Most people still rely on mainstream news sources regarding issues of a geopolitical nature, this despite recent times where it became clear the information consumed strayed very far from actuality. I wonder if those in the higher echelons of the BBC, CNN and others have an inkling, through the comments to their online videos and articles, of how they are ruining any remaining reputation for impartiality they retain regarding news of a geopolitical nature? Ever more people are looking deeper into the true genesis of the conflict in Ukraine and see precisely and very clearly that the BBC, CNN and their ilk are merely a mouthpiece for western state officialdom. The BBC make claim after claim to be impartial. This claim is very obviously wrong on its face when its coverage is compared to reality in cases where western state interests are concerned. You need only look at the coverage of events in Ukraine from 2014 onward to see this at its most starkly obvious. CNN don’t rise to the level of blatant deception on this score. No claim is made by them to be impartial and their coverage can be said to be somewhat more straightforwardly biased. Other mainstream news outlets across the West are a mix of the two approaches by those above: Claimed impartiality or An absence of claims of impartiality while inferring truth-telling (where in most cases where the content consists of opinion-spreading; opinions reflecting western state-promulgated narratives). In effect, all western mainstream broadcasters claiming to deliver news services, either maintain cultural blindness, actively censor or self-censor to produce a service that cannot help but semi-deceive rather than enlighten. And this is putting things at their mildest. At worst we see an active intent to deceive, to mould the mind of every listener, reader or viewer, into the required mentality seen as most useful to whatever western state they may live in. As Chomsky has pointed out, those who have obtained employment at the highest levels of these mainstream news/media organisations are there solely because they survived the filtering process to weed out those who would report in a different way. Those who pass the test arrive within an elite environment where connections to other elite environments such as those of the political sphere are encouraged, nurtured and are indeed inevitable. Thus we receive all the “news” that fits. The mould that this “news” fits within can then be clearly seen to have a very certain inevitability to it. “News” that emerges from environments where state pressure, or the pressure of required income from advertising, cannot help but be tainted by numerous pressures to conform to certain requirements. It will ALWAYS be tainted due to this and at times where ‘national interests’ of western nations are at stake the “news” received from this source becomes almost totally one-sided in favour of those western states who are most directly involved and very certainly and universally against those who western states are opposing. Finding untainted news that closely reflects reality can only be achieved after a diligent, long-term search across non-mainstream sources. These sources may be in book form or via the internet after once again, careful and diligent research into who may be a trusted reporter of actuality rather than a source paid to spread misinformation. The search involved requires to be thorough, matching statements made to the historical record until, over time, a level of trust for certain individuals and groups is built. Only in this way can we feel we are being accurately informed. Not that gullibility or prejudice based on our own personal convictions should generate particular enthusiasm in this context. Maintaining a keen eye for actuality rather than wishful-thinking modes of operation is vital. In any event, the mainstream “news” environment ought to be avoided at all costs and in all cases as it operates essentially and extremely insidiously as an arm of the state in times of war.

View Entire Post