This Media Generation Is Not Normal—Recent "Journalism" Atrocities Summarised

Takeaways from the U.S. election and summaries of the most egregious acts of "journalism".

Trump’s resounding victory meant different things to different people.

Some saw it as a rejection of lofty liberal policy that burdened the average American’s wallet. Some called it backlash against creeping authoritarianism. While others pointed to wokeism.

In truth, it was likely a mix of various factors. But one thing his landslide undoubtedly represented was a decisive rebuke of the media complex.

Yet again, you had nearly every major news network relentlessly hammering the bloke while very obviously championing his opponent.

This isn’t speculation. A recent study by the Media Research Center that analysed primetime newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC found 84% of Harris's coverage was positive, while Trump’s was 89% negative.

The hysteria perhaps reached its peak when MSNBC compared Trump’s campaign to Nazism, based chiefly on his choice of venue—because Nazi Fritz Julius Kuhn once spoke there some 8 and a half decades ago.

They failed to reference Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's speeches there in 1992 and 1976. Nor did their cameras capture the Israeli flags present that night:

Trump Rally at Madison Square Garden, October 28th 2024.

Put plainly, the lengths they went to were utterly absurd. And they didn’t lose, they got decimated—a result that would suggest the American public is again building up some immunity to an industry now defined by gaslighting.

It also got me thinking about the state of journalism. Specifically, how it was once a respected profession where objectivity triumphed. Now, subjectivity rules. It’s as much a betrayal to readers as it is to the profession.

So here follows a summary of some of the most atrocious acts of “journalism” involving high profile British and American outlets/journalists in recent months/years.

The hope being to remind readers of how bad the situation is, how we must not become desensitised to it and how we must continue to reject it—like our American cousins just did.

---

Smearing/Shaming

Kevin Maguire

In February, Scottish vaccine-injury victim John Watt confronted then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, urging him to "do the right thing" and expedite compensation for those harmed by the Covid jabs.

Watt described how his life “crumbled” after his third booster, which led to deteriorating health, specifically heart issues. The 38-year-old former joiner and carpenter also shared that he struggles to walk.

The following morning, Kevin Maguire, associate editor at the Daily Mirror, appeared on Good Morning Britain and called Watt an “anti-vaxxer,” further suggesting that Keir Starmer should avoid such encounters.

Here was a prominent editor of a major British newspaper resorting to ad hominem attacks against a victim who said his life had been upended, with no evidence to support his claim.

Conflicts of Interest

In September 2020, CNN published a measured report on a group of scientists warning about the potential risks of the Food and Drug Administration’s possible Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for the Covid vaccines.

Fast forward a few months, and CNN shifted its tone, running multiple reports that downplayed adverse events, even assuring readers that certain side effects from the vaccine were "a good sign."

This culminated in CNN naming Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, as their Business Person of the Year.

A 2022 report later revealed that Pfizer's global advertising spend was around $2.8 billion, focusing heavily on the U.S., where it stands as a major pharmaceutical advertiser. Although specific figures for CNN are undisclosed, Pfizer ads regularly appeared across various CNN programs.

Cheap Gotchas

Lewis Goodall

Five days before the U.S. election, former policy editor for the BBC’s flagship program Newsnight, Lewis Goodall, managed to “bluff” his way into Mar-a-Lago as a guest of a Republican Committeewoman to attend a press conference.

He seized a rare opportunity to question Trump. But instead of asking him question of substance—about the economy, immigration, healthcare—he asked, “Why shouldn’t we listen to John Kelly, Mr. Trump? He called you a fascist, sir.”

Goodall’s question referenced an unsubstantiated claim from Trump’s former advisor John Kelly days earlier, who alleged that Trump had praised Adolf Hitler during his time in office.

Note Trump campaign advisor Alex Pfeiffer had called the claim “absolutely false,” while former White House Senior Advisor Mercedes Schlapp dismissed it as a “personal vendetta.” Kayleigh McEnany, present at the alleged meeting, had also condemned Kelly’s remarks as lies.

Given a rare opportunity to question one of the world’s most influential figures, Goodall focused on a baseless rumour—maybe because it suited his agenda, maybe because he knew it would generate clicks.

Deceptive Video/Photo Editing

In September 2021, megastar podcast host Joe Rogan announced via social media that he had tested positive for Covid but was feeling well, crediting a mix of alternative treatments.

CNN aired Rogan's footage but altered it, giving him a sickly appearance, which was then shared on Anderson Cooper's primetime show.

The Associated Press defended CNN, claiming the difference was likely due to video compression from the original copy. However, this contradicted what many saw with their own eyes.

You can see CNN’s version here and Rogan’s original here.

CNN also dismissed one of the treatments Rogan used, ivermectin, as a “horse dewormer.” In reality, ivermectin earned researchers William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura the Nobel Prize in 2015 for its effectiveness against parasitic infections in humans.

(This marks another recurring trend: omitting key context—a practice that could be said to pervade every example in this article).

Activism/Campaigning

Zoe Kleinman

In 2021, the BBC's first Technology Editor, Zoe Kleinman, published an article revealing that the taxpayer-funded broadcaster had flagged posts from alleged Covid vaccine victims to Meta (Facebook) for censorship.

Kleinman reported that these Facebook group users were using carrot emojis to bypass automated moderation tools, replacing the word "vaccine" with the emoji to evade detection.

One group reportedly had hundreds of thousands of members sharing their vaccine injuries. Once the BBC alerted Meta, Facebook’s parent company, however, the groups were promptly removed.

Klein and the BBC could have investigated the claims, contacted the victims, and conducted some proper research. Instead, they shut the conversation down, like a political pressure group.

Unethical Non-Disclosures

Dr Peter Openshaw

In January 2023, the BBC invited Dr Aseem Malhotra to discuss the UK’s updated guidance on statins and their potential link to rising heart issues. During the segment, Dr. Malhotra suggested something else might be contributing to it: the Covid vaccines.

The next day, multiple media outlets issued strong rebukes, with The Guardian leading the charge. They quoted several experts who labelled Malhotra’s views as “extreme fringe,” “misguided,” and “dangerous,” claiming his comments could mislead the public.

Among the quoted experts was Dr Peter Openshaw. It was soon discovered that Openshaw had previously collaborated with Covid vaccine manufacturer Pfizer and received over £6,000 from Moderna, another Covid vaccine producer.

Despite these conflicts of interest, The Guardian presented Openshaw as an impartial expert, neglecting to inform readers of his ties to Big Pharma. They either failed to carry out what should routine due diligence or simply determined the conflict irrelevant.

Suppression/Double Standards

Amy Robach.

In November 2019, leaked off-air footage captured ABC News anchor Amy Robach expressing frustration over the network's decision to "quash" her interview with a key accuser of Jeffrey Epstein.

Robach added that ABC had bowed to pressure from powerful figures, including Buckingham Palace, as Prince Andrew was one man the accuser claimed Epstein trafficked her to for sex.

ABC News executives defended their choice, stating that their journalists hadn’t sufficiently corroborated the details for broadcast.

Yet by 2019, ABC would have been well aware of sexual misconduct claims against Epstein; he had previously pleaded guilty to a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18 in 2008.

Epstein faced arrest again in 2019, this time by the FBI-NYPD Crimes Against Children Task Force, and was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, where he later died under mysterious circumstances.

Strangely, earlier this year, ABC published a detailed breakdown of a number of women who had accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Like Epstein's accusers, many of the claims against Trump were based on personal testimony.

ABC claimed journalistic integrity prevented them from airing Epstein allegations. They had no qualms running a comprehensive piece on Trump’s accusers.

Had the outlet aired the allegations, perhaps it could have helped authorities investigate the claims against Epstein. But their own anchor admitted they prioritised media access, fearing that airing certain stories would deprive them of the opportunity to interview British royals.

---

Thoughts

A recent Gallup poll revealed a sharp divide in media trust among Americans, with Republican voters showing far less trust in mainstream outlets than their Democratic counterparts.

The same trend appears in the UK, where Conservative voters place significantly less trust in the media compared to their political adversaries.

Contrary to what the technocrats claim, the divide isn’t due to patriotic or freedom-loving voters. The blame lies squarely with the media itself, which, for various reasons, has abandoned its principles—and is now facing the consequences.

In 2016, many outlets responded to Trump’s victory over Clinton by doubling down on criticism rather than reassessing their approach. They effectively cornered themselves; when an outlet builds its entire brand on attacking one figure, attracting an audience along the way, suddenly shifting to a more balanced stance naturally alienates that base.

Unlikely to change course, many outlets will continue with this tact as a short-term fix. But it’s bandaid. And it’s destined to unravel, ultimately hastening their own decline.

We’re witnessing the continuation of that dramatic decline in real-time.

---

---

• Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?

• Are you going to sit down and watch as our media parrot narratives that lead to yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?

• If you want to do something today to help change it, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it… for about the same price per month as a coffee.

---