Mediaboss Marketing

First it was the moon landing, vaccines, and New Coke. Now nutty conspiracies are surrounding the life-and-death matter of hurricanes.

With warming waters providing extra fuel, tropical cyclones have become more frequent and more intense in recent years, causing deadly flooding, widespread power outages, and hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Some people (ahem) see a sinister plot behind it all, an attempt to overhype the threat of disasters so that Big Government can take over (or something). This bonkers hurricane trutherism has spread from right-wing blogs to a much broader audience.

And it might already have real-world, fact-based consequences. A working paper suggests that by downplaying hurricane risk, conservative media hosts like Rush Limbaugh could be discouraging people from getting out of harms way.

Before Hurricane Irma struck Florida in 2017, causing more than 100 deaths and $50 billion in damages, hurricane trutherism got a lot of attention. Limbaugh the most popular talk show host in the country cast doubt on Irmas severity and the motivation behind advisories prodding people to evacuate.

Here comes a hurricane, local media goes on the air, Big hurricane coming, oh, my God! Make sure you got batteries. Make sure you got water. It could be the worst ever. Have you seen the size of this baby? Its already a Cat 5. Limbaugh went on to suggest that the hype about Irma would lead to a bigger audience for TV stations, a boost in local business from worried residents stocking up on supplies, and of course, panic over climate change. Shortly thereafter, Limbaugh evacuated from his South Florida home to escape Irmas wrath.

The right-wing commentator Ann Coulter followed with her own take on Twitter: HURRICANE UPDATE FROM MIAMI: LIGHT RAIN; RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DYING FROM BOREDOM. Limbaugh and Coulters comments were covered by the mainstream media, and Google searches for hurricane conspiracy reached an all-time high.

The damage was done. For their study, the researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles found that only 34 percent of Floridians who likely voted for President Trump in the 2016 election evacuated before Irma hit, compared to 45 percent of Hillary Clinton voters. But ahead of two other hurricanes Matthew in 2016 and Harvey in 2017 when skepticism of hurricane threats was less widespread in the media, the researchers found that Trump and Clinton voters evacuated at similar rates.

The researchers looked at GPS location data from 30 million smartphone users to compare evacuation patterns for hurricanes Matthew, Harvey, and Irma, and juxtaposed that with voting data from the 2016 presidential election. The authors declined Grists request to comment because the paper is in the final stages of peer review.

Jennifer Marlon, a research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication who was not involved in the study, said the findings appeared to be in line with recent research showing that the media can have a strong effect on decision-making.

In the Trump-voting districts in this study, theres a natural skepticism of the government, and I think that skepticism is being exploited to the great detriment of peoples health and safety, she said. We tend not to think of evacuating a hurricane as having anything to do with partisan politics, but were starting to see that it is becoming part of the political debate.

Limbaugh isnt the only one undermining public trust in hurricane forecasting. Earlier this year, Trump doubled down on a lie that forecasts had projected that Hurricane Dorian was headed to Alabama, going so far as to present a doctored NOAA map extending the hurricanes range of possible paths with a Sharpie.

To be sure, the media does get excited about hurricanes theres a lot at stake and viewership ratings do tend to spike during big storms. But doubting that hurricanes are dangerous can put lives at risk.

A recent study from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that as hurricanes become stronger, it hasnt led more people to evacuate. A survey of coastal residents in Connecticut found that people who had evacuated in the past and later thought it had been unnecessary were less likely to plan to leave town in the event of a future hurricane.

Hurricane trutherism is just one of many conspiracy theories tied to climate change out there. Youtube is full of misinformation about geoengineering and chemtrails, the white clouds that airplanes leave in their wake. Though its good sport to mock these ideas, they stem from real fear and can pose real dangers to those who believe them.

Although often parodied as inconsequential fantasies entertained by disenfranchised people on the fringes of society, the authors of one 2015 study wrote, conspiracy theories can influence what ordinary people intend to do in important domains, like voting or vaccinating their children.

As a nonprofit news outlet, we rely on reader support to help fund our award-winning environmental journalism. Were one of the few news outlets dedicated exclusively to people-focused environmental coverage, and we believe our content should remain free and accessible to all our readers. If you dig our work and agree news should never sit behind a paywall only available to a select few, donate today to help sustain our climate coverage. Donate now, and all gifts will be matched dollar-for-dollar through December 31! Double your impact today.

DONATE NOW!

Read more here:
'Hurricane truthers': Bonkers conspiracies are putting lives in danger - Grist

BERKELEY, Calif. (JTA) There are the makings of a rebellion brewing in the mainstream American Jewish community.

Its not a Jexodus, the rights quixotic dream that Jews will migrate en masse to the Republican Party.

It is a potential rebellion of the median Jew: pro-Israel, pro-two states and perfectly comfortable sitting among the 71 percent of Jews who voted for Hillary Clinton. The sort of Jew who isconcerned aboutleft-wing anti-Semitism on college campuses,but knows well enough to be more concerned aboutdeadly right-wing anti-Semitism.

The issue is simple: The Republican Party, from Donald Trump on down, has a huge anti-Semitism problem. Yet too many American Jewish organizations, which purport to represent the Jewish mainstream, are tiptoeing around it.

When pressed absolutely up against the wall, they might issue a timid plea to speak more carefully a mild rebuke that still usually comes wrapped in an insulating layer of gratitude for pro-Israel gestures.

Most Jews are not fools. We know there is a connection between the scare-mongering aboutSoros globalistsand cultural Marxists andcosmopolitan elites rhetoric that has become the conservative movements primary tool of political mobilization and the surge in anti-Semitic harassment, marginalization and violence that has plagued Jews in recent years.

Were tired of our own establishment organizations talking a big game about fighting anti-Semitism wherever it lies, only to supplicate themselves to a man and a party who has regularly and consistently trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes in pursuit of a political vision radically antagonistic to the values of American Jews.

The latest group to abdicate its duty? The American Jewish Committee.

Eyes fell on the AJC again this week afterPresident Trump, in remarks to the Israeli American Council, suggested that Jews arent nice people, would vote for him primarily to protect our own wealth and are disloyal to Israel. He even threw in an anti-Native American racial slur for good measure.

The AJC, which justinaugurated a social media campaign to Translate Hate,should have been especially attuned to what was happening here.

Trump has repeatedly hit on all of these anti-Semitic themes before. Hes complained thatJews wont back him because he doesnt want your money. Hes told American Jews that Israel is your country.

In many ways, Trumps IAC speech perfectly encapsulated the emerging conservative consensus about American Jews: Were disloyal to America in favor of our actual country, Israel, to which were also disloyal. Ann Coulter, at least, heard the message loud and clear:

Yet instead of a robust condemnation of yet another anti-Semitic indulgence from the president of the United States, the AJCs reply stood out from the rest of the Jewish community for adopting a tone that can only be described as groveling:

Well gosh, Id hate if Donald Trump hit a mine on the road to appealing to Jewish voters. He might get hurt!

Somehow a statement that purports to condemn Trumps anti-Semitism seemed to express more concern about Trumps well-being than that of the Jews. More than a few observers contrasted the wishy-washy response given to Trump with the AJCs considerably more robust reply to Rep. Ilhan Omars Benjamins remark:

The AJCs approach to Omar was not prefaced with sincere appreciation for her political accomplishments, nor couched in language that suggested they were primarily concerned with her well-being. She gets unadulterated scorn, and the AJC will never, ever let her forget it.

Apologists contend that kid gloves are warranted for the president because he and his party are pro-Israel unwavering, as the AJC gratuitously put it at the opening of its gentle admonishment.

The message? Being pro-Israel (or at least pro-Likud) isa get-out-of-anti-Semitism-free card. Groups like the AJC are sending the message that the correct positions on Israel will suffice to forgive any amount of anti-Semitism in America.

And Republicans have felt entitled to play that card, again and again, to wash away increasingly more brazen anti-Semitic indulgences.

Invite a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union, as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., did?

Dont worry, hes a champion of Israel!

Say the Republican Party is controlled by the Jewish lobby, as former Minnesota congressman (and Trump-endorsed GOP Senate candidate) Jason Lewis did?

Its fine these are not my views about American support for Israel, period.

Even where other Jewish organizations have clearly and robustly condemned Republican anti-Semitism,the media (both Jewish and non-Jewish) routinely fails to follow up. There are no dogged demands for comment, no monthlong storylines about the GOPs anti-Semitism crisis.

Repeated instances of conservative anti-Semitic rhetoric are routinely glossed over and effectively forgiven even asRepublicans defiantly refuse to apologize for them. They spit in the face of the American Jewish majority, then have the chutzpah to call themselves defenders of the Jews and theyre allowed to get away with it largely without question.

Bari Weiss famously justified putting more intense focus onleft-wing anti-Semitismbecause it is supposedly more insidious than the right-wing variety: harder to spot, more easily integrated into reputable political, academic or media circles.

Yet we do not lack for organizing or editorials against left-wing anti-Semitism. If there is a form of anti-Semitism that has truly resisted consistent registration on the public radar, it is mainstream right-wing anti-Semitism.

On the mainstream right, we see conspiracy theories aboutJews buying Congressor trafficking migrants or orchestrating impeachment allowed to run rampant in the highest levels of government and in the most influential sectors of the media. And when they do predictably explode intovandalism, harassment or violence, few dare hold accountable the mainstream actors from political officials to Fox News mouthpieces who so eagerly served up the toxic stew.

Whats bizarre is thatthe AJCs own polling decisively demonstrates how far it has deviated from American Jewish priorities. This year, 78 percent of American Jews told the AJC that anti-Semitism on the extreme right represents a very or moderately serious threat, compared to 36 percent for the extreme left.

When it comes to attributing blame to political parties, the numbers are just as stark. Asked to assign responsibility for current levels of anti-Semitism on a 1-10 scale, Jews gave Republicans a median score of 7 compared to a 3 for Democrats.

When the political apparatuses of the American right from the president to Congress to Fox News repeatedly and regularly transmit anti-Semitic conspiracies of the worst sort, injecting them into American political discourse and normalizing them as a feature of American public life, it is not innocent. It needs a clarion response. We are screaming for the communal institutions that represent us to reflect this reality to reflect our reality when representing us on a political stage.

In fact, just this summer, the AJC expressed outrage at President Trumps comments today criticizing American Jews who support and vote for Democratic candidates, calling it shockingly divisive and unbecoming of the occupant of the highest elected office, and the comments inappropriate, unwelcome, and downright dangerous. What has changed since then? How is it that Trump can double-down on his anti-Semitism and get an effective green light on it?

The AJC needs to think very carefully about its future if it continues along this path. What is the use ofan organization that describes itself as the Jewish State Department if it stops reflecting the interests and preferences of most Jews? Increasingly Jews mainstream Jews are asking ourselves that very question.

In the meantime, American Jews will continue to fight anti-Semitism vigorously and unsparingly wherever it manifests. No distractions. No free passes. No timidity.

If the American Jewish Committee is interested in actually representing the American Jewish community, it should stand by us.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

See the original post:
American Jews know anti-Semitism is a problem on the right. Why are Jewish organizations increasingly letting it slide? - JTA News

Tucker Carlson, who is beloved by white supremacists, hosted a political candidate on his show this week who also appears to be a white supremacist. Pete DAbrosca is running for a seat in Congress and has been widely praised by the most extreme right-wing figures and organizations, including InfoWars and VDARE.

Fox News Tucker Carlson recently hosted Pete DAbrosca, a congressional candidate who has ties to white nationalism and has supported the bigoted, anti-immigrant campaign of a group known as groypers, who are trolling conservative public events with anti-Semitic dog whistles and other hateful rhetoric.

Since DAbrosca announced his congressional bid and anti-immigrant platform over the summer, hes been lauded by far-right personalities and publications including Ann Coulter and the white nationalist publication VDare and appeared on the conspiracy theory outlet Infowars (which he had also appeared on before). In that most recent appearance, he agreed with the host that Democrats get elected through illegal voting and defended the leader of the groypers, a far-right media figure, Holocaust denier, and pro-segregation activist named Nick Fuentes who hosts America First on YouTube

Lets be blunt and call a spade a spade: Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist. He tries to cover it with veneer of mainstream conservatism, but it comes shining through far too often to be deniable.

Read the rest here:
Tucker Carlson Hosts White Supremacist on Show - Patheos

What was once essentially impossible now seems to be happening right before our eyes. Drudge Report, the news aggregator that dominated the internet for two decades, has been losing traffic for five consecutive monthswith November marking a 28% reduction in traffic in just the last four.

Most attribute the loss of over 27 million monthly visitors since a peak in July to the anti-Trump shift the site has taken. Once a staunch Trump supporter, the sudden shift in narrative has caused speculation that Matt Drudge has quietly sold the site. Further speculation along the same lines points to Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian parties as having taken over the site with a very secretive deal in place, though these rumors are unconfirmed. (Editors Note: As the author states, these are unconfirmed rumors, as in nothing backing them whatsoever. I allowed inclusion of this point only because theres no evidence that theyre not true. Drudge has been acting strangely enough that even though its unlikely, its still plausible.)

During the 2016 election cycle, Drudge Report was an early and unflinching supporter of candidate Trump. All the way until shortly after the election, the front page constantly promoted candidate Trump while dogging on his GOP competitors during the primaries and Hillary Clinton during the general election. But things have changed. The site now highlights negative press and seemingly links only to left-leaning mainstream media publications for takes on anything pertaining to the White House.

One rumor floated is that Drudge has been unhappy with the Presidents inability to build the wall. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter is another former Trump sycophant who turned against the President over illegal immigration. Like Drudge, Coulters influence has been waning in conservative circles. There have been strong Drudge Report alternatives popping up recently to replace Drudge for Trump supporters.

Whatever has gotten into Drudge, its not helping his bottom line (unless the rumors are true and its DEFINITELY helping his bottom line). More importantly, its no longer a benefit for America to have Drudge Report persist with its influence.

Editors Note #2: Of all the conspiracy theories surrounding Drudge, one important note to add anecdotally is that the few times Ive visited the site recently, I havent seen a change in style. This is important to understand because Matt Drudges style has always been unique in the way he handles headlines, picks stories, and roots for the Patriots. Ive always been able to tell when it was him directly versus someone working for him who crafts headlines, and nothing in that regard has changed. I believe Drudge is still in control. He just hates President Trump now for some reason.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

Here is the original post:
Drudge Report has hemorrhaged 28% of its traffic in four months - NOQ Report

Civility gets a bad rap these days.

One need look no further than our head of state for confirmation, but it could be argued that Donald Trump is no more capable of civility than he is of humility, justice, good faith, wise counsel or any other virtue we'd wish our leaders to have. The rest of us we can be better.

What disconcerts is that some of the finer minds and political talents of the younger generations in particular but not exclusively have formed a distorted impression about what it means to engage in a civil manner.

If not corrected, that will be the country's loss. Because young adults are often the most passionately bold in their beliefs and possess the conviction and time to lead substantial change, before the obligations careers and family take over their lives.

But people are rejecting the notion of civility. They wrongly believe it's the same thing as meekness, or at best moderation and politeness. That a civil person is docile and genteel to a point of ineffectiveness.

However, its root is the Latin "civilitas," which denotes that which pertains to citizenship, politics and government. This sense needs to be reclaimed, I think, and civility ought to describe the attitudes and comportment that promote our best public values, the constructive aims we hold dear.

Unfortunately, we're seeing more and more behavior that accomplishes the opposite.

Maryland's former governor Martin O'Malley provided a classic example on Thanksgiving eve. He reportedly launched a tirade at Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, when the two ran into each other in a Washington pub.

O'Malley reportedly challenged Cuccinelli to justify the Trump administration's practice of separating immigrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border and warehousing them in chain-link cages. Fair point and an honest reply certainly would have been illuminating but it was lost amid the drama. At one point, O'Malley asked Cuccinelli if he wanted to throw a punch, according to reporting by the Washington Post.

A few days prior, first lady Melania Trump was jeered and booed by teenagers in Baltimore. The students were reportedly reacting to the president's rude and unprovoked slandering of their city as "a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess" where "no human being" would want to live. Trump's remarks, in turn, were meant to insult Rep. Elijah Cummings, since deceased, who had criticized Trump.

The heckling carried on for a good portion of the first lady's short speech. The students never settled down while she tried to pitch a message to "be best."

They failed. Their beef is with the president, not the first lady. It would have been far more productive if they'd held signs asking her to press her husband to "be best."

Civility requires that we avoid precisely the behaviors in which Trump indulges: name-calling, slurs and childish derision. However, it doesn't require us to suppress our emotions, even anger.

College campuses, in particular, have become the scenes of the national civility crisis. Groups on the left and right battle it out in a familiar pattern. Right-wing student group invites incendiary right-wing speaker; left-wing students set out to shut it down, by any means necessary. An all-too-typical example is the appearance of conservative writer Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley, in late November. Coulter's the author of, among other books, "Adios America! The Left's Plan to Turn our Country into a Third World Hellhole." The title tells you all you need to know about her and about the intentions of those who invited her. Anyone who seriously wanted to have a productive conversation about immigration even a very pointed and critical one would never invite Coulter as the speaker. She's a provocateur, not an honest scholar or thinker of any discernible public spirit. She's somebody you invite to campus to start a rumble.

And, as expected, more than 2,000 people protested, and there were a handful of arrests. Luckily there was no violence. To the university chancellor's credit, Berkeley had undergone a yearlong dialogue on free speech, including seminars on respectful dialogue, itself a response to campus disturbances over right-wing speakers in 2017.

The point of civility is not to keep the boat steady. Rather, the point is to reprove those who champion error and injustice unsparingly with words in reasoned debate. That can be discomfiting enough! The duty of civility is to articulate the highest and best values in civic life. It doesn't have to be nice, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve throwing a punch.

Mary Sanchez writes political commentary for the Tribune Content Agency.

Continued here:
What too many get wrong about civility - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com