Think, People, Think: A “Free Press” is Not Enough
It isn’t government censors who are generating all the fake news, lies, and omissions of the media. So what is it?
by David Sims
ALTHOUGH a free press, one not subject to government censorship or unreasonable obstruction, is necessary to the public’s welfare, it isn’t sufficient. The other half of the story is censorship and bias by the journalists themselves.
Right now, journalists (not the government) are choosing not to write news stories about crimes committed by racial and religious minorities, or to skew the impact of such stories by a misuse of emphasis and omission. If they write a story about minority crime at all, then they will use a soft focus, will blur the details, or will try to direct the reader’s concern toward inappropriate objects.
For example, when a Black Muslim immigrant, serving as a police officer in Minneapolis, responded to a report of sexual assault by shooting the woman who had called for his help, the media didn’t present as much detail as they should have, and they additionally tried to route reader concern toward the “Muslim community” who were allegedly fearful of “backlash.” That’s inappropriate. The concern should remain with the victim of the crime, which actually did happen, and not engage in speculations about who might possibly have reasons to regret the crime later.
But that’s the kind of thing the Jewish-owned mainstream media do.
If a criminal is White, the media make certain that everyone in the country knows that fact immediately. But if the criminal is Black, then usually not a word is said about his race, and the interested reader must search for his photo, which might have been made very hard to find.
So, yes, every free country must have an free press, a free array of radio and TV broadcasters, and free speech online. But freedom by itself isn’t enough. The ownership of the press must be diverse, such that it isn’t possible for any part of its ownership to censor, or lay significant pressure upon, or enjoy financial advantages relative to, any other part.
As things stand presently, the Jews have mainstream journalism almost in total lockstep, and voices that say things that the Jews don’t like have difficulty being heard.
In other words, it isn’t only the government who can impose harm to the public through censorship, bias in choosing what to report and what not to report, slanting the news coverage, improper use of emphasis, improper omissions of details, and so on. Private groups organized to pursue their own interests at the expense of the public interest can do the same thing just as effectively.
The Jewish stranglehold on the mass media must be broken. When that is done, and the press remains free, then it will be a better service to the public.
Elections in the United States are, without exception, corrupted by the fact that the knowledge about the candidates, available to the public, is filtered by a media establishment largely owned and run by Jews. Regime change by the American people is not something that our elections really do. Real regime change hasn’t happened since the American Revolutionary War.
If Americans ever reach the point of organization from which another revolution might become possible, then there is a simple way to describe the Jewish-owned “mainstream” media: Legitimate military targets.
* * *