In 8 short months, Americans have gone from trusting their press 44% of the time, to trusting them 17% of the time.

Undoubtedly their coverage of this election cycle is responsible.   There has never been an election in recent living people’s memory where the entire press corp has focused on supporting one candidate, who then drops out, then focused on another, who then drops out, etc.  Jeb Bush was the favorite until people actually started voting. It was him and Hillary said all the pundits… Jeb Bush is gone, gone, gone… Then it was Marco Rubio… He was the one all voters would elect in the end… Gone, gone, gone…  And so now… it is Hillary…

Which means that Bernie is about to be smeared no doubt…

First this is a good thing… Why?  Because it is better than being ignored which what has happened for so long.  For when a candidate gets smeared, he gets elevated in prominence and people pay attention to him…

Usually that is bad for a candidate, such as with Chris Christie, who once he put himself in the limelight of New Hampshire, couldn’t pass muster.  But when you have a prophetically good candidate who gets smeared, people look closer at that candidate and if they like what they see, they say, “wow, I didn’t know all these details about him.  Why was no one telling us all these great things?”

Then it becomes the smearers who are the ones who look bad… How many people today still have a good positive opinions regarding the Sanhedrin during the time of Pontius Pilate?

So today I saw a headline that Sanders Concedes Defeat.... Intrigued, I looked to see, since with Bernie having earned more campaign money than Hillary across the last three months in a row, I knew that was nothing close to the truth.  Upon reading the article, the headlines premised false.  The article quoted no one who said Sanders was done. Instead, it was twisted from the articles we have already seen about how Sanders didn’t attack Hillary strong on her emails and her Wall Street paid speeches… To be honest, most of us normal people see that as a good saintly thing in Sanders’ character:  choosing to base his campaign strictly on our needs and not on whether he by primary day stands a micro-inch taller than his opponent so he gets a “win”.

So I went to the comments on the social media sight  (It was “recommended” for me, not a real friend’s posting I later found out) and added to the hundreds of others, how the headline lied about the article it tops… “Click Bait” I posted. “This whole post is nothing but bullshit.”

I am asking you to not pass by these anonymous sites, but to do the same.. Just type in the comments: “Click Bait” and some type of warning…

I warn of this malfeasance every election year and since suckers indeed are born every year, new fish are always entering the pond, here is how these things are played….

A major paper, one of the top 5, runs a story with a headline that is very misleading.  They send it out on their multiple feeds…

 

The news is that the Wall Street Journal is reporting (the lie).. All those papers reprinting the lie are legally then telling the truth, and cannot be sued for liable (though they could with deep enough pockets), because they are reporting not the lie itself, but that the Wall Street Journal was reporting it…

The story’s instigators are hoping that the credibility behind the Wall Street Journal, spreads the story wide enough so it becomes belief and every new reporter focuses anew on trying to one-up the story to a higher level, instead of reporting on it being bull.

So news outlets are very careful at first, to make the distinction that they are reporting the accusation itself… not its validity;”the news” is that a certain outlet made such an accusation.  Nowhere is there any detail giving creedence to whether the claim is true.  And if anyone goes to the original article making the accusation, they immediately find no evidence. It is bunk.

In the past it was called Swift Boating where unanswerable accusations are thrown out, no rebuttals allowed to air, and massive proliferation ensues.  Such may have thrown a close 2004 election in the one state that made all thedifference.  All’s fair in war I guess.

It also was used by the Washington Post, to sink Joe Biden’s 2008 presidential run, as detailed here in 2007.  Here, when one combed that Washington Post article for proof, it came down to this single printed sentence… “that some on the editorial board “felt” Biden thought Blacks were poorer students than whites showing he must be prejudiced…”  In today’s  world, we have terrible corporate polices enforced on every state to close that very gap.  That was truth back then, not prejudice.  But the headline ran something like: “Biden Thinks Blacks Can’t Be Educated.”  Yeah, it was pure race baiting.

This is just how it works….  In those days when Facebook was something only college kids used, there was no way to combat the newspapers and medias reach. Today there is…. if you use it…

When you see a lie on your social media,  read the article, comment it is nothing but click bait and if you feel the Bern, put it up on your site ridiculing the perpetrators…  People don’t read junk.  They read what you wrote….

It is hard to convince anyone not to like Bernie… If enough of us call out the media where they get hurt the most, on social media, then we have fought a small part in the ongoing war to keep America in the hands of Americans… and not the hands of some Australian news conglomerate owner…

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements