Tag: media

An Illegal Migrant Tried To Saw Off A Man’s Head; You Won’t Believe What The BBC Did Next…

A leaked internal email shows a senior BBC executive reaching for the language of “solidarity” after a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with trying to brutally murder a Northern Irish man in the street. The corporation’s instinct was not to dwell on the victim, but instead to soothe colleagues “who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries.”

A local man is carved up on a Belfast pavement, unrest follows, and the state broadcaster act as if the real emergency is that imported staff might feel “particularly vulnerable.”

Investigative journalist Steven Edginton published the leak on Friday. Jack Whyte, the BBC’s Chief Technology Officer, wrote to staff after the backlash that followed the attack on Stephen Ogilvie. Whyte said he wanted to “express our solidarity with colleagues who may feel particularly vulnerable or fearful at this time, including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries.”

He condemned “hatred, intimidation, and violence in all its forms” and added that the BBC is “committed to fostering an environment where every colleague feels supported, included, and able to bring their whole self to work.”

Whyte’s wording is a tell. “Including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries” is the only group specified. Native staff who watched a man carved up on a Belfast street are left to infer that their fear does not count as vulnerability. Their anxiety is “hatred” adjacent, while the imported colleague’s anxiety is a welfare priority.

A source inside the corporation put the omission in plainer English: “The BBC offered solidarity to foreign staff but not to native Brits who might be worried about illegal migrants beheading them.”

Keep reading

Trump Targets NBC Host For FCC ‘Rebuke Or Punishment’

President Donald Trump took a run at NBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday, accusing the Meet the Press moderator of misrepresenting his endorsement record ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Trump, who boasts a 100% success rate with endorsed candidates in 2026 Senate primaries and a 98% success rate in House races, took issue with a comment Welker made not on the Sunday broadcast of Meet the Press itself, but during a pre-show appearance on WRC-TV, NBC’s local Washington station, to promote the program — where she said he’d had “mixed results” with his endorsements.

“Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has ‘mixed results’ on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. House, recently and over the longterm,” Trump posted via Truth Social.

“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves?” the president asked, sharing data showing the actual data on his endorsements. “Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment. Unfortunately, she is not the only one.”

Trump turned then to address media more broadly, saying that there were many others who went out of their way to broadcast only the bad things — even if that meant reframing good things to make them appear bad.

“The Radical Left News is going out of their way to harass, demean, and libel anything ‘TRUMP.’ Their new weapon is to say that my 99% SUCCESS Rate on Endorsements, 100% on Senatorial Endorsements (Many of whom were not even given a shot of winning until I Endorsed!), is either a mixed result, or not very good,” he wrote. “In actuality, it is, without question, the strongest Endorsement in the History of Politics. If it were not, I would be the first to admit it.”

Trump referenced Senator Darline Graham (R-SC), whose name had barely been on the radar prior to Trump’s endorsement, as a prime example. Graham was his first choice to fill the vacancy left by her brother, the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Darline Graham’s run for the Senate was the biggest story in all of Politics, because she wasn’t expected to win, and then, when I Endorsed her, and she easily won, the story of her Victory was hardly covered by anybody. Likewise, the future Governor of Oklahoma, who was behind in every Poll, I Endorsed him, he won, and the story was barely covered!” Trump complained. “The Press is a Disgrace to our Nation, and I hope that Chairman Brendan Carr, and the fine people of his Commission, will take this Threat to our Country very seriously. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter of Fake Polls and Commentary!”

HBO host and comedian Bill Maher admitted defeat on the same issue during his Friday night broadcast of “Real Time,” where he conceded that he’d been wrong about the impact and success Trump’s endorsements in 2026 primary races. He also joked that it had been the president himself who had texted him to make the correction.

Keep reading

Read Between the Lies: A Pattern Recognition Guide

When Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, announced during Event 201’s pandemic drill in 2019 that they would “flood the zone with trusted sources,” few understood this preview of coordinated narrative control. Within months, we watched it unfold in real time—unified messaging across all platforms, suppression of dissent, and coordinated narrative control that fooled much of the world.

But not everyone stayed fooled forever. Some saw through it immediately, questioning every aspect from day one. Others thought it was just incompetent government trying to protect us. Many initially accepted the precautionary principle—better safe than sorry. But as each policy failure pointed in the same direction—toward more control and less human agency—the pattern became impossible to ignore. Anyone not completely subsumed by the system eventually had to confront its true purpose: not protecting health or safety, but expanding control.

Once you recognize this pattern of deception, two questions should immediately arise whenever major stories dominate headlines: “What are they lying about?” and “What are they distracting us from?” The pattern of coordinated deception becomes unmistakable. Consider how media outlets spent three years pushing Russiagate conspiracies, driving unprecedented social division while laying the groundwork for what would become the greatest psychological operation in history. Today, while the media floods us with Ukraine coverage, BlackRock positions itself to profit from both the destruction and reconstruction. The pattern becomes unmistakable once you see it—manufactured crises driving pre-planned “solutions” that always expand institutional control.

Mainstream media operates on twin deceptions: misdirection and manipulation. The same anchors who sold us WMDs in Iraq, promoted “Russia collusion,” and insisted Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” still occupy prime time slots. Just as we see with RFK, Jr.’s HHS nomination, the pattern is consistent: coordinated attacks replace substantive debate, identical talking points appear across networks, and legitimate questions are dismissed through character assassination rather than evidence. Being consistently wrong isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. Their role isn’t to inform but to manufacture consent.

The template is consistent: Saturate media with emotional spectacles while advancing institutional agendas with minimal scrutiny. Like learning to spot a fake smile or hearing a false note in music, you develop an instinct for the timing:

Money and Power:

Medical Control:

Digital Control:

As these deceptions become more obvious, different forms of resistance emerge. The truth-seeking takes different forms. Some become deep experts in specific deceptions—documenting early treatment successes with repurposed drugs, uncovering hospital protocol failures, or exploring the impact of vaccine injuries. Others develop a broader lens for seeing how narratives themselves are engineered.

Keep reading

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Responds to Reports He’s Considering a 2028 Presidential Run

On Friday, NBC News reported Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is considering running for President in 2028.

In the report, NBC News, while using anonymous sources, claimed Hegseth has told close friends and family members that he’s considering running in 2028.

On Friday night, the Secretary of War responded to the report in a post on X and wrote, “100% false.”

He added, “We told NBC that, but they just lie w/ anonymous “sources.”

“My only job: Make the Department of War Great Again. Carry on Patriots, and enjoy your Friday night,” concluded Hegseth.

Here’s the NBC News report Hegseth was responding to:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has told close friends and associates that he is considering a run for president in 2028, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

Hegseth and his wife, Jennifer, have floated the idea of a presidential run for the past few months, believing he has some of the same attributes that have made Donald Trump popular with the MAGA movement, the people said. Trump’s core voters appreciate Hegseth’s toughness, defiance and conservative stance on social issues, they said.

Hegseth’s appearance at the Iowa State Fair on behalf of a Republican congressman earlier this month kindled both surprise and speculation about his possible presidential ambitions.

Iowa has long been a springboard for presidential campaigns. The state’s caucuses have traditionally come first in the nominating calendar, making Iowa a magnet for presidential hopefuls.

Keep reading

MSNOW Pushes Tired Liberal Talking Point That Second Amendment Only Applies to Guns Available When it Was Written

MSNOW host Melissa Murray and a liberal guest who clearly advocates for gun control, recently pushed the tired talking point that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern firearms, only the guns that were available when the Constitution was written.

Mind you, they said this on TELEVISION, which certainly wasn’t available when the First Amendment was written.

This is what the left flatly refuses to acknowledge about the Second Amendment. As they take full advantage of every new tool available for the advancement of free speech.

Partial transcript via NewsBusters:

MELISSA MURRAY, FILL-IN HOST: This consolidated set of cases has really captured the attention of many Second Amendment enthusiasts. The Second Amendment, as you know, involves the right to keep and bear arms. What do we know from the court in their most recent rulings about how the justices are likely to respond to this challenge to bans on semi-automatic weapons?

LEAH LITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, or at least the Republican appointees, have shown they have a ton of zeal for basically cannibalizing and eliminating common sense gun control regulation because they’ve adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment that maintains firearms that didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified — those are still constitutionally protected.

And yet governments have to show that the regulation of those firearms that’s used today resembles the kind of regulations that were applied to firearms that looked substantially different than firearms do today. That is, the government would have to show that it is regulating AR-15’s in the same way that the government’s regulated especially dangerous weapons that existed in the 1700s and 1800s — like, I don’t know, muskets or bayonets. And based on that logic, the court last term struck down two gun control regulations, one at the federal level and one at the state level. So I think it’s very concerning that the court took up this particular case.

Keep reading

Canadian Broadcasting Corp Tells Staff Not to Refer to 9/11 as ‘Terrorist Attack’

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sent a memo to its reporters and editors this week instructing them not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attack on America as a “terrorist attack.”

The memo, first reported by an astonished Warren Kinsella at the Toronto Sun, used boldface type to emphasize the directive to CBC employees.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said bluntly.

“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center was destroyed,” the memo continued, by way of explaining why the atrocity seen by most of the world as the textbook example of a “terrorist attack” should not be described as such.

According to Kinsella, the memo originated with Basem Boshra, the Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News.

Kinsella reached out to CBC to ask for further insights on why “hijackings” that “led to passenger jet crashes” should not be treated as terrorism.

The response, from CBC spokeswoman Kerry Kelly, was this:

CBC’s longstanding language guidance regarding the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ is a preference for the use of these words with attribution, a practice shared by many of the world’s top journalistic organizations. Our general manager and editor in chief has written publicly in the past on the subject.

In other words, CBC claimed it was following in the footsteps of news organizations that have invented lively euphemisms for terrorists, such as “activists” or “militants.” The CBC guide also seemed to be using a dash of passive voice to whitewash the horror of 9/11, as if those passenger jet crashes were a force of nature, or an unexpected consequence of the crazy hijinks of the hijackers.

Kelly tried again when the New York Post (NYP) came calling on Thursday, and arguably dug the CBC’s hole even deeper:

Our focus is to report the facts of such atrocities with accuracy, clarity and detail; to convey the scale and scope of violent acts wherever they occur; to quote the people affected, and to convey the views of officials and experts on these events. We bear witness.

But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.

The NYP pointed out that even Osama bin Laden referred to the 9/11 attack as an act of “blessed terror,” which really ought to be good enough for the CBC.

By the time Kelly got around to Canada’s National Post, she was engaging in Matrix-level reality distortions by claiming it was “wholly inaccurate to state our journalists have been urged to declare that this was not a terrorist act” – even though the memo said literally, exactly that, and in boldface type to boot. The CBC spokeswoman was effectively arguing there is a difference between refusing to call 9/11 a terrorist attack, and definitively stating that it was not one.

Kelly also tried to justify the memo by pointing out that CBC refused to call the October 7, 2023, atrocities perpetrated against Israel by Hamas “terrorism,” an argument that did not exactly provide the escalator ride out of the moral basement that she was hoping for.

The October 2023 blog post Kelly referred to, written by CBC News editor in chief Brodie Fenlon, offered a version of the hoary “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” canard – written after an earlier memo ordering CBC reporters not to call the Hamas attack “terrorism” was leaked to the public.

“CBC News is independent of any and all governments, yet we and other news organizations have been regularly lobbied over the years by many opposing groups to label certain people or acts of violence as terrorism – precisely because the word is so important to them and carries so much weight,” he wrote.

Fenlon quoted the relevant passage from the CBC style guide:

Exercise extreme caution before using the words terrorist and terrorism. While the language is not seriously disputed in some cases, it’s less clear if not highly contested at other times — which can lead to virtually endless questions about consistency and impartiality in our coverage of various attacks around the world.

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.

Outrage quickly boiled over on both sides of the border. Conservative MP Rachael Thomas pronounced the CBC memo “absolutely shameful,” and accused the outlet of “choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11.”

Keep reading

Zelensky Appoints Key Azov Commanders to Lead Defense of Last Strongholds in Donetsk – MSM Tries To Whitewash Their Nazi Ideology

The board is set, the pieces are moving for the battle for the last fortified bastions of Ukrainian control in Donetsk Oblast.

We have been reporting here on TGP on the impending major battle that will decide the fate of the Donbas, the cradle of the Ukraine war.

While the Luhansk region has already been fully conquered by Russia, there are still a cluster of fortified towns in northern Donetsk that have been holding since 2014.

But now, the advancing Russian forces are just a few miles from the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk ‘agglomeration’, and the fight for the ‘fortress belt’ is about to begin.

RT reported on Telegram:

“Four kilometers [2,4 miles] are left to the eastern outskirts of Slavyansk — [Russian] Chief of General Staff [Valery] Gerasimov.

Russian advance groups of assault units are fighting on the territory three kilometers from the outskirts of Kramatorsk.

Keep reading

NYT Killed A Story That Exposed How Democratic Spam PACs Drain Elderly Donors — And A Stanford Professor Had To Publish It Himself

You might remember that eight months ago, Stanford University political science professor Adam Bonica spent that time collaborating with The New York Times to run a massive, data-driven expose on the how Democratic spam PACs targeted and bilked elderly donors of their cash. And in the end, The New York Times killed the story after the Elias Law Firm (DCCC/DSCC lawyers) contacted The Times.

Using Federal Election Commission (FEC) data on contributions to Democratic PACs and voter registration lists with age information covering over 300 million contributions to candidates and PACs, Bonica found that the vast majority of donors to Democratic spam PACs are elderly. In fact, a surprisingly concentrated group of elderly donors are responsible for the lion’s share of money raised by these groups.

1% of Democratic donors – approximately 138,000 donors with an average age of 75 – are responsible for more than 49% of $1.4 billion raised by “spam PACs” since 2017.

These are actual cases of senior citizens being taken advantage of by Democratic spam PACs, all while consultants rake in millions. For example, an 85-year-old retired man from Oxford, Ohio sent out 7,800 donations to Democratic groups totaling $648,000 in value. That is more than double the value of his home. An elderly woman from an assisted living center in Indianapolis made 25,000 donations totaling $250,000 in value. The money she was spending on these donations was for her own care. A 93-year-old man was charged 4,208 times over the course of four months for Democratic groups, an average of 31 times per day. That came out to $32,742.

Between 70 and 85 percent of the largest spam PACs’ Facebook/Facebook fundraising ad impressions were served to users 65 and older – a demographic that comprises just 14% of the total adult user base on the platform.

Keep reading

Race Hustlers Redux: How Low Can the Grievance Grifters Go?

One would think that the liberal race fizzgigs would look at the soon-to-be smoldering ruins of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and want to avoid the humiliation that goes hand-in-hand with lying about racism and funding it when there isn’t enough to go around, but no.

The SPLC is accused of paying millions of dollars to so-called “white supremacists,” including helping to fund and plan the now-infamous Charlottesville riot on Aug. 11, 2017, where a woman was murdered.

A Klan-hugger at the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, also got busted for paying Nazis to be more “Nazi,” including the goose-stepper she was sleeping with. 

The SPLC allegedly bribed white supremacy-types to remain in their bigoted battalions even when they wanted to leave. It also paid Beirich $190,000 per year, not counting the mad stacks she funneled into a joint account with her Klan-man cicisbeo. After all, if the truth were revealed that white supremacists are harder to find than Nancy Pelosi’s keys after a five-martini lunch, the donations would stop, Beirich would have to get a real job, and, even worse, racism might actually die in the United States. And without a racist boogeyman to scare black people, how can the Democratic Party trick black folks into voting for them?

Despite the SPLC’s shameful obloquy, the original attention-starved cockalorum bumboy himself, Don Lemon, couldn’t wait to beclown himself for clicks by joining the mayor of Gary, Ind., Eddie Melton, to blame “racism” for the reason Gary residents were still without power 13 days after a massive storm blew in.

What neither of these delusional tools discussed was that power linemen were being attacked by Gary residents as they tried to restore power.

Keep reading

SICK! Don Lemon Whines After Judge Refuses to Give Convicted Killer Karmelo Anthony a Do-Over — “He Was 17!”

Fired CNN host Don Lemon is back again wringing his hands over convicted murderer Karmelo Anthony, and he wants you to feel sorry for the teenager who stabbed 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the heart at a high school track meet.

A Texas judge on Saturday denied Anthony’s motion for a new trial, leaving his murder conviction and 35-year prison sentence intact.

Anthony was convicted in June of murdering 17-year-old Austin during a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, on April 2, 2025.

Austin died in the arms of his twin brother, Hunter.

But Lemon appears far more troubled by the consequences facing the convicted killer than by the permanent sentence Anthony imposed on Austin and his devastated family.

Lemon said:

“Breaking—and it is complicated, so make sure you pay attention. Karmelo Anthony is not getting a new trial, and after what came out in court last week, I have questions.

“We learned there was a private, off-the-record agreement to keep the troubled youths’ backgrounds—both teenagers—away from the jury.

“Austin Metcalf had allegations involving racial slurs, bullying, and assault. Karmelo had allegations involving threatening texts, stalking, and assault. None of that came in.

“And Karmelo’s former lawyer says that they had planned to put him on the stand, but all of this helped change that decision.

“So now the defense says the first trial was too controlled, too secretive, and unfair. The judge said no. Thirty-five years still stands.

“And I’m still stuck on one thing: He was 17. Seventeen years old. And now he could spend most of his life in prison. That is a hell of a sentence for a teenager.”

Keep reading