Do you see what I see? A guided tour

To be viewed in tandem with the previous post on Trust and Ethics in Media

In the previous post, I presented a series of 8 “exhibits” in order to get at answers to these questions:

Is Canadian mainstream media actually FREE or is it BLOCKED, IMPEDED, RESTRICTED or otherwise constrained?

and

How can we TRUST the Media, when it is constrained by Outside Forces?

After viewing the exhibits on your own and thinking your thoughts, I invite you to open a second tab to toggle back and forth between the exhibits and my running commentary shared here.

Exhibit A - The Canadian Association of Journalist Ethics Guidelines

I LOVE these guidelines! They are so clear, pure and ethical that I would LOVE to become a journalist myself, if only the profession were to hold itself to them. I am highlighting a few of my favorite guidelines in bold with my commentary in italics.

• We recognize that we as journalists and individuals have biases, so we use these ethical guidelines and best practices to mitigate any potential impacts they may have on the fairness and accuracy of our journalism. AND

• We clearly identify news and opinion so the audience knows which is which. So, then when reporting on vaccine status, any news readers or show hosts whose comments were disparaging of those who did not take the COVID-19 injection were expressing their biases yet they did not differentiate when they were editorializing and when they were providing objective NEWS. What is the Canadian Association of Journalists doing with the consequences of NOT having ensured its members held a clear line between the “opinion” that everyone should take the COVID-19 vaccine VERSUS the “news” around the topic? Countless viewers who trusted the messaging took these injections and have now come to harm. This is especially tricky with video, when “a picture is worth a thousand words” and the journalists’ facial expressions and tone of voice indicate their own opinions.

• We pursue truth in the public interest. Our responsibility is to our audience, and we make editorial decisions on that basis. So if the media outlet really wants to pursue truth in the public interest, why disallow the staff from questioning the news messaging re: the vaccine mandate given its known harms on the health of the listening audience? Why would senior journalists be fired from their jobs, for this reason? Anita Krishna of Global News and Marianne Klowak of CBC are just two examples. What is the CAJ doing about these unethical firings?

• We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist any outside efforts to influence the news. Where was the message: “This promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine was ‘brought to you by the Federal Government who is funding our platform to the tune of $XX/year.’ ”?

• Columnists and commentators should be free to express their views, even when those views conflict with those of their organizations. So then, NO journalists should have been fired when their views on COVID-19 lockdowns, masking policies, injections, etc. conflicted from those of their organizations!!! Who then allowed “the boss” to override these Ethics Guidelines?

• Journalists who give a platform to outside commentators have an onus to make efforts to ensure that the standards of fairness and accuracy are applied. Government funded mainstream media invited “experts” as guests, giving them a platform WITHOUT including others with dissenting views to act as a “peer review” or to counteract potential bias. This omission showed they neglected their obligation to ensure fairness and accuracy. What is the Canadian Association of Journalists going to do about this blatant violation of their ethics guidelines? Moving forward, I suggest that ALL news agencies who regularly report on health matters familiarize themselves with and ensure their “expert guests” are well versed on this comprehensive published article on the known issues with the COVID-19 injections as of August 2023 AND with the expert testimonies sworn before the independent citizen run National Citizens Inquiry. Spike protein from the illness and the injections will have consequences for all subspecialties of health for decades to come. I also highly recommend that EVERY journalist who puts the term COVID-19 into a news story has previously fact checked their own story against this comprehensive COVID-19 timeline, which includes sooooo many entries conveniently left out of timelines produced by other organizations affiliated with corporate or government funding sources.

• We openly tell our audiences when another organization pays our expenses. When citing any news stories from AP and CP news services, for example, do journalists mention that those news services also allow for sponsored editorial content while acting as PR firms for the donor brands? Or when relying on the factchecking from any firm that accepts grants, etc. from corporations whose investment portfolios include shares in the companies being discussed in the news? The CAJ Ethics people will have their hands full for decades backtracking to see how many times corporate products (like those manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and Astra Zeneca these past 3-4 years) were treated like NEWS ITEMS while in essence being the objects of commercial promotions!! When remembering the slogan “95% effective” we should ask, whose job would it have been to ensure that, for example, Pfizer provided not just ONE statistic, but both, the absolute AND relative risk ratios as was always the case with drug product news coverage in prior years. Especially longstanding science/medical journalists, in their ethical duty to serve the public interest, should have remembered how they used to provide both risk ratios and how it is even unethical for the manufacturers to provide only one. What kept them from looking for and reporting both figures? THIS is the kind of journalism that mainstream science journalists should have done: https://totalityofevidence.com/vaccine-effectiveness/

• We encourage our organizations to make room for the interests of all: minorities and majorities; those with power and those without it; and holders of disparate and conflicting views. Imagine some of the great debates in history had been forcefully shut down, because the side with the guns outnumbered the side without the guns and could thereby declare its opponent side to be “spreading misinformation” and then could declare itself as the ONLY HARBRINGER OF TRUTH! This is exactly what we have allowed to happen these past four years. Journalism as a profession fails when the journalists themselves lack curiosity, courage and commitment to “do their research” — when they simply parrot the talking points placed in front of them by unknown entities. And when they and their freedom of expression are strangled by those with the “guns” - in this case the power to capture the airwaves, the internet channels, and the lawmakers who are then brainwashed into thinking they are doing GOOD when they enact policies that further enable this throttling of true information sharing.

Exhibit B - The Trust Project

1. While the 8 Trust Indicators of the Trust Project read very well, and reflect the honourable profession journalism used to be, the very presence of corporate titans Google and Facebook as funders raises a big red flag. When the social media corporations with the power to track users, to manipulate search engines, to shadowban websites are also major financial investors in the products being talked about in the news, they have a vested interest in NOT being impartial. Money talks and overrules ethics every time since the mandate of these corporations is to increase shareholder profit, NOT to ensure trust.

2. Other funders include the “Democracy Fund.” This is another big red flag when it comes to internet censorship. NOTE: The Democracy Fund in Canada is a totally different entity from the Democracy Fund in the USA. TIP: One way to access the combined research of many independent citizen journalists, particularly those with a military, intelligence, or geopolitical background is via globalresearch.ca. Here we find that the US Democracy Fund was actively backing efforts to silence conservative voices on Facebook and Twitter in the 2020 US election. This is not at all what we want when we seek supporters for ethics in journalism.

3. The Trust Indicators include some excellent questions that need to be considered prior to the publication of articles. In thinking of the recent example of an article published by The Walrus, I find these questions particularly relevant:

   1. Do they (the reporter) have a good professional reputation as a journalist?

   2. Are they (the reporter) reporting on a topic or community they know well?

   3. Did the journalist make an effort to listen to members of the community?

   4. Does the newsroom commit to bringing in diverse perspectives?

   5. Are some communities included only in stereotypical ways, or completely missing?

4. The intentions behind subscribing to the TRUST PROJECT are highly laudable - as long as the indicators are consistently applied and as long as folks could see through and step away from the biases inherent in the corporate (or government) funders, whose very intention in funding such projects is to prevent countervailing information from coming through. When it comes to the verification of content (i.e. ‘fact checking’ though, one would hope that the news organizations that subscribe to the TRUST PROJECT would have access to current, evidence-based and evolving subject specific expertise to do this work so that they are not judging articles by out of date or stereotypical measurements.

Exhibit C - The Journalist Trust Initiative (JTI)

1. For the uninitated, the list of donors to the JTI might seem inncouous. BUT with the European Union so highly invested in the global COVID-19 vaccination enterprise, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) legendary in subverting the rule of law and democratic process wherever it shows up, many have their doubts about the validity of this kind of certification. For example, the NED received $330 million from the Biden government to support the Global Disinformation Index which specifically flags conservative or liberarian sites as purveyors of disinformation. This does not exactly sound like a supporter of journalistic ethics when it comes to ensuring a diversity of viewpoints as a cornerstone of a democratic society!!

2. The Winnipeg Free Press, as a signatory to the JTI, recently made a mockery of the word TRUST in journalism — unless the JTI actual intends to “curtail freedom of speech.” By publishing and not retracting an opinion piece full of vitriolic misinformation “The unwelcome unvaxxed,” the Winnipeg Free press clearly violated journalistic standards. Professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Neurology at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Steven Pelech offered the Free Press a detailed scientific critique of the author’s arguments which were based on unproven public health messaging. This was done in order to help preserve the honour and reputation of the Free Press as actually Free of outside influence. But as of today (4 weeks post publication) there is no mention on their site that they have chosen to balance the violating article with factual information. See Dr. Pelech’s counter-submission here.

Exhibit D - The Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

Are you starting to notice red flags on the money trail? Signatories to the TNI are also partnering with the same social media BigTech companies that invest not only in BigFinance, but also BigPharma, the Military Industrial complex and more.

Given that Facebook/Meta is one of the major partners in the TNI with a wide reach, it is a simple matter to visit Stockzoa.com and find the list of its top investors:

https://stockzoa.com/ticker/meta/

Then it is a simple step to drill down further, to find out which funds top the charts in which other funds. Within just a few of such searches, we gain an awareness of the intwined and entangled interconnections of one BigCorp with another. Gone are the days when each business on Main Street was a separate entity.

Here for example are the top investment funds in Vanguard, which in turn, is the top investment fund in Pfizer at this point in time.

https://stockzoa.com/fund/the-vanguard-groupinc/

Presumably, Pfizer Injectables (which manufacture products for “gender affirming care”) also has similar investments. Is it any wonder, that there was almost instantaneous backlash on all media platforms when Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith announced the intention to limit the prescription of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (chemical products known as puberty blockers) to youngsters aged 16 and up. These products, which were as late as 2018 were medically prescribed in a limited number of hormone related medical conditions, including advanced prostrate cancer and endometriosis. Investigative journalists truly free and unconstrained in their work would question how Pfizer would support the apparently experimental off-label use of these products on teens when they were so very invested in blocking time tested off-label uses if prize winning patent-free therapeutics for COVID-19, for example.

Vanguard is also high up in the investment chain of military manufacturer Lockheed Martin, so any “pro-Putin misinformation” around the need to STOP the USA’s “Project Ukraine” or other military engagements world wide would not be appreciated by Vanguard and similar shareholders and would, through their investment partners in the TNI, be censored out of mainstream discourse.

So it is like the fox guarding the henhouse, where those with a vested interest can easily get inside. When INVESTORS in Pfizer, Moderna, et al have the power to shut down those reports or individuals digging into the harms of their pet project - is it any wonder that the socalled purveyors of “Trust” will want to do so when they sense a serious risk to their investment profits? That they do so under a euphemistic reason, i.e. “to elevate more credible information,” does not make the suppression of a diverse and divergent range of voices in the public sphere right.

Back in 2021, Reuters and the Associated Press news agency (AP) openly announced a collaboration with Twitter (under its previous ownership) to actively interfere with the journalistic code of ethics that mandates an open interchange of information and the presentation of the diversity of views that underpins a civil and democratic society.

“This work is core to our mission,” Tom Januszewski, the AP’s vice president of global business development, said in a statement. “AP has a long history of working closely with Twitter, along with other platforms, to expand the reach of factual journalism.”

Hazel Baker, head of user-generated content newsgathering at Reuters, said “trust, accuracy and impartiality are at the heart of what Reuters does every day.”

Financial terms of the partnerships were not disclosed. The AP and Reuters are also fact-checking partners with Facebook

Former CBC and CTV investigative journalist Rodney Palmer focussed on the actions taken by one TNI partner, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as they switched their work away from newsgathering into being government mouthpieces. Listen here and here.

EXHIBIT E - The News Wire Services

As mentioned in the previous post, many “news wire” services have diversified their core businesses into Public Relations. This includes the Canadian Press.

https://www.thecanadianpress.com/livecalendar/

Readers might well ask… WHAT??!! I can “gain foresight” to know how and when to position MY STORY in the “NEWS AGENDA” for “MAXIMUM EXPOSURE”????!!!

So, news doesn’t just ‘happen’? It is “positioned” within an “agenda”? For whom? By whom? At what cost?

Also of note, the goal of Canadian Press is to “captivate audiences” not INFORM CITIZENS or HOLD GOVERNMENTS TO ACCOUNT. And it gets “reams” of its stories from the Associated Press, its partner in “audience captivation.”

https://www.thecanadianpress.com/regions/world/

So hot off the news wire service, yesterday’s top news stories as presented by The Associated Press:

https://apnews.com/world-news

And Reuters

The man has hardly been dead for a few hours and “Putin and his thugs” have already been tried and found guilty (oh, just in the mind of newsmakers, not actually.)

In contrast, not a word about the Chilean American journalist who had been reporting from various spots along the front lines of battles in Ukraine, who was captured by Ukrainian intelligence services, conditionally released, recaptured and then held without medical care, and allowed to die.

No mention of how the Chilean government intervened to secure his release, before the recapture. No mention of how Americans lobbied their government to connect with their ally, Ukraine and seek the release of a fellow American who was providing an important counterbalance to the mainstream propaganda on “Project Ukraine.”

So the big news wire services bring a very small range of the “top” world news stories. These quickly get picked up by our Canadian mainstream media:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world (as of Friday, February 16, 11:15 pm MT)

The folks at the CBC already reported that our Prime Minister already knows that the reason for Navalny’s death is “because he stood up to Putin.” The CBC went on to quote Mr. Trudeau as saying: To be clear: He should never have been imprisoned to begin with. Let this be an important reminder that we must continue to promote, protect and defend democracy everywhere. The consequences of not doing so are stark," Trudeau wrote on X.

An astute, independently thinking journalist would:

a) remember their duty to ensure that diverse and disparate views are presented in the public sphere;

b) check what the Russian state broadcaster is saying about this case —> https://www.rt.com/russia/592561-alexey-navalny-blogger-opposition/. Here one finds that Navalny had a history of corporate fraud and was previously emprisoned for embezzlement but oddly, multiply given probation instead of prison terms. His latest incarceration was for the breech of probation.

c) look into how this Russian ended up at Yale University in 2010 (as per Wikipedia). Ask on what basis he was chosen to take part in a program for young global leaders known as the Yale World Fellows. Could he be working undercover for a non-Russian agency? Are his loyalties primarily to his country of birth, or to those with a stake in getting back to the Yeltsin days, people who potentially facilitated Navalny’s vision of himself as a future leader? How often is someone charged with embezzlement allowed to freely run for political office? Why was he granted parole instead of imprisoned for his embezzlement? Under Yeltsin, by the way, the USA and its investment oligarchs pretty much captured the Russian economy, running it to the ground while profiting immensely. Given how life expectancy is used as an indicator of population well being, it is interesting to note that during the Yeltsin years, life expectancy for Russian men plummeted from 63 in 1990 to 57 just four years later, whereas during the Putin years it steadily rose up to its current rate of 69.7 years. How many journalists quick to jump on the Navalny/Putin bandwagon now understand just how far the Russian economy has recovered under the leadership of someone who dares say NO to foreign interference, i.e. Vladimir Putin and his team of astute managers of the public good in Russia? And that despite all the economic sanctions placed upon it by the collective West, the Russian economy is growing faster than that of many other countries.

d) Look into the accuracy of the claim that Navalny’s death “deprives Russia’s opposition of a leader and hope.” When and for how long did he have an “opposition leader” role (other than in the Western media)? In 2020, only 2% of Russians polled in indicated an interested in voting for him should he be a presidential candidate. The actual opposition parties, led by the Russian Communist Party, make up 28% of the seats in the Duma (i.e. Russian parliament). No mention of Navalny there. Then one would need to ask: Is there truth to the report of Navalny’s racist comments re: minorities? Given that Russia comprises many more ethnicities than most of us can contemplate, how much support does he really have among Russian people? Which people? Those with a loyalty to Russia or to the West?

e) See what other independent (non corporate or government funded) journalists, or former military and intelligence officers have to say about Navalny. For example here we find another contrast in coverage - how much ink was already spilled on his death in comparison to another journalist harshly dealt with for a much lesser “crime” - that of informing the American people… namely Julian Assange? In addition to finding people with a strong intelligence background writing at Globalreasearch.ca, one can listen to them being interviewed on the channel Dialogue Works or by Judge Napolitano. One can also learn a lot from the collective of independent investigators who publish as “The New American Vagabond” (this includes the master researcher Whitney Webb) and “The Grey Zone.” Navalny was covered already back in 2018 as part of a series on American interference in foreign elections and many times including in an article looking at the myth of the West’s favourite opposition figure.

f) given Reuter’s claim that Navalny fell unconscious and died after walking, an observant journalist would also consider the fact that since the roll-out of the Covid-19 mRNA injections (aka vaccine) many men of Navalny’s age have died unexpectedly in a similar manner. Where autopsies were carried out, the culprit clearly was the proliferation of vaccine induced spike protein leading to multiple blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, etc. (See one of many explanations here.) A true investigative journalist would need time to ascertain where Navalny was when the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, and to follow social media postings he may have made for an indication as to whether he was injected. It has been well known by those who followed the story, that his health was poor in recent years. Those who believe that Navalny was poisoned some years back under orders from President Putin should compare their facts with those outlined here.

While this Navalny coverage may seem like a digression, I have added it in to provide a current example of the difference between ethical journalism that would NEVER simply just copy and paste directly from corporate sources and the type of charge-before-looking gossip that passes for journalism today. When reporting on this news, it would have been enough to say that Russian authorities have reported Navalny’s death and that investigations into the cause are underway. Full stop.

When newsmakers assign guilt or blame for an event within less than 24 hours after it occurs, we can know that they do not REALLY know who or what is at fault. We should especially be wary when we look at the timing of events and responses within the larger geopolitical context, including in this case, the next funding bill for US “aid to Ukraine” as a pretext for monies making their way to US weapons manufacturers, providing jobs for Americans in up to 40 states. That would give many strong motives to jump on and give a spin to the story of this particular man’s death.

The spin continues making larger and larger waves. Here we see the next level… given that Putin is allegedly at fault, we now read of consequences… other people fearing for their lives, etc. etc.

Given that the age for the draft of soldiers in Ukraine has slipped down to 17, it should be clear to all that the military action there MUST be stopped. President Biden has virtually attained his goal of “fighting down to the last Ukrainian” while our media remain silent about the running death toll. The UK and other European countries are discussing implementing the DRAFT in their countries. ALL OF THIS because of PROPAGANDA, because journalists writing for the major news wire services and those who straight copy corporate delivered articles have reneged on their obligations to share views on ALL sides of major issues. If this disregard for basic ethics among corporate media outlets is not ENDED IMMEDIATELY, and given the weak state of the Canadian armed forces, we may soon also be holding discussions about drafting young Canadian men and women into service as well. And we may continue to pledge endless monies that end up in the coffers of the military industrial members of BigCorp. This would be the same it as was with the media push to enrich the likes of Albert Bourla (CEO of Pfizer) and his BigPharma cohorts along with the master of our lockdown economy - the CEO of Amazon. Honestly, at some point one must say that enough wealth is enough. See this approximation of Jeff Bezos’ financial status BC, before Covid. Not to ensure space for divergent voices is to side with the “big guns” at the expense of every day members of society.

That is the power of unethical media.

Exhibit F - The International Fact Checking Network (Poynter Institute)

In my previous post highlighting the poor quality of sources referenced by Professor Timothy Caulfield, a self-appointed “fact checker” of “Covid misinformation,” I noted that the key problems with his choice of references and resulting conclusion are:

• outdated research (where since 2021 MANY MORE FINDINGS have been found which collectively disprove earlier findings)

• extreme bias (where vaccine funders “fund” research that promotes the vaccine)

• the use of modelling data that does not account for the most basic of variables. (If it did, its results would completely contradict cited findings.)

As mentioned when the exhibits were introduced, some news agencies like Reuters, employ their own in house “fact checkers”. My comments to a recent “fact checking enterprise” by Reuters will stand in for comments on the work of other members of the IFCN.

Scottish newscaster Neil Oliver of GB News recently delivered a pointed monologue on the topic of COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. William Makis, the former head of the Nuclear Oncology program at the Cross Cancer Institute in Alberta and no stranger to evidence-based peer reviewed scientific literature, chose to share Oliver’s talk and transcript here. Meanwhile, fact-checkers working for the world’s largest news corporation, Reuters declared that Oliver’s claims linking UK’s rising excess death numbers to the COVID-19 vaccine were false. How can that be, given today’s scientific knowledge on the topic?

• A total lack of subject area expertise (i.e vaccinology, immunology, etc. among Reuter’s international listing of fact checkers). While many have previous “fact checking” experience, there is no mention of any subject specific experience related to the fields being fact checked…i.e. there is no immunologist checking the facts in articles about immunology.

• The apparent unwillingness of hired “factcheckers” to reach out to recognized specialists in the area of vaccine injury and adverse reactions, and to consult the myriad peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic. For example, one of the Reuters Fact Checkers, writing independently, mentions the official statement by the official health agency but is totally unaware of all the reasons informed people in the field have reasons to doubt the veracity of the “official” line: As the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) explains, many reported suspected adverse reactions “do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time”. The fact-checker simply links to the work of other non-specialist Reuters fact checkers and restates the line “any adverse events reported in conduction with the vaccines are purely coincidence.” All of these people are missing an understanding of how VAERS and Yellow Card reporting system for adverse events post injection actually work. But no one on the fact checking staff appears aware of the work of specialized academics like computational biologist Dr. Jessica Rose who could be consulted for a counter balance to the “coincidence” theory at the very least.

• A naive trust that government counts of the numbers of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” can be taken at face value, i.e. a total lack of awareness as to how WHO guidelines and default settings on electronic patient record systems caused significant numbers of injected people to be mislabeled as “unvaccinated”

• A complete unawareness of reality in statements such as this one:

Citing a CMI report, … pointed out that excess deaths in England were highest in young (20-44) and middle-aged (45-64) adults.

“That shows you that it is the younger groups that are experiencing the highest level of excess deaths,” McDonald told Reuters in a phone interview. “So, it is the groups that are least vaccinated. The older groups, where vaccine uptake was higher and where boosters have been given more frequently, are experiencing less excess deaths in relative terms.”

Instead of taking such comments at face value, an aware investigative journalist would have known to reference the higher deaths in the working age sector of the population where workplace mandates were very common. Clearly the speaker was simply assuming that younger people were less vaccinated without verification. Additionally, they could have referred to the correlation between higher adrenaline levels, particularly in younger men exerting themselves during sports or other physical activity and higher rates of cardiac harms. LINK

When we live in a country with politicians who propose fines and imprisonment for speech that IS ACTUALLY SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED, we must come to the conclusion that Free Speech and by extension, journalism, is definitely being restrained under our very eyes.

Charlie Angus, a longstanding New Democratic Party MP representing the Timmins-James Bay region in Canada, has introduced a provocative private member’s bill this week, known as the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act or C-372. Essentially, this act aims to impose penalties, including imprisonment, on those found publicly advertising praise of fossil fuels, even if their statements are based on accepted scientific facts.

For example, such facts could include the statement that burning natural gas is less harmful to the environment than coal.

However, Bill C-372 encompasses much more than just prohibiting false advertising from oil and gas companies. …Despite its slim chances of success, the implications of this act apply broadly. For instance, any Canadian found commending the oil industry or oil in general could be faced with penalties. The law stipulates a heavy fine of up to $500,000 for individual violators, while oil corporations could face up to two years imprisonment or have to shoulder a $1,000,000 fine.

Under the law, a wide net is cast as to what constitutes “promotion” or “advertising,” potentially including items such as social media posts.

The bill also criminalizes various common arguments in favor of oil and natural gas, even if they’re scientifically supported. (Source)

I tried to verify whether “fact checkers” need to possess subject area expertise prior to getting hired. Numerous job postings expect a bachelor’s degree in any subject area. Others suggest a B.A in English or Journalism Studies. To train as a “fact checker” one can take online courses such as the following:

Again, no mention of subject specific expertise. The assumption is that the “fact checker” can simply “FIND information” as needed.

So, I can read and “find information” in any number of car owners’ manuals. Imagine I come to an automechanic shop and wander in around the experienced workers as they repair vehicles. I consult the owners’ manuals and refer to certain pages to point out to the experienced mechanics that they should be doing their work differently. They should be following the simplistic diagrams in the owner’s manual. If they insist on continuing the job their way, based on their years of specialized experience, can I fault them for going beyond the simplistic outlines in the public facing owners’ manual? Should I decry their workshop on social media, claiming that they do not know what they are doing? While a “fact checker” with the ability to read and find information can do just that, they cannot know all of the subject specific intricacies of each profession. There is value in the years of subject specific content knowledge which the experienced authors of scientific literature draw out and build upon almost intuitively. ‘Fact checkers’ should not claim to be able to pass judgement upon a field for which they have no specialized content knowledge. To have this entire complex of corporate and government funded media outlets turn to corporate and government agency funded JOURNALISM TRUST organizations AND THEN to put the whole enterprise upon the keyboards of outside “fact checkers” seems totally ludicrous to me. What do they know? I suspect they attend “fact checker” conferences that are about as removed from reality as the conferences involving those who create artificial scenarios to track “misinformation.”

Exhibit G - The Parliamentary and Independent Press Galleries

Looking over the list of Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery members (sorted by organizations) I can’t help but notice how many members hail from the Toronto Star. That paper became infamous for its extremely strong bias AGAINST Canadians who for whatever reason chose not to or were unable to subject themselves to injections of what were scientifically proven to be ineffective and unsafe pharmaceutical products. Instead of seeking to understand the struggles these people had trying to go against the current of mainstream society - as the Journalist Ethics Guidelines compels them to do - the editorial team at the Toronto Star approved the publication of biased content with titles like: When it comes to empathy for the unvaccinated, many of us aren’t feeling it - and this penultimate one-sided promotion of hateful views that will forever blacken the reputation of professional journalism in Canada:

Have the Canadian Association of Journalists enforcers of the ethics guidelines taken any actions against those who let views like this make it to the front pages without any counterbalancing views? What if the word “unvaccinated”had been replaced with any description of race? Would that have been published? Of note is the fact that this issue appeared SEVEN MONTHS AFTER crucial scientific news was being reported OUTSIDE OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA BUBBLE:

This dossier points to the patents for components of both the SARS-CoV-2 virus AND the corresponding VACCINES and is accessible here.

The complete COVID-19 Pandemic Timeline can be found here. Also compiled by the same citizen researcher is this list of Credentialed Experts- well worth a visit.

GIVEN THE ETHICAL REQUIREMENT OF JOURNALISTS TO MAKE ROOM FOR ALL VOICES INCLUDING THOSE OF THE HOLDERS OF DISPARATE AND CONFLICTING VIEWS, WHY have journalists in the government and corporate funded media NOT reported on REAL NEWS in the 7 months leading up to the illegal vaccine mandates rolling out throughout the country? Why have they not pointed out the stories of harm resulting from these unproven products?

Interestingly, it has been the media organizations that comprise the Independent Press Gallery of Canada, including The Countersignal, True North, The Western Standard, Rebel News and others who have been providing vital coverage on much of the evidence referenced in the above-mentioned Pandemic Timeline.

Our Vision is to provide a platform and community for professional, independent journalists who wish to maintain their freedom and independence from government control.

As the federal government in Canada asserts more control over journalism sites and outlets, as they repeatedly block journalists from outlets critical of their political agenda, and as they increase public funding to media outlets that provide favourable coverage, independent-minded journalists are more important than ever.

It appears as if, just like YouTube has an outdated list of community standards that prohibits the presentation of any evolving COVID-19 science, the recipients of Government Media subsidies are required to adhere to a similar outdated list of statements on COVID-19 policies. It appears that to step outside of that list is so taboo few dare to venture there. Why is this?

SOMEONE OR SOMETHING is constraining our mainstream media journalists. Whatever it is, takes courage to confront. Few appear to have that courage.

Exhibits H & I - Courageous Citizen Researchers and Writers

Few appear to have the courage to dig deep.

BUT the folks at Canuck Law and the Campfire Wiki are national heroes.

I have nothing further to comment in this section other than to express my the gratitude I owe them and the many other dedicated citizens who believe so strongly in the Ethics of the Journalism Profession that they sit up late into the night, giving up weekends and all days off from their day jobs in order to provide the essential service of sharing information publicly!!

Is Canadian mainstream media actually FREE or is it BLOCKED, IMPEDED, RESTRICTED or otherwise constrained? —> Most definitely.

and

How can we TRUST the Media, when it is constrained by Outside Forces?

—> It is now time to BE THE MEDIA —> to share the work of those digging diligently where corporate media journalists have feared to tread. Where their work is strangled by the unending Profit Machine.

Start the discovery here:
https://freedomrising.info/truth-media/

For more of my writing on media ethics, I invite you to see and share this post also: