Mainstream Media Establishment Gatekeepers at the Presidential Debates

What can be said about a culture that continues to watch, much less listen to the drivel that masquerades as professional journalism? Anyone who is exposed to the continuous assault on common sense and intellectual integrity must resent the insults to the intelligence of the average voter. An electorate tunes into this charade of managed and filtered questions out of habit and certainly not from a motivation of discovering solutions. The bottom line is that the entire process of Presidential election coverage is designed to keep people in the dark.

Painfully, you know who owns the media conglomerates and the statist bias reflected in their editorial selections. You also know that any sincere reporting attempt, based upon objective investigative accuracy would result in getting a pink slip for an intrepid journalist.

Watching the love fest for the chosen establishment standard bearers in the Presidential debates proves just how irrelevant the mainstream media has become.

Turn off the propaganda machine and tune into the alternative media. Fair and balanced diatribes are the only thing scripted and biased worth knowing out of the media circus of lies and deceit. Lofty ethical standards do not exist from the Yellow journalism coming out of the modern day Pulitzer vs. Hearst road show. The establishment rules the news for the benefit and protection of the elites.

Let’s not pretend that the search for truth is the objective in a society based upon self deception and communal denial. David Schultz pens a significant account in Political lies and the First Amendment: What role should deception have in politics?

“Is there a First Amendment right to lie in politics? In adjudicating the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 221B.06, which makes it a gross misdemeanor to disseminate a political communication about a ballot measure that one knows is false, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently said yes in 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson [PDF], throwing out a law more than 100 years old. The decision also questions whether another part of the law – making it illegal for candidates to lie – is constitutional. The court was concerned with how such a law would chill free speech, rejecting the claim that the state has an interest in preserving “fair and honest” elections and in preventing a “fraud upon the electorate.”

There are two remaining arguments used to argue that political lies should be protected by the First Amendment. One is the claim that the people should decide what is truth and that the government should not be making decisions about political orthodoxy or veracity. In general both assertions are true, but the judicial process – especially juries – make decisions about truth all the time. Juries often have to make decisions about witness credibility, determine what the facts are, and render decisions on whether libel, slander or false advertising occurred. The judicial process is all about making decisions about what is the truth. Determining whether someone has lied politically can also be judged by the people through the courts. The other claim is that there is no standard determining when someone has lied. In N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (1964) the court articulated the actual malice standard in the political defamation context, defining the boundary between what is and is not protected by the First Amendment.”

When people complain that politicians lie, they are only admitting that the most effective prevaricator is the one who can sell the formula for shielding the ruling oligarchy from scrutiny or accountability. How else can one explain or defend the soft ball treatment and avoidance of truly hard hitting questions to the cast of characters left in the field for coronation as the next emperor?

If the Presidential debates are empty shells of serious discourse, just what would a prudent citizen call the culture that envelopes a palisade rampart around the Fifth Estate? The arrogance and self-induced haughtiness that feeds the fabrications to shape public perception has a singular objective. Keep in the good graces of the masters of the universe as a prerequisite to maintain a career.

A would be celebrity correspondent is worse than the most militant progress academic extremist. A closet collectivist will always side with the political candidate, who advocates government expansion. As an aficionado of limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy, the BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocacy for a Radical Reactionary mindset must reject the corporatist message that only facilitates the New World Order agenda.

Need some proof? Establishment Presidential Candidates Battle to End Voters’ Flirtation With Outsiders, from the Wall Street Journal sums up the sentiment for the corrupt class of criminal crooks.

“I do not believe in my lifetime anybody has run for this job at a moment of greater importance, who was better qualified by knowledge, experience and temperament to do what needs to be done now.”

Who made this statement? Yep you guessed it, William Jefferson Clinton, speaking about his estranged “person of interest” and part time wife.

Substitute any of the other professional “pols” who has their surrogates perfect their own spin, for the hildebeast, and you get the same results. Where are the media watchdogs that allow the popularization of newspeak, while ignoring the dissimilation of flat out lies? Obviously, they are practicing their suck up techniques, because a presstitute is a practitioner of hypnotizing the public.

Folks, prepare for another rigged election, superdelegate style. If you are a junkie for punishment, follow the 2016 Election Race on Facebook and subscribe to the Uncensored Political News. Wean yourself off the dependency on the talking heads from the programmed media and liberate your mind in trusted counter establishment news sources worldwide.

Now that lying is legal in the land of the controlled, that revolutionary act which George Orwell spoke about; namely, telling the truth, is the only way to combat the time of universal deceit, we all live in. A good start would be for courageous candidates to conduct a cross-examination on the media whores, who advance the globalist gulag. Become your own reliable reporter, engage in citizen journalism.

SARTRE – February, 16, 2016

Read the entire article on the “Radical Reactionary” archives

Subscription sign-up for the BATR RealPolitik Newsletter

Discuss or comment about this essay on the BATR Forum