If someone in the news media was asked to define the White House Correspondents Association, they would likely define it by saying it’s an organization of journalists who cover the White House and the President of the United States. The only problem with that definition is that it refers to the people within the organization as “journalists.”
Today's mainstream media is very good at relaying their conclusions, and “journalists” even can get quite hostile when questioned, which makes it obvious they have too much of a personal connection or personal belief system attached to whatever they are reporting on, instead of a profound sense of duty to provide the American people with the facts, and letting them form their own conclusions.
Is it time to overhaul the way the media operates in the country? On December 5th, while discussing the mainstream media’s blatant institutional bias with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Sean said:
“Dick Cheney actually made a statement, he said, you know, "Trump could now transcend the media at this point," he doesn't need these guys anymore. Is it time to rethink the White House press office? For example, does CNN really deserve a seat after being caught colluding with the Clinton campaign? Does NBC deserve a seat in the White House press office and dealing with the press secretary when we know they have an institutional bias, or is it time to just throw them all out and start over?”
How wonderful would it be to see President Donald Trump step up to the podium in the White House Press Room, and deliver his signature line over the last decade:
In the following video, citing several recent articles and recent events dealing with the issue of the day, otherwise known as “fake news,” I ask you if the time has come for someone like a President Trump to rethink the entire concept of the White House Press Office by establishing a team to transition the current office into “The People’s Press Office?” The White House Press Office was never intended to be for the benefit of global media elites, and their agenda, yet that’s exactly what it is today.
Donald Trump has built some of the most magnificent architectural wonders all over the planet. Is it too far fetched to think a President Trump couldn’t find the right team of people capable of rebuilding the White House Press Office using today’s modern technology? What argument could possibly be made to suggest that bypassing the middle man, and taking the White House's message directly to the people would be a bad idea? By all means… do tell…
The remainder of this post includes the following:
Examples of the Mainstream Media Making up News to Fit an Agenda
Social Media Giants Setting Up a “Centralized Censorship Database” that Consists of “Extreme Content”
Washington Post threatened With Defamation Lawsuit in a Demand Letter Over Calling Website “Fake News”
If something isn’t done to curb the censoring and silencing of free speech that is currently running wild in this country, and done fast, we may never recover. Recall what was said in an earlier post, He who controls information, controls. Right now, we the people are being cut off from vital information on purpose.
EXAMPLES OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKING UP NEWS TO FIT AN AGENDA…
The western governments deceive people for a long time by releasing disinformation campaigns via the mainstream media, says US political analyst and Orlando-based former intelligence linguist Scott Rickard.
Scott Rickard responded with his statement on recent revelations about the propaganda machine of the US government.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the Pentagon’s controversial British PR firm Bell Pottinger had paid more than half a billion dollars to make secretly fake movies of terrorists.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism shows how the White House and General David Petraeus, who was at the time was commander of coalition forces in Iraq, approved the deal.
“It is no surprise here that Bell Pottinger is involved in propaganda and a tremendous amount of fake videos and fake new reports are coming out of not only Iraq, but also Syria and elsewhere,” Rickard said.
The analyst said that Bell Pottinger was already operating in Syria and Libya before chaos erupted in these countries. According to Rickard, the British firm was part of a much larger network of propaganda that deceives people for a long time.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism confirms what people like Rickard already longer claim that the media are incredibly unfair against us.
He said this initially implemented by the media during World War I as a strategy to draft more people to fight the war and also get rid of anyone who governments deemed enemy.
“The media continue to pour a huge amount of propaganda on the American people,” the language scholar added.
The Mainstream Media has been caught faking news countless times, which had serious consequences worldwide:
SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS SETTING UP A “CENTRALIZED CENSORSHIP DATABASE” THAT CONSISTS OF “EXTREME CONTENT”
The spread of so-called "fake news" has captured the imagination of the entire world since being blamed for Hillary's stunning defeat on November 8th. The idea that they may no longer exercise complete control of the national media narrative, and therefore popular opinion, has mainstream news outlets and social media giants frightened to their core.
The tech titans of Silicon Valley are so frightened, in fact, that they've teamed up to create a centralized database which will allow them to "efficiently" block content simultaneously across multiple platforms. According to Yahoo News, the database is expected to be up and running in early 2017 and more companies could be brought into the partnership over time.
Web giants YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.
The companies will share 'hashes' – unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos – of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.
"We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online," the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.
Of course, while the database is being sold as a way to censor "terrorist content" (because who wouldn't want to stop terrorists?), we suspect that once it's established the subjective definitions of "terrorist" and "extremist" content will gradually morph over time to include anything that is not deemed mainstream.
To that end, the New York Times is reporting this morning that "European officials" are already calling on the large tech companies to use their new censoring weapon of mass destruction to target "hate speech." Of course, with Twitter recently threatening to ban President-elect Trump for "harassment and hateful conduct," a person who was just elected with 60mm votes, one has to question the ability of social media giants to impartially distinguish "hate speech" for legitimate political discourse.
European officials pushed on Tuesday for American technology giants to do more to tackle online hate speech across the region, adding to the chorus of policy makers worldwide demanding greater action from the likes of Facebook, Google and Twitter.
The rebuke came a day after many of those companies announced that they were joining forces to fight the spread of terrorist content on the internet, agreeing to share technology and information to prevent propaganda and other dangerous materials from being disseminated on their services.
Amid growing security tensions in much of the Western world, governments, intelligence agencies and advocacy groups want Google, Microsoft and other technology companies to take further steps to curb hate speech on digital platforms, as well as to clamp down on how terrorists circulate information online.
But freedom of expression campaigners have warned that such demands may limit people’s ability to communicate across the internet, and they have cautioned that the line between hate speech and legitimate political discussion can be blurry.
But, as we've said before, the tech and media giants who decide to push further left and censor dissenting views do so at their own peril. The 2016 election is evidence that the American population has grown extremely skeptical of a biased mainstream media and to the extent the social media giants wish to match their bias then we suspect they'll quickly meet the same fate.
WASHINGTON POST THREATENED WITH DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AFTER CALLING WEBSITE “FAKE NEWS”
One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.
A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.
“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”
Naked Capitalism is a finance and economics blog started in December 2006, with a stated goal of “shedding light on the dark and seamy corners of finance.”
Moody demands a retraction of the story and a public apology from WaPo in the letter, threatening a suit if the paper does not comply. He lists a series of damages to the site itself, as well as the writers and editors associated with the site; these include “ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement” for writers and editors.
Other mainstream news outlets criticize The Washington Post for running the story.
“The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique,” Adrian Chen wrote in The New Yorker regarding the WaPo story. “But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess.”
And Patrick Maines criticized the story in The Hill, calling it “perhaps the shoddiest piece of feature writing since Rolling Stone published its blatantly false story about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.”
“You have made damaging false accusations against Naked Capitalism,” Moody concludes in the letter. “Please immediately remove these from the web and provide an equivalent opportunity to respond. Please see the attached concerning your obligation to retain documents and electronically stored information relating to Fake News. I look forward to hearing from you within three business days.”
Article posted with permission from The Last Great StandDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.