Tag: mainstream media

Why I Don’t Trust Legacy Media

During a bombshell Senate hearing last week, CIA officer, Jim Erdman III testified under oath that the CIA’s scientific analysts determined that the Covid pandemic started from a lab leak, but their scientific conclusions were hidden from Congress and the American public, in what Erdman called “a coverup.”

“Public policy would have been very different had the American public been made aware that a virus from a lab in China was going to serve as the foundation for an Emergency Use Authorization of mRNA products being mandated by the former administration,” Erdman said, questioning the validity of the Covid vaccine approval process.

Erdman also indicted Tony Fauci, the then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), for inserting himself into the Intelligence Community’s (IC) assessment of the Covid origins, on two documented occasions. In both instances, Fauci steered IC discussion toward a natural origin and away from declaring that the pandemic started from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which Fauci had funded via US government grants.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci influenced the IC’s analytic process and COVID origin’s findings by leveraging his position to ensure the IC consulted with a conflicted list of curated Subject Matter Experts (SME), public health officials, and scientists. This included the authors of the paper ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2’ and other public health experts and scientists who have been in his orbit for 20+ years, many of whom have and did receive funding from NIAID, as well as scientists working under IC contract. This contradicts Dr. Fauci’s 2024 testimony to Congress, when he answered ‘not to my knowledge’ when asked if he had briefed any intel agency concerning viral research.” 

— Testimony of James E. Erdman III before the US Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee

Such explosive charges—a CIA coverup, Fauci’s complicity, and the misguided approval of Covid vaccines—should have ignited a media inferno, instead we got a cold frost. No front-page headline from the New York Times, no angry Washington Post editorial, no story of horror from NPR. And frozen silence from Science Magazine, Nature, Scientific American, and The Atlantic. Not even an icy tweet.

Now why is that? The answer is rather obvious.

Keep reading

Ottawa builds ‘trusted news’ directory as Miller warns of ‘illegitimate’ media

The Carney government is funding a directory designed to help Canadians find local news they can trust, as Ottawa increasingly casts state-funded media as a defence against disinformation and threats to “social cohesion.”

According to Access to Information records obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Canadian Heritage is funding researchers to build a “comprehensive, regularly updated Canadian local news directory.”

“The information will help policymakers and others make more data-informed decisions about where interventions are needed and will help people struggling to find local news they can trust,” said an April 26 departmental memo.

The three-year project is being compiled by researchers at Toronto Metropolitan, Laval and Concordia universities. Canadian Heritage had spent $100,000 on the initiative at the time of the records, while the total budget was redacted.

The memo said the directory would reflect “qualified journalism organizations,” a Canada Revenue Agency designation used in determining eligibility for federal journalism tax measures.

Keep reading

Whoopi Goldberg of ‘The View’ Campaigns for Democrats in the Midterms: ‘Our Lives Literally Depend on This’

The View came back from a summer hiatus this week and dove head first into campaigning for the Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

Among the conversations on the show today were, invoking the 25th Amendment on President Trump, and voting for the Democrats because, according to host Whoopi Goldberg, ‘our lives literally depend on this.’

This type of open electioneering for one side is why The View has come under a microscope with the FCC. ABC News is not supposed to do this, but they allow The View to do it all the time.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

BEHAR: Let me ask you, you say the emperor had no clothes what if he took all his clothes off?

FARAH GRIFFIN: People would tell him he looks great and he’s in great shape.

BEHAR: If he took all his clothes off and started running around the pool. Would they get him out then?

HOSTIN: 25th Amendment!

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: All of these things, all of these things are in our hands.

BEHAR: Vote, vote.

GOLDBERG: This is what we can tell you, if you want to see change, you got to make the change. It doesn’t matter your color. It doesn’t matter if your a Democrat or Republican, if you want change, you got to get out there and make it happen.

Keep reading

Thomas Jefferson Warned Us About the Media

We all know that the American “mainstream,” “corporate” media cannot be trusted. Well, they can be trusted to always Polly-parrot the Democratic Party’s talking points, thus they can be trusted to lie, be dishonest, corrupt, and always wrong. They are the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, just as Joseph Goebbels’ media was the propaganda wing of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. It is unfailingly the case that today’s media never supports the conservative, Christian, godly, pro-traditional American perspective. They are as evil as Democrats, because they are Democrats, and religiously so.

Apparently, in American history, media bias has always been a problem. Thomas Jefferson wrote that, in his day:

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” (Letter to John Norvell on June 11, 1807)

Nothing the media says can be trusted. Even on the rare occasions when they tell the truth, Jefferson said, we can’t trust that they are speaking the truth because they lie so much that anything they say must be viewed with suspicion. The best approach, and the one most conservatives and patriotic Americans take, is just to assume that anything the media reports is wrong, or incomplete in its reporting (especially if the event has an element contrary to their left-wing narrative, like any murder not committed by a white, male, MAGA Christian).

Jefferson also wrote:

“I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them.” (Works of Thomas Jefferson)

Best thing to do is not bother watching ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al., or reading The New York Times or any other liberal rag. Truth can be found, but you’ve got to dig a little to find it now. Townhall is a good source, of course, as is X. But to most Americans, I would simply advise not wasting time watching or reading any of the “corporate” media outlets. As Jefferson implies, you’ll be dumber if you do.

Now we do need some good, courageous, well-grounded conservatives scouring the mainstream media sites to expose their errors. Many Townhall writers do this, and we appreciate them. But for most Americans, the mainstream media is nothing but a lying, dangerous nuisance. No sense in getting close to a cobra and slapping it in the face.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Says He Would Continue His Podcast if He Became President – Wonders What He Would Wear

Gavin Newsom recently did a puff interview with PBS and was asked if he would continue his podcast if he became president. His body language changed and he became positively giddy at the thought.

He then wondered aloud what he would wear for the broadcast.

How is anyone taking this man seriously as a governor, let alone as a presidential candidate?

If Newsom runs for president, he is going to have to answer a lot of questions about California.

Even the Associated Press knows it:

California made Gavin Newsom famous. Will it drag down his 2028 presidential ambitions?

Gavin Newsom’s secret is no secret here in South Carolina.

They were selling “Gavin 2028” buttons outside his events this past week as he trekked across the state that will hold Democrats’ first presidential primary. His allies, the state party chair, college presidents and pro-Newsom activists all openly hinted at his national aspirations. And people close to him privately referred to a White House campaign as “the next thing.”

Still, California’s Democratic governor has barely begun to address what may be his biggest political liability as he stakes a claim as an early front-runner in the Democratic Party’s 2028 shadow primary. That liability, South Carolina voters acknowledged this past week, is something he cannot change — his home state, California, is a symbol of modern-day liberalism that people across the political spectrum love to hate.

Vera DeVito, a 78-year-old Democrat who packed into one of Newsom’s eight public events across South Carolina, said she didn’t know much about him or his policies — except that he’s from the Golden State. On that basis alone, she suggested that supporting Newsom could be “risky.”

“It’s going to be hard for him to appeal to the whole country,” she said in the town of Summerville. “Everybody thinks California is different — especially in the South. They’re not crazy about California.”

People aren’t crazy about California because California is crazy for putting up with Gavin Newsom.

The state has lost population for the first time in history on his watch.

Keep reading

Media Lies About ‘Infinitesimally Rare’ Noncitizen Voting Are A Load Of Bull Hockey

The legacy press has an entire vocabulary for election fraud, and every word in it carries the same instruction: Stop looking. “U.S. News and World Report and PBS: “extremely rare.” Time magazine: “very, very rare.” NPR quoted an expert who called it “infinitesimally rare.” It has become a reflex, appended to any mention of election integrity, the way a surgeon general’s warning is appended to a pack of cigarettes, that election fraud is rare, rare, rare. The implication is that “rare” means “irrelevant.” But does it?

Since When Is Rarity the Standard?

Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the ballot of an eligible one. A noncitizen who votes does not merely add a vote to one side of the ledger — he subtracts one from a citizen who did everything right. Every fraudulent vote cast invalidates the vote of an eligible voter, effectively disenfranchising that person.

So how many disenfranchised citizens is the acceptable number? One hundred? A thousand? We do not apply this reasoning anywhere else in election law. Nobody argues that ballot-box stuffing is tolerable at low volume, or that a poll worker who alters a few dozen returns should be waved off because the total is statistically small. We do not tell a mugging victim that street crime is rare.

More to the point: Rarity is irrelevant to the margin. Recent congressional races have been decided by a few hundred votes. Virginia’s House of Delegates control came down to a tied district settled by drawing a name from a bowl. In races like these, “infinitesimally rare” fraud is more than sufficient to determine who governs.

Is the Problem Even Being Measured?

The Heritage Foundation maintains an Election Fraud Database documenting proven instances of election fraud — cases in which a prosecutor thought the conduct serious enough to act on, and which ended in a conviction, a civil penalty, a judicial finding, or an overturned election. As of this writing, the database contains 1,619 such cases.

The database does not include potential fraud that election officials discover but that is never investigated or prosecuted — and it obviously cannot include fraud that goes undetected in the first place.

This is the circularity at the heart of the “fraud is rare” consensus. The statistic measures prosecutions. It is then offered as proof about incidence. But you cannot establish the rate of a crime by counting convictions when the relevant authorities decline to prosecute — and you certainly cannot do it when the system is designed so that the crime is rarely discovered at all.

Fairfax County Is the Proof

Consider Fairfax County, Virginia’s largest jurisdiction, in the shadow of the nation’s capital.

In September 2024, Fairfax County’s electoral board adopted a policy requiring the general registrar to refer individuals identified by the Virginia Department of Elections as potential noncitizens to the commonwealth’s attorney and the attorney general. The referrals went out month after month. In a single batch on Oct. 6, 2025, the registrar referred 71 individuals. An earlier batch that summer sent 78 names forward. Over roughly a year and a half of monthly referrals, the cumulative total ran well into the hundreds.

Yet on Feb. 19, 2026, the board voted to rescind the policy. The stated reason, according to the meeting minutes, was that the policy had not led to a single prosecution, that compliance consumed “significant” staff time at the elections office, the commonwealth’s attorney, and the attorney general’s office, and that no prosecutor would find that checking a box on a DMV form met the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

Read that again. Hundreds of referrals. Zero prosecutions. Policy abandoned as too burdensome.

And here is the part that matters for the statistic: Because none of those cases were prosecuted, not one of them will ever appear in the Heritage database — or in any of the academic tallies that journalists cite when they write that noncitizen voting is infinitesimally rare. The cases were found. They were referred. They were dropped. And their disappearance from the record is then cited as evidence that there was nothing there.

The context is worse than the referral numbers suggest. Fairfax County canceled 985 registrations on citizenship grounds between January 2022 and July 2024 alone; county Republicans count 1,912 cancellations over four years, including 538 in 2025 — more than one per day. Virginia removed 6,303 statewide between January 2022 and July 2024.

Crucially, Virginia does not verify citizenship at registration. It cannot; federal law forbids requiring documentary proof on the federal form. So these registrations surfaced only when the registrants disclosed their own status — typically on a jury questionnaire or a DMV transaction. Nobody went looking. The system caught only the people who raised their hands.

Keep reading

Sulzbergers Keep Secret Archives at Taxpayer Expense While Denouncing Supreme Court for Doing the Same Thing

A highly hyped New York Times investigation—touted with the unusual label “Times Exclusive”—appeared this month under the headline “How the Supreme Court Locks Away Its Own History.” It complained that “many of the justices have valued confidentiality over transparency and chosen to postpone scrutiny of their work for years to come.”

“Some scholars question why papers should be sealed long after a justice has retired,” says the Times article, by Jodi Kantor, with research and reporting contributed by Julie Tate, Ann Marimow, and Adam Liptak. It quoted a legal historian at the University of California, Davis, Mary Ziegler, accusing the justices of engaging in “reputation management,” and, as Ziegler was paraphrased in the article, “protecting themselves from examination and second-guessing.”

Not disclosed in the Times article: that the papers of former Times publishers Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., donated to the New York Public Library in 2007, are closed to public access until 2035 and 2057, respectively, according to the finding aid to the collection.

Keep reading

How Big Ag Seized Control Over Media, Research, Policy and the Marketplace

Industrial agriculture is increasingly adopting the same public relations, lobbying and information tactics long used by Big Oil, investigative journalist Amy Westervelt said on the “Real Organic Podcast.” Those strategies help corporations influence research, media and policy, making it easier to “shape the information that voters are getting,” she said.

Journalist Amy Westervelt has spent years documenting how the oil industry used public relations, think tanks and university partnerships to shape public opinion and influence public policy.

But in a recent interview on the “Real Organic Podcast,” Westervelt said she increasingly sees many of those same tactics in industrial agriculture.

“I am finding so many parallels in the agriculture space,” said Westervelt, host of the investigative podcast “Drilled” and author of the forthcoming book, “Brought to You By: Inside Big Oil’s Total Information War.”

She said large agricultural companies, like their counterparts in the fossil fuel industry, have established research centers that help generate academic support for policies that benefit industry.

“It’s like they need a certain amount of … credible information from academics to be able to make the policy argument for certain things,” she said.

Throughout the interview, Westervelt suggested these efforts are part of a broader corporate strategy designed not simply to influence markets, but to shape public debate before policy decisions are ever made.

‘Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy’

Westervelt traced the origins of modern corporate public relations to the early 20th century, arguing that growing public scrutiny prompted businesses to rethink how they protected their interests.

“Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy” as new laws, investigative reporting and broader voting rights threatened business interests, she said. That’s when you see “the birth of corporate PR.”

Rather than simply selling products, corporations sought to mold public opinion before voters could demand greater oversight, according to Westervelt.

“These companies need a way to shape the information that voters are getting in a way that will make them more likely to vote against their own interests and in the interests of the corporations that have a lot at stake,” she said.

Over time, industries refined those tactics, using increasingly sophisticated methods “to try to shape the context that they’re operating in and to deal with … ‘creeping democracy,’” Westervelt said.

Media ‘not doing its job’ of holding powerful corporations to account

Think tanks have become one of industry’s most effective policy tools, according to Westervelt.

“They train the people who work there to go on TV shows and radio shows to get these particular talking points out,” she said.

Unlike registered lobbyists, many think tanks operate with little transparency, she added.

“These organizations have loads of money. They have a lot of influence, and they’re not really regulated in any way,” Westervelt said. “They’re pretty good at hiding who funds them.”

She said corporate influence doesn’t stop with think tanks. It also extends into universities, where industry funding can help shape the research that later informs public policy.

While much of her reporting has focused on fossil fuel companies, Westervelt said she increasingly sees similar patterns in industrial agriculture. She described the practice as a form of “pre-lobbying,” in which corporations cultivate the evidence needed to support future policy arguments.

As one example, Westervelt described speaking with a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after an oil company funded carbon capture research.

Researchers were invited to submit project proposals, but one scientist wanted to study “the potential health impacts” of carbon capture pipelines, including “what might happen if it leaks,” she said.

According to Westervelt, the principal investigator instead encouraged him to “look for a more positive project.”

Seemingly small decisions like these can gradually shape which questions get asked — and which never reach the public, she said.

“There’s so many little things like that happening all the time that are keeping … really important ideas just out of the … public square,” she said.

Westervelt said those information gaps are reinforced by powerful technology platforms and a media landscape that often fails to challenge corporate influence.

“You do have now tech companies working really in lock step with these big corporations, helping them to drown out everybody else,” she said. “Letting them juice the algorithm, spend a fortune on … advertising, and really drown out kind of anyone that doesn’t agree with them.”

Meanwhile, she added, “the media is not doing its job kind of holding the powerful to account. That’s just not a thing that is rewarded by newsrooms at this time.”

Keep reading

AWW! Poor CNN Contributor is ‘Exhausted’ With Hearing About Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants

CNN contributor Leigh McGowan is ‘exhausted’ with hearing stories about illegal immigrants committing crimes like killing American citizens.

She made the comment during a recent panel discussion on the network, when conservative contributor Brianna Lyman was trying to make a valid point about what the liberal media covers and chooses not to cover.

Lyman was using as an example, a woman in Massachusetts who was strangled by an illegal immigrant just last week. McGowan rolled her eyes in disgust at the mere mention of it.

FOX News has details:

A CNN panel erupted Tuesday after far-left podcast host Leigh McGowan called repeated discussions of Americans killed by illegal immigrants “exhausting” after a conservative panelist raised the strangling death of Massachusetts woman Brianna Connolly by an illegal immigrant.

The panel was discussing the death of Pierre Damas Bel, a 20-year-old Haitian-born college student in Ohio whose family said he died by suicide Monday after being required to wear an ankle monitor after losing his Temporary Protected Status. Ohio State Highway Patrol said Bel died after walking into traffic on Interstate 70 and that the incident remained under investigation.

“Well, temporary does mean temporary, so eventually this individual may have been ordered to be removed,” The Federalist reporter Brianna Lyman said on the “NewsNight” panel. “I think it’s kind of insulting that we’re talking about this immigrant instead of Brianna Connolly from Massachusetts who was strangled last week by an illegal alien. Why is the focus never…”

McGowan interrupted Lyman as she mentioned Connolly’s killing.

“Oh my God!” she said. “It’s so exhausting. Over and over again.”

Lyman immediately responded by contrasting McGowan’s frustration with the experiences of victims’ families.

Keep reading