FURTHER SATURDAY LATE AFTERNOON UPDATE: Picked up at Drudge but from The Oz of all places: Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study.
Journalists’ brains apparently show a lower level of executive functioning, which means a below average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.
These are the results of a formal study and thus THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
Two classic examples of the media being unable to see why no one with any sense believes a word they say. First from America. Having backed for the past eight years and to the hilt the biggest liar in American political history, they now come up with this.
It would be the ultimate irony if Trump now faces a crisis in which his lifelong strength turns into a fatal weakness. His rich and checkered history of salesmanship, his exaggerations, fudges and falsehoods, leave him in a situation now where, even if he is right on this one, people will have a hard time believing that this one time Donald Trump is finally telling the truth.
Warning Donald Trump about crying wolf! What a bunch of clowns! The media are the most disgusting, disgraceful, dishonest crew whose take on nothing can be trusted. It would certainly be the case that if the media told the actual truth about something important one day – it could happen – who would take their word for it other than their fellow leftists who only want to hear what they want to believe?
And it’s not just commission but omission. This from Andrew Bolt is truly astonishing. And the more I dwell on it, the more astonished I become. It truly is incredible.
After years of hearing only the alarmist view on the warmist ABC, a listener put in an FOI request [with the link to a Catallaxy comment that should be read in full]. This is Andrew’s summary:
The document I seek is a list of links to articles related to “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2” and “coral bleaching” that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates – as presented by the ABC on all its platforms.
I have listened, viewed and searched for years and I’ve not found any sceptical articles on the ABC’s platforms.
The ABC’s response:
I have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate all relevant documents. My search for these documents involved contacting the following relevant people, who in turn consulted with relevant managers and staff within their respective teams:
• Director News• Manager Editorial Policies, News.
I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.
Quite clearly the responder at the ABC has no idea how bizarre this reply is. The gotcha is that they cannot find a single example not that they might have found a few. The null response is the scandal. On one of the most important public policy issues of our time, the ABC can provide not a single example of having discussed the sceptical side of the issue. That they cannot see how incredibly dishonest this is – not even recognising that this is how it would look to people such as us – is a massive example why the entire public broadcasting enterprise needs to be wound down. They are blind to their own lies and are unwilling to facilitate public debate on any issue it has already pre-judged.
CONFIRMATION FROM A MOST UNLIKELY SOURCE: Funny thing not even noticing our own post this morning but the grandchildren are visiting so a bit distracted. But now that I’ve caught up, let me continue along these same themes with something else: Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias. Read it all, even if you know what it says already. It is that it is being said that is interesting, though you won’t find any news reports in the morning. This is how it starts.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.
It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:
Even the sainted Fox is 52% negative which might explain its recent fade.