The Media IS our Enemy
Editor’s Comment: I originally published this article in 1992. I’ve been calling the media our enemy for Twenty Six years!!!
For decades the American People have known there is a bias in the main stream media. Today that bias has gone off the chart as has become advocay for issue that could be considered unAmerican. This advocacy didn’t start with the election of Donald Trump, but has grown over the past five or so decades from bias to advocacy. To understand the it we need to take a look at it through a series of quotes.
Here are but a few quotes that should be read, heard and understood.
“I’m not sure it is useful to include every single point of view.”
PBS Producer Linda Harrar, 9/29/91, on her
decision not to air “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.”
When an opposing view to the man-made global warming hoax is offered, the media either gives it limited coverage or ignores it completely. One such case was the PBS decision not to show “The Greenhouse Conspiracy,” an excellent documentary by Hilary Lawson that blows the very foundation out from under the “global warming crisis.” The above quote was in response to not presenting it to the American people. And this from “Public Broadcasting” supported by your tax dollars!
It’s bad enough that back in those early days Ted and Jane Goebbels (Ted Turner & Jane Fonda), probably the two most influential people on earth, have decided to use the power of CNN and TBS to further media science and those who engage in theoretical crisis science predictions.
It is time to call for a stop to all this madness and return to some sanity and honest science without biased media involvement. It’s time to return to a science that relies on certainty and precision, and more than anything, PEER REVIEW. The so called 97% consensus claim is a FAKE as the FAKE NEWS that trumpets it ALL over the MSM.
Without infringing on anyone’s Constitutional rights, I believe the Constitution should not give the media the right to lie to us. That is a charge that may be difficult to prove, but not impossible.
Producer Linda Harrar’s above statement exposes her tyrannical position.
“Newspaper editors and broadcasters, who help set the national agenda by what they choose to report, have hyped the dioxin danger, made it more dramatic by their choice of human interest stories, ignored much of the scientific evidence and used quotes from some scientists whose conclusions weren’t justified by their research.”
Joan Beck, Columnist
the Chicago Tribune
June 30, 1983
There were some journalists out there trying to tell the truth. Sadly, they are as outnumbered as they are unemployed.
“Why do so many reporters and editors suspend their normal skepticism when that magical word environment” is invoked?”
George Melloan, in “Global View:
How About Some Concern Over Eco Journalism?”
Wall Street Journal, June 22 1992.
The serious answer is obvious: “Because they are advocates!”
“There is, and can be, only one purpose for such (environmental) regulatory overkill:
“Deliberately to shut down the U.S. economy and force a halt to economic and human development.”
Warren Brookes, syndicated columnist
Warren Brookes passed away on December 28, 1991, but what he said back in 1990 has actually happened. The EPA has brought our economy to its knees.
“To hell with news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It’s up to the public to decide what’s true.”
Ben Bradlee, Editor, Washington Post, 1989
reported by David Brooks in The Wall Street Journal
October 5, 1989, and much earlier by John J. Mc Ketta of
the National Council for Environmental Balance
It is obvious from my attempts to talk to the local media, the local NBC affiliate, and local eco-reporter for one of our newspapers, that this attitude is pervasive. They do say it is impossible for them to determine the truth. I’ll give them that. It would be impossible to check out every story that crosses their desks.
But they make a limited effort to allow any opposing views to air or be printed. So while they air and print what may not be true, they don’t air or print what has been shown to be true.
As a result of this kind of media attitude, people are led to believe the most unfounded pending disaster stories in the history of man. In a time when the deficit is about to bankrupt our nation, Congress, reacting to perceived popular opinion, has allowed the wasting of money on environmental issues more than on any other project in Washington. Therefore, the truly important projects are delayed because of environmental untruths.
Environmental groups have learned the best way to get more money for favorite projects is to conclude any request with impending disaster–just in case the government decides not to approve their requests.
“As science editor of Time, I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
Charles Alexander, September 1989
Science Editor, Time Magazine
This was said during the “Global Environment: Are We Overreacting” conference held at the Smithsonian, during which a stream of doomsayers spewed forth one catastrophe after another. Mr. Alexander was applauded by journalists for making the above statement. Andrea Mitchell, an NBC News journalist agreed and said, “Clearly the networks have made a decision now, where you’d have to call it advocacy.” (I wonder if those two still have their jobs.)
The fact that none of this was or barely reported to the American public further shows how one-sided the media really is. CNN, the major networks, and the print media have become lopsided reporters and mindless supporters of one of the most misleading eco-terrorism campaigns ever launched on the American people.
I find it incredible that in communist countries, like the former Soviet Union, a government-controlled press openly lied to its people, while here in the United States, where freedom of the press is protected by the Constitution in order to share the truth with the American people, the media chooses, instead, to lie.
If this version of “freedom of the press” is what Americans have died for in wars, beginning with the revolutionary war, I don’t want any part of it. If freedom of the press means the media has license to lie to us, I want no part of it.
Everything we know about any current event is gleaned from the media: a media with a “tyrants’ agenda” advocating global environmental crisis; a media with a penchant for slanting issues; a media that lies by not reporting both sides of an issue; a media that reports with advocacy instead of objectivity.
President Trump is exactly correct when he calls out the MSM as un-American. They have become advocates for left wing, one world green positions and as fair as a Chris Wallace may seem to try to be, he is part of that media. As such, the Media is our Enemy. For John McCain to make the statements he recently made makes him complicit with a media that IS the enemy of the PEOPLE!