The Media Has History: And it's Not Pretty

By Rich Kozlovich

It's clear what's called the main stream media, or legacy media, is totally corrupt, historically ignorant, and logically challenged.  The question is:  Has it ever been different? No! In days gone by the media, which consisted mostly of newspapers, they lied, postured and supported the same kind of clowns that are in office now.   The only real difference was they were open in their biases. 

 

Especially after WWII the media managed to convince people journalism was a profession by setting up college courses in journalism.  That degree then made them experts, and totally impartial distributors of "truth".  Right?  Wrong!  That was a lie from the beginning!  

 

They're neither experts nor are they impartial, which wouldn't bother me if they were honest about their preconceived notions and conclusions, except, they've claimed they're merely purveyors of truth, history and facts.  

 

They're neither expert at almost everything they discuss, nor are they honest about what they "report".  In fact, they're corrupt to the core.  How do we know that?   It's easy to know since they twist what we actually see going with the subversion of that reality with convoluted thinking, misinformation and outright lies. 

 

When I see them continuously spewing out all the leftist claptrap they espouse, in spite of all the historical evidence that shows these views are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective, I have to wonder if they aren't insane. I know they aren't rational, or truthful - but are they sane? 

 

If you have any doubts, look at CBS'  collusion with Fidel in this piece, by Humberto Fontova, CBS' Don Hewitt -- Fidel Castro Enabler.  But the pièce de résistance is the Walter Duranty story involving the New York Times explaining how all those tens of millions Stalin deliberate starvation to death, mostly Ukrainian, didn't happen.   In this article by Roger Simon; “Announcing the Winners of the Inaugural Walter Duranty Prize", (a prize for journalistic mendacity) they state that Duranty deliberately:

 

 “whitewashed the repressive evil deeds of the Soviet Union”…. most prominently in the case of the Ukrainian Holodomor: the forced starvation of between 1.2 and 12 million ethnic Ukrainians, depending on whose estimates you believe.  In other words, a lot of people.  Duranty called that genocide “an exaggeration and malignant propaganda”.   

 

This appeared in” newspaper of record”, the New York Times.  British author Malcolm Muggeridge called Duranty: 

 

“The greatest liar I have met in fifty years of journalism.” Duranty also made sure that the Soviets knew that the New York Times would “vet all reports about” the Soviet Union before it appeared in the NYT; “effectively making that newspaper a U.S. branch of Pravda, for a time anyway.”   

 

Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for his mendacity; a prize that the NYT refuses to return, and the prize committee refuses to revoke in spite of the now known truth of his actions.

• A Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times journalist agrees with you about January 6 - However, that didn’t stop him from going along with the paper’s desire to lie about the event. 
• The Times Peddles Falsehoods About Ginni Thomas - We “watched fake news created in real-time so the swamp could protect itself, and hobble those who would drain it,” say a group of participants in a meeting now smeared by the New York Times.
  

About fifty years ago I worked at a newspaper and noticed how all the news seemed to be about the same things. Is this all there is going on I asked myself? Back in those days the United Press International (UPI) and the Associated Press (AP) dominated the news by supplying "news, photos, film and audio services to thousands of newspapers, magazines and radio and television stations for most of the twentieth century".

I realized that all the world's news was being controlled by a handful of people. The question then was; why did they pick what they wanted the world do see?  I found they seemed to focus on the same news, same journalists, the same story content and they clearly had a like minded approach to all of the world's news. Did they collude on the news with each other?

I told a workmate of my conclusion and he laughed and looked at me like I was insane.  That was the response from almost everyone I talked to about this. I has taken fifty years for the rest of the world to catch up to me.

 

When you look more deeply at that media you find startling facts that seem almost beyond belief.  On November 12, 2012 I wrote an article about the New York Times entitled The Lady is a Hag.  Nothing's changed and the New York Times is the icon of the "legacy media". 

 

I've asked if the "legacy media" is sane. Perhaps we should as if they're treasonous?   Treason?  Really?  

 

 "Treason is an ugly word and an even uglier crime. In simple language treason is the act of betraying one’s country to those who would destroy it and enslave its people. This definition is so simple that leftwing sophisticated journalists sneer at it. To them treason is merely relative with one country’s traitor being another country’s hero. This is the appalling moral and intellectual state of current Western journalism. The moral rot runs so deep that one despairs of living long enough to see any improvement." Gerard Jackson 

 

On any issue of consequence I feel that it is important to know the history, i.e., the events and characters involved with the issue.  Tell me the history and I will give you the answer, and the history of the main stream media clearly shows who and what they are.  And they are not honorable! 

 

Some of the most prominent people in the main stream media and Hollywood have declared that Fidel Castro - a man who is clearly a mass murderer - is one of the greatest men in modern history.  Are we to believe his crimes aren’t known to these people?  No, we shouldn't. We have to believe they don't care. 

That's the history of the legacy media, and that history is incontestable.