Once again I am seeing vindication, a bit unexpected I must say because it involves the media analysing its own faults.
The Al Jazeera media programme, The Listening Post, today covered a few home truths about the media behaviour over the Russiagate conspiracy theory. What heartens me is that for the first time I get to see some of the independent journalists I have followed over the last two and a half years. Journalists like Aaron Maté who followed the evidence (in this case the lack of evidence), resisted the pressure to stick with the official narrative – and got attacked for it. Treatment of independent journalists by corporate media over this issue has been disgusting.
For the first time, I get to see a balanced (“balanced” in the sense the views of three Russiagate sceptics and two promoters are covered).
I don’t for one minute think this is anything more than an isolated case of responsible media coverage of the corporate media behaviour and, frankly, hysteria. It is nothing more than a start. A lot more must be done.
I am being urged by some commenters not to feel vindicated yet about the results of the US Special counsel investigation into charges of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian Federation (see Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence). Perhaps not surprising as there is a small chant going around – “wait till you see the full report.” Although I notice no one was chanting that when the corporate media was going wild with their own conspiracy theories at multiple times over the last two and half years (see Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed).
It looks like the report will be released in mid-April. The US Attorney General makes clear there will be redactions – probably no surprise to the sensible person. But I can see the conspiracy theorists beam in on these to keep their collusion narrative alive. However, I can’t see that particular conspiracy theory will get a lot of traction as it is simply turning the outlandish into a complete farce.
Here is the letter which describes what sort of redactions we can expect:
Interestingly the President will not exercise veto power and the report will not be submitted to him for “privilege review.”
I guess it was too much to hope for though. There will be redaction of sections which “the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods.” Given the role of at least part of the intelligence community in fostering the Russiagate hysteria, I would have thought it was essential to investigate its behaviour.
We have had to put up with this emotional rubbish from corporate media for two and a half years. Evidence-less conclusions presented as fact and huge pressure to adopt the narrative they posh. The video may have selected from US TV sources – but it has been wider than that – stretching to all media forms and to other countries.
As for the plea that I wait for the publication of the full Mueller report – isn’t that disingenuous when those making the plea did not wait? They simply succumbed to pressure to adopt the narrative offered and gave in to group thinking? I can’t help raising the question to those making these pleas – “what will be the deflective argument used when the full report is published?”
No, we have had to put up with this BS for two and half years and corporate media did not wait for evidence during all that time – worse they distorted and misrepresented any evidence to fit it to their own partisan narrative. They used vague references to “anonymous sources” to justify their bias – that must be one of the oldest trick in the propaganda manual.
The few independent journalists who resisted this pressure to conform were vilified. Accused of being supporters of Trump, “Putin’s useful idiots,” etc. They were smeared. Described as conspiracy theorists – by the very media and their stenographers pushing the most ridiculous conspiracy theory of all, the installation of a Manchurian candidate in the White House.
Those independent journalist are feeling vindicated – and they are rubbing it in. I cannot blame them.
Sure, I am always open to new evidence and I am sure the Mueller report will contain a lot of that. But the main message pushed by corporate media over the last two and half years has been destroyed. The report itself says:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The corporate media and the stenographers it employees should take a long hard look at itself. Some (anly a few) of them have – even acknowledging the practice of justifying claims by reference to anonymous sources should stop. But I am not holding my breath.
It will never happen. The corporate media will never apologise for the false narrative they have promoted.
Today I am feeling vindicated. And that vindication comes from a very strange source – the US attorney general, William P. Barr. Or, more specifically, his letter to the US Senate released to the public today.
His letter reports the principal conclusions of Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller on what has been dubbed “Russiagate.” That conclusion shows that the narrative we have been fed by the corporate or mainstream media over the last two years has been false. It has been fake news.
Barr points out that the primary consideration of the Mueller investigation was “whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the elections, which would be a federal crime.” He couldn’t be clearer in his conclusions:
“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
He quote’s Mueller’s report:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Barr repeats this conclusion several times in his letter – it is not a slip of the tongue.
Smearing “Russiagate” sceptics as Trump supporters part of the big lie
My feeling of vindication has nothing to do with Trump – I do not support that buffoon and have made that clear many times. I feel vindicated because I saw absolutely no evidence for the narrative promoted by the corporate media and an alliance of US politicians and elements of the intelligence community. (If I had seen real evidence I would have supported the claims). No evidence at all.
But I felt like the small child pointing out the Emperor had no clothes. Simply standing up for the obvious need for evidence led to accusations of being a Trump supporter (even a “neo-Nazi” or a “White Supremacist)” and one of Putin’s “useful idiots.”
“Russiagate was a pernicious lie advanced by secretive government agencies who’ve been plotting to shove Russia off the world stage since the fall of the Soviet Union, by the Democrats who’ve had a vested interest in avoiding accountability for their failures and malfeasance in the 2016 election, and by the mass media who’ve been reaping extreme profits by peddling the clickbait sensationalist conspiracy theory that the Kremlin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government.”
That lie was extremely dangerous because it increased international tension, brought relations between the two major nuclear countries to the worst state since the cold war, prevented any progress on nuclear arms control (in fact promoted retreat from arms control), inhibited the fight against terrorism and the solution of regional problems, and enhanced the possibility that regional conflicts could erupt into a full scale nuclear world war.
But the damage was also to our own society. Again, Caitlin Johnstone says it so well:
“These lies have created a highly toxic environment by leeching poison into the natural discourse and halting the progression of our species. Most people who got swept up in the Russiagate fervor were manipulated by their disgust for Trump and their desire to get him out, no matter if it was true or not.”
Demand evidence and question more
Since the US presidential election, I have been amazed at the people who should know better, people I had respected, who have brought this Russiagate narrative – simply and only because of their hatred for Trump. These people turned on anyone questioning the narrative simply because of their own confirmation bias, ignoring the evidence or lack of it.
This experience has taught me something. I should not translate respect for a source based on their evidence-based conclusions in one area to the conclusions in other areas. Every individual or source has feet of clay – we should hold the credibility of evidence well above the status and promoted credibility of sources – especially those of the corporate media.
Caitlin Johnstone again:
“I think the great lesson here is that you can’t out-manipulate the grand manipulators. You have to stick to the truth even when it appears to go against your own self interests because your ego has levers and it can be used to puppet you. If you always value the highest interest over your self interest then you can’t be played. Demand evidence and keep demanding it until you get it. If you do, change your mind, if you don’t, stick to your guns. That’s the only way we’ll get out of here alive.”
There will be no apology
Some elements in the media did sort of apologise when the US presidential election did not go the way they told us it would. They sort of indicated they had learned their lesson and would do better next time.
What a load of rubbish. They immediately fell back into the same old bad habits. The corporate media had got it wrong again and it is the sensible consumer of media output who learned the lesson. The sensible person now uses multiple sources and treats them all critically and intelligently, refusing to accept evidence-free narratives. In this case, it has been elements of the alternative media who got it right – and understandably they are now crowing about it. Caitlin Johnstone supports this crowing:
” It is good that these alternative media figures are puffing their chests and shouting their I-told-you-sos, because you can be absolutely certain that the people who’ve been advancing the Russiagate narrative will never go out of their way to acknowledge the undeniable fact that they have been proven wrong while there were voices standing to their left getting it right. The mainstream narrative will do its very best to pace mainstream attention away from the inconvenient fact that there was abundant evidence contradicting a narrative which monopolized public energy for more than two years while manufacturing support for dangerous cold war escalations and sucking all oxygen out of the room for discussion of progressive reforms, so it is absolutely necessary for those voices who have been vindicated to make noise about it themselves.”
That screeching sound you hear comes from corporate media and the stenographers they employ reacting to the Mueller report by shifting the goal posts in a desperate attempt to avoid public recognition of their culpability in promoting the fake narrative, and to keep that narrative alive in different forms.
I will leave the last word to comedian Jimmy Dore – experience shows he is worth listening to:
A peaceful, tranquil place to sit and contemplate in the Hagley Park/Botanical Gardens area of Christchurch. It is obscene that this terrorist act occurred only a short distance away from here.
Like most New Zealanders I am badly shocked by the brutal act of terror and mass shootings in Christchurch today (March 15). As our Prime Minster Jacinda Adern said, this is not us.
I feel particularly emotional as only a few days ago I spent a very pleasurable morning walking in Hagley Park and the Botanical Gardens just a short distance from the Mosque where most of the deaths occurred. The tranquillity and peacefulness of the area impressed me. A place for rest and quiet contemplation – and then this happens.
Remembering that tranquillity with my photo above underlines to me the obscenity of this act of terror. This should not have happened in New Zealand, let alone in such a lovely city and peaceful area.
Problems with censorship
The censorship around this incident concerns me a little. I support any attempt to suppress the terrorist’s live video of the shooting. It, apparently, is just too much like a video game and could appeal to people who might be influenced into copycat acts.
But the terrorist’s Manifesto has now also been removed from social media – and that worries me. I had a brief read before it was removed and got the impression the writer was influenced by the British Fascist Oswald Mosley and the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik who murdered 77 people in a 2011 car bomb explosion in Oslo and a shooting spree at a Workers’ Youth League summer camp on the nearby Utøya Island.
Pages from the Manifesto of the Christchurch terrorist
My impression is that Christchurch mass shootings were not acts of home-grown terrorism – just that the terrorists chose New Zealand because it was an unlikely place for this. They wanted to show that this could happen even here. No one is safe.
Unfortunately, by censoring the manifesto the field is left wide open for erroneous speculation and politically motivated pointing of fingers. Already I have seen one overseas report describing New Zealand First as a local neo-fascist group presumably with members like this terrorist. A Twitter account well-known for promoting Russophobia retweeted descriptions of the Cyrillic writing on the shooter’s ammunition clips – presumably to raise the Russia bogeyman. And several posts on social media have been quick to blame this act of terror on Donald Trump and the supposed increased confidence of white supremacists by Trump’s election.
Such speculation and opportunist partisan use of the horrible event is not helpful. It diverts attention away from the specific causes and makes it harder to find solutions. Those censoring this manifesto may be driven by the desire not to allow this terrorist to communicate his beliefs. But, in denying us the ability to identify those beliefs, censorship is only encouraging erroneous conclusions which lead to other groups and people receiving unwarranted blame. Perhaps I am biased, but if this act of terrorism was not home-grown then let’s ensure that people understand that.
I believe that knowledge of the beliefs of the Norwegian terrorist Breivik was essential to his prosecution and imprisonment. The manifesto of the terrorist responsible for what happened in Christchurch today will be essential to his prosecution and I believe that the manifesto should be exposed for what it is. Censorship does not help that.
In the political realm, all sides are guilty of promoting disinformation. It really is a “reader beware” situation in that the intelligent consumer of news should assess information critically and sensibly. Not trusting in news reports simply because they come from “their side.”
So, while I have been critical of “our” mainstream media, in this respect, I must acknowledge there are rare examples where it will allow the truth to break through. Ironically, I see the video above from the New York Times as the exception proving the rule.
The video shows burning of “aid” trucks on the Venezuelan-Columbian border – widely reported by “our” media and politicians as an act of infamy by the Venezuelan side. Readers of alternative media know better having already seen videos showing use of Molotov cocktails by anti-Venezuelan protesters. But now, the New York Times, shows “our” mainstream media and politicians were wrong. And this disinformation, together with its multiplication by prominent USA politicians, had serious consequences. Not only in spreading more anti-Venezuelan propaganda, but in the US imposing even more sanctions on that suffering country.
I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is unexpectedly missing or the numbers seem very low please check this out. After correcting send me the URL for your site meter and I can correct the information in the database.
Similarly, if your blog data in this list seems out of whack, please check your site meter. Usually, the problem is that for some reason your site meter is no longer working.
Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.
This list is compiled automatically from the data in the various site meters used. If you feel the data in this list is wrong could you check to make sure the problem is not with your own site meter? I am of course happy to correct any mistakes that occur in the automatic transfer of data to this list but cannot be responsible for the site meters themselves. They do play up.
Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.
Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for February 2019. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.
You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks
I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is unexpectedly missing or the numbers seem very low please check this out. After correcting send me the URL for your site meter and I can correct the information in the database.
Similarly, if your blog data in this list seems out of whack, please check your site meter. Usually, the problem is that for some reason your site meter is no longer working.
Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.
This list is compiled automatically from the data in the various site meters used. If you feel the data in this list is wrong could you check to make sure the problem is not with your own site meter? I am of course happy to correct any mistakes that occur in the automatic transfer of data to this list but cannot be responsible for the site meters themselves. They do play up.
Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.
Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for January 2019. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.
You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks
Dental therapist Heather Dalton examines an Avondale College student in Auckland in 2010. Image credit:Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of NZ.
The latest NZ school dental service data again confirms that community water fluoridation is effective. The data show benefits of up to about 30% improvement in oral health. But, anti-fluoride activists will, once again, reject this evidence and instead cherry-pick the data to support their claims.
The NZ Ministry of Health (MoH) has posted the latest summary of child dental health collected by the dental health service. So it is time for local anti-fluoride activists to indulge in their annual activity of cherry-picking and misrepresentation to claim the data “proves” community water fluoridation (CWF) is ineffective (see my comment on last year’s misrepresentation – Anti-fluoridationists misrepresent New Zealand dental data – an annual event).
I haven’t seen this year’s expected press release from Fluoride Free NZ. I may have missed it or perhaps they haven’t got their A into G yet (although there is a bit of notice on their Facebook page). Nevertheless, I will post here my annual analysis of the data.
My comments are much the same as last year – the data has not really changed. But first an explanation of how the data should be used
Nature of the MoH dental health data
The published spreadsheets are simply records of dental health (% caries free and mean Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT and dmft) for 5-year-olds and year 8 children. There has been no selection of children to give representative data. Distortion due to ethnic and socioeconomic factors has not been taken into account.
Data are presented for all children – (Total), Maori, Pacific Island and “Other.” I have previously explained that the Total data is distorted by ethnic factors – different ethnic groups have differences in oral health, irrespective of fluoridation. In particular, the predominance of Pacific Island children in fluoridated areas distort the “Total” data – 85% live in fluoridated areas. Pacific Island children comprise about 15.1% of children in fluoridated areas but only about 3.2% of children in non-fluoridated areas.
Because Pacific Island children generally have poorer health they increase the value of dmft/DMFT and lower the value of caries-free % in the fluoridated areas in the Total figures. Therefore the “Other” figures are more reliable than the “Total” figures for interpretation.
The 2017 data
You can download the two spreadsheets, and the spreadsheets for earlier years, from the MoH website – Age 5 and Year 8 oral health data from the Community Oral Health Service). I will just give the overall New Zealand data for Māori and “Other” (this is all except Māori and Pacific Island).
As explained above the “Total” data is misleading because of ethnic effects and the data for Pacific Island is poor because only a small number resided in non-fluoridated areas.
5-Year Old Children
Clearly, the overall data suggest a benefit of fluoridation to Maōri and “other” children – about 14% for “Other” and 25% for Māori children (using the data for mean dmft).
Year 8 Children
Again the data suggests that fluoridation has been beneficial to Māori and “Other” children. The DMFT data suggest a benefit of about 30.5% for Māori and 26% for “Other” children. Even the %Caries free data indicates benefits of about 16% and 11% for Māori and “Other” children respectively.
Changes over time
It’s worth considering more than one year. This overcomes, to some extent, variations in the data. It may also be helpful in assessing if the effectiveness of CWF is changing.
However, there is a proviso. Let’s not forget this is simply raw data from the school dental service. While I have corrected for ethnic differences I have no way of correcting for other differences. Socioeconomic effects may change over time. Another important factor is that, at least in some regions, dental health authorities are targeting children form non-fluoridated areas with extra treatments like fluoride tooth varnishes. Ideally, a controlled experiment would take all these factors into account.
I will just take one example – the DMFT data for year 8 children.
The table shows the mean values of %Caries free and DMFT of year 8 children over the periods 2005-2017 and 2013-2017.
Year 8 Children
Māori
“Other”
%Caries Free
Mean 2005-2017
24.2
13.4
Mean 2013-2017
15.6
8.8
MDFT
Mean 2005-2017
31.3
24.7
Mean 2013-2017
30.1
22.2
This data shows that the oral health of both Māori and “Other” children have improved over time irrespective fluoridation. But there is still a difference between fluoidated and unfluodiated areas indicating fluoridation is having a benefit over and above other factors contributiong to oral health improvement.
The differences due to fluoridation seem to be diminishing. However, my comments above are relevant here. This could be due to extra fluoride treatments targeting children from non-fluoridated areas.
It’s obviously a factor for health authorities to consider but limitations in this data should be kept in mind and other sources of information also considered.
Conclusions
Once again the MoH school dental service data show benefits from CWF. But don’t expect anti-fluoride activists to accept this. I expect they will indulge in their usual cherry-picking of the data to confirm their biases.
I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is unexpectedly missing or the numbers seem very low please check this out. After correcting send me the URL for your site meter and I can correct the information in the database.
Similarly, if your blog data in this list seems out of whack, please check your site meter. Usually, the problem is that for some reason your site meter is no longer working.
Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.
This list is compiled automatically from the data in the various site meters used. If you feel the data in this list is wrong could you check to make sure the problem is not with your own site meter? I am of course happy to correct any mistakes that occur in the automatic transfer of data to this list but cannot be responsible for the site meters themselves. They do play up.
Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.
Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for December 2018. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.
You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks
Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings
Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email
