RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/29/trust-in-media-is-in-free-fall-how-can-the-media-restore-its-trust-factor/

How Can The Media Restore Its Trust Factor?

Cable news is in desperate need of viewers. Because of a lack of trust or because the news is too depressing, Americans have begun to avoid it completely.

Trust in the U.S. media is in free fall.  It is true for both the traditional and alternative media.

The I&I/TIPP Traditional Media Trust Index has declined 16% over the past eight months.  The index dropped 0.7 points or 1.6%, from 43.7 in September to 43.0 in October.

The I&I/TIPP Alternative Media Trust Index has declined 18% over the past eight months.  The index declined 3.5 points or 8.7%, from 40.2 in September to 36.7 in October.

TechnoMetrica started tracking the media in March of this year. To enable easy comparison over time, we have converted percentages to a compact index. The indexes range from 0 to 100.  Above 50 is the trust territory, and below 50 is lack of trust. 50 is neutral.

Relevance

According to a recent survey conducted by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford, among 92,000 news consumers in 46 countries, the United States ranked last in terms of media trust at 29%.  Finland received the highest level of trust in the study, at 65%. The United States performed worse than Poland, the Philippines, and Peru.

Here are the trust levels for G-20 countries included in the survey.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/sign-of-the-times-new-york-times/

The New York Times entered the digital era under duress. In 2011, the Times erected a paywall in what it called a ‘subscription-first business model’. The gamble was that readers would want to pay for quality journalism. It was a risk, and at first it didn’t seem to be paying off: after a challenging 2014, the company shed 100 people from the newsroom in buyouts and layoffs.

A.G. Sulzberger, who was getting ready to replace his father as publisher, commissioned an in-house report, its title ‘Innovation’. The report made it very clear who was to blame. A journalist’s job, the report said, no longer ended with choosing, reporting and publishing the news. To compensate for the ‘steady decline’ in advertising revenue due to digitization, ‘the wall dividing the newsroom and business side’ had to come down. The ‘hard work of growing our audience falls squarely on the newsroom’, the report said, so the Times should be ‘encouraging reporters and editors to promote their stories’.

Of course, journalists have always been aware who their readers are and have catered to them, consciously and unconsciously. But it was something else entirely to suggest that journalists should be collaborating with their audience to produce ‘user-generated content’, as the report put it. ‘Innovation’ presaged a new direction for the paper of record: become digital-first or perish.

The Times invested in new subscription services like NYT Cooking and NYT Games, and introduced live events, conferences and foreign trips. The paper hired an ad agency to work in-house and began allowing brands to sponsor specific lines of reporting. Journalists were asked to accompany advertisers to conferences and were pushed to collaborate more closely with the business side, something many of the old-school editors were loath to do. The executive editor at the time, Jill Abramson, resisted strenuously. She was given the boot.

And then came Trump.

As a candidate, Trump attacked the press as ‘the enemy of the people’, used the term ‘fake news’ and called the Times the ‘failing New York Times’. But the relationship between the press and Trump was symbiotic: Trump capitalized on the widespread feeling that the journalists chronicling American life looked down on regular people (he was not wrong). As he trashed the class norms of politesse that the press expected from a presidential candidate, the liberal media couldn’t get enough of him.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/05/victor_davis_hanson_why_i_left_national_review.html

Victor Davis Hanson, author of “The Dying Citizen,” speaks with FNC’s Tucker Carlson about why he no longer writes for the National Review.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I didn’t know much about Donald Trump, I wasn’t a supporter of his in the primaries, but I knew he was going to win. I just knew it, because he was saying things I could not believe. And, you know, we’re going to redo Youngstown, Ohio.

And then he came to California, I talked to a bunch of farmers and asked if he had come here, and did he have the straw in the mouth and the Caterpillar cap.

No, he had this black suit, it was 105 degrees, he had a Queens accent. So I said, in other words, he wasn’t Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, “put you all in chains.” He didn’t change his act. I said he is authentic and he’s representing the middle class, so I thought he had a very good chance.

As far as your other question, yeah, I lost all those friends.

TUCKER CARLSON: Really?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I left the National Review this year after 20 years and I think they were happy to see me leave too.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why did you leave National Review?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Because there were certain issues that would pop up occasionally, and I could predict what the answer was going to be. The Covington kids. I just sensed that before we knew anything, people would come and condemn them. Or the Access Hollywood tape–

TUCKER CARLSON: People at National Review condemned the Covington kids?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/journalists-face-disaster-as-covid-19-

The media are grossly distorting the reality of the pandemic.

T he COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. is ebbing, but you would never know it from the headlines. Bad news, accurate or not, sells. And in the case of COVID-19, it also supports the journalists’ prejudices.

The seven-day moving average of new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations peaked and started to decline in early September. Nationwide, COVID-19 hospitalization rates have decreased 17 percent over the past two weeks. Only 19 states had any increase, and many were small. The remaining 31 states and the District of Columbia saw hospitalization rates decline. But that hasn’t stopped journalists from publicizing localized exceptions to the good news.

A recent article, for example, starts with the statement, “Coronavirus patients are flooding and straining hospitals across the U.S.” and goes on to describe how some states are promulgating “crises standards of care” to guide health-care providers on how to allocate limited resources. The article cites as evidence high ICU utilization, ranging from 77 percent to 90 percent of capacity, in seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, and Texas.

Yet the most recent government data shows other indicators of pandemic severity and health-care capacity look pretty good in those seven states. New COVID-19 hospital admissions per 100 beds were lower compared with the previous week in five of the states, with only small increases in Idaho and Montana. New COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population were lower in Georgia and Texas and essentially unchanged in Idaho. Test positivity rates (a rough indicator of how widespread disease is and how quickly it is spreading) were lower in all the states other than Montana. New COVID-19 deaths — a lagging indicator — were up in four states, down in another and unchanged in Georgia and Texas, which both showed declines in the three other indicators.

The ICU capacity figures cited in the article also lack context. What is the normal utilization level for the ICUs in those states? Most trauma-center and tertiary-care-center ICUs routinely functioned at 80–90 percent of capacity even before the pandemic. And ICU beds are not a static resource.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/a_news_report_that_encapsulates_whats_wrong_with_todays_media.html

Over at SFGATE, the online San Francisco news outlet realted to the San Francisco Chronicle, the headline and subtitle are damning, in that they accuse Rep. Dan Crenshaw of being both a dangerous scofflaw and a disgraceful hypocrite. However, if you dive into the article, you discover that he’s making a principled stand against a ludicrous rule and that there’s no hypocrisy on his part, only on Nancy Pelosi’s.

As noted, the headline and subtitle are damning:

Houston Rep. Dan Crenshaw fined $5,000 for dodging Capitol metal detectors

The Republican leader failed to comply with security measures installed after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, despite hammering Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi for the same infraction in April.

Although the “journalist” behind the story, Ariana Garcia, may not be personally responsible for the headline and subtitle, she’s certainly responsible for the article’s contents.

The article opens by saying that Crenshaw, along with “six other lawmakers” is guilty of “dodging the metal detectors inside the U.S. Capitol” this week, exposing each of them to a possible $5,000 fine. The article refers to the police report and the House Committee on Ethics statement about Crenshaw’s wrongdoing. It then explains how the extra security was necessary “following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 during which five people were killed.”

Wait! What? Insurrection? Five people killed?

Well, not quite, Ms. Biased “Journalist.” All the evidence, including admissions from the FBI, is that there was no planned insurrection, that the FBI was involved well in advance and may have been encouraging events, that the Capitol police invited people into the building, and that those who entered treated the People’s place of law with respect.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/24/media-test-positive-for-corrupt-covid-coverage/

Policymakers and public health officials need to be held accountable for their miserable pandemic failures. So should the media, which have no interest in objective news, and are following an agenda that is both repulsive and poisonous

Among of the media’s favorite stories of the last 18 months are the deaths of the unvaccinated and those who expressed skepticism about the lethality of the Wuhan coronavirus. A recent example is the death of a 40-year-old California woman, who, according to the British Daily Mail, “regularly posted anti-vax, anti-mask content, proclaiming herself a ‘free thinker’ who ‘questions everything.’ ” The mother of four – who also considered herself “unmuzzled” – “had been battling COVID-19 and resulting pneumonia ahead of her passing.”

Tragic as her death was, it would not have been covered by the media had she been vaccinated and cheerfully compliant with lockdown and mask rules. But in the twisted minds of most of today’s journalists, it’s a story that has to be told to boost their vanity. They are our moral superiors.

The glee with which the story is reported is not overt. But like so many others, it was told in a way to lead readers to classify the victim as a backward, anti-science conservative who might even be a Republican and a Trump supporter. It’s part of the left’s agenda to marginalize such people.

Thankfully, there are exceptions to the cruelty. Journalist Zaid Jilani recently told the media to stop shaming those who aren’t perfectly lined up with the left’s pandemic demands and succumb to their coronavirus infections.

“Maybe they were skeptical of vaccines, or masks or something like that, and maybe they got COVID, and they died,” Jilani told Hill.TV. “That’s usually a very sad circumstance, but it’s turned into sort of a celebration, like ‘ha we got the other side!’ ”

“It’s an odd way to think of a virus,” he added.