Journalism is always activism. Whether it’s in writing, photos or video. Whether it’s mainstream media or indie. Left or right wing. Every journalist practises politics by choosing which stories to run and which not to run. Which facts to share and which to omit. Which picture to use, how to crop it. This is not to say that all journalists actively try to deceive us, but it emphasizes the need how crucial it is to approach all journalism critically and to compare sources.
Most of us who have found our way to underground journalists are aware of this. Moreover, the mainstream media are hard to completely miss so we can be fairly sure to get two sides of each story anyway. But MSM followers tend not to question the trustworthiness of their news sources. Just for them, here are a couple of examples.
In Britain the BBC led (online at least) with reports of a protest in Catalonia (Spain) in support of unity. The protest was a response to the Catalan independence referendum, which was violently interrupted by Spanish police. The message of unity serves the globalist agenda and opposes trends seen throughout the West of people embracing nationalism and a return to regional and local loyalties. The BBC failed to mention however, that there were anti-separatist protesters displaying fascist arm salutes and chants.
At the same time, the Football Lads Alliance’s march against extremism was taking place, but that protest went completely unreported by the BBC. This is a protest that was by all accounts bigger, and it was in London in the BBC’s home country. They chose not to report on it, either because of the participants or their message and / or the lack of opportunity to put a negative spin on it. If they could have shown facist displays at that protest, I have no doubt they would have been plastered all over our screens.
The BBC also felt the need to describe the hugely successful prayer in Poland which saw tens of thousands (up to a million, according to the organizers) participants gathering along the nation’s border, as “controversial”. “Church leaders say the event is purely religious, but there are concerns it could be seen as endorsing the state’s refusal to let in Muslim migrants,” the BBC notes. A huge majority of the Polish population supports their government in closing the borders, so this event would not be very controversial to the Polish people at all. In many other European countries, there is no clear majority supporting open borders. Even if this event were controversial there, a similar but opposite event (supporting immigration) should be equally controversial at least. But clearly, such an event would not get the same label.
Mass shootings and terrorism
Similarly, we were told instantly that the suspect in the Las Vegas shooting was a white man and that the motive was certainly not Islamic terrorism (even though that actually remains unclear to this day), while in the case of confirmed Islamic terror attacks, it takes weeks of research to come to the conclusion that the thing which walked, looked and quacked like a duck was in fact… a duck. Popular culture would have us believe the opposite of course, but that is part of the same disinformation mechanism.
The Pulse nightclub terror attack was turned into a talking point in support of gun control, but the Islamic terrorism angle was left out completely. Mainstream media had tried the same with ISIS attack in San Bernardino, but the amount of coverage quickly diminished as soon as ISIS turned out to be involved. Not the right angle? No story.
The New York Times put the Charleston church shooting (white man targeting black people) on the front page. The Antioch shooting (black man targeting white people), page 14.
Charleston shooting: NYTimes front page.
Antioch shooting: NYTimes page 14.
Why the difference? One doesn’t support the narrative. pic.twitter.com/RvBgeRfrih
— /pol/ News Infinity (@polNewsInfinity) September 28, 2017
The same scrutiny we apply to mainstream media must also be applied to the journalists in our own echo chamber. At the same time, their somewhat slanted views serve to offset the obvious bias in the mainstream media. Fox News, even now they’re not particularly right wing anymore, are frequently attacked for their “fair and balanced” motto, but since they were indeed offering balance to the onedimensional rest of the journalistic landscape. Be as critical of underground journalists as you are of mainstream ones. But exposing mainstream media lies should take priority because of the ill-deserved trust so many people put in them.