Here's an article that I found interesting and it's not the first to comment on certain media companies
that are purported to give out dubious reports, but in my view, it shows once more that the group deemed
'the mainstream media' are still reluctant to look at themselves and how they're reluctant to change their
ways.

Nato says viral news outlet is part of "Kremlin misinformation machine"

'In the world of viral news, it's a relative baby - but it's already become so controversial that
a Nato spokesperson told BBC Trending that Sputnik is an agent of Russian misinformation.
Sputnik was set up in 2014 and puts out podcasts, radio shows and text stories which are
shared thousands of times a day on Twitter and Facebook. It's recently been adding
international bureaux, including a UK headquarters in Scotland.

But at the same time Sputnik has also been on the receiving end of criticism - by US intelligence
agencies, the British defence secretary, and now by Nato, who says it is part of a "Kremlin
misinformation machine."

"Outlets like Sputnik are part of a Kremlin propaganda machine which are trying to use information
for political and military needs," Nato spokesperson Oana Lungescu told BBC Trending.
"It is a way, not to convince people, but to confuse them, not to provide an alternative viewpoint,
but to divide public opinions and to ultimately undermine our ability to understand what is going
on and therefore take decisions if decisions need to be made."..'
The BBC:

What amazes me is the flagrant ingorance of the accepted news outlets doing the same and at times,
releasing poorly researched articles and obvious propaganda. When the election took place, many
people saw the one-sidedness of the media in it's full light and now, either the MSM still sits in it's
aloof position and refuses to believe it's failings or it's implementing a steady, methodical plan to
force their customers back to them.

If you maintain a narrative long enough, the opposer may perceive it as 'just the way it really is' and
contemplate that their alternative view may have blossomed from a selfish need to believe they were
right.

Basically, it's an individuals-against-a-group-mentality, where a single person sees the wall of contradictory
information and when it seems it doesn't alter, they give in and accept that the carefully-crafted information
must be true because the many mainstream outlets have articles that are not only similar, the pieces are
prioritised the same way.

It's Machiavellian in the fact that it uses high standing of media delivery that was created long ago.
News readers don't lie and reports aren't moulded to suit a narrative because... well, because it's on the
television and in the newspapers.
That's it...?!! That's the only reason someone viewing or reading a news article must accept it's true?!

I suppose 'they' wouldn't dare assassinate a President and I suppose they wouldn't dare write a falsehood
because of what would happen if it was found out.
Well...? Nothing really. The faultfinder would be told an investigaion would be held and then, when enough
time has passed to let emotions ease, a verdict that would suit all would be announced and in serious cases,
this is usually done after the culprit is either dead or quietly ensconced in another position.

To 'wake up' in terms of information screening is portrayed as some-sort of shadowy conspiracy-monger
that denies their own failings in life and spends their time looking for evidence to blame others for their
own faults.

But ask yourself, who promotes that view?
..........................................

Here's what I mean. It is in regards of soccer game where two areas of standing football supporters
were crushed due to overcrowding. Many deaths and injuries were involved.
The reactions of the Police were questioned and a cover-up ensued.
Hillsborough Disaster

'Liverpool FC have banned The Sun from their stadium and training ground
over the newspaper's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster.

Four days after the 1989 tragedy, the tabloid ran a front page story headlined
"THE TRUTH", which claimed supporters attacked police officers tending to
injured fans and stole from dead bodies.

In 2012, The Sun issued an apology after a report found the allegations were
false and had been part of a police cover-up...'
SOURCE:

OK, I agree and see a similarity between Huffingtonpost is the Progressives Sputnik, There is an agenda being feed to the Sheeple and most are to Gullible or Trusting to Ask Questions.

JMHO

To add to my above post, I'd like to try and show a comparison.
We all have to agree that the Democrat's own CNN,,, right?
This morning headlines.

Quote:[/url]Hundreds of immigrants arrested
[url=http://www.cnn.com/]Source

Really? What Immigrants were Arrested?
I understand that to be an Immigrant you need to have applied and came into a Country with the proper Documents.

Quote:Siskind Susser Bland LLC, an international immigration law firm based in Tennesee, in a section entitled "The ABC's Of Immigration - Immigration Terminology, Part I," on its website (accessed Jan. 31, 2007), offered the following definition:

"Immigrant [is] any person who is residing in the United States as a legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent resident. This is what every alien seeking entry to the United States is presumed to be unless they prove they want entry on a nonimmigrant basis."

The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in a section entitled "Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens" on its website (accessed Jan. 31, 2007), offered the following:

"Immigrant [is] an alien who has been granted the right by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a 'green card' (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports."

Source

The article from CNN has it wrong, these are Illegals, Not Documented and have committed a crime that the Obama Administration Chose to Ignore like many of our Laws he and his Handlers didn't agree with.
Trump is Not A Politician and wants to enforce our laws and protect American Citizens, The Main Stream Media HATES That because their Handlers Hate That!

Sorry BIAD for Hijacking your thread, Please forgive this Old Ex Communist Chinese Woman.

(02-11-2017, 03:18 PM)guohua Wrote: OK, I agree and see a similarity between Huffingtonpost is the Progressives Sputnik,
There is an agenda being feed to the Sheeple and most are to Gullible or Trusting
to Ask Questions.

JMHO

Yep and I like I said, it seems that the 'establishment' are reluctant to cede there's
another point of opinion.

Regardless of ignoring the Wikileak emails and the unwillingness to look at Trump's
views in a fair light. Regardless of the revealing biased confidence in the polls during
that election and the red-faced result that showed the MSM were way off the mark,
regardless of all that, they still put their hands on their hearts and cheer that their
voice is the only voice.

If the Huff Post and Sputnik are similar in their views, then they're merely part of
keeping the scales equal and whether that seems fair or not, these opinions are
only there and scolded as 'progressive' because of the massive over-bias from CNN
and the like!!

The hijacking is fine as long as you don't tie me up again.

(02-11-2017, 07:10 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 03:18 PM)guohua Wrote: OK, I agree and see a similarity between Huffingtonpost is the Progressives Sputnik,
There is an agenda being feed to the Sheeple and most are to Gullible or Trusting
to Ask Questions.

JMHO

Yep and I like I said, it seems that the 'establishment' are reluctant to cede there's
another point of opinion.

Regardless of ignoring the Wikileak emails and the unwillingness to look at Trump's
views in a fair light. Regardless of the revealing biased confidence in the polls during
that election and the red-faced result that showed the MSM were way off the mark,
regardless of all that, they still put their hands on their hearts and cheer that their
voice is the only voice.

If the Huff Post and Sputnik are similar in their views, then they're merely part of
keeping the scales equal and whether that seems fair or not, these opinions are
only there and scolded as 'progressive' because of the massive over-bias from CNN
and the like!!

The hijacking is fine as long as you don't tie me up again.

"The hijacking is fine as long as you don't tie me up again."

Awwwww, But you enjoyed it so much! 

I'm resisting the leap to accept everything outlets like Alex Jones claims to be really going on
and even though the dodgy reporting from mainstream media leaves more questions than
answers, I'm focused on believeing this is to do with more about poor journalism and the
limited amount of column inches available, than any underhanded agreement to keep the truth
from the public

When people use the expression 'The Establishment' I think that it's full connotation is never
fully explained. True, we tend to perceive the establishment as those in expensive attire, sitting
in Governmental or private offices and feeling confident that their bank balances will never be
looked on in a similar manner as the average person.

We also tend to think of this collection of people as those who accept corruption and bribery
as mere vehicles within commerce and politics. The more cynical of us may even believe that
the idea 'to serve' is something this set of exclusive class identify as a callow feeling from those
they also deem as 'cannon fodder'

I suppose that in simple terms, if you weren't happy with your lifestyle, you may realise that to
to change it would probably improve it. If you were already in a acceptable lifestyle, can we agree
that you would not only wish to maintain it, you could look at improving it even more, yes?

In today's turbulent seas of industry, banking and politics, kindness and friendliness are always
great attributes to have, but in an environment where to succeed is to able to not only climb on
the shoulders of those also reaching for the brass ring, but to also slow others ascensions, being
'nice' is always-always seen as a sign of weakness.

If the improvement you aspire to involves working with those who are willing to do anything to
reach their goals of power and wealth (let's be honest, get the first one and the other comes
very soon behind it, anyway!)... would you assist this controlling and persuasive person for
your own ends?

Put yourself in shoes of the person seeking their position in society, can you do it alone or
will you need help? And if that assistance is compromised and becomes an obstacle, would
you be willing to eject them from your scheme...? Allow them to classified as the cannon fodder
mentioned earlier?

So in a theatrical form, we see these people clambering over the bodies of each other to reach
a point where they believe their wants will be fufilled. Nobody will be hoisted ahead unless it suits
a reason that benefits those doing the lifing. The cooperation can become familiar, but it's generally
agreed to keep the pile of bodies limited.

This is the Establishment... this is what's at stake if new people come along, possibly with new
ideas too. The many levels that support that hill of climbers must be maintained and ideally, it must
also remain secretive. I don't say this lightly and I know many of you already know it, they will kill
without remorse to keep it that way.

A rational narrative is formed to make sure that the populations come to accept that in life, there
are leaders and there are followers. Trust the leaders and the followers will benefit. We -the Elite
work hard to bring you a better lifestyle. When you sleep, we're there manning the wall and looking
at ways of furthering our tribe.

When in actuality, the person doing the 'manning of the walls' and working hard are really the
people who work for these people. What you could once again label cannon fodder.

A reasonable person could look at the whole game and come to the conclusion that it makes
sense and it does. It does because it's meant to not arouse your curiosity and keep your focus
on your own concerns. There's no movie-style 'baddies' and any major incidents against the laws
of the land are done using compartmentalisation.
The Jigsaw.

The Establishment works because the playing field belongs to them, the positions where you
stand on that field are decided by them in a way that makes you think that you decided.
They know of only one thing that they cannot fight and that is a mass infection of self-awareness.

If the Establishment is set on a bedrock of a societal dynamics promoting survival, it must come up
with ways of succeeding in their goals whilst adhering to those accepted dynamics.
To do this, they need to adjust the masses perception of those basic rules of society and it must be
done in incremental stages.

If the altering progress is too much, then either a deflection is needed to draw focus away or bodies
may have to be sacrificed for their greater-good. The population calms down and the dilution of the
accepted norm can continue.

Think back... what would have you found objectionable in the past that you see as normal now?
Now what do you think someone younger who never knew of that difference would say to you?
That's where we're at -at this moment. The old remember the difference and the young cannot
perceive it.

Why change something that works...? What on earth would you change it to?
Better the Devil you know and all that!

The big 'E' see it coming long before we do.

At least pravda was mildly entertaining and useful as toilet paper .... unlike the liberal propaganda rags of the west ....

A couple of our female neighbours state that they dislike Pres. Trump but are not really able to give concrete reasons
apart from "I read in the papers that", "I saw on TV that" or "such and such celeb says "etc.

Quite sad really but I have found that you cannot use logically arguments as they refuse to even listen let alone consider
them. I just say that he was voted into the Presidency and them shut up.

(02-14-2017, 12:01 AM)Just Looking Wrote: A couple of our female neighbours state that they dislike Pres. Trump but are not really able to give concrete reasons
apart from "I read in the papers that", "I saw on TV that" or "such and such celeb says "etc.

Quite sad really but I have found that you cannot use logically arguments as they refuse to even listen let alone consider
them. I just say that he was voted into the Presidency and them shut up.

Well then they are just stupid.

I judge Trump on

a) his actions
b) his words, you know the ones he actually says or tweets.

That helps me to have an opinion about him, what he does and says.  It is not too difficult.

Watching him in an interview and listening to him it is not hard to have one's own opinion.

(02-14-2017, 12:01 AM)Just Looking Wrote: A couple of our female neighbours state that they dislike Pres. Trump but are not really able to give concrete reasons
apart from "I read in the papers that", "I saw on TV that" or "such and such celeb says "etc.

Quite sad really but I have found that you cannot use logically arguments as they refuse to even listen let alone consider
them. I just say that he was voted into the Presidency and them shut up.

It'll be always known as the eternal question.
Did the USA want Trump or did they not want Hillary?

With regards to 'The Blue Pill' here's one of the many articles about the migrant
crisis in Europe. Even though numerous media-outlets reluctantly reported on it,
there seems to be 'evidence' that the New Year sexual assaults never occurred.

But eh, we'll feel safer this way.

Authorities in Frankfurt are investigating two people who claimed to have witnessed
mass sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve saying the pair may have been making up
the attacks.

'Frankfurt prosecutors announced the beginning of an investigation into 27-year-old
Irina A. and a local chef named Jan May who claimed a group of 50 Arab men terrorised
his customers and sexually assaulted women.



The pair gave their account of the events to the German tabloid Bild, but police have cast
serious doubts on the authenticity of their story, Frankfurter Rundschau reports.

According to Mr. May, the group of 50 men came into his restaurant terrorising his guests,
stealing their jackets, and sexually assaulting several female patrons.
The story was backed up by the 27-year-old woman who told the paper, “They grabbed me
under my skirt, between the legs and on my breast – everywhere.”

Police say the story didn’t add up after they discovered the women in question was not in
Frankfurt on New Year’s Eve and so could not have experienced any type of sexual assault.

They also noted that before the Bild article had been published they had not received any
criminal complaints regarding mass sexual assaults saying, “Masses of refugees were not
responsible for any sexual assaults in the Fressgass over New Year.
The accusations are completely baseless.”

“Interviews with alleged witnesses, guests, and employees led to major doubts with the
version of events that had been presented,” police said.

“One of the alleged victims was not even in Frankfurt at the time the allegations are said
to have taken place,” they added.

Editor in Chief of Bild, Julian Reichelt, has apologised for the article and the newspaper
has removed it from their website.
On Twitter, Mr. Reichelt wrote there would be “consequences” as a result of the article.

This is not the first time German media have been fooled by the so-called “fake news”
phenomena. Last year in Berlin, a group of pro-migrant activists called “Moabit Helps”
claimed a migrant had frozen to death waiting for benefits...'
SOURCE:

So that's okay then, huh? Maybe we should go back to checking our credit scores and
appreciating points of view from movie stars.

'6 Jan 2016 - Groups of men sexually assaulted women in Frankfurt on New Year,
police report - as the number of complaints of sexual assault in Hamburg has risen
to nearly forty.

In scenes similar to those in Cologne, several women have reported New Year
sexual assaults to police in Frankfurt.

In one case that took place shortly after midnight a group of around ten men encircled
three women and touched them in a massively inappropriate manner, Spiegel reports.
The women reported the cases on Tuesday afternoon.

The men were of north African appearance who spoke in broken English with strong
Arabic accents, police said.

“We didn’t know of the phenomenon where groups of men severely sexual molest
women until now,” said a police spokesperson. In another incident four women were
assaulted by a group of three men who groped them...'
LiveLeak:

So who were these Policeman who mentioned 'African appearance' and speaking in
broken English? This a deliberate merge of two similar events, the 2016 New Year in
Cologne become a harmless Frankfurt 2017's New Year party.

For many, it'll be thankfully -the blue pill.

Oh My-Oh-My...!! Here's a good example of what mental conditioning the Blue Pill
can manufacture. In the real world, a person is generally not accused of a crime that
they are not connected with.

Police in the first-world tend not to randomly knock on a person's door and accuse
them of a crime without information and evidence that indicates this person is involved.

This isn't a racial biased or deeply-embedded attitude that relates to an external view of
a citizen. It's not because of poverty -although I'd agree that social status may be involved
with the reason that those of certain wealth-generating positions in Government and business
can have a degree of leverage to some extent in regards of legal accountability.

It's because there's a connection from the crime to the owner of that door, and this doesn't
automatically place the person they wish to speak to into the category of 'suspect'

You can word any way you wish, but if you run away from the custodians of the laws you've
agreed to abide by, there's a rational chance you believe you've broken one of those laws and
don't wish to be held accountable.

In a modern Police Force, it's law enforcement cannot function if there's an agenda that the
majority disapprove of. Reality demands this and so does rationality.

However, in the 'Blue Pill'-world where personal dislikes and favouring a particular subject
because it furthers one's personal beliefs or aspirations is deemed credible, those menacing,
faceless men with their guns and tear-gas can be accused of anything their well-dressed white
owners wish to set their dogs on.

It's a great delusional narrative, it really is.
A small proportion of people in a community is arrested in a particular manner because of
their skin colouring and the reason for the article is that it seems unfair that this same set of
people have to endure this way of arrest because of that same skin tone.
That's it... there's the unfairness.

Let's forget the crime the Police are attempting to solve, let's not write about why this tool
of halting fleeing suspects is used and let's certainly not discuss why those of certain ethnic
communities would be perceived as being involved in crimes around an affluent first-world
capital.

Good-gosh, no... we might end-up talking about poverty and class, we may come around to
discussing racism in particular financial environments and how different parts of the country
fare against others, and we can't have that, can we?

No... best just call the Police racist pigs and be done with it.
After all, it's what they do in movies.
................................................

Black and mixed race people in London more likely to be Tasered.

'Figures show 40% of cases where stun guns used since 2014 involved people of black or
mixed white and black ethnicities.



Black and mixed-race people in London have been on the receiving end of more than 40% of
police Taser use since 2014, despite accounting for less than one in six of the capital’s residents,
the Guardian can reveal.

Figures obtained by a freedom of information (FoI) request show police are disproportionately
targeting people of black or mixed white and black ethnicity with the electric stun guns, raising
fresh concerns of racism in the force.

Between January 2014 and September 2016, 1,530 of a total of 3,815 cases – 40.1% – where
police drew, aimed or fired Tasers involved people of black or mixed white and black ethnicities.
According to the 2011 census, people from those groups comprise 15.6% of London’s population.

The figures, which come before the expected rollout of a new, more powerful model of Taser gun,
also reveal that overall Taser use by the Metropolitan police increased in 2015 and was due for
another increase in 2016, based on figures for the first nine months of the year.

Lee Jasper, a race relations activist who was director of policing and equalities for the former London
mayor Ken Livingstone, said the latest figures showed that the police systematically targeted black
people.

“Black people are disproportionately charged for offences; we are disproportionately refused bail;
we are disproportionately found guilty and disproportionately sentenced,” he said. “We have got massive
disproportionality right throughout the system, of which Tasering is just one aspect.

“The working culture of the Met police service is one that deems black people to be mad, bad or criminal.
The mayor of London needs to take urgent action to redress the resurgence of institutional racism within
the MPS that is driving this disproportionately.”...'
SOURCE:

The media are mendacious... yes, I think that word would be appropriate, they're
mendacious.

I've tried to resist -just like in other threads here, to fall for the 'Them & Us' routine and
believe that their an organised global effort to keep people in the dark about what is
really going on around the world.
(By the way, most of them are from Mystic Wanderer!)

It's easy to say 'well if this means this, then surely this means that also' and in a perception
where one believes an underlying goal is to be kept secret at all costs, it can seem rational
to believe different forces can work together to convince the masses that a false reality is
true.

But I tend to look at the logistics of it all. Why would this person write or say something that
is false and never think that he/she could be possiblly putting their loved ones in harms way?
How do they convince themselves that the podium they've have the privilage to be on can
be used to dispense lies at the behest of others they deem superior?

If all mainstream news-outlets are competing with one another, then why would they all
sing from the same hymn-sheet...? What could possibly drive them to present the same
news unless that information is just simply true?

For most Journalists -if not all, it's just a job. A job where deadlines must be adhered to
and where information has to fit into either time-segments or column inches.
That's the logistical side of it that I worked in.

Any 'feelings' about a story were never taken into consideration because no matter what
a Reporter was trying to convey, the Sub-Editor would always look to par the account down
to save space, especially these days when advertising pays salaries and not the price of
your newspaper.

I know that today on the internet, a whole page can be given to a Journalist for them to
write an article where their commentary can be included to either make the reader feel like
he or she has the same opinion as the writer or the words are placed to infuriate or annoy
a reader in such a way that they keep coming back for more.

But a story is a story, nuh...? If something happens then it happens and the only way you
can alter the perception of it is to write that it never happened, wouldn't it?!
Well, not necessarily.

As shown with The Telegraph's re-hash of a story from The Mail On Sunday, a Journalist
can now use someone else's research, hopefully grab a reader-possible-customer or
donator AND persuade the masses that there's nothing to see here and the whole sordid
story that possibly shows an organised paedophile-ring that's tied to high-ranking officials
is just really... conjecture.

You see, the Journalist doesn't have to lie, they just have to word the story in a certain way.
.................................

When Chief Constable Mike Veale, the source in my 'Ted Heath' piece from Mystic's
'Pizzagate' thread announced that:

'The police chief investigating claims that Sir Edward Heath was a paedophile is convinced
the allegations are ‘120 per cent’ genuine, The Mail on Sunday can reveal...'
SOURCE:

...the obvious conclusion to anyone reading this article would be that it's a candid interview
with an official that knows the truth. Chief Constable Veale goes on to list thirty witnesses,
proof that the former Prime Minister drove a car when it was stated that he didn't (which
was relevant to the accusations)... and hints that the Establishment went to great lengths
to keep Mr. Heath's alleged activities secret fom the public.

Thank you Mail On Sunday, now for our next guest, The Telegraph.

Police chief hits out at tabloid over Edward Heath abuse claims.

'Mike Veale intervenes after Mail on Sunday claimed investigators believe there was
cover-up to protect former prime minister

The chief constable of a police force investigating allegations that the late Sir Edward Heath
sexually abused children has criticised tabloid claims that he is “120%” certain the complaints
are true.

Mike Veale, the chief constable of Wiltshire police, said it was the job of the police to “objectively
and proportionately” chase down leads. He said those who commented on the case while not in
possession of the facts could damage the reputations of both the former prime minister and
people who have disclosed alleged abuse.

It is unusual for chief constables to comment on ongoing investigations but the force published a
statement by Veale following a story in the Mail on Sunday.
The tabloid claimed private comments made by Veale shows investigators believe the claims are
true, and that there was a cover up to protect Heath.
The paper has previously criticised the Wiltshire investigation.

A source who claimed to know Veale’s thinking is quoted in the paper as saying:
“There are very close similarities in the accounts given by those who have come forward.

The same names used for him, the same places and same type of incidents keep coming up.
What stands out is that the people giving these accounts are not connected but the stories and
the details dovetail.”...'
SOURCE:

Basically, the same story but with little subtle changes to make a reader of both articles think the
initial assertiveness from the Chief Constable is now a little shaky because of The Guardian's
account. Nothing illegal said, but plenty implied.

'Intervenes' -to halt progress and cause faltering.
'Claimed' -always a good word to create doubt.
'Private comments' -means the public ones are false?!

It's stated that Chief Constable Veale 'criticised' the claims and yet the '120%' was his claim.
It's further stated that he adds that they chase down leads 'objectively and proportionately' which
isn't a criticism of his claim.

And of course, someone who's said to know Veale thinks he knows what the Chief Constable
is thinking! A classic fogging tactic.

This is what I believe is 'Fake News'... this is the way that Governments stifle embarrassing accounts
and manipulate the public into think a certain way. Why some Journalists do it...? I think it's culturally
embedded and I think it was done in their early years.

It could be that their opinions are moulded from their class level and see the world different from somone
who fixes gear-boxes or washes windows, it could well be.

But I've always believed that life is basically simple, so either they don't know they're doing it or they do.
If they don't know, then it maybe that many of us are reading the compass wrong and are too filled with
cynicism to see that the world really is the way Journalists portray it.

But if they do know they're creating a false reality, then why are they continuing to behave in this manner?
What do they get out of it?

@"BIAD",  Excellent Post 

This isn't a rant, honestly!!

It's the same with the issues like 'The Gender Pay Gap' 'Corruption in Politics' and 'Racism in our Schools'
where rational phrases are twisted and 'weasel-words' are put in place to form a certain narrative.
But the narratives have no substance, they leave a reader with more questions than answers and that's the
reason that Journalists write this way.

I used to think it was in regards of libel issues and to be fair, some of it is. But to intrigue a reader or
viewer is far-more beneficial than reporting impartial accurate information. It means they may come back
for more.
(Damn you Barnum!)

It may seem confusing to some that if mainstream media are on the same-side as 'Big Guv'ment' then why
would they bring such subjects to the public's attention?
They're not on a Government's side... they're with the Establishment's side!
But I can understand the doubt.

I've said a couple of times that life is simple and even though many of us may scoff at that notion due to the
rising cost of living, the constant struggle to find employment and the over-bearing rules and regulations that
seem to just want the average man and woman to feel bad all the time, I believe it's true.

The news is bad because they want you disgruntled. Many of us believe a 'man-bites-dog' tale at the end of the
news programme is to make you believe that maybe all the world isn't that bad, but initially it wasn't for that.

It was there to create a bridge from the viewer to the announcer using levity that both parties can appreciate.
The news-reader can become an acquaintance through humour and maybe even a friend.
And you trust friends, don't you?

But back in the world of simplicity, all you need is to eat, drink and have shelter, that's really about it.
A bath full of money may make you seem happy because it fills some-sort of covetness that you're hard-wired
into thinking it will make your existence easier, but you can't eat the stuff!

However, you can use it to purchase food, drink and shelter because the system you're born into condones
it. I know this may seem obvious, it is, but it's a clue into why Journalists do what they do -or in some cases,
told to do. It's the Money.

Globalism and globalisation is an ideology where a home-based decision is used to to financially 'colonise'
the world using a business plan to create a socially condoned level of behavior. You need money to live, ergo
the system says you work for it.

(Although Sweden is working hard towards a cash-free society and that's horror story for another time!)

The same system demands a strata of pay that can be deemed fair for the level of skill needed for a particular
job. Physical labour is seen a less skilled task than mental and therefore the pay level tends to lower for the
person who works with his hands.

This is merely a case of brow-beating society into accepting that decision-making requires deliberate thought,
where someone who shovels shit only needs a shovel.
Hell, the company will even spring for the shovel!

So here we are, a set of countries that trade with each other and attempt to get along. Except... that doesn't
endear productivity to some. For some, the bath of money isn't enough, ten baths full of cash won't do it.
They need the power to control all of it.

"Heh, hold on there BIAD...? you said this was about the media and their role in all this crappiness?
Now you're talking about New World Order or something?"

Well, they go hand-in-hand. You need the media to get your message out and you need to -not just
pay them to do it, they've got to see that their lifestyle benefits by what you're wanting the world to be.
A job... sorry hacks, a career in Journalism isn't just a 9-5, leave yer' shovel by the door-kind of task.
It needs you place your rational perception to one side.

Let's say you're writing about a soccer team you don't support, you don't refuse the task because you
don't like them and you know that writing about the team as a set of ass-holes will get you into hot water.
So you write a fair even piece that caters for all views of the reader, even though you're inwardly biased.

With that in mind, ask yourself why are the majority of mainstream media Journalists against President
Trump? What do they dislike about him...? what is it that causes the Reporters to write an article that
doesn't offer a fair view to all?

'He's spent $9 million on vacations and here's a picture of him in Florida' The fact that it was post-campaign
rally (whatever that is?!) is at odds with the idea that he's on vacation. Even though at that very rally, President
Trump roared that the mainstream media were not truthful!

Yet, the slur that he'd supposedly spent nine million bucks on vacations was written -even though they'd
been reporting on him in the White House since he entered office went unsaid.
Simple falsehoods, really!

They write lies, they concoct stories that subtly imply that they are part of an affluent environment.
How many writers from 'The New Yorker' write about shovelling shit...? How many Journalists from
The Washington Post explain to the readers about their drinking problem?
They don't... they are not only keeping the established narrative on track, they paint themselves as
part of it.

And if this person/acquaintance -who's sharing their information with you, relates the narrative in an
acceptable 'normal' manner then just by the interaction alone, you have also subtly become part of
that Establishment. So you'll tend to accept it

'Follow me' said the Pied Piper and emptied the town of those not wanted.

The MSM know that if the Establishment fails at turning this around and the people of the world who're
not just focused on finding jobs, quarrelling over petty news reports and trying to live in a happy society
become aware that their perceptions have been manipulated, then they will be answerable.

These Journalists know that they will not only NEVER be trusted again and their gravy-train will arrive at
the station to drop them off at the Welfare Office, they will have let a new form of information providers
into the public arena.
Namely, 'the people on the internet'!

@"BIAD"  Not A Rant? WOW! Still,,,,  , Yes Awesomely Stated! 

(02-21-2017, 10:44 PM)guohua Wrote: @"BIAD"  Not A Rant? WOW! Still,,,,  , Yes Awesomely Stated! 

Well thank you!
The main thing is that if the fall of mainstream media comes to pass in such a way that
sites like this one will be seen as having integrity in discussions on current topics, there'll
be a real need for ethics in reporting true information on the internet.

Just as Mystic did by getting rid of the doubtful 'Obama Pedo-Ring' thread, we'll have
to police ourselves without any favouritism of a point of view and make sure our researh
is top-notch.
(In my humble view!)

(02-21-2017, 11:07 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(02-21-2017, 10:44 PM)guohua Wrote: @"BIAD"  Not A Rant? WOW! Still,,,,  , Yes Awesomely Stated! 

Well thank you!
The main thing is that if the fall of mainstream media comes to pass in such a way that
sites like this one will be seen as having integrity in discussions on current topics, there'll
be a real need for ethics in reporting true information on the internet.

Just as Mystic did by getting rid of the doubtful 'Obama Pedo-Ring' thread, we'll have
to police ourselves without any favouritism of a point of view and make sure our researh
is top-notch.
(In my humble view!)

That's Very true and I Applaud    Mystic for taking that Step.

I for one believe we "Rogue-Nation3" have the Very best people on our site.
Our Mod's and Super Mod's are Completely Trustworthy.

Thank You BIAD for Bringing this To Everyone's Attention.

(02-21-2017, 11:14 PM)guohua Wrote: ...I for one believe we "Rogue-Nation3" have the Very best people on our site.
Our Mod's and Super Mod's are Completely Trustworthy.

I agree with you, we do have fair-minded people that are willing to see outside of
the normal parameters that we find comfortable.

At the moment, we can get things wrong and even though -at the moment, we are
relying on news outlets to provide well-executed articles, we have the nous to see
through the obvious favouritism because of the way an article is presented.

If someone of note commits a crime and the emphasis is on how the poor millionaire
has suffered on social media or at the hands of the law, then we should state that this
person is accused of that crime... that's the important factor of  the article.
Not the worth of a person being a reason for some-type of sympathy.

That's how the 'brown-enveloped' media have bushwhacked the public for years and
caused the simple social act of admiring someone who succeeds in life -to change into
some-sort of clause where a different kind of mercy should be shown for offending.

This steady convincing ploy has worked to the point that a celebrity cannot be
imprisoned because of their responsibilities to the public and those who serve them!
And it's endorsed by the same public!

Put it another way, if you have a human being on this planet who believes abolition
of prisons will solve the crime problem and that the main reason is to reduce over
-crowding in jails, then I honestly believe we've lost the plot.

But here on Rogue, we can not only discuss the initial heading of the topic, we have
the sense to look behind the curtain and see what is possibly really going on.

It's not negativity, it's realism.
(This is from a guy who pretends he has an immortal Man-Girl living in his shed)

Here's a 'goody' to show the manipulation that mainstream media does to cast a
shadow on someone they don't like. Someone they don't like... think about that.

The MSM have become so aligned with the Establishment that any moral code
towards bringing well-research news to the public, is tossed to one side in the
effort to stain a person that their political views oppose.

When President Trump told the gathering in Melbourne, Florida:
“...You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden... Sweden!
Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers.
They’re having problems like they never thought possible...”

He was actually commenting on a television programme he'd seen the night before.
SOURCE:

The article reports:
'... On Friday night, Fox News aired an alarming six-minute segment in which the host,
Tucker Carlson, interviewed a documentary filmmaker about a crisis of violence in
Sweden ignited by the recent wave of Muslim migration.

“The government has gone out of its way to try to cover up some of these problems,”
declared Ami Horowitz, the filmmaker. “That is grotesque,” Mr. Carlson responded...'

So President Trump had watched the programme and spoke of it at a later rally.

The mainstream media went int a tizzy-fit stating that Sweden hadn't had a riot on
Friday night and that it showed the Leader of the Free World was actually reading
fake news.
Gotcha Mr. Prez!!

And that's how the BBC saw it too. However, to maintain the pressure, they thought
that they should insert a slur regarding President Trump into an article that in all reality,
bears out what he was really saying.

By Thursday 22nd Feb, they put out this piece to show that fairly, there was a riot that
happened on Monday, but not on Friday as President Trump was allegedly referring to.

Specifics. Yes, European countries are turning into no-go areas of dog-sh*t, but not
on one specific day!
Don't you feel better now...? That silly man had been listening to fake news and not the
established ones that say...

Sweden probes riot in mainly immigrant Stockholm suburb.

'Swedish police have launched an investigation after a riot erupted in a predominantly
immigrant suburb of the capital, Stockholm.
One officer fired at rioters who threw rocks at police.

The unrest in the Rinkeby suburb on Monday night came after police tried to arrest a
suspect on drugs charges.

It also comes after US President Donald Trump referred to Sweden in a speech on
immigration problems, baffling Swedes about a non-existent incident.

Rioters, some of them wearing masks, threw rocks, set vehicles on fire and looted
shops from about 20:00 (19:00 GMT) on Monday in Rinkeby, which has a history of
unrest.

Warning shots were fired, but police later said one officer had also fired at least one
shot at stone-throwers, a rare occurrence in Sweden...'
SOURCE:
Oh... er, hmmmm.

Soon after the tragedy of 9/11, many notable movie directors, producers and script-writers
were called to The White House to assist the Bush/Cheney Government in drawing patriotism
from the public with films that would rally the heart and set a firm jaw of resolve.

Why do you think they did that...? Do you think it was the first time that media conduits
were required to create a perception that favoured a goal?

The BBC is funded by the UK Government through the law of anyone owning a television in
the UK (with exception of the House Of Lords and Parliament!)... must purchase a licence.
Yet, Sky News, Virgin Media, ITV and the many other television broadcasters don't receive
any benefits from that licence fee... do they...? Or do they?

I think if I asked Boy In A Dress, he'd tell me that if I didn't know what a rigged-game was
by now, it may be prudent to make a start!