If you think you will get the correct story of what is going on from the mainstream media, think again, especially lately.
They’ve always had a biased point of view, but at least they tried to hide it from us. Let’s go through a couple of examples of their lying and behavior.
If you don’t know about my point of view, I’ve worked with the media for decades. They tell some, part or none of the real story depending on what works for their agenda. I lost my trust years ago and stopped watching the traditional news of any alphabet (all of them, left or right) and dig for details from those who give the truth. Sometimes I know as it is the opposite of what is reported, like the following.
From WND, Those who perpetuated the Russia collusion deception – and this means editors and pundits, not only reporters – still hold premier jobs in political media. Many, in fact, have been rewarded with better gigs. Is anyone at the Washington Post or New York Times going to return a Pulitzer? Is anyone going to explain how multiple alleged independent sources regularly buttressed the central fabulistic claim of the dossier? Journalism is ostensibly about transparency and truth, yet not one of these sentinels of democracy has explained how they were supposedly fooled for years, exhibiting not a modicum of skepticism – one of the most vital components of good journalism. When asked by Axios about the Steele dossier, the two outlets that churned out some of the most sensationalistic and conspiratorial content of the Trump era, CNN and MSNBC, wouldn’t even comment.
The New York Times appears less forthcoming. In one piece taking on this new development, Bill Grueskin looks into how the media managed to play this entire story in so wrong of a fashion, but the level of introspection is lacking. The Times had been at the forefront of the reporting, and two of the reporters from that piece — Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo — were part of the team of journalists from the Times and the Post who were granted the Pulitzer Prize for coverage on the dossier and the ensuing fabricated scandal.
Grueskin hits on many of the elements that prodded the press to keep hounding the story. Obviously, the sheer contempt for Trump by the news industry was the motivator, but there were plenty of justifications to keep the momentum going. Denials from a man they dubbed a serial liar were viewed as practically the same as confirmation, and those covering the story were being lauded and rewarded, either with circulation and ratings, or awards.
Then there was the shift in acceptable standards to keep the story alive; instead of verifying things, the lack of contradictory evidence was regarded as proof. Rachael Maddow famously said, “Some elements of the dossier have been verified. A number remain neither verified nor proven false, but none so far have been publicly disproven.”
Going back in history first, here are some corrections/retractions just published to
lies stories told years ago:
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story published March 30, 2017, referred to previous reporting in The Washington Post that Belarusan-American businessman Sergei Millian had been a source of information for a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump. In November 2021, The Post removed that material from the original 2017 story after the account was contradicted by allegations in a federal indictment and undermined by further reporting. References to the initial report have been removed from this piece.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story published Nov. 17, 2017, referred to previous reporting in The Washington Post that Belarusan-American businessman Sergei Millian had been a source of information for a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump. In November 2021, The Post removed that material from the original 2017 story after the account was contradicted by allegations in a federal indictment and undermined by further reporting. References to the initial report have been removed from this piece.
Nothing has been more speciously covered with blatant lies that Covid and the vaccine. Death counts are so overstated that you’d thing it was the next Black plague. Over 99% of people survive it, probably more than those who survive the vaccine, another lie.
Chilling new data about the COVID-19 vaccine has just come to light, and it proves that people were right to be skeptical of the jabs all along.
The official European Union database of suspected drug reaction website has revealed that as of November 13, there were 30,551 fatalities and 1,163,356 adverse drug reactions from COVID vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca.
The European Medicines Agency stated that the adverse reaction data from COVID-19 shots were posted in an ADRreports.eu portal that “allows users to view the total number of individual suspected side effect reports (also known as Individual Case Safety Reports, or ICSRs).”
- Data suggest 1 in 317 boys aged 16 to 17 will get myocarditis from the COVID shots, and after a third booster, that number may be even higher
- VAERS reporting is likely underreported by a factor of 41. Since there are over 8,000 domestic deaths reported to VAERS, and 98% of those deaths are “excess deaths,” this suggests that as many as 300,000 Americans may have died from the COVID shots thus far
- Calculations based on government data from 35% of the world’s population suggest we’re killing approximately 411 people per million doses on average. Moderna and Pfizer are both two-dose regimens, which pushes this to 822 deaths per million fully vaccinated. And that’s just the short-term mortality. We still have no concept of how these shots might impact mortality and morbidity in the longer term
- An Italian investigation found that if the COVID mortality definition were changed to only include those cases where there were no preexisting comorbidities, the mortality from COVID comes out to just 2.9% of the overall reported number. This suggests that if a COVID death was redefined to being a death actually “from” COVID rather than “with” COVID, the death count could be substantially smaller than 760,000 deaths and may be smaller than the number killed by the vaccines
- The deadliest vaccine ever made is the smallpox vaccine, which killed 1 in 1 million vaccinated people. The COVID shots kills 822 per million fully vaccinated, making it more than 800 times deadlier than the deadliest vaccine in human history
According to multiple independent analyses summarized here, the death rate from the COVID vaccines used in the US is at least 400 deaths per million doses. That’s 800 deaths per million fully vaccinated.
That makes the COVID vaccines the new leader by a long shot: the most dangerous vaccine ever created in history. They are 800X more dangerous than the smallpox vaccine with respect to death, and over 25X worse with respect to permanent disability (since the permanent disability rates are 10% higher than the death rate as you can see from the OpenVAERS redbox summary for US reports).
According to Offit, this rate of death and disability is unacceptable. I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been calling for a halt to these vaccines since May 25, 2021 when I wrote this very long article for TrialSiteNews summarizing what I found after 3 weeks of intensive research.
Fast forward to the present. Offit voted to approve these same vaccines for kids at the October 26 VRBPAC meeting because he refuses to look at the safety analysis (done using 8 different data sources). Offit thinks nobody has died or been permanently disabled by these vaccines. What does he think caused all those VAERS reports? I wish I could ask him that question. He doesn’t think there is a single death caused by the vaccine. That’s impossible. The VAERS data shows that virtually all the deaths in VAERS are excess deaths. If the vaccine didn’t cause those deaths, what did?
Nobody at the FDA, CDC, or on the committees has figured out that the COVID vaccines are 800X more deadly than the former record holder. I’m pretty sure I’m the first one to figure this out.
Why won’t Offit debate my team of vaccine experts?
Annual Lobbying on Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
These are just a few examples, but they are lying to coverup, lobby politically or ideologically and are on the take for money from the pharma’s.
“Much of the coverage at the beginning was wrong,” he told “Banfield” host Ashleigh Banfield, who previously worked for CNN, Sunday. “The trial proved that.”
Richards, Rittenhouse lawyer mentioned outlets like CNN and MSNBC who blatantly spread misinformation, such as MSNBC host Joe Scarborough detailing that Rittenhouse shot his firearm 60 times.
Another false claim fueled by the media was that Rittenhouse’s firearm possession was illegal, while multiple media outlets also inaccurately reported that Rittenhouse illegally crossed state lines with his rifle. In reality, the AR-15 he used during the riot was already at a friend’s house in Kenosha.
“That’s wrong,” he said. “When I hear some guest host on Joy Reid say my client drove four hours to go to a riot with his AR, that’s wrong. It’s false.”
“And it makes me angry that they can’t take the time to at least get the generic, basic facts correct because it didn’t fit in the story they wanted to tell.”
Richards explained that he would not normally give guidance as a criminal lawyer for Rittenhouse to take civil action in suing networks for defamation, even though the 18-year-old has been advised by other professionals to do so. No actions were filed by Rittenhouse while represented by Richards.
“When I got involved in this case and there were a couple of other prominent lawyers who were involved and trying to make some calls and I said, ‘Look, all of your riches and civil lawsuits are going nowhere if this kid is found guilty of anything,’” he said. “So let’s worry about what’s important.”
My advice is turn it off. At least don’t associate yourself with the liars who are on the take and don’t even pretend to care that they report the facts.
Educate yourself rather than be a sheep.