What if the NY Times covered the Project Veritas Pfizer revelations?

If a story would debunk an important false narrative, the story cannot be published.

This is an addendum to yesterday’s “thought exercise” …. example No. 10,000 of how the mainstream press exerts its real power through its intentional (and daily) decisions to NOT write articles about important news.

The main thought here is that if the mainstream media doesn’t cover X, X is not really “news.” At least not news that’s “fit to print.”

Here are a few of the known knowables about the Project Veritas undercover sting operation.

• An executive with Pfizer seems to say that his company is performing, or will soon perform, “gain of function” research on viruses … although the company doesn’t label these type of virus manipulations “gain-of-function” research. They instead manipulate the language and call them “directed evolution” experiments. 

• The executive admits that Covid “vaccines” - which increasing numbers of every-day citizens and the company knows are not effective at preventing infection or spread - are still a “cash cow” for the company and will probably remain a “cash cow” for the company for many years, maybe for the rest of our lives.

• The executive admits this is not good for the public, but this is very good for Pfizer.

• The executive acknowledges that the “regulators” who are supposed to regulate Pfizer are captured and that many of them will end up working in the industry they are supposed to be regulating. 

In a sane world, all of the above revelations would be “newsworthy” as Pfizer is the company that is producing a “vaccine” and booster shots that have been injected into billions of arms.

The question reporters might want to ask is should the people of the world really trust such a company … or the government regulators who are supposed to regulate such a company.

The real question is why wouldn’t these revelations qualify as a “story” that’s worth reporting to the billions of people who are receiving experimental shots from this company and other vaccine producers?

Here are three other “known knowables” …

* The Project Veritas videos have now been viewed by approximately 20 million people in the world. This right here tells us there is tremendous interest in this story.

* But, still, as of this writing, I don’t think The New York Times has published one story about any of this. 

Building on my theme that the Times is the “leader of the pack” of “pack journalism,” I also note that The Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (I’m going to stop here for space reasons) have also found this “story” is unworthy of any coverage.

* YouTube (owned by Google) pulled the video for violating one of its “guidelines.” (Apparently, sting journalism - the type journalism that made “Sixty Minutes” a cultural icon - now violates their guidelines).

That is, per the organizations that helped create and defend all the official narratives, this story is actually NOT a story. In fact, any story that challenges any important narrative cannot become a story.

I would argue that all the stories that can never be allowed to become “stories” is the great unreported story (scandal) of our times.

If you read my piece on “Good vs. Evil,” you might believe as I do that this is, in fact, a silver lining of our New Normal times. At least “Evil” has shown its face. Some of us at least know - without question - the news sources we should NEVER trust. 

The news organizations that will not run stories like this are the Bad Guys who must be exposed.

In fact, they long ago exposed themselves as operatives who exist to conceal and cover-up important stories and facts. The silver lining is that more people are starting to understand this valuable lesson, which can’t be a bad thing.

Continuing with yesterday’s “thought exercise,” what would happen if The New York Times did fairly cover all of the news elements of the Project Veritas story?

If this happened, even more people would know about this story, including every New York Times subscriber who has (inexplicably) bought the official narrative that Pfizer is doing great good for the world.

At least a few of these subscribers might conclude, “Maybe we should reconsider our blind trust in this company.”

More Thought Exercise Questions …

Would Pfizer continue to shower this newspaper with advertising spends if the Times wrote a few Page-1 stories that called into question Pfizer’s wonderful humanity?

Would the Bill Gates Foundation continue to dole out hundreds of millions of its “excellence in journalism” grants/subsidies to news organizations that questioned or attacked Big Pharma?

If The New York Times wrote a critical story that followed-up on the Project Veritas revelations, would any other mainstream news organization follow their lead and do the same thing?

Some precedents are more dangerous than others …

If the Times did fairly report the newsworthy elements of this story, wouldn’t this set a precedent that the working press no longer views the pronouncements of supposedly infallible companies and science experts as “settled science” after all?

If some prestigious news organization can produce journalism that embarrasses Pfizer’s top brass, couldn’t the same journalists do other pieces that embarrass the leaders of the government/science complex? You know … “hypothetically speaking.”

My thought all along has been that these “news organizations” (or officials) can’t do one real investigation because if they did one, they’d have to keep going. People would say, “Well, if they lied about that, they might have also lied about that …”

So the “key to the operation” is NOT performing the first real investigation. 

Which leads me to this thought … If someone would just do the first big-time real investigation … all the faux-narrative dominoes might start to fall.

Or … maybe not. Per my thought-exercising, the first news organization that breaks ranks and performs real journalism is going to be attacked unmercifully by the rest of the pack (club). A message will be sent: Do not go THERE. 

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks got that message loud and clear - which is probably why nobody else has started another version of WikiLeaks.

What to make of Fox News?

Fox News is a very interesting player in this “groupthink” landscape. Fox News did cover the Project Veritas bombshell. Tucker Carlson led with this story the other night.

Tucker Carlson happens to host the highest-rated primetime news/commentary show in North America …

… so there’s probably a key lesson here: If you do report the truth, you are not going to lose audience. You are going to gain audience. 

At least in the “mainstream press,” Tucker Carlson had/has a monopoly on this shocking story.

So we have a story that tens of millions of people are very interested in … that 98 percent of the rest of the mainstream press won’t even cover. 

If they do eventually cover it, it will be some kind of “fact check” that tries to tell us that this guy’s comments were all “misinformation.” 

The message will be: Don’t trust what this guy said - or none of what he said matters. Or Project Veritas is a front for Q-Anon and its founder should be thrown into the gulag just like Assange was.

What are the odds?

The Super Bowl is around the corner and millions of Americans will put a little money on the outcome of the game. We’ll all be very interested in the odds the book makers establish for the game.

Here’s a final thought: The odds that the worst high school football team in my state would beat, say, the Kansas City Chiefs would be better than the odds that The New York Times would do a big and honest story on the revelations revealed by that Pfizer executive.