Prior to the internet, news outlets could publish whatever they wanted knowing they were the ones in charge of fact-checking. Now, we are able to see for ourselves how the media manipulates stories for the purpose of propaganda.
Earlier this week numerous outlets reported on a study released by the U.N. that claimed the United States had over 100,000 children currently being detained by ICE. Within hours of the report being released, other outlets, celebrities, and politicians had shared the news, hoping to make President Trump out to be a villain.
In a Tuesday press conference ahead of the release of the United Nations Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty, independent expert Manfred Nowak told reporters that the United States “still [has] more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.” Nowak also told AFP, “The total number currently detained is 103,000.” That figure also formed the basis of articles from NPR and the wire service Reuters, whose version was then picked up by outlets such as NBC News, the New York Times, and HuffPost. Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee quickly seized upon the figures, tweeting, “These numbers are horrifying. The Trump administration’s child separation policy is cruel and shameful.”
When the figures were found to be from the Obama administration, outlets quickly deleted the story. They didn’t correct them, they deleted them. They don’t want you to even have the thought that Obama might have been a bad guy.
To be clear, we are not accusing the media of pushing “fake news”. This is much more sinister. The media is acting as a propaganda arm for the democrat party, and is simply refusing to publish anything that hurts the left.
The New York post does a good job of summing things up:
So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.
Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.
We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.
Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.
Again, this isn’t an example of “fake news”, this is “news with an agenda”. Why else do you not hear how Trump’s approval numbers mirror that of Obama’s after three years in office? Because the media is shaping how you view the world by feeding you what they want, and withholding information that may cause you to think for yourself.
Every time you read something from AFP and Reuters (and CNN and the Washington Post), you should be thinking not “This is fake news” but: “What’s the agenda?” To paraphrase Chuck Schumer’s infamous, and instructive, comment on the CIA, news outlets have six ways from Sunday of getting you to think what they want you to think, none of which involve making up stuff.
One is simply not reporting things. News that isn’t mentioned didn’t really happen to that outlet’s consumers. Obama’s approval ratings were mostly really low, comparable to Trump’s, typically in the low to mid-40s. Polls would come out saying this, and the Ron Burgundys would simply not report it.
The notion that the news you routinely watch if “fair” is a bold faced lie. Currently, news organizations exist to attack President Trump, and promote Democrats, and their ideas.
When an Asian kid shot up a school in California with a handgun, you didn’t hear a peep from Democrats, and MSM had decided it wasn’t worth reporting on. Meanwhile, when a white person commits a shooting (so long as he isn’t trans, or gay) it remains in the news for weeks at a time. Chances are you’ll see several clips of Beto crying, and calling for gun confiscation.
Right now there’s a lot of talk about “white supremacy” being a serious threat. Stories like this one by CNN only add fuel to that fire, but it’s all done on purpose. Even with many of these kinds of stories turning out to be hoaxes, CNN and the like report on them like they are 100% accurate, and shouldn’t be questioned.
Here’s just the latest example:
A series of racist incidents on Syracuse University’s campus in New York over the past 10 days has spurred police investigations and led to student protests.
Two of the latest incidents were reported Saturday, according to a release from the university’s Department of Public Safety (DPS). The first was graffiti of a swastika found at Haven Hall that DPS said was quickly removed.
The second was a report from a student at Sadler Hall that another student was yelling “a racial epithet that is derogatory to African Americans.” DPS is working to identify the student, the release said. DPS said it is aware of a “hateful email being directed to several members of our community.”
“That email has been forwarded to the Syracuse Police Department and they have initiated an investigation,” the release said.
These are the types of things CNN and others feel Americans should know about. They are able to promote their agenda, and push their worldview onto their readers.
Kyle Smith finishes his New York Post piece by saying:
CNN did a massive story this week involving the talents of five reporters after someone at Syracuse University sent out a white supremacist manifesto to “several” cellphones and racist graffiti was discovered in a residence hall. Previously, similar outbreaks of campus fear turned out to be based on hoaxes. Yet if this story dissolves, CNN can accurately claim, hey, we were just reporting that students were scared.
The impression created by a thousand stories like this — that America in 2019 is a white supremacist nightmare — will linger all the same. Using, or ignoring, facts in accordance with whether they create the desired impression is the principal agenda of today’s media.