Say anything you need so as to get re-elected. Divide people against others based on anything available, race, gender, sex, religion…all the taboo subjects at Thanksgiving dinner. I’m just talking about the media. The candidates will need to step up their lying to the level of newscasters and reporters. Oh, I just remembered the woke factor. A topic capable of ruining everything it touches.
It doesn’t end in November either. With recounts, lawsuits and new levels of cheating, there is no telling how long it will be.
2024 will be right around the corner so this cycle may not end.
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.
Russiagate
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.
AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File
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.
Covid
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.
Rittenhouse
“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.
This is a good news site for those that want to skip the lies and bias of the MSM, link here.
I don’t know about you, but I gave up trusting the alphabet news services on either side. They all have an agenda. I decided to go to sites not bought off by a political party.
There isn’t sensationalism here, but I get a good cross section of what is going on that others won’t cover.
I have a lot of sources and will link to them over time. This is one I’ve followed for years and am ok with.
If you look at the Bad Blue top 20 tweets, I get some of my sarcasm material there.
I was made aware of her when she left CBS when her computer was hacked by the FBI/DOJ, and she wouldn’t stand for it. She currently is in mid-trial against them and I’m on her side. (Link here to her site)
Why I follow her is that she is actually independent in her views. Any post that have written that has the tag MSM shows my contempt for the press, their bias and lack of journalistic skills. They have become the propaganda tool for political parties. Note, I don’t excuse Fox News either because they have been on an island for their views, but still are not unbiased. The rest are fully ensconced on the left.
I also have been clear about my respect for those who write well. She is among them. She also has established an independent online show and podcast. Disclosure: I follow her blog and podcast.
I spent my career working with TV, Radio, print and online journalists. There are very few that I ended with any respect once they made their bias known.
Just to prove that she is a better writer than me, here is an excerpt from her book, Slanted.
The five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter and New York Times bestselling author of Stonewalled and The Smear uncovers how partisan bias and gullibility are destroying American journalism.
The news as we once knew it no longer exists. It’s become a product molded and shaped to suit the narrative. Facts that don’t fit are omitted. Off-narrative people and views are controversialized or neatly deposited down the memory hole. Partisan pundits, analysts and anonymous sources fill news space leaving little room for facts. The line between opinion and fact has disappeared.
In Slanted, Sharyl Attkisson reveals with gripping detail the struggles inside newsrooms where journalism used to rule. For the first time, dozens of current and former top national news executives, producers and reporters give insider accounts, speaking with shocking candor about their industry’s devolution.
For those who understand how hard it is to write well, I encourage you to go to read her work. It is a breath of fresh air in the cesspool of what is journalism and the MSM are.
When I first started blogging in 2004, Glenn Reynolds or Instapundit was the the biggest game in town. I noticed that Don got a lot of attention by linking to him. I thought he was being contentious to gather a following, until I found out what he did for a living.
He was a reporter for a Newspaper in West Virginia, now retired. I won’t mention it because he’s said that he’s not all that fond of it.
What draws me to his writing is that it is good. It’s hard to write well. I can ramble on and take forever to make a point, but Surber gets to it with wit and pithiness that I admire.
I love his Highlights of the News and his commentary of it. I’ve read it for a long time now. He doesn’t pontificate, yet makes his point with the summary that he presents.
Hopefully, I’ll one day be able to get my style somewhere in the ballpark of Surber, but I doubt it.
I don’t expect him to mention or follow me. It doesn’t matter.
I was most happy for him when the greatest radio host of all time called him out last year. That is an accolade to take to your grave and I’m glad it happened to him.
People only see what they are prepared to see. – Ralph Waldo Emerson
I’m not going to get political here because I think people should make up their own minds. Most already have. The problem with the MSM and Social Media is that you can confirm you bias, no matter what it is by going to what sources you feel comfortable to read. That is your filter.
What I do think is that the actual smart people will have an open mind to both sides of any situation and look at the facts and ask questions. We should challenge what is out there every time there is a “major issue” to see what the real answers are.
It takes time and you will have to have an open mind, but coming to the right conclusion instead of viewing a situation through the filter of what someone else says is the way to truth.
This is not easy. What is easy is to fall back to your usual sources and just believe and regurgitate what is being said.
Take off the filter and evaluate like a detective. Come to the right conclusion based on facts, not feelings or especially on what someone else said.
“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.”
-Douglas Adams
I worked with the press/media for 3+ decades. I know they don’t write the correct story and at best it is partially true. It is also biased one way or another depending on the publication.
It seems these days that all we get is bad news. There is an old saying for news outlets, “If it bleeds it reads”. There is also the sex sells and others that are the same.
It might be best to not look at the news very much right now, at least until the election is over.
My other piece of advice is to not just read (if you have to) things that confirm your bias. It won’t really inform you although it could make you feel better than what you don’t agree with.
The MSM isn’t going to write anything good or unbiased right now. If you know that going into it, you can treat it with the (dis)respect it deserves. Also, don’t even pretend to get proper information from social media. You’ll drive yourself and others crazy.
“Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear the better.”
-George Santayana
Over the years, we’ve found ways to skip ads. We record shows and fast forward through them to watch what we want.
Lately, I’ve been skipping the news because I’m sick of the biased reporting, from either side of the story.
Advertising somehow makes having hemorrhoids, toe fungus, yellow teeth and bad breath seem better. All of it at the cost of the fast speaker at the end telling you all of the things that will harm you when you use the cure they are selling.
The news tells you all the harm that is happening to you to make you feel worse. So advertisements during the news hour is a recipe for depression or anger.
I hope all of this crap is just the result of it being an election year and will go away after November. Unfortunately, since they’ve already gotten rid of Brian Williams, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer, Katy Couric and the rest of the losers and the news still sucks it probably won’t.
I just don’t watch now and I feel better. Tell me when it changes.
Everyone has both. Some choose one over the other. Most mesh the two together.
The difficulty in this day of being barraged by social media and a 24/7/365 news hype cycle is that you can choose to go with your bias and only see one side of any story. This is dangerous regardless of which side you view it from.
Don’t believe the scare tactics of the money hustlers who rush people into a position like sheep herders trying to corral the flock into group think. The tactic is shame for not subjugating yourself to the PC position of the day.
It takes courage to step out and stand for what is right, especially in the start of a crisis or an event in time. This requires critical thinking as to discovery of the real facts and applying the necessary logic to come to the right conclusion. It also can take time. The media and politicians will try to rush us into judgement based on opinion.
As they said in Watergate, follow the money and you’ll usually see through those who are self-serving.
Most of all, don’t be a sheep. Think for yourselves and don’t take anything you read online as gospel, except for the Gospel.
Sooner or later, time exposes the truth. Whether you want to believe it or not is now up to you.
I’ve worked with the media for decades. There is nothing independent, nor objective about them, all of them. Comments are welcome if you can show consistent examples of the opposite.
“I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.” – Thomas Jefferson
I don’t subscribe to the newspaper anymore, but I got one this morning. I’m sure that it was a teaser to try to get me to subscribe. Upon reading it, I realized I already knew everything in the paper except the local high school football scores from games after I went to bed.
A DYING MODEL
The subscription rates to newspapers are dying, not even a slow death. Similarly, the evening news is also a dinosaur. They report what we knew as much as a full day before.
I am on twitter and read blogs all day long. I occasionally go to the news sites, but as I discuss below, their bias (I hold both left and right guilty equally here) usually makes me fact check what I’m trying to find out which defeats the purpose of fact-finding, especially if it involves politics. That subject is pretty much unavoidable these days.
Nevertheless, I enjoy many other subjects which you could read about it on other blog entries if you have nothing better to do, and I find good information about them that is interesting and INSTANT.
I’m a boomer, although a technically savvy one having been in the IT industry all my life. The Gen X,Y, millennials, and whomever follows them demand even more instantaneous everything virtually dooming the news model of our prior generation. Thank you Internet.
THE END OF THE BASTIONS OF NEWS
We have establish that we are now used to getting information instantaneously. The other reason that the model is dying is that they are biased. This is ok if you are a neo-con or a loony lefty, but for everyone else (the other 80% given 10% on the edges of left and right) we don’t trust them anymore.
Once, these two sources were the basis of our world and local information. Besides being static rather than dynamic, they also have stopped being factual sources of information, rather they are partisan, with Fox on one side and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA TImes, Reuters, AP, HuffPo, Local News, Local Papers and most other news sources on the other side of issues. All are positioned in a place that position the facts from a point of view. Some of them blatantly lie. Reporting was supposed to be the facts of the story that let the reader make up their mind on their position.
We’ve actually learned that the news has been biased for at least as long as there has been television, we just didn’t have the instant fact checking that the internet and the other sources have provided.
There is a joke from Bernie Goldberg that said if they had been reporting on Moses at Mt. Sinai, the headline would read “Moses get the 10 Commandments from God, and here are the two that we think are important to you”.
Walter Cronkite said that the Viet Nam war was lost during the time that we were winning. LBJ said that if he’d lost Cronkite, he’d lost America. We’ve since learned that the then “most trusted man in America” was also one of the most biased.
LIFE MOVES ON
Other things have died and we have lived and moved on. Black and white TV, network only channels vs. cable TV and landline phones vs. mobile (cell for those in the US) phones. Such is the fate of newspapers and TV network news. Here is just one fact concerning the NYT declining rates. I’m sure you could find somewhere that their subscriptions are increasing, but this would seem deceitful given the nature of digital delivery.
So am I disturbed by this trend? Actually I didn’t even notice it until I saw the paper in my yard this morning. I haven’t subscribed for news in many years (note: I get the Sunday paper for the coupons as long as they pay for the 1 day delivery – my sister calls me a tightwad but it leads to becoming this).
I get my news from the above stated sources and know more about what is going on than the anchors have time to present in their biases manner.
Delusions of Adequacy 