by Al Benson Jr.
Since awhile before this last election there has been lots of social chatter about “fake news” from Hillary on down. The mainstream media (some call it the lamestream media–which is not a bad description) has been pushing the idea that whatever you hear on the alternative media, especially the alt.right media, is mostly fake news, concocted by the Russians or the “conspiracy theorists” or whoever the mainstream prostitute press wishes to malign at the present moment.
We are dutifully informed that all the stuff we hear on the Alex Jones Show, the Drudge Report, World Net Daily and a host of other Internet sites is all “fake news” and so you can’t believe any of it. Now I’m not saying that some of these folks might not get something wrong once in awhile. Everybody does. But I have to tell you that, in the main, all of the above mentioned get it a lot more right than the mainstream media does. I have watched the mainstream media as it has dealt with events I have either been involved with or attended over the past forty plus years, and in most cases I have seen the mainstream media just flat out lie about things they don’t agree with. They don’t report the news–they put the spin on it that they want the public to ingest, and real, accurate news is the absolute last thing the mainstream media is all about.
The mainstream media is, no doubt, well rewarded for what they do and they have, over the years, been pretty good liars if you didn’t check up on what they said. They are, after all, political prostitutes–squeezing the news into collectivist pigeon holes for profit–whatever form that may take. They have lied to so many for so long about so much that they have, with their blatant pro-Hillary stance in this recent election, managed to finally awaken a great segment of the public to the fact that you just can’t believe what they say anymore, if you ever could. But this is nothing new for them.
The mainstream media loves to play the numbers game. At events or gatherings they don’t like they wildly cut the numbers in attendance and at leftist events they love they wildly inflate the numbers until, were you gullible enough, you would believe every other person and his second cousin were all there. I have watched their numbers game played out at fully half a dozen events I have attended over the years and it always works the same way.
I attended a march to support the troops in Viet Nam way back in 1970. There were easily 100,000 people there. The people that put the march on counted them off in rows as they marched so they knew just how many marched. The “news” media said 6,000 marched and almost made it sound like a non-event, barely worth noticing.
In early 2000 I attended a big Confederate Flag Rally in Columbia, South Carolina. My wife and I drove down to it from Northern Illinois. Some of you all reading this may remember that or even have been there also. They had a little over 12,000 in attendance and the “news” media cut that in half, but a few weeks later the NAACP or some other “civil rights” outfit held a march there and the media padded their figures like crazy after cutting ours in half.
When we lived in Indiana, back in the 1980s, I recall a meeting I went to in Valparaiso, Indiana. It was a protest against vehicle emissions testing for cars, which was only being carried out in some counties and not others. The program was horrendously unpopular in all the counties where cars had to be tested, but the governor pushed the testing program in spite of that because the feds had threatened to cut off his highway money if he didn’t go along with it. So, like the good little socialist vassal he was, the governor caved in. He was, supposedly, a “conservative” Republican. Yeah, right!
So anyway, they had this protest meeting in Valparaiso over it and it was very well attended. Standing room only. And lots of people stood up and put their two cent’s worth in. No one there spoke in favor of the program until right at the end, one man stood up and defended it and he upbraided our local senator because he would not support it, but rather took a stand against it and agreed with public sentiment. The senator was an honest man. I knew him.
The next evening when I bought a copy of the Local Fish Wrapper ( I still read it in those days) and read the article pertaining to the meeting, I had to ask myself, “was this the meeting I attended last evening?” The “reporter” was obviously much in favor of the emissions testing program and he couched his article in such a way as to make those who protested it seem like a batch of antediluvian hicks and he only quoted (and that quite extensively) the one man who had stood up and supported the program. From reading this article I literally would not have recognized this as the same meeting I attended. Thus saith the mainstream media!
I have cited three examples here. To do more would only be repetition of these three, though I could mention another dozen instances where this same situation prevailed. Let’s face it, folks, the “news” media doesn’t tell it like it is for the most part. They tell it the way they wish it was, and those who dare to disagree with them get crucified in print. There are some exceptions and there are a handful of honest reporters, but they are few and far between.
So when the mainstream media points its long sanctimonious finger at the alternative media and accuses it of promoting “fake news” it should stand in front of the mirror and take a good look at itself–because that’s where the majority of the “fake news” is really coming from.