One day, a group of American moms decided to visit a neighboring school, to learn about that school’s particular way of teaching – personalized learning, it was called. So, they piled into the car, and drove there, which, by the way, was across the border in Canada. Accomplishing their mission, they had a little free time left, so they went souvenir shopping. Picking up a few things, on the way out, one of them saw Kinder Eggs, a small hollow chocolate egg that has a toy mystery prize inside. Thinking it would be a fun gift, the woman bought several and the group got back into the car and headed home. Upon crossing the border, the guards asked the group if they had anything in the vehicle that they didn’t have when they had earlier crossed the border. Two women responded – “books, mugs and Kinder Eggs”. Upon hearing this, they were asked to pull around the corner and get out of the car and then follow him inside. That’s right. In case you didn’t know, would-be smugglers of contraband, it is forbidden to import Kinder Eggs into America. Even though the German children’s candy is sold all around the world, authorities in America have decided that the small toy inside could be a choking hazard, and, in their bid to save you from yourself, have decided to take the proper course of action.
This past week and month, for that matter, has been awash with all kinds of stories about news, fake news, what fake news might be and how to combat it. Riding on a legitimate wave of fake stories written to purely make money off clicks, the momentum has been high. But the problem here is that many of the fake news stories and those specifically dealing with hacking, Russian hacking, to be exact, all have anonymous sources.
Take for instance, the Prop Or Not website that listed 200 sources such as Zerohedge and Drudge as being fake news. But, who is Prop Or Not? And how long have they been around?
Well, the answer to that is a mystery, and, as the Wall Street On Parade has pointed out, “(The business is registered at a specific location in New Mexico)…..That’s one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses associated with it.” That’s right. It is essentially a shell company designed to be non-transparent. Of course, that didn’t stop the Washington Post from running with the story. And how long have they been around? At least since August, since that is when the Twitter handle/feed was established. That’s right, August, as in just a few months ago. Probably around the same time that the Clinton’s camp’s internal numbers reflected something other than the publically released polls. And while that is speculation, there is one word to describe the group – Mysterious!
While anonymous sources might have traditionally had their place in journalism, they should at least be equal to or have the same weight in the conversation as those with accredited sources, such as when the Daily Mail ran a story called “Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails — they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers.” That’s right. A person, a real person, with a name and a face and even, at one time, a person of authority, has stepped forward and claimed that he personally was handed the information that was passed on to Wikileaks – which means, no hackers!
In that article on the Daily Mail, we can read that “A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers — and not hacked by Russia. Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.” Specifically, in that article, Murray said: 'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.” Why hasn’t this been in the mainstream news? Why hasn’t this man had his rounds on TV to explain what he has gone record saying?
And what about the story about the US intelligence agencies, again, according to the DM, that — “….have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump”? Well, Craig Murray answered that question as well when he said: “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' Interesting, right? And what could the Bernie Sanders’ camp have had concern with? What would have bothered them so much? Could it have been the fact that the Democratic primary was rigged? That their candidate never had a chance, and that his participation was for nothing except a dog and a pony show? Naw, it was clearly the Russians!
And what is key take-away from all of this? That there are questions about America’s democracy? That the Democrats have had a losing hand had for years now, which has been reflected in the fact that they have continued to shed seats at all levels, be it the local, state or national? That they should re-think their positions to re-align them what the voters actually want? Once again, comrade, you would be wrong. The answer is simply to control the narrative, and that is simply this: everything is fake, except what we say!
As proof of this, NBC news recently ran a story that noted: “After weeks of user outcry over the issue of fake news on the site, Facebook has finally come up with ways to strip its News Feed of the controversial hoax stories that led to accusations that the social giant had swayed voters in the presidential election. The site rolled out a suite of new tools that will allow users to flag anything they consider "disputed." In fact, a Facebook spokesman was quoted as saying – “We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we're approaching this problem carefully". Which sounds pretty fair, right?
NBC news continued by noting that – “The next step in Facebook's plan to rid the site of fake news involves sending flagged stories to third-party fact-checking organizations, which include Snopes, Politifact, and Factcheck.org.” And that also sounds pretty good, right? Give questionable articles to a 3rd party fact checking organization to make sure everything is on the level. But, as an article on Zerohedge pointed out, “legitimate news outlets won't be able to be flagged", because, as we know, they only publish the truth!
So, what do you think, dear listeners – “Is mainstream media saving you from yourself?”
We'd love to get your feedback at firstname.lastname@example.org.