"US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media, Reuters Institute report finds"
quote
Just 29% of people surveyed in the U.S. said they trust the news, compared to 45% in Canada and 54% in Brazil.
quote
The United States ranks last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries, a report released Wednesday found. That’s worse than Poland, worse than the Philippines, worse than Peru. (Finland leads at 65%.)
The annual digital news report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford also found some improvement in trust in nearly all the countries surveyed — probably thanks to COVID-19 coverage — but not in the U.S. where the low rating was flat year to year.
One explanation, though not necessarily the only one, is the extreme political polarization in the U.S. This study, like many others, found extremely high levels of distrust — 75% of those who identify as being on the right thought coverage of their views is unfair.
Local news, both print and broadcast, fared better than national news. However, the findings for struggling local print outlets were not all good. . . .
Correct. They're pumping out increasing amounts of Allied style propaganda. Germans were thoroughly and completely nationalist. The Allies represented globalism then and now.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 11-27-2021).]
Hahah... you know, I come in here on my lunch break to just read a few articles, see what's going on, and mind my own business... and then you post these things that stir up all kinds of emotions and tear at my male instincts, which increases my heart rate, etc. Sigh... I think I need to drink some decaf tea to calm me down.
Correct. They're pumping out increasing amounts of Allied style propaganda. Germans were thoroughly and completely nationalist. The Allies represented globalism then and now.
and some how you see that as a bad thing ? and favor the guys who started the war and killed millions [over the war dead]
Originally posted by ray b: and some how you see that as a bad thing ? and favor the guys who started the war and killed millions [over the war dead]
I always reject your style of political propaganda, political correctness and in response will always favor the truth. I expose the Hollywoodization. England and France started the war. The Allies murdered millions, tens of millions during and after the war of the 1940s. Never shoulda happened. Today's political and cultural crisis in the West had been argued as tracing to the war.
The Soviets invaded Poland 2 weeks after Germany. Nobody cared.
There's a new book from Elizabeth D. Samet (not that I know her from "Adam" or maybe from "Eve") that probes the "gauzy mythology that has shrouded the historical reality of World War II," and has catalyzed, like a mutant starter yeast, the baking of a puffed-up loaf of intellectually malnourishing nostalgia for the U.S. role in World War Two; i.e., the "Hollywoodization" of the World War Two-era United States, collectively, as an innocent and righteous "G.I. Joe."
quote
The extreme depravity of the Nazis would retrospectively sanctify the “inglorious work” of the Allied effort, but Samet points out that even after American entrance into the war, liberating the Jews was never a priority. “Why We Fight,” a series of propaganda films that Frank Capra made between 1942 and 1945, made no mention of the Nazis’ systematic attempt to exterminate the Jews, even though the American government learned of the Final Solution” as early as the summer of 1942.
But Samet's new book (and the New York Times book review that I just quoted) are a far cry from any equivocating and ill-conceived whitewashing of World War Two Germany and the other Axis nations--a far cry from any misleading efforts to level the moral playing field between the United States and its allies, who although far from blameless, must be accorded a distinctly higher moral ground than the Axis nations, and Germany in particular.
Among author Samet's targets, President Trump. Samet examines Trump's speech in 2019 at Normandy, during the 75th annual commemoration of D-Day. The grade she accords to the nation's 45th President is a "gentleman's C" at best, taking him to task for the "chintzy" quality of the oration:
quote
Some listeners were so surprised by the solemnity of Trump’s words that they eagerly welcomed it as evidence that he [Trump] was donning the mantle of dignified statesman. But Samet, a professor of English at West Point who has previously written about teaching the literature of warfare, refuses to grade on a curve.
She briskly enumerates the speech’s jumble of platitudes — “‘Great Crusade’ (Eisenhower), ‘Freedom’s Altar’ (a Civil War song), ‘consecrated to history’ (bastardized Lincoln), ‘new frontiers’ (misappropriated Kennedy), ‘heat of battle,’ ‘fires of hell,’ ‘Nazi fury,’ ‘awesome power,’ ‘breathtaking scale,’ ‘cherished alliance,’ ‘undying gratitude’ (clichés) and ‘tough guy’ (ad-lib).” What Samet calls our “tin-eared age of tweets” can make it harder to distinguish soaring oratory from flimsy bombast, but “most of the sentences won’t bear the weight of careful reading,” she writes.
Originally posted by sourmash: There's an interesting sounding title I've heard of called THE BAD WAR.
I found a couple of books that have "The Bad War" as part of the book title.
One is about Vietnam. The other, an overtly anti-Jewish "rant" that tries to whitewash the German Nazis and the very person of Adolf Hitler--authored by a "dude" that was awarded an undergraduate degree (1987) from Rutgers University. "Tsk, tsk."
That's probably the one I've heard being discussed on Rense or Republic radio shows. There's nothing I recall about the discussion, but the title was intriguing, obviously. Also, I don't believe corporate reviews written about books and videos. For the same reasons social media and internet sites censor information they don't approve of. I evaluate it for myself.
Originally posted by sourmash: That's probably the one I've heard being discussed on Rense or Republic radio shows. There's nothing I recall about the discussion, but the title was intriguing, obviously. Also, I don't believe corporate reviews written about books and videos. For the same reasons social media and internet sites censor information they don't approve of.
I evaluate it for myself.
I can imagine saying to myself (soon) "I wish I hadn't done that (this)," but I also have this inclination to say "Help yourself."
It's 245 online pages, in PDF format, from a shallow-minded, anti-Jewish bigot--or from someone who is insincere and is just trying to monetize that attitude.
I'm no expert on anti-Semitism (as it's often called) but this looks to me kind of like a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"--something that was described recently in The Atlantic--but a new version that's been updated for the current historical era. It greatly magnifies the overlap or intersection between Globalism and persons of Jewish heritage or religious allegiance, partly by being oblivious to anything else.
The three letter text string "Jew" occurs 240 times in 245 pages.
I don't see it as overtly or all out "Nazi." I scrolled through it fairly quickly. I don't think there's any use of the Nazi Swastika or anything else that's so ugly that I would shrink from even posting the https link to it on this forum. (I hope I"m not proven wrong.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-01-2021).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I can imagine saying to myself (soon) "I wish I hadn't done that (this)," but I also have this inclination to say "Help yourself."
It's 245 online pages, in PDF format, from a shallow-minded, anti-Jewish bigot--or from someone who is insincere and is just trying to monetize that attitude.
I'm no expert on anti-Semitism (as it's often called)
I approve of how you phrased that last statement. It's an over-used term cast without credibility, very often. On Amy Goodman's NPR show called Democracy Now a jewish guest stated that the charge of 'anti-Semite' is a trick she and her group use to subvert debate on any topic chosen. She added that they always use it because it works. This was on stated on NPR. Amy and the guest are jewish.
quote
but this looks to me kind of like a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"--something that was described recently in The Atlantic--but a new version that's been updated for the current historical era. It greatly magnifies the overlap or intersection between Globalism and persons of Jewish heritage or religious allegiance, partly by being oblivious to anything else.
An activist who calls himself Brother Nathaniel was born and raised jewish in a fully jewish community. He has since converted to Christianity. He states very convincingly that the 'Elders' has to be the product of someone heavily steeped in the jewish community and must be jewish due to the knowledge of doctrine and cultural practices. He points out how it's referred to as a forgery and not a fake. I don't have an opinion on that. Does it describe our current trajectory or not?
quote
I don't see it as overtly or all out "Nazi." I scrolled through it fairly quickly. I don't think there's any use of the Nazi Swastika or anything else that's so ugly that I would shrink from even posting the https link to it on this forum. (I hope I"m not proven wrong.)
The topic is considered a third rail to ever consider questioning. The fact that Bad War has been presented as a scholarly historical piece forces it to hold a standard that can't be debunked by the mega-rich global industry that's goal is to debase any challenge.
The couple of times I've heard it being discussed on air the issues presented appeared fairly offered to the listener. By contrast, 2 weeks ago one of the fairly recently compiled documentaries was still insinuating it was the Germans who murdered the thousands of Polish officers that the Soviets actually murdered. Not one person here would dare publically question that documentary's or that channel's integrity for pushing such an obviously garbage charge but any presentation of the alt opinion is immediately assailed, right? You can't take anyone seriously if they can't apply an equally judicious investigation of all sides of a topic. The TV docs straight up lie and nobody points it out. Nobody calls it bigoted while it's blatantly bigoted. Those channels are still accepted as credible, but any counter is labeled bunk. It's labeled racist and anti-Semitic so people will react how they've been trained to react.
Everybody is told to read specific titles so that they can earn an affirming pat on the head. How scholarly.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-02-2021).]
The topic is considered a third rail to ever consider questioning. The fact that Bad War has been presented as a scholarly historical piece forces it to hold a standard that can't be debunked by the mega-rich global industry that's goal is to debase any challenge.
The couple of times I've heard it being discussed on air the issues presented appeared fairly offered to the listener.
By contrast, [two] weeks ago one of the fairly recently compiled documentaries was still insinuating it was the Germans who murdered the thousands of Polish officers that the Soviets actually murdered. Not one person here would dare publicly question that documentary's or that channel's integrity for pushing such an obviously garbage charge but any presentation of the alt opinion is immediately assailed, right?
You can't take anyone seriously if they can't apply an equally judicious investigation of all sides of a topic. The TV docs straight up lie and nobody points it out. Nobody calls it bigoted while it's blatantly bigoted. Those channels are still accepted as credible, but any counter is labeled bunk. It's labeled racist and anti-Semitic so people will react how they've been trained to react.
Everybody is told to read specific titles so that they can earn an affirming pat on the head. How scholarly.
So that's a reference to the Katyn Forest Massacre in Poland, where more than 11,000 officers and men whose allegiance was to the national government of Poland were murdered in cold blood, by the USSR, on the orders of Josef Stalin. It was blamed on the Germans at the Nuremberg trials, because of the insistence of the Soviet delegation, but even then it was suspected that this a crime that should be blamed on the USSR--and the documents to prove it have emerged more recently from the Soviet archives of the Russian Federation.
But the true story, that this was an atrocity carried out by the Russians and falsely blamed on the Germans, has been aired and published for many years now on the likes of CNN, NBC, the New York Times and various other first and second rank news networks of the mainstream media. It's an old story. So I don't know what documentary or channel you were referring to (where I highlighted your text), but that is not at all what I would expect from the mainstream media--if for whatever reason they were to bring this story up again.
I don't have enough time to go through all the "good reads" I stumble across, like here, when I searched online so I could confirm that it was the "Katyn Forest Massacre". But here's another one for the collection of articles that I've found online that I would like to read attentively from end to end, but almost assuredly never will:
Yes, that's the incident. The program date wasnt noted but it was obviously a fairly recent production based on the diction, accent and information offered. It was craftily worded so the unknowing viewer would assume it was in fact the Germans who committed it. It was stated similar to the below:
...when on X date it was reported that X thousand Polish officers were found murdered by German troops, an escalation of such and such blah, blah, blah. And when the Soviet invasion of Poland was presented it wasnt emphasized that it happened about 2 weeks after Germany's invasion. It kinda just stated the countries that the USSR invaded.
If a person were to read, search, watch videos of counter-narratives that person would discover many, many half truths or outright BS bombs being dropped on them about dated events of WWII that are colorized for distortion value. What is seen can not be unseen. And again, nobody else sees those sources as less than credible. Well, they are less than credible.
The opposite of journalism is activism. They also have different communication strategies. Most all media outlets are activism based propaganda mills. The trust factor is eroded, because they falsely portray themselves as journalism and journalists, when they clearly are not.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-03-2021).]
And there's a massive machine behind that which rudders the direction by offering perks or punishment depending on how events are covered. They'll shout you down and starve you out. The Cancel Culture and social media censorship is a product of theirs.
The opposite of journalism is activism. They also have different communication strategies. Most all media outlets are activism based propaganda mills. The trust factor is eroded, because they falsely portray themselves as journalism and journalists, when they clearly are not.
The opposite of journalism is activism. They also have different communication strategies. Most all media outlets are activism based propaganda mills. The trust factor is eroded, because they falsely portray themselves as journalism and journalists, when they clearly are not.
It does appear that various media outlets have an ax to grind one way or another. There is so much conflicting opinions offered that I no longer believe any of them offer the "truth" what ever that means.
Now that Frodo has been pulled off CNN after years of misleading talking points. Will Melon head be next?
Hellstorm, a documentary of part of WWII, is being read on Republic Broadcasting audio stream currently. Some guy I don't listen to is reading in chapter 2 now.
Thomas Goodrich wrote it about the 1944 to 1947 period.
Republic has an archives for recent show and probably long term storage.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-04-2021).]
