Thank-you for that work, though I admit I skimmed and trusted you on the ways of measuring feels and opinions and their gaps. The overall result is certainly clear: the population is being continuously propagandized.
People wouldn't believe things at wide variance to the truth out of nowhere: they are being told this really is the truth, and quite consistently and often, or it would wear off.
I'm afraid it's actual scientific support for the case that the news media, presumably owned by very conservative people, continuously offer a picture of Canada, and Alberta, at wide variance to the actual truth.
It's hard to lie about ascertainable facts of programs, problems, crimes and costs. It's easy to lie about "feelings" - to promote the notion that certain solutions (or problems) are popular or unpopular, by just choosing news priorities, highlighting some stories, and giving minimal mention to others.
How did something like supervised consumption sites become labelled “progressive” in the first place, and opposition to these sites in favour of other models become “conservative”?
If I think supervised consumption sites are riddled with problems, based on the evidence, am I suddenly a “conservative”?
This shouldn’t be political. Let science and evidence lead the way.
It’s always been interesting that Calgarians have for years elected relatively liberal mayors. Nenshi now leads the NDP. Bronconnier was a former Liberal candidate federally. I believe Al Duerr was more of a liberal.
Thank-you for that work, though I admit I skimmed and trusted you on the ways of measuring feels and opinions and their gaps. The overall result is certainly clear: the population is being continuously propagandized.
People wouldn't believe things at wide variance to the truth out of nowhere: they are being told this really is the truth, and quite consistently and often, or it would wear off.
I'm afraid it's actual scientific support for the case that the news media, presumably owned by very conservative people, continuously offer a picture of Canada, and Alberta, at wide variance to the actual truth.
It's hard to lie about ascertainable facts of programs, problems, crimes and costs. It's easy to lie about "feelings" - to promote the notion that certain solutions (or problems) are popular or unpopular, by just choosing news priorities, highlighting some stories, and giving minimal mention to others.
How did something like supervised consumption sites become labelled “progressive” in the first place, and opposition to these sites in favour of other models become “conservative”?
If I think supervised consumption sites are riddled with problems, based on the evidence, am I suddenly a “conservative”?
This shouldn’t be political. Let science and evidence lead the way.
It’s always been interesting that Calgarians have for years elected relatively liberal mayors. Nenshi now leads the NDP. Bronconnier was a former Liberal candidate federally. I believe Al Duerr was more of a liberal.