Climate Change: The media is bad at covering climate change and worse at covering solutions

While President Trump has turned bashing the mainstream media into a form of performance art, sometimes the press does deserve some constructive criticism. For example, look no further than the media’s inadequate coverage of climate change and potential solutions—inadequate, at least, according to a new report by the watchdog group Public Citizen. The group looked at news stories from a number of major U.S. news outlets to see how–or if–they covered what many consider to be the greatest threat to national security. More specifically, the group looked at whether the media was able to connect dramatic weather events–which the world had plenty of in 2017–to climate change. It found a “decidedly low” number of pieces that mentioned climate change in relevant contexts–such as drought, floods, and disease. Instead, the term “climate change” most often occurred in stories about record heat, but not issues like wildfires, record rain fall, or hurricanes, tropical storms, and flooding.

In fact, Public Citizen found that just 4% of the many stories discussing hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, or Nate made the connection to climate change.

Not only is the media barely mentioning climate change in context, but coverage of potential solutions to climate change is even more scanty–only 9% of all pieces mentioned solutions. Reporting on ways to possibly slow or even reverse climate change are critical now, particularly in light of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, roll back U.S. climate policy, and promote coal.ML

Read more: Report: The media is bad at covering climate change and worse at cover

Syria: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - by James Downie

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that Donald Trump is always in want of praise from his television. Though other presidents have been busy with the job of being president, cable news — and tweeting about what he’s watching on cable news — is the centerpiece of Trump’s morning and evening routines. It’s clear that what the media cover and how they portray him has a tremendous influence on Trump: This week, the pictures of Tuesday’s chemical attack by Syria played a crucial role in Trump’s decision to order a missile strike Thursday against a Syrian airfield. The president’s sensitivity to his media image makes it all the more important for outlets to be cautious in their coverage of the missile strike and its aftermath.

Fourteen years ago, the media breathlessly reported the George W. Bush administration’s charges against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and then rhapsodized over “shock and awe” in the war’s early months. One would hope that the United States’ subsequent struggle in Iraq (and Afghanistan) might lead talking heads to be more muted or skeptical this time, but Thursday’s coverage suggested otherwise. MSNBC anchor Brian Williams described Pentagon footage of missile launches as “beautiful.” The New York Times headlined one piece in treacly fashion, “On Syria attack, Trump’s heart came first” (before later changing it). Parades of guests largely praised the missile launches as the right course of action.

By contrast, the networks did not focus much on whether it was concerning that Trump had flipped within a week on intervening in Syria, or what Trump’s next steps would be. (It’s worth noting that, after sending 400 Marines to Syria in March, the administration has stopped disclosing how many U.S. troops are deployed there.) There was even less discussion of the legality of the strike, even though Congress had not authorized it. (The Trump administration even forgot to include a justification in its original set of internal talking points.) And absent almost entirely, with the notable exception of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, was any extended dwelling on the United States’ not-so-stellar record of Mideast interventions.

Read more: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - The Washington Post

The Netherlands: Geert Wilders named Dutch politician of the year - Criteria, Choice And Results Questionable

Geert Wilders: Is he really so popular?

Netherlands: Populist anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders was Monday named Dutch politician of the year in a television poll that came on the heels of his conviction for discrimination.

The 53-year-old charismatic leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) got 26 percent of the 40,000 votes cast in the poll conducted by NPO1 public television.

"I thank the Dutch who elected me the politician of 2016," Wilders said in a tweet. His party's fortunes have been steadily rising in the approach to legislative elections in March.

A December 11 survey by the respected Maurice de Hond Institute found that if elections were held now, the PVV would pick up 36 out of the 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, making it the biggest single political group.

It is the fourth time Wilders has been chosen as Dutch politician of the year thrice. His previous wins were in 2010, 2013 and 2015.

In a ruling earlier this month, Wilders was found guilty of discrimination against Moroccans but acquitted of hate speech over remarks he made at an election rally in March 2014.

He had asked supporters whether they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands." When the crowd shouted back "Fewer! Fewer!" a smiling Wilders answered: "We're going to organize that."

But how accurate are all these polls being analyzed and publicized?

Looking at this particular poll about Wilders and other similar polls around the world, one can not escape the feeling that these polls not always tell the real side of the story. 

The mainly corporate controlled and profit motivated media around the world is not interested in providing objective news, but rather wants to achieve high ratings and maximum exposure, through populist and sensationalist news reporting.

In the case of naming Wilders  the Netherlands most popular politicians, the headline does not really reflect a true picture of the actual situation. 

Wilders got only 26 percent  of the total vote, this also means that 74% of those voted did not like him. In fact that is very close to three out of 4 people not liking him. Popular politician - not really.

Certainly not something Mr. Wilders or his party can brag about.

EU-Digest

The Press: Rigging the Coverage
 - what you see is not what you get

Coverage about the breakdown of the partial ceasefire in Syria illustrated the main way corporate news media distort public understanding of a major foreign policy story. The problem is not that the key events in the story are entirely unreported, but that they were downplayed and quickly forgotten in the media’s embrace of themes with which they were more comfortable.

In this case, the one key event was the major offensive launched in early April by Al Nusra Front — the Al Qaeda franchise in Syria — alongside U.S.-backed armed opposition groups. This offensive was mentioned in at least two “quality” U.S. newspapers. Their readers, however, would not have read that it was that offensive that broke the back of the partial ceasefire.

On the contrary, they would have gotten the clear impression from following the major newspapers’ coverage that systematic violations by the Assad government doomed the ceasefire from the beginning.

Corporate media heralded the ceasefire agreement when it was negotiated by the United States and Russia in February, with the Los Angeles Times (2/3/16) calling it “the most determined diplomatic push to date aimed at ending the nation’s almost five-year conflict.” The “partial cessation of hostilities” was to apply between the Syrian regime and the non-jihadist forces, but not to the regime’s war with Nusra and with ISIS.

The clear implication was that the U.S.-supported non-jihadist opposition forces would have to separate themselves from Nusra, or else they would be legitimate targets for airstrikes.
But the relationship between the CIA-backed armed opposition to Assad and the jihadist Nusra Front was an issue that major U.S. newspapers had already found very difficult to cover (FAIR.org, 3/21/16).
U.S. Syria policy has been dependent on the military potential of the Nusra Front (and its close ally, Ahrar al Sham) for leverage on the Syrian regime, since the “moderate” opposition was unable to operate in northwest Syria without jihadist support.

This central element in U.S. Syria policy, which both the government and the media were unwilling to acknowledge, was a central obstacle to accurate coverage of what happened to the Syrian ceasefire.

This problem began shaping the story as soon as the ceasefire agreement was announced. On Feb. 23, New York Times correspondent Neil MacFarquhar wrote a news analysis on the wider tensions between the Obama administration and Russia that pointed to “a gaping loophole” in the Syria ceasefire agreement: the fact that “it permits attacks against the Islamic State and the Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to continue.”

MacFarquhar asserted that exempting Nusra from the ceasefire “could work in Moscow’s favor, since many of the anti-Assad groups aligned with the United States fight alongside the Nusra Front.” That meant that Russia could “continue to strike United States-backed rebel groups without fear … of Washington’s doing anything to stop them,” he wrote.

On the same day, Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama’s “top military and intelligence advisers don’t believe Russia will abide by a just-announced ceasefire in Syria and want to ready plans to increase pressure on Moscow by expanding covert support to rebels fighting the Russia-backed Assad regime.”

For two of the country’s most prominent newspapers, it was thus clear that the primary context of the Syria ceasefire was not its impact on Syria’s population, but how it affected the rivalry between powerful national security officials and Russia.

Note Almere-Digest: not only the Syria news is rigged by the media, but also most of the news, depending on who pays the salaries of the journalists writing the story, and the policies of the corporate media conglomerate they work for . 

Read more: Rigging the Coverage of Syria – Consortium

The Media: Stop giving PR lip service to ISIS/ IS - They Are Enemies of Humanity - Not A Marketable Product - by RM

ISIS Psychopathic Derelicts Execute Innocent Civilians

It is amazing and questionable why the Media in general goes to such great length in providing ISIS or IS with all this free publicity and PR.

The Islamic State is a Fata Morgana, and all the stories about its legality are bogus. Unfortunately the cruel crimes committed by these psychopathic derelicts are a reality.

But sadly, not much has been done to curb the ability of these fanatic criminals to project a (deluted) image which continues to attract numerous individuals to their cause.  An image which indirectly is reinforced by the publicity the media provides them.

Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, who all have the means to track our whereabouts and activities should at least also be able to use those same capabilities to track these Enemies of Humanity and bar them from using their services to recruit followers and spout their nonsense.

As to the general corporate controlled press, they should, in this particular case at least, forget their profit motives for once. Stop giving these Enemies of Humanity the time of day in your news reports.

EU-Digest

Press: Alternative Resources: Browsers - Search Engines - E-Mail Servers - News: Print, Radio and TV Services - by RM

There are other alternatives if you are you concerned about getting one-sided or doctored news from corporate owned or state controlled censored publications, radio and TV stations  ---- or that you are using search engines and e-mail services where you  really don't know what happens to your private and personal information.

Following below is a listing of alternative on-line services which provide you with more freedom of choice and where your personal data and privacy rights are presently not compromised.   

E-Mail Services
NEOMAILBOX
ECLIPSO

Search Engines 
Ixquick 

Browsers
Open source Tor Project

Alternative (unadulterated) News - Print, Radio, and TV

Aljazeera  (also in languages other than English)
BBC         (also in languages  other than English)
Deutsche Welle
EuroNews (also in languages other than English)
France24   (also in languages other than English)
LinkTV

Most of the above mentioned resources can also be downloaded as an APP for your smart-phone or computer.

In some countries where there is censorship some of these services won't work. In that case it is recommended to try using the Tor Browser to connect with them.

EU-Digest