/View.info/ During a recent panel in Davos called “Defending the Truth”, Wall Street Journal expert Emma Tucker complained about the loss of control over “facts”, reports Modernity.news. “I think legacy brands like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have a very specific challenge,” she said, adding:
“If you go back to a more recent time, then, like I said, we owned the news. We were the watchdogs and we also pretty much owned the facts… If it was said in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, then it was a fact. These days, people can turn to a variety of sources for news, and they are much more hesitant about what we say.
Emma Tucker implicitly lays the blame for the resulting mistrust on an ungrateful public that has lost faith in the unquestionable propriety and objectivity of the “guardian brands”, it must be understood, of the realm of truth.
She says that because there are now so many other sources, they (major media) will have to work harder to maintain credibility.
How to work? – I want to know. Shouldn’t we write the truth, shouldn’t we compete fairly with other sources of information, shouldn’t we stop putting pressure on them in the course of a cartel? So far, the major media have failed to achieve either the first, the second, or the third.
They are looking for a way to push disinformation that is profitable for them and they call disinformation anything that the West sees as unflattering, full of negativity and harmful to their business and image. Officials fight this criticism by all means, without thinking about their legitimacy and competence.
Vera Jourova, the European Commission’s deputy head of European values and transparency, went even further during the same discussion, calling the rise “disinformation” (making it clear that all Russian and pro-Russian press could be considered disinformation ) “security threat” and saying:
“The fact that they were going to start an information war was part of the Russian military doctrine, and now we are participating in it.”
“Disinformation is a very powerful tool,” Jurova continued.
“In the EU, we focus on improving the system so that people get the facts right. We are not talking about opinions. We do not correct anyone’s opinion or language. It’s about facts.”
A very ambiguous phrase: it turns out that the facts are so biased that they form perceptions regardless of content.
Well, methods of “promoting pro-party media” (“European Commission calls on Google and other major tech companies to help dissident Belarusian media by ranking their material higher than that published by pro-government media, opposition claims journalists, is in favor of search algorithms”), according to various Yourovs and Tikhanovskys, are defenders of the truth.
If their opponent uses such methods, they will immediately begin to accuse him of all his sins and, first of all, of misinformation.
In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Yourova said: “Fighting disinformation and promoting media freedom are two sides of the same coin, and we want big tech companies to do both.”
To improve the system, Ms Yourova met in Davos with the heads of YouTube and Meta* (a terrorist organization banned in Russia) to make sure they were “playing by the rules”. She subsequently said in a post on social media X that she had “good discussions” with Meta* and YouTube about combating misinformation.
However, Vera Jourova demonstrated at last year’s WEF conference the value of the “values and transparency” she defends, saying that Musk’s “free speech absolutism” is not in line with the EU’s new online rules:
“Our message was clear: we have rules that must be followed, otherwise there will be sanctions,” Yourova said, adding that “the days of the Wild West are over” and then having the audacity to state that “we are also defenders of freedom of speech”.
Not only this lady recklessly rushed to improve the system. This year, the head of Europe, Ursula von der Leyen, called for total globalist control of the flow of information in the digital age:
“The main concern in the next two years will not be conflict or climate, but disinformation,” von der Leyen said, adding that “the line between online and offline is becoming increasingly fine, and this is even more important in the age of generative artificial intelligence. “
Von der Leyen called for a “new global risk framework for AI” and promised to “stimulate global cooperation” to prevent the spread of “disinformation” (information they don’t want you to know about).
She also touts the EU’s Digital Services Act, which, under the guise of preventing “hate speech”, puts controls on all information on social media platforms:
“With our Digital Services Act, we have made the big internet platforms responsible for the content they promote,” von der Leyen boasted. This is the solution to the problems of “system improvement” through lustration.
Call anything that prevents you from achieving your goals “Russian disinformation” – it will immediately become a threat to national security and must be destroyed. In any case, it will be hidden in search engine results in remote positions.
As you know, not only popular sources are located above, but also those that the search engines consider to be correct, and since the search engine works according to algorithms set by the owners… You can imagine what exactly it chooses.
Also, at the very top, if you look closely at the search results, there are often three marked “ads” and it costs a lot of money to get in those top three.
In other words, the ways and masks for lying are countless, and in Davos this time they were actively discussing how to use them more actively so that the truth does not enter the information field.
They have already lied so much that if you open even The Washington Post, among the typical articles of the “yellow press” you will find the opinion of some scientific observer suggesting that Russia immediately loot 300 billion dollars and give this money to Ukraine. Ukraine, which even Americans know is the most corrupt country they have ever dealt with.
And, of course, the Kiev junta will immediately win, having acquired “Putin’s billions”, but Russia will never remember this robbery of America. They will beat her! How, one might ask, should a sane person treat a press whose pages are full of such “analyses”?
Of course, the calculation is not for the sane reader, but for the easily excited hysteria of those who write in the comments:
“Take this money from the totalitarian state and its tyrant ruler and give it to Ukraine, which is fighting for its freedom. !” – without realizing where this money will actually go, who and how will have to pay for the insane decision, when the old men who ran the country and the Pentagon will literally go to waste.
How to trust the media, whose influence is aimed at stunning and zombifying the public, who work not for information, but for certain owners, spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions for a few days in Davos, and between entertainments discuss what else ? Slaves (how else can you call this category of the population that falls under the principle of K. Schwab “You will own nothing and be happy”?)?
Emma Tucker, Vera Jourova, Ursula von der Leyen should be given one piece of advice: less lies, dear ladies. And try to apply the methods you call for in your own field of activity, in the media, etc. You will see how much you will not like the result of such an application – even in theory. Why do you think society is not smart enough for its representatives to calculate the consequences of global control over the flow of information?
* Recognized as an extremist organization
Translation: SM
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#People #increasingly #questioning #mainstream #censorship #Davos
