Link to an essay on the role that “technical authority”, media propaganda, and how “consensus of experts” are used to influence the public and to exert control over us. This essay is an eye opener.
Cases are dropping, but let’s focus on a drop in vaccinations in the headline – even though that is probably explained by the “pause” in the use of the J&J vaccine.
Study finds U.S. mass media coverage of Covid-19 is excessively negative (and scary) in tone compared to international media, science media, etc. This twisting everything into scary news is intentional – inducing fear creates more clicks and generates more ad views and return visits to keep appraised of what is happening. The fear mongering is intentional.
“Tear gas” and “Pepper spray” have been redefined by riot enthusiasts as “chemical munitions” and “chemical weapons” as they seek to ban the use of crowd control measures by police, when employed at “mostly peaceful protests”. Changing the language is one of the first steps taken in a propaganda campaign. Language redefinition goes on all the time, and lately, with increasing frequency.
Major bookstore pulls a book from its shelves after a group known for violence threatens the book store if they continue to carry the book. This, in turns, yields the Streisand Effect – those not aware of the book learn more about it because of the protest and decide to buy it.
It also raises questions about the roles of gatekeepers – the world’s largest independent book store is being forced to pull a book off its shelves.
The controversy over hostile social media content advocating violence, hate, and lies on social media – and the deplatforming of individuals and entire services (e.g. Parler).
Was Parler deplatformed for “conservative” ideas or for users advocating violence?
Social media content companies actively engage in censorship using a wide variety of approaches. Their censorship regimes are vastly larger and more powerful than most realize.
Today is August 17, 2020. Why is CNBC using a chart whose data ends at July 21st – especially since data up through yesterday is readily available?
69% of the public thinks we will see a “second wave” of coronavirus.
What percent of the public has expertise to determine the likelihood of a second wave? Almost none. Consequently, this poll is measuring the effectiveness of prior public education or propaganda messaging on the topic. People have been told what to think by the media – and social media – and they regurgitate this in polls. This poll is basically meaningless.
Reporter standing in front of burning buildings says in live broadcast “I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly.”. Setting fire to buildings is not unruly. Got it.