I'm glad you went into specifics here. The thing about 'misinformation' experts is they're NEVER asked to account for specific case. What if the government is giving us false epidemic guidelines and information? What if the media is giving Americans a false sense of the issues in our police departments?
THOSE aren't the kinds of misinformation the experts are talking about though... because such facts support and flatter the powerful. They're not against misinformation, or they would object strenuously when the Harris campaign uses lies or manipulations. They're against the loss of power our institutions are experiencing (with progressive agendas behind most of them) because of the internet.
Really insightful dissection of the institutionalized media bias we have going on. The media is supposed to be the government’s ‘watchdog’ and they have completely abandoned that duty for years now when it comes to the democrats.
There's a 'tipping point' element of reactions to these kinds of cultural phenomena. Most people aren't actively vetting their news or enforcing norms against cultural appropriation or fawning over celebrities. Most folks are just part of a crowd, fish in a school going where the status signals and leaders are going,.
Alternative media is CRUSHING the mainstream and we're now at the point where the effect is accelerating, and bleeding into politics and films and universities, etc. They are losing their grasp and their crowd is thinning and they are beginning to panic: suggesting legislation to control the internet or trying to mock a presidential candidate in the hopes that it'll stick.
Great article. Unfortunately, the deceit runs so deep the people who would benefit most from reading it would probably write it off as right wing propaganda.
Thanks Benjamin--glad you liked it! And yes, I agree with you, unfortunately. It's frustrating because the piece is just trying to preserve open public discourse, regardless of which party is benefitting or suffering. Reducing it to a partisan issue is missing the point.
Hey Farlo, thanks for taking a look. We didn't talk about right-wing media bias because there's really no comparison. Yes, FOX News is a biased organization, but it was founded in the late 90s and is not 'establishment' media, per se. On the right you've got the New York Post and FOX, and on the Left you have CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, Washington Post, NY Times, and more. The point is also that the modern establishment media is indistinguishable from the Democratic party (i.e. they are instructed to and obediently follow party lines). While FOX News is biased toward conservatives, there isn't really any evidence of conspiratorial or collusive action.
In any case, hope you enjoyed the article and will come take a look at future publications!
LOL. You are likened to the "blm" drones who protest 3% of black deaths each year, instead of the undisputed 90+% homicides. (not counting abortion of course)
tonight youtube fed me an interesting debate on the msm's trustworthiness that may show that there is the possibility of a little fire in the hope in changing trustworthiness perceptions. if you haven't seen it, it is both cringe-worthy because of the absolute incompetency of malcom gladwell's and michelle goldberg's efforts to 'prove' the trustworthiness of the msm. their counters were douglas murray and matt taibbi. "Munk Debate - Mainstream Media ft. Douglas Murray, Matt Taibbi, Malcolm Gladwell, Michelle Goldberg". https://youtu.be/nvaf7XOOFHc
you also replied, below, to the merck misstatement about ivermectin. more interesting, to me anyway, is that turns out to have been a complete lie because merck, the 'philanthropic' pharma, has been giving ivermectin to africans for decades as a dewormer, under the name. see "West Africa: Mectizan (ivermectin) donation programme" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)90066-0/
in the 'alt' news there has been pushed the narrative that ivermectin is associated with dropped fertility. [headshake.] it seems that that is likely incorrect. i now suspect that, because of the faulty science(tm) around that in the early goings, that that was the 'real' motivation for the free ivermectin programme in countries being targeted for population growth reduction. if curious, you may find this look at it interesting. "Exploring Ivermectin's Impact on Fertility in Africa: With a little help from my friends" (Aug 22, 2024 Dr. Tess Lawrie substack. https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/exploring-ivermectins-impact-on-fertility)
all the best with what is changing. everything changes. with peace, respect, love and exuberant joy.
In spring of 2021, Merck, the company that developed Ivermectin, released a statement about Ivermectin stating that Ivermectin has: “No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.” I found this statement after browsing the Internet for a minute or so, and presumably Joe Rogen could have too. So although I agree that members of the press damaged their credibility by adopting the “horse dewormer” meme, they were 100% correct in criticizing Rogen for promoting a phony cure that could sicken those who might try it, and/or make them less likely to seek evidence-based medical treatment.
Hi Mark, thanks for reading. Actually, statements like the one Merck made are misleading, because there actually were studies that indicated potential efficacy of ivermectin, some of which we've cited in this article. And, in the last couple years there have been further peer-reviewed clinical studies that indicate its efficacy as a Covid treatment, like the ones i've listed below. I quote "Early addition of Ivermectin to standard care is very effective drug for treatment of COVID-19 patients with significant reduction in mortality,rt-PCR conversion days, recovery time hospital stay... Early use of Ivermectin is very useful for controlling COVID 19 infections; prophylaxis and improving cytokines storm..."
Loved this piece! It is indeed The Whole Truth and nothing but the truth regarding the Media Circus. The truth will set you free! (John 8:32)
Thanks! Glad you liked it :)
I'm glad you went into specifics here. The thing about 'misinformation' experts is they're NEVER asked to account for specific case. What if the government is giving us false epidemic guidelines and information? What if the media is giving Americans a false sense of the issues in our police departments?
THOSE aren't the kinds of misinformation the experts are talking about though... because such facts support and flatter the powerful. They're not against misinformation, or they would object strenuously when the Harris campaign uses lies or manipulations. They're against the loss of power our institutions are experiencing (with progressive agendas behind most of them) because of the internet.
Good luck with that.,
Exactly! It’s such a charade. They clearly don’t care about truth, otherwise there would not be so many one sided fact checks and omissions . . .
Really insightful dissection of the institutionalized media bias we have going on. The media is supposed to be the government’s ‘watchdog’ and they have completely abandoned that duty for years now when it comes to the democrats.
Hi Ange, we’re glad you enjoyed it! We bet you’ll also find fascinating our new article “The American Oligarchy” and its accompanying flow chart.
The panic is palpable...
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/our-flailing-elites?r=1neg52
There's a 'tipping point' element of reactions to these kinds of cultural phenomena. Most people aren't actively vetting their news or enforcing norms against cultural appropriation or fawning over celebrities. Most folks are just part of a crowd, fish in a school going where the status signals and leaders are going,.
Alternative media is CRUSHING the mainstream and we're now at the point where the effect is accelerating, and bleeding into politics and films and universities, etc. They are losing their grasp and their crowd is thinning and they are beginning to panic: suggesting legislation to control the internet or trying to mock a presidential candidate in the hopes that it'll stick.
It won't.
Great article. Unfortunately, the deceit runs so deep the people who would benefit most from reading it would probably write it off as right wing propaganda.
Thanks Benjamin--glad you liked it! And yes, I agree with you, unfortunately. It's frustrating because the piece is just trying to preserve open public discourse, regardless of which party is benefitting or suffering. Reducing it to a partisan issue is missing the point.
No mention of right wing media bias?? You missed the boat
Hey Farlo, thanks for taking a look. We didn't talk about right-wing media bias because there's really no comparison. Yes, FOX News is a biased organization, but it was founded in the late 90s and is not 'establishment' media, per se. On the right you've got the New York Post and FOX, and on the Left you have CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, Washington Post, NY Times, and more. The point is also that the modern establishment media is indistinguishable from the Democratic party (i.e. they are instructed to and obediently follow party lines). While FOX News is biased toward conservatives, there isn't really any evidence of conspiratorial or collusive action.
In any case, hope you enjoyed the article and will come take a look at future publications!
The 4 AM Narrative. Verbatim across all left wing media That’s collusion.
LOL. You are likened to the "blm" drones who protest 3% of black deaths each year, instead of the undisputed 90+% homicides. (not counting abortion of course)
Yup, it’s absurd that we have to explain what should be plainly obvious to everyone. But that’s why we’re here! :)
hola, twt. nice to meet you. sound analysis.
tonight youtube fed me an interesting debate on the msm's trustworthiness that may show that there is the possibility of a little fire in the hope in changing trustworthiness perceptions. if you haven't seen it, it is both cringe-worthy because of the absolute incompetency of malcom gladwell's and michelle goldberg's efforts to 'prove' the trustworthiness of the msm. their counters were douglas murray and matt taibbi. "Munk Debate - Mainstream Media ft. Douglas Murray, Matt Taibbi, Malcolm Gladwell, Michelle Goldberg". https://youtu.be/nvaf7XOOFHc
you also replied, below, to the merck misstatement about ivermectin. more interesting, to me anyway, is that turns out to have been a complete lie because merck, the 'philanthropic' pharma, has been giving ivermectin to africans for decades as a dewormer, under the name. see "West Africa: Mectizan (ivermectin) donation programme" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)90066-0/
in the 'alt' news there has been pushed the narrative that ivermectin is associated with dropped fertility. [headshake.] it seems that that is likely incorrect. i now suspect that, because of the faulty science(tm) around that in the early goings, that that was the 'real' motivation for the free ivermectin programme in countries being targeted for population growth reduction. if curious, you may find this look at it interesting. "Exploring Ivermectin's Impact on Fertility in Africa: With a little help from my friends" (Aug 22, 2024 Dr. Tess Lawrie substack. https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/exploring-ivermectins-impact-on-fertility)
all the best with what is changing. everything changes. with peace, respect, love and exuberant joy.
In spring of 2021, Merck, the company that developed Ivermectin, released a statement about Ivermectin stating that Ivermectin has: “No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.” I found this statement after browsing the Internet for a minute or so, and presumably Joe Rogen could have too. So although I agree that members of the press damaged their credibility by adopting the “horse dewormer” meme, they were 100% correct in criticizing Rogen for promoting a phony cure that could sicken those who might try it, and/or make them less likely to seek evidence-based medical treatment.
Hi Mark, thanks for reading. Actually, statements like the one Merck made are misleading, because there actually were studies that indicated potential efficacy of ivermectin, some of which we've cited in this article. And, in the last couple years there have been further peer-reviewed clinical studies that indicate its efficacy as a Covid treatment, like the ones i've listed below. I quote "Early addition of Ivermectin to standard care is very effective drug for treatment of COVID-19 patients with significant reduction in mortality,rt-PCR conversion days, recovery time hospital stay... Early use of Ivermectin is very useful for controlling COVID 19 infections; prophylaxis and improving cytokines storm..."
https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr258403
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024036788