Tag: mainstream media

CBC Brags About Shutting Down Popular Political Clips YouTube Channel

A rising Canadian YouTube channel that had been pulling major traction has suddenly been banned following an aggressive report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which labeled the channel a “content farm” and reached out to YouTube directly. Not long after, the channel was gone.

“It’s just one example of what experts refer to as the ‘content’ or “engagement” farming phenomenon, in which individuals or organizations tailor their content to tap into the algorithm of the platform and boost their popularity,” the CBC explained in an article, as if this isn’t something that most YouTubers do.

Real Talk Politiks, the creator behind the now-deleted account, took to X on Sunday to reveal what happened, pointing the finger at government-aligned media and tech collusion.

“CBC, Canada’s state-funded media just got YouTube to terminate my channel — not for breaking rules, but for having the wrong political views,” the post read.

Despite operating without strikes, policy violations, or deceptive content flags, the channel was wiped.

What sparked the removal, according to CBC’s own report, was an AI-generated video of Ronald Reagan that allegedly lacked a clear label; something that might typically warrant a correction or warning, not a digital purge.

The CBC leaned into the narrative, bragging about its work in getting the channel shut down, and published a YouTube video titled “How we shut down one of Canada’s biggest news ‘content farms’.”

Keep reading

Media Falls Over Itself To Defend South African President Who Claimed Genocidal Chants Were Free Speech

Last week, President Donald Trump confronted South African leaders over the alleged genocide taking place against white South African farmers. Trump presented South African leaders — and the media — with video evidence of racially charged rhetoric advocating for the murder of white farmers. One such video showed political leader Julius Malema leading chants of “kill the Boer” and “Revolution demands at some point there must be killing.”

The propaganda press were quick to not only dismiss the genocidal chants, but to defend South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who didn’t seem eager to confront and condemn the chants. Outlets dropped all pretense of objectivity to paint Ramaphosa as a measured statesman blindsided by Trump.

NPR’s Kate Bartlett wrote “South Africa’s president is praised for staying calm during Trump’s Oval Office ambush.” Bartlett praised Ramaphosa for keeping “his cool” and heralded him as “one of the key mediators in the talks that ended apartheid in 1994.”

The talking point was quickly spread amongst the propagandists, with Reuters’ Olivia Kumwenda-Mtambo and Alexander Winning writing: “Buffeted by Trump, South Africa’s Ramaphosa praised for keeping his cool.”

But perhaps it’s easy to “keep cool” when your government doesn’t appear to have any serious moral objection to openly genocidal rhetoric.

Despite their best attempt to cover for South African leaders, upon returning from the United States, South Africa’s president excused the genocidal chants as merely free speech.

Speaking to reporters, Ramaphosa said the chant is a “liberation chant.”

Liberation from what, exactly? White farmers? And how will that liberation occur if not through violence, as some South African political leaders are calling for?

“We take into account what the constitutional court also decided when it said that, you know, that slogan, ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,’ is a liberation chant and slogan,” Ramaphosa said.

Keep reading

NPR Is Under The Delusion It Has A Constitutional Right To Your Money

NPR filed a delusional lawsuit on Tuesday against the Trump administration, arguing that it has a constitutional right to your hard-earned money.

The suit, brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations, alleges that Trump’s executive order cutting federal funding to the left-wing NPR and PBS violates their right to free speech, as well as provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act.

“The [Executive] Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radios across the country,” the suit states.

But as Texas Rep. Brandon Gill countered in a post on X: “NPR has a right to free speech. It doesn’t have a right to our tax dollars.”

Trump issued an executive order earlier this month directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to “cease federal funding” to NPR and PBS.

“Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage,” the order stated, with the White House adding that PBS and NPR “receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”

“No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize,” the order continues.

But NPR argues that it does have a right to your hard-earned dollars.

The suit argues the order is unconstitutional and violates the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. That law established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to “‘facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality’ and ‘creativity’ will be ‘obtained by diverse sources’” among other things. As stated in NPR’s lawsuit, the act explains “how the Corporation must allocate its general appropriation from Congress.” Twenty-five percent of the appropriation goes toward public radio, while 75 percent goes to public television.

According to the suit, “Congress has appropriated $535 million in general funding for the Corporation for Fiscal Years 2025, 2026, and 2027,” while NPR, in fiscal year 2024, spent roughly $11.1 million in total in grants from the CBP.

Trump “is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

Keep reading

Liberal Outlet Politico Urges Democrats to Create a ‘Shadow Cabinet’ to Counter Trump – Suggestions Include John Fetterman’s Wife

The progressive outlet Politico is urging Democrats to create a ‘shadow cabinet’ to fight Trump. Perhaps they haven’t heard, but the chair of the DNC announced that they’re already doing that. He said so back in April.

Remember when Democrats and the media claimed to care about saving our precious norms? What do they call this?

The only difference between Politico’s plan and the one the DNC chair already announced is who will be featured in this unconstitutional body.

From Politico:

As Democrats cast about for a strategy to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, rebrand their party and take back power, Sen. Elissa Slotkin recently offered one intriguing idea: Build a shadow Cabinet.

The shadow Cabinet, as envisioned by the Michigan Democrat in an interview with POLITICO, could be composed of the ranking members of congressional committees who could then take the lead in challenging the Trump administration. It’s a common feature of opposition politics abroad and could be a way for Democrats to flood the media zone and deliver a coordinated response to Trump’s most wild maneuvers. But … ranking members?

Ranking members have their uses. They’re good at reclaiming their time and making motions to recommit. But they are not the fresh faces who can give the Democratic Party a sleek new look.

Nor are the thirsty crop of presidential wannabes right for a shadow Cabinet. Everything they say would be parsed for self-serving motivation, distracting from the party’s broader task at hand.

Here are some of the names they float:

Samantha Power – SHADOW SECRETARY OF STATE

Letitia James – SHADOW ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jon Stewart – SHADOW SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Gisele Fetterman – SHADOW SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bill Nye – SHADOW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR

Didn’t we just go through this?

Keep reading

Media Hypes New COVID Variant NB.1.8.1 Just ONE WEEK After WHO Member States Signed Pandemic Agreement

Dozens of mainstream media outlets published articles this week warning readers of a new COVID-19 variant spreading throughout China, Europe and the U.S.

Several headlines about the NB.1.8.1 variant also pointed out the Trump administration is restricting access to COVID shots for healthy citizens, attempting to tie the decision to the new strain’s spread.

“Today, the ‘Covid Vaccine’ for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule…” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday.

The variant just happens to be making headlines across the globe just a week after the World Health Organization adopted the world’s first Pandemic Agreement.

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.”  

The U.S. did not sign onto the agreement as it did not have representatives present during the vote with President Donald Trump announcing in January America officially left the WHO.

While current data does not indicate the NB.1.8.1 strain causes more severe illness than prior variants, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, told CBS News in an emailed statement that “it may spread more easily.”

Keep reading

‘60 Minutes’ anchor Scott Pelley ripped for ‘angry, unhinged’ commencement speech criticizing Trump

Outraged critics blasted longtime “60 Minutes” anchor Scott Pelley as “angry” and “unhinged” after he delivered a fear-laced tirade against President Trump during a commencement speech in North Carolina.

The CBS newscaster warned Wake Forest University’s graduating class on May 19 that “insidious fear” has infiltrated schools, businesses, and homes across the nation — leaving America in a state of “peril.”

“Your country needs you — the country that has given you so much is calling you, the class of 2025, your country needs you and it needs you today,” Pelley said during his grandiose sermon-like speech.

“This morning our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack and insidious fear is reaching throughout schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts,” he continued.

“The fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln’s phrase ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ then why are we afraid to speak? Ignorance works for power. Power can change the definition of the words we used to describe reality. This is an old playbook, my friends. There is nothing new in this.”

Keep reading

The So-Called Trump-Ramaphosa ‘Ambush’

Nothing highlights the poverty of the media-Democratic mind than its weary use of echo-chamber buzzwords. Once Pravda-like instructions are sent out from DNC operatives, mindless media anchors mouth them in lockstep as gospel.

So, it was with the supposed “ambush” when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump. Trump indeed pressed his guest on a number of issues, from the decades-long targeted killing of white agriculturalists on their farms by black hit teams that have totaled somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500, depending on how one defines such targeted killings.

Trump further wanted an explanation from Ramaphosa on his government’s new legislation aimed at land confiscation without compensation, and the de facto vanishing number of Boer farmers.

Trump was further bewildered by Ramaphosa’s assertion that the new law would not be used to take private property without paying for it (“No, no, no, no. Nobody can take land”), when in fact that was the very purpose of the new legislation in the first place. Trump also showed Ramaphosa videos highlighting a resurgence of South African extremism of the tired “Kill the Boer” sort.

The dictionaries define “ambush” roughly as “a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a hidden or concealed position.”

Ramaphosa’s visit was no surprise. He, not Trump, requested it. Ramaphosa spoke openly to the media before the meeting that he was planning to convince Trump that there were neither widespread killings of white farmers nor arbitrary confiscation of land.

In sum, Trump was the host; Ramaphosa was the guest, who requested the meeting to present his case for a return of a number of concessions from the U.S. He knew Trump would raise issues that had estranged South Africa from both the president and Congress, and he was calmly prepped, as expected, to offer counterarguments.

But why was Ramaphosa so eager for a meeting?

He knew that South Africa had enjoyed a rare, sweetheart, one-of-a-kind, no-tariff deal from the U.S. that had empowered his nation in the last few years to vastly expand its exports. In 2024, South Africa achieved a staggering near $9 billion surplus with the U.S.

Yet Ramaphosa and South Africa have a funny way of expressing gratitude for the free trade magnanimity accorded by the U.S.—especially both as a recipient of nearly $500 million in annual foreign aid and after raising asymmetrical high tariffs on lots of U.S. imports.

Recently, the South African ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after he gratuitously slandered his host, the president, as a white “supremacist”—supposedly playing on “white victimhood as a dog whistle” out of fears of non-white demographics.

Keep reading

“Oval Office Ambush” – Hilarious Compilation Shows Mainstream Media Hacks Parroting EXACT SAME Talking Points on Trump’s Explosive Meeting with South African President Last Week

A memo with talking points apparently went out to the leftwing media following Wednesday’s fiery Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the South African President.

During big news events, a phenomenon occurs where the leftwing media not only pushes the same narrative across every network, but in many cases, they read the same script. They would have us believe it’s a coincidence, but they’re clearly reading talking points, likely provided by the Democratic Party.

One example of this was after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went before the US Congress and demanded billions of dollars and weapons to continue his war with Russia. As The Gateway Pundit reported, Liberal hack reporters in unison began comparing Zelensky to Winston Churchill on every cable news channel.

This time, they were given the word “ambush.”

Here are some of the lines cable TV was pushing in their orchestrated attack after Trump’s epic Oval Office exchange with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa:

  • “Another dramatic scene in the Oval Office today. The tense confrontation, President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
  • Up next, another Oval Office meltdown. President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
  • “President Trump is being accused of conducting something of a diplomatic ambush of South Africa’s President in the Oval Office.”
  • “President Trump orchestrated another Oval Office ambush today.”
  • “Today, Donald Trump meeting with the President of South Africa and attempting to ambush and humiliate that leader.”
  • “Zelensky territory, where, essentially, he was a bit ambushed inside the Oval Office.”
  • “It felt like an ambush in there, kind of like the President Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office.”
  • “This was an ambush. It was orchestrated.”
  • “Cyril Ramaphosa brought his best diplomatic self to this meeting, but nothing could have prepared him for this multimedia ambush.”
  • “It started as, to some degree, an ambush.”

Keep reading

BBC’s ‘independent’ Russian partner begged UK govt for funds, files show

Leaked documents show the supposedly self-reliant anti-Kremlin outlet Mediazona asked the UK gov’t for £300,000. With foreign funding drying up, the “independent” news site now faces financial crisis.

Mediazona, the self-styled “independent” Russian outlet which partners with the BBC to track the deaths of Russian troops, requested hundreds of thousands of pounds directly from the British government, according to a tranche of leaked official documents.

Having mainly targeted Russians since its founding in 2014 by members of the Western-backed troupe of provocateurs known as Pussy Riot, Mediazona has largely remained off the radar of news consumers in the West. But that changed with the outbreak of full-scale war in Ukraine. Since the first day of the conflict, Mediazona has collaborated with the BBC Russian Service on a project tracking the deaths of Russian servicemen through open source methods. Mediazona describes “the work [as] meticulous and time-consuming,” requiring “relentless efforts of journalists.”

Who or what was footing the bill was left unmentioned in the description of the initiative, which was clearly designed to foment dissent and opposition to the proxy war among Russian citizens. Now, leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone indicate that between 2020 and 2023, Mediazona was in line for vast, secret grants for anti-Kremlin agitation from the British Foreign Office, under the official auspices of London’s opaque “Global Britain Fund.”

Keep reading

“Completely Insane”: Wired Posts DIY Video For Mangione’s Ghost Gun

YouTube’s content rules apparently don’t apply to corporate media darlings. 

Case in point: Wired (Publisher: Condé Nast) recently published a video walking viewers through the exact process of building a copycat version of the untraceable 9mm “ghost gun” allegedly used in the UnitedHealth CEO shooting by Lugi Mangione. 

“So, armed with a shopping list and a credit card, we ordered everything we needed. A 3D printer, plastic filaments, and household products like epoxy were all just a few clicks away on sites like Lowe’s or Amazon. And the more specialized components were available on sites that sell gun parts, just not the guns themselves,” Wired’s Andy Greenberg explained to viewers in the video. 

Greenberg continued, “A few days later, every ingredient I needed to make Mangione’s gun arrived in the mail for the grand total of $1,144.67 plus shipping. And that includes the price of the 3D printer. This is like Christmas Day. This looks like a slide, very much like an obvious gun part. Kind of crazy that you can just order this.” 

The video then spent five minutes showing viewers the printing and assembly processes. He outsourced the assembly of the pistol to YouTube Print Shoot Repeat. 

Meanwhile, YouTube explicitly prohibits content that provides instructions on manufacturing firearms, including ghost guns. 

Keep reading