JoNova

The Guardian

By Jo Nova

The Blob are afraid they will lose even more followers to social media…

Academics and the old dying media have produced a study that “shows” people who believe social media posts are bad people. The message here for believers is that only horrible people get their news from sites like X or TikTok.  Those selfish people score badly on civic values.

The trick in this “peer reviewed” propaganda is  how they define civic values. You might think it means checking on elderly neighbors, donating to charity, or volunteering at the Scouts, but actually “Civic values were defined as an individual’s belief in democratic institutions “. So if you question parliament or universities you are not a good citizen. The institutions are sacred!

This transparent paper is just a get-out-of-jail free card for sloppy, self serving academics. Mike Benz warned us that the Blob redefined “democracy” as “democratic institutions” in 2016, which meant people could be tarred with the “anti-democratic” brush if they criticized the “essential institutions” of democracy, like elections, insurrections, vaccines, or senile Presidents.

The left destroy the meaning of words to deceive their flock. The right let them get away with it.

Australians who get most of their news from social media more likely to believe in climate conspiracy, study finds

Amanda Meade, The Guardian

Those who believe global heating is a conspiracy get most of their information about news and current events from commercial and social media, according to a study by researchers at Monash University.

The study, led by Prof Mark Andrejevic and Assoc Prof Zala Volcic, found that those who relied on social media as the main source of news scored lower on a measure of “civic values” than people who relied on newspapers and non-commercial media.

Civic values were defined as an individual’s belief in democratic institutions and practices, as well as their openness to considering perspectives that challenged their own.

Of course, having redefined “civic values” they can also define “conspiracies” any way they want. Even if a Nobel Prize winner is not convinced about a wild hypothesis invented by B-Grade modelers, just call it a conspiracy…

For the climate change question, researchers asked whether “fluctuations in the climate are the result of natural cycles that take place regardless of human activity”.

Of those who got most of their news from commercial TV and radio, 37% agreed with the statement. Of those who got most of their information from social media, 25% believed climate change was a conspiracy.

To rephrase, nearly 40% of the people said climate fluctuation is natural, which presumably the team at Monash would call a “conspiracy”.  The Sun colludes with the moon-wolf or something.

But the social purity of the ABC radio audience is 98%. These publicly funded “journalists” are practically offering hypnosis. Obviously they never present both sides of the story. If they did that, the ABC audience would form more a bell curve of opinions, rather than a religious believer 98:2 split.

Conversely, those who disbelieved in conspiracies about climate change were more likely to get their information from public broadcasters ABC and SBS. Only 2% of those whose main source of information was public radio and 6% of those whose main source was public television believed the climate crisis was a conspiracy.

So 98% of public radio listeners all think the same thing on a complex topic, and this is supposed to be a sign of a healthy democracy?

But the good news is that 60% of Australians mainly get their news from social media sources. No wonder the Blob is aquiver. Only 34% got their news from Channel Seven, Nine and Ten, and just 6% got it from ABC or SBS public broadcasters.

REFERENCE

• Andrejevic, M. & Volcic, Z.(2024) Mapping Australians’ Media Use and Civic Attitudes   30/12/22 → 31/12/25  Project: Research