RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/24/media-test-positive-for-corrupt-covid-coverage/

Policymakers and public health officials need to be held accountable for their miserable pandemic failures. So should the media, which have no interest in objective news, and are following an agenda that is both repulsive and poisonous

Among of the media’s favorite stories of the last 18 months are the deaths of the unvaccinated and those who expressed skepticism about the lethality of the Wuhan coronavirus. A recent example is the death of a 40-year-old California woman, who, according to the British Daily Mail, “regularly posted anti-vax, anti-mask content, proclaiming herself a ‘free thinker’ who ‘questions everything.’ ” The mother of four – who also considered herself “unmuzzled” – “had been battling COVID-19 and resulting pneumonia ahead of her passing.”

Tragic as her death was, it would not have been covered by the media had she been vaccinated and cheerfully compliant with lockdown and mask rules. But in the twisted minds of most of today’s journalists, it’s a story that has to be told to boost their vanity. They are our moral superiors.

The glee with which the story is reported is not overt. But like so many others, it was told in a way to lead readers to classify the victim as a backward, anti-science conservative who might even be a Republican and a Trump supporter. It’s part of the left’s agenda to marginalize such people.

Thankfully, there are exceptions to the cruelty. Journalist Zaid Jilani recently told the media to stop shaming those who aren’t perfectly lined up with the left’s pandemic demands and succumb to their coronavirus infections.

“Maybe they were skeptical of vaccines, or masks or something like that, and maybe they got COVID, and they died,” Jilani told Hill.TV. “That’s usually a very sad circumstance, but it’s turned into sort of a celebration, like ‘ha we got the other side!’ ”

“It’s an odd way to think of a virus,” he added.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/the-new-york-times-labels-hunter-biden-laptop-story-unsubstantiated/

Last October, the New York Post published a bombshell story based on emails recovered from a laptop that Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop.

The emails suggest that Biden introduced his then-vice president father to an executive at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while he was sitting on the firm’s board. At the time of the meeting, Joe Biden was running the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy as vice president.

The Post also reported that laptop contained incriminating photos of the younger Biden and that the laptop had been seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a controversial decision decried by the right and hailed by the left, Twitter flagged and censored the Post story.

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Twitter will not be held responsible for a campaign finance violation in connection with the decision, which has been deemed a business — rather than a politically motivated — decision by the Federal Election Commission. Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey has called the initial decision to censor the article a “mistake,” and did eventually reverse it.

Curiously, though, the Times describes the Post’s story as “unsubstantiated” without doing any of the work required to actually discredit it. Indeed, the “unsubstantiated” descriptor is tacked on without any supporting evidence suggesting that the Post’s reporting was erroneous. No such evidence is referenced in the Times’ reporting, nor in anyone else’s, though “Russian misinformation” was a common refrain from Democrats last October.

To the contrary, most reporting that has followed the Post’s opening salvo has confirmed rather than contradicted it. Even Hunter Biden himself admitted in April that he had “no idea” if the laptop was his and conceded that it was “certainly possible” that it was.

BlackRock’s China Blunder George Soros  September 7, 2021

Pouring billions into the country now is a bad investment and imperils U.S. national security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackrock-larry-fink-china-hkex-sse-authoritarianism-xi-jinping-term-limits-human-rights-ant-didi-global-national-security-11630938728?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Xi’s Dictatorship Threatens the Chinese State George Soros- August 14, 2021

In his quest for personal power, he’s rejected Deng Xiaoping’s economic reform path and turned the Communist Party into an assemblage of yes-men.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-deng-xiaoping-dictatorship-ant-didi-economy-communist-party-beijing-authoritarian-11628885076?mod=article_inline

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/where_are_the

Rachel Maddow still has her blue checkmark on Twitter.  The ultra-rich (reportedly earning $30 million a year in her new MSNBC contract) news commentator gleefully spread a false story that rural hospitals and ambulances in Oklahoma were backed up because so many ignorant rubes were overdosing on ivermectin horse medicine.  Some were even losing their vision.

It is all part of a campaign to demonize ivermectin, and totally false.  The original story appearing in Rolling Stone was as fake as that magazine’s University of Virginia rape hoax.

So where’s the accountability?  There is no tag from Twitter calling this misinformation.  No sign on Maddow’s Twitter feed that she takes responsibility for spreading a false story that could lead to people not taking an effective medicine.  Why, people could miss a life-saving treatment.  This is the sort of thing where the left cries, “Blood on your hands!” when there is an opportunity to criticize a conservative.

Disclaimer: I am not a physician and do not offer any medical advice.  Always consult your doctor before taking any medication.

And the fact is that, despite the AMA calling for an end to use of ivermectin for COVID — because people self-administering the drug have overdosed (as happens with aspirin all too frequently in suicide attempts) — it has been endorsed by medical authorities overseas and can demonstrate remarkable effectiveness.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brief-response

The guests for NPR’s just-released On The Media episode about the dangers of free speech included Andrew Marantz, author of an article called, “Free Speech is Killing Us”; P.E. Moskowitz, author of “The Case Against Free Speech”; Susan Benesch, director of the “Dangerous Speech Project”; and Berkeley professor John Powell, whose contribution was to rip John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech in On Liberty as “wrong.”

That’s about right for NPR, which for years now has regularly congratulated itself for being a beacon of diversity while expunging every conceivable alternative point of view.

I always liked Brooke Gladstone, but this episode of On The Media was shockingly dishonest. The show was a compendium of every neo-authoritarian argument for speech control one finds on Twitter, beginning with the blanket labeling of censorship critics as “speech absolutists” (most are not) and continuing with shameless revisions of the history of episodes like the ACLU’s mid-seventies defense of Nazi marchers at Skokie, Illinois.

The essence of arguments made by all of NPR’s guests is that the modern conception of speech rights is based upon John Stuart Mill’s outdated conception of harm, which they summarized as saying, “My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.”

Because, they say, we now know that people can be harmed by something other than physical violence, Mill (whose thoughts NPR overlaid with harpsichord music, so we could be reminded how antiquated they are) was wrong, and we have to recalibrate our understanding of speech rights accordingly.

This was already an absurd and bizarre take, but what came next was worse. I was stunned by Marantz and Powell’s take on Brandenburg v. Ohio, our current legal standard for speech, which prevents the government from intervening except in cases of incitement to “imminent lawless action”:

MARANTZ: Neo-Nazi rhetoric about gassing Jews, that might inflict psychological harm on a Holocaust survivor, but as long as there’s no immediate incitement to physical violence, the government considers that protected… The village of Skokie tried to stop the Nazis from marching, but the ACLU took the case to the Supreme Court, and the court upheld the Nazis’ right to march.