Sean Penn must be heartbroken that the statues of his hero are coming down in Venezuela. George Clooney must be heartbroken that his wife, the glamorous international-human-rights-lawyer, isn't interested in representing the child victims of the Hezbollah attack her uncle assisted with last week. Why does anyone pay any attention to the political views of Hollywood celebrities?
Related reading about the BBC's coverage of Israel-Palestine that could also apply to the CBC's. Time was when occasionally the CBC made some attempt at objectivity, that that ship has really sailed since last October 7th's reenactment by Hamas of the 7th century slaughter of Hijazi Jews and has extended to its coverage of the campus encampments which are pretty unabashedly pro-Hamas, rather than anti-war / pro-ceasefire / pro-Palestinian.
"I know the allegation of bias at the BBC has long been thrown at it. As with its most recent contentious headline "Ten dead in rocket attack on Israeli-occupied Golan," it is often so subtle it can feel a bit pathetic to bring it up –antisemitism-mania. But the constant drip drip drip partiality feeds into the tsunami of antisemitism we are all experiencing.
While I’ve felt this about the BBC for a while, the veil was truly lifted on an incident that had nothing to do with Israel at all.
It was what became known as the Chanukah bus story. In short, when a group of Chabad youngsters went to light a chanukiah and sing Chanukah songs in Oxford Street in 2021 they were set upon by a group of young men who hurled abuse and spat at them. Most outlets reported this as seen. But for the BBC this wasn’t good enough: it decided that it had heard people on the bus making anti-Arab slurs (something that no one else heard). When I asked one of the reporters behind the story why they had done this they told me they had to explain why the antisemitism had happened. They wanted to show the Jews deserved it."
And here's an assessment of how much worse the Washington Post's coverage has been in coverage of the "Middle East", relying extensively on anonymous sources, than six national competitors (when it's not busy rebuking the parents of one of Hamas's hostages, the Polins, for allegedly not speaking sufficiently of the suffering in Gaza, when in fact they had) :
"The Post, according to the report, “was responsible for 72% of all the citations of Gaza-related unofficial anonymous sources — more than five times as many as both The New York Times and all the other major U.S. media platforms combined.”
“Quite apart from accusations of advocacy, bias, or partisanship, these findings point to serious professional journalistic failings that distinguish the Post from the other six U.S.-based media organizations included in the database,” Satloff writes. "
John Ware, the BBC documentary producer who helped expose the antisemitic environment that had taken over the British Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn has just published an analysis of alt-media as well.
Gotta love the CBC, covering the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran by calling upon someone from Robert Malley's International Crisis Group, without telling listeners about the think tank's longstanding service to Iran, which finally resulted in Malley's removal from his appointment by the Biden Administration tasked with helping the US rejoin the nuclear deal, under suspicion of having leaked confidential information to the regime with the help of one of his hires, Ariane Tabatabai
I always laugh when I read about the "study" that concluded conservatives are more prone to believing Russian propaganda. What has been the biggest Russian propaganda victory so far this millennia? Of course, hands down, the charge that Trump is a Russian stooge and Russia colluded with Trump to win the election. And where did that story get its legs? Of course from the ridiculous Steele Dossier, a joint product of the Hilary Clinton Campaign and Steele's Russian disinformation source. This was all known before the 2016 election, but somehow the progressives managed to keep the phony Russia collusion hoax going for another six years. But, yeah, it's conservatives who are the patsies when it comes to Russian propaganda.
The study was published by an eminently respectable conservative think-tank, in Canada. This has nothing to do with either Trump derangement or Trumpist derangement.
It sounds like the study's authors took a snapshot in time, when some Canadian right-wingers were buying Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine, and then made a sweeping generalization about conservative gullibility generally for generations. But maybe that's only how the conclusions were summarized in the media.
I've been repeating Mark Steyn's quip a lot lately, to the effect that the problem with conservatives is they pre-concede on every issue. (They are pretty much the same in this regard in Canada, USA, and UK.) This "study" is another example, IMO.
I don't know what you read in "the media" about this study. I know the report's primary author, which I guess gives me an edge. But I linked directly to the study, which you are free to read. Your response here does confirm Disinfo/MLI's conclusions, however. It's like a Rorschach test.
Terry, you don't have to know what media I read. You yourself repeat the typical media talking point, namely that this study shows that - and here I quote -
" “conservatives” tend to be particularly susceptible to Russian propaganda."
The study does no such thing. It merely shows that conservative voters are less certain about some contested propositions about the war in Ukraine than other voters are. The study doesn't even purport to be historical; it isn't concerned about anything other than the Ukraine war. How can you make such a broad generalization about "conservatives" and "Russian propaganda" based on such a targeted investigation?
I question some of the propositions that the study claims are "Russian propaganda." From virtually the outset of the war, Konstanin Kisin has said that nobody really gives a shit about the eastern Ukraine (where some of his relatives live), and in the end, after years of bloodshed, the compromise that will ultimately be reached is that Russia will be given the Donbas (so Putin can have his land bridge to the Crimea) in exchange for peace. Kisin is neither a conservative nor a Russian propagandist; but he may well be correct. Believing Kisin on this point does not make one a dupe to Russian propaganda.
Conservatives do tend to be more "isolationist", progressives more "globalist" in foreign policy. So it would not be an earth-shattering finding that conservatives tend to be less enthusiastic about spending blood and treasure on the war in Ukraine. That does not mean they are more prone to believing "Russian propaganda," though. Their prior ideological commitments happen to coincide with Russian interests to a greater extent in this case, that's all.
It's a weak "study," badly misrepresented in the media. That's what amuses me about it.
I've noticed that the "conservative" appeasers in the matter of Russia's war on Ukraine are usually not in fact conservatives are all, so maybe that's a point we ageee on. But I've repeated no "typical media talking point," a term typically used by people who call themselves conservatives, but aren't necessarily conservatives. I also make no generalizations about conservatives, broad or otherwise. I merely referred to what the study's survey data shows, which is consistent with findings abut distrust in media of the kind illustrated by the expression "typical media talking point "
I make no apologies for distrusting the media, that's for sure. As Mark Twain might have said, "If you don't follow the media, you are uninformed. If you do follow the media, you are misinformed." Uncritically reporting a study's conclusion that does not follow from its own methods or data is not exactly asserting the conclusion, but it is close enough to be irritating to this pedant.
Also, I'm not a conservative, Terry, I'm a libertarian. My DPhil thesis at Oxford was a qualified defense of libertarianism. So contrary to what you assert, my reaction to the study cannot confirm anything about this study's conclusions, as it did not investigate libertarian reaction to Russian propaganda. I dare conjecture that libertarians are among the most resilient to propaganda from that former communist source, however.
The labels have become increasingly fluid. Over the past 20 years, I have gone from small c conservative to far right extremist, without leaving the comfort of my own home. That redefinition required no action or change on my part. As the world slips inexorably to the left I fully expect to be a strident libertarian within a few years. By then, it may be the only safe refuge for orphans like me.
It depends on what you call “conservative.” It’s a broad brush.
I’ve noticed that certain far-right types are anti-Semetic and pro-Russia, pro-authoritarian regimes. I’d hardly call them typical conservatives though. They’re at the extreme.
Great if depressing summary Terry. In particular Hong Kong is an underreported case and the coverage of and support for Jimmy Lai globally is really minimal. There has got to be a way to step up efforts on his behalf. Happy to help.
Thanks for producing these articles, money well spent. One question though, why isn’t there more focus on Beverly McLachlin? She may not have started the SCC down the road of our-constitution-is a-living-tree, but in my opinion, she accelerated it. And now she is in deep with the CCP. Makes a person wonder….
So much to chew on. John Ware's column is a real eye-opener about denialism, and very depressing as concerns peoples' ignorance of history. Perhaps if we had been taught more history we wouldn't be suckers for extremist opinions, revisionist history, and off-the-wall propaganda. Like you Terry, I don't know what to make of Selina Cheng's situation. I respect the WSJ and consider their editors to be respectable managers. On the other hand......She (the editor), could tolerate Selina being a member of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, but not its Chair. That's not compatible?? Speaking of editors, who's editing the news on Meta, Tik-Tok, Google, etc.?
Sean Penn must be heartbroken that the statues of his hero are coming down in Venezuela. George Clooney must be heartbroken that his wife, the glamorous international-human-rights-lawyer, isn't interested in representing the child victims of the Hezbollah attack her uncle assisted with last week. Why does anyone pay any attention to the political views of Hollywood celebrities?
Related reading about the BBC's coverage of Israel-Palestine that could also apply to the CBC's. Time was when occasionally the CBC made some attempt at objectivity, that that ship has really sailed since last October 7th's reenactment by Hamas of the 7th century slaughter of Hijazi Jews and has extended to its coverage of the campus encampments which are pretty unabashedly pro-Hamas, rather than anti-war / pro-ceasefire / pro-Palestinian.
"I know the allegation of bias at the BBC has long been thrown at it. As with its most recent contentious headline "Ten dead in rocket attack on Israeli-occupied Golan," it is often so subtle it can feel a bit pathetic to bring it up –antisemitism-mania. But the constant drip drip drip partiality feeds into the tsunami of antisemitism we are all experiencing.
While I’ve felt this about the BBC for a while, the veil was truly lifted on an incident that had nothing to do with Israel at all.
It was what became known as the Chanukah bus story. In short, when a group of Chabad youngsters went to light a chanukiah and sing Chanukah songs in Oxford Street in 2021 they were set upon by a group of young men who hurled abuse and spat at them. Most outlets reported this as seen. But for the BBC this wasn’t good enough: it decided that it had heard people on the bus making anti-Arab slurs (something that no one else heard). When I asked one of the reporters behind the story why they had done this they told me they had to explain why the antisemitism had happened. They wanted to show the Jews deserved it."
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/the-bbc-is-making-british-jews-less-safe-and-we-shouldnt-be-afraid-to-say-it-wt06fwtz?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%2030072024&utm_content=Daily%20Email%2030072024+CID_4fca29fc638b5914914bd6eaef739e50&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=The%20BBC%20is%20making%20British%20Jews%20less%20safe%20and%20we%20shouldnt%20be%20afraid%20to%20say%20it
And here's an assessment of how much worse the Washington Post's coverage has been in coverage of the "Middle East", relying extensively on anonymous sources, than six national competitors (when it's not busy rebuking the parents of one of Hamas's hostages, the Polins, for allegedly not speaking sufficiently of the suffering in Gaza, when in fact they had) :
"The Post, according to the report, “was responsible for 72% of all the citations of Gaza-related unofficial anonymous sources — more than five times as many as both The New York Times and all the other major U.S. media platforms combined.”
“Quite apart from accusations of advocacy, bias, or partisanship, these findings point to serious professional journalistic failings that distinguish the Post from the other six U.S.-based media organizations included in the database,” Satloff writes. "
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/07/new-nonpartisan-report-slams-wapos-middle-east-coverage-as-unprofessional/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Wapo%20report&utm_content=Wapo%20report+CID_056159c149bf23d3bdf46aec66588614&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor%20JI&utm_term=Read%20Full%20Article
Thanks for this, Lynne. Great background.
John Ware, the BBC documentary producer who helped expose the antisemitic environment that had taken over the British Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn has just published an analysis of alt-media as well.
https://fathomjournal.org/7-october-and-the-alt-media-a-critical-examination/
Gotta love the CBC, covering the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran by calling upon someone from Robert Malley's International Crisis Group, without telling listeners about the think tank's longstanding service to Iran, which finally resulted in Malley's removal from his appointment by the Biden Administration tasked with helping the US rejoin the nuclear deal, under suspicion of having leaked confidential information to the regime with the help of one of his hires, Ariane Tabatabai
https://english.aawsat.com/world/5008156-rob-malley-faces-%E2%80%98troubling%E2%80%99-accusations-republican-lawmakers
Great stuff, Terry. Keep it up!
I always laugh when I read about the "study" that concluded conservatives are more prone to believing Russian propaganda. What has been the biggest Russian propaganda victory so far this millennia? Of course, hands down, the charge that Trump is a Russian stooge and Russia colluded with Trump to win the election. And where did that story get its legs? Of course from the ridiculous Steele Dossier, a joint product of the Hilary Clinton Campaign and Steele's Russian disinformation source. This was all known before the 2016 election, but somehow the progressives managed to keep the phony Russia collusion hoax going for another six years. But, yeah, it's conservatives who are the patsies when it comes to Russian propaganda.
The study was published by an eminently respectable conservative think-tank, in Canada. This has nothing to do with either Trump derangement or Trumpist derangement.
It sounds like the study's authors took a snapshot in time, when some Canadian right-wingers were buying Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine, and then made a sweeping generalization about conservative gullibility generally for generations. But maybe that's only how the conclusions were summarized in the media.
I've been repeating Mark Steyn's quip a lot lately, to the effect that the problem with conservatives is they pre-concede on every issue. (They are pretty much the same in this regard in Canada, USA, and UK.) This "study" is another example, IMO.
I don't know what you read in "the media" about this study. I know the report's primary author, which I guess gives me an edge. But I linked directly to the study, which you are free to read. Your response here does confirm Disinfo/MLI's conclusions, however. It's like a Rorschach test.
Terry, you don't have to know what media I read. You yourself repeat the typical media talking point, namely that this study shows that - and here I quote -
" “conservatives” tend to be particularly susceptible to Russian propaganda."
The study does no such thing. It merely shows that conservative voters are less certain about some contested propositions about the war in Ukraine than other voters are. The study doesn't even purport to be historical; it isn't concerned about anything other than the Ukraine war. How can you make such a broad generalization about "conservatives" and "Russian propaganda" based on such a targeted investigation?
I question some of the propositions that the study claims are "Russian propaganda." From virtually the outset of the war, Konstanin Kisin has said that nobody really gives a shit about the eastern Ukraine (where some of his relatives live), and in the end, after years of bloodshed, the compromise that will ultimately be reached is that Russia will be given the Donbas (so Putin can have his land bridge to the Crimea) in exchange for peace. Kisin is neither a conservative nor a Russian propagandist; but he may well be correct. Believing Kisin on this point does not make one a dupe to Russian propaganda.
Conservatives do tend to be more "isolationist", progressives more "globalist" in foreign policy. So it would not be an earth-shattering finding that conservatives tend to be less enthusiastic about spending blood and treasure on the war in Ukraine. That does not mean they are more prone to believing "Russian propaganda," though. Their prior ideological commitments happen to coincide with Russian interests to a greater extent in this case, that's all.
It's a weak "study," badly misrepresented in the media. That's what amuses me about it.
I've noticed that the "conservative" appeasers in the matter of Russia's war on Ukraine are usually not in fact conservatives are all, so maybe that's a point we ageee on. But I've repeated no "typical media talking point," a term typically used by people who call themselves conservatives, but aren't necessarily conservatives. I also make no generalizations about conservatives, broad or otherwise. I merely referred to what the study's survey data shows, which is consistent with findings abut distrust in media of the kind illustrated by the expression "typical media talking point "
I make no apologies for distrusting the media, that's for sure. As Mark Twain might have said, "If you don't follow the media, you are uninformed. If you do follow the media, you are misinformed." Uncritically reporting a study's conclusion that does not follow from its own methods or data is not exactly asserting the conclusion, but it is close enough to be irritating to this pedant.
Also, I'm not a conservative, Terry, I'm a libertarian. My DPhil thesis at Oxford was a qualified defense of libertarianism. So contrary to what you assert, my reaction to the study cannot confirm anything about this study's conclusions, as it did not investigate libertarian reaction to Russian propaganda. I dare conjecture that libertarians are among the most resilient to propaganda from that former communist source, however.
The labels have become increasingly fluid. Over the past 20 years, I have gone from small c conservative to far right extremist, without leaving the comfort of my own home. That redefinition required no action or change on my part. As the world slips inexorably to the left I fully expect to be a strident libertarian within a few years. By then, it may be the only safe refuge for orphans like me.
Welcome to the club, Tim!
It depends on what you call “conservative.” It’s a broad brush.
I’ve noticed that certain far-right types are anti-Semetic and pro-Russia, pro-authoritarian regimes. I’d hardly call them typical conservatives though. They’re at the extreme.
Agree 100%.
Great if depressing summary Terry. In particular Hong Kong is an underreported case and the coverage of and support for Jimmy Lai globally is really minimal. There has got to be a way to step up efforts on his behalf. Happy to help.
Hi Pieter.
More background: https://freejimmylai.com/
Some ideas on how to help: https://supportjimmylai.com/
Another fact-filled column, Terry. Thanks for your hard work. More praise to come -- stay tuned. I'm just getting started.
Keep up with the factual coverage of events and situations that too often get too little coverage.
Thank you to Terry Glavin. So much work he puts in to his voice of reason.
Thanks for producing these articles, money well spent. One question though, why isn’t there more focus on Beverly McLachlin? She may not have started the SCC down the road of our-constitution-is a-living-tree, but in my opinion, she accelerated it. And now she is in deep with the CCP. Makes a person wonder….
Thanks Terry for all you do illuminating everything.
Thanks back!
The bleak wasteland just got a bit brighter, Terry! Your friend, Evan Gershkovich is on his way home! 🫶🏻🥰
Indeed, Penny. See latest newsletter just out a few minutes ago.
Thanks, Terry.
So much to chew on. John Ware's column is a real eye-opener about denialism, and very depressing as concerns peoples' ignorance of history. Perhaps if we had been taught more history we wouldn't be suckers for extremist opinions, revisionist history, and off-the-wall propaganda. Like you Terry, I don't know what to make of Selina Cheng's situation. I respect the WSJ and consider their editors to be respectable managers. On the other hand......She (the editor), could tolerate Selina being a member of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, but not its Chair. That's not compatible?? Speaking of editors, who's editing the news on Meta, Tik-Tok, Google, etc.?
Where is Edward Snowden?