The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Sorry, Royal Institute, not Royal Society... (nm) Archived Message

    Posted by Ian M on July 14, 2022, 7:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, Royal Institute, not Royal Society... (nm)"

    Yes, for some reason it took me this long to follow it up and see if anything had come of it - my attention followed Sauron's to Ukraine too...

    The 'conspiracy' wrt Thorn would be the point that, at the time, there was no disclosure of involvement with Valent or the Royal Institute, and no response to multiple requests for comment from Grayzone writers. I'd agree that she took most of the sting out of this allegation by being up front about it at the start of the vid that eventually emerged, and you could argue that she was under no obligation to disclose it before producing the eventual piece, although:

    'Thorn’s April 2021 dismantling of the politics of right-wing culture warrior Jordan Peterson has racked up almost two million views and was sponsored by Curiosity Stream, a US media streaming service. The video opens with a black screen disclosing the support provided by the company and claiming Thorn would donate her fee to the feminist campaign group, Sisters Uncut. The video is also emblazoned with YouTube’s “paid promotion” logo.

    Yet no such disclaimer referring to support from the Royal Institution can be found on any of her other uploads. And that may be because the Covid campaign was intended to be covert.

    Valent's wording suggests they were intending to use Thorn as a figurehead to push their messaging:

    'Valent’s research on British citizens who reject official policy on COVID-19 “will be used to devise a campaign that utilises YouTuber Abigail Thorn’s existing platform to achieve a measurable cognitive shift in the target audience,” '

    Why not produce their own content if they're so confident in the strength of the message? It reminds me of that UN-endorsed University of Florida covid 'communications' (ie: propaganda) manual which stressed the importance of getting to people via trusted (there's that word again) community leaders:

    'People act when they trust the messenger, the message and their motivations.

    People within different contexts and societies trust different messengers. We want our messengers to have specific expertise and knowledge and we consider their motivation sometimes—but not always—in our trust of them.

    Without question, the most effective messengers are experts and trusted leaders in our own communities—both our geographic ones and our digital ones.

    It’s important to examine who people trust, and demonstrate, where possible, that sources who are trusted within communities also trust expert institutions like the FDA or UN.

    The construct of “in-group” and “out-group” can be helpful in identifying trusted messengers. David Fetherstonhaugh, Applied Behavioral Economist, points out that “I couldn’t stress enough the importance of a message coming from within an in-group — someone that’s automatically on the inside. It’s almost like such messages even bypass deliberate cognition because they are coming from a trusted source: ‘They’re my family, or it’s my pastor, or it’s my party leader.’ So the source of messages, in-group vs. out-group, is extraordinarily important for how a message is received.”

    Myiah Hutchens points out that our personal experience and observations are critical. “For the most part, we’re going to trust our in-groups until we’re forced otherwise. Right? So it’s going to be a hard issue of making sure that people’s realities are then matching up with what their in-groups are saying.”'     - https://covid19vaccinescommunicationprinciples.org/the-principles/messengers/

    I've never been opposed to government and health bodies making their own case for why we should choose to follow their recommendations. But when they take that choice away and start putting their words in other peoples' mouths that's bogus, and an attempted shortcut to addressing the real problem: nobody trusts them because they've lied to us over and over again about everything under the sun, so we've got no reason to believe them or do what they say, even on the rare occasions it might actually benefit us.

    As for generalising the 'astroturf' accusation to the rest of Breadtube, I wouldn't know, I think that's Caleb Maupin's project, and I haven't read his book. It would need further evidence to back it up, and I'd agree that Dore's speculation that Shaun was on the take wasn't supported by anything more than a feeling (and his wish to bat away criticism).

    Otherwise you ask: 'Has thorn lied for her supposed paymasters?' - I would say yes, in that she repeats govt reassurances of the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, when the former still hasn't been proven esp for the long term, and the latter has waned dramatically since Omicron, certainly beyond the point where a mandate can be justified. But I think the greater significance is that a representative of a supposedly anarchist youtube network should be repeating govt talking points and taking part in an orchestrated campaign to assert its will on the populace, even if she does agree that getting vaxxed is the right thing to do. Not exactly siding with the people against their oppressors, is it? It feels like a government consultation, listening to the voices of the great unwashed only as a box-ticking exercise before pushing through with what they were going to do anyway. She understands, she empathises, but the final message nonetheless is: get the vax, proles.

    I'll stop there...

    cheers,
    I

    Message Thread: