How’s that working for ya?

It’s almost at the point when the media demands we must accept what they tell us as truth, the polar opposite should rightfully be prioritized. Not just because those proclamations erroneously influenced popular opinion (including federal elections), but because those who are overpaid to distribute “news” can’t justify their pay if they have to admit to their employers and millions of people they were very wrong.

So they won’t.

Here are some blatant examples of important stories they got wrong and have yet to formally apologize to the public and the aggrieved….

PolitiFact: 2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a ‘made-up story’
USA Today: Hillary Clinton says Trump associates helped Russia meddle in the 2016 election
NY Times: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton just accused Trump associates of collusion with Russia
Politico: Schiff: There is now ‘more than circumstantial evidence’ of Trump-Russia collusion
MSNBC: Team Trump sees imaginary ‘evidence’ of Clinton, Russia collusion

And some even received formerly-prestigious awards for what they got very wrong.

Reuters: Washington Post, NY Times win Pulitzers for work on Trump, Putin

Almost every news outlet provided near 24-7 coverage of “Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election” for close to five years.

CNN: Hillary Clinton personally approved plan to share Trump-Russia allegation with the press in 2016, campaign manager says
Bloomberg: Hillary Clinton Approved Trump-Russia Leak to Media, Her Campaign Manager Says

Confirmation to all those “conspiracy theorists” who insisted the whole Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign-DNC hit job was essentially a one day story and no apologies should be expected.

Media-imposed censorship took a precedent-setting turn during the 2020 election.

Variety: Twitter Still Blocking a NY Post Story Based on Alleged Hunter Biden Emails, Newspaper’s Account Remains Frozen
Politico: Insisting that the Hunter Biden laptop is fake is a trap. So is insisting that it’s real.
Rolling Stone: Twitter, Facebook Allow Pizzagate-Esque Conspiracy Theories to Spread About Hunter Biden
Fortune: Facebook moves to limit spread of dubious Biden laptop story
PolitiFact: Fact-checking unproven claims about Hunter Biden and child pornography

The media’s declarations have been so blatant that they’ve begun to, literally, pay the price for the harm caused.

CNN: The Washington Post settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann after viral March for Life controversy
Law & Crime: Covington Catholic’s Nick Sandmann Settles $275 Million NBC Lawsuit for ‘Confidential’ Amount
Reuters: CNN settles defamation lawsuit with Kentucky teen in Lincoln Memorial case

There are numerous stories that the media insisted we blow off as “conspiracy theories” that have turned out to be true, and controversies arise that make no sense until common sense is deployed.

Add it all up and you’ll understand why CNN+ crashed and burned so quickly. Fewer accept what the media tells us as worthy of their time, let alone having their intelligence constantly insulted.

Cision’s annual State of the Media report, which looks at the key challenges journalists face today, is drawn from responses from over 3,800 journalists across 17 global markets. The number one challenge journalists cited? Maintaining credibility.

According to the report, 32% of those surveyed said that they struggle to combat accusations of fake news and remain a trusted news source; and 57% feel that the public has lost trust in the media over the past year.
— PR Week, 5/24/22

So when the media insists you believe there was no “widespread vote fraud” during the 2020 election, don’t expect any mea culpas as this script flips.

2020

FactCheck.org: Baseless Conspiracy Theory Targets Another Election Technology Company

2022

CBS news: U.S. finds no evidence flaws in Dominion voting machines were ever exploited
Uncover DC: CISA Advisory Report Admits Voting Machine Vulnerabilities: Denies Exploitation

The media will blatantly lie to your face because for some reason, once someone is granted employment in the entertainment industry, he or she is now about 60 I.Q. points higher than the American population average. These people have unbridled disdain for their viewers and if you have any doubts, look at the dumbed-down nature of their broadcast programming. If they consider you a moron in their primetime divisions, the newsrooms really think you’re stupid, thus their insistence you take their word for it.

“If Biden got in, you’d be paying $7, $8, $9,” Trump said the day before Election Day at a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich. “Then they’d say, ‘Get rid of your car.’”
— Washington Post, 11/12/20

So, make it easy. Whatever the media declares fact you must accept and believe, think the opposite and you’ll sleep easier.

If that’s the case, either multi-million dollar opinion hosts and smug journalists failed miserably at informing their consumers on important topics or they succeeded greatly in keeping them in the dark so they would vote the way they wanted, albeit via mass ignorance.

It also explains those interactions with hostiles on social media who seemingly bask in their ignorance, forcing you to divert and issue a quick review on a topic they quickly dispute because it wasn’t covered by NPR or The New York Times. They are quick to dismiss “The Big Lie” regarding the 2020 election while being genuinely clueless of almost everything pertinent leading up to it.

While there are those who are still attempting to get accurate tallies of votes and discrepancies of the 2020 election, there is an easier explanation why Donald Trump “lost” to Joe Biden and it’s based on a long-standing problems during elections: media bias and bias-by-omission. It’s more than apparent that without media biases run amok, aided greatly by Twitter, Facebook, and Google, the election would not have been nudged to Joe Biden and those who voted for him are now aware.

To measure the true effect of the media’s censorship on the election, the Media Research Center asked The Polling Company to survey 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), six of which (all but North Carolina) were called for Biden (survey details below). We tested these voters’ knowledge of eight news stories — all important topics that our ongoing analysis had shown the liberal news media had failed to cover properly. We found that a huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested.

This lack of information proved crucial: One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president.
— SPECIAL REPORT: The Stealing of the Presidency, 2020

Putting it picture form really puts the media, Big Tech interference in proper perspective.

This alone could be one reason the legacy media, while begrudgingly and belatedly, is admitting the got one little piece of information wrong during the 2020 presidential campaign. Like the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop, and all the various issues contained within, that was quickly dismissed by the media and censored by social media mere weeks before ballots were to be cast.

Oops. The New York Times now admits they made a boo-boo.

The New York Post first reported this eyebrow-raising information back in October 2020, a month before the presidential election. Pro-Biden, anti-Trump journalists, including several at the Times, portrayed the Post‘s story as unsubstantiated at best. Politico reported that “more than 50 former senior intelligence officials” believed the emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Some journalists suggested it was reckless even to acknowledge the Post‘s report. Twitter, which initially blocked links to the article, seemed to agree. While the Times did not ignore the story, the paper’s coverage treated it with skepticism and disdain.

But that was then. A year and a half later, the Times thinks the emails it viewed as suspect before Joe Biden’s election are now newsworthy. “People familiar” with a federal investigation of Hunter Biden, it reports, “said prosecutors had examined emails” between him, his former business partner Devon Archer, “and others” regarding “Burisma and other foreign business activity.” Those emails “were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.” The messages “were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”
— Reason, 3/17/22

And don’t let the latest plague on society (the “factcheckers”) off the hook.

Fueled by a panic over misinformation, the fact-checking industry is shifting the media’s primary obligation away from pursuing the truth and toward upholding vague notions of public safety, which it gets to define. In the course of this transformation, journalists are being turned into rent-a-cops whose job is to enforce an official consensus that is treated as a civic good by those who benefit from—and pay for—its protection.

The fact-checkers have proved to be crucial compliance officers for the state, filtering out troublesome information before it reaches the public, torturing “the facts” until they conform to officially sanctioned narratives, and smearing dissenters as dangers to the public or stooges of Vladimir Putin.
— Tablet Magazine, 3/21/22

The left rarely admits to errors in judgment, let alone outright fraud, without a reason. Many of today’s younger journalists may not appreciate or even know the irony regarding “the boy who cried wolf” because Aesop was obviously a white supremacist misogynist. But in the ramp-up to what’s looking like a severe ass-whuppin’ coming Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the media will insist the American people listen to them before casting an informed vote.

After 2020, that will be a hard sell.

Case in point….

It was pretty jarring earlier this month when the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court took the bench for the first time since the omicron surge over the holidays. All were now wearing masks. All, that is, except Justice Neil Gorsuch. What’s more, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was not there at all, choosing instead to participate through a microphone setup in her chambers. Sotomayor has diabetes, a condition that puts her at high risk for serious illness, or even death, from COVID-19. She has been the only justice to wear a mask on the bench since last fall when, amid a marked decline in COVID-19 cases, the justices resumed in-person arguments for the first time since the onset of the pandemic.

Now, though, the situation had changed with the omicron surge, and according to court sources, Sotomayor did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up. They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.
— Nina Totenberg, NPR, 1/18/21

Sounds pretty insensitive and potentially dangerous.

However, it doesn’t appear to be true as New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was one of the first to dispute Totenberg’s musing.

NPR strongly defended Totenberg’s reporting, pointing out that the justices’ statement does not directly contradict their story.

“Totenberg never reported that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask, nor did she report that anyone admonished him,” NPR spokesman Ben Fishel said in a statement.
— Business Insider, 1/18/22

Totenberg’s implications were clear enough as was the response from the justices in question.

The court on Wednesday issued an unusual three-sentence statement from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch. It read: “Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”
— ABC News, 1/19/22

Nina Totenberg, “legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio focusing primarily on the activities and politics of the Supreme Court of the United States” cites no one in her piece. No anonymous source or official speaking under condition of anonymity, zip, zero, nada; a clear flunking of Journalism 1.01.

Turns out she was inspired by the opinion of another conservative-hating liberal.

One justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who had previously been the only justice to wear a mask on the bench, participated remotely from her chambers. Sotomayor has diabetes, which is a risk factor for more severe illness with covid. She also is, or would have been, Gorsuch’s seat mate for the nearly four-hour-long argument session.

The court, having resumed in-person arguments, retains strict limits on who can attend and strict rules for those allowed inside the chamber. Reporters and lawyers must wear masks — N95 masks, not the less-effective cloth variety — and test negative for covid. In fact, two of the lawyers who argued against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates had to do so remotely after testing positive. And instead of being crammed cheek by jowl in the press section, reporters, along with the justices’ law clerks, are spaced throughout the otherwise-empty chamber.

These rules and practices all make sense for the court (where five justices, including Sotomayor, are over 65) and for the public. Indeed, they offer a model for responsible workplace behavior in an age of omicron.

Which brings me to the question: Where was Gorsuch’s mask?
— Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, 1/7/22

Marcus’ “op-ed” got all this rolling, Totenberg lit the fuse given, and it was dutifully rewritten and distributed.

Slate: The Even Bigger Problem With Neil Gorsuch’s Decision Not to Wear a Mask
Yahoo News: Gorsuch defied a request from Chief Justice Roberts to wear a mask out of respect for Sotomayor
CNN: Gorsuch declines to wear mask, as Sotomayor works from her office
BizPacReview: Gorsuch reportedly refuses to mask-up, ‘forcing’ Sotomayor to work remotely
UK Independent: Diabetic Sotomayor forced to work remotely, Gorsuch refuses to wear mask
Huffington Post: Gorsuch Reportedly Refuses To Wear Mask In Supreme Court, Forcing Others To Call In
NY Magazine: Neil Gorsuch Reportedly Refused John Roberts’s Request to Wear a Mask
Boston Globe: Justice Gorsuch reportedly refused to wear mask during Supreme Court arguments

Either Marcus and Totenberg made it all up, the Washington Post and NPR accepted it without asking her to provide the customary attribution, OR Marcus and Totenberg made it up and it was blindly accepted by the Washington Post and NPR because it was what they wanted to believe, their audience would also accept it because they want to be believe it as true and are too lazy to verify it.

It’s not like so-called liberal journalists making shit up never happened before and it would be interesting to see how justices would rule if #DefundNPR ever made it before them?