Oh dear... so many people believe in what are called "conspiracy theories"...
... it's enough to make one think that maybe they are TRUE, after all! that maybe we HAVE been betrayed by our loving and caring heads of state and their governments...
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I think some of it comes from cock-ups rather than conspiracies governmentally, and conspiracies rather than cock-ups peddled by determined campaigners for their own ends.
The ordinary Press and commercial broadcasters don't help if they have particular political biases but they are usually easy to spot if you have an open mind and ask what they have not said, as well as what they did say. One sign that a source is reasonably neutral is it being attacked as biased, by both sides of arguments or politics. That probably means the critics are cross because the source dares to publish their opponents' views.
There are two things very damaging to trust, and recognised by professional journalists as a problem in trying to give balanced work:
- A genuine expert who is talking straight facts but not a good communicator, pitted against a smooth-talking charlatan. This is not necessarily the fault of the expert, but could well be that of whoever selected him or her as the Interviewee.
- Cowardice! Yes, cowardice, mixed with complacency or arrogance. Here, the agency or company accused of incompetent or sharp practice is invited to respond, but either refuses full-stop, claims "no-one available for comment", or merely issues a bland statement as useless as that 1990s business fad, the "mission statement". You hear this all the time on investigative programmes like Today and Your And Yours.
Note though the report's key phrases:
... think that they know someone....
... believe it is likely...
... role of social circle...
... that they know someone who...
Those are not direct experiences, and the second suggests a lot of parroting, though a few of those asked might have been talking of close friends or relatives. I don't know if the third includes "social media" or means genuine personal circles only, but raises asking if at least some individuals are susceptible to peer-pressure.
A worrying result, showing what a lot of Americans think, or that they don't think, and possibly why.
