Does the US M.S.M. tell the truth?

90% of the US main stream media is owned by holding companies
in which BlackRock has controlling interests. BlackRock owns
shares in the main weapons making companies so it is clearly in
the financial interests of BlackRock to promote weapons sales.

Remarkably the news about Ukraine is pretty well non stop:
'we are just about to make the big breakthrough, all we need
is 100,000 million dollars of weapons to win this war, we are
nearly there'.

Yet somehow the Russian defensive line looks like it is in the
same place now as it was in February before the big offensive.

 

I’ve never thought of the MSM as promoting weapon sales, rather to promote a war and/or support for an ‘at war’ overseas nation that’s promoted as our allies. Thus raking in millions of tax payer dollars to be siphoned off and line pockets of the global elites.

The small miracle is that we were able to pass a budget to keep our own govt functioning.

 

I said usually. But with a large caveat- they tend to tell the truth about anything that fits within a certain narrative, downplay or ignore anything that doesn't, and occassionally lie when the facts can't be spun to match the narrative. If we're talking 'lie by omission' then I'd say the media lies all the time.

 

Agreed. I'm going with "lie by omission" to spin the narrative.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the poll levels out to “sometimes” but I think we’re on the same page about how they report to suit an addenda?

 

I really should have included 'only when it suits their sponsors.'

 

Accuracy of the media is a crucial factor in US politics,
I've found Democrats generally believe the media and
Republicans often don't, and maybe that is the one thing
that really divides the parties.

 

Blackrock, Vanguard and iirc StateStreet? are the big three investment firms that together basically own a controlling stake not only in all the major media firms and defense suppliers, but pretty much everything else too. And its a good bet that the major shareholders of one are major shareholders in the others, and probably sit on eachothers boards of directors in interlocking directorate. These are the same companies that saved us from the 2008 housing collapse by buying up all the housing (to turn into rentals) and jack the prices back up. And it worked really well. So well in fact that almost nobody can afford to buy a home now. Yay!

They own controlling shares in most of the supermarkets, fast food chains, manufacturing corporations, pharmaceuticals, you name it. They're well on their way to being 'the company store' that employs us all, determines our wages, supplies our food and collects our rent. That is a recipe for mass slavery, and I for one think its unlikely that they've accomplished this by accident.

 

I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but I think it was largely the media that
whipped up the US public into war frenzy to join into WW1 when the public had been
largely against the idea, and so many US citizens had a German heritage.

Maybe the newspapers and now the MSM are the means of starting most wars?

 

Funny this just dropped. First minute really captures it.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ij-CYugj8R0/

 

stay away from far left or far right MSM and it's usually pretty good

 

If that is what Ukraine is saying, then what would you want the MSM to say? Some MSM, like FOX will flat out tell you the opposite, but when they do that, they are publishing their opinion, not news, and sounds like you prefer it that way.

 

As one reporter commented Donald Trump should have said 'cunning' rather than 'smart', because that
explicitly allows an interpretation of evil intent.

I would comment the whole public discourse is full of imprecise language. 'Left wing' for example has
a specific meaning in the outside world, of preferring a low Gini Coefficient, but means all sorts of things
in the US, most with meanings way outside economics. So many meanings the widely used term has
can mean pretty much anything, in fact Joe Biden when bragging about destroying other countries
automatically is called 'the left' because the Democratic Party seems to own that descriptor.

 

The 3 news clips from top are from October 24th and the four below from October 23rd, they are not
carefully cherry picked from a range of opinions, nor did I write any of them.

The 'Berlin comes next' comment is particularly galling because Vladimir Putin moved in Russian
forces on Feb 24th 2022 to protect Donetsk and Luhansk and some other areas, 8 days after
the shelling by the UAF had increased in intensity.

The shelling had been going on at a low intensity for about eight years already, as NATO Gen Sec.
Jens Stoltenberg stated: 'the war in Ukraine started in 2014'.

I'm not sure how people can claim that Russia started the conflict when Russia waited so long before
getting involved.

 

Let me ask you again: If Zelensky claims they are winning, then why do you expect the media to report anything other than "Zelensky says..........."?

They report what he said. Simple.

 

Other...

Never trust any media news source as truthful or gospel, some sources are worse/better than others for Chinese Whispers.

 

Of the 7 news feed screenshots I posted, in the top by Z-live Zelensky states 'Counteroffensive
reports success' and the lowest one states 'Warning of Russian attack: then Berlin comes next'

So the first suggests Russia is being driven back, and the other one that Russia could get
through Ukraine and then Poland and into Germany.

That's pretty confusing, but there might be a common thread in feeding us some encouragement
in the weapons we recently supplied, and an element of fear that we should supply some more.

You may think I'm reading too much into it but the news is owned by people who make money
from weapons makers profits, and since the news does tell people what to think, I would expect
the news to keep telling people to buy weapons and go to war, as well as whatever else they
get money from.

 

Ahhh! The Merchants of Death. I used to work for a large defense Contractor and one of the highest paid people in our company was an ex high ranking military officer who was stationed in Washington doing lobbying for our products. We played both sides of the isle Defensive and Offensive weapons.

 

That's off-base. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the media...when that media is friendly to their biases. For proof of that look no further than this forum when you have folks from both sides dismissing media outlets friendly to their opponents viewpoints.

 

Natalia Poklonskaya
Empress and Protector of Ukraine

 

True, I was hypothesizing,

both R and D generally go with the media because it is pro war,
and they get money for reelection from the 'defense industry'.

There are many examples of both parties taking the same side,
Afghanistan House 420 for war, 1 against, Senate 98-0 for war
Vietnam 2 votes against in Senate, 416 for 0 against in the house when the only
evidence was a photo of a bullet in some sheet metal of the USS Maddox,
it's ok to escalate that to a very big war.

The US frequently denies actually starting the war, despite having
started it, but is fond of escalating war.

When it comes to the opportunity to have a war, both parties agree.

 

All politicians should be banned from owning any stock related to the defense industry.

 

Where have you “found” this at?

While you are looking up your “sources” — care to answer what is the political leanings of the most watched cable news network? (Hint: it’s the one that just lost a billion dollar lawsuit over lying which is viewers still assert was the truth)

 

That Democrats believe the media and Republicans don't is just from my own experience,
I don't have a statistical or a logical basis, so I've abandoned that idea.

I'm very skeptical of any odd bits I see of the media but prefer RFKjr for President
over DJT, so I'm a counter example too.

That really was a crappy theory.