Tag Archives: Journalists

By putting Big Pharma’s patents before patients, doctors will further erode trust in experts, by Jonathan Cook

Many doctors have only one answer for Covid-19: vaccines. However, many patients are discovering other answers on their own. From Jonathan Cook at jonathan-cook.net:

I have spent the past several years on this blog trying to highlight one thing above all others: that the institutions we were raised to regard as authoritative are undeserving of our blind trust.

It is not just that expert institutions have been captured wholesale by corporate elites over the past 40 years and that, as a result, knowledge, experience and expertise have been sidelined in favour of elite interests – though that is undoubtedly true. The problem runs deeper: these institutions were rarely as competent or as authoritative as we fondly remember them being. They always served elite interests.

What has changed most are our perceptions of institutions that were once beloved or trusted. It is we who have changed more than the institutions. That is because we now have far more sources – good and bad alike – than ever before against which we can judge the assertions of those who claim to speak with authority.

Hanging out together

Here is a personal example. When I started work as an editor at the foreign section of the Guardian newspaper in the early 1990s, there were few ways, from the paper’s London head office, to independently evaluate or scrutinise the presentation of events by any of our correspondents in their far-flung bureaus. All we could do was compare the copy they sent with that from other correspondents, either published in rival newspapers or available from two or three English-language wire services.

Continue reading→

6 Questions an Honest, Intelligent Reporter Would Ask Dr. Fauci About COVID-19, by Stacey Lennox

Honest, intelligent reporters are hard to come by, at least in the mainstream media. From Stacey Lennox at pjmedia.com:

Erin Scott/Pool via AP
If you had been going down the rabbit hole of COVID-19 research for long enough, a few things would be astounding to you. First, how uninformed, uncurious, or deceptive reporters in the corporate media are on a matter of life and death. Second, how much publicly available information about COVID-19 is on the internet contradicts what is reported and said by Health Experts™on cable news. Finally, it is impossible to believe Dr. Anthony Fauci enjoys a 62% approval rating.

Of course, part of the reason Dr. Fauci enjoys this level of trust is that reporters who interview him put a sort of religious faith in every word he utters. Having worked with doctors for years, I don’t suffer from any such affliction. There are some great ones, some awful ones, and some who are great at one thing and not another.

It is also quite reasonable for doctors to disagree. Medicine is the art of applying science and it is rarely “settled.” This healthy tension is why patients get second opinions. Yet during the COVID-19 pandemic, only one doctor has had almost no pushback in any public interview. This is journalistic malpractice, but not surprising. Most of the corporate media agree with his recommendations or can use panic porn clicks.

However, if there were a courageous and intelligent reporter who could score an interview with Dr. Fauci, here is a list of questions I would suggest.

1. How is COVID-19 a novel virus?

Dr. Fauci, can you please explain how COVID-19 is a novel virus when it has an overlap with the structure of SARS at a rate of 79%? In addition, there are several human coronaviruses that we have dealt with seasonally for years. Is “novel,” as in completely new, an unnecessarily shocking term?

I cannot find a reference to MERS that calls it a “novel” virus. All coronaviruses have the telltale spike protein we have all become familiar with and MERS was less similar to SARS than COVID-19 is. Why add the qualifier to COVID-19 when even the NIH published an article with the following “facts” on June 26, 2020:

Only minor differences have been found between the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV

Continue reading→

Journalists Are Prostitutes, by Paul Craig Roberts

This article will dispel any lingering doubts you may have had about mainstream journalists being in bed with governments and intelligence agencies. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

In a recent interview with USA Watchdog — https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/13/if-impeach-gate-fails-elites-will-crash-economy-to-get-rid-of-trump/ — I described Western journalists as prostitutes who whore for a living.  

One of them who did so—Udo Ulfkotte—describes what it is like.  For the naive and insouciant Western people who need to hear the truth from the horse’s mouth, here is a translation of one of Udo Ulfkotte’s lectures on the subject.

Kopp in Germany published Ulfkotte’s book, Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalism) several years ago.  It was a best seller.  An English language edition was authorized, but its publication was blocked by intelligence services.  You can get an idea of the book from the lecture.

https://off-guardian.org/2019/10/06/watch-udo-ulfkotte-bought-journalists/?fbclid=IwAR3ytfusLpB3zA42m6vlDgbj8TpFlDuFoy1P11e8zqS8IuUOFlbz_48QfnA 

If the link doesn’t work for you, here is the transcript:

In 2014, the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte published a book that created a big stir, describing how the journalistic profession is thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by intelligence services.

Continue reading

Journalism Isn’t Dying, It’s Returning to its Roots, by Antonio Garcia Martinez

In the good old days, nobody pretended journalists were objective. From Antonio Garcia Martinez at wired.com:

THE PAST FEW weeks have brought bad news to the hardworking scribes of the news business. Three leading digital outlets—BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, and Vice—announced layoffs that left many accomplished journalists unemployed. The fingers of blame quickly pointed to the great bogeymen of our media age—Facebook and Google—and warned about a threat to democracy. After all, if the most savvy and avant-garde of the new digital journalists can’t make a living, what hope is there for old-school newspapers? To many, the health of our democracy is inextricably tied to the health of our journalism: If the latter begins to die, the former must immediately follow.

That’s a curious sentiment, because if you were to magically teleport the architects of our democracy—men like Ben Franklin or Samuel Adams (newspapermen, both of them)—to today, they’d find our journalistic ecosystem, with its fact-checked both-sides-ism and claims to “objectivity,” completely unrecognizable. Franklin wrote under at least a dozen pseudonyms, including such gems as Silence Dogood and Alice Addertongue, and pioneered the placement of advertising next to content. Adams (aka Vindex the Avenger, Philo Patriae, et al.) was editor of the rabidly anti-British Boston Gazette and also helped organize the Boston Tea Party, when activists dumped tea into Boston Harbor rather than pay tax on it. Adams duly covered the big event the next day with absolute aplomb. They’d have no notion of journalistic “objectivity,” and would find the entire undertaking futile (and likely unprofitable, but more on that soon).

Continue reading