patrick.net

Citing anonymous sources, reporter Nina Totenberg said Chief Justice John Roberts “asked the other justices to mask up,” or wear masks, because Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concerns for her safety amid the recent surge in COVID-19 cases.

Totenberg said that because Justice Neil Gorsuch refused the request—Gorsuch has not worn a mask on the bench recently—Sotomayor began attending oral arguments from her chambers.

In rare public statements a day later, all three justices responded to the report.

Sotomayor and Gorsuch said Sotomayor did not ask Gorsuch to wear a mask, adding that “while we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”

Even worse for NPR, which is partially funded by taxpayer money, Roberts said separately that “I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench.”

Despite the direct challenges to the story, NPR has not issued a correction.

Citing anonymous sources, reporter Nina Totenberg said Chief Justice John Roberts “asked the other justices to mask up,” or wear masks, because Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concerns for her safety amid the recent surge in COVID-19 cases.

CNN Spreads Dangerous Misinformation on Rates of Serious Adverse Events While Spreading Hate
Citing CDC, CNN Promulgates Myths on Vaccine Safety & Efficacy - at a Time in Which Americans Have Zero Tolerance for CDC Propaganda

Award-Winning Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: Propagandists Have ‘Overplayed Their Hand’

Former CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson in an interview last week said mainstream media’s shift from investigative journalism toward a corporate-sponsored, “fact check” mindset originated with left-wing activists seeking to discredit conservative news outlets — and it’s had a major impact on coverage of the pandemic.

Former CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson in an interview last week said mainstream media’s shift from investigative journalism toward a corporate-sponsored, “fact check” mindset originated with left-wing activists seeking to discredit conservative news outlets.

That shift has had a major impact on news coverage of the pandemic, Attkisson said.

Attkisson, winner of five Emmys for investigative journalism, told viewers of Epoch Times TV’s “America’s Thought Leaders,” the term “fake news” used by the media in the run-up to Donald Trump’s election likely originated with First Draft, an online fact-checking organization created with funds from Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google and an active supporter of Hilary Clinton.

“First Draft thought of ‘fake news’ as only a problem in the conservative media,” Attkisson said. “There was no liberal version of ‘fake news.’”

Attkisson said prior to 2015 – 2016, there was no public movement “begging for Big Tech, social media or other third parties to set themselves between us and open information online or in the news.”

But that changed, she said.

“Many people embraced the notion that some know-nothing third party that quite frankly was having its strings pulled by some corporate or political interest could insert themselves and say what we can and can’t see and read, and what we should believe,” Attkisson explained.

Attkisson took a deep dive into the phenomenon in her bestselling book, “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,” published in 2020, but written before the pandemic narrative developed.

The result is “the crazy media landscape we have today,’ said Attkisson, “where we have journalists — I don’t even think they’re journalists, but writers who amplify what establishment scientists or politicians want them to say — acting more as propagandists than journalists.”

During her time as an investigative reporter at CBS covering the pharmaceutical companies, she noticed a shift in editorial policy regarding stories on the drug companies.

Attkisson said that in the early 2000s:

“I was surprised that the pushback [from industry representatives] as I covered pharmaceutical industry stories came to be about not just trying to shape the information, but more about keeping a story from airing or keeping a study from being reported on. There were these efforts by large-scale PR firms that had been hired by the pharmaceutical industry and by government parties that work with the pharmaceutical industry to keep the story from being reported at all.”

On news coverage of the pandemic, Attkisson said:

“Not too long ago, we in the news would not have simply repeated what the government and industry said uncritically and try to convince the audience of its truth. We would have treated skeptically these sources with a clear conflict of interest.”

Now, we can’t listen to other sources or other scientists, she said.

Attkisson said those who served propaganda interests are now “editorial presences” within newsrooms. The firewall between those who craft the message and the reporters are breaking down.

She outlined a number of elements of the pandemic that the media got wrong, “unrepentantly” never acknowledging their errors and false “debunkings.”

The list included:

Reports that COVID may have originated in the Wuhan lab — initially “debunked,” but now widely acknowledged as likely.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s claims to Congress in 2020 regarding the severity of COVID — comments directly at odds with his own published research of the time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shifting policies on masks: no … yes … maybe.
Lockdowns’ effectiveness in limiting the spread of the virus — they weren’t.
Vaccines as 95% effective against transmission and 100% effective against hospitalization and death — they aren’t.
Vaccines as preventing transmission — they don’t.
The misinformation fiascos regarding available clinical treatments.
The physical and mental health fall-out for young people of pandemic mandates for schools.
The CDC’s failure to correct false claims regarding “super immunity” for those receiving the Pfizer vaccine after having already been infected with COVID. Pfizer’s research showed no net gain in immunity for those vaccinated who already had natural immunity. Nonetheless, CDC officials shared this information with doctors in presentations after admitting the error.

Defining herself as an optimist, Atkkisson said she believes propagandists have “overplayed their hand” with America and become “too transparent” in their agenda.

She praised the efforts of some entrepreneurs to create new, independent media platforms and outlets such as Substack and Rumble that refuse to censor intellectual content.

“The truth finds a way to be told,” Atkkisson concluded. “It may take some time, but the search for truth will ultimately win out.”

Are you watching too much CNN? Know the warning signs:

1. You think the pandemic is still going on. If you find yourself saying "When the pandemic is over..." or "the new normal," you might be watching too much CNN.

2. You still think one of these investigations is going to “get” Trump. The walls are closing in. Any day now.

3. You haven't left your house in two years. Time to turn off the CNN and go outside, people.

4. You haven't heard of any of Biden's foreign or domestic failures. You think the president's doing a "pretty good job" and haven't caught wind of any kind of disasters.

5. You still call ivermectin "horse medicine". Oh no! Your brain has been infected!

6. You walk by a fiery riot and think to yourself, "Ah, what a peaceful protest. Mostly, anyway." If this is your immediate instinct, check with a medical professional. You may have an oversaturation of CNN.

7. You're at the airport a lot. This is less a symptom and more a root cause, but if you're at the airport, you're probably watching lots of CNN.

8. You drop to the floor and convulse any time you see a MAGA hat. The longer you roll around in the fetal position, the more CNN you probably watch.

9. You watch any CNN at all. Even one second is too much. Just say no.

Video Transcript: The Media Outlets Demanding Joe Rogan's Removal from Spotify Spread Far More Disinformation
Justifying their efforts to de-platform Joe Rogan, media figures claim to be deeply concerned by the "disinformation" he is spreading. Yet nobody spreads disinformation more recklessly than they do.

FEBRUARY 3, 2022
Big Tech Cancels the Freedom Convoys
Both the Canadian convoy and its American counterpart are feeling the wrath of the Big Tech censors.

When you think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the like, think: The Enemy. Because that’s what they are. If you love freedom, if you cherish your God-given liberties, then your best interests are at odds with Big Tech.

Yesterday, the increasingly activist GoFundMe platform froze the fundraising page of Freedom Convoy 2022, that magnificent movement of liberty-loving Canadian truckers who set out last week on a 2,000-mile trek from Vancouver to the capital of Ottawa to protest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s onerous and misguided vaccine mandate and other COVID restrictions.

The convoy became a national sensation, and its GoFundMe page has raised more than $10.1 million since its inception on January 14. As Fox News reports, “That amount far exceeded the amount raised by Canada’s major political parties last quarter.”

The truckers’ message, which appears on their GoFundMe page, is straightforward: “To our Fellow Canadians, the time for political overreach is over. Our current government is implementing rules and mandates that are destroying the foundation of our businesses, industries and livelihoods. Canadians have been integral to the fabric of humanity in many ways that have shaped the planet. We are a peaceful country that has helped protect nations across the globe from tyrannical governments who oppressed their people, and now it seems it is happening here.”

Predictably, Big Tech and Big Media moved to smash it, as a bureaucratic note on the aforementioned GoFundMe page makes clear: “This fundraiser is currently paused and under review to ensure it complies with our terms of service and applicable laws and regulations. Our team is working 24/7 and doing all we can to protect both organizers and donors. Thank you for your patience.”

Translation: You truckers are getting too uppity, so we’re shutting you down.

Unfortunately, there’s more where that came from. Here in the U.S., American truckers followed Canada’s lead by organizing their own anti-mandate protest called “Convoy to D.C. 2022.” In response, the despicable censors at Facebook took the extraordinary step of removing the group’s Facebook page. “Censorship at its finest,” is how the convoy’s organizer termed it.

Big Tech, of course, has us by the short hairs. Short of going off the grid, it’s all but impossible to live a life free of regular interaction with or dependence upon the many useful and addictive IT innovations of Silicon Valley. We may loathe these Masters of the Universe, but we continue to enrich them. It doesn’t have to be this way, though. In his 2021 book The Tyranny of Big Tech, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley writes:

Victory against Big Tech’s pathologies requires that we reinvigorate family, neighborhood, school, and church, the places where, in authentic community, we come to know ourselves and one another, exercise our responsibilities, and find our sense of belonging. These are the places where we become citizens, where we become free, where we learn to exercise the sovereignty of a citizen in a free republic. Genuine community is now, more than ever, countercultural — and opposed to the ersatz “global community” pushed by the corrupt and power-hungry Big Tech.

Hawley also stresses the need for a new politics to push back against what he rightly calls “the triumph of corporate liberalism.” To do so, we must work to elect representatives who recognize Big Tech as the enemy, as a malign force worth fighting. And that fight begins by dismantling the framework that gave rise to Big Tech: the lax antitrust enforcement and outdated antitrust laws, the cozy and often incestuous relationship between the Beltway and Silicon Valley, and the special regulations and the carve-outs in the law that at one time helped nurture and sustain a fledgling IT industry but now, bizarrely, make Big Tech even stronger.

Here in our humble shop, we’re also at the mercy of Big Tech — at least to some extent. You might well have found this article on our Facebook page, which currently has more than 714,000 followers and is a powerful platform on which to push our message. And yet, as our Mark Alexander has written, our success makes us subject to their Orwellian practices of redlining and shadow-banning.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

― Samuel Adams

15 Days to Slow Spread
Experts and health officials promised in March 2020 that we needed just “15 days to slow the spread.” Almost two years later, we’ve seen almost 700 days of mandates, lockdowns, quarantines, shaming, hysteria, and travel restrictions — with no stated end in sight.

Face Masks
During the early days of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that Americans not wear face masks and the U.S. surgeon general urged us to stop buying masks. But in April 2020, the CDC said that all Americans should wear face coverings to avoid transmission of the virus. … Then, the CDC said in May that vaccinated Americans don’t need to wear masks in almost any setting, and now most media outlets are reporting that cloth masks just don’t work and that we should try N95s.

Vaccine Mandates
In December 2020, President-elect Joe Biden promised that he would not force Americans to be vaccinated. But this year, the Biden administration did exactly what Biden said they wouldn’t do.

Lab Leak Theory
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., was lambasted by the media for suggesting the coronavirus actually originated in an infectious disease lab rather than an animal market as the Chinese government claimed. … Now we know that scientists consulting with the U.S. government early in the pandemic believed that the coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab — but Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins worked to shut that hypothesis down.

Kids Should Go Remote, Schools Should Close
Now, after months and even years of children missing school, even The New York Times is publishing stories warning that closing schools would be a “tragic mistake,” recognizing that “hospitalization and death is uncommon in children.”

Vaccines Will End COVID-19
We were repeatedly promised by Biden, Fauci, and many others that Americans who got vaccinated would not get COVID-19. Biden said, “You’re not going to get COVID if you get vaccinated.” Fauci said, “When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected.” Now, as we see many vaccinated people continuing to get COVID-19, we know for a fact that this isn’t true.

Vaccines Don’t Affect Menstrual Health
Media and health officials repeatedly assured the public that there was no evidence to suggest COVID-19 vaccines negatively affect fertility — until January 2022, when a new study found that women had an average menstrual cycle length of about one day longer than usual after getting vaccinated.

No Masks After Vaccines
We were promised that vaccinations would end COVID-19 and that Americans would no longer have to mask after they were vaccinated. But the CDC changed its mask guidance when it found in July 2021 that vaccinated people could still get the COVID-19 delta variant.

Fauci Didn’t Fund Gain-of-Function Research
A high-ranking National Institutes of Health officer admitted in an Oct. 20 letter that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had failed to immediately notify that it had engaged in what sure looks a lot like gain-of-function research, creating a lab-generated chimeric coronavirus between June 2018 and May 2019 that tested more deadly on mice with humanized cells than the natural virus it was made from.

‘Pandemic of Unvaccinated’
Biden and Fauci have repeatedly blamed the unvaccinated for “propagating” outbreaks of the coronavirus delta and omicron variants. As recently as Jan. 13, Biden said that “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” ignoring the many, many vaccinated Americans who have contracted COVID-19 as of late.

Disgraced president Jeff Zucker's resignation yet another humiliation for low-rated entertainment channel

How does anyone fall for such obvious gaslighting?

How does anyone fall for such obvious gaslighting?

So it seems Vancouver's Z95.3 has parted ways with host Kid Carson, who, just a few months ago, got placed on the naughty list for coming out against vaccine passports on air.

He couldn't take it anymore, so on Wednesday morning he just started talking like a normal person, on air, on his way out the door.

Here is that beautiful piece of audio for ya:

I believe the Joe Rogan listeners would be okay with Joe Rogan’s cancellation if they had assurances that the alternatives were going to stop intentionally and willfully lying to them. To that end, I have crafted a set of terms that I think would be acceptable by both sides. Here are the terms.

Every journalist who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is cancelled.

Every journalist who claims there is a bivariate correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate is cancelled.

Every journalist who said the lab leak theory of Covid-19 origin was racist or conspiracy theory is cancelled.

Every journalist who calls a bi-yearly medical treatment with a 30% or less chance of preventing disease transmission “a vaccine” is cancelled.

Every journalist who said Russia meaningfully influenced the results of the 2016 US election is cancelled.

Every journalist who promulgated the “MAGA Hat Kids” story is cancelled.

Every journalist who refused to even be remotely skeptical about Epstein killing himself is cancelled.

Every journalist who’s ever published anything about IQ is cancelled.

Every journalist, corporate entity, or government entity who has ever said the phrase “HORSE DEWORMER” is cancelled.

Every journalist who has ever said the phrase “healthy at any size” is cancelled.

Every journalist who misrepresented known facts about Kyle Rittenhouse is cancelled.

Every journalist who called a year long protest which did approximately as much property damage as a Category 2 hurricane “mostly peaceful” is cancelled.

There are a tremendous number of other potential entries to this list, but this list is comprehensive enough that if we cancel all journalists who said any one of them, it’s very likely they’re also guilty of saying most of the rest, and probably guilty of promulgating any number of additional list entries so this list should suffice.

Take all these journalists and put all their heads on pikes, and I promise to deliver you Joe’s as a willful sacrifice.

Big Tech covers up Biden’s crack pipe giveaway
America’s information gatekeepers are the Democrats’ rapid-response unit

Convoy organizers leave the room after a New York Times reporter asks a question.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare many shortcomings and frailties in our society, but for me, none has been more damaging than the collapse of objective journalism.

I've worked in newsrooms for most of my career; I'd like to share how my experiences explain my view:

First, let me say that this thread is not an indictment of journalists, but rather an indictment of a system that produces bad journalism. The strange thing about systems is that they perpetuate and defend themselves, even when the participants of the system do not agree.

Yes, there are bad journalists. I should know: I was one of them. But, I had the benefit of good role models early in my career. I'll never forget the time I presented a single-source article to my editor. He said "What the fuck is this, an advertisement?"


Bringing me to:

Unreasonable Story Counts:

On average, the journalists that I've worked with had an expectation of producing 3-4 stories per day and one editor had 4-5 writers beneath.

This was a corporate demand, not an editorial one, and it does not allow time for top quality work.


Lack of Technical Editors:

Editors with a STEM background or a specific technical speciality are expensive and in short supply. I've seen a single technical story that required approximately one week of editing time. Many publications cannot afford this.


Words Edited, Numbers Not:

In the absence of a technical editor, many stories are edited for clarity, but not for data integrity. The results are most often seen when millions/billions/trillions are confused, or when bad metric conversions slip by.


Pageview Targets:

In addition to story counts (see #4 above), many journalists are encouraged (or directly incentivized) to reach pageview targets. Doing so has an impact on story selection (see #8 below).


Inefficacy of Straight News:

A story that is a plain statement of facts presented without sensationalism, will, on average, receive 400-1,200 visits. This is a guaranteed financial loss for an ad-supported news website.


Efficacy of Emotional Manipulation:

To increase readership of a straight news story, there are emotional triggers that can be leveraged. E.g. Headlines that include "Why You Should..." or "Why We Must..." Writers learn these tactics by exposure, or are taught directly.


Search Engine Optimization:

Many organizations rely on search engine traffic to sustain financial viability. I worked in this field for years and I believe that it is diametrically opposed to accountable journalism. Two major reasons listed below:


Confirmation Bias in Story Selection:

People who use search engines are, with their search data, broadcasting what they want to read. It is reverse broadcasting. News organizations get the message and prepare content with higher odds of success.


Rewrites for Marketability:

Reporters and editors are losing control of their own words, even within the body content of articles. Some of the articles that I wrote years ago have been edited to include marketing buzzwords and dubious links.


Make What We Sell:

A media sales team, left unchecked, will close almost any deal that will result in financial benefit for the sales team (not the news organization). As a result, journalists are forced to create content to fulfill questionable campaigns.


Bullying From Sales:

I once assigned a story that, unbeknownst to me, called into question the business model of an advertiser. The head of sales screamed at me in front of the entire newsroom. Luckily, my editor defended me. Not all do.


Bullying From External PR:

I once published the compensation packages of highly-paid CEOs. It was a matter of public record, yet a powerful PR executive (who represented one of those CEOs) demanded that the story be retracted and for me to be fired.


Bullying From Big Tech:

I've seen companies like Google threaten to remove major revenue sources from a news organization unless a particular story was unpublished. The reasons were often silly (like an elbow that looked like a breast), but the implications are sinister.


Bullying From Lawyers:

Some of the best journalism that I've seen firsthand was responded to with massive 8-figure lawsuits. Not every news organization has legal protections, insurance and a general counsel who stands behind good journalism.


Violent Threats:

In addition to lawsuits (see #17 above), some of the best journalism that I've seen firsthand was responded to with threats of death or rape. Credible or not, these threats are terrifying and they take an emotional toll.


Threat of Revoked Access:

Invitations to conferences and press briefings are in short supply. It can take years to earn an invite. On the other hand, a single critical story may result in revoked credentials and a complete blackballing of a journalist or publication.


Literal Lack of Boundaries:

Many newsrooms have open floor plans that can result in undue (and often, unintended, pressure).

E.g. A CEO leans on the desk of a 21-year old reporter and asks why hasn't __ been covered yet.

That story is often written, like it or not.


Removal of Comment Sections:

To mitigate threats and abuse (see #18 above), many websites have removed comment sections. There are unintended consequences. Almost every major error that I've corrected was first exposed to me in the comments on an article that I published.


Corrections Kill Momentum:

When a correction is added to the top of a story (even something as innocent as mis-spelling of a name), the velocity of pageviews and social sharing falls precipitously. I have measured this directly.


Corrections Are Embarrassing:

"Soft corrections" are a way to avoid retraction. I did it early in my career. E.g. I made a mistake in my bond math; a reader writes "This doesn't make sense unless it's a zero-coupon bond." Me: "Er, yeah, that's what I meant." I didn't.


Corrections Therefore Buried:

Should a reader be so lucky that a story is corrected, the new information is likely to be viewed 1-2% as often as the misinformation. (I have measure this directly). I.e. Bad info gets 50-100x the exposure that the good does.


Inability to Hire Talent:

I have twice tried to hire someone who was significantly more talented than I was. I had no problem with an employee earning more than me, but my company did. It makes no sense: Winning teams don't pay their coaches more than MVPs. Media does.


The "Shock Jock" Exception:

Top-notch reporters and data journalists struggle for competitive pay (see #25 above), but many newsrooms will offer big bucks to blowhard columnists. It may result in reporters taking harder (and less objective) stances.


Sensational Feedback Cycle:

Sensational stories often get sensational pageviews, which triggers more rewards from related content algorithms via companies like Outbrain and Taboola.

When sensationalism is rewarded, objectivity is punished.


Effects of Apathy:

This thread shows how journalists have suffered abuse by a thousand cuts. It's no surprise that cheap sourcing results in sensational stories that are too bountiful to correct:

johnwdefeo.com/articles/deep…

johnwdefeo.com/articles/seo-…

johnwdefeo.com/articles/goog…


The U.S. press has rushed, flubbed and left uncorrected many COVID-19 topics: Origin thesis, aerosols, masking, comorbidities, seasonality, natural immunity, With/From, scientific dissent, clinical trial parameters, censorship, bias risks, myocarditis, kid's mental health.


This thread is about reasons, not excuses.

Journalists have printed and amplified demonstrably false statements made by politicians and public officials. Yet, to my mind, it is journalists who have the best platform and incentive to set the record straight.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare many shortcomings and frailties in our society, but for me, none has been more damaging than the collapse of objective journalism.