Americans have fewer TVs on average than they did in 2009

And the number of households with no TVs at all grew.


Source: Arstechnica.com
Megan Geuss
February 28, 2017

Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015, according to survey data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA).

The data comes from the agency’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which has been conducted periodically since the 1970s to understand American energy use. The 2015 survey included 5,600 respondents who were contacted in person and then given an option to follow up by mail or online. A fine-detail report on the survey results is due to be released in April 2017.

The latest data shows that in 2015, 2.6 percent of households had no TV at all, a jump from the previous four surveys in 2009, 2005, 2001, and 1997 in which a steady 1.2 to 1.3 percent of households didn’t own a TV. The 2015 data also showed that the number of people with three TVs or more dropped in 2015. That year, 39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009.

Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

The EIA doesn’t go into what has caused this shift, but it does note that “younger households tend to have a lower concentration of televisions per person and a higher concentration of portable devices such as laptops and smartphones. Older households are more likely to have higher concentrations of desktop computers.” (Anecdotally, the Ars staff seems to agree that having one or two really nice TVs for family viewing as well as auxiliary devices for streamed media is preferable to having several just-okay TVs.)

The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption. According to the EIA, about 6 percent of all electricity consumption in US homes comes from TVs, cable boxes, DVRs, video game consoles, and other peripheral equipment.

As TVs get bigger and higher in resolution, they can demand a lot more electricity, too. Last September, the Natural Resources Defense Council hired a third-party research firm to study TV energy use and found that several TV manufacturers were building their TVs to narrowly pass federal energy use tests, while consuming much more electricity if any of the TVs’ baseline settings were changed.

Read More at: ArsTechnica.com

Harvard-Harris Poll: Majority says mainstream media publishes fake news

TruthFact
Source: TheHill.com
Jonathan Easley
May 24, 2017

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.

According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

That number includes 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.

“Much of the media is now just another part of the partisan divide in the country with Republicans not trusting the ‘mainstream’ media and Democrats seeing them as reflecting their beliefs,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn. “Every major institution from the presidency to the courts is now seen as operating in a partisan fashion in one direction or the other.”

President Trump has railed against the “fake news” media, casting the press as the “opposition party” and opening the White House to once-fringe outlets, to the frustration of the mainstream press.

The president’s critics have accused him of using the “fake news” moniker for any story that casts him in a negative light.

Many conservatives believe the media has dramatically loosened its reporting standards when it comes to Trump, taking an anything-goes approach and running with anonymously sourced material that it would never print about a more traditional Republican or Democratic administration.

A cottage industry of conservative media critics has sprung up online to draw attention to the salacious details about Trump that spread across social media or are aggregated countless times before they’re revealed to be mischaracterized or untrue.

The net affect is that Trump’s image, and public trust in the media, are at all-time lows.

Trump’s job approval rating is at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval in the latest Harvard-Harris survey. Gallup’s annual survey on public trust in the media — conducted before the election — found that only 32 percent trusted the press.

However, the Harvard-Harris survey found that 60 percent of all voters believe Trump is treating the press unfairly. Only 48 percent said the media is treating Trump unfairly.

“Voters show concern about direct attacks on the media by the president even when they have questions about it,” Penn said.

The Trump administration has been dogged by an unprecedented string of government leaks in recent weeks that have played out in the major newspapers, including media stories about the president asking fired FBI Director James Comey to pull back from an investigation and another about how he revealed classified information about a terrorist plot to Russian diplomats during an Oval Office meeting.

At hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, former CIA director John Brennan and director of national intelligence Dan Coats expressed deep concerns with the leaks, which were printed in the New York Times and Washington Post, respectively.

Seventy-four percent of voters say the leaks are a serious matter that should be investigated, including 84 percent of Democrats.

However, 62 percent say that journalistic organizations that publish information — even if it is received illegally, through hacking — should be protected by law.

“It is very clear in the poll that overwhelming majorities of the country take leaks and potential political unmasking of members of the Trump campaign in wiretapped conversations merit full and even independent investigation,” Penn said.

The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 3 percent other. The poll uses a methodology that doesn’t produce a traditional margin of error.

The Harvard–Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard-Harris throughout 2017. Full poll results will be posted online later this week.

Read More At: TheHill.com

Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH

Image: Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH
Source: NaturalNews.com
Tracey Watson
May 18, 2017

Let me start out by saying that I have no political agenda. Like most of you, I’m just a regular, straight-down-the-middle person living my life. That said, I am open-minded and believe that getting different perspectives and listening to many viewpoints is important in shaping my own views. The world would be a bleak place, indeed, if we were all forced to accept only one side of any given equation. And yet, that is what we are increasingly being bullied into doing, as evidenced recently by the totally over-the-top reaction by many to filmmaker Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill.

In the movie, Jaye, an investigative journalist and self-proclaimed feminist, decided to go down the rabbit hole of the Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) movement, described by Urban Dictionary as “an organization of men and their women allies who draw attention to the ways in which misandry (anti-male attitudes and actions) and gynocentrism (women-privileging) harm men.”

The film sets out to examine what MRAs really stand for, what they believe they’re fighting for, and what their attitudes really are towards women.

In spite of the movie’s huge commercial success, Netflix has refused to air it. In theaters in Canada, Australia and the U.S., feminists have come out en masse to protest viewings, and independent theaters have been under huge pressure not to show it. [Related: Discover what else they don’t want you to see at Censored.news.]

CBC News recently reported that theater patrons and sponsors in Canada have threatened to stop doing business with theaters that dare to go ahead with scheduled screenings.

Gavin McInnes of Rebel Media calls this type of pressure “economic terrorism,” and makes the interesting point that many of the people who protested so vehemently against the film have never even seen it.

McInnes argues that many recent documentaries have been very biased toward one particular viewpoint, and some like An Inconvenient Truth, have been scientifically flawed and totally one-sided, yet have been accepted as fact and allowed to mold the thinking of many.

On the other hand, with The Red Pill, Cassie Jaye does “what true journalists should do,” she insists. “You set out with no agenda and you don’t end up where you thought you would.”

And judging by the content of the trailer, that is just what Jaye does. While providing the perspective of the MRAs, and highlighting some of their most pressing issues, she also speaks to prominent feminist activists and journalists to get their take on those issues.

The interviews Jaye conducts for the documentary highlight issues like men having virtually no rights when it comes to custody disputes, and the fact that if a woman should decide to abort her baby, her spouse or partner would have no say in the matter. The documentary also highlights the fact that 93 percent of workplace fatalities affect men, and that 4 out of 5 suicides are men. [Related: Men have to pay more at the pharmacy now as a “gender inequality tax”.]

As one of the interviewees notes, men are suffering, but, “Society doesn’t want to hear their pain. We value female life more than we value male life.”

Dr. Warren Farrell refers to a “big hole in the area of compassion for boys and men,” and Paul Elam, president and founder of A Voice for Men, notes that the anti-men message is a subtle subtext in statements like “stop violence against women,” rather than simply, “stop all violence.”

In her video diary, Jaye looks really confused and says she’s unsure if the MRAs are simply “duping” her to convince her of their out-there theory that “men are discriminated against, and women have the advantage.”

The trailer also shows her listening to many feminist voices, including that of Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who insists that it is indisputable that women are still oppressed physically, financially and economically, and that in the political and business halls of power, men are advantaged over women.

All in all, the trailer certainly depicts a balanced, thought-provoking documentary that shows both sides of the issue. It’s hard to understand what all the furor is about. But then, perhaps Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men summed it up best when he said, “We just don’t seem to respect each other for who we are.”

Watch the documentary, and decide for yourself.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Mainstream media conspiring with Google to rig all search results and silence dissenting views… Google becomes “Fake Search”

Image: Mainstream media conspiring with Google to rig all search results and silence dissenting views… Google becomes “fake search”
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jason Veley
March 18, 2017

What does Google have in common with traditionally liberal news networks like MSNBC, ABC and CNN? On the surface, nothing much at all – the former is an Internet search engine and the latter are a couple of national broadcasting corporations with political hosts and commentators. If you dig a little deeper, however, it becomes clear that both the search engine and the liberal news networks have something in common after all, and it has to do with a vicious assault on the freedom of speech.

Last month, it was revealed that Google was going to begin tagging articles that come up in search results as either true or false. The effort, as the company explains, is meant to curtail the amount of inaccurate information, or “fake news,” being spread around the Internet. “With thousands of new articles published online every minute of every day, the amount of content confronting people online can be overwhelming,” Cong Yu of Google and Justin Kosslyn from fact-check partner Jigsaw said in a joint statement. “And unfortunately, not all of it is factual or true, making it hard for people to distinguish fact from fiction.” (RELATED: Google rewrites algorithm to manually crush independent media because mainstream media’s lies can’t compete with the truth on a level playing field.)

The Internet search engine’s fight against fake news was first confirmed in a BBC News interview with Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, just days after the presidential election. “There have been a couple of incidences where… we didn’t get it right,” Pichai explained, referring to the spread of fake news across the search engine platform. “It is a learning moment for us and we will definitely work to fix it.”

Like adding fuel to a raging fire, the mainstream media indirectly assists Google in the quest to purge fake news from the Internet by constantly talking about it. If you think about it, the term “fake news” was really first introduced by the media and certain cable news networks during the presidential election. Even today, they continue to urge all of us to be wary of fake news, and insist that something must be done to curtail it. In this way, the media and Google work together as a machine, of sorts, with liberal networks providing the fuel and Google turning the gears.

While the spread of false information is certainly not something that should be encouraged, the real problem here is how one defines fake news, and who is defining it. Indeed, what may be considered fake news to a liberal may be considered real and legitimate to someone who is more conservative. When Google says that it is going to begin flagging articles that appear in search results and label them as either true or false, the immediate questions that should be asked are, one, what methods are used in their fact checking, and two, who specifically is verifying the information behind closed doors?

The thing about progressivism is that it works in a very slow, incremental fashion. While today liberals and Google may claim to only be targeting fringe websites such as white nationalist blogs or articles advocating anti-Semitism, tomorrow they could very well be targeting more traditional sites like the right-leaning Breitbart.com, Conservative Review or Fox News.

As any constitutionalist or liberty-loving American will tell you, this is absolutely an assault on the freedom of speech. Google and the mainstream media have essentially worked together to set in motion a national constitutional crisis, which they will continue to tell us is in our best interest because after all, they’re only trying to make sure that you get factual information. This is how modern day liberals operate – by telling us that all of these changes are for the good of the people, when in reality they are nothing but detrimental.

Perhaps we should begin calling Google “fake search,” since they seem to be so interested in purging the Internet of anything that is false or illegitimate.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Strategic-Culture.org

BBC.com

Mainstream Media Publication Boston Herald calls for government-run execution squads to MASS MURDER naturopaths, scientists and journalists who oppose mercury in immunizations


Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
March 12, 2017

In the latest lunatic, insane example of “vaccine rage” now being pushed by the criminal vaccine industry and its corporate-run media prostitutes, the Boston Herald’s entire editorial staff has openly called for what are essentially government-run execution squads to mass murder scientists, naturopaths, chiropractors and journalists who question the safety of injecting children with mercury, a brain-damaging toxin still found in flu shot vaccines administered to children and expectant mothers.

Expressing any concern at all about the toxic, brain-damaging ingredients in vaccines “ought to be a hanging offense,” says the entire Boston Herald editorial staff in this shockingly violent article which espouses the murder of naturopathic physicians and scientists such as myself. According to the Boston herald, we should all be hanged to death after being identified and rounded up.

It is precisely this kind of genocidal, “journo-terrorism” rhetoric that typifies the vaccine industry, which revels in the mass murder of black babies who are disproportionately impacted by vaccine-autism risks, according to the CDC’s own scientist Dr. William Thompson.

“In what can only be described as irresponsible and dangerous hate speech, someone from the editorial staff at the Boston Herald suggested, in an article published on their site on Monday, that ANYONE suggesting people research vaccines and their safety, or caution others about them, should be …HANGED TO DEATH,” reports Health Nut News.

With their call for the mass murder of naturopaths, journalists and scientists, the Boston Herald demonstrates the dangerous mental illness that’s actually caused by vaccines themselves — I’ve dubbed this brain damage disease “Vaccine Rage” — due to the continued use of brain-damaging metals like aluminum and mercury in vaccines, which the CDC confirms are deliberately formulated into vaccines injected into children. Thanks for the effects of Vaccine Rage, the Boston Herald’s editorial staff has now devolved into a murderous nest of domestic terrorists who are openly an unabashedly calling for the government to run execution squads that target the very people seeking to protect children from vaccine violence.

Natural News has already contacted the Boston Police and will soon be filing a detailed criminal complaint with the Boston FBI.

Vaccine Rage is a new mental disorder among vaccine violence victims who seek to murder anyone who isn’t vaccinated

What the Boston Herald lunatics are demonstrating is a serious mental disorder that I’ve dubbed “Vaccine Rage.” This disorder describes individuals who have been victims of vaccine violence — literally brain-damaged by mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde — who then seek to commit acts of terrorism and violence against anyone who hasn’t been damaged yet by vaccines. This zombie-like behavior is actually a mental illness epidemic because it spreads from one person to another as people are forced to be vaccinated, causing them to suffer from the same Vaccine Rage that their friends display.

Victims of vaccine violence become enraged because of the effect that heavy metals exhibit on human neurology. The scientific literature provides overwhelming evidence that heavy metals are not just linked to violence but also to autism. For example, a study published in Biological Trace Element Research summarized in this Science Daily article reveals that toxic metals are linked to a significantly higher incidence of autism in children. Another scientific study published in Environment International reveals that childhood exposure to lead dust causes extreme violence — including aggravated assault — decades later.

Boston Herald’s editors…

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.