THOUGHT EXERCISE: What if The New York Times simply told the truth?

A good thought exercise makes us stroll through hypothetical terrain. It makes us think about things that didn’t happen and sometimes makes us realize why things that should happen didn’t happen. If nothing else, a good thought exercise works out the old brain muscle, which is an important muscle.

Let the Thought Exercise begin …

Today’s question: What if The New York Times simply exposed all the Covid lies and scandals?

I can already hear readers screaming at their devices: “Bill, you’ve gone bonkers. This could never happen …”

Thank you. 10-4 on that. But this is actually the main point of today’s thought exercise. What if the above event did happen?

The New York Times - say tomorrow or next month - starts publishing one article after another that completely destroys all of the lies (misinformation) that have comprised the authorized Covid narratives.

This would definitely be ‘news fit to print’ 

The articles would prove - with evidence, facts, strong and credible sources, etc. - that: 

• Lockdowns were a disaster and unnecessary.

• That many people died because of iatrogenic reasons (or from the government “response” to this virus).

• That masks did nothing to prevent spread and were themselves dangerous. 

• That the official Covid data and statistics were intentionally manipulated to produce irrational and false fear.

• That the vaccines were neither safe nor effective and were actually ineffective and dangerous and have caused millions of injuries and probably hundreds of thousands of deaths.

• That officials have covered up the source of the origination of the virus.

• That the virus was actually “spreading” many months before officials said was possible.

• That just about every important organization - and their key leaders - are either brazenly corrupt and/or incompetent … and many have conspired to keep the truth from the public.

• In the boldest stroke of all, The New York Times even calls out its own reporting of the past three years, which editors now admit was serial misinformation … and the newspaper apologizes profusely for letting its readers down. What readers are reading now is the newspaper’s effort to redeem its reputation and serve the interest of truth, justice, accountability, the historical record, etc.

Again, every person on the planet knows this scenario could not happen in a million years … but, hypothetically, it could happen, right?

I mean, nothing is stopping the newspaper from doing investigations that would prove all of the above, right? In fact, all of the above would be surprisingly easy to prove. Alternative media journalists and citizen journalists  - as well as maverick real scientists - have already done much of the heavy lifting.

With an army of highly-trained and smart journalists belatedly on the case, the lies would crumble one after another.

First question: What would be the result of this?

My thought: People would be stunned, floored, gob-smacked, beyond discombobulated.  The rocket journey into a new matrix would be almost too much for people to digest, process or comprehend. 

The first thought would not be about all the lives that would be saved, it would be: “I can’t believe The New York Times did this.”

All the newspaper would be doing was performing proper and good journalism and reporting the truth. However, this alone would blow the minds of billions of people on our planet. 

Our Thought Exercise was worthwhile just for this one lesson: Nobody thinks real journalism on important topics is even possible any more.

Proposition: Telling important and life-saving stories should not be a radical, mind-blowing proposition … but it is. 

How would other mainstream journalists and news organizations respond to this series of articles? 

In the past, since the Times is the obvious leader of “pack journalism,” they would all follow the Times’ lead and immediately start doing their own follow-up articles and investigations. This would mean that even more scandals would be uncovered, and much quicker. 

But would this happen in this scenario?

Something tells me, “No way.” The stakes would be too high. All the key players would have to choose sides. 

Should we follow the lead of The New York Times or should we follow the lead of our real leader?

My guess: If the New York Times went rogue and did real journalism, everybody else in the pack would turn on The New York Times … in a New-York minute.

The Times would get the same treatment as Dr. Peter McCullough and the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. The publisher, Mr. A.G. Sulzberger, would probably get the Julian Assange treatment. 

We’d learn who the real Powers that Be are …

When I started this Thought Exercise, I thought the publisher of the NY Times might be one of the most powerful people in the world. Mr. Sulzberger is powerful not because of the articles his journalists do write. He’s actually powerful because of all the articles his journalists could write but never do. 

By himself, this one person could damn near drain the entire corrupt swamp by himself … if he chose to do so. This is an immense amount of power for one man.

But just a few minutes  of thought exercising tells me … someone else (several someone elses) actually possess the real power. Even The New York Times isn’t the real boss here. All the Big Swinging Cronies would chose sides … and we’d all learn what side they chose. This would be good information to know as well.

Plunging deeper into the Thought Exercise …

One of my first assumptions was that the publisher of the newspaper could actually order his staff to produce the type stories I’d like to see, the type stories that might change the world for the better. But, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, always check your assumptions.

It’s quite possible (probably even likely) that Mr. Sulzberger’s  staff of journalists and editors would revolt and simply refuse to write such stories. 

Think about it. These people wouldn’t be working for The New York Times if they hadn’t already drank the Official Narrative Kool Aid. They’d rather drink drink cyanide Kool Aid like the people in Jonestown than be labeled an “anti-vaxxer.” 

If a few hung around just for the benefits, their hearts wouldn’t be in their assignment. Ask hard questions of Anthony Fauci and his minions? Eight Ball says, “No way.”

So before he could even work his program, the rogue publisher would have to fire almost his entire staff and then hire reporters who would do this type reporting.

Also, as soon as this publisher gathered the staff together and told them what he wanted them to do with future Covid investigations, it would take maybe two minutes for word to get out: Our publisher has gone nuts: He wants us to do stories that will corroborate the theories of the anti-vaxxers!

What would probably happen is the publisher - who reports to a board - would be fired within six hours.

But this is a hypothetical, so let’s keep running with it.  Let’s say this publisher controls enough shares that he couldn’t be fired. And let’s say that he did fire 80 percent of his staff and then re-hired people (like me!) who would do the investigations he wanted. 

Granted, it would be a genuine miracle, but the stories are published. One after the other. Boom! Boom! Boom! The publisher doesn’t back down, all the new reporters he hires believe in the work they are doing, and the stories the staff produces are so iron-clad that nobody can deny that they are the truth.

This would not stand …

Next question: What would the wizards behind the curtain do?

In my Thought Exercise, I also assume some kind of nefarious cartel really does rule the world. But it probably never occurred to the Davos Crowd that one of their own might go rogue  - find religion or develop a conscience - and start coming after them.

The mental picture I have is of a bevy of terrified, ultra-pissed executives (and CIA types) calling each other on burner phones ever 30 seconds. 

They’d obviously be eager to punish the offender.

The first volley would be to make sure all the New York Times’ advertisers immediately cancelled their advertising.This would be easy as all global companies act in packs as well.

Next they would go to their public relations/mind-control consultants and organize a campaign that would make 80 percent of New York Times’ subscribers cancel their subscriptions.

A newspaper with no advertising (except maybe My Pillow) and a loss of 80 percent of its subscribers would be taking on water fast.

 

But Rambo, albeit an underdog, has some weapons too …

But the publisher actually has more leverage than George Soros might want to admit. 

The tens of millions of viewers of Fox News - and all the Substackers - all the people that despised the New York Times for decades - would be signing up for subscriptions left and right. 

Plus, I don’t think all of the Times subscribers would desert them.

Some of them would say, “Man, this is too good to miss. I’ve got to see how this plays out.”

In my Thought Exercise - my own table-top exercise - The New York Times would probably become the most read newspaper in the history of the world. People would never leave the Times website, as they couldn’t wait for the next explosive story to be downloaded.

Every subject that had previously been taboo would now be fair game. When advertisers desert the paper, the paper would simply run a story naming these companies and ask their CEOs for comment on why they won’t advertise any more.

“Does JP Morgan Chase have a problem with truthful reporting?”

If BlackRock or Bill Gates is gunning for them (which they would be), the Times is going to be publishing expose after expose … on BlackRock and Bill Gates.

I mean, do people (and corporations) really want to pick a fight with a news organization that buys its ink by the barrel?

Well, in this case they would. It would be either shut the NY Times down or they are all going to be disgraced, imprisoned and/or bankrupted.

I know this. Those of us who witnessed all of this would be glad we lived long enough to witness this fight. It would be the best drama ever.

And one wonders if ALL the news organizations and journalists would side with the Establishment/Deep State indefinitely. 

Surely a few journalists and news organizations would get tired of the NY Times getting five jaw-dropping scoops a day. Maybe a few would say, “we can do real journalism too” … and we can boost our own subscriber/readership numbers too.

I’d take the money line on the Times winning …

A dirty secret in the news business is that the truth sales. There’s actually a tremendous market and hunger for it. 

We don’t know their names, but a couple of Times reporters would become far more famous (and wealthier) than Woodward and Bernstein ever imagined.

When everything comes out in the wash, the crazy New York Times publisher would probably … win.  (If he wasn’t killed first, which would be a distinct possibility).

I think Good would slay Evil. The truth would prevail over lies. Even Congress and various prosecutors would eventually capitulate, gauge which way the wind was blowing, and try to belatedly sneak onto the winning team.  

Anyway, dangerous vaccines would never be administered in the future. Countless lives would be saved. Pfizer and Moderna would be no more. Nuremberg 2.0 Tribunals would be held (and these fact-finding tribunals would corroborate the reporting of the NY Times). New prisons would have to be built to accommodate all the convicted felons.

A couple of entrepreneurs would copy the Times’ radical model of doing honest and real investigative journalism and so the world might once again have a “watchdog” press.

The crazy publisher would be played by Tom Hanks in the movie and all the advertisers would come back (since they don’t want to stay on the bad side of this particular publisher or this particular newspaper).

All of this is how it possibly could play out … if just one publisher at one specific newspaper made one bold decision.

Back to reality ….

What was that 1980s movie? Reality Bites?

Every single person on the planets KNOWS none of this could happen … at least at The New York Times. Or The Washington Post or the L.A. Times, USA Today,  the Associated Press or CBS News …

Still, I think this was a worthwhile Thought Exercise because it proves who is not going to save the country. It shows us all the weapons the Powers that Be would deploy in their battle to slay a former club member who went rogue.

I think our little mental exercise proves that this could have been done. Reporting the truth is not really that hard and there’s a market for it. 

It’s sad to realize that that something that could be accomplished so easily … won’t even be tried.

Stay tuned - future Substack Idea and article … But that’s not to say some crazy millionaire or billionaire couldn’t start up his own investigative journalism news organization, recruit 150 real journalists and researchers and publish the exact same stories.

Alas, we all know The New York Times, the leader of the journalism pack, isn’t going to lead. It’s going to continue to follow some rulers the paper’s “journalists” will never try to identify. 

If anything is going to change, we’re going to have to do it ourselves.

Bottom-line on my little Thought Exercise: The group-thinking clones who work for The New York Times and its cowardly publisher don’t want the people of the world to win. They want our real rulers to win.