By Guy Somerset
The most important thing you need to know about the American Media is that they are mostly in cahoots together. A startling statement perhaps, yet one easily verified by both facts and experience.
Evidence the videos of television reporters reading the same stories verbatim over a broad geographic spectrum and under divergent ownership which (supposedly) completes against one another. It is a practice known as "Tear and Air" from the days when generic items were sent across wire services such as the Associated Press and former United Press International.
Such "news" is written and distributed for a subscription fee and stations use it to fill air time. Management defends this practice by claiming they often have an hour or more each evening to provide with content without a commensurate amount of local events. Naturally, this is a lie; especially when such stories are presented as if they are the work of intrepid hometown reporters rather than manufactured pabulum.
The reality is most newsrooms in America are cutting staff and shrinking their budgets, allowing themselves to be sold to the highest bidder in what may be good for profits but is very bad for an informed citizenry. A plethora of investigative pieces could be shot and aired - if there was the integrity to cover them. Unfortunately, research is hard work and it is much easier to sit coiffed behind a desk.
If anything, print media is worse. Nearly all major newspapers and particularly their editorial staffs find themselves clinging to the edge of the political spectrum which tends from outright Communism to some sort of sadistic Anarchy for which no philosopher has yet coined a term. They hate Populism, they loath their readers and they abjectly despise the thought that any thinking other than their own is valid.
Evidence the infamous JournoList Scandal in which a private internet "discussion platform" was created among prominent journalists to kvetch about the peons who paid their salaries and collude on what news should be told. In quite literal terms it was decided by these cretins what verifiable and important stories were unworthy of being carried because such were deemed politically damaging to the interests of these so-called correspondents.
If none of this convinces readers that perhaps something more akin to collusion exists in media than simple confluence of opinion and echo chamber reasoning then pause to consider that 90% of all American media is controlled by the same handful of corporations. When a casual customer gazes over a magazine rack and sees 100 publications what he generally views are 10 or fewer options. It is the illusion of choice to keep the masses placated (and in their proper place).
So again - The American Media is in cahoots.
The Militarized American Media
In case one is unfamiliar with the term, "cahoots" is an antiquated way of saying a group is collaborating. Admittedly, it is a word almost never heard any longer though it is herein quite apt.
Alas, "cahoots" is in direct correlation to the equally uncommon "meddling," which until dishonest American Media began employing it was similarly obscure. In fact, before Militarized Media began training their fire on the American public the most common association any citizen would have had for the world "meddling" would not have been "Russia" but instead the phrase, "Those meddling kids!" - tagline to the end of nearly all episodes of the children's cartoon Scooby-Doo from the 1960s.
Far from being used by modern men and women, "meddling" was utilized by almost no one except ironically and never without reference to Scooby and the gang. (Whether the Militarized Media can be charged with stealing a meme from the millennials as well as professional malfeasance is another story.)
The extreme coincidence that the Mass Media would uniformly adopt the same antique word is highly implausible at best. Its use is nothing less than a naked propaganda ploy to characterize the debate concerning Russia and its alleged, though entirely unproven, effect on the past presidential election.
Influence Is Not Interference
Of course, no doubt some well-intentioned soul is decrying the above statement. "How can it be false that Russia was involved in the election when our own intelligence agencies say otherwise!" they cry.
Let us define our terms.
Was there a general Russian Opinion on whether Trump or Clinton would have been better for the Russian peoples? Absolutely! Trump stated numerous times he sought improved relations between the two nations which have enormous convergent interests and whose citizens share many commonalities. Likewise Trump thought it ridiculous that the United States was involving itself in the Ukraine Situation, which is essentially a quarrel between Slavic cousins. Additionally, he advocated peace.
Conversely, it was Clinton who routinely demonized Russian leadership. Clinton sought greater sanctions on the country which would disproportionately affect the Russian poor and working classes (who incidentally already make an annual salary of only $23,000). Clinton even hinted at military intervention.
Is there any doubt that for Russians peace was a preferable choice to war? That international cooperation was superior to bellicose threats? Or that even a questionable chance at mutual benefit was better than an unquestionable alternative of confrontation which would benefit neither side?
Yes, most Russians did support Trump and to the extent it was possible for individuals to legally and honestly - and respectfully - advocate on his behalf this was done. Not only for Russians was this important, but to help Americans themselves; because as much as it was possible to inform potential allies of what was at stake for their choice, it was deemed by many a responsibility to do so.
If giving a candid account of what an American ballot meant in the 2016 Presidential Election was "meddling" then it is true it was a widespread practice - and I confess to being one of the "meddlers."
A Trip Down Meddling Lane
So now that we have established informing the American public of viewpoints from across the Atlantic was the supposed "Great Sin" of Russian news analysts such as myself, I propose we examine our alleged crimes to see exactly how culpable we are in actuality. Below are links and synopses as well as defenses of my own articles in regard to the election. If there be fault here, I stand by all of it.
In total, I wrote approximately 8 stories for Pravda regarding the American Election. My Editor never once suggested or advocated any position on any of them. Never did I receive a telephone call from Vladimir Putin informing me what I was supposed to write, except for the weekend he invited all us correspondents to the Kremlin for Vodka martinis. (Only kidding, Mr. Mueller!)
In full frankness, Pravda is an outlet for publishing individual and cogent political opinion. It spans from highly conservative to highly liberal on a variety of topics. There is no "party line" when stories are submitted. Never have I been pressured or encouraged to take a particular position on any piece.
I, and all of our writers, choose our themes because we intellectually believe they are correct. Unlike many American news websites we have a completely anonymous Comment Section wherein readers can leave their own opinions free from censorship and without having to self-identify by registration (and thereby self-censor). Pravda welcomes all viewpoints - if they can be logically defended.
That being established; let us review the record:
July 15, 2015 - Blackballing America's Trump - My initial article concerning the election was neither particularly supportive nor dismissive of candidate Trump. Instead, it was a critique of the nascent tendency of the Militarized Press to suppress what Trump was actually saying during his speeches in favor of editorializing what he was saying to audiences. This was, and is, indicative of a dishonest media. Whenever the Press refuses to allow you to hear a man speak for yourself to instead "tell" you what he said then you know they are lying.
March 4, 2016 - Memo to Mitt: Shut Up While You're Behind - Here I confess to bias. I loathe Mitt Romney. He is a deeply flawed human being and neophyte as a reflective thinker. Due to the fact he is rather talented at making money (the supreme virtue in American life) there is a tendency to believe he is an intelligent individual. In actuality, nothing could be farther from the truth. A man may be a good basketball player, brilliant accordionist, or marvelous scientist and still be an utter buffoon when it comes to social policy. Mitt has a long history of deeply destructive positions which act to the detriment of American citizens. Therefore, whenever he deigns to give his views he needs to be rebuked harshly.
August 12, 2016 - The Many Suspicious Suicides Surrounding Hillary Clinton - This was by far my most popular article during the campaign and it "went viral" in a minor way. To the extent I was monitoring its success I believe it had in excess of 5000 "Likes" on Facebook within a few days. However it was a piece entirely based upon factual events. Moreover, there were quite a few more curious deaths which may have been including in the listing. In the interest of respectability I restrained myself to covering only those obvious deaths which even of themselves would raise many questions for a reasonable person.
October 12, 2016 - Lincoln, Gandhi, King and Trump - An article which was coincident with the disreputable "Access Hollywood" tape recording during which Trump said some unseemly things about women (which I do not defend). In line with my revulsion to the noxious state of sanctimony in America today I thought it was important to review a litany of American saints who have said equally offensive and often even worse things. Interestingly, it was recently reported that fellow secular saint Albert Einstein had a marked distaste for Asians. In any event, the purpose was not to excuse Trump but to illustrate that he is a human being and like all human beings (yes, even you, dear readers) he has uttered comments which he would later be embarrassed by in public. None of us are unblemished and I tire of those who falsely believe themselves above our common post-primordial ooze.
October 18, 2016 - Emergency Debate Intervention - Someone Alert Trump Immediately! - Here I write some suggestions to Trump and his campaign staff based on a long history of my involvement in elections and watching as unprepared candidates destroyed their own apparent successes. There is a common belief by most Americans they are secretly gifted writers - they are not. While Trump did do fairly well during the debate which followed, he apparently took none of my advice which was to his detriment because in all candor most of my answers were better than those which he gave.
November 3, 2016 - Why Any Wife, Mother Daughter, Sister or Feminist MUST Vote Trump - By far my most assertive piece regarding the election. As can be seen from the date, it was immediately preceding voting itself. Concomitant was the Migrant Invasion of Germany and several high profile rapes and assaults (which are still continuing). Hillary Clinton at this time was attacking Trump for his stance against Mexican Gangs and making overtures the United States should allow in thousands of violent migrants from the Middle East. The article specifically addresses the Faux Feminism of such fakers as Margaret Atwood who disingenuously pretend to support the interests of women while using them as a marketing shtick. Atwood and her ilk want one thing - money - and they will scramble over the broken bodies of dead children and raped women to grub at it. I make no apologies for exposing her hypocrisy and lies.
November 22, 2016 - How Children Can Explain The Donald Trump Victory To Their Parents - After the election there was a fair amount of revisionist history occurring. Specifically, Clinton was claiming a victory in the popular vote which may or may not have actually happened. More importantly, there was a general disbelief in the Militarized Media that anyone other than mindless morons could have voted for Trump. This article was an explanation for the sophomoric Press why for many he was the only option.
February 10, 2017 - Alternative Facts vs. Additional Facts - Within days of the inauguration of Trump there was already a substantial hostility to his administration. Reporters attempted to portray his positions as untruthful rather than simply in contradiction to their own. This was an attempt to show two witnesses can view the same event and still have entirely divergent recollections of what transpired.
These are the list of my offenses. There may be another article or two out there on the internet though these are the prominent examples I could locate from my records. As demonstrated above, they may have been provocative or even inflammatory but all were based upon solid reporting and cogent reason.
To date in my professional life I have published several hundred articles which have appeared in a variety of outlets. Contrary to what detractors may claim, these sources are by no means Euro-Centric or defined to any clear ideology other than that of truth in reporting, defense of the greatest degree of liberty for the greatest numbers possible and a ruthless logic which viciously rebels against pretension.
My stories have appeared in Takimag (Paleo-Conservative), The Huffington Post (Arch-Liberal), American Thinker (Centrist-Conservative), Antiwar (Centrist-Pacifist), and Pravda (International) among other established outlets.
Importantly, I am not to be counted among the callow virtue-signalers so ubiquitous in our times. I am the Howard Roark of opinion journalism and will gladly publish anywhere which values honest reportage.
I do not believe in the modern concept of "Taint by Association" and would and will allow my stories to be printed alongside a Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Anarchist or any other writer so long as I am not censored myself. I believe absolutely in the right for all viewpoints - especially "intolerable" viewpoints - to have a fair hearing everywhere and anywhere without restriction.
Inferior Ideas are beaten only with Superior Ideas - they are not discredited with Louder Ideas
During the past election many of us, especially from the Russian perspective, believed and even still believe Trump was superior to Clinton for a variety of reasons. We made conscientious efforts to convince our American allies our viewpoint was correct. None of us "hacked the election" in any way.
What we did do was try to make arguments why we were right. If American voters listened and agreed with us then we accomplished what we set out to do - reason and think together, not to "meddle."
Finally, it bears reminding that reasoning and thinking about what the implications of voting for a candidate mean are the very essence of Democracy itself. It is a lesson the Militarized Media, intent on waging battles in American minds, should pause to remember on this Independence Day.
Guy Somerset writes from somewhere in America