Globalism and the Deep State

Exposing the Deep State: Joel Skousen's Insights on Globalist Agendas and Conspiracies

Joel Skousen, a prominent voice on deep state conspiracies and globalist control, recently spoke to an audience of about 30 people in Orem, Utah. During his talk, Skousen detailed his belief in a "big picture" conspiracy orchestrated by globalists who have deeply embedded themselves within the U.S. government. He touched on historical events, controversial figures, and current global conflicts, framing them as part of a long-standing agenda to manipulate political outcomes and advance globalism.

Skousen is known for his views on deep state conspiracies and globalist control. He believes that there is a "big picture" conspiracy led by the deep state, which he sees as a controlling arm of globalists who have managed to control the government. According to Skousen, it is too late to change this, as the deep state has embedded itself deeply within the political system, not just through holdover bureaucrats but through long-standing globalist agendas.

He claims that figures like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were both killed under deep state orders. Donald Trump withheld certain files concerning the JFK assassination because he was convinced revealing them would harm the nation. Skousen views Trump as a populist who appeals to conservatives but argues that Trump, like many other politicians, is surrounded by deep state operatives and is not fully aware of true conservative values. He also suggests that Trump has not deeply studied conspiracy theories, relying instead on mainstream sources like Fox News.

Skousen also touches on various historical and current events, asserting that globalists have manipulated political outcomes for over a century. He mentions that over 300 globalist organizations, such as the Bilderberg Group and the Aspen Institute, are working towards globalism, often using international crises, like wars, to advance their agenda. He suggests that historical figures like Woodrow Wilson were chosen by globalists, with manipulated events such as Taft's downfall and Teddy Roosevelt's independent run, leading to Wilson's election.

He believes that the deep state orchestrated 9/11 as a false flag operation, using drone aircraft and controlled demolitions to achieve their goals. Skousen claims that globalists have continuously worked to discredit governments, spread communism, and promote globalism through wars, economic manipulation, and other means.

Finally, Skousen is skeptical of many mainstream narratives, including those surrounding Russia, China, and global conflicts. He sees globalists as orchestrating most major events and believes that conservatives and constitutionalists are a small minority, with much of the population losing their values through public education and other influences such as the media. He argues that the only way to stop this globalist agenda is through significant, grassroots political change, though he is pessimistic about the possibility of such a change occurring under current conditions.

Here is a list of some of Joel Skousen's books available on Amazon and the American Book Warehouse:

1. Strategic Relocation: North American Guide to Safe Places - A comprehensive guide on the safest places to live in North America, addressing potential threats and strategies for relocation.
2. The Secure Home - Focuses on how to create a high-security, self-sufficient residence or retreat.
3. The High Security Shelter - Offers guidance on implementing a multi-purpose safe room in the home.
4. The Still Small Voice of Conscience - Discusses moral and ethical considerations in decision-making.
5. 10 Packs for Survival - A pamphlet on essential storage and preparedness items.

These books reflect Skousen’s expertise in security and preparedness, offering practical advice for those interested in personal safety and self-sufficiency.

Subscribe to Skousen's weekly news update at World Affairs Brief.

Attitudes Toward Reporting

Click on the image to see a larger version.

How Personal Experience Shapes Understanding and Trust in Journalism

Personal experience with journalism plays a crucial role in shaping an individual's understanding of news processes and concepts. Whether someone has been covered or interviewed in the news, or has received some formal education in journalism, these experiences significantly influence how they perceive and trust the media.

One of the most impactful ways individuals engage with journalism is through educational settings. Whether taking a journalism course or participating in student-run media, these experiences provide foundational knowledge about the workings of the media. According to data from a study by the Media Insight Project, about a quarter of people have participated in a school publication, while only 16% have taken a class on media or news literacy. These educational experiences help individuals become more familiar with journalistic terms and concepts. For example, those who have taken a class on media literacy are more likely to understand how journalists use anonymous sources compared to those without such education (65% vs. 57%).

Interestingly, the study shows that individuals with educational experience in journalism are generally more familiar with various journalistic terms and concepts. For example, people who participated in school media or took a journalism class are more likely to understand the difference between a news story and a press release, or between an editorial and a news story. This familiarity extends to the ability to differentiate between opinion and news content, which is crucial in today’s media landscape where these boundaries can sometimes blur.

However, the study also highlights that educational experience does not necessarily correlate with higher trust in the media or a more favorable view of its direction. Even those who have engaged with journalism through education share similar levels of skepticism about the media's trajectory as those without such experience. This suggests that while education may enhance understanding, it does not necessarily lead to increased trust in media institutions.

Beyond educational experiences, personal interactions with journalism—such as being interviewed or having firsthand knowledge of a news story—also shape people's views. The study found that most people's direct experience with the news comes from being consumers rather than creators of content. For instance, nearly three-quarters of the public have encountered journalism about a topic they are knowledgeable about, such as their town or hobby. Additionally, 60% have witnessed or experienced something that was later covered by a news organization.

These personal interactions with journalism generally leave people with a positive impression. Among those who have been interviewed by a journalist, nearly a third felt that the reporting was entirely accurate, and 81% believed the reporting was unbiased and fair. This suggests that when individuals have direct involvement in news coverage, they tend to view the reporting more favorably, likely because they have a clearer understanding of the context and nuances of the story.

In conclusion, personal experience with journalism, whether through education or direct interaction, significantly influences how individuals understand and trust the media. While educational experiences enhance familiarity with journalistic concepts, they do not necessarily increase trust in the media. Direct interactions, on the other hand, often result in a more positive view of news coverage. These findings highlight the importance of media literacy education and the value of direct engagement with journalism in fostering a more informed and critical public.

Source: How does personal experience with news affect a person's views? - American Press Institute

Media Role in Undermining Traditional Values

Unraveling the Globalist Agenda: The Intersection of Social Credit Systems and the Assault on Family Values

In recent years, there has been a growing concern over the ways in which social credit systems and globalist agendas intersect, particularly in their impact on societal values and family structures. Larry Schweikart, a historian and commentator, has highlighted how these developments reflect a deeper, more insidious agenda aimed at undermining traditional institutions, including the family.

One of the most alarming aspects of this agenda is the rise of the transsexual movement, which, according to Schweikart, took off in the wake of the Obergefell decision on homosexual marriages. While initially dismissed by many as a fringe movement, it rapidly gained momentum, leading to increasingly radical policies and laws. By 2023, California had enacted legislation that allowed the state to take children away from parents who interfered with their "gender identity." This represented a significant escalation in the assault on traditional family values, with schools even permitting children to change their gender without their parents' knowledge. The movement's proponents viewed parents and families as major obstacles to the advancement of transgenderism, leading to calls to "abolish the family" altogether.

The globalist agenda, as Schweikart argues, is not just a political or social movement but one with a dark spiritual dimension. This is evident in the push for "sexual rights" for children, an effort that not only undermines parental rights but also involves grooming young people for exploitation. Organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations have promoted programs emphasizing children as "sexual beings" with their own sexual rights, independent of their maturity. These initiatives, which are part of the broader "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," are well-funded and coordinated, aiming to advance transgenderism and abortion on a global scale.

The role of the media in this assault on the family cannot be understated. According to Larry Schweikart, mainstream media outlets have played a pivotal role in normalizing and promoting the transsexual movement and other elements of the globalist agenda. Through a combination of selective reporting, sensationalism, and outright propaganda, the media has managed to shape public opinion, often portraying traditional family values as outdated or even oppressive. This concerted effort to marginalize dissenting voices has been crucial in advancing the narrative that supports the breakdown of the family unit. By glamorizing alternative lifestyles and demonizing those who stand in opposition, the media has become a powerful tool in the hands of those seeking to undermine the foundational principles of society. This manipulation of information and public discourse serves to further entrench the globalist agenda, making it increasingly difficult for traditional values to find a platform in the public sphere.

Schweikart also points to the troubling connections between social credit systems and these authoritarian trends. The integration of credit systems with the transsexual movement has led to new forms of control over children, particularly during the remote learning periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Biden administration's response to parental activism, particularly through the "Moms for Liberty" group, was to label these concerned parents as "terrorists" under the Patriot Act, further highlighting the growing divide between the government and families.

These trends are part of a broader, global phenomenon. The decline in birth rates, driven by factors such as birth control, rising affluence, and a cultural shift away from large families, has created what experts warn is a "demographic time bomb." In the United States, the women's movement has played a significant role in downplaying and even demonizing childbearing, contributing to a record low birth rate in 2019. 

Schweikart argues that these developments are not coincidental but rather part of a deliberate, anti-Christian, and anti-God agenda pushed by global elites. The increasing visibility of pagan and satanic imagery in public ceremonies and statues, such as those at the Gotthard Base Railroad Tunnel and the Strasbourg Parliament building, is seen as a blatant display of the globalists' true spiritual colors. These symbols and rituals are not accidental; they are clear, overt statements of the globalist agenda, which seeks to replace traditional spirituality with a new, darker belief system.

In conclusion, the intersection of social credit systems, globalist agendas, and the transsexual movement represents a profound threat to traditional family values and spiritual beliefs. As Schweikart warns, these developments are not just political or social trends but part of a larger, more sinister plan that seeks to undermine the very foundations of society.

Source: Schweikart, L. (2024). A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Psychological Bioterrorism

Media Manipulation: How Fear of Avian Influenza Fuels Psychological Bioterrorism

The recent alarm surrounding the H5N1 Avian Influenza strain highlights the media's powerful role in shaping public perception and behavior. While the World Health Organization (WHO) has long warned of a potential "Disease X," Dr. Robert Malone says the current fear being promoted around this bird flu strain is exaggerated and does not reflect the actual threat to human health. To the best of his knowledge, there have been no documented human deaths from this strain, and there is no evidence that it is being transmitted from human to human in a sustained manner. This narrative, driven by media outlets, is an example of what he calls "Psychological Bioterrorism."

Media plays a crucial role in Psychological Bioterrorism, a strategy that leverages fear of infectious diseases to manipulate populations. This method is highly effective because it creates a state of heightened anxiety and fear, driven by constant media coverage that often lacks context or critical analysis. Historical pandemics, such as the 1918 Spanish Influenza, are frequently cited in media reports to justify current public health measures, despite the misleading nature of these comparisons. For instance, while the H1N1 virus did cause widespread illness in 1918, the mass deaths were more likely due to bacterial pneumonia and the misuse of aspirin, not the virus itself. However, this nuanced reality is often overlooked in media narratives that favor sensationalism over accuracy.

The recent focus on the H5N1 strain in poultry and wild birds demonstrates how media can be used to craft and sustain a Psychological Bioterrorism campaign. Despite the lack of evidence that this strain poses a significant threat to human health, media outlets have amplified the narrative, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. This media-driven panic serves other agendas, such as promoting new vaccine technologies or justifying the culling of livestock under the guise of addressing climate change concerns.

The effectiveness of media in Psychological Bioterrorism lies in its ability to rapidly disseminate information and shape public opinion. Media outlets, whether traditional or digital, have the power to create a sense of vulnerability and helplessness among the public. When people are bombarded with alarming headlines and reports, they often feel that they have no control over the situation, which only intensifies their fear. This fear can then be manipulated to achieve various objectives, from financial gain to social control.

The actors behind these media campaigns are often hidden, making it difficult for the public to understand the true nature of the threat. Intelligence or security services, both domestic and foreign, may work with corporate interests or government bodies to promote these narratives. The media serves as the primary tool for spreading disinformation and amplifying the perceived threat, creating a feedback loop where fear begets more fear.

In the case of Avian Influenza, the media has played a pivotal role in sustaining the fear narrative. By continuously highlighting the potential dangers of the virus, often without sufficient evidence, the media has contributed to a climate of fear that benefits certain interests. This is not to say that the media is solely responsible; rather, it is a key player in a larger strategy of Psychological Bioterrorism that uses fear to manipulate the public.

In conclusion, the media's role in promoting the fear of Avian Influenza is a prime example of how Psychological Bioterrorism operates. The exaggerated threat serves hidden agendas that go beyond public health concerns, with media outlets playing a central role in shaping and sustaining the narrative. It is essential to critically evaluate the information being presented and to recognize the media's potential to manipulate public perception. By understanding these dynamics, we can better protect ourselves from the psychological and social damage caused by fear-driven narratives.

Source: Psychological Bioterrorism - by Robert W Malone MD, MS

Guiding Youth Through Uncertainty

 

Rising Distrust and Declining Faith: The Crisis Facing Young People in an Era of Misinformation

Introduction

In recent years, a growing sense of distrust in authority and a marked decline in religious faith among young people have contributed to a widespread crisis of confidence and purpose. This phenomenon, driven by various social, cultural, and political factors, is exacerbated by the influence of academic bias, social media, and climate change rhetoric. As young people navigate an increasingly complex world, their declining faith in traditional institutions and the rise of apocalyptic narratives are reshaping their outlook on life, leading to heightened anxiety, depression, and a sense of helplessness.

Distrust in Authority and Declining Faith

The decline in religious faith, particularly Christianity and Judaism, is closely linked to a broader distrust in authority and facts. Larry Schweikart argues that this distrust is a key goal of globalist agendas, which seek to create a population that is more easily manipulated and depressed. Jean Twenge's research highlights the correlation between the increase in anxiety and depression among younger Americans, their growing use of social media, and their decreasing levels of religious observance. The erosion of faith has left many young people vulnerable to despair and a lack of purpose, as they no longer have the spiritual or communal support systems that once provided stability.

Social Media and Perceptions of Reality

Social media plays a significant role in shaping the perceptions and attitudes of young people. Schweikart notes that social media often presents a skewed view of others' income and success, leading to unrealistic expectations and dissatisfaction. The constant comparison with seemingly more successful peers exacerbates feelings of inadequacy and disillusionment. This "perception gap" fuels discontent and supports the notion that the system is inherently unfair, making young people more susceptible to calls for government intervention to address perceived inequalities.

The Role of Academic Bias

Academic bias further contributes to the erosion of trust in traditional institutions. Schweikart points out that academic journals, particularly those supporting the global warming thesis, act as gatekeepers by suppressing contradictory evidence and promoting biased research. For instance, Patrick Brown from Johns Hopkins University revealed that he had to exclude critical data on wildfires not being caused by climate change to get his work published in a prestigious journal. This bias, combined with researchers' dependence on government funding, undermines the credibility of scientific inquiry and reinforces the prevailing narratives that align with political and ideological agendas.

The Impact of Climate Change Rhetoric

The apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change is another significant factor contributing to the despair and disillusionment among young people. Schweikart argues that the constant drumbeat of catastrophic predictions, pushed by international organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the UN, creates a pervasive sense of hopelessness. Young people, who are repeatedly told that the world will end within a decade, are left feeling helpless and unable to plan for the future. This rhetoric, rather than motivating constructive action, instead fosters a culture of defeatism and resignation.

Conclusion

The rising distrust in authority, combined with the decline in religious faith, has created a generation of young people who are increasingly anxious, disillusioned, and vulnerable to manipulation. Social media, academic bias, and climate change rhetoric have all played significant roles in shaping this crisis. As young people struggle to find meaning and purpose in a world that often seems hostile and unforgiving, it is crucial to address the underlying causes of this crisis and provide the support and guidance needed to rebuild trust, restore faith, and promote a more balanced and hopeful outlook on life.

Source: Schweikart, L. (2024). A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Globalists and Global Warming

The Globalist Agenda Behind Climate Change: Analyzing the Paris Agreement and Its Economic Implications

Globalists, like those at the World Economic Forum (WEF) led by Klaus Schwab, have weaponized the issue of "climate change" as a means to push for global governance and curtail economic growth in wealthy Western nations. Schweikart argues that the climate change agenda, embodied in international agreements such as the United Nations' Paris Agreement, is less about environmental protection and more about advancing a socio-political agenda aimed at redistributing wealth and weakening capitalist economies.

Schweikart critiques the Paris Agreement, describing it as a tool for globalists to impose restrictive economic policies on Western nations under the guise of saving the planet. He questions the scientific validity of claims that human activity is the primary driver of global warming, suggesting instead that natural factors, such as the Earth's relationship with the sun, could be responsible. Schweikart also raises the possibility that a warmer Earth might not be as catastrophic as claimed and could even have some benefits.

In the U.S., Schweikart points to the Obama administration’s decision to join the Paris Agreement without Senate ratification as an overreach, reflecting the influence of globalist ideology. He contrasts this with President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement, which Schweikart views as a defense of American sovereignty and economic interests. However, he notes that President Biden quickly reversed Trump’s actions, rejoining the Paris Agreement and proposing even more aggressive goals, such as decarbonizing the power sector by 2035 and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Schweikart argues that Biden’s plans are economically disastrous and logistically unfeasible, requiring massive investments in infrastructure, an unprecedented expansion of the power grid, and a significant increase in the engineering workforce. He estimates that these initiatives would cost trillions of dollars, result in job losses, and severely impact the GDP and household incomes. Furthermore, Schweikart highlights the impracticality of relying on renewable energy sources like wind and solar, noting their intermittency and the enormous backup required from non-renewable sources to maintain a stable power supply.

On the global stage, Schweikart criticizes countries like China and India for continuing to increase coal production and setting minimal emissions reduction targets, which he views as evidence that the Paris Agreement is not genuinely about reducing global emissions. Instead, he argues, the agreement is part of a broader globalist agenda to weaken Western economies while allowing developing nations to continue polluting.

Schweikart concludes by asserting that the climate change movement, as promoted by globalists, is based on a fraudulent hypothesis with no solid scientific foundation. He views it as a tool to undermine capitalism and impose a one-world government, rather than a genuine effort to address environmental issues.

Source: Schweikart, L. (2024). A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Celebrity Advocacy

 

Challenges and Complexities of Celebrity Activism in Global Warming Advocacy

Celebrities have become key figures in advocating for global warming and other environmental causes, but their involvement is fraught with complexities. Modern environmental campaigns often use celebrities to promote "green" consumer practices, which, while well-intentioned, still operate within the framework of capitalism, leading to criticism from more radical voices. These critics argue that such campaigns reinforce the moral authority of market-led governance of sustainability, which can be seen as hypocritical or even colonial, especially when white celebrities advocate for causes in the Global South. This dynamic evokes historical narratives where Europeans were seen as saviors to "backward" cultures, a notion that is problematic when applied to modern-day celebrity activism.

Celebrities are also heavily managed to maintain their appeal and market value, making them effective yet vulnerable spokespersons. Their influence relies not just on their personal qualities, but on a well-orchestrated support system that includes public relations, stylists, and other professionals. However, this same reliance on image makes them susceptible to backlash if they appear hypocritical or if they fail to maintain their celebrity status. For instance, Marlon Brando's activism suffered when he lost his physical appeal, and Leonardo DiCaprio faced criticism for his high carbon footprint despite his environmental advocacy.

Moreover, the use of celebrities in climate change campaigns has its limitations. While they can draw attention to issues, they are often not trusted as credible sources on scientific matters. Research has shown that celebrities might undermine the seriousness of climate change arguments, particularly when they lack a scientific background. Furthermore, the dramatic messaging required to engage younger audiences can backfire by creating a sense of hopelessness, leading to inaction rather than activism.

The effectiveness of celebrity-led campaigns is also questioned when their impact is primarily on other elites or those already inclined to support their causes. For example, despite the widespread attention garnered by Bob Geldof's Live Aid concert, it also perpetuated a patronizing narrative about Africa, leading to criticism from African voices. Similarly, while celebrity documentaries like DiCaprio's "Before the Flood" reach large audiences, they may only reinforce the views of those already concerned about climate change, rather than converting skeptics or spurring widespread action.

Finally, the very nature of celebrity fame is double-edged. While it can generate trust and interest, it also creates resentment and highlights the disparity between celebrities and ordinary people. This dynamic can lead to a phenomenon known as "virtue signaling," where celebrities advocate for popular causes not necessarily out of genuine concern, but because it is expected within certain social circles. As a result, while celebrities can play a role in raising awareness and shaping public opinion, their involvement in global warming advocacy is complex and often comes with significant challenges.

Source: Schweikart, L. (2024). A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

How Journalism Works

Click on image to see a readable version. 

What Americans Know, and Don’t, About How Journalism Works

The Media Insight Project's 2018 study, "What Americans Know, and Don’t, About How Journalism Works," reveals a significant gap between the public's understanding of journalistic terms and processes and what journalists expect the public to know. This disconnect highlights the need for greater clarity and transparency in journalism.

One of the key findings is the public's unfamiliarity with basic journalistic terms. For instance, 50% of Americans are only slightly familiar with the term "op-ed," which refers to opinion pieces written by guest writers or columnists. Similarly, 43% of adults do not understand the meaning of "attribution," a fundamental concept in journalism where the source of information is identified. Additionally, 57% of the public is unfamiliar with "native advertising," which is paid content designed to resemble editorial content.

Journalists, on the other hand, generally believe that the public's understanding of these terms is even lower than it actually is. For example, while 50% of the public knows about op-eds, only 33% of journalists expect the public to be familiar with the term. This discrepancy extends to other concepts as well, such as the difference between an editorial and a news story, and the role of anonymous sources in reporting.

Anonymous sources, a common but controversial aspect of journalism, are somewhat understood by the public. About 58% of people correctly believe that when journalists use anonymous sources, they know the source's identity but choose not to reveal it in their reports. However, 42% of the public is either unsure or believes that journalists do not know the source's identity. This confusion suggests that news organizations need to better explain their use of anonymous sources to build trust with their audience.

The study also explores the public's perception of "fake news," a term popularized in recent years, particularly by former President Trump. While the original definition referred to completely false information created for profit, the term has evolved to encompass a broader range of meanings. A significant portion of the public now associates "fake news" with real news organizations making mistakes, spreading conspiracy theories, or even producing content that is biased or sloppy. This expanded definition reflects the growing skepticism towards the media and the blurred lines between fact and opinion in news reporting.

To address these challenges, the study suggests that journalists should focus on increasing transparency in their work. This includes clearly distinguishing between news and opinion pieces, providing more information about sources, and explaining the reporting and editing processes. Such steps are seen as crucial for rebuilding public trust in journalism, especially in an era where misinformation and "fake news" are pervasive concerns.

In summary, the Media Insight Project's study underscores the need for the media to improve public understanding of journalistic practices. By enhancing transparency and clarity, journalists can help bridge the knowledge gap and foster a more informed and trusting audience.

Source: What Americans know, and don't, about how journalism works - American Press Institute

Media Bias and Framing

Image from mxmoritz.com

Journalistic reporting underwent significant changes beginning in the 1960s, marking a departure from traditional practices that had long been the foundation of American journalism. These changes were influenced by broader social, cultural, and political shifts during the decade, which transformed the landscape of media and reporting.

1. Shift in Journalism Education:

   • Before the 1960s, journalism education emphasized objectivity, accuracy, and fairness. Journalists were trained to report the news by double-sourcing facts, avoiding anonymous sources, and presenting all sides of a story fairly. These practices were ingrained in journalism schools and reflected in newsroom standards across the country.
   • In the 1960s, however, journalism education began to shift. This period saw the rise of a more subjective approach to reporting, influenced by the cultural upheavals of the time. Journalism schools started to focus more on storytelling and less on strict adherence to objective reporting. This change laid the groundwork for the more interpretive and opinion-driven journalism that would become increasingly common in later decades.

2. Introduction of Framing Theory:

   • One of the key changes in journalistic reporting was the adoption of "framing theory." Framing involves shaping the presentation of a news story by emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying or omitting others. This could include the use of specific keywords, stock phrases, and images that reinforce a particular narrative or viewpoint.
   • Instead of simply reporting the facts, journalists began to frame stories to align with their perspectives or the expectations of their audience. This approach led to a more subjective form of reporting, where the emphasis was on telling a compelling story rather than providing a balanced account of events.

3. Impact of the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Movement:

   • The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement were pivotal events in the 1960s that influenced journalistic practices. Coverage of these events highlighted the growing divide between the press and government authorities. Journalists began to take on a more adversarial role, questioning official narratives and exposing government misconduct, as seen in the coverage of the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal.
   • This shift towards investigative journalism and advocacy reporting reflected a broader skepticism towards authority and a desire to hold power accountable. However, it also contributed to the erosion of traditional journalistic norms of impartiality and objectivity.

4. Rise of Interpretive Journalism:

   • With the changes in journalism education and the impact of major social movements, there was a rise in interpretive journalism. This style of reporting goes beyond the who, what, when, where, and why to provide analysis and interpretation of events. While this approach can offer deeper insights, it also opened the door to more biased reporting, as journalists' interpretations could be influenced by their personal views or the interests of their employers.
   • The focus on interpretation rather than straightforward reporting meant that news stories became more subjective, with journalists often guiding their audience towards a particular conclusion.

5. Decline in Trust and Objectivity:

   • As journalistic standards shifted, there was a corresponding decline in public trust in the media. The perception that the press was becoming more biased and less reliable grew, particularly as journalists increasingly took sides on contentious issues. This decline in trust was exacerbated by the use of anonymous sources and the selective presentation of facts, which made it harder for the public to distinguish between news and opinion.

In summary, the changes in journalistic reporting beginning in the 1960s marked a move away from the traditional norms of objectivity, fairness, and accuracy. The rise of interpretive journalism, influenced by framing theory and broader social changes, led to a more subjective and sometimes partisan media landscape. These shifts have had lasting impacts on the practice of journalism and the public's perception of the media.

Citation (APA): Schweikart, L. (2024). A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline [Kindle iOS version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com