Today, “pack journalism” distinguishes itself by all the stories the pack decides are taboo or off-limits to investigation. But history has given us plenty of examples of what’s possible when every smart reporter is trying to break the same scandalous stories.
What happens today is that no crooked official gets any tough questions at a press conference. What if every question said official or spokesperson got was antagonistic or skeptical of the authorized narrative? The liars would be under siege. They’d no doubt triple down on past lies … but you’d now have a room-full of reporters trying to document all these lies.
The sharks would smell blood and the pack of fearless journalists would soon come in for the kill.
But this scenario would require only one major news organization to break ranks from the pack and perform their real “watchdog” job. It’s possible all the other news organizations wouldn’t follow the lead of this news organization, but this probably wouldn’t matter if the news organization that was pursuing these scandals stayed the course. If everyone else wanted to give this news organization a monopoly on the “Great Scandals of history” …. so be it.
Thank you for touching on the fact that no “real” interviews happen any more. They’re pretty much just ‘marketing’ these days. Their fakeness is so apparent.
Well written article, with proposed solutions involving those entities.
Why hasn't this happened? Why is it an uphill battle against evil forces? Cowardice. Men and women in all these positions have abandoned the tenets of their youth involving attributes like courage, honesty and loyalty.
Cowardice. The ones in a position to do the right thing are allowing fear of ostracization and ridicule to prevent them from acting courageously.
Recently that's what I keep coming back to, Dave. "The land of the free and the home of the brave." It turns out that maintaining freedom does require some courage. We celebrate this quality in movies and novels and sometimes even documentaries, but a typical person doesn't want to display any courage when it's needed. This is a head-scratcher. You don't need everyone to be brave, but you would think 10 percent of citizens might be brave. I think it's really about 1-in-500 that have "true grit."
just like most other rags. and like governments. Just found out they are neglecting the wish of the people to stop the winter-summer time and will change after all. This after 65 or more percent voted against it.
This essay is a variation on my latest theme that all important organizations are “completely captured.” My twist with this piece is that I try to show how the world might be different (better) if this was NOT the case.
Take the mainstream media, which is 100 percent captured. But what if “only” 90 percent of the leading print news organizations were captured?
Take the leading 100 newspapers, magazines and Internet sites in the “mainstream media.” What if 10 percent of these news organizations were NOT captured? That would mean 10 news organizations had journalists who were willing to investigate taboo Covid topics. If this was the case, this journalism work product would make a huge difference in all the accepted narratives. You’d have 10 news organizations (and hundreds of journalists) publishing stories that presented a different POV.
We’d all dance a little Two Step if this was the case.
Think about if just 10 percent of the country’s trial lawyers were willing to represent Covid victims. This would equate to thousands of attorneys, filing thousands of cases that were never filed. That by itself might be a narrative changer.
Instead of 10 percent of journalists or trial lawyers producing cases or stories that advance our agenda, we actually have 0 percent of MSM journalists and maybe 0.1 percent of trial lawyers taking these cases.
So every important organization might as well be 100-percent captured. If these two “truth-seeking” entities were only 90 percent captured, we’d live in a totally different world.
That is, it would take just a brave and tiny minority to make a world of difference. But in the most important organizations, we don’t even have this tiny fraction of people fighting on our side.
Another way to express this is that the Powers that Be must have 100 percent of these key organizations qualify as "captured." They can’t have any outliers or apostates. And they don’t.
They have achieved close to percent capture of all the most important organizations. When you think about this, it's really quite an impressive accomplishment ... in a depressing sort of way.
Oct 18, 2023·edited Oct 18, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
Nice thought. I’m afraid evil has been inserted at the top of all influential organizations. Whomever tries to break the chains that bind seem to face the prospect of multiple forms of assassination. Character, Economic or Literal. Or, they can STFU and go on with their life. That is the choice of all who might consider blowing the whistle. Snowden, Assange, O’Keefe, Trump and even scumbag Epstein are only a few of the more blatant examples of the grinder that awaits those who pose a threat. There are many lesser known Seth Rich and Kary Mullis types out there as well.
Brilliant! The stocks are already crumbling. The rest of us could all go on a general strike (meaning everyone in all fields of endeavor) or a sick out for the less hardy, to show we will not advance under their blows until the blows stop raining down. We wouldn't even need to have a mission statement or an organizational structure. Just a natural consensus to show universal disengagement with the status-quo. I think that would be easy too, and bolster one of your key players to redirect, before they all (or almost all) fall like dominoes. Very grateful for your inspiration!
Another paragraph that ended up on the cutting room floor ...
Also, many judges have lifetime appointments so they can’t lose their jobs. If they are elected judges, would they really be voted out of office for allowing a case against Big Pharma or some mega corporation to be adjudicated by a “jury of our peers?” I doubt it.
The fact everyone in the world knows these scandals will NOT be exposed illustrates how completely captured all the truth-seeking organizations in society have become.
You would definitely get the outcomes you desire. Think of it. Crush testicles to get them to admit they killed millions with their jabs. Use faked human skin lampshades to show clotting and shrunken heads to show cranial disturbances, and never question or do the scientific tests required to know exactly what they were and where they came from (just like Pfizer).
James Biden was a major player with the group of Mississippi lawyers who facilitated the shakedown of big tobacco. What was James Biden’s role in this action? What did he know about this type of litigation? Or was he Joe’s representative?
Applying the same principles of investigative journalism to the actions taken against candidate and then President Donald Trump would result in the indictment of the heads of every major branch of government of the past 10-12 years, Republican and Democrat.
For a nice example of how a real scientist assesses a study see Dr. Byram Bridle's Sept. 26 post on his Substack <viralimmunologist.substack.com>.
On rare occasions I have seen the referees' comments and revisions on a paper. For a non-specialist this is extremely valuable as we can't possibly have technical mastery in every field. The reporters and lawyers in politics are similarly constrained and start from a far lower level in dealing with technical matters. They should, however, be able to sort out liars effectively.
Edward Dowd, former Blackrock expert trader, has a book out on this. It needs more media attention. He and his team spent considerable time gathering facts.
His book can't get any (mainstream) media attention ... because the mainstream media is 100 percent captured. If it was only 90 percent captured, 10 percent of these news organizations would be writing about what Dowd is researching. A few might have even published a review of his book.
You ought be a journalism professor Bill.....but I guess that would lose the appeal of the investigative aspects of things....I'll read the rest, but the first few paragraphs - no typos I noticed and it was engaging...at some point, I thought - I'm going to express appreciation for this - ergo...a comment.
~
Maybe later you will have the chance to be a professor of journalism - there are worse jobs, but does journalism even really exist at the higher institutions of learning - probably best to just learn on the fly.
That's another job I'd never get in a million years. I actually predict there will be virtually no "Schools of Journalism" in, say, 10 years. Why have a degree program when there's hardly any journalists being hired in your state? In Alabama, I would say there might be 150 to 200 real journalists working at newspapers, Internet sites and TV stations. In my county, our newspaper has two. If you count me ... that would be three "working journalists" in the whole county. I'm the only journalist in Alabama who will investigate and write about "taboo" Covid topics. So I am literally 1-in-5-million!
Cutting Room Floor text ...
Today, “pack journalism” distinguishes itself by all the stories the pack decides are taboo or off-limits to investigation. But history has given us plenty of examples of what’s possible when every smart reporter is trying to break the same scandalous stories.
What happens today is that no crooked official gets any tough questions at a press conference. What if every question said official or spokesperson got was antagonistic or skeptical of the authorized narrative? The liars would be under siege. They’d no doubt triple down on past lies … but you’d now have a room-full of reporters trying to document all these lies.
The sharks would smell blood and the pack of fearless journalists would soon come in for the kill.
But this scenario would require only one major news organization to break ranks from the pack and perform their real “watchdog” job. It’s possible all the other news organizations wouldn’t follow the lead of this news organization, but this probably wouldn’t matter if the news organization that was pursuing these scandals stayed the course. If everyone else wanted to give this news organization a monopoly on the “Great Scandals of history” …. so be it.
Thank you for touching on the fact that no “real” interviews happen any more. They’re pretty much just ‘marketing’ these days. Their fakeness is so apparent.
Well written article, with proposed solutions involving those entities.
Why hasn't this happened? Why is it an uphill battle against evil forces? Cowardice. Men and women in all these positions have abandoned the tenets of their youth involving attributes like courage, honesty and loyalty.
Cowardice. The ones in a position to do the right thing are allowing fear of ostracization and ridicule to prevent them from acting courageously.
Cowards.
Recently that's what I keep coming back to, Dave. "The land of the free and the home of the brave." It turns out that maintaining freedom does require some courage. We celebrate this quality in movies and novels and sometimes even documentaries, but a typical person doesn't want to display any courage when it's needed. This is a head-scratcher. You don't need everyone to be brave, but you would think 10 percent of citizens might be brave. I think it's really about 1-in-500 that have "true grit."
Not only are they cowards, but to varying degrees they are complicit.
The New York Times might as well be called what it is: An accessory to the crime.
Sorry, but the time for pulling punches is over and NY Times ought be disbanded entirely forever.
Hear! Hear!
just like most other rags. and like governments. Just found out they are neglecting the wish of the people to stop the winter-summer time and will change after all. This after 65 or more percent voted against it.
This essay is a variation on my latest theme that all important organizations are “completely captured.” My twist with this piece is that I try to show how the world might be different (better) if this was NOT the case.
Take the mainstream media, which is 100 percent captured. But what if “only” 90 percent of the leading print news organizations were captured?
Take the leading 100 newspapers, magazines and Internet sites in the “mainstream media.” What if 10 percent of these news organizations were NOT captured? That would mean 10 news organizations had journalists who were willing to investigate taboo Covid topics. If this was the case, this journalism work product would make a huge difference in all the accepted narratives. You’d have 10 news organizations (and hundreds of journalists) publishing stories that presented a different POV.
We’d all dance a little Two Step if this was the case.
Think about if just 10 percent of the country’s trial lawyers were willing to represent Covid victims. This would equate to thousands of attorneys, filing thousands of cases that were never filed. That by itself might be a narrative changer.
Instead of 10 percent of journalists or trial lawyers producing cases or stories that advance our agenda, we actually have 0 percent of MSM journalists and maybe 0.1 percent of trial lawyers taking these cases.
So every important organization might as well be 100-percent captured. If these two “truth-seeking” entities were only 90 percent captured, we’d live in a totally different world.
That is, it would take just a brave and tiny minority to make a world of difference. But in the most important organizations, we don’t even have this tiny fraction of people fighting on our side.
Another way to express this is that the Powers that Be must have 100 percent of these key organizations qualify as "captured." They can’t have any outliers or apostates. And they don’t.
They have achieved close to percent capture of all the most important organizations. When you think about this, it's really quite an impressive accomplishment ... in a depressing sort of way.
Nice thought. I’m afraid evil has been inserted at the top of all influential organizations. Whomever tries to break the chains that bind seem to face the prospect of multiple forms of assassination. Character, Economic or Literal. Or, they can STFU and go on with their life. That is the choice of all who might consider blowing the whistle. Snowden, Assange, O’Keefe, Trump and even scumbag Epstein are only a few of the more blatant examples of the grinder that awaits those who pose a threat. There are many lesser known Seth Rich and Kary Mullis types out there as well.
It's the power of wanting to remain in the herd or "The Club." That's a powerful motivator.
This just in!…https://open.substack.com/pub/anamihalceamdphd/p/free-reiner-fuellmich?r=268dbu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Brilliant! The stocks are already crumbling. The rest of us could all go on a general strike (meaning everyone in all fields of endeavor) or a sick out for the less hardy, to show we will not advance under their blows until the blows stop raining down. We wouldn't even need to have a mission statement or an organizational structure. Just a natural consensus to show universal disengagement with the status-quo. I think that would be easy too, and bolster one of your key players to redirect, before they all (or almost all) fall like dominoes. Very grateful for your inspiration!
Another paragraph that ended up on the cutting room floor ...
Also, many judges have lifetime appointments so they can’t lose their jobs. If they are elected judges, would they really be voted out of office for allowing a case against Big Pharma or some mega corporation to be adjudicated by a “jury of our peers?” I doubt it.
The fact everyone in the world knows these scandals will NOT be exposed illustrates how completely captured all the truth-seeking organizations in society have become.
"This could be a Nuremberg-type tribunal "
You would definitely get the outcomes you desire. Think of it. Crush testicles to get them to admit they killed millions with their jabs. Use faked human skin lampshades to show clotting and shrunken heads to show cranial disturbances, and never question or do the scientific tests required to know exactly what they were and where they came from (just like Pfizer).
They were successful at Nuremberg.
All so true, Bill.
Recall it took many years to bring down "Big Tobacco"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHg5Aob3wcI
Smart and well paid people would say things that later were proven false, too.
This was in 1994!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08&t=14s
The Mississippi group, led by Dickie Scruggs, took a billion dollars from big tobacco for their efforts.
James Biden was a major player with the group of Mississippi lawyers who facilitated the shakedown of big tobacco. What was James Biden’s role in this action? What did he know about this type of litigation? Or was he Joe’s representative?
Applying the same principles of investigative journalism to the actions taken against candidate and then President Donald Trump would result in the indictment of the heads of every major branch of government of the past 10-12 years, Republican and Democrat.
For a nice example of how a real scientist assesses a study see Dr. Byram Bridle's Sept. 26 post on his Substack <viralimmunologist.substack.com>.
On rare occasions I have seen the referees' comments and revisions on a paper. For a non-specialist this is extremely valuable as we can't possibly have technical mastery in every field. The reporters and lawyers in politics are similarly constrained and start from a far lower level in dealing with technical matters. They should, however, be able to sort out liars effectively.
Nice ideas. However, many lawyers and judges are loyal to the Crown BAR Association and probably a lot of compromised paedo Masons in there too.
Edward Dowd, former Blackrock expert trader, has a book out on this. It needs more media attention. He and his team spent considerable time gathering facts.
His book can't get any (mainstream) media attention ... because the mainstream media is 100 percent captured. If it was only 90 percent captured, 10 percent of these news organizations would be writing about what Dowd is researching. A few might have even published a review of his book.
You ought be a journalism professor Bill.....but I guess that would lose the appeal of the investigative aspects of things....I'll read the rest, but the first few paragraphs - no typos I noticed and it was engaging...at some point, I thought - I'm going to express appreciation for this - ergo...a comment.
~
Maybe later you will have the chance to be a professor of journalism - there are worse jobs, but does journalism even really exist at the higher institutions of learning - probably best to just learn on the fly.
~
Best to you,
BK
That's another job I'd never get in a million years. I actually predict there will be virtually no "Schools of Journalism" in, say, 10 years. Why have a degree program when there's hardly any journalists being hired in your state? In Alabama, I would say there might be 150 to 200 real journalists working at newspapers, Internet sites and TV stations. In my county, our newspaper has two. If you count me ... that would be three "working journalists" in the whole county. I'm the only journalist in Alabama who will investigate and write about "taboo" Covid topics. So I am literally 1-in-5-million!
don't play with the numbers to your advantage Bill....ha, ha...but I get what you are saying.
It is appreciated!