In November the magazine published an issue devoted to climate change. Susan Goldberg, editor since 2015, says that afterward she received a congratulatory note from [Rupert] Murdoch, saying he’d “gathered his family around” to read through the important issue. She says he’s made only one editorial suggestion to her. “James is an environmentalist,” Goldberg says. “He said, ‘I wish we could do more stories about why people don’t believe science.’ ” –Bloomberg
So the new head of Fox, James Murdoch, wants to find out why people “don’t believe in science.” (See above excerpt.) We can help him.
Climate change, gravitational physics and vaccines have all come under intense attacks in the 21st based on easily available ‘Net information.
Falsehoods have been established and promoted: That’s the real reason.
People’s energy-use, for instance, has to be supervised because of global warming. Yet for every “fact” regarding global warming, there is another one that contradicts it.
People’s health habits have to be tracked by public entities to ensure that they receive the correct vaccines. Yet it has become clear over time that vaccine proponents are covering up studies showing vaccines cause autism and other life-injuring conditions.
And certainly human insignificance has to be impressed upon people through the preaching of gravitational physics. Yet Nikola Tesla’s electrical version of the universe seems in many ways a good deal more persuasive than Einstein’s gravitational one.
James Murdoch’s question actually mirrors a statement by Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO who sat down in April with CNN for a wide-ranging interview.
“The thing that drives [me] a little bit nuts, and is the frustrating piece in this, is it’s such a polarized debate and I don’t think it should be,” Grant said.
Maybe because Monsanto’s Glyphosate, the cancer-linked herbicide that is an essential component in the expansion of GMO crops, is already being banned around the world over safety concerns.
And the Internet has exposed that.
In the short-term, Murdoch’s strategy for National Geographic will probably work well.
His video-version of National Geographic is “blowing up” into a big deal as it merges HBO-style production values with new and improved editorial fare.
More from Bloomberg:
[National Geographic’s] development slate is brimming with boldface names. Alex Gibney is producing a miniseries about the global water crisis. Brett Morgen is making a biopic of Jane Goodall. Scott Rudin is developing a series about the events leading up to the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl.
But in the long-term informational trends may militate against it because Murdoch’s programming approach is “more of the same.”
We can see clearly that he accepts the shibboleths of modern science and its scarcity propaganda.
The programming mentioned in the Bloomberg article is focused on the weary warnings of modern science. The underlying idea is that humanity is running out of the basics – food, water and energy.
The corollary to this increasing scarcity is the advance of increasingly international facilities operated by the UN that will provide the appropriate bureaucratic antidotes to man-made scarcity.
In fact, free-market competition is the solution.
This is one reason free-market disciplines like Austrian economics were apparently suppressed prior to their break out on the Internet.
The world’s economic system itself is infected with faux-science justifications. Central banking is nothing but price-fixing and as such is extremely injurious to society.
But around the world in mainstream media, academic and business environments, it remains difficult to find anyone who will fully explain just how destructive central bank procedures really are.
Times are changing however.
Through the Internet people are now exposed to a variety of opinions and are able to get direct access to facts themselves. They no longer have to accept the single narrative approved by the scientific elite.
Many intelligent people now believe that science is growing increasingly untrustworthy.
So as the issues of vaccines, global warming and gravitational physics are being challenged, much else can similarly be questioned.
For instance, there are increasing reports that many of the ancient dinosaurs and other creatures promoted in movies and the mainstream media may be made up.
Dinosaurs only began to be discovered around the time that Charles Darwin was proposing his controversial theory of evolution. Is it possible that much of the dinosaur evidence was manufactured to support Darwin’s theory?
Today there are entire companies specializing in supplying “dinosaur bones” to museums. One of the biggest, reportedly, is in China.
Since museums never exhibit the actual bones, only plaster casts, it is impossible to know what is real and what may be fake.
Perhaps some of the more dramatic dinosaur finds are supposed to distract us from the vast emptiness of human history that occurs past the neolithic.
The Internet crackles with information about a 10.000 year-old civilization that may have existed around the world. But none of the speculation or potential archaeological discoveries even seem noted by mainstream science.
One can of course propose that the authorities making various technological claims are trustworthy. But the trouble is that the ‘Net in particular has revealed an opposite trend.
In the US, supposedly only six percent of those surveyed believe that the media can be “trusted.”
When even the most authoritative claims are fact-checked, it turns out questions arise. At the same time, “far out” theories seem to be gathering credibility, at least for some.
Conclusion: Much of modern science has come under scrutiny thanks to the Internet. And portions have been subject to serious debunking. It is likely this will continue and strengthen – with all its attendant ramifications. Over time, even James Murdoch may begin to understand why “people don’t believe in science.”