Reuters springs to the defense of Greta Thunberg from a cruel attack by Vladimir Putin (though he did not attack her)

Note how Reuters casts a wholly reasonable point of disagreement as a stroke of cruelty, if not outright child abuse:
"I may disappoint you," Putin said at an energy forum in Moscow, "but I don't share the common excitement about thespeech by Greta Thunberg.
"No one has explained to Greta that the modern world is complex and different, and ... people in Africa or in manyAsian countries want to live at the same wealth level as in Sweden."

That point is, in fact, well-taken, and raises an important larger point about the "climate movement" under Greta'sinfluence (or the influence of the NGO that's backing her): i.e., its assumption that the problem isn't consumercapitalism, with its grotesque resource exhaustion and endless toxic waste, or the gigantic "carbon footprint"of the elites, or the US war machine. The problem, rather, is humanity itself (hence the movements nods toward"population control"), and its need for rational development—as in Africa.

Now, see how Reuters frames Putin's statement in its lede (below). To say that Putin thus "took aim at [the] teenage activist"—and to lump his point together with Trump's sarcastic tweet, and Canadian MP Maxime Bernier's calling her "mentally unstable"—is to erase his disagreement by portraying it as one more nasty shot at that poor girl, just as all views of Greta and her "movement" that aren't worshipful and/or euphoric are instantly rejected as "attacks" on her (and as "climate change denial" to boot).

Thus Greta's stardom is a stroke of propaganda genius, since it shuts down all critical discussion as abuse,driving countless liberals and progressives into fits of rage at any disagreements with—or any questionsraised about—the sudden, vague and panicky new "movement" catalyzed by Greta's image. 
For further critical perspective on the cult of Greta Thunberg pushed by "our free press," compare theendless gushing coverage of her "movement" with the total media blackout on the Yellow Vests, whosemanifesto offers some specific planks on how to save the planet. 

(See just below.)

MCM

http://frontnews.eu/news/en/42673/Yellow-vests-have-published-their-own-manifesto

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-thunberg/russias-putin-criticizes-greta-thunbergs-un-speech-idUSKBN1WH1FM?fbclid=IwAR3dCMAerQ3xuTIWXjjm05MQWMuNVg6-KFV2SvRdEnHr82fvPAF4_y3pIgw

Rwanda’s dissidents continue to be slaughtered under (US-backed) President Kagame (and “our free press” continues not to mention it)

https://blackagendareport.com/rwanda-murder-dissidents-continues-migrants-are-shipped?fbclid=IwAR21Y8EJbfkXCVauLnqxTVOCCYkjTOlCSrJ9jJ5Cfxr3hl5S7HlU9oe5XfQ

Greta Thunberg’s “climate movement” isn’t really hers, but a product of the dirtiest players on Earth (MUST-READ)

What I find most disquieting about this vast—and flagrant—propaganda drive spotlighting Greta Thunbergis the inability of so many savvy people to perceive that that's exactly what it is. 

That blindness reconfirms that it's always easy to spot propaganda that we don't agree with, but hard, if not impossible, to spot it when it tells you what you want to hear. 

MCM

George Soros is investing more—much more—in fossil fuels than in those “green” initiatives. How come? (2)

George Soros has invested over five times more in fossil fuels than he has in "green" initiatives. (See below.)

Why would that be? Here's a persuasive answer: