Does a newscast transmit the desired, politically correct, PC narrative? Does it effectively implant a false impression in the reader’s mind? Does it successfully cover-up or distort factually correct but “undesirable” facts?
Reprinted with permission from SINCERITY.net
Our obfuscation index measures the success of one single article or one news-cast in maintaining the PC narrative and obfuscating all counter-narrative facts.
Our Brainwashing index measures the long term result in terms of politically correct but objectively, scientifically false beliefs
We propose1 the [PC] obfuscation index2 to measure the extent to which media reporting covers up counter-narrative “racist” facts3 related to issue in discussion and thus distracts the reader’s mind from un-PC “racist” or “sexist” facts4.
This quantitative measure5 of disinformation is value-free:
- science minded free speech advocates find the obfuscation attempt disturbing: the omission of relevant true information with intent(?6) to deceive readers
- the PC media rejoice about obfuscation result, measurable beliefs induced by successfully implanting misinformation in the reader’s mind,
Our sample BBC article below successfully prevents the reader from knowing the following relevant, clearly uncontestable, facts
Continue at SINCERITY.net
- Please comment below if you know of other similar projects of quantification of mis-information. In spite of the nice looking name
GDI: Global disinformation index
this is part of the global PC disinformation, as can be easily seen here
- or cover-up index, or misinformation index
Scientific honesty requires to tell about alternative possibilities, interpretations, hypotheses.
Honesty: #1 necessity for a modern scientific society
Age of Enlightenment for Social Sciences Requires Scientific Honesty
Scientific Honesty & integrity compromised by PC racism taboo
Postmodernism: Denial of Objective Reality and of Facts is Dishonest
The Racism Exception to Civilized and Honest Behavior #1: Media …
We will not obsess if a fact is clearly proven, or just likely, or just a possibility. If the reporting omits an uncertain possibility, or totally obfuscates likely, or possible, events, it still is successful obfuscation.
Forbidden to mention negative facts about “minorities”, to avoid stirring up prejudices 
- this measure is not as concise as a natural science measure, because we need to agree upon a list of PC-“undesirable”-but-true facts
- the omission can be objectively shown, we will not be distracted and sidelined by arguments about “intent”
Forbidden to say anything negative about minorities, to avoid stirring up prejudices
It is not permissible to tell the whole truth. Journalists, police, teachers, every citizen, all are REQUIRED TO LIE: because the WHOLE TRUTH “stirs up prejudices against minorities”. For over half a century, we have eagerly embraced this gag order. “Black kills White” must not be uttered.
- Prejudice is correct, mostly:
Research on Stereotype accuracy shows that prejudice is frequently correct, and that humans evolved to be good intuitive statisticians
The AP Stylebook even requires Media to remove true facts about ethnicity of a criminal, as soon as the suspect gets apprehended.
“For suspects sought by the police or missing person cases using police or other credible, detailed descriptions. Such descriptions apply for all races. The racial reference should be removed when the individual is apprehended or found.” [Associated Press. The Associated Press Stylebook 2015 (p. 225). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.]