Viewing An Example of Biased Journalism

We have a strong political divide and it’s not healthy. But this is not about politics. It is about journalism. Having said that, journalism has become political. Nothing has exposed this as well as the Trump election and his failure to be re-elected. This piece points out not only bias, but complete loss of journalistic objectivity.

When it is only acceptable to write one view, then journalism becomes suspect.

When it is only acceptable to write one view, then journalism becomes suspect. It trespasses the high journalistic standard–the code of objectivity–which is ultimately the foundation of public journalistic trust.

You’ve all seen them–the articles covering Trump’s claim of American election fraud. Maybe the election was stolen. Maybe it wasn’t. But one thing I know. It’s not up to journalists to print a verdict before the evidence is examined and tried in court. However, this is what happened, right out of the election gate, and we all witnessed it.

I’m not American. I hope the election wasn’t stolen. But how can I know, if nobody is willing to examine the evidence, much less give it credibility?

From the perspective of the media, election fraud is completely preposterous. The obvious bias of journalists, supported by–probably encouraged by–the news outlets, is almost laughable, but for the implications. Journalism that is influenced can be corrupted. When the public feels that journalism is influenced, it loses confidence in the reporting of news. In recent years there has been a shocking erosion of public trust in media.

I’ve taken an article printed on various new sites such as The Guardian, the Business Insider and The Washington Times for my illustration of media bias. The articles look much the same and there are numerous similar articles in print, with different angles, regarding the US election.

The article headline is Steve Scalise, No 2 House Republican, refuses to say election was not stolen. Below is the complete article with my personal observations in bold.

In a television interview aired Sunday, Oct. 10, 2021, Scalise, the House’s second-ranking Republican, stood by Trump’s lie (should be “claim”) that Democrat Joe Biden won the White House because of mass voter fraud.
By Hope Yen – Associated Press – Sunday, October 10, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House’s second-ranking Republican, Rep. Steve Scalise, repeatedly refused to say on Sunday that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, standing by Donald Trump’s lie (should be “claim”) that Democrat Joe Biden won the White House because of mass voter fraud.
More than 11 months after Americans picked their president and almost nine months since Biden was inaugurated, Scalise was unwilling during a national television interview to acknowledge the legitimacy of the vote, instead sticking to his belief that the election results should not have been certified by Congress.


“I’ve been very clear from the beginning,” he said. “If you look at a number of states, they didn’t follow their state-passed laws that govern the election for president. That is what the United States Constitution says. They don’t say the states determine what the rules are. They say the state legislatures determine the rules,” the Louisiana congressman said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace on whether the election went beyond a few irregularities to be considered “stolen,” Scalise responded: “It’s not just irregularities. It’s states that did not follow the laws set which the Constitution says they’re supposed to follow.”
Trump left office in January a few weeks after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent riot in an attempt to prevent Congress from formally declaring Biden the winner. (placed here for effect)

As Trump mulls a 2024 presidential bid, he has been intensifying efforts to shame – and potentially remove – members of his party who are seen as disloyal to his bogus claims (should leave out bogus) that last year’s election was illegitimate. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who is vying to become speaker if the GOP takes control after the 2022 midterm election, continues to defend Trump and his false assertions (should leave out false).
At a rally Saturday in Iowa, Trump spent almost 30 minutes arguing falsely (should leave out falsely because this is inserting a belief of the author) that he had won Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds stood by and welcomed his return to their state.

In fact, no election was stolen (appropriate wording would be, “According to….no election was stolen”) from Trump. His former attorney general, William P. Barr, found no evidence of widespread election corruption. Allegations of massive voting fraud also have been dismissed by a succession of judges and refuted by state election officials and an arm of the Homeland Security Department during the Trump administration. (A good journalist would dig into this and also include information from those bringing the allegations. There is a story here.)

Scalise on Sunday appeared to be referring to the legal argument, made in several lawsuits backed by Trump before and after last November’s election, that the Constitution gives the power of election administration exclusively to state lawmakers. (What exactly does the Constitution say? Why not a quote here?) The suits sought to invalidate a number of pandemic-era accommodations including expanded mail voting that were put in place by governors, state election officials and judges. (Did Trump have a case, based on the Constitution? Was there any question of legality here? We need more information. We rely on journalists for this information.)

The high court ultimately turned away the cases, declining to rule on the matter. There’s no indication in any of the suits (not one example is given of a suit…bad journalism) that changing the COVID-19 accommodations would have altered a state’s election results.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who is serving on a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, on Sunday slammed Scalise for spreading Trump’s “Big Lie.”

“Millions of Americans have been sold a fraud that the election was stolen,” Cheney tweeted. “Republicans have a duty to tell the American people that this is not true. Perpetuating the Big Lie is an attack on the core of our constitutional republic.”

END OF ARTICLE

It is the responsibility of journalists to present evidence and then to trust the public to have the intelligence and insight to come to a reasonable conclusion.

“Journalists and the news outlets have the responsibility to tell the American people what to believe.” –False

The beauty of the article is that the last two paragraphs reveal the logic of the writer. We might rephrase, “Journalists and the news outlets have the responsibility to tell the American people what to believe.” This, of course, is false. It is not the role of journalism, in a democratic society, to push a certain narrative. We see this happening in totalitarian states where news sites and journalists are the propaganda arm of the government and must tout the party line, or face consequences.

Readers want information. We want to be able to trust journalists to give us both sides. We want to examine the evidence for ourselves. We don’t want to be told what to believe. And we would like to see journalists’ opinions reserved for Commentary and Opinion columns.

How Will the New Rules Impact My Thanksgiving Dinner?

My eighty-five year old mother, who was hospitalized with covid-19 and recovered, does not want the vaccine. We have had a difficult time getting her to take any medication at any time. Now the Manitoba provincial government is telling her she cannot have her children over for Thanksgiving. If our politicians were up on the latest discoveries they would know that she has less of a risk of getting, and therefore spreading covid, than a vaccinated person. So is this really about health care?

This Thanksgiving, you may have to ask your guests to bring their vaccine cards along with cranberry sauce….Private indoor gatherings will be restricted to two households if any person at the gathering has chosen not to get vaccinated.

CBC: These new pandemic rules apply to all Manitobans

We are now seeing stats where countries with higher vaccination rates are actually experiencing higher case rates of covid than countries with lower vaccination rates.

Meanwhile VAERS, to date, shows in excess of 10,000 deaths within weeks of the vaccine and possibly 15,000 vaccine-related deaths in the USA. Mortality rates rose consistently in countries during vaccination periods. This is brushed aside because, as one doctor stated, the only time a vaccine can be noted on a death certificate as a cause of death is if the patient dies within an hour or two of receiving the vaccine. I read a series of VAERS reports and the correlation to the administration of the vaccine seemed apparent to me. We have seen a few incidents reported in the news. It appears they are not as rare as we are led to believe with women reporting injuries more frequently than men.

We were told the vaccine is safe, but then I noticed the wording changed to, “as safe as other vaccines.” Well, apparently, if you look at the data, this is the most unsafe vaccine ever to have been administered.

We were told the vaccine prevents people from getting covid, but this was quickly down-graded to preventing severe illness.

We were told that the vaccine reduces transmissibility, but then we learned that the viral load of vaccinated people was just as high as the unvaccinated in the initial stages of the disease.

Maybe we can believe that it reduces the infection rate. Maybe not. Reports out of Israel are now saying that the vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant. This explains the extent of covid in Israel which was supposed to be Pfizer’s model country.

My mother is a stoic woman who takes her blows, but I don’t know how this will affect her. She lives in Manitoba, Canada, where 3 million dollars of fines have already been handed out for violations around covid restrictions.

Many nurses and doctors are quitting their jobs due to the recently imposed vaccine mandates for health care workers. Their “fine,” if they don’t quit, will be the erasure of their income–“leave without pay.” We will see the impact of this by mid-November in Canada. We cannot afford to lose a single nurse or doctor.

My whole issue with the lockdowns has always been that hospitals were over-crowded and short-staffed before the coronavirus. Lockdowns were imposed to protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed, and I get the logic. But we should have provided extra facilities for covid patients if we wanted to be pro-active. This was never done. In my province of British Columbia we have about 400 ICU beds, total. One can easily imagine that just the flu season would overwhelm the hospitals. So add a few hundred cases…and then we go into lockdown, affecting the mental health and financial future of hundreds of thousands. I know the first argument is about grandma in the care home, but let’s just say that was handled very, very poorly.

Doctors are doing their best to help their patients but are being told by our health authorities how they can and cannot treat patients with covid, what they can and cannot say to them. Anything that does not support the vaccination effort is off limits.

I just read that Bolivia asked a Canadian company to manufacture the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but due to patent issues, months later they are not getting vaccines produced. Are we really wanting to help people or is this all about money? I’m not the first person to ask the question.

Merck has come out with a new med that is supposed to cost $700 per treatment for covid, Molnupiravir. Watch Dr. John Campbell compare Merck’s Ivermectin, which costs about $.50 per treatment with the new medication. Dr. Campbell goes into a detailed comparison of how the two drugs perform in the body, as presented in a report by another specialized doctor. He speculates that the two meds could be used in conjunction with each other for greater efficacy. Yet we have seen Ivermectin maliciously maligned, continuously, despite evidence of its effectiveness. If you look at these two articles then you will see what I’m talking about. Read carefully for bias and manipulation of facts in this article. Compare it with the chart below, from this article.

Prime Minister Trudeau has made it his mission to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks in terms of vaccine requirements for federal employees.

Trudeau and Freeland both mentioned “personal conviction” as insufficient to gain a religious exemption — which is interesting, because that’s exactly what courts look for when considering a request for religious accommodation. “Religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment,” the Supreme Court wrote in one landmark freedom-of-religion case.

National Post: Chris Selley

Meanwhile people who get vaccines have reported vaccine injuries in the hundreds of thousands, aside from deaths. Some reports say millions. I speak from experience, having suffered several serious side effects. Thankfully, for me they have somewhat subsided, although I still have concerns, but this is not the case for everyone. When I mentioned my side effects to a doctor, because the injection site would not vaccinate me after I described what happened after my first dose, the doctor would not entertain the possibility of giving me an exemption. He did not inquire further about symptoms but just focused on whether I should get the same vaccine or a different one. Would it be a “booster” or a “new vaccine” if I switched to a different vaccine?

As far as I am able to detect, in a certain percentage of people the spike protein mRNA ends up circulating in the blood system, as opposed to staying in the muscle tissue to do its job and this is what causes reactions. There is also the possibility that the delivery system, the nanoparticles, cause some problems related to where they end up accumulating in the body. What surprises me even more than the fact that this information is being suppressed is learning of two Facebook sites, dedicated to people with adverse reactions, being shut down. We are not allowed to talk about this.

Meanwhile Pfizer has put out a request to inoculate children as young as five years old.

By requiring vaccine passports to enter certain premises the government has also forced these businesses to vaccinate all of their staff. It never had to be a “mandate.” It saddens me to think of people sitting in a restaurant, for instance, and seeing their friends or relatives outside, unable to come it. I think there must be some hardening of heart in order for people to think this is OK.

I firmly believe people should be able to make their personal health choices without retribution. Now that we know the vaccine is not the cure we’ve been told, I feel even more strongly that it should not be forced on people.

Writers Needed

Now is the time to hone your writing skills. Now is the time to learn to express the important things on your mind and in your heart.

It may be your voice that is heard. It may be your voice that makes the difference.

This is the time to shine your light. This is the time to assess what is happening around you and to determine your role. What can you do to move things forward in a positive way?

I think the most important thing we can do right now is to work on building good, strong relationships. Learn from the best. Watch how others do it. It doesn’t come naturally to everyone. You may have to change your tone. Maybe your attitude, or your approach. Learn to listen well. Learn to hear people’s heart. Learn how to reflect back what people say, so you are sure you heard the right thing. Learn to respond with clarity and sincerity. Learn how to bite your tongue, sometimes.

Most of all, be a helper. That is what this is all about. As the beloved Mr. Rogers said, many years ago, “Look for the helpers.” Better yet, be a helper.

Help with your words. Find something encouraging to say. Find something enlightening. Put the pieces together and share what you discover.

Be ready. Don’t expect everyone to appreciate what you say. Find better ways of saying it, rather than giving up.

Leave a legacy. Leave something people can read, or listen too.

Who Won the American Election?

Remarkably, opinion pieces of journalists, passing as news, flowed off the press and refuted claims of election fraud before any evidence was formally presented, much less investigated. In the absence of the kind of reflection and insight that might serve as a caution, journalists remained oblivious to their diminishing reputation and public credibility. Ratings for public news channels have never been so low.

Journalism has become a sad reflection of an element of society that cares less about investigative reporting and more about controlling the narrative. The currant narrative is clearly that there is no election fraud. Period. Even though, prior to the election, both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly questioned the integrity of election processes.

I’ve watched several hearings that presented claims of misdemeanours in elections— sending/receiving ballots from dead voters, voters with parking lot mailing addresses, voters who don’t exist. Whether this was intentional, is virtually impossible to prove. Intention would imply fraud. This is called “rigging” the election.

Of course, we want to believe that nobody would stoop to undermine the American election process by endorsing non-existent voters, or duplicate voters, or voting in place of others, or incentivized voting, or voting of non-citizens. If it happened, and these turned out to be predominantly Democrat voters, we are assured, by the same journalists who insisted there was no voter fraud, that it was on a small scale of only a few thousand, not enough to change the election outcome.

At the close of an article that vehemently denies evidence of election fraud, a journalist concedes that the level of fraud is at best insignificant. There were not enough irregularities to change the election result.

And so, with the consolation that the fraud that happened was insignificant, because it didn’t affect the outcome, public attention is steered away from the glaring truth of a compromised electoral system. The same journalists who declared there was no fraud a few weeks earlier, have moved us to the acceptance of “irrelevant” fraud.

As the hearings progressed, with their “irrelevant” allegations, the opinions of journalists progressed as well. When testimonies came forward presenting more substantial evidence, the witnesses themselves became “irrelevant” and the story was not about the allegations but about Giuliani’s hair dye running down his face. Lawyers who shied away from participating in the hearings were touted as evidence of a sinking ship, with no hint at other possibilities, like their livelihoods being threatened.

If I were in charge of Republican allegations of election fraud I would have gone about this differently. But of course it is too late now. I would have focused only on evidence that does not require witness corroboration and only on such evidence as would change the election outcome. Too much time has been wasted on proving that the election process can be manipulated. There was never a need to be prove this at all. The real question is, was the level of manipulation able to change the outcome? In other words, did the American vote count?

There is still another equally disturbing problem with journalism surrounding the election, besides misrepresentation and manipulation. This is silence. Silence when there is a real issue to report. Like the lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell. Silence when voters rally by tens or hundreds of thousands in support of the president. Silence about the actual significance of only Republican watchers not being allowed to observe ballot counting.

One can’t help but speculate that journalists who are willing to suppress the voices of half the population of America might also be willing to cooperate to suppress the votes of these same American citizens. Meaning, of course, the loss of a democratic election process. It will require a level of fearlessness journalism, and integrity we have not seen up to this point, to uncover what actually happened in the American election.