This is going to be offensive to some people, but... Conflict-avoidant women and emasculated men are the root cause of this.
Most know the type - they're all over the media, HR, and marketing departments. Very good at message alignment because consensus is viewed as the goal. Absolutely terrible at dealing with objective reality because any idea that deviates from the consensus (however false) is viewed as a threat.
Once the "current thing" (aka the "authorized narrative") is established, just about everyone knows what it is ... and that if they challenge the "current thing," their lives are going to be quite unpleasant.
So it's too late to change things once The Narrative has been established. The key would be to NOT let false or dubious narratives become sacrosanct or infallible ... but that would take the Fourth Estate doing its most important job. It's "skeptical" journalists who can/could harpoon false narratives ... but that's not how they view their jobs these days. They view their jobs as supporting The Narrative ... and attacking those who dissent.
Still, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" is kicking in ... so at least we have massive and rapid growth of Substack and a few other excellent alternative media news sources.
Going against the current thing is indeed unpleasant. The vax lies damn near destroyed most of my familial relationships.
But this started well before that. My bridge too far was the Google engineer's memo who stated, in polite terms, that equality of outcome between men and women in tech is not feasible, and suggested some alternatives.
But NPR (financed with my paycheck) and the MSM lied about what he said and why he said it. Because feelings and a need for the sweet, warm comfort of the false consensus that comes with ignoring reality.
Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It happens over and over again, and the same kind of people are responsible for it - neurotic leftists, mostly women, who choose their moral impulses over confronting and dealing with reality.
All of this is catching up to us, and it's not going to be pretty.
Another big question is HOW or why "the current thing" becomes the current thing in the first place? Who tells us what "the narrative" is? Someone does.
In that particular case, academia - social constructionism. People "learn" this stuff and can't believe it's nonsense because otherwise it wouldn't be taught. Same with Fauci - he's a scientist, you know, so he can't possibly be BSing people.
It's both hierarchical and organic. Hierarchical because it comes from positions of authority (which one doesn't really matter - the CDC, gender studies profs, intelligence officials, whatever)... Organic because it follows incentives - monetary incentives, psychological incentives, political incentives, or all of the above. This neoliberal bureaucratic puppet show has no master puppeteer.
Great post, but they might have a master puppeteer or two or three. They know how to use psychology and sociology lessons to get what they want. For example, they made it a goal to stop "vaccine hesitancy." They knew from studies that doctors were the most respected profession in the world ... So they got all the big physicians groups to sign off on the lockdowns and then vaccines. "Consult your physicians," they said. They didn't say this but they might as well have (it was implied): "100 percent of doctors support safe and effective Covid vaccines."
Once all the doctors - with their white lab coats - were on board, almost everyone else was going to follow. If you pay attention to some of these planning events - like Event 201 - you can see that much of the "planning" was brainstorming ways to manipulate the public into getting the behaviors the "puppeteers" wanted.
Yep. You can see their strategy here. It calls for just what you said, as well as getting some "ins" in the media who will "help out" when you need a scary story or to spin the vaccine injuries.
In that particular case, I think it was Fauci, Gates, and the intelligence community. All the psychological nudge and psyops stuff was done after the fact by sycophants.
To go back to my OP, this is the same thing marketing departments do. They don't decide on the strategic direction, but use what resources they have to go in that direction - they pick the branding colors, the stories to use, the tag lines.
It's sophisticated, yes, but in the same way a 10 year old using an IPad is sophisticated - they're standing on the shoulders of the people who developed the techniques but have never really considered the implications of any of it.
I agree. I'd go back to who organized these events - people like Bill Gates and probably the CIA and Department of Defense. Why did they organize these events? My answer: To get advance "buy in" on all the coming agendas. Bottom line: The were creating "the narrative" of the future. They were also identifying all the measures that would have to happen to get people to go along with the "current thing." FWIW, in all of these planning events, key members of the press were participants.
I just happen to think that it is mostly people in the service of ideas they don't understand, being constantly played by an ever-changing cast of malicious characters, not a fixed set of Bond villains.
Useful idiots are like a bunch of gravel lying on the road that almost anyone in a position of authority can pick up and toss.
Most people will just go along with whatever the Current Thing is. They certainly won't question it once it's been established. This is how/why you don't need a massive conspiracy ... to actually get a massive conspiracy. You just establish the narrative and everything else follows. Another way to put this is you need to go ahead and recruit a good corp of "stakeholders" at the beginning of your project. Once they have a "stake" in the narrative, they'll fight for it. Or they will fight to make sure the lies are never exposed, which would of course expose them.
A couple of observations based on my years – long ago – in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily paper:
Reporters seldom have a thorough understanding of the things they write about. To be fair, it's just not possible. I noticed early on that every time there was a story on a subject that I personally knew a lot about, there were errors. Most people probably have experienced similar. If there aren’t outright mistakes, there’s that generally lame feel that tips you off instantly that the writer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It always made me wonder how many of the stories on subjects that I didn’t know much about were also inaccurate. Probably most.
Reporters and editors generally have little interest in anything technical, especially when it involves machines and how they work. Much too low-brow to bother with. Many months after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, a story came across the wires with the final findings of the investigators. It revealed manufacturing errors made on the seals between sections of the solid rocket booster casings that were blamed for springing a leak and setting off the big fuel tank. I won’t get into the details, but here at last was the actual physical cause, and it was a machining deficiency that I had not thought of. An aha! moment for anybody interested in how that magnificent machine was put together and what brought it down. I assumed this would be Page One news, and I lobbied for treating it as such in our afternoon planning meeting. Big yawn. I don’t recall whether it even made the paper. The story was technical in nature, with no drama or bureaucratic finger-pointing. In other words, it was not the sort of soap-opera crap that would get their juices flowing, so some very important findings on one of the most memorable disasters in US history were ignored.
I've thought about that Challenge disaster non-story as well. Here's another one. I read somewhere that the second space shuttle tragedy might have been caused by a change in the way the tiles were manufactured. The change, if I remember correctly, was implemented to be better for the environment. Well, if this is true, that change led to the loss of seven lives.
I also have noted that the move to replace asbestos from the bowels of buildings might have contributed to the World Trade center towers collapsing earlier than they would have otherwise. If I remember correctly, a good bit of the asbestos surrounding these steel girders had already been replaced. The asbestos was a (superior) fire retardant. The building might have still collapsed, but if might have collapsed later, which might have given more people time to escape the building.
This would be another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." It's also another example of a "taboo" line of investigation.
I still think the wide-spread number of people getting flu vaccines in the winter and fall of 2020 could have explained the spike in deaths beginning in late November/December 2020. But this also can't be investigated or considered. "What?! The flu vaccines might have contributed in some way to thousands of Covid deaths?" Talk about another taboo story.
These "off limits" stories/investigations are everywhere. If Gates had been exposed as a regular Epstein client, Bill Gates would have been disgraced ... and would have never become the key "money man" for all the Covid madness. But none of the VIP (alleged) "Johns" of Epstein have ever been investigated.
What if X had happened (or not happened)? These are all "unknown unknowables" ... and the press exists to make sure we never know these possible politically-incorrect answers.
I think it is money that makes the world go round. The cut trickles down to the cub reporter. It is as obscene and plain as this. I too was hitting my head against the wall at their inability to understand what was going on, but eventually I wizened up. I am talking of 2020 when I got muzzled very effectively in my country.
Re: The narrative trickling down to the cub reporters
Indeed it does ... and quickly. A couple months ago, I emailed a reporter who wrote another Status-Quo-protecting Covid story. I told him he was basically captured and wouldn't write any stories that went against the authorized narrative.
He replied that in his entire career, an editor had never rejected one of his story ideas.
I replied that this was the reason he was probably hired in the first place and still has his job - His bosses KNOW he won't suggest any stories that challenge the narrative.
I further wrote that he should test his theory. I told him the next morning he should suggest a story to his editor about a vaccine injured citizen or a story that gave evidence this virus was "spreading" months before the experts said was possible.
"See if that story gets approved," I wrote. "See if your batting average remains 1.000."
The "journalist" never responded to this challenge. For some reason, I don't think he suggested such a story.
Trust me. They all know what stories they can and can't write.
I could use myself as an example in a thought exercise. By now, I have enough journalism experience - and enough solid clip files - to land a job at about any newspaper in America. But I couldn't get hired at any mainstream news organization because I do challenge the narrative.
I guess I might get hired if some editor only looked at a few clips I provided, stories that were run-of-the-mill or that didn't challenge any important narrative. However, within two weeks at my new job I would suggest at least three stories I thought the newspaper should cover and that I could write. I know all of these stories would be rejected. I also know that my days at this news organization would be numbered. My colleagues in the newsroom would look at me like I was some crazy person for suggesting such-and-such story.
When I was run off, nobody would come to my defense. So at this point in my journalism career I KNOW I am un-hirable at 100 percent of mainstream newspapers and magazines ... Which is why I started my own Substack site. It's a "work-around."
The article by Eugyppius was very interesting and encouraging to read. Apparently, in the German "mainstream" press, vaccine injury and death stories are no longer completely off limits. Eugyppius also notes that the company that really created the most-used "vaccine" is a German company. Pfizer just partnered with this Big Pharma firm. Now we need to see if anyone in the American mainstream press (besides Tucker Carlson and a few others) follows the lead of these German news organizations. I would add that these German stories are barely scratching the surface of a scandal that qualifies as a "crime against humanity," but it's a start ... certainly a departure from the 3-year norm.
... And any departure from the Status Quo "coverage" is in itself "a story."
Does your memory extend back to the USSR's and other communist governments' ways? How 100% of their press also was perfectly unified in their disinformative voice? And all their elections and politburo also were unanimous behind their 'dear leaders'? Welcome to the USSR of A. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you wake up.
I opine below that it would take a massive purge of these newsrooms to get real "watchdog" journalism. But we all know that's not going to happen ... So the answer has to be from people who say, "The heck with it. I'll do it myself." This actually explains the rapid growth of Substack, which now has more than 35 million subscribers and hundreds if not thousands of "citizen journalists" who are doing the job the "real" journalists refuse to do.
Thorsteinn, you've identified the trillion-dollar question: Why does the "watchdog" press take a pass on the most important stories of our times?
You identified some possible/likely answers with your use of the Socratic method: "Was it fear of the fact-checking industry? Was it fear of public opinion? Was it an utter lack of the ability for critical thinking? Was it cowardice? Dishonesty? Recklessness?
"Why didn’t they?"
My answer: A little of all of the above. One thing is clear: "Pack journalism" is followed by 100 percent of the corporate journalist "pack." No critical thinkers or dissenters exist in any big newsroom.
And it's not just Covid stories either. IMO this qualifies as the biggest problem in the world today - All the important topics are off limits to real investigations.
I'd say the "journalism" produced by every big "news" organization is highly suspect. A massive purge of these newsrooms would have to occur for the public to ever learn important real truths.
In 2016 I met Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson, who was an MP for Iceland's Pirate Party at the time and his newspaper publisher wife, Inga Auðbjörg Kristjánsdóttir and shared conversation with them over Brennivín in Reykjavik. I knew them to be basically anarchists who supported public funding for healthcare. I liked them, except for that public funding for healthcare thing.
What has been the Pirate Party's position on pandemic protocols, the jab? And her newspaper's reporting?
In the US I found the hippie/festival crowd became the biggest scolds, enforcers of mandates, ostracizing those who didn't obey, wore double masks and gloves driving cars by themselves. Particularly nasty on social media. A little less insufferable in person. But, still, a far cry from the free-spirited, "f your rules" crowd pre-2020. How was that crowd in Iceland? The Westman Island festival crowd comes to mind. And the art hippie crowd that you'll find in Rif in West Iceland during the summers. Along with small bohemian crowd I met in Reykjavik. Same 180-degree flip as I saw in the US?
Not surprising. If you support public funding for healthcare then you necessarily support authoritarian healthcare.
My journey through Iceland informed me that it is a very obedient society. Obedience to authority is inculcated among the very young and culturally there.
Icelandic obedience. This story has a lot of uses of the word in one story from last month. It's conditioning. Obey. And submit. Iceland's core societal value as I experienced it:
"the nurse disobeyed company orders"
"she was required to obey such orders"
"employees' obedience to the employer's legal order is one of the primary duties of employees"
"an employee must submit to the mastery of his employer"
"work procedures must be obeyed"
"breach of a duty to obey or refusal by the employee to obey a directive"
"employee’s breach of the duty to obey"
"the employee’s refusal to obey is considered a serious failure"
"Obviously, obedience is considered to be an important part of running a business"
"obedience obligations are evidently to be regarded as critical to the operation of the policy"
"The Court finds that the breach of the duty of obedience by the nurse during the time in question constitutes a serious breach of the employment contract"
"The woman was then sentenced to pay the company Klíníkin 1.2 million ISK [$8,500 USD] in legal costs."
Could terminate work contract of a nurse who denied taking rapid Covid tests
Just confirming, did Thorsteinn have difficulty with the Scandinavian media? In my US silo I just assumed it was the US media that has gone to “hell in a hand basket”.
Well, the one good thing to say about the Icelandic newspapers is that they published critical opinion pieces. But as for the journalism, it was the same as everywhere else, unfortunately.
Why? Why do birds fly, or why do all "five-eye countries" stare directly towards the security state. MSM and most of Independent social platforms have been co-opted by spook organizations. It's only more noticeable now because their decades long propaganda campaigns have been so successful causing demented spooks to become more brazen. News outlets might be corporately owned, but news and even the entertainment divisions are thoroughly controlled by the security state. And that's also why many Hollywood scripts must be reviewed by the CIA and now the CCP before being approved and funded. It couldn't be more obvious that the "COVID terror campaign" like all other "military operations" was synchronized to gain the optimum effect of compliance from the proles.
I think there's only a small number of ad agencies that have tremendous subliminal influence on all of society and our culture. FWIW, I can see the woke agendas that are being promulgated in the casting decisions of the commercials I watch. A few giant ad agencies have too much influence IMO. Their executives know what "the current thing" is and actually help solidify it.
Once in a blue moon, they go too far - like Anhuisser Busch (Bud Light) just did.
The MSM is owned and controlled by big private corporations, not the science or journalism departments of universities (although that might have made little difference anyhow given the state of academia). They are afraid of other big private corporations (Pfizer et.al) at the advertising and legal risk level and they are afraid of the State at the info sourcing and patronage level. They are not afraid of the man in the street. If 7,5 people per 100,000 died (or 2 per 1,000 have been seriously injured) because they failed to report news that went against the interests of BigPharma or BigGov, then in their ecosystem that's acceptable collateral damage. On top of that most journalists are not the best and the brightest that society produces; those sharp pencils wouldn't consider a career in journalism. The big risk at the moment is that the alternative media is being or going to be censored (see the EU's Digital Services Act and the revelations from the Twitterfiles in the USA), so that there is no dissenting alternative to the MSM lapdogs. What Thorstein is after in the current timeframe is very difficult: reforming the MSM while BigGov is busy saving their skin from independent media. How about bankrupting them through class action suits? Is not going to work; they owe no contractual obligations to the man in the street for fair and accurate reporting. How about nationalising them? That will make only things worse. How about a mass boycott of the MSM at the level of Bud Light but only bigger and longer? Unfortunately, their subscriber base is already ultra-low. They rely on corporate advertising and government patronage these days. Despair, anyone?
When they fully "captured" the mainstream press, it might as well have been game over for "freedom." The "Fourth Estate" is supposed to be one of the major checks on the State achieving "absolute power." When "they" got the Fourth Estate, they knew they could get away with anything ... and they acted accordingly.
The problem is huge corporations. The news outlets are a part of huge corporations which have their own agenda. They could care less about uncovering and reporting on corruption since they are totally complicit in it. Politicians don't care about breaking them up because they receive political donations from them.
There’s a reason the Ben Collins of the world resort so often to credentialism — it’s really the only thing they have. “Reporter for NBC News” is important because “NBC News” is important. But the narrative is set far above their pay grade, they’re just tasked with finding the most acceptable way to push it. There’s a reason that Musk gave the story to Taibbi in the first place — major outlets wouldn’t run it to begin with!
And if Ben Collins didn’t push the narrative for NBC News, somebody else would — and he knows it. There’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful.
If you want to know how the NY Times can employ over 1,000 journalists and continue to miss the most important stories of the day (instead covered by one guy in his free time and his feline editor) — it’s because they’re paid to miss the most important stories of the day. The whole industry is simply the modern-day version of the JournoList.
I think you're right, it's all of the above. As far as a "massive purge of these newsrooms", that won't happen because they're owned and controlled by the same players behind the madness. So, they don't need to be profitable. As long as they prop up the revenue sources the media owners ARE profiting from, they're doing a fine job. Subsidizing them has been a bargain, and a necessity. That won't change. They'll make attempts to increase appeal by appearing to do better. A bigger audience increases their influence. But their raison d'etre is what it is. New sources are the only possible fix.
Usually I just watch Tucker, and leave the TV off. But walked by and it happened to be on yesterday, showing a drug ad, on Fox News. I wondered when this would happen - just saw the news he's out. I got the impression last week he was tired of pulling his punches so much, so something had to give. They chose advertisers over content. I hope that turns out to be a killer for Fox. CNN Lite won't have much of an audience.
>>>Was it fear of the fact-checking industry? Was it fear of public opinion? Was it an utter lack of the ability for critical thinking? Was it cowardice? Dishonesty? Recklessness?<<<
A bit of all of it. There was also, I think, a safety for mainstream journalists by the fact that all of them were the same, not investigating the hard news on Covid. When I criticized pharmaceutical companies for prior vaccine history in a March 2020 OpEd, one of the NYT editorial columnists wrote a piece that said just as there were no atheists in foxholes during a war, there should be no Pharma haters during a pandemic. I answered that in a letter to the NYT (link below). Many of my colleagues, however, told me privately they thought it was not a battle in which they wanted to be engaged. I never understood that. It was only a battle for the truth, isn't that what we are supposed to do as journalists?
This is going to be offensive to some people, but... Conflict-avoidant women and emasculated men are the root cause of this.
Most know the type - they're all over the media, HR, and marketing departments. Very good at message alignment because consensus is viewed as the goal. Absolutely terrible at dealing with objective reality because any idea that deviates from the consensus (however false) is viewed as a threat.
Once the "current thing" (aka the "authorized narrative") is established, just about everyone knows what it is ... and that if they challenge the "current thing," their lives are going to be quite unpleasant.
So it's too late to change things once The Narrative has been established. The key would be to NOT let false or dubious narratives become sacrosanct or infallible ... but that would take the Fourth Estate doing its most important job. It's "skeptical" journalists who can/could harpoon false narratives ... but that's not how they view their jobs these days. They view their jobs as supporting The Narrative ... and attacking those who dissent.
Still, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" is kicking in ... so at least we have massive and rapid growth of Substack and a few other excellent alternative media news sources.
Going against the current thing is indeed unpleasant. The vax lies damn near destroyed most of my familial relationships.
But this started well before that. My bridge too far was the Google engineer's memo who stated, in polite terms, that equality of outcome between men and women in tech is not feasible, and suggested some alternatives.
But NPR (financed with my paycheck) and the MSM lied about what he said and why he said it. Because feelings and a need for the sweet, warm comfort of the false consensus that comes with ignoring reality.
Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It happens over and over again, and the same kind of people are responsible for it - neurotic leftists, mostly women, who choose their moral impulses over confronting and dealing with reality.
All of this is catching up to us, and it's not going to be pretty.
Another big question is HOW or why "the current thing" becomes the current thing in the first place? Who tells us what "the narrative" is? Someone does.
In that particular case, academia - social constructionism. People "learn" this stuff and can't believe it's nonsense because otherwise it wouldn't be taught. Same with Fauci - he's a scientist, you know, so he can't possibly be BSing people.
It's both hierarchical and organic. Hierarchical because it comes from positions of authority (which one doesn't really matter - the CDC, gender studies profs, intelligence officials, whatever)... Organic because it follows incentives - monetary incentives, psychological incentives, political incentives, or all of the above. This neoliberal bureaucratic puppet show has no master puppeteer.
Great post, but they might have a master puppeteer or two or three. They know how to use psychology and sociology lessons to get what they want. For example, they made it a goal to stop "vaccine hesitancy." They knew from studies that doctors were the most respected profession in the world ... So they got all the big physicians groups to sign off on the lockdowns and then vaccines. "Consult your physicians," they said. They didn't say this but they might as well have (it was implied): "100 percent of doctors support safe and effective Covid vaccines."
Once all the doctors - with their white lab coats - were on board, almost everyone else was going to follow. If you pay attention to some of these planning events - like Event 201 - you can see that much of the "planning" was brainstorming ways to manipulate the public into getting the behaviors the "puppeteers" wanted.
Yep. You can see their strategy here. It calls for just what you said, as well as getting some "ins" in the media who will "help out" when you need a scary story or to spin the vaccine injuries.
Edit to actually add the URL:
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/352029/WHO-EURO-2022-3471-43230-60590-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
In that particular case, I think it was Fauci, Gates, and the intelligence community. All the psychological nudge and psyops stuff was done after the fact by sycophants.
To go back to my OP, this is the same thing marketing departments do. They don't decide on the strategic direction, but use what resources they have to go in that direction - they pick the branding colors, the stories to use, the tag lines.
It's sophisticated, yes, but in the same way a 10 year old using an IPad is sophisticated - they're standing on the shoulders of the people who developed the techniques but have never really considered the implications of any of it.
I agree. I'd go back to who organized these events - people like Bill Gates and probably the CIA and Department of Defense. Why did they organize these events? My answer: To get advance "buy in" on all the coming agendas. Bottom line: The were creating "the narrative" of the future. They were also identifying all the measures that would have to happen to get people to go along with the "current thing." FWIW, in all of these planning events, key members of the press were participants.
That's certainly RFK Jr's stance.
I just happen to think that it is mostly people in the service of ideas they don't understand, being constantly played by an ever-changing cast of malicious characters, not a fixed set of Bond villains.
Useful idiots are like a bunch of gravel lying on the road that almost anyone in a position of authority can pick up and toss.
Most people will just go along with whatever the Current Thing is. They certainly won't question it once it's been established. This is how/why you don't need a massive conspiracy ... to actually get a massive conspiracy. You just establish the narrative and everything else follows. Another way to put this is you need to go ahead and recruit a good corp of "stakeholders" at the beginning of your project. Once they have a "stake" in the narrative, they'll fight for it. Or they will fight to make sure the lies are never exposed, which would of course expose them.
A couple of observations based on my years – long ago – in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily paper:
Reporters seldom have a thorough understanding of the things they write about. To be fair, it's just not possible. I noticed early on that every time there was a story on a subject that I personally knew a lot about, there were errors. Most people probably have experienced similar. If there aren’t outright mistakes, there’s that generally lame feel that tips you off instantly that the writer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It always made me wonder how many of the stories on subjects that I didn’t know much about were also inaccurate. Probably most.
Reporters and editors generally have little interest in anything technical, especially when it involves machines and how they work. Much too low-brow to bother with. Many months after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, a story came across the wires with the final findings of the investigators. It revealed manufacturing errors made on the seals between sections of the solid rocket booster casings that were blamed for springing a leak and setting off the big fuel tank. I won’t get into the details, but here at last was the actual physical cause, and it was a machining deficiency that I had not thought of. An aha! moment for anybody interested in how that magnificent machine was put together and what brought it down. I assumed this would be Page One news, and I lobbied for treating it as such in our afternoon planning meeting. Big yawn. I don’t recall whether it even made the paper. The story was technical in nature, with no drama or bureaucratic finger-pointing. In other words, it was not the sort of soap-opera crap that would get their juices flowing, so some very important findings on one of the most memorable disasters in US history were ignored.
I've thought about that Challenge disaster non-story as well. Here's another one. I read somewhere that the second space shuttle tragedy might have been caused by a change in the way the tiles were manufactured. The change, if I remember correctly, was implemented to be better for the environment. Well, if this is true, that change led to the loss of seven lives.
I also have noted that the move to replace asbestos from the bowels of buildings might have contributed to the World Trade center towers collapsing earlier than they would have otherwise. If I remember correctly, a good bit of the asbestos surrounding these steel girders had already been replaced. The asbestos was a (superior) fire retardant. The building might have still collapsed, but if might have collapsed later, which might have given more people time to escape the building.
This would be another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." It's also another example of a "taboo" line of investigation.
I still think the wide-spread number of people getting flu vaccines in the winter and fall of 2020 could have explained the spike in deaths beginning in late November/December 2020. But this also can't be investigated or considered. "What?! The flu vaccines might have contributed in some way to thousands of Covid deaths?" Talk about another taboo story.
These "off limits" stories/investigations are everywhere. If Gates had been exposed as a regular Epstein client, Bill Gates would have been disgraced ... and would have never become the key "money man" for all the Covid madness. But none of the VIP (alleged) "Johns" of Epstein have ever been investigated.
What if X had happened (or not happened)? These are all "unknown unknowables" ... and the press exists to make sure we never know these possible politically-incorrect answers.
I think it is money that makes the world go round. The cut trickles down to the cub reporter. It is as obscene and plain as this. I too was hitting my head against the wall at their inability to understand what was going on, but eventually I wizened up. I am talking of 2020 when I got muzzled very effectively in my country.
Re: The narrative trickling down to the cub reporters
Indeed it does ... and quickly. A couple months ago, I emailed a reporter who wrote another Status-Quo-protecting Covid story. I told him he was basically captured and wouldn't write any stories that went against the authorized narrative.
He replied that in his entire career, an editor had never rejected one of his story ideas.
I replied that this was the reason he was probably hired in the first place and still has his job - His bosses KNOW he won't suggest any stories that challenge the narrative.
I further wrote that he should test his theory. I told him the next morning he should suggest a story to his editor about a vaccine injured citizen or a story that gave evidence this virus was "spreading" months before the experts said was possible.
"See if that story gets approved," I wrote. "See if your batting average remains 1.000."
The "journalist" never responded to this challenge. For some reason, I don't think he suggested such a story.
Trust me. They all know what stories they can and can't write.
I could use myself as an example in a thought exercise. By now, I have enough journalism experience - and enough solid clip files - to land a job at about any newspaper in America. But I couldn't get hired at any mainstream news organization because I do challenge the narrative.
I guess I might get hired if some editor only looked at a few clips I provided, stories that were run-of-the-mill or that didn't challenge any important narrative. However, within two weeks at my new job I would suggest at least three stories I thought the newspaper should cover and that I could write. I know all of these stories would be rejected. I also know that my days at this news organization would be numbered. My colleagues in the newsroom would look at me like I was some crazy person for suggesting such-and-such story.
When I was run off, nobody would come to my defense. So at this point in my journalism career I KNOW I am un-hirable at 100 percent of mainstream newspapers and magazines ... Which is why I started my own Substack site. It's a "work-around."
The article by Eugyppius was very interesting and encouraging to read. Apparently, in the German "mainstream" press, vaccine injury and death stories are no longer completely off limits. Eugyppius also notes that the company that really created the most-used "vaccine" is a German company. Pfizer just partnered with this Big Pharma firm. Now we need to see if anyone in the American mainstream press (besides Tucker Carlson and a few others) follows the lead of these German news organizations. I would add that these German stories are barely scratching the surface of a scandal that qualifies as a "crime against humanity," but it's a start ... certainly a departure from the 3-year norm.
... And any departure from the Status Quo "coverage" is in itself "a story."
Does your memory extend back to the USSR's and other communist governments' ways? How 100% of their press also was perfectly unified in their disinformative voice? And all their elections and politburo also were unanimous behind their 'dear leaders'? Welcome to the USSR of A. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you wake up.
I sincerely hope the legacy media doesn't reform. I'm enjoying watching it die.
I opine below that it would take a massive purge of these newsrooms to get real "watchdog" journalism. But we all know that's not going to happen ... So the answer has to be from people who say, "The heck with it. I'll do it myself." This actually explains the rapid growth of Substack, which now has more than 35 million subscribers and hundreds if not thousands of "citizen journalists" who are doing the job the "real" journalists refuse to do.
Thorsteinn, you've identified the trillion-dollar question: Why does the "watchdog" press take a pass on the most important stories of our times?
You identified some possible/likely answers with your use of the Socratic method: "Was it fear of the fact-checking industry? Was it fear of public opinion? Was it an utter lack of the ability for critical thinking? Was it cowardice? Dishonesty? Recklessness?
"Why didn’t they?"
My answer: A little of all of the above. One thing is clear: "Pack journalism" is followed by 100 percent of the corporate journalist "pack." No critical thinkers or dissenters exist in any big newsroom.
And it's not just Covid stories either. IMO this qualifies as the biggest problem in the world today - All the important topics are off limits to real investigations.
I'd say the "journalism" produced by every big "news" organization is highly suspect. A massive purge of these newsrooms would have to occur for the public to ever learn important real truths.
In 2016 I met Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson, who was an MP for Iceland's Pirate Party at the time and his newspaper publisher wife, Inga Auðbjörg Kristjánsdóttir and shared conversation with them over Brennivín in Reykjavik. I knew them to be basically anarchists who supported public funding for healthcare. I liked them, except for that public funding for healthcare thing.
What has been the Pirate Party's position on pandemic protocols, the jab? And her newspaper's reporting?
They've gone along with the official narrative and been very conscientous about it. They aren't the rebels you might take them for actually.
In the US I found the hippie/festival crowd became the biggest scolds, enforcers of mandates, ostracizing those who didn't obey, wore double masks and gloves driving cars by themselves. Particularly nasty on social media. A little less insufferable in person. But, still, a far cry from the free-spirited, "f your rules" crowd pre-2020. How was that crowd in Iceland? The Westman Island festival crowd comes to mind. And the art hippie crowd that you'll find in Rif in West Iceland during the summers. Along with small bohemian crowd I met in Reykjavik. Same 180-degree flip as I saw in the US?
Not surprising. If you support public funding for healthcare then you necessarily support authoritarian healthcare.
My journey through Iceland informed me that it is a very obedient society. Obedience to authority is inculcated among the very young and culturally there.
Icelandic obedience. This story has a lot of uses of the word in one story from last month. It's conditioning. Obey. And submit. Iceland's core societal value as I experienced it:
"the nurse disobeyed company orders"
"she was required to obey such orders"
"employees' obedience to the employer's legal order is one of the primary duties of employees"
"an employee must submit to the mastery of his employer"
"work procedures must be obeyed"
"breach of a duty to obey or refusal by the employee to obey a directive"
"employee’s breach of the duty to obey"
"the employee’s refusal to obey is considered a serious failure"
"Obviously, obedience is considered to be an important part of running a business"
"obedience obligations are evidently to be regarded as critical to the operation of the policy"
"The Court finds that the breach of the duty of obedience by the nurse during the time in question constitutes a serious breach of the employment contract"
"The woman was then sentenced to pay the company Klíníkin 1.2 million ISK [$8,500 USD] in legal costs."
Could terminate work contract of a nurse who denied taking rapid Covid tests
Iceland Monitor, March 9, 2023
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2023/03/09/could_terminate_work_contract_of_a_nurse_who_denied/
It's a beautiful place. I met wonderful people there. But that obedience obsession thing.
Just confirming, did Thorsteinn have difficulty with the Scandinavian media? In my US silo I just assumed it was the US media that has gone to “hell in a hand basket”.
Well, the one good thing to say about the Icelandic newspapers is that they published critical opinion pieces. But as for the journalism, it was the same as everywhere else, unfortunately.
Why? Why do birds fly, or why do all "five-eye countries" stare directly towards the security state. MSM and most of Independent social platforms have been co-opted by spook organizations. It's only more noticeable now because their decades long propaganda campaigns have been so successful causing demented spooks to become more brazen. News outlets might be corporately owned, but news and even the entertainment divisions are thoroughly controlled by the security state. And that's also why many Hollywood scripts must be reviewed by the CIA and now the CCP before being approved and funded. It couldn't be more obvious that the "COVID terror campaign" like all other "military operations" was synchronized to gain the optimum effect of compliance from the proles.
I think there's only a small number of ad agencies that have tremendous subliminal influence on all of society and our culture. FWIW, I can see the woke agendas that are being promulgated in the casting decisions of the commercials I watch. A few giant ad agencies have too much influence IMO. Their executives know what "the current thing" is and actually help solidify it.
Once in a blue moon, they go too far - like Anhuisser Busch (Bud Light) just did.
The MSM is owned and controlled by big private corporations, not the science or journalism departments of universities (although that might have made little difference anyhow given the state of academia). They are afraid of other big private corporations (Pfizer et.al) at the advertising and legal risk level and they are afraid of the State at the info sourcing and patronage level. They are not afraid of the man in the street. If 7,5 people per 100,000 died (or 2 per 1,000 have been seriously injured) because they failed to report news that went against the interests of BigPharma or BigGov, then in their ecosystem that's acceptable collateral damage. On top of that most journalists are not the best and the brightest that society produces; those sharp pencils wouldn't consider a career in journalism. The big risk at the moment is that the alternative media is being or going to be censored (see the EU's Digital Services Act and the revelations from the Twitterfiles in the USA), so that there is no dissenting alternative to the MSM lapdogs. What Thorstein is after in the current timeframe is very difficult: reforming the MSM while BigGov is busy saving their skin from independent media. How about bankrupting them through class action suits? Is not going to work; they owe no contractual obligations to the man in the street for fair and accurate reporting. How about nationalising them? That will make only things worse. How about a mass boycott of the MSM at the level of Bud Light but only bigger and longer? Unfortunately, their subscriber base is already ultra-low. They rely on corporate advertising and government patronage these days. Despair, anyone?
When they fully "captured" the mainstream press, it might as well have been game over for "freedom." The "Fourth Estate" is supposed to be one of the major checks on the State achieving "absolute power." When "they" got the Fourth Estate, they knew they could get away with anything ... and they acted accordingly.
The problem is huge corporations. The news outlets are a part of huge corporations which have their own agenda. They could care less about uncovering and reporting on corruption since they are totally complicit in it. Politicians don't care about breaking them up because they receive political donations from them.
It's because they are presstitutes who will be fired if they stray from the approved narrative.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/its-no-surprise-medias-ignoring-the
There’s a reason the Ben Collins of the world resort so often to credentialism — it’s really the only thing they have. “Reporter for NBC News” is important because “NBC News” is important. But the narrative is set far above their pay grade, they’re just tasked with finding the most acceptable way to push it. There’s a reason that Musk gave the story to Taibbi in the first place — major outlets wouldn’t run it to begin with!
And if Ben Collins didn’t push the narrative for NBC News, somebody else would — and he knows it. There’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful.
If you want to know how the NY Times can employ over 1,000 journalists and continue to miss the most important stories of the day (instead covered by one guy in his free time and his feline editor) — it’s because they’re paid to miss the most important stories of the day. The whole industry is simply the modern-day version of the JournoList.
I think you're right, it's all of the above. As far as a "massive purge of these newsrooms", that won't happen because they're owned and controlled by the same players behind the madness. So, they don't need to be profitable. As long as they prop up the revenue sources the media owners ARE profiting from, they're doing a fine job. Subsidizing them has been a bargain, and a necessity. That won't change. They'll make attempts to increase appeal by appearing to do better. A bigger audience increases their influence. But their raison d'etre is what it is. New sources are the only possible fix.
Usually I just watch Tucker, and leave the TV off. But walked by and it happened to be on yesterday, showing a drug ad, on Fox News. I wondered when this would happen - just saw the news he's out. I got the impression last week he was tired of pulling his punches so much, so something had to give. They chose advertisers over content. I hope that turns out to be a killer for Fox. CNN Lite won't have much of an audience.
Here's why ... Follow the trail https://open.substack.com/pub/saxxon/p/do-your-research?utm_source=direct&r=1u8tu3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
>>>Was it fear of the fact-checking industry? Was it fear of public opinion? Was it an utter lack of the ability for critical thinking? Was it cowardice? Dishonesty? Recklessness?<<<
A bit of all of it. There was also, I think, a safety for mainstream journalists by the fact that all of them were the same, not investigating the hard news on Covid. When I criticized pharmaceutical companies for prior vaccine history in a March 2020 OpEd, one of the NYT editorial columnists wrote a piece that said just as there were no atheists in foxholes during a war, there should be no Pharma haters during a pandemic. I answered that in a letter to the NYT (link below). Many of my colleagues, however, told me privately they thought it was not a battle in which they wanted to be engaged. I never understood that. It was only a battle for the truth, isn't that what we are supposed to do as journalists?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/letters/coronavirus-drug.html
Thanks Gerald. Is there any way of seeing your OpEd and letter without subscription to the NYT?