments is the content, which is why the authors suggest that an app for reporters would be useful for quick and easy determinations of what’s real and what’s an alternative fact- the Skeptical Science app for example.

And finally, while this is hardly an ask coming solely from the authors, tech companies should find ways to show people content from beyond their bubble. For example, while Facebook and Twitter primarily show users content based on their subscriptions, reddit’s /all and /popular pages show a mix of what everyone’s looking at, regardless of personal preference. This gives users a sense of the world outside their immediate awareness, forcing at least a subconscious recognition of the wider world they may not want to recognize.

Reading through this list of recommendations, and one gets the idea that with some simple tweaks from Silicon Valley, our post-truth problems could be solved. But is it enough?

For now, we hope that technocognition gets some techno-recognition. As unlikely as it may be, we find ourselves wishing for a way to make this anti-fake-news scholarship achieve a fraction of the viral shares that fake news regularly does.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 20, 2017, 06:33:54 pm »

I'm wondering if people really are smart enough to figure it out or not. Can you give a giant gift to corporate America and call it a "tax cut" for everyone, and fool most of the people? Probably. Stupidity abounds.

Trump is repeating the words "tax cut" over and over like he thinks if he says it enough times, everyone will have no choice but to believe him. Mass hypnosis, anyone?


When I studied sociology at the GCSE level (equivalent to SATS) there was a message in the classroom that read: if you repeat a lie often enough people will take as the truth. Trump is following the philosophy behind this message. To be more precise the idea comes from Joseph Goebbels the head of the propaganda of the Nazi party the exact quote as read in my classroom was:

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."


The resemblance was not lost on me. I've read that line, of course. Did you know that Goebbels was an avid student of Edward Bernays and Gustav Le Bon?

Any trained hypnotist will tell you that the trick is to talk to people's subconscious mind. That part of our psyche hears everything and can't distinguish what's real from what's merely programmed. Repeat it enough and it sticks. This is the secret of the wonderful success of TV advertising.  This is also why I personally gave up television.


I debated that issue in college way back in the 1960's. The power to convince others of a blatant untruth through repetition is limited by the perceived credibility/authority of the person or institution pushing the propaganda. Goebbels knew that, Hitler knew that and I'm certain you and Monsta know it.

We can never leave that out of the discussion. Without credibility, a person can repeat ad infinitum that the portion of the people's chocolate ration (See: Orwell 1984) is being RAISED from 20 grams a week to 15 grams a week, and they will be laughed to scorn while being labelled delusional whackos or simply bold faced liars.


It is sine qua non to the "Skillful" application of Propaganda for the Propagandist(s) to be perceived as a FRIEND of we-the-people.

I am certain that the hitherto successful fiction of GOP (and a large part of Democratic Party corporate toadies - i.e. "We have your best interests at heart") is TOAST.

I know you don't agree, but I am convinced the overwhelming majority of we-the-people see these bold faced liars for what they are (see below graphic).


Therefore, I do not think most people will continue to swallow the Fascist Bullshit, no matter how many times it is repeated.

December 20, 2017

Hold these senators accountable for voting for the Tax Cut (for the rich and the shaft for the middle class and poor) Bill:
Hold these senators accountable for voting for the Tax Cut Bill:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

John Boozman (R-AR)

Richard M. Burr (R-NC)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Bob Corker (R-TN)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Steve Daines (R-MT)

Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)

Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

James M. Inhofe (R-OK)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

James Lankford (R-OK)

John McCain (R-AZ)

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Rob Portman (R-OH)

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Michael Rounds (R-SD)

Tim Scott (R-SC)

Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)

Luther Strange (R-AL)

John Thune (R-SD)

Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA)

Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Todd Young (R-IN)

Roy Blunt (R-MO)

Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)

Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Tom Cotton (R-AR)

Michael D. Crapo (R-ID)

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Joni Ernst (R-IA)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Dean Heller (R-NV)

John Hoeven (R-ND)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Jim Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Ben Sasse (R-NE)

Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

Susan Collins (R-ME)

Deb Fischer (R-NE)

John Kennedy (R-LA)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 19, 2017, 05:30:48 pm »






December 19, 2017

How Did We Wind Up in a Post-Truth World? And What Can Be Done About It?

From coal’s astroturfing online to an artificial intelligence’s both-sides equivocation, when we talked about denial in the age of AI last week, things didn’t look promising. Fortunately, the December issue of the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition is here! It’s a special edition, focused on a lengthy article and featuring nine responses, all offering some help navigating misinformation in the post-truth age, with an eye towards technology.

Given the importance of the matter and depth of the research, and that all but the initial paper are behind a paywall, this will be the first in a rare three-part roundup. We felt it fitting to end this post-truth year with a rumination on our post-truth past.

Our journey through the truthiness landscape starts with a target article by Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K.H.Ecker and John Cook, summarizing the state of scholarship regarding how the public deals with misinformation and offering some suggestions about how to address the problem. The authors argue that key to surviving in this new “post-truth” landscape is “technocognition,” or the combination of psychological principles and technological solutions.

For those who want a crash course in the tenets Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook’s piece is based on, see The Debunking Handbook. But the three authors move past the summary to a much more interesting analysis:  they argue that American society must look at the socio-political context of fake news to fully understand its impacts and solutions, expanding the current focus from online interactions to the full IRL experience.

“The post-truth problem is not a blemish on the mirror,” they write. Instead, “the problem is that the mirror is a window into an alternative reality.” In this reality, elites and their evidence, like the multiple independent lines of research proving climate change is caused by human activities, are cast aside in favor of socially shared alt-news. The election of Donald Trump shows just how these misinformation ecosystems have moved from the fringe corners of the internet into the mainstream.

But the creation of these new realities is not a bipartisan problem: rather, it’s a curiously conservative phenomenon. Whether it’s a NASA-run child slave colony on Mars or the decades-old conspiracy around the UN’s plans for a global government or climate change being a Chinese hoax, the authors advise on the need to consider misinformation through “the lens of political drivers that have created an alternative epistemology that does not conform to conventional standards of evidentiary support.”

This is a fancy way of saying that sometimes conservative leaders just make bullshit up and people believe them. While this reckoning may seem new, the authors demonstrate that it’s been a long time coming (Karl Rove’s admission that the Bush administration actors “create[d] our own reality” is a particularly poignant example). The authors’ reference that Republicans “have moved towards the right in a manner unprecedented since the 1880s” follows with the fact that the right appears to be more susceptible to the pseudo-profound bullshit philosophical nonsense we’ve talked about before.

One important effect of creating alternate realities on social media, the authors explain,  is the invention of intense, imaginary conflict. Did scientists really discuss manipulating data in hacked emails? Of course not, but arguing about it makes for good TV! Fanning the hot flames of these conflicts, in turn, pushes politicians towards extremism. While nominees have traditionally hewed to the center for the largest possible share of votes, modern politicians now focus on their echo chamber to rile up the base. In this new post-truth world, “lying is not only accepted, it is rewarded,” Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook write. “Falsifying reality is no longer about changing people's beliefs, it is about asserting power.”

These concepts make it crystal clear that climate denial is not an attempt to build a base of knowledge contrary to the consensus. Rather, the authors write, climate denial is “a political operation aimed at generating uncertainty in the public's mind in order to preserve the status quo and to delay climate-change mitigation.”

So how do we get people (conservatives) to care about truth and reality again? Technocognition might just have some answers.

But, uh… what is that? Mind melds with a Mac? Uploading our consciousness into the Matrix? Studying climate change while listening to the latest techno jams? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2017, 03:40:28 pm »

I first encountered McLuhan as an undergraduate in communication back during the last ice age. Interesting to be reminded how he anticipated the implications of then-technological changes, when at the time it read, at least to be, as improbable nonsense.

This writer is addressing themes that occur to me, but which are too elusive for me to be competent to write about. One of the attributes of getting older being the you see your own ignorance in sharp relief.



Surly,

In the above, otherwise well written, article, there is a problem of perception that I first ran into in college when I was taking Social Sciences at Miami Dade Junior College (1965) shortly after I left West Point.

We were assigned to read a book (The Lonely Crowd) that you may have read, although I am certain the right wing 'greed is good' fanatics that frequent this site have never heard of it, no matter how much college or education they claim to have.

Quote
The Lonely Crowd is a 1950 sociological analysis by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney. It is considered, along with White Collar: The American Middle Classes, written by Riesman's friend and colleague, C. Wright Mills, a landmark study of American character.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_Crowd

I read it. I did NOT just read the Cliff Notes. Beyond the snippet I just gave you from wikipedia, I did not review the book I read so many years ago to impress anybody here. I am responding to the article because that instantly retrieved "The Lonely Crowd" out of long term storage in my memory banks.

Here's the deal, Surly. A person is either driven by outside influences (peer pressure) or he is not. Yes, we all have a mixture of influences, both from without, and from within, that govern our behavior. But the ASSUMPTION that we are invariably governed by peer pressure is only valid if peer pressure ALWAYS overrides personal principles. Now, those Social Darwinst fascists at the helm of the media corporations that want to control our every whim probably believe that.

I do not. And you should not. A shi t sandwich disguised as a chocolate chip cookie is still a shi t sandwich, even if 40,000 bought and paid for bullshit artists are telling you otherwise.

What this boils down to is perception. The media fascists are attempting, as our gooberment and happy talk propaganda based social institutions have ALWAYS been trying to do (SEE: The Lonely Crowd), the "join the in crowd" con. They want us to feel "left out" if we do not do what "everybody else is doing".

But you and I know that everybody else is NOT "doing that". The polling of the American public makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are on the right side of almost every issue of importance and value to an egalitarian socialist type government structure.

AND, most people, except for the allegedly big brained right wingers (like some who post here, who claim most people in the USA are ignorant rubes that swallow any bullshit, no matter how much it harms their best interests - how convenient for the right wing profit over people and planet Capitalist bastards.), DO REALIZE they are being handed a daily SHI T sandwich by the media and the gooberment.

Yeah, divide and conquer is what is going on. Yeah, they want to tear us apart. Yeah, they want to use the PERCEPTION (totally FALSE, but very convincing through bought and paid for repetition) that people who are guided by principle and not by the mob are outliers (i.e. anti-American/anti-Capitalist/Communists, etc. ad nauseum).

True, we all want to belong. But anyone who is willing to sacrifice their principles in order to "belong" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The article gives way to much weight to our need for peer group acceptance and ZERO weight to every average human's daily objective analysis of what is genuinely good for an individual and the society that he lives in (i.e. PRINCIPLED behavior).

I am not a Maslow robot. If the author believes that we humans, who certainly do possess base instincts that can, under certain conditions, be manipulated to our detriment and some bastard's profit (i.e. Capitalism), CANNOT function in any other way (i.e. Social Darwinsm is IT), then I must protest.

Social Darwinsim is NOT "IT". Maslow is NOT "IT".

We behave on principle or we perish. That is not hard to understand unless a person deliberately refuses to value principles because they deliberately refuse to give any value to morality based behavior. The book I read in college, The Lonely Crowd, TOTALLY missed the issue of principle. I said so then, even though I was an atheist at the time! LOL!

Yeah, I know Surly; I'm an outlier.
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 22, 2017, 01:47:19 pm »

Surly RULES! 



You deserve all the sunshine I can send your way for all the sunshine of truth you send all of us.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 21, 2017, 02:36:59 pm »

http://inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/11/expeditionary-unit-of-us-marines-storms.html

Probably not.

From the article:
Quote
Moreover, there is not one word of Marines landing at Langley, appearing in _any_ US mass-media outlet.

Source: "The Hal Turner Radio Show."

The tell was "Uranium One," which the drooling right has been flowing in the same way a serial masturbator rubs his dick raw. And with a similar result.

So let's check out the page for "The Hal Turner Radio Show."

Top 3 Alabama Newspapers Run FRONT PAGE Editorials Against Roy Moore - But all 3 Papers are **owned** by Advance Publications in New York City ! ! !

The liberal fix must be in, right? These are the same professional victims who complain about "pedophiler rings" who are shilling for a serial creeper and accused pedo.

It's not "White Privilege" it is IQ
No comment needed.


The "Too Stupid" "Too Ignorant" and "Too Corrupt" are STILL Saying "I just Can't figure out WHY Hillary Lost the Election . . . . " Here's some help for the stupid, the ignorant and the corrupt


Right. Easy-to-chew Hannity colon-nuggets, served up to you just in time for Thanksgiving dinner.

Fact-check a motherfucker, willya?


What are you, the 4th Reich of truth & bullshit.

Thoughts are electric, emotions are magnetic...

And shitposting is shitposting.

Well said!

AZ, Surly is a man of integrity and truth. I consider him a loyal member of the Cat Herders Association that I belong to. Cat Herders are always trying to get the bullshitters among us to try truth instead of negative noises designed to distract people from the important issues of our time. It is a a very bad idea to challenge him and a very good advice to listen to what he says.

Recent Photo of Surly:
Surly RULES! 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 16, 2017, 02:17:16 pm »

16 Women and Donald Trump
Quote

This is serious. Sexual harassment is pervasive and happens at the very top of the institutions that run this country. We owe it to all women to hold men, especially those with immense power, accountable for their actions. Yes, this includes the president too.

In the video, 16 Women and Donald Trump, we put together the stories of women who have reported being sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Donald Trump. Seeing these women’s stories, one after another, is incredibly powerful – it's time to listen and act accordingly. As a society, we need to do a better job of holding men liable for harassment and abusive behavior. And we have a right to hear these women's their stories even as the mainstream news outlets dismiss them and the White House deflects responsibility for them. It's time to disrupt the powers that silence the voices of women in all of our institutions. Please share this video to remind the nation that Hollywood isn't the only place abuse happens and that our current president isn’t immune to being held accountable.


https://www.bravenewfilms.org/16women

Agelbert NOTE: Expect Trumpers like G.O. (and others here who cleverly do not admit to having voted Republican, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID!) to wail and moan about Franklen  and every other distraction they can come up with in order to provide COVER for the Criminal in Chief and his racist, mysogenist, profit over planet wrecking crew.

Trump supporters worship GREED.  They do not care about ANYTHING evil or illegal that Trump and his wrecking crew do, or have done, as long as Trump feeds their GREED.


 
Quote
"Capitalist ideology claims that the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place (i..e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating aspect of Capitalism is Socially Catastrophic. This is the Victorian view of the world." Rob Urie - Author " Zen Economics"

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 16, 2017, 01:22:45 pm »


Where have I heard this story before?? 
Let's hear the screams to resign please.  Hello, Hello, let's hear them now.

Must be going deaf.   ::)

Woman accuses Al Franken of kissing, groping her without consent


                           

A TV host and sports broadcaster on Thursday accused Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) of kissing and groping her without her consent in 2006.



The incident happened in December 2006, she said, when she and Franken, then a comedian, were on a USO Tour to "entertain our troops."



Keep defending your hero while he keeps robbing you blind, GO.

I guess it is just too hard for you to admit that you made a tragic and unprincipled mistake by voting for the most egregious example of mysogeny, sexual harrassment, bigotry, racism and profit over planet greed that has ever cursed this God Forsaken nation.

You have had fully one year to recognize your mistake. Crooks and ciars named by Trump to all key government positions during the last year has revealed the true nature of Trump and his wrecking crew to anyone with a shred of objectivity.

Only someone who refuses to alter his position, even when new objective, irrefutable evidence requires it, can remain loyal to someone like Trump. Not changing one's position when new information warrants it is the textbook definition of a bigot. The Holy Scriptures, however, do not label such a person as a bigot; the Bible has another label for them:

Proverbs 13 King James Version (KJV) 19 The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil. 20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
 



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 15, 2017, 07:09:54 pm »


Agelbert NOTE: Learn WHY the NAME of Trump was continually paraded before the media (and other places ALL OVER THE INTERNET  ;)  ) before the election.

Also learn why, AFTER the election, that continues to be the case. Even when the news is negative, the old advertising saying about "all news is good news" (for product sales) applies to mindfork propaganda on behalf of the Trump demagogue too.

The clever Orwellian BASTARDS doing this have a method to their madness. It consists of repeatedly activating the most impressionable part of our cognitive hardware so we will be imprinted with an unconscious bias in favor of the politician making the greatest noise.

People that possess critical thinking skills do not fall for this. Unfortunately, most Americans lack those skills. That is why they get suckered election after election.

The ones that don't get suckered are carefully and methodically (SEE: mens rea disguised voter suppression ) being denied the vote by being forced to go through  bullshit red tape hoops.

Trump is not your father. Trump is a THIEF who is, not just robbing your home  , but helping to burn it down!

If you want a clear head, TUNE OUT TRUMP BULLSHIT!


A famous author has theorized conservatives and progressives into two camps, one based on a strict, authoritarian view of the world and the next based on a nurturing view, where do these camps lead us?

Thom Hartmann Nov. 14, 2017 2:30 pm

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 13, 2017, 08:44:40 pm »

 

November 13, 2017

Co-Author of 'Manufacturing Consent', Edward S. Herman, Dies at 92

TRNN Replay: On the occasion of the passing of author and friend of the Real News Network Edward S. Herman, we replay our interview from the 25th anniversary of 'Manufacturing Consent', that he co-authored with Noam Chomsky

July 1, 2012

Ed Herman, Co-Author of "Manufacturing Consent" Pt 1

Ed Herman, who wrote the famous book with Noam Chomsky, looks back at his life and what formed his thinking about the world




Ed Herman on "Humanitarian Imperialism" Pt 2

Edward Herman: The development of humanitarian intervention as a concept is essentially an overthrow of international law




Ed Herman on Global Finance Pt 3

Ed Herman: We've been in a period in which the power of finance extends into politics more aggressively than it ever was, so it's able to stymie any changes


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=887

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 12, 2017, 08:17:15 pm »

WAR IS A CRIME

Troopaganda Eats Its Own Tail

NOVEMBER 12, 2017 BY DAVID SWANSON

SNIPPET:

First they tell you what to think the wars are for. They’re for protection from evil enemies, for spreading democracy and human rights.

Then you discover that wasn’t so. The evil enemies were actually human beings and no threat. The wars on terrorism have created many more enemies and spread terrorism far and wide. They’ve endangered rather than protected. They’ve damaged democracy at home and abroad. They’ve violated human rights and normalized their violation.

Then they tell you to keep the wars going for the sake of the poor fools sent into them and coming out of them with PTSD, brain injury, moral injury, and suicidal tendencies. If you’re not for harming more troops you’re “against” the troops.

Then you discover that this is all a twisted lie, that these one-sided slaughters that so devastate even the aggressors have no benefits, that people could have better and better-paying and more satisfying and less environmentally destructive jobs in peaceful industries for less financial, moral, and societal expense. It turns out the wars are for weapons profits and resource control and political domination and sadism.

Then they tell you...

Full EXCELLENT article:

http://warisacrime.org/2017/11/12/troopaganda-eats-its-own-tail/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 09, 2017, 11:21:38 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Enjoy another blast I sent Azozeo for posting propaganda baloney at the Doomstead Diner.

Keep showing your TRUE right wing attempts to take the heat off of Trump COLORS, Az.   


That's why I don't post much here anymore. There is so much disingenuous double talking right wing propaganda BULLSHIT being spewed here that it is nauseating. 

What you SHOULD BE posting about, if you had an OUNCE of objectivity, is THIS:


Quote
Trump has gone to great lengths to protect Flynn, likely because the latter has information that would incriminate the president. It took Trump 18 days to fire Flynn after learning of his lies to Pence. Trump leaned heavily on Comey to look the other way in the Flynn investigation and fired Comey when he refused to let Flynn go.

It was the firing of Comey that led to the appointment of special counsel Mueller.

Recent Trump photograph  ;D


But you just DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, DO YOU, Az?
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 09, 2017, 10:27:54 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Below, please find, another attempt at distracting propaganda by one of the Right wingers at the Doomstead Diner. Surly made clear it was baloney (CFS is an acronym for Common Fu ck ing Sense). I made it even more clear. 

*YOUR BUSTED***Podesta arrested, Hillary to turn herself in...
https://www.therussophile.org/rumor-or-fact-trying-to-confirm-tony-podesta-arrested-arrest-warrants-issued-for-hillary-clinton-john-podestamainstream-media-blackout-as-key.html/]


Sounds like someone is lacking in their shadow work.
Of all people, you should know journalism releases karma
.

Someone is lacking in their CFS. If this is journalism:

Quote
President Trump is very good. He’s very smart. He knows exactly what’s going on here and is using a military strategy to trap the enemy. You surround them and take down their walls and then they have nowhere to go.

... then I am the rightful king of France.

This is nothing more than fan fiction and far-right wishful thinking. 4chan as a source? Oh, my sides....



 


Az, you are pegging the meter reading with that "You're Busted" post.


Shame on you.

Hey,
While I got you here as a hostage, I have a quick question ?

Since you were involved in commercial air travel could you give me and any other
of the diners here a quick rundown on that SKYKING alert system.



The country is going to hell in a Trump fascist handbasket and you want to talk about the  SKYKING alert system?

 

You just do not get it, Az.

What part of THIS do you not understand?



We had a quaint acronym saying back when I was controlling air traffic: DNHMS. That stands for, "Does Not Hit My Shift", snarkily used when some big military exercise or a lot of bad weather or certain hours during the busy season were NOT part of our schedule.

It was wishful thinking then because working airplanes is like Russian roulette; you never can count on a guaranteed easy day.

Well, too many (usually white) WISHFUL THINKERS in the USA have this amazing DNHMS mentality in regard to Trump. The racists think they are gonna do jes fine under Herr Trump, as do the Capitalism loving greedballs and assorted con and bullshit artists, some who post here regularly.

They will have a VERY rude awakening, VERY SOON. Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 27, 2017, 09:13:07 pm »


Is Identifying With The Billionaire Class a Form of Stockholm Syndrome? ???


Sep. 26, 2017 4:30 pm

Thom takes your calls discussing how people who identify with the Billionaire Class might have a form of Stockholm Syndrome. What do you think, are the temporarily displaced millionaires of America really identifying with their captors?


Agelbert NOTE: Republicans LIE almost continuously (and the Democrats do next to nothing to call them on their lies.)  >:(.





Enough People Couldn't Vote To PREVENT Republicans from "winning" the Election, Just like they Planned   


Sep. 26, 2017 5:00 pm
Quote

Thom talks on the population who was actively discouraged from voting through conservative intimidation and just how great such an effect really was. The election wasn't rigged, it was stolen.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 19, 2017, 05:03:50 pm »


Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.  :icon_sunny:    


RE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-is-officially-out-at-fox-news/2017/04/19/74ebdc94-2476-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.42b9305ab48c

Bill O’Reilly is officially out at Fox News
Bill O'Reilly let go from Fox News Channel amid sexual harassment claims

Bill O'Reilly, longtime host of Fox News's top-rated show, “The O'Reilly Factor,” will not return to the network. His departure comes after six women alleged he sexually harassed them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
By Paul Farhi April 19 at 2:41 PM

Fox News has ended its association with Bill O’Reilly, the combative TV host and commentator who has ruled cable-news ratings for nearly two decades and was the signature figure in the network’s rise as a powerful political player.

The conservative-leaning host’s downfall was swift and steep, set in motion less than three weeks ago by revelations of a string of harassment complaints against him. The questions about his conduct represented yet another black eye to Fox, which had dealt with a sexual harassment scandal involving its co-founder and then-chairman Roger Ailes, just last summer.

[The fall of Roger Ailes: He made Fox News his ‘locker room’ ]

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the news channel’s parent company, said in a statement Wednesday.

After Ailes’s departure, Fox and 21st Century Fox — both controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his family — had vowed then to clean up an apparent culture of harassment at the news network. Instead, the allegations kept coming — against Ailes, O’Reilly and some of the remaining senior executives that Ailes had hired.
Bill O’Reilly is out at Fox News. (Richard Drew/AP)

Fox has also lost popular hosts Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly since the turmoil began last summer. The network, however, continued to roll in record ratings, driven in part by viewer interest in Donald Trump, a longtime friend of Ailes, Murdoch and O’Reilly and a frequent interview guest for years.

The loss of O’Reilly, however, is of a different magnitude: His program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” has been the network’s flagship show for nearly 20 years, and in many ways has embodied its conservative-oriented spirit.

[How much turmoil can Fox News handle?]

It was just last month that Fox re-signed O’Reilly to a multimillion dollar, three-year contract, fully aware of the long history of complaints against him.

He still seemed to be at the peak of his popularity and prestige only three weeks ago. His 8 p.m. program, which mixes discussion segments with O’Reilly’s pugnacious commentary, drew an average of 4 million viewers each night during the first three months of the year, the most ever for a cable-news program. His popularity, in turn, helped drive Fox News to record ratings and profits. O’Reilly was also the co-author of two books that were at the top of the bestseller lists in April.

But the fuse was lit for his career detonation when the New York Times disclosed that O’Reilly and Fox had settled a series of harassment complaints lodged against him by women he’d worked with at Fox over the years.

The newspaper found that O’Reilly and Fox had settled five such allegations since 2002, paying out some $13 million in exchange for the women’s silence. Two of the settlements, including one for $9 million in 2004, were widely reported. But the others had been kept secret by O’Reilly, Fox and the women involved.

In addition, a sixth woman, a former “O’Reilly Factor” guest named Wendy Walsh, alleged that O’Reilly had harassed her in 2013. Although Walsh never sued or sought compensation, she spoke against him in public, drawing more negative attention to Fox and O’Reilly over the past few weeks. A seventh, still anonymous woman filed a complaint with the company on Tuesday, alleging that he had made disparaging racial and sexual remarks to her while she was employed at Fox in 2008.

O’Reilly has never acknowledged that he harassed anyone. In his only public statement about the matter in early April, he said his fame made him a target of lawsuits and that he settled the harassment claims against him to spare his children negative publicity.

After the revelations, Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, were forced to decide whether the economic and reputational fallout from the O’Reilly scandal were irreversible.

O’Reilly had previously survived several controversies during his 21 years at Fox, including a lurid sexual harassment case in 2004 that was fodder for New York’s tabloid newspapers. He also beat back a wave of headlines in 2015, when reporters examined his claims about his days as a young reporter and found them to be dubious. All the while, O’Reilly’s audience not only stuck with him, but continued to grow.

But this time, the intense media coverage surrounding O’Reilly led to a stampede of advertisers away from O’Reilly’s program, leaving it almost without sponsorship over the past two weeks. Various organizations, including the National Organization for Women, called for O’Reilly’s firing, and intermittent protests began outside Fox News’ headquarters in New York. Morale among employees at the network reportedly was suffering, too.

The Murdochs also had more than just O’Reilly’s TV career to consider: The O’Reilly controversy was casting a shadow over 21st Century’s $14 billion bid to win the British government’s approval to buy Sky TV, the British satellite service. Leaving O’Reilly in place would likely have been a public-relations nightmare for James and Lachlan Murdoch, the sons who head 21st Century Fox, Fox News’ parent.

The Murdoch family abandoned a 2011 offer for Sky amid another scandal, the phone-hacking conspiracy perpetrated by employees of the Murdoch-owned News of the World tabloid in London. A parliamentary panel later declared Rupert and James Murdoch to be “unfit” to run a public company — a description they hoped would not be revived by regulators with the O’Reilly matter hanging over them.

In the wake of the Ailes scandal last summer, the Murdoch brothers vowed to clean up a workplace environment that women at Fox had described as hostile under Ailes. In one of their few public statements on the matter, they said at the time, “We continue our commitment to maintaining a work environment based on trust and respect.”

But those efforts have seemed unavailing, and at times have even seemed hypocritical. Since the Ailes scandal, the company has continued to employ almost all of the senior managers who were in charge when Ailes’ was allegedly harassing employees, including Bill Shine, currently Fox’s co-president. Shine was accused of enabling Ailes’ retaliatory efforts against an accuser, Fox contributor Julie Roginsky, in a sexual-harrassment lawsuit Roginsky filed earlier this month.

The external and internal pressure left the Murdochs with a dilemma: Keep the networks’ most valuable asset and hope to ride out the storm around him, or cut him loose and end the drama.

In the end, even an endorsement from President Trump couldn’t save O’Reilly: In an interview with Times reporters on April 5, Trump called O’Reilly “a good person” and said he shouldn’t have settled the complaints made against him. “I don’t think Bill did anything wrong,” Trump said.

Fox said that Tucker Carlson, host of a discussion-program now airing at 9 p.m., will take over O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. timeslot. “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” in turn, will be replaced at 9 p.m. by Fox’s 5 p.m. show, “The Five,” starting on Monday. “The O’Reilly Factor” will continue for the remainder of the week, with guest hosts Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. Martha MacCallum and Sean Hannity will remain in their current spots at 7 p.m and 10 p.m,, respectively, and the 5 p.m. hour will be occupied by a new show, hosted by Eric Bolling, starting May 1.

F u c k ing prick.

Like Ailes, he's so rich he won't miss the job. Fox will just find some other right-wing A-hole to be head cheerleader for austerity and military interventionism.

Now THAT is good news. 

I hope his pal pervert Trump will soon get the same treatment from his current "job" wrecking the government.

At any rate FOX News, on behalf of the plutocratic BASTARDS at the top, is a serial Propaganda Pushing LIAR on anything that is of importance for we-the-people .

A truthful image from the UCS about Media propaganda.

It's an OLD STORY in the USA:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 01, 2017, 02:34:42 pm »

   

As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes more silent
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 

Mediamatters.org, March 17, 2017

In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016

Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50 minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of about 66 percent.

*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program

As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in 2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015 to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27 minutes in 2016).

Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016. Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’ views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues, including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016, including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far; and investigations by state attorneys general into whether ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post, 4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election. Examples of post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News, 11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]

**We included citations of specific shows when we described the content of a segment. We did not include show citations for general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available online but listed only the date for those that were not.

PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’ Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour, 9/22/16, 9/7/16]

***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a week and is a half hour longer.

Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed election-related issues coverage on the major networks’ weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report, 10/25/16]

Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November 8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per week.

Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants And Wildlife.

Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,” E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American, 11/15/16]

PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16, 10/20/16, 11/17/16]


Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public Health.

The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all concluded that climate change has a significant influence on human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.” However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the link between climate change and public health -- no other network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth, but scientists say there are many factors including population growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed 3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment, accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News, 1/18/16, 7/4/16]

CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather, While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires -- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central, 11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]


PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On Plants And Wildlife.

PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less predictable and forcing human populations searching for water into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News, 5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]


Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage Outside Of PBS


The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how “environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue and favor government action to address it. On nightly news shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15; The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media Matters, 11/29/16]

PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195 nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments, PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16; The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times, 11/23/16]

CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All. During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider, 9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]

Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016, citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would “have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments, respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News Sunday, 12/11/16]

Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials


CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting denial.

• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26 presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax. [CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]

• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory, correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated, “Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]

• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in which he stated that he had an “open mind” on climate change and the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk , but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus then moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows” whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]

Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these statements were at odds with established climate science.

• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8 edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues, including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour, Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the science behind climate change is still not settled, in other words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is something there is some dispute about within the community, not just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16, 12/14/16]

• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,” followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]

• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s World News Tonight, 11/14/16]

Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science, they were not counted as denial in our study.

Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News Tonight … Again

For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.

Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in 2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their climate-related coverage.

PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research, including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS Evening News, 3/4/16]


Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent

Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’ climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four minutes).

Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up climate change significantly more often than the hosts themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows. Because our study counted only those segments where a media figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.

Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015

NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately 73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of 46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes. ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes in 2016.

For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five), CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related segments.

CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage In Early Months Of 2017    ::)

In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its “Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]

In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016. In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as much as the show aired for all of 2016.


Methodology

This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week, compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows (PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention "climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate change; because the segment provided other clear indications that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.

Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure) about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows, which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics, we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute. Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.

Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.


https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/23/how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-change-2016/215718

Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist Wrecking Crew    is in such a hurry to DEFUND PBS. 


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 29, 2017, 03:00:02 pm »



Al Gore slams Trump in statement & mocks him in new documentary 'An Inconvenient Sequel' 

By Leslie Salzillo   

Wednesday Mar 29, 2017 · 12:38 AM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/28/1648224/-Al-Gore-releases-An-Inconvenient-Sequel-says-no-one-man-can-stop-us-in-this-climate-crisis-battle




+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
May 20, 2018, 10:02:03 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
May 20, 2018, 07:08:42 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
May 19, 2018, 08:21:29 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
May 19, 2018, 08:02:09 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
May 19, 2018, 07:29:35 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
May 19, 2018, 07:01:11 pm

The Fabulous Plant Kingdom by AGelbert
May 19, 2018, 01:14:53 pm

Healthy Eating by AGelbert
May 18, 2018, 09:32:00 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
May 18, 2018, 09:15:11 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 18, 2018, 06:35:19 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial