+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: Felipe_solarmining_chile
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7059
Total Topics: 211
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda  (Read 1601 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2016, 03:52:06 pm »
So I have a question here ....
Is there a medical relationship between Parkinson's Disease & Vascular Dementia ?


Dementia can be the result of several different disease causes. Parkinson's is just one of them.

But as to the "Pneumonia" diagnosis, it is TOTAL bullshit. Pneumonia has SLOW acting symptomology. It is breathtakingly arrogant for the propaganda liars to claim Hillary passed out from pneumonia. ANY brief study of the symptoms of this disease will show that Hillary, if she had pneumonia on the day she passed out, would have had BREATHING and COUGHING and FEVER symptoms prior to the 9/11 photo op. Her team would have given her some powerful medication. It is possible that she had a reaction to the DRUGS in her system, which induced a syncope, but in either case, it points at RAPID LOSS of OXYGENATION. Pneumonia doesn't DO ANYTHING RAPIDLY, PERIOD.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2016, 02:10:30 pm »
I'm not sure aspiration pneumonia (actually a pneumonitis, caused by inhaling (aspirating) vomit) is a bad call. It isn't the same as "regular" pneumonia at all really, but since lay people don't know the difference, it's a way to make it sound like a fairly minor problem (bacterial pneumonia) with a definitive treatment. Meaning Hillary would be well in a couple of weeks (nothing to see here, move along). That isn't the case with aspirating stomach acid, which would be a continuing problem, and potentially fatal if she has a bad episode.

I have followed all the anti-Hillary stories about her coughing fits and momentary lapses of coherence while speaking, and I think there is SOMETHING going on, something that's definitely being soft-pedaled. I'm guessing whatever medical records are released will be massaged to make the situation seem more minor than it is. I don't think she'll be off the ballot unless she drops dead.

But as to the "Pneumonia" diagnosis, it is TOTAL bullshit. Pneumonia has SLOW acting symptomology. It is breathtakingly arrogant for the propaganda liars to claim Hillary passed out from pneumonia. ANY brief study of the symptoms of this disease will show that Hillary, if she had pneumonia on the day she passed out, would have had BREATHING and COUGHING and FEVER symptoms prior to the 9/11 photo op. Her team would have given her some powerful medication. It is possible that she had a reaction to the DRUGS in her system, which induced a syncope, but in either case, it points at RAPID LOSS of OXYGENATION. Pneumonia doesn't DO ANYTHING RAPIDLY, PERIOD.

I don't think her having pneumonia is totally implausible. Let me tell you I have had a heart attack AND pneumonia in my life-time and I say that my bouts of pneumonia gave me a greater degree of breathlessness than the heart attack. The first time I caught pneumonia it actually caused me to collapse on the ground after pushing myself physically. The fall was similar to Hilary had she no aides to catch her so I think it is possible to fall like it especially if one pushes themselves to the limit. Let us not forget she is a 67 year old woman so quite likely the symptoms could be worse on that front. As for coughing, breathing and fever she could have been given some medication to reduce those symptoms. In any case though it is all speculation and it is possible she has something other than pneumonia however I would not discount the idea she has it. Time will tell what she has. If this is a one off episode then it lends credence to the idea it is just a bout of ill health but if she has continued episodes especially in the coming months then something more sinister is at foot.

Monsta,

Your argument ignores the fact that Hilary was NOT pushing herself to any sort of limit. You also ignore that fact that you did NOT pass out and she definitely did. Her symptoms are typical of syncope, not pneumonia, of any sort. I am older than Hillary. I know EXACTLY what a syncope is and what it feels like. I stand by my view that she had a syncope.

One thing nobody here wants to talk about is the FACT that presidential candidates (and all presidents for the past 50 years or so) are "medicated" (i.e. ON something) out the wazoo on a regular basis.

Eddie talks about different types of pneumonia, yet neglects drug interactions that can frequently cause syncope. In fact, ER visits for syncope in general, and most collapse situations, ARE drug interaction related, regardless off whether the dosage is considered an OD or not.

I stand by my view that Hillary is taking pep pills. I don't know if they caused her syncope or not, but pretending that is implausible is ignores Occam's Razor here.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2017, 02:56:52 pm »

UB said,
Quote
agb, degraded DNA aside are you saying horses shouldn't be ridden, sheep shouldn't be sheared, and dogs shouldn't be used to round them up or find fugitives or lost hikers or drugs or lead blind people or just keep their owner physically and psychologically healthy by taking them for a walk and warning them the House is on fire or greeting them when they get home?

Nope. According to the Wayne study, the wolf/dog was associated with mankind for as much as 80 to 100 thousand years WITHOUT any greater DNA degradation than what happens in the wild from Natural Selection. That is because mankind's relationship was mostly empathic and provided happiness and protection to both man and dog. That bond will remain. No special INbreeding is necessary to provide that.

But 150 years ago, we went off the deep end and started super specializing the dogs. That was WRONG.  It made life a lot easier for ranchers and hunters. It made some people a lot of money. So?

In the light of today's scientific discoveries, it was unethical. We know that now. We should not perpetuate or celebrate unethical behavior just because it is profitable. Beyond companionship and empathy, both traits present for thousands of years without more than the very gradual, and hardly measurable, normal Natural Selection degradation of the DNA of wolf/dogs, all the other functions can be done quite well, or better, by robots. That is ethical. And by the way, many different dog MIXED breeds (because mutts are SMARTER) make great seeing eye dogs. Diverse DNA dogs (Mutts) can provide all the mutual companionship and protective loving relationships both these fine animals and humans crave. Kennel clubs are unnecessary and unethical. 

What I am saying is that we should stop creating artificial founder effect box canyons, that are deleterious to these animals. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN.   

Quote
All scientific work is incomplete — whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.‎
Appears in 62 books from 1950-2008

When Darwin dreamed up his theory, several mistakes were made with the best of intentions (see quote above). BUT NOW, we know better. So NOW, we have to EAT CROW and admit that we WERE GRIEVOUSLY WRONG.

It's hard for breeders to admit that. Palloy said he was sad because he could not find a "suitable stud" for his Dalmatian bi tch. He does not get it.    One of the deleterious "founder effect" genetic box canyons is precisely the incredibly damaging act of using sperm from ONE "ideal" dog from a "pure" breed to inseminate several females of the same "breed". That is one of the two WORST THINGS they could do (that they STILL DO!) based on DARWINIAN "pure" bloodline CRAP. The other thing is breeding for dogs to achieve a modified phenotype in stature.

That said, the breeds are there now.


I certainly DO NOT recommend killing them for any reason.

I certainly DO recommend providing them with the happiest and healthiest living conditions possible.

I certainly DO NOT recommend castrating or spaying them just because they have genetic disorders. That too, is ASS BACKWARDS DARWINIAN THINKING. They should ALL be encouraged to OUTbreed with mutts. NO "pure" bred dog should be allowed to mate with the same "breed", PERIOD.

The whole dog show IDIOCY should be eliminated.

And for those special working breeds that love to do what they were bred to do, let them keep doing it!
As long as genetic testing indicates that no FURTHER accelerated DNA degradation is going on, rescue dogs and riding horses, as well as dogs for protection are okay. Even herding dogs like the tiny Corgi are okay IF we STOP all Inbreeding NOW. 

They exist. We are at fault. Let them do what they were bred to happily do. But let's NOT compound the error, OKAY? 

I also think is high time we STOP the "pure" breed NONSENSE (see ENRICHED URANIUM) and started showing some respect for SCIENCE and GENETICS by labeling the Genetically Diverse Dogs (GDD) with relatively few inherited disorders as TOP DOGS , instead of the pejorative "Mutt" label.   

I won't hold my breath waiting for Palloy to sign on to that... :(
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2017, 03:21:21 pm »

The fake news is coming from inside the White House!

By Hunter   

Saturday Jan 28, 2017 · 10:00 AM EST


SNIPPET:

What's clear, then, is that the Spicer-led White House press room will be moving toward more relaxed definitions of "news" than even Facebook is currently comfortable with. Will LifeZette use their new status to inquire of Sean Spicer as to whether the "Clinton Body Count" will be a topic of White House investigation, or if Jim Hoft's team wishes to re-litigate Obama's birth certificate yet again, or if one of those Macedonian teenagers we have heard so much about during the last campaign will get the opportunity to insist that the president re-examine whether that children murdered in the Sandy Hook shooting were truly dead, or—as some gun advocates believe—the whole thing was staged by the federal government.

But there's another catch here too. It won't just be conspiracy theorists squeezing their way into the White House press room. As Sean Spicer works to ensure the administration's preferred hoaxers make it into one room, Trump's ex-Breitbart chief strategist is attempting to fill the offices elsewhere in the building with   staff members known more for their propaganda efforts than for their accuracy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/28/1625718/-The-fake-news-is-coming-from-inside-the-White-House
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2017, 10:02:06 pm »
"Trump’s lies, and his urge to tell them, are pure Big Brother crude, however oafish their articulation."
Quote
You may have heard that George Orwell's book, "1984" is once again, for the first time since 1948, the top selling book in the United States, in the wake of Kellyanne Conway making her iconic "alternative facts" quip. In Orwell’s “1984” and Trump’s America Adam Gopnik, also of the New Yorker, unabashedly compares Trump's bullying and lying to Orwell's antagonist, Big Brother:

Quote
There is nothing subtle about Trump’s behavior. He lies, he repeats the lie, and his listeners either cower in fear, stammer in disbelief, or try to see how they can turn the lie to their own benefit. Every continental wiseguy, from Žižek to Baudrillard, insisted that when they pulled the full totalitarian wool over our eyes next time, we wouldn’t even know it was happening. Not a bit of it. Trump’s lies, and his urge to tell them, are pure Big Brother crude, however oafish their articulation. They are not postmodern traps and temptations; they are primitive schoolyard taunts and threats.

The blind, blatant disregard for truth is offered without even the sugar-façade of sweetness of temper or equableness or entertainment—offered not with a sheen of condescending consensus but in an ancient tone of rage, vanity, and vengeance. Trump is pure raging authoritarian id.

And so, rereading Orwell, one is reminded of what Orwell got right about this kind of brute authoritarianism—and that was essentially that it rests on lies told so often, and so repeatedly, that fighting the lie becomes not simply more dangerous but more exhausting than repeating it. Orwell saw, to his credit, that the act of falsifying reality is only secondarily a way of changing perceptions. It is, above all, a way of asserting power.

When Trump repeats the ridiculous story about the three million illegal voters—a story that no one who knows, that not a single White House “staffer,” not a single Republican congressman actually believes to be true—he does not really care if anyone believes it, even if, at some crazy level, he does, sort of. People aren’t meant to believe it; they’re meant to be intimidated by it. The lie is not a claim about specific facts; the lunacy is a deliberate challenge to the whole larger idea of sanity. Once a lie that big is in circulation, trying to reel the conversation back into the territory of rational argument becomes impossible.

Full article at link:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/28/1626264/-MSM-Scorches-Trump-And-Bannon-For-Their-Opposition-Party-and-Fake-News-Idiocy
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2017, 06:43:35 pm »
You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and Trump is cracking eggs.  Family first, then friends, then everyone else.  There is nothing wrong with that mantra. 

Recent American political leaders inverted this fundamental equation of human existence considering themselves not to be Americans but elite citizens of the world and they have treated the American people horribly as they prospered their own class with stratospheric riches by their seizure and transfer overseas of American treasure.  They expanded their empire and ruined the domestic economy.  Trump is standing the existing order on its head.  Overpopulation is leading to collapse and if the number of immigrants who dilute my citizenship one at a time is cut to zero let it be so.  When America has no poor and we are taking care of all our own and every American has a decent job at a decent wage let us ask if there is room for anyone else but until then a pox on those arrogant enough to think they have the right be bestow citizenship on anyone they please.  Right now America has too many resource hogs and we don't need any more.

You may not like Trump.  You may hate Trump and you may disagree with his attitudes but Trump is the first politician we have had who has had anything but a childish inkling about how the world works for a long time.  Trump understands the world will not run on magic.  Trump may still be wrong about how he thinks the world works in almost every way but the path America has been on so far has been going at a hundred straight for a cliff.  Just about anything else is an improvement, for the path we have been on was certain ruin.  Trump in his bumblings is forcing change and a badly needed examination of the national character.

 


The truth finally comes out. K-dog LIED when he said he did not vote for Trump.

K-Dog is a hopelessly biased TRUMPER!

YOU do not have the remotest idea of how the  world works. ALL you can come up with is clever witticisms to ridicule those who see what a POS POTUS Trumplethinskin is in your pathetic attempts to appear objective, while you CONSISTENTLY DEFEND every Fascist move Trump makes.  ;) You don't fool ANYBODY.   Keep talkin' about cracking eggs when you REALLY want Fascist Trump to crack HUMAN minority heads, TRUMPER!

The Trump omelet K-Dog wants us to EAT 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2017, 12:06:44 pm »

Agelbert NOTE:
Trump Team reaction to the above:  

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2017, 04:24:36 pm »
What to Do with Latinos: Get Used to Them 

Mar 3, 2017

By Fred Reed 

“Information Clearing House” –   Following Mr. Trump’s kaleidosopically shifting policies isn’t easy. He was going to declare China a currency manipulator on day one, but didn’t, going to impose a forty-five percent tariff on Chinese goods but apparently won’t, was going to shift the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but isn’t, going to tear up the Iran treaty but hasn’t, going to end the wars but isn’t, and going to rid the country of illegal aliens within two years. Now it seems he has backed off this too, and there is  in the air the merest whiff of…amnesty?  ???  ;D

Oh well. Mass deportation was a loony idea to begin with. Consider:

For years there have been said to be 11 million illegals, a number having a  suspicious stability. Foes of immigration have put it at thirteen or fourteen. Call it at least 12 million. To deport them in two years, Trump would have to deport 500,000 a month. For twenty-four months. To deport a tenth as many, he would need to expel 50,000 a month.

Is the man crazy? Does he just shoot from the lip on crucial policies without thinking? Can’t do arithmetic? Or lies in the normal manner of politicians?

His promised expulsion would rank among history’s most awful humanitarian disasters. Mexico could not possibly absorb such a huge tsunami of returnees. They would have nowhere to stay, nothing to eat, no jobs.

The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like Vdare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms. The bastards came illegally, so to hell with them. But, I think, not enough of the country will buy it. Stopping the influx will probably fly.  The Wall? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet on it. We seem to hear less about it. Criminals? Most would favor deporting them.

But twelve million? Or anything resembling it? For many reasons, both charitable and self-interested, too many groups aren’t up for mass arrests and deportations. Not businessmen, who want the cheap labor, nor the Democratic Party that wants the votes, nor academia, nor the media, nor sanctuary cities, nor many of the young, nor liberals. Nor…California.

The question is not whether it was a good idea to encourage illegals to come. It wasn’t. The question is not even whether it would be good for the country to run them out. Doing it would be too ugly to gain support from the public. Too many illegals have been in the country for five, ten, fifteen years, speak English, have employers who value them, have children who are citizens and sometimes do not speak Spanish.
The Hispanic Genie is out of the bottle. 


The Hispanic genie is out of the bottle. It is a done deal. Trump can’t do much about it. Neither can anyone else. Deporting a few hundred thousand of 56 million would not make a dent.  A million would constitute less than two percent of the Latino population.

In any event, running out the illegals would leave 44 million legal Latinos. Or, increasingly, sort of Latinos. Is Rosa Gutierrez, nineteen, born and raised in California, whose English she speaks flawlessly–a Latina? Quite possibly she has never been to Mexico. She thinks that she is an American. Why isn’t she?

Worse, Rosa is pretty and feminine. If Pew is to be believed, the intermarriage rate is at 26 percent. This horrifies white nationalists   , gratifies assimilationists, but neither horror nor gratification is going to change things

Will Rosa’s children, had in conjunction with her husband Robert Williams, be Latinos? They won’t think so. And you cannot deport American citizens.

Much of the hostility, though expressed in practical terms of lost jobs and so on, is in fact racial, and therefore incurable.


Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge. Well, as you will. There are reasons why this view isn’t going to prevail. See below.

"Oozing dark sludge".    Young Anglo men may not see her exactly that way.

Since huge numbers of Latinos are in the country, and are not going to leave, the intelligent question–yes, I know this is a political column, but we can try a little eccentricity here–is: Can they be part of America? Well, let’s see.
 
They are approximately Christian, though like all Christians they don’t always remember the parts about adultery and fornication. They don’t do terrorism. Brown Lives Matter doesn’t burn malls and loot shoe stores, in part because it doesn’t exist. They don’t genitally mutilate their daughters, forbid them schooling, or make them wear funny black bags. They do not yell “Pancho-hu akbar” and stab people .An estimated million Americans including your scribe live amicably in Mexico. If it were such a horrible experience, you might expect us to notice. Wherever I have been in the US–LA, San Fran, New York, San Antonio, Houston, Laredo, Chicago, Washington–they have seemed integrated, working in restaurants, doctrine’s offices, what have you and both learning English and, often, forgetting Spanish.

There are down sides. While very few Mexicans are involved in the drug trade, a high proportion of those involved in the drug trade are Mexicans. Another is that if government can turn them into welfare dependents, it will.

What the white nationalists can do, perhaps, is to alienate white from brown and split the country into three mutually hostile groups, white, black and Latino. The constant disparagement of Latinos by Trump and the anti-immigrant enthusiasts appears aimed at just that. Strictly speaking, Trump might respond that he is not against Latin Americans ;) but only against criminals and illegals, but it certain sounds as though he hates Mexicans. The racialist sites post endless stories, not infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime, shiftlessness, and vile behavior. Mexicans, rightly or wrongly, conclude that they are hated. This does not encourage assimilation–assimilation being of course the last thing that white nationalists want. To endorse assimilation would be to grant legitimacy to  the assimilated.

This attitude will prove unfortunate, since assimilation is the only hope of not having the United States become an ethnic disaster.

White nationalists tend to believe, and obviously hope, that Latin Americans are genetically criminal and incapable of  of fitting into nations of the First World.  This allows a comforting faith that mixing  should be prevented at any cost. Yet those who have  traveled in the world will have seen that economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular, as people move into the middle class,  crime and fertility decline sharply and interest in education rises.

Just so, here. The Mexican middle class is no more violent than anyone else’s. (From which we derive genetically fascinating conclusions. Apparently the presence of a refrigerator and indoor plumbing alter the genetic makeup of those near them.  Weird Kelvinator rays, one supposes.) Another observation readily made around the planet is that middle classes usually get along well with each other. All of this would suggest that encouraging immigrants to move into the middle class might be a Real Good Idea.

Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious bodily essences. Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances. Thus they have no policy other than getting rid of people most of whom cannot be gotten rid of.

In particular they furiously oppose amnesty for illegals. This would be a rational position if there were a possibility that Mr. Trump could chase them out of the country–which he can’t do in significant numbers, which would mean many millions. At that point keeping them illegal amounts to preventing their economic rise and creating another permanent underclass.

Gosh, what a swell idea.

Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a disorganized past, has worked on staff for Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune, Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times. http://fredoneverything.org

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46581.htm
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2017, 10:07:47 pm »
 

Real News Doesn't Side with Russian or American Oligarchs



Published on Mar 4, 2017

Kim Brown and Paul Jay discuss TRNN's approach to covering Jeff Sessions and the Trump-Russia connection controversy

Help support The Real News by making a donation today: http://therealnews.com/donate
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2017, 02:28:58 pm »
Quote
"I've heard this before, and, just to be clear, there's no social science to support your position on that," Carlson said. "There are no actual studies that show a sanctuary city is safer. Sorry."

Alex did not let that comment go unchallenged.

"I disagree with you, Tucker," Alex responded.

Tucker tried to have the last word.

"There's no disagreement -- there haven't been studies done on that that show it," Tucker said.

Alex did not cower as he responded. More importantly, in addition to pointing out the increased safety of these cities, he included some economic realities.

"Let me just correct you there," Alex said.  "I can talk about it right now. The most comprehensive study to date is the University of California study done by Ted Wong. It basically looked at sanctuary cities across the country, and it said that there are 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 in sanctuary cities than non-sanctuary cities. It also said it's even better in smaller municipalities. And, importantly, sanctuary cities have stronger economies, lower poverty rates, lower uninsured rates --"

Tucker
had no comeback, so he had to resort to the connection, causation, and speculation argument. Of course, Republicans usually depend on much less as corroboration of their ill-advised policies.

Tucker Carlson falls apart as guest confronts him with university study on sanctuary cities  ;D
   

Tuesday Mar 28, 2017

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/28/1648123/-Tucker-Carlson-falls-apart-as-guest-confronts-him-with-university-study-on-sanctuary-cities
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #55 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




Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #56 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. 


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #57 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:

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
143 Replies
5072 Views
Last post May 09, 2017, 11:53:13 pm
by AGelbert
31 Replies
2836 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
Today at 07:15:05 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
Today at 02:57:06 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
Today at 02:37:38 pm

Computer Software Security by AGelbert
Today at 02:23:48 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
Today at 02:17:19 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 07:16:51 pm

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 07:04:33 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 03:13:10 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 07:49:45 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 07:35:05 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial