Phony Journalism

ELDER PATRIOT – George Stephanopoulos apologized this week for making donations to the Clinton Global Fund.  Seriously George?  You, as well as anyone, should know the Clinton’s penchant for corruption and self-enrichment.  On second thought, given Hillary’s penchant for shutting out the media, perhaps you made those donations to maintain access to the Clintons.  Either way, like Dan Rather before you, this shreds any claims you may have had to journalistic objectivity.



Here’s more evidence of lapdog Progressive journalism.  Last year, the term “denier” appeared in news stories at least 3183 times.  Its purpose is to denigrate those who challenge the theory of man-made climate change.  Even those who accept the theory but do not acknowledge its urgency, or the ability of man to address the problem in a meaningful way cannot escape this pejorative.

Politicians, who embrace man-made climate change and our ability to reverse it in any significant manner, use the term “consensus” to add weight to their argument.  The media repeats the term like parrots even though scientific theory always demands continued analysis.  It wasn’t until the mid 16th century that Copernicus broke with the prevailing scientific consensus and theorized that the sun was the center of our solar system.

This same media ignores reporting that many of those “scientists” gathering the data and writing the conclusions are dependent on government grants from politicians.  Many of these scientists, recognizing the political quid pro quo necessary to keep the grants flowing, find ways to get the data and report to provide their financial masters with what they want.  Any student who has taken a lab course knows how easy this is to do.



Radical (noun); a person who favors extreme changes in government: a person who has radical political opinions.  Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The mainstream media regularly employs the term “radical” to describe politicians who believe their power is limited by the strict interpretation of the Constitution.  No matter how you analyze their position, they cannot be said to be radical.

Whatever your political viewpoint, a person asserting “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” better fits the definition of radical.

Describing Ted Cruz as a “right-wing radical” while suggesting Barack Obama is a centrist turns our language on its head.


The term “jobless recovery” is another highly used phrase to describe the anemic growth in GDP since the Bush-Obama multi-trillion dollar stimulus.  With less people working, any growth in profits has to translate into a greater concentration of wealth among fewer people.  This can only be considered a recovery if the economic health of the country is more important than the economic health of its citizens.  Clearly, for the majority of Americans who are financially weaker, there has been no recovery.


Why does the mainstream media consistently convolute the language in order to define negatively those whose views differ with their progressive agenda?  The answer may lie in the sheeple who are be easily influenced by short sound bites and the use of pejoratives.

A recent Gallup poll gaging “trust and confidence on the media reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” the responses revealed a whopping 60% (24% not at all, 36% not very much) don’t trust the media.  In any other business customers responding in such a manner would trigger a change in product.  Why not here?

Why would mainstream network news and print media continue playing to small audiences and while willingly accepting losing money?

Perhaps it is because elections are decided by only a few percentage points and it is clear that no amount of money will move the ideologically entrenched to change their vote.  The battle for the deciding votes, therefore, comes down to those who have no political ideology that guides them.  To a large degree these are people who pay little attention to politics but who feel it is their obligation to vote once every two or four years.  Short sound bites and denigrating statements about the opponents (the politics of personal destruction) are more effective with this group of voters than complicated discussions on policy.

David Rockefeller realized the potential for electoral success that comes with controlling the media message to this voting block.  He became determined to own or direct a large enough conglomeration of mainstream news sources with the intention of controlling the outcome of elections.  This is evidenced by the large number of media outlets under the control of only a few corporations.

Thomas Jefferson advised us: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

As a society, we would do well to reclaim control over our education system and demand the mainstream media be broken apart.

About Elder Patriot 119 Articles
Elder Patriot has a bachelor degree in political science and an MBA. He has worked in management for major corporations and as an entrepreneur. He has sat on boards as both a director and as a trustee. His interaction with media members, senators and representatives has been significant and form the basis for his writings and his beliefs.
Loading Facebook Comments ...