Select Page

A “Fake News” Exclusive Report

A “Fake News” Exclusive Report

There has been no escape from hearing about “fake news” in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election win.  The New York Times, The Washington Post, and even The Wall Street Journal have released 100’s of articles detailing the many dangers of “fake news” in the 30 days following the Trump victory, making the subject one of the most covered issues in American media. Throughout these articles there is a clear and simple implication:  lies and deception caused the Democrats to lose to the Republicans in the 2016 election.

It should be noted, well before this coordinated attempt to “clean up” media, the news agencies in question had something else in common on the 7th of November: an absolute desire to have Hillary Clinton win the election. We could list inaccurate, race baiting, shame attempting, virtue signaling articles from these sources until the 2020 election, but let’s only include a few published on the day before the election.

Washington Post: “Hillary Clinton has enough electoral votes to win the White House in final Fix map”

The New York Times: “Donald Trump’s Big Bet on Less Educated Whites”

Wall Street Journal: “The Wall Street Journal isn’t endorsing Donald Trump”

Rather than confront the reasons they failed at their job of accurately reporting on a subject, the focus has been placed upon the external bogyman of “fake news.”

 According to Reporters without Borders, a globally respected organization that ranks the jounalistic freedom of all countries,  the United States sits at 41st in the world. In addition, RTW placed the United States on their most egregious offenders of internet freedom list in 2014. We are joined on that offenders list by virtually every state we are told to hate by our own media: China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. 

See, New York Times, it is not just poor white Americans who feel you are the “fake news.”

With the fact established that the global community has more fear than respect for American media, let us, at least for a moment, consider how disappointed our founding fathers would be to see that we have thrown away the treasured “free media” they were willing to die for. Many of those countries listed above are run by animals of the worst, most sickening variety, and we stand equal to them in our effort to inform our masses.  Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy, and the American people, without lifting a finger, allowed our media to be bastardized by profiteers.

When Bernie Sanders was speaking to millions around the country, selling out stadiums, and quickly emerging as one of the most exciting candidates in American election history, many noticed the distinct lack of coverage the candidate was receiving in the press. Consider, for a moment, whether or not the following facts could explain such an anomaly.
 
Carlos Slim, Chairman & CEO of Telmex, the largest New York Times shareholder, has personally donated 7 figure checks to the Clinton foundation, has had his company contribute an additional 7 figures, pledged $100 million to a Clinton initiative – and has paid 6 figure fees for Hillary Clinton to speak at a Telmex event.

Jeff Bezos, who bought the Washington Post in 2013, has been a frequent donater to the Democratic party – and has donated to the Clinton Foundation through his Bezos Family Foundation.  Amazon, which is founded by Bezos, recieved  a $165 million dollar contract from the Hillary Clinton State Department to provide Kindle products to U.S. sponsored centers around the world.   

Even the historically conservative James Murdoch, owner of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, has donated up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Given the consensus that Bernie was the more exciting candidate between he and Hillary – the one more likely to beat Trump in a general election according to national polls – was it the fault of “fake news” or “real news” that the Democratic candidate did not become president? After all, the people so strong voiced about “fake news” had a virtual blackout on coverage of a top candidate.

If we consider the true role of media, to provide checks on our leadership, how can we consider a media legitimate when they did not comment on Hillary’s record breaking lack of transparency and appearances during her election run? When it was revealed the DNC intentionally reduced the amount of debates so their unlikable candidate had less time in public, where was the “real news” to stand up for the America people who wanted answers? When CNN, whose parent company is one of the largest Clinton supporters, passed along debate questions to the Clinton campaign, where was the “real news” holding the corporate candidate’s feet to the fire?

Rather than challenging the obvious corruption, CNN named Hillary the hands down winner of the first debate – despite the fact that 54 percent of Democrats had Sanders winning in a Drudge poll; Hillary received 9% in the same poll. The reason behind all these actions is simple:  Financial entanglement between large corporations and Hillary Clinton manifested a fictional narrative that only broke under the weight of the reality of election night.

The call for the destruction of “fake news” is merely the revolting recoiling of corporate America failing to elect a fully purchased president.  More than anything, the call is an empty plea to ignore the fact that most of our media gave up on real journalism a long time ago.

To our friends at “real news,” we here in “fake news” world hope the money was worth it, because you no longer have the trust of the American people – and this election was proof. If not being in a candidate’s pocket is the new definition of “fake,” we will proudly wear the label as a badge of honor and integrity.

 

About The Author

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow Us