• Home
  • Media/ Media Corruption

Video: Corbett Report - The Syrian White Helmets Are A Propaganda Construct

Contrary to what its multi-million dollar international PR campaign would have you believe, the "White Helmets" are not a group of volunteer search-and-rescue workers that sprang spontaneously out of the Syrian soil. When you peel back the layers of foreign financing and reveal the foreign intelligence operatives and murky lobbying groups at the heart of the organization, what you find is that the White Helmets are, in fact, a propaganda construct.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Poll: Public Convinced That Media Reports Fake News to Advance Their Own Agenda

By Steve Byas

“These findings are troubling, no matter how you define ‘fake news.’ Confidence in an independent fourth estate [a name often used for the media] is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Ours appears to be headed for the intensive care unit,” said Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth University Polling Institute, in summarizing the results of its poll, taken from March 2-5 of this year of 803 adults in the United States. Setting aside the fact that America is supposed to be a federal republic, rather than a “democracy,” as Murray called it, the poll results are rather startling.

Perhaps the most important finding from this poll about the news business is that a majority of Americans are highly skeptical of the honesty of the mainstream media. Forty-two percent in the poll (a plurality) said that traditional news media deliberately report “fake news” for the purpose of advancing a particular agenda. Twenty-six percent judged that the reporting of “fake news” is due to journalistic incompetence — either by accident or shoddy work, failing to check sources accurately. Seven percent said both reasons — the deliberate and the accidental reporting of fake news — happen.

It has long been recognized that the greatest power of those in the media is that they “set the agenda": they decide what to report, leaving the consuming public to conclude that what the media is reporting on is what is important. A good example of this is the media’s obsession with the alleged collusion between the campaign of Donald Trump and the Russian government, though as of yet there is zero evidence of collusion and much evidence that this was a contrived scandal by liberal loyalists in the White House and the intelligence agencies. If the media doesn’t cover something, then the logical conclusion would then be that it is not important, such as the media's refusal to cover the Clinton's collusion with the Russians in the Uranium One scandal. Another recent example of this is the failure of the liberal media to even report on the new Chappaquiddick movie, due to open in theaters on Friday. Jason Clarke, who plays Senator Edward Kennedy in the film, told Deadline that Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow “passed on covering the film.”

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Confirmed: Facebook’s Recent Algorithm Change Is Crushing Conservative Sites, Boosting Liberals

By George Upper

Facebook’s much-publicized demotion of publishers’ content in users’ news feeds has negatively impacted conservative-leaning publishers significantly more than liberal-leaning outlets, an analysis by The Western Journal has revealed.

Liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February.

On the other hand, conservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook.

This algorithm change, intentional or not, has in effect censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world. This change has ramifications that, in the short-term, are causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold up completely, and in the long-term could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.

Facebook Algorithm Impact On Conservatives

Example: New York Post vs. New York Daily News

Case in point: Two rival publishers in New York City, the New York Post and the New York Daily News, are similar in many ways, except for their editorial slants. The Post is well-known as a right-leaning outlet, whereas the Daily News has an established left-leaning slant. For example, the Daily News recently ran a headline after the Parkland shooting that read, “Brave Florida survivors plan day of action for gun sanity and to call out ‘blood on hands’ of NRA puppets.”

Headlines like that garnered the Daily News a 24.18 percent increase in traffic from Facebook, while the right-leaning Post’s traffic dropped 11.44 percent in the same time period.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Sharyl Attkisson Explains the Origins of the 2016 'Fake News' Narrative

Was the effort to focus America's attention on the idea of “fake news”—itself a propaganda effort? Connect the dots and learn who’s behind it and why. It’s not what you think. Sharyl Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting and author of two New York Times bestsellers: “The Smear” and “Stonewalled.” Attkisson hosts the Sunday national TV news program “Full Measure,” which focuses on investigative and accountability reporting. For thirty years, Attkisson was a correspondent and anchor at PBS, CNN and CBS News, where the Washington Post described her as "a persistent voice of news-media skepticism about the government's story.” She’s a fourth degree blackbelt in TaeKwonDo. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: CNN Interviews Ohio DEMOCRAT Trump Voters One Year Later -- Gets Stunned by Answers

Editor's Note: I can't even believe CNN aired this . . .


CNN Shocked That Trump Voters Thrilled at His First Year

Former Democrats express glee at president’s achievements. 

In an apparent effort to pour scorn on the president’s first year in office, CNN traveled to Youngstown, Ohio to ask former Democrats who switched parties to vote for Trump what they thought of his performance, only to discover they were thrilled with the job Trump’s doing.

The report points out that 7,000 registered Democrats in one county switched from being Democrats to Republicans to vote for Donald Trump.

One former Democrat featured in the report said he switched because he realized “the core foundation of the country is slipping away”. Another woman remarked, “It got to the point where I did not like the direction my country was going”.

Perhaps expecting the five former Democrats to express regret that they switched to vote for Trump, CNN’s Martin Savage asked how Trump was doing one year in. The answers were resounding.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project Veritas: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post Online” Including Private “Sex Messages”

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view all of your private messages on their servers and analyze it to create a “virtual profile” of you which they sell to advertisers.

The footage features four current Twitter software engineers–Conrado Miranda, Clay Haynes, Pranay Singh, and Mihai Alexandru Florea.

Haynes, who was featured in part one of the Twitter exposé, admitted in a January 6, 2018 meeting that Twitter has hired hundreds employees with the express purpose of looking at these “dick pics,” stating:

    “There’s teams dedicated to it. I mean, we’re talking, we’re talking three or four… at least, three or four hundred people… Yes, they’re paid to look at dick pics.”


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project_Veritas - Sr Network Security Engineer Reveals Twitter Ready to Give Trump's Private Messages to DOJ

A Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a senior network security engineer at Twitter suggesting that his company turns over the private communications and deleted tweets of President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. If true, it is yet unknown whether Twitter is voluntarily disclosing this sensitive information or acting under a court order. Twitter is currently in the midst of defending itself from left-leaning criticism that President Trump hasn’t been removed from the enormous media platform for violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled "AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News." The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project Veritas -Twitter Engineers To "Ban a Way of Talking" Through "Shadow Banning"

Uses keywords like “America” and “Trump” to silence opposing views

In what represents a chokeslam of an exposé, Project Veritas has released undercover video of Twitter engineers admitting that they deliberately censor conservative opinions and are implementing a way of relegating “shitty people” so their content is shadow banned.

In the video, current and former Twitter employees confirm virtually everything that conservatives have long suspected about the left-wing company silencing people on the right.

Key quotes include;

Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, admits that Twitter is implementing software algorithms that down rank conservatives so “shitty people to not show up” on people’s timelines.

“The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content,” says former Twitter software engineer Abhinov Vadrevu. “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, reveals that the company’s machine learning algorithms are programmed with “five thousand keywords to describe a redneck,” which include words like Trump, America, as well as images of the U.S. flag, guns and Christian crosses and these terms are used to delete “bot” accounts as well as down rank conservatives.

Singh also revealed that the U.S. government routinely pressures Twitter to take down Julian Assange’s account and that this is the reason he isn’t verified Singh also says that governments ask Twitter to remove accounts belonging to other public figures because they don’t like their political views.

Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai admits that Twitter employees have the power to ban accounts if they merely disagree with someone’s political views, remarking, “Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?”

The video represents the biggest tech/censorship story in years yet will attract little or no mainstream media coverage.

However, it will lead to an increase in calls from the right for Twitter to be regulated as a public utility to ensure that free speech rights are protected given how social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google have basically become monopolies.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Hollywood Wants Your Money...and Your Mind

Imagine a group so powerful they could beam ideas directly into your head. Well, you don't have to imagine -- it's Hollywood. Ben Shapiro, Editor of the Daily Wire, explains the world's largest mass propaganda machine.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Sex, Power, and Consent: How to Interpret the Media Frenzy Around Sexual Assault

By Joe Jarvis

The same media that covered for the rich and powerful is now delighting in throwing them one by one under the sexual assault bus.

I can’t deny that it is a joy to watch liberal elites like Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein fall from grace.

But a chill goes down my spine when I think, but why now? Why has the media suddenly done a complete 180?

Don’t get me wrong, it is great to hold sexual predators accountable. But the first thing that doesn’t feel right is “convicting” people in the court of public opinion based only on an accusation.

Okay, so for people like Weinstein and Spacey, there are enough people coming forward with enough verifiable evidence that they are beyond a reasonable doubt sexual predators. Al Franken posed in a photo that confirms his harassment.

But could this be the media’s angle? The first step is to accuse all the easy targets. Get the public whipped into a frenzy. Once everyone has the torches and pitchforks, all that will be required is an accusation, and the mob will burn the witches. And at that point, no one will wait to see if the evidence pans out. A simple accusation, true or false will condemn a man and destroy his career.

Unfortunately, these conditions will make liars and exploiters come out of the woodwork. It’s now trendy to accuse someone, and a consensual one night stand might turn into borderline rape in decades-old retrospect. You will have some people who want attention and money. You will also have some people who simply want to ruin a famous person.

And you will have elites picking targets in their games of power. Just consider how Julian Assange and Dominique Strauss-Kahn were accused of rape at opportune times to ruin them. Both charges were later dropped. Perhaps today in the witch-hunt mindset, the charges would have been further pursued.

Is the Media Offering a Solution?

It is great that men and women who have been victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment can now come forward and expect mainstream support. It is a serious problem. And just because some will abuse the witch-hunt for their own ends does not mean it is fair to the real victims to ignore or marginalize anyone who comes forward.

In this sense, it seems like the reporting from the media is beneficial. Most of the cases focus on a disparity of power. It is rich and famous people taking advantage of young fans, their students, aspiring actors, interns, or employees.

Maybe people with power will think twice. They may think of their careers, their marriages, their future, and decide it’s not worth it to be a creep.

But doesn’t it also divide society further? It creates suspicion and tension between multiple groups. Men versus women. Rich versus poor. Celebrity versus normie. Politician versus citizen.

And it is worth noting that many accused have been politicians. Unfortunately, the underlying fabric of a society is woven by politicians. They have the power to pass laws and regulations which drastically alter behavior. People even take cues from their government. Debt-laden governments produce debt-laden citizens.

Doesn’t that say something about what kind of society these sexual predators have created? It certainly won’t be one based on consent.

The Solution is Consent.

Sounds obvious, right? Sex requires consent at every level.

But on other subjects besides sex, consent is not held in such high esteem. Consent in general, in every aspect of our lives, should be held as the golden standard. Under these conditions, we will see consent respected in all aspects of life, including sex.

This is not a new concept. You’ll know the tree by the fruit it bears. In a society based on consent, fewer people will be taken advantage of sexually.

The root of the issue is a coercive society. It starts with people wanting their kids to be obedient to authority or elders, without ever explaining why. But obedience is not a virtue. As annoying as it can be for kids to constantly ask why, or assert their own attitudes and desires, this is a good thing. It doesn’t mean giving in to every demand of a child. It means recognizing their autonomy and largely allowing them to make their own decisions.

I have discussed how a coercive society breeds psychological distress on those forced to act a certain way. But missing was an assessment of the psychological conditions of those who exert the coercion. The actual coercive agents of the state go equally crazy. But they go crazy with power instead of crazy with desperation to be an individual.

And the rich, powerful, and famous have access to the power of the government. They have access to the same coercion they use against their victims.

The way the government treats the citizens is the exact same way sexual predators treat their victims.

There are different levels of manipulation. Some victims are groomed with gifts and kindness. Sometimes the abuser uses intimidation and threats. Sometimes victims are enticed by the promise of being elevated to the position of the abuser, with all the power that comes with it. Sometimes the abuser downright rapes the victims who won’t comply.

And our political structure is not based on consent. Democracy is not consent, it is mob rule. It is the will of the majority dominating the will of the minority. Nor does living in a society mean you consent to be governed. It should not be up to victims to flee in the face of a threat. Saying everything the government does is fine because you continue to live in a country is like saying if a victim of sexual assault didn’t want it, they wouldn’t put themselves in that situation.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can have an organized society based on consent. After all, if the government services are truly desired by the people, why do they have to be forced on them? Why do we have to be forced to pay taxes, instead of enticed with a good offer?

I am not saying ending the abusive relationship between government and citizen will eliminate sexual violence. I am simply saying it will set a consistent precedent for behavior. By acknowledging that all interactions must be consensual, there would be no double standard. These abusers would not get used to operating without the consent of others.

Yes, what I am suggesting means a vast restructuring of society. It certainly wouldn’t happen overnight. But as victims begin to stand up to their abusers, it is time all non-consensual relationships are called out for what they are.

If we really want to get to the root of this issue, we will examine the fundamental nature of the relationship between governments and citizens.