Media – American Conservative Movement

Soros Makes Another Move to Control American Media — Where Are the Rich Conservatives?

Publius — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:44:31 +0000

In a blatant display of political maneuvering, the Biden-Harris administration has hastened George Soros’s purchase of Audacy, a behemoth media conglomerate comprising over 200 radio stations across 40 markets. While Republicans are rightfully outraged, one can’t help but wonder why rich Republicans aren’t following suit in utilizing similar out-of-the-box strategies to sway public opinion.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) recently took to his pen, sending an urgent letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on October 10. He demanded clarity on why the commission expedited this deal with a Soros-backed nonprofit mere weeks before Election Day. How can we trust an agency that seems ready to bypass national security reviews for foreign-funded purchases?

Other Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) have joined the chorus decrying this politically charged decision — which was allegedly made along party lines in a troubling 3-2 vote.

But let’s face it; nobody expects the FCC to reverse course here. As Soros extends his reach deeper into media just as we approach what promises to be a tight race in 2024, conservatives are understandably concerned about what this means for our political landscape.

“What you now have is a left-wing Looney Tune who has access to millions of people in every market in the United States of America,” said David D. Smith, executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group. “That’s scary.”

Indeed it is! For too long, conservative voices have been marginalized or outright persecuted within mainstream media channels—something only amplified by moves like these from unaccountable billionaires wielding their financial power without remorse.

Yet there appears little unity among conservatives regarding how best to respond. Some propose that megadonors should mimic Soros’s aggressive investment strategies rather than relying solely on traditional methods that leave them vulnerable and unheard.

Scott Walter—the president of Capital Research Center—echoes sentiments reminiscent of late journalist Andrew Breitbart when he asked, “What is the art of the conservative billionaire?”

He further emphasizes, “Soros, by contrast, makes big investments like this huge radio play. If conservative donors don’t invest more, the damage to our country’s culture will only worsen.”

The reality remains stark; money talks but so does influence through diverse platforms—and trusting adversarial outlets isn’t viable for effectively disseminating conservative messages either.

David D. Smith, executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said, “There are four places where you can have a voice in today’s marketplace: internet, radio, TV and newspaper.

“So the simple question is if I was standing in front of every billionaire in United States right now I would say ‘Do you want to have a voice put out your philosophical perspective?’”

“If the answer is yes, then OK here’s how do that. They have decide: Do they really want just sit their money put it nonprofit someplace? And then they lament fact Democrats control everything.”

For now at least many conservative benefactors still cling tightly onto hopes pinned upon Washington politicians fighting valiantly for their agenda—a misguided notion given how often these elected representatives seem all too willing to capitulate under liberal pressure instead of making principled stands against such encroachments as those brought forth by George Soros.

As disillusionment mounts among frustrated conservatives watching yet another election cycle unfold under unfavorable media circumstances, perhaps it’s time they look towards embracing winning plays rather than remaining content merely playing defense.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

The Shifting Media Landscape

Jeffrey A. Tucker — Fri, 18 Oct 2024 04:59:37 +0000

(The Epoch Times)—Listening to an interview with journalist Megyn Kelly, I was startled to learn that her private media company beats the mainstream legacy networks in traffic and influence.

She has six employees. When she was fired by NBC in 2018, she believed that it was the end of her career. She went to dark places in her mind.

But she bounced back with her own broadcasting company and has never been happier or more influential.

The same story has been told by Tucker Carlson, whose network is gigantic and whose influence is far beyond even the heights that he obtained at Fox in the old days. I have no direct knowledge of how many people work for his personal channel, but it is a reasonable guess that it is no more than a dozen.

Everyone knows about the success and reach of Joe Rogan’s show. Apart from that, there are many thousands more with influence in their own sectors of reach. The share of influence dominated by legacy seems to be falling dramatically. You can detect their influence in this election season in which candidates are working the podcast circuit.

You might chalk this up to technology: Everyone has the capacity now to make content and distribute it. Therefore, of course, people do it.

The real story, however, is more complicated.

A new poll from Gallup offers an intriguing look. The latest polls show trust in major media is at an all-time low. It’s fallen from a post-Watergate high in 1976 of 72 percent to 31 percent today. That is an enormous slide, impossible to dismiss as mere technological change. Along with that, the poll documents dramatic losses of trust in government and essentially all official institutions.

The loss of trust has hit all age groups but more profoundly affects people younger than 40 years old. These are folks who have grown up with alternatives and developed a sophisticated understanding of information flows, and are deeply suspicious of any institution that seeks control over public culture.

Gallup stated: “The news media is the least trusted group among 10 U.S. civic and political institutions involved in the democratic process. The legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, is rated about as poorly as the media, with 34 percent trusting it.”

In contrast, “majorities of U.S. adults express at least a fair amount of trust in their local government to handle local problems (67 percent), their state government to address state problems (55 percent), and the American people as a whole when it comes to making judgments under our democratic system about the issues facing the country (54 percent).”

It seems based on this poll that, in people’s hearts and minds, we are defaulting back to the America of Alexis de Tocqueville, a network of self-governing communities of friends and neighbors rather than a centrally managed and controlled monolith. The farther the institutions get from people’s direct experiences, the less they are trusted. That is how it should be, even aside from other considerations.

In this case, the causal factors are not only the distance and not only the technology that allows for alternatives. Legacy media has been so aggressively partisan for at least nine years that it has alienated vast swaths of the viewing audience. Top executives have known about this problem for a very long time and worked to fix it, but they face tremendous pressure from within, from reporters and technicians with Ivy educations and a dedication to woke ideology.

The New York Times after 2016 attempted to repair the damage from having so completely mishandled and miscalled the election. It hired new editors and writers, but it was only a matter of time before they were driven out in a reminder to the top brass that there was a cultural revolution afoot, and that the personal is the political and visa-versa.

The newspaper defaulted back to extreme partisanship, leaving owners and managers to figure out other paths to sustaining profitability.

As a result, it appears that an entire industry is in the process of a long meltdown with no available fixes. Huge audiences have turned away from it toward alternatives that are not necessarily partisan on the other side but simply display a dedication to telling facts and truths about which actual readers care.

A question has long mystified me: Is this loss of trust entirely because of a change in media bias, or is it that new technological options have fully revealed what might always have been there but was not widely known? I don’t have the answer to that but it is worth some reflection.

When I was a kid, there were exactly three channels on television and one local newspaper. There was never a chance to see The New York Times except perhaps at the public library. The nightly news came on at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. It lasted for 30 minutes. It opened with international news, moved to national news, turned to sports, and then the local affiliate took over with local news and weather.

There was perhaps 10 minutes per day of national news on three separate channels, each reporting more or less the same thing. That was it. People in those days chose their station based on whether they liked the voice and personality of the broadcaster. News media was highly trusted. But was that trust based on reliable and excellent reporting, or simply a reflection of all that people did not know?

In those days, my own father was deeply distrustful of what he saw on television. Somehow, he intuited that Richard Nixon was being railroaded by the Watergate scandal. He theorized that someone was out to get him, not for bad things he had done, but for the good he had done and had planned to do. He preached this opinion constantly and it set him apart from all conventional wisdom. Indeed, as a young man I knew for sure that my father was the outlier: None of my friend’s parents agreed and none of my teachers did, either.

Since then, much has come out that seems to reinforce my father’s views.

If Watergate happened in today’s world, there would be a huge explosion of opinions in all directions, with motives of all actors pushed out on every channel, and there would be widespread competition to find the real story. We certainly would not be relying on two relatively inexperienced reporters at The Washington Post.

I happen to believe that this is a good thing, even though it has come with a loss of trust. Maybe the old trust was not nearly as merited as people thought, simply because there were so few options. As the years went on, there were even more sources, starting with PBS but moving to CNN and C-SPAN. After the web came online and social media took off, that’s when the veil was really pulled back and media wholly transformed.

People on all sides of the political spectrum today express profound regret for this change. Former presidential candidate John Kerry has said that today’s media environment makes governing impossible, and Hillary Clinton has floated the idea of criminal penalties for misinformation, a word tossed around so frequently these days but rarely defined as anything other than speech that some people do not like.

All told, the rise of alternative media has surely contributed to the decline in public trust in the mainstream media. This might not reflect a fundamental change in the bias of media sources but simply the reality that we are only now fully aware of what has always been true. In that case, we are better off seeing these trends as good news all around, provided that we have an attachment to seeing reality as it is. In any case, we all should.

Returning to the Kelly/Carlson business model: They are doing far more with fewer staff members than was ever thought possible. It’s a solid prediction that many legacy media companies will be downsizing in terms of personnel in the future. They can do more with less. And they can do it with more fairness and less bias. Economic realities will likely make it so.

The entire landscape of information and media economies is dramatically shifting. That is precisely why we are hearing ever more calls for censorship. Many elites long for the old days of canned and constructed narratives with no other options. But the well-documented loss of trust makes that little more than a pipe dream. It cannot and will not happen.

The only viable path to earning audience loyalty in our times is to write and speak with fact-based integrity. Trust has to be earned.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Most (Rightly) Believe Corporate Media Shills for Team Commiela

Publius — Sat, 17 Aug 2024 23:15:55 +0000

In the latest twist of the American political saga, a Rasmussen Reports poll has revealed that a hefty chunk of the voting populace believes the media is playing favorites in the presidential race, with a majority suspecting news reporters are covertly campaigning for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. Here’s how the narrative unfolds:

A significant 50 percent of likely voters are under the impression that the media is more of a cheerleader for Harris than a neutral observer, while a mere 14 percent think they’re in Trump’s corner. A quarter of the respondents hope for some semblance of journalistic integrity, believing reporters will offer unbiased coverage, but the rest are either unsure or have given up on the idea of media impartiality altogether.

When you slice the data by political affiliation, it’s like watching different movies. Republicans, by a landslide, expect the media to be Harris’s personal PR team, with 66 percent of them nodding in agreement. Democrats, on the other hand, are split, with 34 percent thinking the media’s got Harris’s back, but a significant portion also believes in the mythical creature known as “unbiased coverage.”

The survey also found that the belief in media bias has grown since the last election cycle, with 60 percent now convinced that reporters are playing favorites, up from 51 percent back in 2020. It seems the trust in media objectivity is dwindling faster than a politician’s promise.

When it comes to who’s getting the better media treatment, Harris is the clear winner in the eyes of the public, with 57 percent saying she’s the media’s darling, against Trump’s 29 percent. This sentiment crosses party lines, with even Republicans admitting Harris gets the better press, though with a bit of a grumble.

Interestingly, those who are Biden’s biggest fans are also the most likely to believe in media fairness, with over half of them thinking reporters are trying to play it straight. Meanwhile, those who can’t stand Biden are almost unanimously convinced the media is as biased as a coin with heads on both sides.

This poll, conducted just before the election fever really kicks in, suggests that the media’s role in shaping public perception is under the microscope more than ever. Whether this perception of bias influences the actual vote remains to be seen, but for now, it seems the media’s reputation is as contested as the election itself.

George Soros Seeks Help of Dem-Controlled FCC to Expedite His Takeover of America’s Second-Largest Radio Network

Belle Carter, Natural News — Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:50:10 +0000

(Natural News)—Billionaire globalist George Soros is seeking the help of the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as he works to fast-track taking over the country’s second-biggest radio network.

According to a New York Post article, Soros pumped $400 million into the radio outlet Audacy in February. The said network reaches 165 million monthly listeners and includes a handful of conservative shows from hosts including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson.

A source with knowledge of the deal told the news outlet that the idea that “Soros is buying hundreds of local radio stations right before a national election and will keep broadcasting Sean Hannity and other conservative talk radio hosts on Audacy is not credible.”

Soros Fund Management needs help from the FCC to take control of the network as the money funneled into buying the bankrupt network comes from abroad. Under existing FCC rules, foreign company ownership of radio stations in the United States is not allowed to exceed 25 percent, but a filing acquired by the Post included a request from Soros asking the commission to make an exception.

In response, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said that the FCC should not create a special Soros shortcut. He added that when it comes to a broadcast station acquisition of this size and magnitude, the FCC needs to run its full and normal review process.

“The FCC should not be skipping steps or waiving required agency processes,” Carr pointed out.

An alarm about this was first set off by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) in April. He said that this transaction, which affects radio stations that reach millions of listeners across the U.S., should, at minimum, be subject to rigorous FCC oversight to ensure U.S. radio stations are not subject to undue influence.

“Audacy owns more than 220 local radio stations in over 40 markets and is the second-largest American radio group behind iHeart,” a press release from Roy’s office read. “The Soros group says that skipping the foreign ownership review at this time will enable the FCC to expedite its approval of the Soros applications and thus allow them to more quickly realize their ownership interests in, and take the reins at, these hundreds of local radio stations across the country.” (Related: Texas congressman slams George Soros over his acquisition of radio giant Audacy.)

He had earlier written the Soros group would usually petition to get its foreign funding sources vetted by the FCC first, but that they are trying to waive that process and put it off “until sometime down the road, indicating that those foreign stakeholders will be given ‘special warrants’ in the meantime.”

Meanwhile, critics believe the FCC’s influence is likely to be muted once the billionaire takes over and imposes his agenda, as he did with other media acquisitions.

Sources told the Post that Soros’ stake is equal to about 40 percent of the company’s senior debt, a massive chunk which, although not a majority, could yield effective control of the media giant when it emerges from bankruptcy.

Media watchdog: Soros spent $80 million to “silence” Americans

The timing of the deal, just months before the 2024 presidential election, has raised eyebrows all across the United States. One insider said he felt it possible Soros was buying the stake to exert influence on public opinion in leading up to the election. “This is scary,” the source said at the time.

In fact, a new report by the media watchdog Media Research Center (MRC) indicated that Soros gave over $80 million to affiliated groups calling for “censorship” ahead of November’s critical election.

“One of the wealthiest men in the world is using his vast wealth and power to silence regular Americans ahead of the 2024 election. At a time when defending free speech is key, leftists are trying their best to shut down the voices of half of America, especially those who disagree with the radical agenda promoted by Biden, Soros and most Big Tech executives,” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider told Fox News Digital.

Last month, Free Press boasted about a letter urging executives at Discord, Google, Instagram, Meta, Pinterest, Reddit, Rumble, Snap, TikTok, Twitch, Twitter and YouTube to keep online platforms “safe and healthy” in 2024 through six specific “interventions.” The letter was signed by 200 civil society organizations, researchers and journalists. However, MRC found that “at least 45 of the signatories have had their coffers packed with Soros cash to the tune of a whopping $80,757,329 between 2016 and 2022 alone.”

“It appears its true design is to pressure Big Tech companies to silence speech the left despises as 60 countries across the globe gear up for their elections in 2024,” MRC associate editor Joseph Vazquez wrote. “But even more disturbing was the letter’s implication that its primary target is interfering in the 2024 U.S. election. This development is directly in line with Soros’ brand, who has dedicated millions of his ungodly fortune to groups looking to interfere in elections by stifling online speech.”

Visit Soros.news for stories about the globalist George Soros. Watch the video below that talks about how the Biden government does nothing as Soros destroys America.

This video is from the InfoWars channel on Brighteon.com.

Only Patriotic American Citizens Can Fix Fake Conservative Media

JD Rucker — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:34:52 +0000

(X Articles)—Hitting leftists, atheists, and globalists is relatively easy for both journalists and the general public. The progressive policies and ideas being pushed by them are clearly wrong so right-leaning media and patriotic American citizens can dismantle their arguments without much effort.

It’s the false narratives being pushed by so-called “right leaning” journalists that are often more dangerous. The ideas of many Fox News personalities, for example, lean into NeoConservatism as if it’s a good thing. They often not only deny Biblical truths but act militantly against Judeo-Christian values. And worst of all, they often try to subvert efforts by real journalists by running cover for false leftist narratives.

A majority of these pseudo-right-leaning media voices are doing so out of ignorance… at least that’s what I hope. They’re just misguided in their perspectives and therefore they lead their audiences astray inadvertently. Others are controlled opposition, building credibility by being on the right side of issues like abortion or gun control while simultaneously defending leftist positions on more ambiguous topics.

The two easiest examples of this are Covid vaccines and voter fraud. How many “right leaning” media personalities lambasted people for being skeptical of the jabs? It was a decent litmus test to demonstrate who was really on our side and who was either too ignorant or too compromised by Big Pharma to spread the truth.

As for voter fraud, this is my favorite line in the sand. Despite mountains of evidence that continue to emerge about the 2020 election (and many of the 2022 elections) being flat-out stolen, there are far too many allegedly on the right who continue to gaslight about it. They might cite “irregularities” or talk about how media “swayed” the vote toward Joe Biden, but they deny that the election itself was fully rigged. More importantly, they denounce efforts to prevent it from happening again.

Persecuted Infowars journalist Owen Shroyer recently posted a short analysis on X that resonated with me because of a project I’ve been working on for a while. He noted how conservative talk show host David Webb ripped into a caller about chemtrails. But what happened next was important. Subsequent callers told Webb that he was misinformed about the topic and that he really should do better research because chemtrails are absolutely real.

We The People are waking up. Chemicals are real. pic.twitter.com/TnequhL3W1

— Owen Shroyer (@OwenShroyer1776) March 14, 2024

If one caller mentioned chemtrails and nobody followed up with calls to tell Webb he was wrong, there is no chance that Webb would change his mind. Perhaps he still won’t. But because a small but vocal group of people affirmed each other and spread the truth, it’s possible that Webb will reassess. Maybe he’ll do more research. Maybe he’ll change his mind. Let’s hope and pray he does. And if he doesn’t, then we need to keep calling in to tell him he’s not only misled but is misleading others who hear him.

This is the way. This is what needs to happen if we are to have hope that more “right leaning” media personalities will wake up and get with the program. Chemtrails are a drop in the bucket. There are many topics for which the narratives coming from some in conservative media need to be corrected.

We’re not looking for groupthink. We’re looking for critical thinking to be applied by more. We won’t get them all. Remember, far too many in “right leaning” media are controlled opposition and will never break free from whatever motivates them to mislead the masses. But if we can get more journalists to join Team Truth, we’ll get more Americans in general to see the light.

Over the last year, I’ve been actively seeking content creators who demonstrate proper discernment to join a media project that I believe will change things. We are close to launching the project thanks in large part to funding that appears to be coming. More on that soon, but for now it’s refreshing to know there are others out there who recognize the need to build a better conservative media ecosystem.

Part of that ecosystem is already launched and actively growing. As some may know, I’m editor at The Liberty Daily and publisher of Discern Report. These are the hubs from which we can start reaching more people with the truth in ways that Drudge Report did in the past. Soon, we will be extending this beyond just news aggregation. I’m excited to be able to launch that in the coming weeks.

Hitting the left is easy because they’re ludicrous. Fixing unreliable influences on the right will be tougher. Some we’ll be able to wake up. Others we can only expose. But in all three cases it won’t be journalists who lead the charge. It will be the people like those who attempted to correct David Webb who will really make the difference. That’s you.

Fake News Media Outlets Cut a Record-Breaking 2,700 Jobs in 2023, With More Losses Predicted for 2024

Zoey Sky, Natural News — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:51:13 +0000

(Natural News)—A study has found that news media outlets have slashed at least 2,700 jobs in 2023. Data from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas has revealed that media companies overall have made 20,324 cuts so far in 2023, the highest year-to-date total since 2020.

In recent weeks, Conde Nast, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, Vox Media and other news outlets have made significant reductions in their workforces. Popular Science, a storied science and technology magazine that has won many awards, has ceased its print edition.

To ensure continued printing, other publications such as BusinessWeek and The Nation reduced production and have become monthly magazines.

Overall, many media companies have shed thousands of employees in recent weeks amid what many used to consider “the most wonderful time of the year.”

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas has reported that many news outlets have cut nearly 2,700 jobs this year, the highest number of job cuts in the industry since 2020, the turbulent year that saw the whole world thrown into chaos by the global Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. (Related: Recession fears surge as new job creation slows down, jobless claims rise.)

Challenger, Gray & Christmas data also revealed in the “news” subcategory the firm tracks, at least 2,681 jobs have been cut, including those in broadcast, digital and print. That total exceeded the 1,808 cuts announced during 2022 and 1,511 announced the year before.

Many major media companies have announced efforts to trim staff and reduce costs to survive a tough advertising market and general news fatigue by consumers.

For example, the Washington Post aims to cut at least 240 jobs from its newsroom before the end of the year. Companies like Conde Nast and Vox have also implemented or announced major staff reductions.

Economy is resilient, but terminations are the norm for publishers

Even though the U.S. economy has been resilient, the unwelcome job cuts come during a rather challenging business climate for publishers, which have continued to see significant declines in social media traffic, which used to be the lifeblood of digital media publications, along with a very demanding advertising market and changing audience habits.

The cuts also come at an unfortunate period, especially given the state of the information environment and alleged threats to U.S. democracy.

The Left claims that at a time when anti-democratic candidates are trying to seize power in election contests throughout the country, newsrooms are seeing their reach and staffing shrink, if not go belly up entirely. According to Left, this lack of accountability implies that the dishonest figures seeking higher office will face less scrutiny and leave the electorate less informed.

Margaret Sullivan, a columnist at the Guardian who previously wrote about media for the Washington Post and the New York Times, said she was concerned about the bigger consequences the job losses in the news business will have on the country.

Sullivan said the loss of journalists “contributes to the exponential growth of news deserts in large swaths of the nation — and that’s disastrous when misinformation is rampant.” She concluded that democracy requires “an informed electorate in order to function and that is tragically dwindling in many regions.”

Visit MarketCrash.news for similar stories about job losses in other industries. Watch the video below to learn about job loss due to automation.

This video is from the AMPNews channel on Brighteon.com.

Purging the Media

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. — Mon, 29 May 2023 08:08:41 +0000

If you say something that brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers don’t want you to hear, you will find yourself canceled by the mainstream media. No matter how popular you were before, you will become a non-person. We all know this, but we need to grasp how pervasive this phenomenon is. Content that the forces of evil don’t want you to hear is banned.

Gary Barnett gives an outstanding overview on the dangers of censorship and what is going on today: “Current censorship has reached levels not seen in the past, and with all the advanced technology available, this nefarious plot to silence the thinkers and hide the truth could affect all forms of speech. It is getting much more difficult to find truthful information, as those like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and many other venues are eliminating content and access to content at a blistering pace. A day rarely goes by without something I am reading or researching on these sites being taken down or hidden. This can only lead to a world consumed by propaganda alone, thus guaranteeing that only the state narrative will be presented in any mainstream or easily accessible format. This is a dangerous situation, especially considering the likelihood that through vaccination or other methods, much of the population could soon become subject to transhuman experimentation where injectable nanoparticles and chips could be used to alter human behavior.

This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question. In ancient times and not so ancient times, books were burned to keep the populace from having access to any material that was not acceptable by the throne or by the current political authority. In cases of resistance to ‘high’ authority, many were also killed by the state, and in many cases these ‘cleansings’ were targeted to the educated class, because they had the capability to think critically and express their ideas publically. Those that held power by force of arms would never allow criticism and dissent, because that could lead to hostility and insurrection by the people.”

But let’s get down to specifics. Although the fake covid “vaccines” kill people, you can’t say this on YouTube. An article that was published in RT in September 2021 tells the story: “YouTube will ban all ‘harmful vaccine content’ from its platform, including claims that vaccines are ineffective at reducing disease transmission. The ban comes after a year of escalating censorship by the Google-owned company.

‘We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with Covid-19 to other vaccines,’YouTube said in a blog post on Wednesday.

The new rules prohibit content alleging that vaccines ‘cause chronic side effects,’ that they ‘do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease,’ and that they contain unlisted ingredients like fetal cells. The rules apply to all currently approved and administered vaccines, and not just Covid-19 shots.

At first glance, the rules are open to interpretation. YouTube’s moderators will have to decide, for instance, whether content discussing side effects strays beyond the ‘rare side effects that are recognised by health authorities.’Likewise, multiple studies and real-world data have suggested that Covid-19 vaccines are less effective at preventing transmission and infection than previously thought, and some suggest that this efficacy wanes with time.

And, while YouTube explicitly bans claims that vaccines contain fetal tissue or fetal cell lines, shots for various diseases – including Hepatitis A, Rubella and Chickenpox – are actually manufactured using cell lines started in aborted fetal tissue, but individual doses do not contain any of this tissue.

Content violating these new rules will receive a series of ‘strikes’ from YouTube, with three strikes resulting in the termination of the offending channel.

The new policy adds to YouTube’s existing ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy,’ which sets out a wide range of forbidden topics regarding the coronavirus. These include videos ‘encouraging home remedies,’ content claiming ‘that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of Covid-19,’ and content ‘that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of Covid-19.’

The latter two topics are controversial, as there is no scientific consensus that masks prevent transmission of the virus, and Ivermectin has shown some promise in studies as a treatment for Covid-19.

Nevertheless, YouTube stated on Wednesday that over 130,000 videos have been removed since last year for violating this policy.

Earlier this week, RT’s German-language channels (RT DE and Der Fehlende Part) were permanently deleted by YouTube. The company took down the channels after handing out a strike to RT DE over alleged ‘medical misinformation’in four videos. Among these cases of supposed ‘misinformation’ was an interview with German epidemiologist Friedrich Puerner, who was critical of his government’s methods of battling the pandemic. He, however, was in favor of vaccination and never doubted the Covid-19 pandemic. Starting September 21, RT DE was no longer allowed to upload any videos or conduct live streams on its YouTube channel. RT DE content, albeit not the flagged videos, was shared through another channel, the DFP (also owned by RT in Germany). This, YouTube claimed, was a violation of the strike issued to RT DE and the Google-owned platform took down both channels.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, told journalists on Wednesday that the banning amounted to ‘a case of censorship, and of obstructing the dissemination of information by the media,’ and would be investigated by Russian media regulators, adding ‘there must be zero tolerance for such violations of the law.’” See this.

Barnett’s case is even stronger than he presents it in that he underestimates the effectiveness of Ivermectin, which has turned out to be a wonder drug in treating covid. Ira Katz tells the story: “I hope you have heard about Ivermectin, not only because of its almost miraculous development, efficacy and safety; but also because it could become the ultimate red pill.

First the history of Ivermectin. I quote at length from an important review paper by Dr. Pierre Kory (and others notably Dr. Paul Marik) of Front Line doctors. The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance is the source of the best medical protocols for treating Covid-19.

‘In 1975, Professor Satoshi Omura at the Kitsato institute in Japan isolated an unusual Streptomyces bacterium from the soil near a golf course along the southeast coast of Honshu, Japan. Omura, along with William Campbell, found that the bacterial culture could cure mice infected with the roundworm Heligmosomoides polygyrus. Campbell isolated the active compounds from the bacterial culture, naming them “avermectins” and the bacterium S. avermitilis for the compounds’ ability to clear mice of worms. Despite decades of searching around the world, the Japanese microorganism remains the only source of avermectin ever found. Ivermectin, a derivative of avermectin, then proved revolutionary. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered. Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases. The unprecedented partnership between Merck & Co. Inc, and the Kitasato Institute combined with the aid of international health care organizations has been recognized by many experts as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century. One example was the decision by Merck & Co to donate ivermectin doses to support the Mectizan Donation Program that then provided more than 570 million treatments in its first 20 years alone. Ivermectin’s impacts in controlling onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, diseases which blighted the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics, is why its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 and the reason for its inclusion on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “List of Essential Medicines.” Furthermore, it has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found.’

This drug not only has been widely used and is prevalent throughout the developing world, but it is very inexpensive! Maybe 1000 times cheaper than Remdesivir.

Thus, it cannot be stated too strongly that Ivermectin may be the greatest drug ever found/discovered and this drug is almost too good to be true for treating Covid-19. Yet given this great news, what has been the response in the developed world? Crickets! But not only that, social media has actively suppressed discussion of this miraculous potential.”

The media censorship isn’t confined to covid. The brilliant Ron Unz describes another example of censorship that directly involves brain-dead Biden. “Consider the case of Jonathan Turley, a leading establishmentarian figure who holds the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. As his 5,000 word Wikipedia entry describes, he has spent decades as one of our most prolific and influential media commentators on legal matters, publishing numerous pieces in the New York Times and the Washington Post while being a regular guest on our broadcast networks. His long career has been entirely mainstream, and there is no sign he has ever explored any of the controversial topics that are the focus of my own research.

But just last week he published an outraged column in The Hill—a very respectable DC outlet—expressing his amazement at the total unwillingness of our media to report the massive evidence of financial corruption engulfing the family of President Joe Biden. His stunned reaction was so forceful that his remarks are worth excerpting at considerable length:

‘This week, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) tried to do the impossible. After he and his colleagues presented a labyrinth of LLC shell companies and accounts used to funnel as much as $10 million to Biden family members, Donalds tried to induce the press to show some interest in the massive corruption scandal. ‘For those in the press, this easy pickings & Pulitzer-level stuff right here,’ he pleaded.

The response was virtually immediate. Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined ‘Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.’

For many of us, it was otherworldly. A decade ago, when then-Vice President Joe Biden was denouncing corruption in Romania and Ukraine and promising action by the United States, massive payments were flowing to his son Hunter Biden and a variety of family members, including Biden grandchildren.

The brilliance of the Biden team was that it invested the media in this scandal at the outset by burying the laptop story as ‘Russian disinformation’ before the election. That was, of course, false, but it took two years for most major media outlets to admit that the laptop was authentic.

But the media then ignored what was on that ‘authentic laptop.’ Hundreds of emails detailed potentially criminal conduct and raw influence peddling in foreign countries.

When media outlets such as the New York Post confirmed the emails, the media then insisted that there was no corroboration of the influence peddling payments and no clear proof of criminal conduct. It entirely ignored the obvious corruption itself.

Now that the House has released corroboration in actual money transfers linking many in the Biden family, the media is insisting that this is no scandal because there is no direct proof of payments to Joe Biden.

Putting aside that this is only the fourth month of an investigation, the media’s demand of a direct payment to President Biden is laughably absurd. The payments were going to his family, but he was the object of the influence peddling.

The House has shown millions of dollars going to at least nine Bidens like dividends from a family business. As a long-time critic of influence peddling among both Republicans and Democrats, I have never seen the equal of the Bidens.

The whole purpose of influence peddling is to use family members as shields for corrupt officials. Instead of making a direct payment to a politician, which could be seen as a bribe, you can give millions to his or her spouse or children.

Moreover, these emails include references to Joe Biden getting a 10 percent cut of one Chinese deal. It also shows Biden associates warning not to use Joe Biden’s name but to employ code names like ‘the Big Guy.’ At the same time, the president and the first lady are referenced as benefiting from offices and receiving payments from Hunter.

Indeed, Hunter complains that his father is taking half of everything that he is raking in.

None of that matters. The New York Times ran a piece headlined, ‘House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.’ That is putting aside evidence against all the family members around Joe Biden. It also ignored that other evidence clearly shows Biden lied about his family not receiving Chinese funds or that he never had any knowledge of his son’s business dealings.

In discussing modern Russian propaganda, researchers at the Rand Corporation described it as having ‘two distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.’

Sound familiar?

Today we are seeing a much more dangerous phenomenon. The coverage this week has all the markings of a state media. The consistent spin. The almost universal lack of details. The absurd distinctions.

It is the blindside of our First Amendment, which addresses the classic use of state authority to coerce and control media. It does not address a circumstance in which most of the media will maintain an official line by consent rather than coercion.

The media simply fails to see the story. Of course, it can always look to the president for enlightenment. Just before his son received a massive transfer of money from one of the most corrupt figures in Romania, Biden explained to that country why corruption must remain everyone’s focus. ‘Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen’s faith in democracy,’ he said. ‘Corruption is just another form of tyranny.’

It is just a shame that no one wants to cover it.’

If our journalists are unwilling to report the most blatant evidence of corruption surrounding our President, is there any chance they would be willing to consider the far more controversial topics I have covered in my series? And prior to the existence of the Internet, how many individuals would have even become aware of these facts or Turley’s accusations?”

Let’s do everything we can to end media censorship. We try to get the truth out on LRC, and with your support, we will defeat the forces of evil.

About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and . Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Article cross-posted from Lew’s blog.

Media Blackout Over Terror Incident at Vegas Power Plant

Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge — Mon, 09 Jan 2023 21:06:38 +0000

Editor’s Commentary: I held off on posting this article over the weekend because I thought (hoped?) it would be adjusted on Monday. By then, I reckoned, corporate media would catch up with alternative media and report this HUGE story that has tremendous implications. A terrorist attack on an important piece of America’s energy infrastructure should be big news, right?

It wasn’t. Nobody’s covering it. A Google News search for “Vegas” pops up concert information, a local shooting, and news about the Raiders. Only one story today even touched on the fact that a major terrorist attack that will take at least two years to fix took place on U.S. soil, which I’ll be discussing on today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show. So, here’s the article I should have posted over the weekend by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge…

The US power grid is under attack as extremists shoot, sabotage, and vandalize electrical equipment at power stations. One of the highest-profile attacks was when two men used guns to paralyze a substation in Washington state on Christmas Day, leaving thousands without electricity. The incident made national news, but strangely enough, another attack last week on the Las Vegas power grid went unnoticed by the national press.

Mohammad Mesmarian, 34, rammed his car through the gate of a solar power generation plant outside Las Vegas on Wednesday and set his car on fire, intending to damage a massive transformer, 8 News Now reported.

“Employees at the plant said they found a car smoldering in a generator pit,” 8 News Now said, adding the Mega Solar Array facility provides power to 13 properties on the Las Vegas Strip, all belonging to MGM Resorts.

Investigators believe Mesmarian “siphoned gasoline from his car to put on wires at the transformer,” 8 News Now said, citing documents from investigators.

“Mesmarian clarified he burned the Toyota Camry,” police said. “Mesmarian said he burned the vehicle at a Tesla solar plant and did it ‘for the future.'”

Here’s security camera footage of Mesmarian lighting his car on fire next to a giant transformer.

8 News Now said Mesmarian caused “major damage,” estimating it could take two years to receive parts and fix the transformer. Luckily, the damaged unit wasn’t online at the time of the incident..

“Following an incident at the Mega Solar Array facility, on-site personnel immediately notified authorities and shut down the plant’s operations as a precaution in accordance with industry-standard safety protocols,” an Invenergy spokesperson said.

Mesmarian was arrested at a campground Thursday. He’s being charged with committing an act of terrorism, first-degree arson, third-degree arson, destroying or injuring real or personal property of another, and escape by a felony prisoner.

Why is the national press absent in reporting this terror incident on the power grid?

Perhaps the person involved doesn’t fit the extremist profile routinely touted by progressive and state media.

Quick Update on Discern.tv

JD Rucker — Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:34:31 +0000

A lot of readers have been emailing wondering why there has been very little fresh content posted to my sites the last few days. Since the election, it became crystal clear to me that I need to accelerate the Discern.tv project. Our nation is under attack from the inside and the stolen 2022 election proved to me there’s no time to hold back on this important project.

We will be launching this week, Lord willing, or next week at the latest. I’ll be posting content as much as I can but for the next couple of days please do not expect that standard amount that I post. Much of my time is going to getting Discern.tv launched as quickly as possible without sacrificing quality. Doing so will NOT change anything here. If anything this will allow me to post stronger content here as I will be freed up from the other projects that are draining my time. Thank you all for your patience.

Launching Discern.tv

JD Rucker — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:15:26 +0000

Our regular readers may have noticed a lull in the action on Monday. This was unintentional but purposeful and actually quite exciting. My average day of sifting through content, doing my shows, and writing articles was replaced by phone calls, research, and testing that all surrounded one gigantic project: Discern.tv.

Nothing will change here. The same content that drives my passions of fighting radical leftism, globalism, and attacks against the faith will continue to make it to your screens, just as always. But as corporate media continues being shills for the globalist elite cabal and the vast majority in conservative media only focus on the subjects that won’t get them cancelled by their “sugar daddies” in at Google and Facebook, it has become blatantly obvious that America and the world need more honest, intelligent, and discerning media.

That’s why we’re launching Discern.tv.

Things are accelerating faster than expected. Perhaps it’s the appetite for the truth that’s prompting eagerness. I know I’m extremely eager, so much so I’ve had to stop myself from dropping everything and focusing solely on Discern. But we cannot get ahead of ourselves. As I always like to say, I’m in a hurry but I’m not in a rush.

Discern.tv will be a new channel through which patriots and anyone thirsty for truth can come. We are starting small with on-demand videos from a wide variety of sources, all curated and disseminated through our growing network. As the channel evolves, we will add more programs, including live TV. Therein lies one of our biggest challenges, but Lord willing we will be able to get the traction necessary to do what network television companies have failed to do: deliver the REAL stories to the masses.

Unlike most (all?) other channels, we are going to work it in reverse. Many in legacy media started on television and then moved toward their own websites. Others in new media launched on YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram and gained popularity only to find they couldn’t say certain things without risking getting banned. Many have been pushed off the platforms and are now rebuilding on Rumble or other freer speech video sites. Those who have been able to stay on the Big Tech platforms have had to water down their content and avoid anything the Silicon Valley “arbiters of truth” have denounced as anathema.

We are building from the website first. We will be hosting our videos on Rumble, Brighteon, Bitchute, Odyssey, and any other freer speech platforms that we believe will not be coerced into censorship. Unfortunately, none of these platforms are guaranteed to remain free speech advocates, nor are they guaranteed to be around in the future. This is why we are building such a wide footprint instead of taking the logical approach of focusing on a single platform. Lest we forget, it wasn’t too long ago that YouTube and Facebook allowed pretty much any content that wasn’t illegal or against copyright. Today, they censor their content rigorously.

Discern.tv won’t just be videos. We are going to publish articles and possibly even audio podcasts. If it’s quality content with the right messaging, we will find a way to post it on Discern.tv.

Once we reach a tipping point with our web presence, we will expand to the arenas where censorship still reigns. As long as our foundation is strong and resistant to “cancel culture,” everything else we build on top of it will be a bonus rather than a necessity. This is extremely important because it allows us to never self-censor for the sake of keeping our channel going. We’ve witnessed multiple examples of other conservative channels self-censoring (or getting banned when they didn’t) over the last couple of years.

We will expand to live TV on Roku and other streaming services, for example, but only AFTER we’ve established our web presence on its own. No platform can be considered safe indefinitely, not even the ones that currently embrace free speech.

This project is starting at just the right time. We have the benefit of seeing successes and failures from other networks as they navigated this “brave new world’ of woke Big Tech, corporate virtue signaling, and widespread cancel culture. While part of me wishes we could have been up and running in time to make an impact in the upcoming midterm elections, the other part of me realizes that launching now will give us an opportunity to grow around the problems we’re facing as a nation and a planet. As eager as I am to get going and reach the masses, I’m also humbled by the fact that we have been given an opportunity to launch just when we’re needed the most.

Contacting me through the form at Discern.tv will get you a single email. You won’t be joining a list nor will your email be sold to anyone. We will send out an email when we officially launch… and that’s it. You could always sign up for my free newsletter if you’d like, but filling out the form at Discern.tv is a single-use action.

Those who want to help us launch can learn more about what we’re doing and why at our GiveSendGo page. Of course, financial support is greatly appreciated as well. We need funds to hire patriots and to get the word out to the masses.

America needs this. Americans want this. We need discernment now more than ever. Please help us deliver it. The best way to help is by putting us in your prayers.