Very interesting indeed. I really look forward to my weekly Listener. I admired its last editor; Pamela Stirling whose editorials often surprised. Today's editor invites guest editorials - and these and most of the other opinion writers in the magazine generally follow a well worn path leading gently to the left. However, the Listener's political columnist Danyl McLauchlan is terrific. I'm a fan because he seems to be objective and unlike most of his MSM colleagues he doesn't pour scorn on readers who see some virtue in the often decried 'populist' politicians.
I think I've seen other such surveys which show that distrust of media has grown far more quickly among people on the right. I believe that this is because the far right has now peeled off from rationality in favour of their emotional community (which social media provides them) - and this infects others on the right - they listen to the claims that the mainstream media are biased against the right. The far right prefer to get disinformation that strokes their feelings about the world from like-minded people on social media. They don't trust scientists and "experts" who make them feel ignorant. This is tied in to positions like "the Covid death-toll was faked", "vaccines are harmful", "requiring mask-wearing during contagion is an infringement of liberty", "climate change is a myth", "dei initiatives are recruiting dud staff and marginalising white males", "tariffs will make America great again". The other day I saw a photo of Elon Musk wearing at cap with the slogan "Trump was right about everything" - Trump, who has only a very limited acquaintance with the truth - how many lies has he told? At least as many as there are dead in Gaza. So this right-wing turning-away-from-facts is distorting the figures on trust in media. But the left may have heightened distrust of some media too, because of the Murdoch media, which try to make disinformation as respectable as they can. I believe the majority of people - at least the older ones - still trust the non-Murdoch media because they provide us with a reasonable supply of facts - particularly the state-funded media in the west - such as the ABC here in Australia - is the only place we can get those facts. (Which is why the Murdoch media keep attacking them.) Gosh, the ABC do a great job! I'm a big fan.
Thanks for the comments, Kai! The JMAD survey did ask for respondents' political leanings. It does look like those on the right expressed higher levels of distrust, especially regarding TVNZ and Stuff. The left are more likely to say they distrust Newstalk ZB. That reflects the obvious biases of those news channels. NZ doesn't have Murdoch media (yet). The ABC far outclasses taxpayer-funded RNZ (which offers slim pickings these days) and state-owned (but commercialised) TVNZ.
Wow Kai ,you have dumped a whole pile of "wrong think" into the Far right bag.
You are, of course, intitled to you opinion but broad based opinions like this are of no use in any sincere public discourse. I came from a left wing /Green background but I have now removed myself from any "wing" alignment I am not sure what handy label to give myself other than no wing , possiblly far no wing.
I'm in the no-wing camp now also, having voted Labour all my life up until the last election. I do feel my ire rising when those like Kai above apparently want to label me right-wing or far right.
Kai, there's a lot you write that makes sense, but there are some 'conspiracies' which may be nearer the truth than the conventional wisdom. Do you know that with climate changa number of top scientists have found that carbon dioxide and methane have only a tiny warming effect. While there is no doubt the climate is changing, a human led cause is not the reason for it.
In 2020, a peer-reviewed paper by German physicist Professor Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht was published, in which he calculated that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth (1/6) of the IPCC's 'best estimate' of 3 Celsius degrees. In 2021, physicists David Coe,
Dr Walter Fabinski, and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb (Coe et al.), independently calculated exactly the same result. Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane (CH4) is a miniscule 0.06 Celsius degrees. The UN IPCC’s claim that methane is 30 times as powerful a GHG as carbon dioxide overstates the climate sensitivity of methane by a factor of 250.
Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted.
So you believe the science that tells us human CO2 and methane emissions are causing global heating is a vast conspiracy - and that a few brave scientists are daring to tell us the truth - that our emissions aren't causing the heating - that it's just a natural cycle of the planet. How comforting for you and for the fossil fuel corporations. Myself, I find the coverage of climate science in the mainstream media convincing. The way those media work, if there were credible voices offering a different version of the science, they'd be telling us - they love reporting controversies. And scientists themselves love challenging one another's theories and data - that's the whole point of peer reviewed publication. I suspect the scientists you refer to are a crackpot fringe, to whose publications climate change deniers and far right politicians are desperately clinging. I can't be bothered looking for the literature that no doubt refutes them.
Kai, have you not heard that CO2 represents just .035% of our atmosphere? Yes, there's a lot of magical thinking around! Which takes us straight back to the original proposition on why so many distrust the mainstream media! I believed it too until I saw the evidence from the Antarctic ice cores which showed over millions of years no association whatever between temperatures and CO2 levels. Al Gore, author of 'An Inconvenient Truth', was warning 20 years ago that the polar ice cap would disappear by 2016! It may be slightly shrunken but it's still there nine years from his deadline! The fact is that unlike the polar ice caps and IPCC modelling, science is not frozen. As you say, real scientists challenge one another's theories and data. The fact is that the IPCC and it's scientists are so many and so fixed in their modelling that any challenge can be ignored. The IPCC is not running a conspiracy, it's an industry. Such huge numbers will be put out of work when the truth emerges, that they dare not stop it. Climate change is real as you affirm, but it's not caused by us. There are other players, the sun perhaps, that we earthbound humans know too little about; but science will eventually work it out. We just have to get used to higher temperatures and less clement weather.
Hi Peter. Naturally the sun does have something to do with it. The other side of the equation is the higher heat-absorbing capacity of carbon compounds. The heat radiates from the sun, the rise in atmospheric carbon compounds come from stuff humans do. You sound confident that "science will eventually work it out", which suggests you hold a fundamental confidence in scientific method and discovery – just not in the evidence-based consensus at the moment. Scientific consensus could, of course, change, but neither of us can predict how. I'll go with the actual climate scientists for the time being, as I'm not one myself. I really should stick to political theory. Cheers, Grant
Thanks Grant. My quick reply would be that we don't actually have an evidence-based consensus. We have a model based consensus. If the facts fed into the model are wrong, and I would suggest that recent research from the worthies I quote suggest they are, in fact the IPCC itself calls them 'best estimates', then we don't get scientific truth. And yes there are many other factors, as you say, some probably unknown to us.
I can see you haven't read my comment carefully - what I said there about the Murdoch media. Remember that, among other things, they've tended to present Trump in a positive light - skate over his many lies - and above all, they endorse denial of climate change. That's pretty far right behaviour. The court case between members of the Murdoch family over control of the Murdoch media empire is between the three children who accept the science of climate change, and Lachlan Murdoch and his father who don't (or perhaps who consider that climate change denial is a profitable position - who knows what motivates these men?).
Wow again! 'Tended to present Trump in a positive light.' I don't think you have been reading the Australian regularly. And 'denial of climate change' is absolute nonsense. Don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you mean they don't believe that climate change will mean our extinction. But perhaps you do?
I accept the science. If we don't stop burning coal, oil and gas now, we're locking in a global temperature rise of 3+ degrees, which will make (in Australia) our own climate much less habitable, and ensure frequent extreme storms and floods, alternating with mega-fires. Of course humanity won't become extinct - we're far too resilient for that - but countless millions will die, and the problem of climate refugees will become enormously greater. This is what the politicians whom The Australian and other Murdoch media promote refuse to accept - and it's why those media criticise the ABC, which keeps us well informed about the science. But it's true, I don't read The Australian closely - I just scan its headlines in the supermarket and think, "Yup".
On the one extreme there's the state propaganda of RT in Russia & the KCNA in North Korea. On the other extreme there's the billionaire propaganda of NewsCorp & the site formerly known as Twitter. Big Tent Legacy Media is nominally in a position to challenge them both, but much of it is being swallowed up by Rupert Murdoch wannabes.
Very interesting indeed. I really look forward to my weekly Listener. I admired its last editor; Pamela Stirling whose editorials often surprised. Today's editor invites guest editorials - and these and most of the other opinion writers in the magazine generally follow a well worn path leading gently to the left. However, the Listener's political columnist Danyl McLauchlan is terrific. I'm a fan because he seems to be objective and unlike most of his MSM colleagues he doesn't pour scorn on readers who see some virtue in the often decried 'populist' politicians.
Last I checked, Duncan Garner still isn't a raging Marxist.
I think I've seen other such surveys which show that distrust of media has grown far more quickly among people on the right. I believe that this is because the far right has now peeled off from rationality in favour of their emotional community (which social media provides them) - and this infects others on the right - they listen to the claims that the mainstream media are biased against the right. The far right prefer to get disinformation that strokes their feelings about the world from like-minded people on social media. They don't trust scientists and "experts" who make them feel ignorant. This is tied in to positions like "the Covid death-toll was faked", "vaccines are harmful", "requiring mask-wearing during contagion is an infringement of liberty", "climate change is a myth", "dei initiatives are recruiting dud staff and marginalising white males", "tariffs will make America great again". The other day I saw a photo of Elon Musk wearing at cap with the slogan "Trump was right about everything" - Trump, who has only a very limited acquaintance with the truth - how many lies has he told? At least as many as there are dead in Gaza. So this right-wing turning-away-from-facts is distorting the figures on trust in media. But the left may have heightened distrust of some media too, because of the Murdoch media, which try to make disinformation as respectable as they can. I believe the majority of people - at least the older ones - still trust the non-Murdoch media because they provide us with a reasonable supply of facts - particularly the state-funded media in the west - such as the ABC here in Australia - is the only place we can get those facts. (Which is why the Murdoch media keep attacking them.) Gosh, the ABC do a great job! I'm a big fan.
Thanks for the comments, Kai! The JMAD survey did ask for respondents' political leanings. It does look like those on the right expressed higher levels of distrust, especially regarding TVNZ and Stuff. The left are more likely to say they distrust Newstalk ZB. That reflects the obvious biases of those news channels. NZ doesn't have Murdoch media (yet). The ABC far outclasses taxpayer-funded RNZ (which offers slim pickings these days) and state-owned (but commercialised) TVNZ.
"NZ doesn't have Murdoch media (yet)."
Hopefully such an abomination never comes to pass.
If you haven't already heard of Better Public Media, they've done some groundwork on alternative funding sources for RNZ & TVNZ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyhgcxxtImU
Wow Kai ,you have dumped a whole pile of "wrong think" into the Far right bag.
You are, of course, intitled to you opinion but broad based opinions like this are of no use in any sincere public discourse. I came from a left wing /Green background but I have now removed myself from any "wing" alignment I am not sure what handy label to give myself other than no wing , possiblly far no wing.
I'm in the no-wing camp now also, having voted Labour all my life up until the last election. I do feel my ire rising when those like Kai above apparently want to label me right-wing or far right.
Kai, there's a lot you write that makes sense, but there are some 'conspiracies' which may be nearer the truth than the conventional wisdom. Do you know that with climate changa number of top scientists have found that carbon dioxide and methane have only a tiny warming effect. While there is no doubt the climate is changing, a human led cause is not the reason for it.
In 2020, a peer-reviewed paper by German physicist Professor Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht was published, in which he calculated that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth (1/6) of the IPCC's 'best estimate' of 3 Celsius degrees. In 2021, physicists David Coe,
Dr Walter Fabinski, and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb (Coe et al.), independently calculated exactly the same result. Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane (CH4) is a miniscule 0.06 Celsius degrees. The UN IPCC’s claim that methane is 30 times as powerful a GHG as carbon dioxide overstates the climate sensitivity of methane by a factor of 250.
Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted.
The URL for the Schildknecht paper - https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00708 and for Coe et al - www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
So you believe the science that tells us human CO2 and methane emissions are causing global heating is a vast conspiracy - and that a few brave scientists are daring to tell us the truth - that our emissions aren't causing the heating - that it's just a natural cycle of the planet. How comforting for you and for the fossil fuel corporations. Myself, I find the coverage of climate science in the mainstream media convincing. The way those media work, if there were credible voices offering a different version of the science, they'd be telling us - they love reporting controversies. And scientists themselves love challenging one another's theories and data - that's the whole point of peer reviewed publication. I suspect the scientists you refer to are a crackpot fringe, to whose publications climate change deniers and far right politicians are desperately clinging. I can't be bothered looking for the literature that no doubt refutes them.
Kai, have you not heard that CO2 represents just .035% of our atmosphere? Yes, there's a lot of magical thinking around! Which takes us straight back to the original proposition on why so many distrust the mainstream media! I believed it too until I saw the evidence from the Antarctic ice cores which showed over millions of years no association whatever between temperatures and CO2 levels. Al Gore, author of 'An Inconvenient Truth', was warning 20 years ago that the polar ice cap would disappear by 2016! It may be slightly shrunken but it's still there nine years from his deadline! The fact is that unlike the polar ice caps and IPCC modelling, science is not frozen. As you say, real scientists challenge one another's theories and data. The fact is that the IPCC and it's scientists are so many and so fixed in their modelling that any challenge can be ignored. The IPCC is not running a conspiracy, it's an industry. Such huge numbers will be put out of work when the truth emerges, that they dare not stop it. Climate change is real as you affirm, but it's not caused by us. There are other players, the sun perhaps, that we earthbound humans know too little about; but science will eventually work it out. We just have to get used to higher temperatures and less clement weather.
Hi Peter. Naturally the sun does have something to do with it. The other side of the equation is the higher heat-absorbing capacity of carbon compounds. The heat radiates from the sun, the rise in atmospheric carbon compounds come from stuff humans do. You sound confident that "science will eventually work it out", which suggests you hold a fundamental confidence in scientific method and discovery – just not in the evidence-based consensus at the moment. Scientific consensus could, of course, change, but neither of us can predict how. I'll go with the actual climate scientists for the time being, as I'm not one myself. I really should stick to political theory. Cheers, Grant
Thanks Grant. My quick reply would be that we don't actually have an evidence-based consensus. We have a model based consensus. If the facts fed into the model are wrong, and I would suggest that recent research from the worthies I quote suggest they are, in fact the IPCC itself calls them 'best estimates', then we don't get scientific truth. And yes there are many other factors, as you say, some probably unknown to us.
The ABC are decried at length, and regularly in the pages of the Australian. Does that make the Australian 'right wing' ?
The answer to your question is that The Australian is owned by Murdoch.
Wow! Is that really answer?
I can see you haven't read my comment carefully - what I said there about the Murdoch media. Remember that, among other things, they've tended to present Trump in a positive light - skate over his many lies - and above all, they endorse denial of climate change. That's pretty far right behaviour. The court case between members of the Murdoch family over control of the Murdoch media empire is between the three children who accept the science of climate change, and Lachlan Murdoch and his father who don't (or perhaps who consider that climate change denial is a profitable position - who knows what motivates these men?).
Wow again! 'Tended to present Trump in a positive light.' I don't think you have been reading the Australian regularly. And 'denial of climate change' is absolute nonsense. Don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you mean they don't believe that climate change will mean our extinction. But perhaps you do?
I accept the science. If we don't stop burning coal, oil and gas now, we're locking in a global temperature rise of 3+ degrees, which will make (in Australia) our own climate much less habitable, and ensure frequent extreme storms and floods, alternating with mega-fires. Of course humanity won't become extinct - we're far too resilient for that - but countless millions will die, and the problem of climate refugees will become enormously greater. This is what the politicians whom The Australian and other Murdoch media promote refuse to accept - and it's why those media criticise the ABC, which keeps us well informed about the science. But it's true, I don't read The Australian closely - I just scan its headlines in the supermarket and think, "Yup".
On the one extreme there's the state propaganda of RT in Russia & the KCNA in North Korea. On the other extreme there's the billionaire propaganda of NewsCorp & the site formerly known as Twitter. Big Tent Legacy Media is nominally in a position to challenge them both, but much of it is being swallowed up by Rupert Murdoch wannabes.
Thanks for adding some balance (!) to the subject Grant.