By now everyone knows about the scandal surrounding a BBC Panorama documentary called Trump: A Second Chance? This piece aired just days before the presidential election on 28 October 2024, and included a retrospective segment on Trump’s 6 January speech at the Ellipse near the White House.
What's the common theme here with ARD, BBC, NPR and PBS?
They are all publicly funded. There's the real problem.
The people working for these publicly funded organizations never suffer consequences. Yes, maybe the occasional head rolls, but for the most part, no matter what these organizations do, it’s always business as usual. It’s untouchable because, as with all bureaucracies, the taxpayers, who cannot take their money and go away, end up paying the price.
When our institutions grievously violate people’s trust and rights in ways that justify legal consequences, the individual bureaucrats walk away. Even if a few get fired, if what they did appealed to leftist sensibilities, they end up having cush paid gigs at news outlets or get massive book deals (which always have the smell of money laundering about them). The only ones who suffer are the trapped taxpayers.
So the obvious solution then is to remove taxpayer funding and let these organizations stand on its own merit and financing from investors.
Completely agree. The idea of taxpayer funded internal news should be illegal and is anathema to a free people. But we also need to consider the secret government funding to the "private" corporate media via the intelligence agencies. Also, we need to eliminate government funding of social media influencers. There is (or was) a massive amount of taxpayer money channeled via the Democrats to influencers in efforts to shape our response to the scamdemic, other government policies/actions, and the elections.
Just like Tony Hall (director at BBC) claimed, the BBC cannot be punished because the organization just passes those costs on to a public that is forced to fund it. And you know what? He’s right. The problem is that he thinks that’s a good thing.
We can pay $5/month to subscribe to a Stack (to actually get truth) and cancel without reprisal. Try canceling your yearly "payment" to NPR and PBS, of just over $500/year, and see if you don't end up in jail.
Add Canada's CBC to your publicly funded broadcasters list (at least CA$1.44 billion plus millions more added with the latest Liberals budget), as well as some of the other legacy media that Canadian taxpayers are forced to support.
Why just remove public funding? It's known they are malign, if they remain owned by the government it means a future government can just shut them down entirely. There's no need to allow the left keep these institutions alive when they could simply be liquidated instead.
I think Trump dropped funding of PBS and NPR, unless I’m mistaken?
The fact of the matter is, people WILL gravitate toward truth, once they see it and hear it. This goes for normal things, be they journalistic, spiritual, —-all the things. We ought to be able to NOT fund junk. I pay $500/yr to read 1 substack. He writes l every single day, and the paid subscribers get access to an extra article on Sundays. I promise, if I got say $200/yr back from NOT having to fork over taxes for PBS and NPR, I’d buy more subscriptions to TRUTH tellers.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but for you to get subscriptions the first requirement would be to write understandably and legibly, by correcting your spelling and syntax.
Yes, it was a bit of a train wreck. I was typing via phone, with a swollen thumb, and was very distracted at the moment. I fixed it, somewhat, but I am not attempting to gain subscribers. I was saying I’d happily pay others for excellent material were I not forced to pay for PBS, etc., by way of taxes.
Because, if you remove the public funding, you kill the root of the problem. The propaganda agency itself is crushed. Individuals don't matter; institutions do.
No, what happens is they just replace the lost funding with a mix of subscriptions and Gates Foundation / EU money, then continue exactly as before.
If you want to crush these agencies you need to crush them. Retain ownership then lay off all the staff and liquidate the assets. You don't let them just replace one source of unaccountable funding with another in the false hope that it will indirectly solve the problem.
You cannot run a huge network like BBC or CBC off grants from things like Gates Foundation. EU is irrelevant; that's just more government money. Money matters. Kill the funding and you kill the institution.
Besides, it's not clear that the EU will survive more than another ten years. Its finances are entirely dependent on Germany. And Germany is deindustrializing. Hence, no money for EU and any of its patronage games.
Grants already fund them, just not absolutely. And off course you can. Look at how much money McKenzie Bezos has given away in just the last few years. She could single handedly fund the BBC and her wealth would still grow.
No grants are completely inadequate for this. Look at PBS. The trimming of its government support is destroying that network. PBS has been terminating news programs across its entire network. Its president has said that it will be closing stations and winding up operations by the end of next year. Voice of America is finished now.
So all the actual evidence indicates that I am right here. Crush the institution and the rats flee in all directions for their lives. This is what's actually happening now.
Australia’s theirABC did exactly the same thing but the managing director said the criticism by Chris Kenny on Sky after Dark, (not related to horrible Sky in Britain) was ‘opportunistic’ and not the same. It’s still there too.
They also did a documentary on their flagship ‘Four Corners ‘ show- equivalent to Panorama about the Russia Hoax as fact. It is still up with spooky music and commentary by the interrupter in chief, Sarah Ferguson.
We want it defunded. Their ABC is a conservative free zone.
I wonder what it feels like to be a progressive and watch MSNBC and other mainstream networks. This is about the 1,000th time they have been lied to, each time bad orange man slips through their fingers yet again.
Don't they start questioning things? Or are they just so gullible that they will believe anything as long as the man/woman/maddow on TV says it's true?
I don’t know because I don’t watch it. I have friends who do and tell me about it. I am always astounded. They just believe the tripe that they are sold. It is usually older people who have always trusted theirABC. They just done see it as lies. It’s ourABC and revered. I just see it all no matter what as propaganda. Their coverage during covid was appalling. They hate Trump because they believe the lies.
What a neat trick. You garner bipartisan support for a public media entity to serve those who are “underserved”; and then slowly weasel you way into complete operational control, in such a way for it to be virtually impossible to be remove.
And, voila! - another big step towards information dominance - right out of the Alinsky / Marxist / Fascist / DNC playbook. Success! Irreversible success!
To carry this 1 step further: by suppressing/censoring the thousands that of voices warning of the carnage created by the modRNA* toxic "DeathVax" gene injections, these publicly funded news carriers (but also Google / Youtube / Twitter / etc - you name them) have committed the clear crime of assisting manslaughter. NO ESCAPING THIS FACT. Mistakes were not made. The damage was intentional. Key politicians knew. Pfizer carrying out the US Gvt. order for a military counterweapon, imposed on European vassal states by NATO command.
Question of time only until millions out there with pitch forks. No way I would like to change places with ANYONE involved in the mass killing, including maiming of pregnant women and children, an abominable satanic action**
But clearly not yanked enough because npr.org is still online. This is why I say you can't just take away public funding from these orgs. That's 20th century classical conservatism speaking, it doesn't work. If you want to solve PBS and NPR, they need to be shut down entirely. As in, they go dark and the domain names go up for sale, 100% layoffs.
It is impossible for a government funded "news" outlet to speak truth to power because they are either part of that power structure or benefit from it. And beings as they are part of our bureaucratic State...they always win by grifterism or their paycheck.
Government run media is crucial to the rights of future generations.
European nations have explained that they recognize no private right to keep and bear arms, because protection of the public is the responsibility of an armed government.
"Public" media exists so as to be ready to take up the slack when private speech and press undergo the same evolution.
Is there anyone besides you who relates the truth in the whole of Europe. The leaderships are ignoramic globalists. They have destroyed freedom and their countries all for power and money
This is true, but like in America as in most of the world, taxpayer money is always used to pay off and defend public officials who commit grievous errors of judgment and crimes. It is usually not even disclosed to the taxpayers if possible. These people at ARD are just typical face of a bureaucratic stooge.
The shareholders bear responsibility for what their creation has done. They might be involuntary shareholders in one sense but, as long as a nation is representative and clings to democratic ideals, the public is responsible for what its government does including enacting draconian Orwellian laws against themselves. People are strange sang Jim Morrison.
That is true except where elections are rigged. The population that depends on major media for truth will never get it but they believe sold-out media that tells them only what they want the public to know. They are irresponsible voters
But yeah, c'est moi -- Jim Wiggins as indicated in that open letter, at least that's who I "self-identify" as 😉🙂. Hard to imagine a more "barking mad" idea -- as Kathleen Stock once put it -- than self-identification. A real puzzle how it ever became the law of the land in the UK and elsewhere. Nice that Trump's policy on passports is putting a wooden stake through the heart of the concept, at least its justification.
On 22Nov25 Substack Coffee & COVID blog, Jeff Chambers highlights the US State Dept new approach w Foreign Government behavior w their citizens - should apply here (US Embassies are tasked) “Officials will also report policies that punish citizens who object to continued mass migration and document crimes and human rights abuses
committed by people of a migration background.”
Citizen truth tellers s/b protected for blowing the whistle on their Government that is lying about violating laws, committing crimes and censuring citizens for actions speaking out…
"They also insist that their reporting aligns with “established standards of journalistic practice”" Well yes, it does. The standards just don't include reporting accurately on political opponents.
Knowing that this government interacts with RW poasters there's a decent chance someone will see this and bring it to the attention of someone higher up. Fingers crossed for our state media getting sued.
Norwegian state broadcaster NRK also did the exact same thing. Here however there have been no resignations, only a non-apology along the lines of pointing to an "unfortunate error". There has been a short debate, but 90 % of establishment press and politicians agree that Trump is a heinous threat to Our Democracy and therefore quietly or overtly condone any means that conveys that undeniable truth, including obvious lies.
The propagandistic gaul required to manipulate an historic speach that is freely available on the internet for all to see in full, is quite amazing. It shows the bitter divorce from reality these people have experienced, which is also evident in the persistent persuasion that the protest of some 100s of unarmed men with no plan or demands on J6, inspired by a presidential insinuation, was an attempted "coup" of the worlds greatest super power. That delusion seems to have directly inspired the manipulation of the speach - they think it brought people closer to the truth.
It's a strategy; when these talking points (narrative) "spontaneously" emerge from thin air, and is immediately everywhere at the same time, you can bet its orchestrated.
It's not a coincidence; it's planned and exist to simply manufacture consent, and what is acceptable to think and say for their audiences.
I remember (but have been repeatedly thwarted in locating) a cartoon in the style of Booth, in which an old, shabbily dressed man sits in a room furnished only with a table and a hanging naked light bulb. He's on the phone, saying, "Perfect. Now destabilize the peso."
I imagine this man whenever "coincidences" like these occur.
"The propagandistic gaul required" confused me greatly at first, because the degree to which the French are propagandistic is debatable, but then I realized you must have meant "gall".
Both Swedish and Norwegian TV did the same thing. At this point I wonder if it's quicker to list the European countries that aren't lying about Trump. It's also interesting how in every case the edit is almost exactly the same.
Also alarming, nobody noticed!! This wasn't spotted by the general public. It only came to light due to a whistleblower inside the BBC. It makes you realize how effective this propaganda actually is, that so many TV channels can outright fake video of a widely published speech and nobody notices.
> It's also interesting how in every case the edit is almost exactly the same.
Well, all 1500 or so Western News media, TV etc. (not so sure about social media but probably same) are owned by three people / organizations. Remember "Trusted News Initiative"? So easy to explain why everyone is parroting the same thing. Where it gets interesting is WHO or WHAT is actually generating the propaganda. Everyone knows who is in charge of Blackrock & co. and who they are working for and there you have the answer.
Yet another message to destabilized and destroy traditional values in the west originating from "you know whom" in ALL public media regardless of country. Another thing for Trump to pick up
With the background of all that I particularly enjoyed Trump yesterday telling Mamdani it was fine to go ahead and call him a fascist. To quote that woman who thank God will still never be President--"at this point, what difference does it make?"
Much more sobering is how many of the electorate in all our nations continue to believe every lie slathered all over us from 2016 onward. All public media seem mighty insurrectionary against truth, don't they?
So glad to know my advice was helpful to you. If only I could be The Vitamin Fairy...
...and--there is something a little bit miraculous when people encounter the people they need just at the moment they need them. It would be accurate to say that for my entire life I've experienced a succession of miraculous encounters..
I understand and accept the perspective of this post, however, the reason that Trump is threatening to sue is not because of lies, etc in and of themselves. It's because the BBC has a large audience in the US (Americans have always been suckers for that English accent) and those lies will be regarded truth-telling by a lot of people.
I doubt the German media has that large of a footprint in the US and thus, regardless of the lies, they wouldn't be sued because they're irrelevant.
British Slander and Libel laws are *vastly* more draconian than those in the US. In the US, truth is always a defense against such charges. Not so in the UK. In the UK, a person can be successfully sued for libel or slander even if what they are reporting on is 100% true.
Obviously, I have no idea of the state o the relevant law in Germany. Though some of the ones about "maligning public officials" (or whatever the official phrasing is), if not written to clearly specify *German* public officials, might be an exceedingly amusing weapon to turn around on them. You know, the sort of thing that sees pensioners sued to hell and back and fined for posting poop emojis.
I believe Trump used "election interference" as a legal reason, which is on the books, and has been used successfully But how that would work against the BBC, I don't know. The first question to be answered would be venue, i.e. WHERE the suit would be filed and tried, which would in turn depend on whether the UK has any legislation concerning "election interference."
There is jurisdiction in the US because the BBC publishes (its broadcasts are watched) widely in the US. President Trump will have a wide selection of favorable jurisdictions in which to file his suit. The BBC's abuse is so gross as to raise the question of the continuance of the mandatory subscription fee, which I have read accounts for about 65% of its revenue. It is unconscionable that people should be forced to pay for propaganda directed at misleading them.
You'll be pleased to know that the BBC has been losing licence fee payers (as they're called) at an accelerating rate over the last few years. The fee is payable by any household with a television set OR where anyone streams *live* BBC content.
The younger audience has no use for TV and uses other media and the older audience is increasingly disenchanted with the content or the increasingly apparent bias in the journalism and the progressive tone of all content including drama and "comedy" shows.
I find this BBC thing to be absolutely baffling. I can't tell if this is an Europe vs North America thing, or if it's a normie vs autism thing, but as I've said several times before, the facts of the situation make it obviously a lie to anyone with half a brain (because, you know, you can just go actually watch the speech on whitehouse.gov and verify for yourself what it says. It's not like that's a secret or anything). And if something is an obvious lie and people still believe it, that's at least partly on them.
I want to step back for a second and consider another angle of it, because this is much more general than even just politics. Literally, this is a super power, all you have to do is believe it. It's harder than it looks, to believe it; everyone says they believe it, but few actually act that way.
This is the super power: the world makes sense in principle. Causality exists, and the universe that we experience is mathematically continuous. Or, in less fancy, formal terms: miracles don't real.
And you know what would be 'miraculous', at least for very nefarious definitions of miracles? If the people on earth most hype about democracy suddenly intentionally voted for a nazi and enthusiastically lined up behind him as he smashed their most sacred cultural traditions.
I'm not gonna say that's impossible, for what I hope in a German blog is obvious reasons. But what is impossible is to have the following transition:
1) Everyone loves democracy
2) Trump says "We're gonna go there and fight like hell" in the middle of a half hour long speech
3) Everyone is now nazis, but still thinks they believe in democracy
That's not possible. That is insane. Anyone who would look at that fact pattern and not throw it out is suffering from schizophrenia. People wouldn't just flip, by the tens of thousands, on a dime like that. And, if they had flipped, Trump wouldn't have to 'pretend to still believe in democracy' by only ever speaking in democracy euphemisms and only once, ever, say something that, only with malicious framing, sounds threatening (and he didn't even say that, it's a doctored clip!)
Any person with a brain could figure this out. It has nothing to do with philosophy or politics, it's human instinct and common sense. If you don't have that, you're not a human, you're an animal. Apparently, for three years, not one person in the UK rose to the level of 'a human being', and so I really cannot find it in myself to be mad at the BBC over this
Which is exceptionally funny because my default position is that everyone at teh BBC should be sacked, as in, have the ballsack removed so they can't reproduce, and the institution shrivels and dies with them. But, I mean, when the incredibly sketchy guy who's been loitering all day, steals from you, that's really more on you for not locking your door, know what I mean?
Trump should sue them and indicate that the billions will be split between all the J6ers whose lives were destroyed. They were actually physically harmed and should be paid.
How dare you criticise the impartiality of the BBC.
Much like the Guardian in the UK it too is a bastion of fearless integrity and fearless investigative journalism, totally uninfluenced by big tec, bigpharma and all billionaires with vested interests - who don't give them any money anyway.
Just think how wonderfully educated a naive public has been educated by them in :-
1. Lockdowns, masking and the world saving mmRNA vaccines.
2. How dangerous CO2 is.
3. The benefits of wokeism - no place for meritocracy in our brave new world, minority groups must be protected, it's only fair.
4. The benefits of going to war with that nasty Putin, we must go to war in order to have peace you see.
5. The undeniable benefits of multiculturism and unfettered immigration.
6. The benefits of digital identity to be followed by CB ie government, digital control/currency.
Plus having a mind of your own and speaking up is right wing and antisocial and you will lose your citizen's rights and run the risk of being debanked and deplatformed, and lots of other things the psychopaths have come up with and are trying to implement with their agendas
The arrogance of the journalists at BBC and elsewhere is just stunning. And the mainstream media is still more or less defending them ( see the Economist). And the worst of all is that most governments are desperately trying to muzzle and control the independent internet media like you, like Taibbi, Greenwald, Rogan, etc etc.
The Emser Depesche was a diplomatic communication sent by Otto von Bismarck in 1870 that contributed to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. It involved a report on a meeting between the Prussian king and the French ambassador, which Bismarck edited to provoke France into declaring war.
Thank you for that explanation, because that turn of phrase greatly confused me. That said, there can be no doubt that that particular war was far from the only one started by a lie.
What's the common theme here with ARD, BBC, NPR and PBS?
They are all publicly funded. There's the real problem.
The people working for these publicly funded organizations never suffer consequences. Yes, maybe the occasional head rolls, but for the most part, no matter what these organizations do, it’s always business as usual. It’s untouchable because, as with all bureaucracies, the taxpayers, who cannot take their money and go away, end up paying the price.
When our institutions grievously violate people’s trust and rights in ways that justify legal consequences, the individual bureaucrats walk away. Even if a few get fired, if what they did appealed to leftist sensibilities, they end up having cush paid gigs at news outlets or get massive book deals (which always have the smell of money laundering about them). The only ones who suffer are the trapped taxpayers.
So the obvious solution then is to remove taxpayer funding and let these organizations stand on its own merit and financing from investors.
Problem solved.
Completely agree. The idea of taxpayer funded internal news should be illegal and is anathema to a free people. But we also need to consider the secret government funding to the "private" corporate media via the intelligence agencies. Also, we need to eliminate government funding of social media influencers. There is (or was) a massive amount of taxpayer money channeled via the Democrats to influencers in efforts to shape our response to the scamdemic, other government policies/actions, and the elections.
Exactly.
Just like Tony Hall (director at BBC) claimed, the BBC cannot be punished because the organization just passes those costs on to a public that is forced to fund it. And you know what? He’s right. The problem is that he thinks that’s a good thing.
We can pay $5/month to subscribe to a Stack (to actually get truth) and cancel without reprisal. Try canceling your yearly "payment" to NPR and PBS, of just over $500/year, and see if you don't end up in jail.
Add Canada's CBC to your publicly funded broadcasters list (at least CA$1.44 billion plus millions more added with the latest Liberals budget), as well as some of the other legacy media that Canadian taxpayers are forced to support.
A typo/correction: it's CA$1.44 billion that the CBC has been getting annually.
Why just remove public funding? It's known they are malign, if they remain owned by the government it means a future government can just shut them down entirely. There's no need to allow the left keep these institutions alive when they could simply be liquidated instead.
I think Trump dropped funding of PBS and NPR, unless I’m mistaken?
The fact of the matter is, people WILL gravitate toward truth, once they see it and hear it. This goes for normal things, be they journalistic, spiritual, —-all the things. We ought to be able to NOT fund junk. I pay $500/yr to read 1 substack. He writes l every single day, and the paid subscribers get access to an extra article on Sundays. I promise, if I got say $200/yr back from NOT having to fork over taxes for PBS and NPR, I’d buy more subscriptions to TRUTH tellers.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but for you to get subscriptions the first requirement would be to write understandably and legibly, by correcting your spelling and syntax.
Yes, it was a bit of a train wreck. I was typing via phone, with a swollen thumb, and was very distracted at the moment. I fixed it, somewhat, but I am not attempting to gain subscribers. I was saying I’d happily pay others for excellent material were I not forced to pay for PBS, etc., by way of taxes.
Screw him. Hes an insecure baby.
Who is? Wim?
You are forgiven. And I have the advantage of NEVER, EVER having typed on a cell phone.
I subscribe to eugyppius - for the education and the wit, shining through any typos. https://youtu.be/qmVnr7rsWrE?si=tbYrueOpuBV2aSgd
Ive never met a pedant that wasn't a passive aggressive prick.
Thanks for making it as sound a theory as gravity.
You want to take me on in math test and then have me punk you in public?
I didn't think so.
Because, if you remove the public funding, you kill the root of the problem. The propaganda agency itself is crushed. Individuals don't matter; institutions do.
No, what happens is they just replace the lost funding with a mix of subscriptions and Gates Foundation / EU money, then continue exactly as before.
If you want to crush these agencies you need to crush them. Retain ownership then lay off all the staff and liquidate the assets. You don't let them just replace one source of unaccountable funding with another in the false hope that it will indirectly solve the problem.
You cannot run a huge network like BBC or CBC off grants from things like Gates Foundation. EU is irrelevant; that's just more government money. Money matters. Kill the funding and you kill the institution.
Besides, it's not clear that the EU will survive more than another ten years. Its finances are entirely dependent on Germany. And Germany is deindustrializing. Hence, no money for EU and any of its patronage games.
Grants already fund them, just not absolutely. And off course you can. Look at how much money McKenzie Bezos has given away in just the last few years. She could single handedly fund the BBC and her wealth would still grow.
No grants are completely inadequate for this. Look at PBS. The trimming of its government support is destroying that network. PBS has been terminating news programs across its entire network. Its president has said that it will be closing stations and winding up operations by the end of next year. Voice of America is finished now.
So all the actual evidence indicates that I am right here. Crush the institution and the rats flee in all directions for their lives. This is what's actually happening now.
Oh. Now I see your point
Aren't we saying the same thing?
Or im I misinterpreting your comment?
Australia’s theirABC did exactly the same thing but the managing director said the criticism by Chris Kenny on Sky after Dark, (not related to horrible Sky in Britain) was ‘opportunistic’ and not the same. It’s still there too.
They also did a documentary on their flagship ‘Four Corners ‘ show- equivalent to Panorama about the Russia Hoax as fact. It is still up with spooky music and commentary by the interrupter in chief, Sarah Ferguson.
We want it defunded. Their ABC is a conservative free zone.
I wonder what it feels like to be a progressive and watch MSNBC and other mainstream networks. This is about the 1,000th time they have been lied to, each time bad orange man slips through their fingers yet again.
Don't they start questioning things? Or are they just so gullible that they will believe anything as long as the man/woman/maddow on TV says it's true?
No, there is no questioning from the faithful. TDS is a powerful foe.
Right?!
Its bizarre. I have two very close friends that are under the same spell. Its a spell, right?!
If not, I don't know what else to call it.
I don’t know because I don’t watch it. I have friends who do and tell me about it. I am always astounded. They just believe the tripe that they are sold. It is usually older people who have always trusted theirABC. They just done see it as lies. It’s ourABC and revered. I just see it all no matter what as propaganda. Their coverage during covid was appalling. They hate Trump because they believe the lies.
What a neat trick. You garner bipartisan support for a public media entity to serve those who are “underserved”; and then slowly weasel you way into complete operational control, in such a way for it to be virtually impossible to be remove.
And, voila! - another big step towards information dominance - right out of the Alinsky / Marxist / Fascist / DNC playbook. Success! Irreversible success!
Bingo! Well said
To carry this 1 step further: by suppressing/censoring the thousands that of voices warning of the carnage created by the modRNA* toxic "DeathVax" gene injections, these publicly funded news carriers (but also Google / Youtube / Twitter / etc - you name them) have committed the clear crime of assisting manslaughter. NO ESCAPING THIS FACT. Mistakes were not made. The damage was intentional. Key politicians knew. Pfizer carrying out the US Gvt. order for a military counterweapon, imposed on European vassal states by NATO command.
Question of time only until millions out there with pitch forks. No way I would like to change places with ANYONE involved in the mass killing, including maiming of pregnant women and children, an abominable satanic action**
* https://tkp.at/2025/11/06/gutachten-zu-covid-impfstoff-wer-noch-immer-mrna-schreibt-ist-entweder-boeswillig-oder-ahnungslos
** "if you believe in child sacrifice you vaccinate children" - Rabbi "Zev" Zelenko, R.I.P.
We yanked funding from PBS and NPR . That is , until the democrats win again
But clearly not yanked enough because npr.org is still online. This is why I say you can't just take away public funding from these orgs. That's 20th century classical conservatism speaking, it doesn't work. If you want to solve PBS and NPR, they need to be shut down entirely. As in, they go dark and the domain names go up for sale, 100% layoffs.
All they have to do is follow the example set by Trump: stop funding the leeches.
Exactly. That's what im saying.
It is impossible for a government funded "news" outlet to speak truth to power because they are either part of that power structure or benefit from it. And beings as they are part of our bureaucratic State...they always win by grifterism or their paycheck.
Talk about job security.
What he said.
Quite so. And when you call them on it, they will rub their eyes and mumble: "Really? Are you sure? I had no idea that the government was in my bed!"
Government run media is crucial to the rights of future generations.
European nations have explained that they recognize no private right to keep and bear arms, because protection of the public is the responsibility of an armed government.
"Public" media exists so as to be ready to take up the slack when private speech and press undergo the same evolution.
Is there anyone besides you who relates the truth in the whole of Europe. The leaderships are ignoramic globalists. They have destroyed freedom and their countries all for power and money
This is true, but like in America as in most of the world, taxpayer money is always used to pay off and defend public officials who commit grievous errors of judgment and crimes. It is usually not even disclosed to the taxpayers if possible. These people at ARD are just typical face of a bureaucratic stooge.
The shareholders bear responsibility for what their creation has done. They might be involuntary shareholders in one sense but, as long as a nation is representative and clings to democratic ideals, the public is responsible for what its government does including enacting draconian Orwellian laws against themselves. People are strange sang Jim Morrison.
That is true except where elections are rigged. The population that depends on major media for truth will never get it but they believe sold-out media that tells them only what they want the public to know. They are irresponsible voters
Indeed
Ministries of Truth, the lot of them. Pravda West.
Some "trans-gressions" are inadvertent, simply following the Party line, others are with "malice aforethought".
Couple of the usual suspects at Slate and the New York Times in my open and emailed letter to some "journalists" there:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/open-letters-ideological-capture
This awesome! You wrote that?
Thanks for the vote of confidence. 🙂
But yeah, c'est moi -- Jim Wiggins as indicated in that open letter, at least that's who I "self-identify" as 😉🙂. Hard to imagine a more "barking mad" idea -- as Kathleen Stock once put it -- than self-identification. A real puzzle how it ever became the law of the land in the UK and elsewhere. Nice that Trump's policy on passports is putting a wooden stake through the heart of the concept, at least its justification.
The Daily Sceptic blog is good and so is GB News in all its formats.
Guido Fawkes (www.order-order) can be good but they focus on immediacy rather than analysis.
On 22Nov25 Substack Coffee & COVID blog, Jeff Chambers highlights the US State Dept new approach w Foreign Government behavior w their citizens - should apply here (US Embassies are tasked) “Officials will also report policies that punish citizens who object to continued mass migration and document crimes and human rights abuses
committed by people of a migration background.”
Citizen truth tellers s/b protected for blowing the whistle on their Government that is lying about violating laws, committing crimes and censuring citizens for actions speaking out…
https://x.com/statedept/status/1991869227758920010?s=61
Hear ya , but don't get me wrong "THEY" are not ignorant, THEY knows exactly what to do to degrades you !!! Just saying
This dude is pretty good on Russia: https://substack.com/@edwardslavsquat
"They also insist that their reporting aligns with “established standards of journalistic practice”" Well yes, it does. The standards just don't include reporting accurately on political opponents.
Knowing that this government interacts with RW poasters there's a decent chance someone will see this and bring it to the attention of someone higher up. Fingers crossed for our state media getting sued.
Norwegian state broadcaster NRK also did the exact same thing. Here however there have been no resignations, only a non-apology along the lines of pointing to an "unfortunate error". There has been a short debate, but 90 % of establishment press and politicians agree that Trump is a heinous threat to Our Democracy and therefore quietly or overtly condone any means that conveys that undeniable truth, including obvious lies.
The propagandistic gaul required to manipulate an historic speach that is freely available on the internet for all to see in full, is quite amazing. It shows the bitter divorce from reality these people have experienced, which is also evident in the persistent persuasion that the protest of some 100s of unarmed men with no plan or demands on J6, inspired by a presidential insinuation, was an attempted "coup" of the worlds greatest super power. That delusion seems to have directly inspired the manipulation of the speach - they think it brought people closer to the truth.
Yes.
It's a strategy; when these talking points (narrative) "spontaneously" emerge from thin air, and is immediately everywhere at the same time, you can bet its orchestrated.
It's not a coincidence; it's planned and exist to simply manufacture consent, and what is acceptable to think and say for their audiences.
I remember (but have been repeatedly thwarted in locating) a cartoon in the style of Booth, in which an old, shabbily dressed man sits in a room furnished only with a table and a hanging naked light bulb. He's on the phone, saying, "Perfect. Now destabilize the peso."
I imagine this man whenever "coincidences" like these occur.
"Perfect. Now import ten million Muslims."
We're getting old. I vaguely remember that one.
Perfect analogy with that cartoon.
"The propagandistic gaul required" confused me greatly at first, because the degree to which the French are propagandistic is debatable, but then I realized you must have meant "gall".
lol yes. I was too lazy to google it.
Both Swedish and Norwegian TV did the same thing. At this point I wonder if it's quicker to list the European countries that aren't lying about Trump. It's also interesting how in every case the edit is almost exactly the same.
Also alarming, nobody noticed!! This wasn't spotted by the general public. It only came to light due to a whistleblower inside the BBC. It makes you realize how effective this propaganda actually is, that so many TV channels can outright fake video of a widely published speech and nobody notices.
Is this a concerted effort to discredit Trump thereby undermining his desire to subvert the EU's thirst for war with Putin?
No they lie about everything, not just Trump. They faked a video of Farage too.
I see. Similar to U.S. public broadcasting then.
> It's also interesting how in every case the edit is almost exactly the same.
Well, all 1500 or so Western News media, TV etc. (not so sure about social media but probably same) are owned by three people / organizations. Remember "Trusted News Initiative"? So easy to explain why everyone is parroting the same thing. Where it gets interesting is WHO or WHAT is actually generating the propaganda. Everyone knows who is in charge of Blackrock & co. and who they are working for and there you have the answer.
Yet another message to destabilized and destroy traditional values in the west originating from "you know whom" in ALL public media regardless of country. Another thing for Trump to pick up
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/parents-accuse-bbc-harming-kids-through-pro-trans-bias-childrens-programming
With the background of all that I particularly enjoyed Trump yesterday telling Mamdani it was fine to go ahead and call him a fascist. To quote that woman who thank God will still never be President--"at this point, what difference does it make?"
Much more sobering is how many of the electorate in all our nations continue to believe every lie slathered all over us from 2016 onward. All public media seem mighty insurrectionary against truth, don't they?
The Pelican Brief, Part Deux.
Speaking of salmon, some (one) eagle(s) out on the shore looking for such -- slim pickings at the moment.
Be sure to hydrate well!
So glad to know my advice was helpful to you. If only I could be The Vitamin Fairy...
...and--there is something a little bit miraculous when people encounter the people they need just at the moment they need them. It would be accurate to say that for my entire life I've experienced a succession of miraculous encounters..
Yes! So right
I understand and accept the perspective of this post, however, the reason that Trump is threatening to sue is not because of lies, etc in and of themselves. It's because the BBC has a large audience in the US (Americans have always been suckers for that English accent) and those lies will be regarded truth-telling by a lot of people.
I doubt the German media has that large of a footprint in the US and thus, regardless of the lies, they wouldn't be sued because they're irrelevant.
This is why I stopped short of suggesting a lawsuit, also because I am uncertain about the grounds for a suit even against the BBC.
British Slander and Libel laws are *vastly* more draconian than those in the US. In the US, truth is always a defense against such charges. Not so in the UK. In the UK, a person can be successfully sued for libel or slander even if what they are reporting on is 100% true.
Obviously, I have no idea of the state o the relevant law in Germany. Though some of the ones about "maligning public officials" (or whatever the official phrasing is), if not written to clearly specify *German* public officials, might be an exceedingly amusing weapon to turn around on them. You know, the sort of thing that sees pensioners sued to hell and back and fined for posting poop emojis.
Fair enough.
I believe Trump used "election interference" as a legal reason, which is on the books, and has been used successfully But how that would work against the BBC, I don't know. The first question to be answered would be venue, i.e. WHERE the suit would be filed and tried, which would in turn depend on whether the UK has any legislation concerning "election interference."
There is jurisdiction in the US because the BBC publishes (its broadcasts are watched) widely in the US. President Trump will have a wide selection of favorable jurisdictions in which to file his suit. The BBC's abuse is so gross as to raise the question of the continuance of the mandatory subscription fee, which I have read accounts for about 65% of its revenue. It is unconscionable that people should be forced to pay for propaganda directed at misleading them.
Ah, but you overlook that propaganda is vital -- if your goal is "misleading them."
You'll be pleased to know that the BBC has been losing licence fee payers (as they're called) at an accelerating rate over the last few years. The fee is payable by any household with a television set OR where anyone streams *live* BBC content.
The younger audience has no use for TV and uses other media and the older audience is increasingly disenchanted with the content or the increasingly apparent bias in the journalism and the progressive tone of all content including drama and "comedy" shows.
Time will tell.
"Americans have always been suckers for that English accent"
Mea culpa. I blame puberty and Emma Peel.
You don't hate these journalists enough.
I find this BBC thing to be absolutely baffling. I can't tell if this is an Europe vs North America thing, or if it's a normie vs autism thing, but as I've said several times before, the facts of the situation make it obviously a lie to anyone with half a brain (because, you know, you can just go actually watch the speech on whitehouse.gov and verify for yourself what it says. It's not like that's a secret or anything). And if something is an obvious lie and people still believe it, that's at least partly on them.
I want to step back for a second and consider another angle of it, because this is much more general than even just politics. Literally, this is a super power, all you have to do is believe it. It's harder than it looks, to believe it; everyone says they believe it, but few actually act that way.
This is the super power: the world makes sense in principle. Causality exists, and the universe that we experience is mathematically continuous. Or, in less fancy, formal terms: miracles don't real.
And you know what would be 'miraculous', at least for very nefarious definitions of miracles? If the people on earth most hype about democracy suddenly intentionally voted for a nazi and enthusiastically lined up behind him as he smashed their most sacred cultural traditions.
I'm not gonna say that's impossible, for what I hope in a German blog is obvious reasons. But what is impossible is to have the following transition:
1) Everyone loves democracy
2) Trump says "We're gonna go there and fight like hell" in the middle of a half hour long speech
3) Everyone is now nazis, but still thinks they believe in democracy
That's not possible. That is insane. Anyone who would look at that fact pattern and not throw it out is suffering from schizophrenia. People wouldn't just flip, by the tens of thousands, on a dime like that. And, if they had flipped, Trump wouldn't have to 'pretend to still believe in democracy' by only ever speaking in democracy euphemisms and only once, ever, say something that, only with malicious framing, sounds threatening (and he didn't even say that, it's a doctored clip!)
Any person with a brain could figure this out. It has nothing to do with philosophy or politics, it's human instinct and common sense. If you don't have that, you're not a human, you're an animal. Apparently, for three years, not one person in the UK rose to the level of 'a human being', and so I really cannot find it in myself to be mad at the BBC over this
Which is exceptionally funny because my default position is that everyone at teh BBC should be sacked, as in, have the ballsack removed so they can't reproduce, and the institution shrivels and dies with them. But, I mean, when the incredibly sketchy guy who's been loitering all day, steals from you, that's really more on you for not locking your door, know what I mean?
Ja bitte!
Nice catch! And so let it be done. And let them be done.
Trump should sue them and indicate that the billions will be split between all the J6ers whose lives were destroyed. They were actually physically harmed and should be paid.
Swedish state TV immediately removed the offending edits when the news about the BBC's lies broke.
And have refused, as far as I know, to comment or even acknowledge that anything has happened or been done.
Yes, he should sue them.
Sue the sewage!
How dare you criticise the impartiality of the BBC.
Much like the Guardian in the UK it too is a bastion of fearless integrity and fearless investigative journalism, totally uninfluenced by big tec, bigpharma and all billionaires with vested interests - who don't give them any money anyway.
Just think how wonderfully educated a naive public has been educated by them in :-
1. Lockdowns, masking and the world saving mmRNA vaccines.
2. How dangerous CO2 is.
3. The benefits of wokeism - no place for meritocracy in our brave new world, minority groups must be protected, it's only fair.
4. The benefits of going to war with that nasty Putin, we must go to war in order to have peace you see.
5. The undeniable benefits of multiculturism and unfettered immigration.
6. The benefits of digital identity to be followed by CB ie government, digital control/currency.
Plus having a mind of your own and speaking up is right wing and antisocial and you will lose your citizen's rights and run the risk of being debanked and deplatformed, and lots of other things the psychopaths have come up with and are trying to implement with their agendas
The arrogance of the journalists at BBC and elsewhere is just stunning. And the mainstream media is still more or less defending them ( see the Economist). And the worst of all is that most governments are desperately trying to muzzle and control the independent internet media like you, like Taibbi, Greenwald, Rogan, etc etc.
Bear in mind that BBC journos often leave for other outlets for more cash then return to Auntie as they approach retirement to get the big pension.
SWR in Emser Depesche Mode ;-)
The Emser Depesche was a diplomatic communication sent by Otto von Bismarck in 1870 that contributed to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. It involved a report on a meeting between the Prussian king and the French ambassador, which Bismarck edited to provoke France into declaring war.
Thank you for that explanation, because that turn of phrase greatly confused me. That said, there can be no doubt that that particular war was far from the only one started by a lie.
I recall reading about that within the past 12 months in a book on European history.