Dishonest journalism does more damage than good when pushing the latest Fearmongering of climate change study.

by AIsuicide

amp.usatoday.com/amp/1990220002

Why does the author of this article go out of their way to intentionally cause readers to mistakenly identify when the article is talking about humans versus beetles?

Read the article…now read it again. Pay attention to the transitions between the points of when the author changes from talking about humans compared to when they cite quotes from the beetle study.

Pay attention to the pictures supplied in the article. Notice they are of a man, and human sperm. Now notice that both paragraphs below each picture are quotes from the beetle study.

This isn’t an accident. It’s intentional. It’s designed to target readers who don’t actually take the time to read the full article and distinguish between when the specific points of information change.

Why do this? Why does the author feel the need to intentionally design an article through formatting and constant vague transitions from one information source to another that results in the reader confusing the the points at which they are talking about beetles and humans?

I’m very open minded about climate change. I spend time reading the actual studies in order to be accurately informed on such a complicated and critical topic.

It’s no easy task, believe me.

This article causes skepticism in me. I don’t care for the blatant trickery used to manipulate my perception of facts that makes it more difficult for me to be accurately informed.

Once again….why does the author feel the need to do this? It’s simple. They want the results of the beetle study to “appear stronger” in connection with humans. Notice how they insert the reference to other studies about “warm-blooded mammals” at the most opportune place in the article? This is intentional.

And what does that do? It causes fear. But it’s not actually accurate information, is it?

These are the types of instances I go out of my way to point out nowadays. Because they are happening much more frequently.

Journalists writing articles about climate change and new studies involving climate change need to understand something.

You are causing “more skepticism” when you write articles in a manner similar to the article I’ve pointed out.

Stop doing it. You are eroding a position you attempt to strengthen. Present the facts in an easily understood manner that does not result in more confusion or misunderstanding of the actual information.

If you keep doing it I can only come to one conclusion. The facts don’t support your argument, causing the need for deception in order to push a narrative…

Oh yeah, that reminds me. I’ve been seeing numerous instances where users on this sub actually use the word “narrative” in place of words such as “opinion, perspective, point, etc…” Why is that? It’s definitely a trending phenomena I’ve noticed.

It’s highly inaccurate to ascribe a “narrative” to a single user. Stop doing it. Unless of course your intention is to “dilute or marginalize” the impact of its use when it is accurately ascribed to “coordinated efforts by corporate media”.

If that’s the case…by all means, please continue to do. It makes it easier for me to spot the MSM shills.

508 views