Tag: media

Here’s What The Corporate Media Won’t Tell You About Rising Measles Cases

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 1,309 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. as of July 15 — the highest number of cases in three decades. The fearmongering corporate media have rushed to blame decreasing vaccine rates and “unvaccinated” populations. But largely missing from or downplayed in these outlets’ coverage are important data points and questions about what may be exacerbating the outbreaks.

The Associated Press reported concerns that the outbreak has been worsened by post-Covid “vaccine hesitancy” and lackluster funding for vaccination programs. CBS acted shocked that HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. — who, the outlet claimed, “has a history of making false and misleading claims about vaccines” — would recommend the measles vaccine. CNN likewise blamed “falling vaccination rates” and “increased travel.” An expert warned NPR that the U.S. may be close to losing its elimination status and blamed this on “vaccine hesitancy.”

The latest available CDC data shows a measles vaccine rate of about 92.7 percent for kindergartners in the 2023-2024 school year. This is down 2.5 percent from the 2019-2020 vaccination rate, a modest drop considering the fallout from the CDC pushing and the federal government seeking to mandate the experimental Covid vaccine in 2021. For comparison, the vaccination rate was between 61 and 66 percent for children between 1 and 4 years old from 1971 to 1985.

Furthermore, there are currently only 35 more measles cases than the total number recorded in 2019, according to the CDC. This is still about 800 fewer cases than recorded for the year of 1992 — the last time the number exceeded 1,300. It is also far lower than the 9,600 cases in 1991. Yet the corporate media continues to drive a narrative of fear based on the point that we are seeing “the most measles cases in more than 30 years.”

Keep reading

Debunking the 100,000 Medicaid Deaths Myth

“More Americans will die—at least 100,000 more over the course of the next decade,” wrote Yale law professor Natasha Sarin in a June 9 Washington Post column about the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“That isn’t hyperbolic,” Sarin added. “It is fact.”

The average reader might be inclined to believe Sarin, who holds a Harvard Ph.D. in economics as well as a Harvard law degree, and served in the Treasury Department during the Biden administration. But contrary to her characterization, her claim is both hyperbole and not “fact.”

Sarin’s assertion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “statistical lives saved.” In particular, she and several other prominent journalists misinterpreted a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

As a professional debunker of bad research, I can say with some authority that the authors of that study, Dartmouth economist Angela Wyse and University of Chicago economist Bruce D. Meyer, wrote an excellent paper—a rarity among academic studies these days. But the University of Chicago’s press office trumpeted the paper’s findings, declaring, “Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act saved about 27,400 lives between 2010-22,” which is highly misleading. 

That take was echoed in coverage of the study by major news outlets. “The expansion of Medicaid has saved more than 27,000 lives since 2010, according to the most definitive study yet on the program’s health effects,” reported Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz in The New York Times. Their May 16 article was headlined “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives.” 

The story was also picked up by Time (“Medicaid Expansions Saved Tens of Thousands of Lives, Study Finds”), NPR (“New Studies Show What’s at Stake if Medicaid Is Scaled Back”), NBC News (“Proposed Medicaid Cuts Could Lead to Thousands of Deaths, Study Finds”), and several other news outlets. These journalists either didn’t read the study, didn’t understand it, or willfully misrepresented its findings for partisan reasons. 

In the past, conservative opponents of Medicaid have been equally guilty of misconstruing academic research to support their policy views. That is what happened with the most famous study on the subject, The Oregon Experiment—Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes, which The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published in 2013. The NBER and NEJM papers offer a similar account of Medicaid’s impact on health, but both have been misinterpreted.

Keep reading

The Department of Justice Just Sided with RFK Jr. Group’s Claim That News Orgs Can’t Boycott Misinformation

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to end “childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” submitted an antitrust complaint against The Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press, and Reuters in January 2023. On Friday, the Justice Department published a statement of interest in favor of the CHD, which implores the federal court hearing the case to recognize that harm to viewpoint competition is grounds for antitrust prosecution. 

In the case, Children’s Health Defense v. Washington Post, the CHD alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law through their establishment of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint claims that the TNI formed a “group boycott” to exclude publishers of “misinformation” partially or entirely from popular internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

The complaint cites a March 2022 statement by Jamie Angus, senior news controller at BBC, who said “the real rivalry now is…between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting] that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms,” as evidence of “the economic self-interest behind the TNI’s group boycott [and] the anti-competitive purpose and effect of that boycott.” CHD misconstrues the meaning of Angus’ words in an attempt to persuade the court that the TNI is a “horizontal agreement among competitor firms to cut off from the market upstart rivals threatening their business model.”

CHD alleges that TNI’s restrictions are unreasonable not only because they “collusively reduce output” and “lower product quality”—conventional indicators of illegal collusive behavior—but because “they suppress competition in the marketplace of ideas.” Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is running with CHD’s argument.

Slater said that the “Antitrust Division will always defend the principle that the antitrust laws protect free markets, including the marketplace of ideas,” in a press release. In the department’s statement of interest, Slater references the majority opinion from U.S. v. Associated Press (1945) to argue that “right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

Joseph Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, agrees with Slater that “collusive viewpoint restrictions can be antitrust violations.” However, he emphasizes that, “if the platforms allegedly taking down content are not defendants and don’t have vertical agreements with…TNI to do so, it’s hard to see how the latter could be illegal.” (CHD alleges that censorship “by Facebook, Google and Twitter, [caused] damages to date of over $1,000,000,” but does not name these platforms as defendants in its suit.)

Slater’s statement was submitted amid ongoing litigation between Media Matters and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the other federal antitrust enforcement agency. The FTC opened an investigation into Media Matters in May for facilitating an alleged advertising boycott against the social media platform X. Advertising holding companies Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group of Companies agreed not to enter into “any agreement or practice that would steer advertising dollars away from publishers based on their political or ideological viewpoints” as a condition of their merger settlement with the FTC in June. Media Matters has challenged the FTC’s probe into its operations on First Amendment grounds.

Keep reading

Writers Guild Calls on Letitia James to Investigate CBS Cancellation of Late Show With Stephen Colbert Over Alleged “Bribe” to “Curry Favor” With Trump

The Writers Guild of America is urging Trump nemesis New York State Attorney General Letitia James to investigate CBS owner Paramount over the cancellation of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The Guild accuses Paramount of bribery by firing Colbert to “curry favor” with the Trump administration as it seeks approval for a merger with Skydance.

CBS announced this week Colbert would not be renewed after next season after a ten year run on the network. Reports state CBS was losing $40 million a year on the show. Estimates of Colbert’s salary put it in the range of $10 to $20 million per year.

Paramount recently agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump over deceptive editing of a 60 Minutes interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Text of the Guild’s statement:

The following is a statement from the Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) and Writers Guild of America West (WGAW):

On July 2nd, Paramount agreed to settle a baseless lawsuit brought against 60 Minutes and CBS News by President Trump for $16 million. On July 15, during a regular show of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Colbert went on-air and called the settlement a “big fat bribe” in exchange for a favorable decision on the proposed merger between Paramount and Skydance, a charge currently under investigation in California.

Less than 48 hours later, on July 17, Paramount cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a show currently performing first in its timeslot, giving vague references to the program’s “financial performance” as the only explanation. For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media.

Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that The Late Show’s cancelation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration as the company looks for merger approval.

Cancelations are part of the business, but a corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society. Paramount’s decision comes against a backdrop of relentless attacks on a free press by President Trump, through lawsuits against CBS and ABC, threatened litigation of media organizations with critical coverage, and the unconscionable defunding of PBS and NPR.

The Writers Guild of America calls on New York State Attorney General Letitia James, no stranger to prosecuting Trump for illegal business practices, to join California and launch an investigation into potential wrongdoing at Paramount. We call on our elected leaders to hold those responsible to account, to demand answers about why this beloved program was canceled and to assure the public that Colbert and his writers were not censored due to their views or the whims of the President.

Keep reading

Study Claiming No Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism Riddled with Flaws, Critics Say

Mainstream media widely promoted a new study by Danish researchers that found no link between aluminum in vaccines and 50 negative health outcomes, including autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders.

However, critics told The Defender the study used flawed methodology and “statistical tricks” that muddied the findings.

The authors published their report on July 15 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. On July 14, even before the study went live, mainstream and health industry media, including NBC News and STAT News, publicly announced the results.

Chris Exley, Ph.D., one of the world’s leading experts on the health effects of aluminum exposure, and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said that in order to determine if aluminum exposure is linked to health conditions, the researchers should have compared children with no aluminum exposure to children with aluminum exposure.

But that’s not what the Danish scientists did. Instead, they compared children who received vaccines containing aluminum to children who received vaccines with slightly less aluminum.

Not only that, but there was only a one-milligram difference between the amount of aluminum in the vaccine doses received by the children in one of the groups compared to those in another group. Comparing children with similar aluminum levels rather than comparing children with low levels of aluminum to children with high levels of the metal further muddled the findings, Hooker said.

The researchers examined national vaccination records of about 1.2 million children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2018 and tracked the rates of 50 chronic health conditions.

Using statistical analyses, the authors concluded there was no link between aluminum content in vaccines and increased risk of developing autism, autoimmune diseases, asthma or allergic conditions, including food allergies and hay fever.

Anders Hviid, a professor and department head of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut and lead study author, told MedPage Today, the results “provide robust evidence supporting the safety of childhood vaccines.”

“This is evidence that parents, clinicians, and public health officials need to make the best choices for the health of our children,” Hviid said.

In a press release, Hviid called the results “reassuring” and said large studies like his are important in “an era marked by widespread misinformation about vaccines.”

Keep reading

“I Can’t Believe The New York Times Thought It Would Get Away With This…”

The irony is thick enough to choke on…

The New York Times, that bastion of so-called journalistic integrity, churned out yet another hit piece on President Donald Trump, painting him as some vengeful tyrant hell-bent on crushing his political foes. 

According to the paper, Trump supposedly views his opponents as downright evil, promising a campaign of retribution that sends shivers down the spines of the elite media class. 

Last week, he denounced a reporter as a “very evil person” for asking a question he did not like. This week, he declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people.” 

“Evil” is a word getting a lot of airtime in the second Trump term. It is not enough anymore to dislike a journalistic inquiry or disagree with an opposing philosophy. Anyone viewed as critical of the president or insufficiently deferential is wicked. The Trump administration’s efforts to achieve its policy goals are not just an exercise in governance but a holy mission against forces of darkness.

The characterization seeds the ground to justify all sorts of actions that would normally be considered extreme or out of bounds. If Mr. Trump’s adversaries are not just rivals but villains, then he can rationalize going further than any president has in modern times. 

This isn’t journalism; it’s selective outrage at its finest. The Times acts like Trump’s tough talk is some unprecedented assault on democracy, conveniently forgetting or willfully ignoring the years of venomous rhetoric that the left spewed against Trump and conservatives everywhere. It has the gall to portray Trump as the villain while pretending that its side hasn’t been fanning the flames of division for nearly a decade. 

If the Times is so concerned about demonizing political enemies, maybe it should look in the mirror, or better yet, revisit one of the most egregious examples from its own camp: from Barack Obama’s spying on Trump to frame him for colluding with Russia to Joe Biden’s lawfare campaign that literally tried to put Trump in prison.

Actions may speak louder than words, but Joe Biden spoke rather loudly during his infamous speech at Independence Hall back in 2022, where he didn’t even hide the fact that he saw his political allies as evil.

Keep reading

Congressional Cuts To PBS, NPR Could Unravel Leftist Propaganda Nodes Nationwide 

The Republican-controlled House delivered the final blow with a 216-213 vote on Thursday night to eliminate $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports leftist propaganda networks such as NPR, PBS, and affiliated stations nationwide. Attached to the bill was also an $8 billion cut targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has been accused of corruption.

The New York Times penned an article for its readers, offering multiple graphics that paint a grim picture of areas nationwide at risk of losing access to public radio and television. What the NYT fails to acknowledge is that the $1.1 billion in funding cuts to NPR, PBS, and affiliated stations represent a major blow to the leftist propaganda matrix—in other words, the information war of misinformation and disinformation waged by the left is about to crack a whole lot more.

“Failing stations will create a cascade effect in this highly connected and interdependent system, impacting content producers and leading to the potential collapse of additional distressed stations in other areas of the country,” Tim Isgitt, CEO of advisory firm Public Media Company, told the NYT.

Let the dominoes fall—this development could trigger a mass unraveling of the government-funded propaganda nodes nationwide that have brainwashed millions of Americans with toxic wokeism.  

Keep reading

Former MSNBC Host Touré Says Trump Was ‘Supposedly’ Shot in the Ear During CNN Segment

Former MSNBC host Touré caused an uproar on CNN this week when he said that Trump was ‘supposedly’ shot in the ear during a segment on the CNN News Night panel show.

He was immediately called out by Scott Jennings, the lone conservative voice on the network.

This moment is a reminder that there are people on the left who actually believe the assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania last summer was staged. It’s utter insanity.

Mediaite has details:

A CNN panel exploded on Thursday after one guest claimed President Donald Trump “supposedly got shot,” leading to Scott Jennings demanding an immediate correction.

On CNN NewsNight, Abby Phillip had to wrangle control of her panel after podcaster Touré exclaimed that Trump “supposedly” was shot in July 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania. The comment came during a discussion about the president’s health…

Elrod also brought up the point that Trump appeared to forget that he appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

“He supposedly got shot in the ear. We never heard from his doctors about that,” Touré added, immediately setting off Jennings, a senior CNN correspondent, and conservative pundit Ben Ferguson.

“Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Did you say supposedly?” Jennings asked, then pointing to the podcaster next to him and saying, “Abby, Abby,” to the panel’s anchor.

Keep reading

Disgraced CNN Claims Egg Prices *Increased* Under Trump

CNN, a far-left propaganda outlet that spreads disinformation and promotes violence against Jews, is spreading Orwellian lies about the cost of eggs under President Donald Trump.

From Orwell’s 1984:

“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

Paraphrasing CNN this week:

Egg prices have increased under President Trump from an average of $6.55 a dozen to $2.89 a dozen.

Keep reading

Low IQ Jasmine Crockett Says USAID Is Vital To Fund Sesame Street In Iraq… Or Something

Idiocracy-a-like Democrat Jasmine Crockett argued during a hearing that USAID, the slush fund decimated by DOGE, is desperately needed in order to fund US propaganda in places like Iraq to ensure Islamists there don’t become radicalised against America.

Yes, really.

Crockett claimed that past programs including a version of Sesame Street that was made for Iraq are vital to national security, suggesting “This is so that there is not this warped thought process about the Western world.”

What in God’s name is she on about?

Keep reading