Tag: mainstream media

Mainstream news outlets want to end Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s primary challenge

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his primary challenge to Joe Biden in April, the media shrugged him off as a meme candidate who would soon collide with political reality. Two months later, Kennedy is polling as high as 20% and his campaign is gaining momentum. And the media — unwilling to let Biden be primaried by this pedigreed populist — have decided it’s time to step in.

And step in they have. Over the past weeks, major print and broadcast organizations have laid the foundations for a powerful narrative designed to hobble Kennedy’s campaign before a single vote is cast. The strategy is to disqualify Kennedy by labeling him a font of misinformation, out to serve America’s monied technocrats. In other words: a Republican in Kennedy clothes.

Earlier this month, Kennedy joined Elon Musk for a live Twitter Space, the first ever by a presidential candidate. The response from the fourth estate was instant derision. 

The New York Times set the pace with a takedown brimming with accusations and innuendo. From word one, the article didn’t hesitate with its heavy-handedness — accusing Kennedy in its headline of “Pushing Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation.” 

Keep reading

Killing The Story – Bakhmut, Nick Cohen, Kakhovka, Nord Stream and Piers Morgan

The late writer, broadcaster and wit Clive James formulated what he called the ‘Barry Manilow Law’:

‘Everyone you know thinks Barry Manilow is absolutely terrible. But everyone you don’t know thinks he’s great.’ (James, cited Martin Amis, ‘Inside Story,’ Vintage, 2020, e-book, p.74)

A Media Lens version of this might read:

‘Everyone you know thinks BBC News is absolutely terrible. But everyone you don’t know thinks it’s great.’

The BBC wasn’t always quite this bad. When we started out in 2001, people like Director of News Richard Sambrook and Newsnight editor Peter Barron sent us long, respectful replies to our analysis. We were invited to appear on BBC One, BBC Two and BBC radio (we were interviewed by BBC Radio Five Live). Barron even blogged about us positively on the BBC website.

All of this has gone. Our criticisms, now, are met with paranoid silence. And there is much for BBC journalists to be paranoid about, for they are now clearly operating as de facto agents of state.

When the US targeted Syria for ‘regime change’ in 2011, a flood of anti-Assad atrocity claims and pro-‘rebel’ propaganda washed across the BBC’s news pages. The BBC’s campaign ended the moment the US campaign for regime change ended. When Iran, Venezuela and Libya fell under the US crosshairs, the same BBC propaganda machine cranked into action. Similarly, anyone measuring BBC performance 2022-2023 will find hundreds of reports and comment pieces favouring the Ukraine/Nato version of events, against one or two favouring the Russian version of events. This, even though our country is technically not at war with Russia – certainly Russia is not attacking us. It couldn’t be more obvious that when the green light for war and ‘regime change’ is on, the BBC is expected to host daily propaganda pieces to generate public support.

In his superb book, ‘Falsehood in Wartime: Propaganda Lies of the First World War’, published in 1928, Lord Arthur Ponsonby analysed the key propaganda techniques that had been used to deceive the public during the catastrophic war of 1914-1918:

  1. We do not want war.
  2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
  3. The enemy is inherently evil and resembles the devil.
  4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interests.
  5. The enemy commits atrocities on purpose; we make ‘mistakes’.
  6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
  7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
  8. Recognised artists and intellectuals back our cause.
  9. Our cause is sacred.
  10.  All who doubt our propaganda are traitors.

Most BBC, Guardian and other ‘mainstream’ war coverage is a cocktail of these ten forms of bias.

Keep reading

Fact Check: Nearly 100 Percent of Political Contributions From Fact Checkers Go to Democrats

It all started during the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States, when the political and mainstream media establishments began seeding the narrative that Donald Trump was always lying, and Hillary Clinton was telling the truth, and therefore a new tier of information and speech policing was now needed to save society from itself. Enter the fact checkers.

Since then, political “fact-checkers” have enjoyed a type of privileged status alongside the corporate MSM, and they now wield great power as the arbiters of truth. Along with the MSM, Big Tech firms and partisan foundations have also ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into building this new arm of the censorship industrial complex.

However, critics have rightly pointed out how political “fact-checking” is in fact a fraudulent enterprise. Far from being objective, the evidence show that this new industry is non-transparent, totally unaccountable, as well as being politically and ideologically weaponised. Rather than elevate debate and discourse, it serves as a blunt tool of mass-censorship by the Establishment who use their army of paid fact-checkers to suppress and marginalise any unfavored viewpoints and opinions, as well as suppressing any inconvenient information which could threaten the established order, or undermine government policy.

The “Fact checkers” constantly represent themselves as being unbiased, authoritative arbiters of “The Science”, election integrity, overseas wars, and the overall public discourse.

By now, the whole ‘fact checker’ industry has been thoroughly exposed as a fraud, and now we have the receipts that the entire operation is completely partisan…

Keep reading

‘Fake Melania’ conspiracy reemerges after Fox News misidentifies Trump aide for wife

In 2017, a new conspiracy theory emerged on the far right when MAGA Republicans started claiming that then-First Lady Melania Trump had a body double. And the “fake Melania” conspiracy theory was reignited on June 13 — the day of former Donald Trump’s arraignment in Miami on 37 federal criminal counts — after Fox News reporter John Roberts (not to be confused with the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice) mistook Margo Martin, the former president’s director of communications, for Melania Trump.

According to The Sun’s Caitlin Hornik, the woman in Miami could not have been Melania Trump because the former first lady was in New York City on June 13 and didn’t go to Miami with her husband. Martin, however, was with Donald Trump in the courthouse.

Reporting live in Miami, Roberts saw Martin and said, “There she is.” But around 15 minutes later, Roberts told Fox News viewers, “Apparently, it was not Melania. A day like today with so many comings and goings, it’s easy from a distance to mistake two people.”

Keep reading

The Western Media Is Whitewashing the Azov Battalion

Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine has already resulted in millions of losers—chief among them the civilians who’ve been tortured, murdered, forced to become refugees, or forced to spend their days worrying about loved ones fighting Russia.

But there are also winners: the neofascists whom Putin’s war has turned into heroes.

For seven years, Western institutions have warned about Ukraine’s Azov Movement, which began as a neo-Nazi paramilitary group in 2014 and became notorious for its worldwide recruitment of extremists.

Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, Azov fighters were being feted in Congress and at Stanford University. MSNBC swooned over a Ukrainian soldier whose Twitter account overflowed with neo-Nazi images. Facebook made the stunning decision to allow posts praising the Azov Battalion, even though the company admitted that it was a hate group.

This overnight normalization of white supremacy was possible because Western institutions, driven by a zeal to ignore anything negative about our Ukrainian allies, decided that a neo-Nazi military formation in a war-torn nation had suddenly and miraculously stopped being neo-Nazi.

Keep reading

Despite Multiple Arson Arrests, MSM Continues to Blame Canada Wildfires on ‘Climate Change’

Despite the arrest of multiple arsonists, the mainstream media in Canada seems intent on attributing the nation’s recent wildfires to “climate change.”

As wildfires continue to spread across western, and now central and eastern Canada, burning forestland and homes, the mainstream media continues to imply that climate change is the main culprit, despite a growing number of reports showing that arsonists have been arrested for allegedly setting dozens of fires.

“Several arsonists have been arrested in the past weeks in different provinces for lighting forest fires,” People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier tweeted. “But the lying woke media and politicians keep repeating that global warming is the cause.” 

The severe nature of the wildfires has caused Canadians to wonder why they have spread so rapidly, especially as many of the affected areas are not typically impacted by wildfires of this degree or at this time of the year.

In the past months, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have arrested several arsonists who have been charged with lighting fires across several provinces including Nova Scotia, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta. The motive behind lighting the fires is unclear.  

One Albertan, John Cook, has been arrested and charged with 10 counts of arson after setting a string of wildfires in and around Cold Lake, a hamlet near Edmonton. 

In addition to damaging vehicles and structures, Cook was charged with setting aflame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Cherry Grove, Alberta. 

A Vancouver man charged with arson has been released until his trial on October 9, with Cpl. Michael Gauthier asserting that he is not a risk to light further fires.

“This incident was not random in nature and we do not believe there is risk to other members of the public or businesses from the individual who was arrested,” Gauthier stated.

Keep reading

Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine Debate

Think tanks in the United States are a go–to resource for media outlets seeking expert opinions on pressing public policy issues. But think tanks often have entrenched stances; a growing body of research has shown that their funders can influence their analysis and commentary. This influence can include censorship — both self-censorship and more direct censoring of work unfavorable to a funder — and outright pay–for–research agreements with funders. The result is an environment where the interests of the most generous funders can dominate think tank policy debates.

One such debate concerns the appropriate level of U.S. military involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since Vladimir Putin’s illegal and disastrous decision to launch a full–scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has approved approximately $48.7 billion in military spending.1 Despite the very real risk that escalations could lead to direct U.S. military involvement in the war, few think tanks have critically scrutinized this record setting amount of U.S. military assistance.

Within the context of public debate about U.S. military involvement in the Ukraine war, this brief investigates Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD contractor funding of think tanks, those organizations advocacy efforts for policies that would benefit those funders, and the media’s predominant reliance on think tanks funded by the defense sector. The analysis finds that the vast majority of media mentions of think tanks in articles about U.S. arms and the Ukraine war are from think tanks whose funders profit from U.S. military spending, arms sales and, in many cases, directly from U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. These think tanks also regularly offer support for public policy solutions that would financially benefit their funders without disclosing these apparent conflicts of interest. While this brief did not seek to establish a direct causality between think–tank policy recommendations and their arms industry funding in the case of the Ukraine war, we find a clear correlation between the two. We also found that media outlets disproportionately rely on commentary from defense sector funded think tanks.

Keep reading

Journalists Are Asking Ukrainian Soldiers To Hide Their Nazi Patches, NYT Admits

The New York Times has been forced to very, very belatedly deal with something which had long been obvious and known to many independent analysts and media outlets, but which has been carefully shielded from the mainstream masses in the West for obvious reasons. 

The surprising Monday Times headline said that “Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History.” This acknowledgement comes after literally years of primarily indy journalists and geopolitical commentators pointing out that yes indeed… Ukraine’s military and paramilitary groups, especially those operating in the east since at least 2014, have a serious Nazi ideology problem. This has been exhaustively documented, again, going back years. But the report, which merely tries to downplay it as a “thorny issue” of Ukraine’s “unique” “History” – suggests that the real problem for Western PR is fundamentally that it’s being displayed so openly. Ukrainian troops are being asked to cover those Nazi symbols please!–as Matt Taibbi sarcastically quipped in commenting on the report.

The authors of the NYT report begin by expressing frustration over the optics of Nazi symbols being displayed so proudly on many Ukrainian soldiers’ uniforms. Suggesting that many journalistic photographs which have in some cases been featured in newspapers and media outlets worldwide (typically coupled with generally positive articles on Ukraine’s military) are merely ‘unfortunate’ or misleading, the NYT report says, “In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups.”

The report admits this has led to controversy wherein news rooms actually must delete some photos of Ukrainian soldiers and militants. “The photographs, and their deletions, highlight the Ukrainian military’s complicated relationship with Nazi imagery, a relationship forged under both Soviet and German occupation during World War II,” continues the report. 

Keep reading

Biden Laughs and Smirks As the Press Is Ushered Out of the Oval Office Without Questions

In what is becoming a signature move, President Joe Biden smirked at reporters being ushered from a meeting by staff.

After President Biden and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen delivered four minutes of prepared remarks, media were banished. Biden reportedly laughed and smirked at reporters as they shouted questions at him.

Both leaders laughed while White House staff hectored reporters by forcing them from the Oval Office, where the meeting was conducted.

Fox News further reported:

Reporters were once again escorted out of the Oval Office and prevented from asking President Biden questions at the White House on Monday.

Keep reading

15 Reasons Why Mass Media Employees Act Like Propagandists

If you watch western news media with a critical eye you eventually notice how their reporting consistently aligns with the interests of the US-centralized empire, in almost the same way you’d expect them to if they were government-run propaganda outlets.

The New York Times has reliably supported every war the US has waged. Western mass media focus overwhelmingly on foreign protests against governments the United States dislikes while paying far less attention to widespread protests against US-aligned governments. The only time Trump was universally showered with praise by the mass media was when he bombed Syria, while the only time Biden has been universally slammed by the mass media was when he withdrew from Afghanistan. US media did such a good job deceitfully marrying Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks in the minds of the public in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq that seven in ten Americans still believed he was connected to 9/11 months after the war began.

That this extreme bias occurs is self-evident and indisputable to anyone who pays attention, but why and how it happens is harder to see. The uniformity is so complete and so consistent that when people first begin noticing these patterns it’s common for them to assume the media must be controlled by a small, centralized authority much like the state media of more openly authoritarian governments. But if you actually dig into the reasons why the media act the way they act, that isn’t really what you find.

Instead, what you find is a much larger, much less centralized network of factors which tips the scales of media coverage to the advantage of the US empire and the forces which benefit from it. Some of it is indeed conspiratorial in nature and happens in secret, but most of it is essentially out in the open.

Here are 15 of those factors.

Keep reading