10 Comments

They've become overconfident and lazy. The Covidian fear porn was lapped up enthusiastically by credulous, lamentably self-important consumers. They think that's a successful, universal model for perception management. No need to exert themselves.

Expand full comment

It's normal for journalism, and has always been, to use pictures that are close enough for their purpose: no sinister motive is necessary. Unfortunately, that also means that it is hard to know when a conscious effort is being made to mislead. The "palestinian ambulance" comes to mind.

You wouldn't believe the number of times journalists get things wrong, things even a quick web search would fix - addresses, locations, names of things and so on. "Assault rifles" for example, something which only exists in media. "Tanks" for any kind of armoured vehicle.

When they cannot or will not get things like that correct, what are the odds they could report anything remotely correct?

Having debated and talked with journalists more times than is healthy, I can testify that their arrogance is boundless. They tell the truth, and what they tell is true is how they think: if they tell it, it is true because they tell it.

Upon Trump's election, the then-correspondent for swedish state TV in the US, Bergfeldt, wrote a hit-piece about his atrocious rethoric, claiming to have scientific proof that his linguistic and therefore cognitive ability was on par with an eleven year old child. So I wrote her and asked about that scientific proof. The link she repsonded with was to a much longer piece in the WaPo, which in turn referred to an essay by a first-year colleg student, who had used a program for measuring reading ability, comparing several different presidents' speeches of about equal length. Coming in at the top was Lincoln, the FDR and Reagan, then Bill Clinton and Bush in the middle, and then Trump, and at the very bottom Hillary Clinton (at the level of a seven-year old).

When I wrote back to Bergfeldt about this, and that is hardly qualifies as "scientific proof" and asking why she omitted that Hillay Clinton placed even worse, she immediately responded with slurs, passive-aggressive ad hominem, and the rest of the behaviour typical of women with Cluster B-type personality disorders.

This is just one example, and there's zero reason to believe norwegian jounalists are any different. Arrogance, hubris, fanatical zeal and righteousness and passive-aggressive vindictiveness and revanchism pretty much sums up nordic journalism for the present time as well as the last three decades.

Expand full comment

Of course Stoltenberg is norwegian, so... Nato TV

And he was rewarded for being so active in Ukraina and east europe since 2014 https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1564289927633932289

Expand full comment