AP’s fact checker that said “mass formation psychosis” is not real, was himself advocating psychological propaganda to manipulate public behaviors
New York University assistant professor of psychology and neural science Jay Van Bavel, who “co-authored a book on group identities,” has made claims that the only way to fight COVID-19 is for everyone to change their behavior until such time as a vaccine came along. And how to get everyone to change? “We have to think through the lens of behavioral science,” Van Bavel wrote. “What can we do to nudge and encourage and cajole and motivate people to do the right thing?”
This is the guy AP used to Fact Check Dr Malone on Mass Formation Psychosis pic.twitter.com/RmotohiTGo— Jack Posobiec ? (@JackPosobiec) January 10, 2022
Van Bavel also used a quote from notorious Nazi general Joseph Goebbels to point out that propaganda is most insidious when the “manipulated” public believes they are “acting on their own free will.”
Crazy stuff. When a doctor referred to “mass formation psychosis” to suggest manipulation of the public about Covid-19, all of the media piled on, in perfect synchrony, saying there was no such thing as “mass formation psychosis”.
The expert they used to “fact check” and deny the existence of “mass formation psychosis” turns out to be an expert on using psychological propaganda to manipulate the masses. Sort of a mass formation psychosis, if you will.
As I have said several times before, “fact checks” are just a new form of propaganda messaging. They decide who and what to fact check, then choose which experts they use in the fact checking – to reach the message they want to convey to you.
2 thoughts on “AP’s fact checker that said “mass formation psychosis” is not real, was himself advocating psychological propaganda to manipulate public behaviors”
The vast majority of “Fact Checkers” have direct connections to Social Media companies or Tech Giant Companies most of whom are either ex employees or are still employed by the very internet giants that have been attacking (R)political, and the people and groups they identify as not agreeing and conforming to their biased narrative and ideology
using opinion labeled as fact to do so
Which just goes to show that “Liberals” are far less “Liberal” and much more “Illiberal” than even they can see
It’s not a weird coincidence that all have the same political bias and can’t seem to publish unbiased facts about anything that would discredit their views
Once upon a time, local newspapers officially adopted political stances, hence, why old papers have unusual names like “The Democrat Statesman” or some such. They were then intending to be political.
Eventually, the news media developed this idea that news reporting should be impartial.
But gradually, partiality swept back into newsrooms – but all the while they pretended to be impartial purveyors of “truth”.
Here we are today with media still pretending they are impartial when anyone with functioning brain cells[1] can see they are often not impartial at all. They choose what stories they cover, they then choose who they will interview for the stories, and then choose which quotes from those they’ve interviewed, will be used. This enables them to pretend they are doing impartial journalism while simultaneously engaged in manipulation.
“Fact checking” has become a bizarro world of selectively choosing what they will “fact check”, and then selectively choosing which experts to use in their “fact check”. This is done, even where uncertainty is high and differing experts may all have valid views given what is actually known and understood. But the media selects their favorite narrative and calls it True and the other False. It’s become nothing more than a new tool of propaganda messaging!
Footnote[1]
Lest I offend anyone with regard to my brain cells comment, I have had six traumatic brain injuries including a 5″ long skull fracture. I often refer to myself as a brain injured idiot, which might not be that far from the truth 🙂
Comments are closed.