patrick.net

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/political-alchemy-saturday-march

To set the stage, so to speak, consider this Reuters headline from a little over four years ago, which ran one week after Biden’s inauguration:

Fact check: Debunking claims that
Biden's Oval Office is a fake movie set
By Reuters
January 26, 2021

Having established corporate media’s position on the matter, now let’s take a look at the video uploaded this week by Trump’s personal attorney Alina Habba:

https://x.com/AlinaHabba/status/1899502744236335266



Alina turned the camera around the green-screened studio and revealed Biden’s giant teleprompter. In contrast to President Trump, who is busily wearing out reporters daily with all his unscripted remarks and open-ended pressers, Joe Biden occasionally showed up in an Eisenhower building studio, where he read off short scripts that were undoubtedly written for him by someone else.

And, lest you feel tempted to forgive Reuters’ diligent ‘fact-checkers,’ remember that the media participated in propagating this unreal fakery— because it was right there, filming the so-called president. The years of unreality.

https://x.com/amuse/status/1906339939756704153

Democrats are completely unaware that they’re being filmed when they attack Teslas because the drive-by media isn’t covering the attacks.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/liberated-wednesday-april-2-2025

Maybe it’s just me. But it sure seems like the corporate media universe glitched early this morning, when the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post ran eerily nearly identical headlines about the disappointing Wisconsin election results:

Odd that Wisconsin Supreme Court election is a "Rebuke to Trump" when that same Wisconsin just referendumed for Voter ID and Trump won those 2 Florida seats in the special election.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/vigilant-saturday-april-5-2025-c

The New York Times tried to pull a fast one yesterday, but we won’t let them get away with it this time. It began with a very strange and often revolting feature story headlined, “Online ‘Pedophile Hunters’ Are Growing More Violent — and Going Viral.” Unsurprisingly, the Times framed the story as almost sympathetic to the “victims” — meaning the men caught by independent sting groups for soliciting underage boys and girls for sex.

Vigilantism! Most bizarre, the story was in the Times’ long format, magazine-style, multimedia-dazzling articles. The Gray Lady invested a metric ton of column inches, technology effects, and rhetorical effort into portraying predator-catching groups as grifters, click-baiters, conmen, and violent criminals.

It spent no effort condemning the predators themselves. Instead, it thematically hinted —without saying so— that they, the predators, were the real victims here.

“In the past two years, a growing number of pedophile hunters have gone a step further and violently attacked the targets in their videos,” the Times complained. Some of “the footage shows hunters chasing their targets through retail stores, beating people bloody on public streets, and shaving the heads of their targets.” Citing only a single example, the paper generalized, “In the most extreme cases, people have been hospitalized with serious injuries.”

Awkwardly, no predator hunters have been convicted for assault or battery. This is partly because pedophiles usually eschew pressing charges, which the Times satanically characterized as a kind of legal disability that the sting operators exploit to take advantage.

But one particular sentence, pregnant with patent meaning far beyond its words, betrayed the awful reality of the situation and the Times’ co-conspiring culpability: “The Times reached out to more than two dozen people targeted by violent pedophile hunters,” the paper reported, “but none were willing to speak on the record.”

Lol, good. Pedophiles should be afraid.

Patrick says

Yes, and his defense fund now has over $150k in donations.

https://x.com/redsteeze/status/1911651476507959536

People sometimes ask me why call it "the cool kids table" of media and I can't think of a single recent example better than this.

A person fired for lying to her editors at Washington Post (amongst other things) and a CNN dude trying to fit in while ignoring her assassination fantasies.

O'Sullivan isn't interested in journalism or extremism. All he wants to do is fit in. And getting on camera with Taylor Lorenz and giggling along with her like a Bumble date over commies murdering people in public is how he does it.

All he wants is to belong.

I imagine that Mockingbird MSM have extensive feedback loops to assess the effectiveness of their propaganda and/or distraction value. It is diminishing by the day, but they still have their agog information cannon fodders that they cater to.

I don't waste my time reviewing the deception they serve out, but it is evident indirectly from the people we sometimes interact with. The teacher's union types are hundred percent brainwashed as to not caring what the truth is as long as they believe the lies serve their interests somehow aka factional selective consciousness.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/the-accountant-monday-may-5-2025

Behold, right on cue, the latest example of media inversion. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story transformed record-breaking good stock market news into financial doom with a headline Eeyore would have loved: “Stock Market Today: Trump Vows Tariffs on Movies Made Abroad; Dow Futures Slip.” But the sub-headline flipped the script, revealing the truth that, “The S&P 500 rose for nine straight sessions through Friday, the longest winning streak in more than two decades.” ...

The good news in the sub-headline, that the market just set a 20-year record for daily increases, was completely absent from the story. Not only should that singular fact have made up most of the story’s contents, but the article’s headline should have been, “Markets on Historic Run as Trump Expands Tariff Strategy.”

The Journal hates tariffs and the president who made them.

Appropos, here is a clip of President Trump on Air Force One this weekend, scolding the WSJ’s reporter that he works for a “rotten newspaper.” The President said it twice, slower the second time, to make sure the reporter got the message.

The President asked, “Who are you with?” When the reporter answered, Trump sorrowfully said, “the Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell. It is a rotten newspaper. Did you hear what I said? It's a rotten newspaper.”

Well? He’s not wrong.

https://www.malone.news/p/fake-news-propaganda-deployed-to

"Fake News" Propaganda Deployed To Undermine MAHA

The Shabby Media’s $176M Canard

Moderna itself announced the reward last July. ...

In other words, this supposed breaking news was old news, suddenly resurrected by U.S. News as if it were new. For no apparent reason. The supposed journalists who wrote the story, Robin Foster and Stephanie Brown, are said to work at HealthDay. They have no contact information and my email to the site has not been yet answered.

So far as I can tell, if such a contract did exist, it is now cancelled or on pause.

What the breaking news stories did do was circulate widely in the health freedom movement, cited as an example of how RFK and Trump are betraying their base. I personally received probably half a dozen contacts from people who sent the U.S. News story to me.

Several mentioned it on the phone without recalling the source.

It is now widely believed that the Trump administration has approved $176 million for Moderna even though there is no credible or new source on this at all. The canard is already burrowed into the brains of the people who matter.

Is this how medical news works?

The story gets even better. The $176 million number from last spring was upped in January 2025 to an incredible $600 million. The widely reported story appeared on January 17, 2025.

I've noticed this myself, where old but politically useful news is recycled as if it were new.

https://www.malone.news/p/triggered-by-the-wapo

Yesterday afternoon, I was going about my daily business, in the middle of recording yet another podcast (Tom Woods), when the cell rang. As usual when broadcasting, I reached over and clicked the text message button, “Sorry, I can’t talk right now”. Once Tom and I were through, I returned to that text message.



Apparently, the call came from an unknown reporter with the usual sense of urgency and entitlement. I had received no recent email inquiry from the press, so this could be yet another phishing operation. Lately, I have been getting a lot more of these. Usually, some variant of “Hi there, how are you, did you forget about me?” and when I write back “who is this” I get a bizarre response demonstrating that this is just some random bot trying to get me to engage. But this particular inquiry had the veiled threat frequently used by junior journalists- translated from the journalese, it reads, “call me back and answer my questions or we will publish a hit piece on you anyhow.” So I punched the call-back button.

A chirpy female voice self-identifies, “This is Lauren Weber with the Washington Post”. I respond - “Hello Lauren, this is Robert Malone, I assume you are preparing some sort of hit piece on me?” She responds “Well, not from my point of view.”

Uh, yeah. Sure. Here we go, just as I anticipated. Lesson learned over the last four years: when a corporate news reporter engages like this, what is going on is that their editor has told them that before they publish a smear article, they are supposed to get a comment from the target.

At this point, the smear is essentially already written, and this is their lip service effort at “fair and balanced”. You are going to get smeared, whether you answer their questions or not. If you don’t, they will publish that they attempted to get a response, but that you did not reply. If they do get you to reply, they will selectively edit whatever you say to help make their point. These are the rules of today’s “gotcha” version of journalism.

I then asked Lauren Weber to what email address she had sent her “questions” for me to answer. Response - “your substack email”. Which I check pretty much never. I have many email accounts and was not really aware that this included a “substack” email address. With about 360,000 subscribers to this substack, I can hardly imagine how much email traffic that address generates. I can hardly keep up with my (historic) GMail and (current) Protonmail accounts!

I asked her to send her questions to my GMail address. This is what I received-

From: Weber, Lauren Lauren.Weber@washpost.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 10:11 AM
To: rwmalonemd@substack.com
Subject: Washington Post comment request
Lauren Weber, Washington Post health reporter here.
I am reaching out as I was curious about the following questions regarding this substack post: https://www.malone.news/p/breaking-news-another-texas-child:
How did you publish about the second measles death before anyone else?
The family of the girl who died said they had not spoken to you - how did you know about her medical care?
Why do you believe medical mismanagement is to blame?
My deadline is today at 4 EST. Happy to hop on the phone if easier to discuss.
Thanks,
Lauren Weber
Health & Science Accountability Reporter
The Washington Post
@LaurenWeberHP
202.709.9178

“accountability reporter focused on the forces promoting scientific and medical disinformation.”

Yup, intuition confirmed, smear incoming.

Turns out it is a classic wrap-up smear, based on a primary smear article that some obscure reporter named Pooja Salhotra (of the “Texas Tribune”) wrote in which she accused me of the crime of “misinformation”, repeating (yet again) the NY Times published accusation of reporter Davey Alba; “news of Daisy’s death came from the highly-charged writings of vaccine critic Dr. Robert Malone, a physician once labeled by The New York Times as a “Covid misinformation star.” Alba, previously employed by the NYT as a mis- and dis-information specialist, had extremely detailed knowledge of CIA affairs, and left the NYT immediately after the hit piece.

Alba, Salhotra, and Weber are examples of the current foot-soldier caste of narrative enforcers employed by the censorship-industrial complex. For some reason, this new sector of that growing industry seems to be staffed mainly by young women, usually recently minted journalism school grads with virtually no scientific or medical training. Which appears to be a feature, not a bug. Ignorance of the subject matter at hand apparently makes it easier to swallow whatever the promoted narrative of the day is.

Relevant to today’s discussion is that the Washington Post derives a large fraction of its 174 million dollar advertising budget from the Pharmaceutical industry (down from 190M$ total last year). As to the “Texas Tribune”, this is an entirely on-line, subscriber-based outlet that does not publish its circulation. One website ranks it #9 out of the top 10 Texas “newspapers” by circulation. The next largest Texas newspaper has a daily circulation of approximately 6,878 (a little over 200,000 per month), so one can infer that the “Texas Tribune” has a lower circulation. At best, an obscure regional niche on-line outlet. Just for contrast, Malone News has a daily circulation of between 300,000 and 600,000 (views) and a monthly circulation of between 9 and 10 million views. ...

According to various studies, medical errors are estimated to cause between 250,000 and 440,000 deaths annually in the United States. One study published in the BMJ in 2016 estimated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical errors in the U.S., making it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.

Historically, from 2001 to 2022, among the 4,056 measles cases reported in the United States, 727 (18%) were hospitalized, and only three deaths were reported.

The real story here, for any “journalist” with an ounce of insight or integrity, was that there was a concerted attempt to position these tragedies as rare “Measles” deaths, when, in fact they were yet another example of the shockingly common category of medical error deaths. ...

Patrick says

Alba, Salhotra, and Weber are examples of the current foot-soldier caste of narrative enforcers employed by the censorship-industrial complex. For some reason, this new sector of that growing industry seems to be staffed mainly by young women

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
— George Orwell

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/deferred-armageddon-thursday-may

Corporate media’s op-ed sections serve various political purposes and exclude the quaint, archaic notions of balance or fairness. Timely deployed op-eds can manufacture an illusion of fairness, whitewashing an especially biased news cycle, sort of like cramming a lego under one corner of a thumping, unbalanced dryer.

But other times, the op-eds are where the media surfaces it limited hangouts, safe places where corporate media’s failed narratives can be carefully euthanized without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Sometimes op-eds become ladders, helping media climb down from their most extreme positions. For instance, they trotted out TV doctor Leana Wen in the opinion section to begin unwinding their experts’ advice to wear masks while jogging outdoors. Eventually, that became “common sense,” and the media’s credibility was preserved.

By all appearances, this op-ed suggests we can plant our farewell kisses on the media’s forecasts of Trump-tariff doom. “Armageddon,” author Gerard Baker parsimoniously conceded, “has been deferred.” The market-crashing Great Depression 2.0 that was predicted by “almost all economists and by even more non-economists, has so far failed to materialize.”

Imagine that. ...

In other words, discontented non-elites (that’s us) demanded populist change, ignored our experts, and so we got Trump tariffs. What the experts somehow missed, according to Baker, was the public’s ravenous appetite for eating globalism alive and spitting it out in bloody chunks. “If we see deglobalization not as a catastrophic act of self-harm but as a choice—even a rational one,” Baker suggested in a moment of rare generosity, “we can position ourselves better to deal with its consequences.”

“We,” apparently, referring to globalists like himself and the rest of the editorial staff and its squadrons of cherry-picked experts. They need to re-position themselves to avoid getting run over on the populist freeway, like cute little reptiles in the game Frogger.

In sum, this op-ed stands as a weathervane, signaling a changing narrative climate, the rapidly failing expert guidance that Trump’s tariffs were the most backwards, destructive, and strikingly incompetent economic plan since North Korea issued guidelines for approved hairstyles. In face-saving desperation, they’ve decided to throw globalism under the Trump bus.

And that, dear readers, is progress.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/wokescolds-tuesday-may-13-2025-c

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an unintentionally hilarious and hyperbolic hit piece headlined, “RFK Jr. Swims in Washington Creek That Flows With Sewage and Bacteria.” At first, when they said “creek” I thought it was a pointed metaphor for Washington DC. But they actually meant a proper creek...

Germaphobic Times reporters went into full Hazmat-mode on Sunday, after Kennedy posted a few innocent pictures of himself stepping through Rock Creek with his grandkids tree-climbing nearby. Instead of running a wholesome headline like, “HHS Secretary Pauses Bureaucracy to Celebrate Mother’s Day,” the Times dove headfirst into municipal water reports. Apparently, Rock Creek has a swimming advisory due to elevated E. coli levels.

Fair enough. But here’s the kicker: the government put it there. DC’s Water Authority dumps over 40 million gallons of raw sewage into Rock Creek every year. If you did that, they’d build a new Supermax prison named in your dishonor. But when the local bureaucrats do it, it’s just Tuesday.

Alas, his creek’s contamination wasn’t the story. That’s not what this was about. It was really about three things— all of which spoke volumes more about the Times than about Kennedy.

First, come on. This isn’t news. It’s a performative public scolding over a Mother’s Day Instagram post. Yesterday’s top story was essentially “Man Gets Dirty With Kids Outdoors.”

Second, it showed just how deeply the pandemic scrambled the brains of progressive newsroom staff. The mere thought of stepping into a creek with non-sterile water — no Purell, no masks! — flung them into a frothing moral panic. What if there’s Covid in the water! they probably shrieked behind their plexiglass face shields.

Third, and most revealing, was the tone: naggy, moralizing, anxious. It wasn’t journalism. It had all the emotional energy of a clucking school nurse combined with a helicopter mom. “Robert, don’t you know there’s bacteria in there?” It wasn’t any masculine critique. It wasn’t even political. It was dark maternalism.

It made me wonder. Back in the 80’s during my rebellious year in journalism school, it was celebrated insider knowledge that j-school’s gender composition was 84% female. Great dating odds, but perhaps also a red flag. So I checked— and admit I was wrong. The creek-germs piece was written by a man (allegedly):




So maybe the problem isn’t that there are too many lady reporters, or too few men.

Maybe the problem is that the weak men at the Times are indistinguishable from its OCD’d women — and not in a good way. At this point, you could swap out half the bylines for housewives from a 1980s Lysol commercial and nobody would notice the difference.

Kennedy, barefoot in a sewage creek, looks like a gladiator compared to the media’s fearful, bleach-your-groceries worldview. Our new Health Secretary is literally wading through Washington’s crap — a metaphor made manifest. And that, more than anything, is why they can’t stand him.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/myob-wednesday-may-14-2025-c-and

In the wake of cackling Kamala’s catastrophic loss, lead CNN anchor Jake Tapper has published what may be the most mendacious, revisionist, and self-serving book ever written, and that includes Tony Fauci’s autobiography, copies of which can still be found in some Turkmenistani travel stops. Tapper’s odius opus bears the insufferably long title, “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” ...

Apparently, no one person should be blamed. It was an unblameably vast leftwing conspiracy. Oh, Tapper waves angrily in a general direction towards “the family,” “the Politburo,” “some aides,” “donors,” “journalists,” “strategists,” even Biden’s pollsters— but not a single actual name was, apparently, fit for print. Even the whistleblowers couldn’t be named— most of the book’s contents are anonymously sourced. “In an authors’ note,” the Times reported, “they explain that they interviewed approximately 200 people, including high-level insiders, ‘some of whom may never acknowledge speaking to us but all of whom know the truth within these pages.’”

So … in Tapper’s Original Sin diarama, who plays Eve? Tapper won’t say. Somebody handed Tapper the apple, but he won’t tell who.

That was the tell: Jake is still too chicken to actually name names. That just highlighted the point that while Jake and his allies were tricked into eating the apple by a nest of anonymous serpents, the rest of us had no trouble spotting Biden’s incompetence. Try as he might, Tapper can never erase the fact that half the country long knew Biden was mentally AWOL, while he and his media allies tried to cancel us. ...

Despite all their podium-pounding speeches about saving it, the lizard-lipped Democrats risked global thermonuclear destruction and tried passing off the greatest lie in history because they fear democracy. They selected Biden because he was a doddering meat suit— and thus controllable. Being controllable was Biden’s chief qualification.

In other words, to the Democrats, Biden’s dementia wasn’t an inconvenient bug. It was a feature. Only when checked-out Biden couldn’t win, they selected Kamala— a tittering nitwit who would also have completely depended on her handlers.

We were this close. And they’ll do it again, if we let them.