From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

UNESCO’s bills its new ‘training’ initiative as empowering participants to be more credible and resilient while simply turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism launch training courses, e-books, and surveys on disinformation and hate speech for influencers and content creators, big and small.

Last month, UNESCO published the results of a survey called “Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators” that concluded that among 500 content creators in 45 countries that had a minimum of 1,000 followers, 62 percent said they did “not carry out rigorous and systematic fact-checking of information prior to sharing it,” while 73 percent expressed “the wish to be trained to do so.”

And lo and behold! UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a re-education course to brainwash independent creators into thinking like unelected globalists and the legacy media, whose credibility are at an all-time low:

The journalism industry is on high alert as news audiences continue to migrate away from legacy media to social media, and many young people place more trust in TikTokers than journalists working at storied news outlets

“Respondents to the survey expressed interest in taking UNESCO’s free online course designed to equip participants with media and information literacy skills and knowledge,” the report states.

To get an idea of the make-up of those 500 content creators that were surveyed in the UNESCO study:

• 68 percent were nano-influencers – those with 1,000 to 10,000 followers
• 25 percent were micro-influencers – those with 10,000 to 100,000 followers
• 4 percent were macro-influencers – those with 100,000 to 1,000,000 followers
• 6 percent were mega-influencers – those with over 1,000,000 followers

Only 12.2 percent of the 500 people surveyed produced content under the category of “current affairs/politics and economy” while the majority covered “fashion/lifestyle” (39.3 percent), “beauty” (34 percent), “travel and food” (30 percent), and “gaming” (29 percent).

Equip yourself to combat online misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and harmful AI content. Collaborate with fellow journalists and content creators to promote transparency and accountability on digital platforms, empowering your audience with the media and information literacy skills they need to navigate today’s information landscape.

In addition to the survey and the online course called “Digital Content Creators and Journalists: How to Be a Trusted Voice Online,” UNESCO and the Knight Center also published an e-book in October called “Content Creators and Journalists: Redefining News and Credibility in the Digital Age.”

This pyramid of propaganda is billed as empowering influencers to be more credible and resilient, but these efforts are also aimed at turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

Despite their expanding outreach, many digital content creators who work independently face significant challenges including the lack of institutional support, guidance, and recognition. — UNESCO, Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators, November 2024

How can an independent content creator remain independent if he or she needs institutional support, guidance, and recognition?

This is an attempt by the United Nations to take independence away from the equation, so that its messaging becomes indistinguishable from mainstream, establishment narratives.

And between the survey and the e-book, there is not one, single, solitary example of disinformation or hate speech – save perhaps the claim that denying official climate change narratives is considered disinformation, but that’s highly debatable.

Threats to collective climate action are often perpetuated not only by individual creators but by industries, like fossil fuels, that actively shape public discourse to their advantage.

Speaking of climate change, the e-book contains a lengthy chapter called “Content Creators and Climate Change” that is entirely dedicated to pushing climate activism while claiming climate change disinformation is often perpetuated by coordinated campaigns from fossil fuel industries.

The UNESCO documents place heavy emphasis on disclosing who’s funding content creators while ignoring its partner, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP), and its alleged influence over UNESCO:

The Chinese Communist Party uses UNESCO to “rewrite history” and to “legitimize the party’s rule over regions with large ethnic minorities.”

When held to a mirror, UNESCO comes off as little more than hypocritical with massive conflicts of interests of its own:

One of the biggest ethical questions is knowing from where content creators derive their income.

At the same time, UNESCO points readers towards organizations like factcheck.org, which itself is funded by the likes of the U.S. State Department and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the latter of which holds approximately $2 billion of stock in COVID vaccine manufacturer J&J, according to U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie.

In January 2021, UNESCO, the WHO, UNDP, EU, and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas ran a similar type of propaganda campaign for so-called COVID vaccine disinformation training for journalists as they are now doing for so-called climate change disinformation for content creators.

Another goal of UNESCO and the Knight Center is to create an environment where content creators snitch on one another under the guise of “hate speech”:

Among those targeted by hate speech, most chose to ignore it (31.5%). Only one-fifth (20.4%) reported it to social media platforms. This indicates an area where UNESCO and its partners could provide valuable training for digital content creators on how to effectively address and report hate speech.

In other words, the U.N. is partnering with journalists to teach influencers how to become victims that need protection.

Hey! Content creators. Were you aware that any criticism against the propaganda that we’ve planted within you means that you were a victim of hate speech? No? Well, climb on board and let’s “effectively address and report hate speech!”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

From LifeSiteNews

By Alex Schadenberg of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2023, Canada recorded over 15,300 euthanasia deaths, with disabilities, poverty, and loneliness driving decisions. Assisted suicide represented 4.7 percent of all deaths in Canada last year.

On February 6, 2024, after obtaining the euthanasia data from Alberta, Ontario, and Québec, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published an article stating that there were approximately 15,300 euthanasia (MAiD) deaths in Canada in 2023.

On July 8, 2024 we published an article with links to the euthanasia data from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Québec. We again predicted that there were about 15,300 euthanasia deaths in 2023.

READ: Canadian seniors say they were offered euthanasia when faced with increased hospice costs

On December 11, 2024, Canada’s Ministry of Health released the Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying which indicates that there were 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths representing 4.7 percent of all deaths in 2023.

Why did Canada’s Ministry of Health wait until December 2024 to release the 2023 euthanasia data when the report essentially concerns numbers and data while lacking information on the actual reason for people wanting to be killed by euthanasia?

Interesting data in the report:

• Of the 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths: 95.9 percent were Track 1 deaths (the person was deemed to have a terminal condition); 4.1 percent were Track 2 deaths (the person was deemed as not having a terminal condition).
• People with disabilities accounted for 33.5 percent of the Track 1 euthanasia deaths and 58.3 percent of the Track 2 euthanasia deaths. In 2022, 27 percent of Canadians were people with one or more disabilities. People with disabilities are over-represented in Canada’s euthanasia statistics.
• 95.8 percent of those who died by euthanasia were Caucasian (White) while fewer than 1 percent were First Nations people. In 2022, 69.8 percent of Canadians euthanized were Caucasian and 5 percent were First Nations people.

What is happening in British Columbia, Ontario and Québec?

When analyzing the Fifth Annual Report we question, “What makes British Columbia, Ontario and Québec different than the rest of Canada?” In 2023, euthanasia deaths increased by 36.5 percent in Québec, 30.3 percent in Ontario, and 18 percent in British Columbia. When examining the data from the other seven provinces, the next highest rate of increase was Alberta with a 6.4 percent increase in euthanasia deaths.

Québec has the highest euthanasia rate with 5601 reported euthanasia deaths – this represents 7.3 percent of all deaths and 36.5 percent of all Canadian euthanasia deaths. Canada’s 2021 Census indicated that 23 percent of Canadians live in Québec.

We question the accuracy of the Québec euthanasia data. CBC Radio Canada reported on March 9, 2024, that the Québec government had reported that there were 5,686 reported euthanasia deaths in 2023, but the Fifth Annual report states 5,601.

The analysis of the Québec Commission on End-of-Life Care Eighth Annual Report (April 1, 2022 – March 30, 2023) by Amy Hasbrouck indicated that there were 190 euthanasia deaths that may not have been reported by the doctor or nurse practitioner who carried out the death. 190 unreported euthanasia deaths is serious.

Euthanasia for frailty was listed as a reason in 1,392 deaths, representing more than 9 percent of all euthanasia deaths. In 92 euthanasia deaths, frailty was listed as the only reason.

Euthanasia for chronic pain was listed as a reason in 933 deaths, with 23 of the deaths listing chronic pain as the only reason.

Euthanasia for dementia was listed as a reason in 241 deaths, with 106 of those deaths listing dementia as the only reason.

Similar to other jurisdictions, the reason for seeking euthanasia was highly oriented to the person’s social condition.

• 96 percent listed “Loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities,”
• 87 percent listed “Loss of ability to perform activities of daily living,”
• 70 percent listed “Loss of dignity,”
• 55 percent listed “Inadequate pain control.”

It is important to note that loneliness and isolation was listed in more than 21 percent of all euthanasia deaths representing more than 3,200 people.

People with disabilities should be concerned that more than 50 percent of those who died identified “loss of independence” and almost 50 percent listed being a perceived burden on family, friends, or care givers.

People with disabilities should also be concerned that “other conditions” was the highest identified factor for euthanasia. For people with disabilities, 46.2 percent of the Track 1 deaths were based on “other conditions” and 62.9 percent of the Track 2 deaths were based on “other conditions.” “Other conditions” is not further defined and indicates a serious concern with discrimination of people with disabilities.

We recognize another concern related to the difference in income levels for Track 1 and Track 2 euthanasia deaths. People who died by Track 2 euthanasia were more likely to have a lower income than the Track 1 deaths.

More analysis of the Fifth Annual Report needs to be done. The report includes more information than previous years’ reports but it does not examine why people are asking for euthanasia nor does it uncover deaths that may be outside of the parameters of the law.

In October 2024 the chief coroner of Ontario released a report from the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee reporting that between 2018 and 2023 there were euthanasia deaths driven by homelessness, fear, and isolation and that poor people are at risk of coercion, indicating that Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia. The data from the Ontario Death Review report indicates that in the reported time period there were at least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths and 25 percent of the euthanasia providers violated the law.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1).

The federal government needs to do a complete review of Canada’s experience with euthanasia.

Reprinted with permission from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.