False. Yeah, ironic. Immediate topic aside, the universal fact is:
What you perceive as truth is a function of who you trust.
Yet the mainstream media - masters of shooting themselves in the foot (and apparently lacking the self awareness to realize it) - shamelessly blames social media. That's not how they're going to rebuilt the trust that they lost. The same applies to government(s). Disconnected from their own self-undermining and will to hold accountable anyone but themselves.
The root problem for both of these group ls is simple. They don't understand Trust 101. That is, trust is earned. It cannot be given. It cannot be demanded. If it's not earned, it's not trust. And discrediting a "competitor" doesn't make your automatically more trustworthy. That's not earning it.
Right or wrong, conspiracy theories are easylier to believe because traditional beacons of trust and truth (i.e., media and gov) have lost their way. This doesn't get fixed by blaming the symptoms.
Do you think the Society of Professional Journalists' Journalist On Call [0] project has helped to restore trust in the media? Because it exists "in an effort to address the issue of dwindling trust in the media".
If not that, how about The Trust Project? [1] Or AP's Trusting News project? [2] Or Duke University's News Measures project? [3]
These and other projects intended to increase transparency, accountability, and trust in journalism have existed for years.
I don't think the lack of trust in journalism is something that journalists can control. I think a significant reason for declining trust in journalism may be that many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view.
> many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view
Facts like Trudeau Plans Record Number of Immigrants to Canada Through 2024 - Canada, a country that relies heavily on immigration to grow its labor force, has set an ambitious plan to bring in more than 1.3 million newcomers over the next three years to support its post-pandemic growth.?
When you apply it to what the media (and gov) call journalism as of late it becomes quite obvious the media (and gov) have lost their way. It's so lazy and blatant it's Orwellian.
For me, perhaps not for all, the coverage of Covid was a great example. Best I could tell, most journalists don't understand basic math and statistics. A specific example: they don't know causation from correlation; or they do know the difference and they ignore it because it's not good for ratings, the narrative, etc.
Along with that was the shameless use of hyperbolic statistics. If sheer numbers increased the fear, they pushed those. If percentages were better for their efforts they pushed those. In both cases, rare was the refernce to the other for context. That is, "OMG cases in ______ are up 100%..." but then conveniently failed to mention ______ went from 1 case to 2.That type of emotional manipulation was consistent. It's also not how you build trust.
Finally, back to your points :)
1) As Frank Luntz says, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." Journlists can put fist to table all they want, but unless they come to terms with the fact that they were their own undoing, their re-establishment will fail. How can we trust them when they can't be honest with themselves?
2) They need to be willing to police their own. They call out social media, Big Tech, or whatever, but rare do they lean in, report on their own, point out the journalistic failures, and then "ask" that other to do better. But this never ever happens. They want a comfortable cartel more than they want to be Trusted.
3) They need to stop passing off op-ed as journalism / news. How is they - the journalists? - don't know the difference?
If you read the actual questions they ask, the truth is a lot less sensational. I'm still fuzzy on "replacement theory" since it jumped into the news after the Buffalo shooting as the latest boogeyman. But the question they asked was, according to the article, whether people believe (I don't know if it's on a scale or true / false)
> There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political view.
The bar here for agreeing looks pretty low to me, much lower than needing to believe in some global conspiracy. And it's certainly a question open to interpretation.
Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory?
If they were doing real research, they would have had more probing questions about people's beliefs, not just interpreted the answers to ambiguous question how they want and making sensational claims about how ignorant they think people are. The real prejudice is coming from the people sensationalizing this crap
> Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory?
You know, I think you’re asking a fair and earnest question, but let’s just try to dig into the conspiracy theory part on its own.
Can you think of organizations that openly advocate for that cause?
If so, that doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory; just a political anxiety.
But if you can’t think of any, do you think its a machination happening in the shadows? Is there any evidence that could convince you otherwise?
A lot of conspiracy theories rely on non-falsifiability and on assembling theories from suggestive evidence (a “telling statement” here or there, the ramblings of a loudmouthed ideologue, a leaked document) rather than normal signals of political behavior like an organized advocacy group or party platform statements.
> Can you think of organizations that openly advocate for that cause? If so, that doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory; just a political anxiety.
I mean, that's basically saying that it is happening, but it's not a conspiracy. "Yes all these things you fear are in fact happening and you are being replaced, but it's not a conspiracy we're doing it in the open" is not the usual retort.
And I believe the proponents of the great replacement conspiracy theory don't even call it a conspiracy theory - to them, it's just "the great replacement". "Conspiracy theory" is tacked on largely by its detractors.
> Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory?
Canada has about 15% immigrant population. The main parties all field 13–16% ethnic candidates.
Just look at this freaking graph: in the 2011 election, *immigrants born Middle Eastern, African, East Asian, American, and European all voted for the CPC more than the Liberals.*
Doug Ford, Conservative, won the provincial election the other week because of the ethnic vote.
The Canadian Liberals got smoked in 2008 and 2011 because immigrants voted Conservative.
The only reason Conservatives lost the immigrant vote this past few cycles is because shot their own damn feet off with their "barbaric cultural practices hotline" stupidity.
Canadian voters are, by and large, not loyal to any party.
When the Liberals cock things up too much, Liberal voters vote Conservative, even though they still identify as liberal.
And when the Conservative Party fields an absolute loser of a leader, Conservative voters vote Liberal, even though they still identify as conservative.
The "Replacement Theory" is, as I said, racist and fucking stupid.
I don’t think the anyone was saying that it takes a conspiracy theory to see that immigration policy is an ongoing political debate with politicians on either side.
But if you think everybody you disagree with is acting with secret ulterior motives that they never divulge publicly (or only in slip ups), you get a a lot closer to one.
But is that how it is debunked? Do newspapers, when addressing this conspiracy theory, write "Yes, our immigration policies could be likened to a great replacement, and will soon result in your minority status, but it is not a 'conspiracy' because we are doing it openly"?
And, if someone dislikes the results of such immigration policy, why would they care of the exact motives behind it? Even if you convince them it's not a conspiracy, their stance won't change.
It isn't just for getting in people that agree with them. It is often simply motivated by animosity similar to those with the other sign that want no immigration.
People complaining about too many white people aren't driven by altruism either. They are nearly as racist as those that have problems with peoples skin color. Well, having problems with skin color is common ground really.
But immigrants also won't vote for them. Why should they? Their culture would be as badly treated as the proponents treat their own. It is just some kind of childish crusade against those they see a more successful and it is despicable how much politicians courted and still court such positions.
That makes them a larger problem than real racists since the latter is no defensible position in modern society. Hasn't been for decades.
A lot of people of all races (and in both major US parties) either don’t think of race as a defining factor of their political identity or seek a future where they no longer need to.
So they don’t concern themselves with “replacement” or with the loss of a majority measured on that axis.
On it’s face, the concern is a peculiar one to people who think it’s important that their race maintains a majority, which is a racist concern by definition.
Regardless, most non-White races vote almost exclusively democrat. Also if you check the data it's only really White people who ignore race (although since it's been shoved in our face we're starting to pay more attention.)
Also, being effectively kicked out of your country (yes, look at housing) is pretty upsetting even if the ugly political divide didn't come with it. Even though we're only barely a majority now the hostility towards us has gotten very extreme. Do you think things will be better for us as a minority? I don't see a single indication they will.
It’s a confluence of factors, experts say
False. Yeah, ironic. Immediate topic aside, the universal fact is:
What you perceive as truth is a function of who you trust.
Yet the mainstream media - masters of shooting themselves in the foot (and apparently lacking the self awareness to realize it) - shamelessly blames social media. That's not how they're going to rebuilt the trust that they lost. The same applies to government(s). Disconnected from their own self-undermining and will to hold accountable anyone but themselves.
The root problem for both of these group ls is simple. They don't understand Trust 101. That is, trust is earned. It cannot be given. It cannot be demanded. If it's not earned, it's not trust. And discrediting a "competitor" doesn't make your automatically more trustworthy. That's not earning it.
Right or wrong, conspiracy theories are easylier to believe because traditional beacons of trust and truth (i.e., media and gov) have lost their way. This doesn't get fixed by blaming the symptoms.