Back in February,
American Oversight, a group that brands itself a government watchdog, claimed to be in possession of emails that
showed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
dined on June 23.
This was merely a day
before Thomas and other justices struck down Roe v. Wade which legalizes abortion across the US.
The implication was that
DeSantis had influenced Thomas in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe Vs Wade.
News outlets such as Raw Story, Yahoo
News, MSN
news, Politico, and The Independent reported
this news to cause much outrage
in the liberal echo system.
The fact that a conservative
Supreme Court Justice had lunch with a GOP Governor caused the perception of
bias, which was unacceptable to liberals all over the US.
The Supreme Court is expected to be apolitical and is supposed to
adjudicate based on the laws and previous cases.
Being political is a privilege that is only available to liberal Supreme Courts Justices.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
was applauded for being political for calling Donald Trump, the
worst person on earth. The
New York Times reported about Ginsburg having quiet lunch with then-President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, as if
it was normal.
Unfortunately for the peddlers of the DeSantis-Thomas story, facts presented themselves to burst the inflating balloon of propaganda.
This inconvenient fact here was that Justice Thomas had lunch with DeSantis, on June 23, 2021, and not on June 23, 2022. The lunch took place a year before and not a day before Roe Vs. Wade was overturned.
This mistake reveals how little various media personnel understands about the functioning of the Supreme Court.
Did they really think
that DeSantis persuaded Thomas over lunch and Thomas subsequently convinced his
conservative colleagues and they overturned Roe Vs. Wade the very next day?
These media personnel, some of whom are well educated and have
years of experience, overturning Roe Vs. Wade isn't done via a tweet.
The Supreme Court issues
a lengthy document to elucidate its rationale. This is a lengthy process that
involves discussions, consultation, and documentation. A great of thought had
been put into this effort.
So how did the media react?
Raw Story stated the following in its
correction
“A previous version
of this story incorrectly stated that Clarence
Thomas had lunch with Ron DeSantis one day before the controversial Dobbs
decision. The lunch was scheduled for June 23, 2021, not June 23, 2022”
The headline was altered
from “Clarence Thomas had lunch with Ron DeSantis one day before abortion
rights struck down: emails” to “Emails reveal communications between Clarence
Thomas and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.”
The Independent
retracted its story.
Eric Michael Garcia,
the author, who works at MSNBC, issued an apology on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/EricMGarcia/status/1585997363348267008
But some
propagandists were unmoved by facts, they demanded an investigation and claimed
that Justice Thomas was ‘exposed’
https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1585732965610360833
They even recommended
the impeachment of Justice Thomas
https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1585735683926159360
https://twitter.com/EricMGarcia/status/1586006278920318976
How did this happen?
This fake story is
a symptom of what has become of the mainstream media.
A lot of people
presume that the media is influenced by the Democrats. That supposition
is erroneous because it assumes that the Democrats and the media are separate
entities. The fact is the mainstream media is the propaganda wing for the
Democrats and hence should be seen as a department within the party.
This explains why on
any given day they all have identical opinions and even individual phraseology
to describe any given incident.
Liberals often
proclaim support for diversity.
This usually is the diversity of background,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.
But alas the most important kind of diversity is
abhorred, this is the diversity of ideological proclivities, political
persuasion, and the general worldview because it causes discord in the echo
chambers.
Hence when a story such as the one in question
appears on their desk, they are all consumed by the desire for it to be true. Consequently, they either purposefully or unknowingly overlook the important details and
publish the story anyway.
If there was real diversity in the newsrooms,
there would have been conservative fact-checkers who would have had the
motivation to debunk the story. They would have spotted the obvious mistake.
But that will never happen and it is not likely to
ever happen.
Some of these news organizations offer paid
subscriptions. The subscribers are an extension of the liberal echo chamber.
They pay to have their biases confirmed. They would probably prefer fake news that confirms their bias rather than factual news that violates their
preconceived notions.
The news had become a product from which customers
expect predictability.
The news organizations also know that there will
seldom be any consequences for peddling fake news, in fact, they receive
awards.
In 2018, both the New York Times and the
Washington Post were awarded
the Pulitzer “for deeply sourced, relentlessly
reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the
nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
election and its connections to the Trump campaign..”
The Russian collusion hoax has been debunked, but
the Pulitzers still remain.
A major conflict of interest was revealed in the
Pulitzer jury. Among the members of the Pulitzer Board was past
Pulitzer-winner Carlos Lozada, non-fiction book critic and associate editor at
the Washington Post
But it hardly matters. The ecosystem or echo
system doesn’t care about being factual or objective or neutral, they are
blatant propagandists and no longer care to hide it.
As a consumer, you have two choices, presume what you read to be false until proven true or consume news only from selective news organizations
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment