Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

On the Left-Wing Media

Source; https://patriotcommandcenter.org/forum/on-the-left-wing-media

Source; SNGLR

The treasonous establishment has demonized and mercilessly harrassed President Trump since he announced he would be running for President. His vision and insight are what this country needs to be turned around. HE IN FACT DOES REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY!!!!!!!!

“In the face of moral inversion, only those with a very firmly held alternative belief are able to resist, and as a result are generally viewed by their opponents to be irrational retrograde, even religious fanatics.”--Robert Zubrin

The left-wing media crying and writing about Trump dictatorships and Christian nationalism as living, breathing threats, gets things pretty crazy pretty fast. Why is this?

Occam’s Razor says this is all bs, hullabaloo, pure malarkey, with tabloid-jealous writers doing it for the most clicks and dopamine hits, trying to outdo one another trying to whip up fear of Trump. It is good for business, and very easy to do. Freed from the honest journalism restraints of having to muster germane, cogent and comparative facts to support opinions, anything—including imagining a civil war—is possible.

A 2nd possibility is the left-wing journalists who write articles such as those are an extreme edge of a broader left-wing/democratic strategy of scaring people into not voting for Trump. Scare votes have long been their popular strategy, from the racist propaganda in post-bellum South, to the famous lyndon b. johnson “daisy girl” commercial dubbing his opponent a nuclear monster ready to start WWIII, to “They”ll take away your Social Security” and, of course, “Trump is a Russian spy.” When seen in context, or in full, often that “jaw-dropping” or “incredible” piece of evidence means something completely different from what you’ve been shown and told what it means.

The current spate of left-wing commentary have all the hallmarks of traditional fear politics, with a particularly heavy dose of Framing the Opposition. Political ads often frame opponents as dangerous or unfit for office, playing on fears of absurd what might happen if they were to gain power. This can be seen as a desperate move, and dishonest given how they contribute to a climate of distrust and polarization within society.

To be fair, it is of course possible that the left-wing commentators, not being all that knowledgeable, actually believe what they are saying, that we are steps away from the collapse of democracy.

Lost in the Left’s endless lying about Trump’s alleged threat to democracy is a very simple but inconvenient truth: Trump’s re-emergence as the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 is a triumph of democracy.

Not only did Trump secure the nomination following his defeat in 2020—a rather incredible feat in and of itself—but did so in spite of every obstacle the mainstream media, the Republican establishment, and the lawfare apparatus have put in his way.

The primary voters and caucus-goers who chose Trump did so in spite of manipulated by politics January 6, the prosecution of the former president, or even the popularity in some MAGA quarters of DeSantis. They chose him because they damn well felt like it.

This is real democracy in action: The voters surveyed the scene, tuned out the noise, and selected the man the left-wing/democrat loves to hate. What could be more democratic than voting for your preferred candidate against the lies, warnings, threats, fear-mongering—of those who shamelessly portray themselves as your betters?

But you, being smarter in actually than the left-wing, don’t believe their agnotology, do you?

Agnotology is found in a variety of public-policy issues where one side has manufactured enough doubt through false statements, inflammatory rhetoric, and data from dubious sources that they can mislead public opinion in a significant way, at least for a time. But by acting in such a manner, the liberal-biased media earned a collective “F” for their performance. However, their dysfunctional disconnect will not change as long as the neo-liberal media’s analysis of the world continues to ignore that many of today’s most fashionable political and social causes are essentially replays of earlier flawed ideological fads. Even more so if they continue to ignore the very people whom they claim to want to talk with and get to know.

A network of tens of millions of people across the country, frustrated with left-wing government, academia, entertainment, and media empires decided to act. Yet even now, when you watch the analysis of the change, what is offered is more naval gazing by the people who didn’t look up over the years of BObama/biden, as wages had fallen, costs had exploded, freedom decreased and violence increased and millions of Americans had cried out for some relief.

Most of the time when an issue boils over into the headlines, left-wing media representatives spend hours gathering select details of the story, preparing select experts on the front lines and fine tuning select key points, all the while ignoring significant other relevant matters, then spending countless more hours trying to get members of the liberal media to pay attention. And most of the time, if there is a story, you find members of the liberal media explaining what conservatives, or people of faith, or pro-life advocates or constitutionalists think. But God forbid that the actual people who are fighting good the fight on any specific issue get booked and are given the opportunity to speak for themselves.

neo-liberal activists get the courtesy of speaking for themselves, whether it is actors with a gripe or people whose identity drives their activism. But for those on the conservative front, the left-wing media filters/distorts/ignores even the sight of the “other."

And then there is the psychological approach to treating conservatism as some kind of weakness for which neo-liberal reporters and liberal academics either out right demonize or at best dismiss as lack of learning or response to economic pressures or a misplaced desire to return to the 1950s.

New flash for them: Arriving at a different conclusion (which in this case is usually based on germane fact, sound logic and conclusions) is not deplorable; it’s a Constitutional right. However, many neo-liberal reporters, by the very nature of their questions, make it clear that their mind is made up, and we shouldn’t confuse them with the facts. The fact gathering ends when the left-wing media feels they have just enough to dismiss a point of view, regardless of the sagacity of that information. Or should neo- liberal reporters or producers book a conservative voice for a news package, they edit complex issues to one 7-second sound bite, ending with the liberal press telling the world what they “really” meant. Even comedy shows routinely try to hide their intent, thinking sophisticated conservatives are too stupid to recognize that they will be the punch line.

For neo-liberals it's clearly bullying if someone is mocked for their looks or sexual orientation but, it’s commentary and analysis if they are mocked for their political, moral, economic, or religious views, or the region of country they live in, or their support for a candidate they have every right to choose.

It’s work to hold and defend a position that neo-liberalism rejects. Your facts must be sharp and your arguments backed with insight. It’s work to endure the droning on of neo-liberal celebrities and liberal media analysts who are always telling you why they are right. You must be strong to be gracious in the face of their blatant intolerance, disrespect and outright hostility, and kind in explaining complex issues from a point of view that many left-wing reporters don’t even have the vocabulary to understand.

If we can’t even agree on what are the stories we see in the press or true, even what truth means, how can we have an honest conversation about complex issues like race, climate change, religion, foreign policy, the economy, our school system, artificial intelligence, or just about anything else that actually matters? Because the left-wing press is so unwilling to expose the truth, so committed to their ideology at the expense of the facts, tens of millions of Americans never hear well documented, highly sourced facts that could shed a dramatic new light on nearly everything that they see in the news on a daily basis. There’s a big difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts, as Lenin’s rise to power is but one example. knowing what the difference is could prove vital for America’s future.

Still left-wing reporters seem puzzled about why the people they ignore are not listening to them. Some advice for them: Pick up your phone. Check your e-mail. Go to an event not sponsored by the same groups you contribute to and yes, spend time in places where someone might disagree with you. Knowledgeable, smart thoughtful, insightful conservatives have been trying to talk with you. Try talking with them. And to those gatekeepers of liberal shows, liberal columns, and liberal news coverage, next time you want to explain a conservative point of view, feature an actual conservative. Go to the source and skip the filter. You just might learn something new.

Misinformation does not and cannot – by definition – exist. Correct information, incorrect information, true information, false information can all certainly exist, as can partial, missing, complete, and detailed. But misinformation is not about describing factual information but a term invented to dismiss and denigrate personal opinion and belief. It is about changing “I feel" (note: neo-liberals really don't think) into “I know,” and then claiming the other person is spreading a factual misrepresentation– labeled as such because it is not a lie but, simply problematic for those who wish it were a lie, or at least perceived as one. In other words, the epithet of misinformation is used most often, begging alGore’s pardon, to describe an inconvenient truth, its a mere pejorative cover used to peremptorily silence a difference of opinion.

The key to the creation and profligate use of the term is that it automatically creates a gray area, a space in which doubt can be fostered, where suspicion can exist. This flicker of uncertainty is then capitalized upon by crafty neo-liberals to obliterate the actual factual basis of the supposed “misinformation” itself, rendering it impotent.

It is this gray area that was so expertly exploited by the FBI, CIA, etc. when it came to censoring/throttling/manipulating free speech by pressuring social media companies by saying there may have been a violation of the company’s “terms of service.” As with complicated, insecure, obscure, overly lengthy systems, gray areas are very convenient, very deniable places in which to hide questionable conduct. It is a way of calling something a lie – or someone a liar – without having to bother to determine if it is a lie.

Also, because people accidentally misspeak or leave out a petty detail or do not ask the exact perfect question, as the case may be, the misinformation brand can also stick in retrospect by being able to repeatedly imply that because 1 % of a statement happened to turn out to be arguably inaccurate the entire statement should be considered suspect forever.

However, anything that points out those type of glaring problems is instantly deemed to be spreading mis-and disinformation and engaged in a denialism akin to claiming the Holocaust never happened, thereby proving the true intent of the use of the words.

The misinformation descriptor, though provably disingenuous, is an extremely smugly convenient way to carve out of one’s life anything that contradicts one’s existing mindset. It simplifies existence, especially when applied to not just one particular statement but, also, to the purveyors of supposed misinformation.

“Don’t you know that everything in A, B, or C (or said by Y or on website Z) is misinformation” is an all-too-common neo-liberal phrase of the deviously simple mind that also happens to be simultaneously inaccurate and meaningless because it lacks context if used, as it usually is, indiscriminately, prematurely, and usually without germane, cogent, accurate facts. Pre-evidentiary labeling is never a good idea, let alone when the supposed “misinformation” was not intended initially as purely information but opinions related to, beliefs about, and “takes” on events and claims and positions.

Claiming misinformation exists is disinformation, if you will, at its most pernicious. So when encountering the term, know that it is being used to obfuscate, to trick, to blur, and not to educate, warn, or caution. It is – to put it bluntly – a lie.

Different but related:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/the_ministry_of_bs...

https://nypost.com/2024/04/13/us-news/nprs-new-ceo-katherine-mahers...

https://nypost.com/2024/04/10/media/npr-whistleblower-uri-berliner-...

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/npr_the_home_of_preach...

https://nypost.com/2024/04/09/media/npr-editor-says-network-turned-...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/npr-whistleblower-essay-exposed-reluc...