The Department of Homeland Security is now in the Media surveillance business in which it will monitor activities of media professionals and influencers and track them in a database.
The post Dept. Of Homeland Security Now Tracking Journalists, Creating Database of ‘Media Influencers’ appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
YouTube censorship is getting really noticeable in recent days, and honestly, it should bother everyone. Now, Alex Jones is saying his channel Infowars is one strike away from a YouTube ban with 2.2 million subscribers.
According to The Hill, the YouTube channel said it received an alert from YouTube on Tuesday morning, saying Infowars received a second strike on a video about the Parkland, Florida high school shooting and will temporarily be unable to upload new content.
And for those who say “it’s just Infowars, what does it matter?” Remember, YouTube isn’t taking down videos that are fake, like all those flat earth videos, or others that claim the moon is only 70 miles away. They are removing videos with content they don’t like and are censoring the information people are exposed to, just like Hitler did in Nazi Germany.
“This is the second strike applied to your account within three months. As a result, you’re unable to post new content to YouTube for two weeks,” the alert said to Infowars. “If there are no further issues, the ability to upload will be automatically restored after this two week period.” Infowars’s second strike comes as social media giants like YouTube and Twitter grapple with how to handle non-state media offering alternative views of certain events.
While Infowars has several other ways to promote its videos, (including an online radio show, its own website, Twitter, and Facebook) a ban would cut Infowars off from its YouTube subscribers, which number more than 2 million. CNN reported last week that the channel, which is run by host and owner Alex Jones, had received its first strike for promoting a conspiracy theory about the Parkland shooting. Jones didn’t tow the mainstream media’s line and parrot the official narrative? Oh, the horror!
There sure are a lot of complaints from mainstream media about alternative media lately. Which we think is a good sign. It means they are worried they’ve lost control of the minds of the public and have no other option but straight-up Nazi-style censorship.
“They are whittling down online freedom of speech to the point that there will only be allowed one story. The government prescribed official version of reality,” says Melissa Dykes. It should be everyone’s right to search for answers especially when most people don’t trust the mainstream media to be honest with them in the first place. When there are gaping holes in the media’s stories, people will search for the truth and they will then not parrot the official narrative, and be called “conspiracy theorists.”
“What’s a fake video? It’s pretty much anything that would call into question the official story,” Dykes says. Bingo. Jones is simply questioning the narrative, and the government and propagandized media can’t have anyone stepping out of line.
On Wednesday, Twitter Safety released a statement regarding the Parkland students. Anyone “harassing” (disagreeing with) the Parkland students demanding your disarmament will be banned. Twitter also said that they are using “anti-abuse tools to weed out malicious automation around these individuals and the topics they are raising.” According to Natural News, in other words, if you dare question or refute anything these teenagers say, you risk being banned from the platform. How dare you question the wisdom of children who didn’t know last week that eating Tide pods is dangerous, but have now decided what kind of gun laws you need to be regulated by. –SHTFPlan
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
New YouTube warnings warn you’re about to watch info / news funded by a foreign government. Is this an attempt to soft censor alternative views online?
New YouTube Warnings have been rolled out recently – but only on some channels, and mostly those which challenge the official narrative. Google (founded by Zionists Sergey Brin and Larry Page), now run by Zionist Eric Schmidt, owns YouTube (run by Zionist Susan Wojcicki). YouTube claims its goal is to “equip users with additional information to help them better understand the sources of news content that they choose to watch on YouTube,” according to Geoff Samek, senior product manager of YouTube News. However, is this the real point? Or is the idea to cast doubt in the viewer’s mind? To get the viewer to think: “Is this information real? Can I trust it? Is it more fake news?” When you watch a video now on YouTube from a media outlet that is not sanctioned by, and in line with, the Anglo-American-Zionist official perspective of the world, you may see one of these new YouTube warnings right beneath the video where the title used to be. The title has actually been pushed further down the page…
The new YouTube warnings were rolled out on Feb. 2nd 2018. When you go to the YT channel of Iran’s PressTV, you will see this:
“Press TV is funded in whole or in part by the Iranian government”
The warnings were being displayed on RT (Russia Today), however as of today they are not appearing. Has YouTube backed down? Just yesterday it used to say:
“RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government”
Some alternative, non-Western media outlets claim they have editorial independence. Is YouTube going to evaluate that claim? Funnily enough (or not), there are few such warnings for the American MSM. PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) gets this new YouTube warning:
“PBS is a publicly funded American broadcaster”
Large media outlets of Britain and Canada got the new YouTube warnings also:
“BBC is a publicly funded American broadcaster”“CBC is a publicly funded American broadcaster”
But what about other major channels?
However for the YouTube channels of CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Fox and others, there is no warning. Yet these media outlets, and many others around the world, have been infiltrated many decades ago. They are wholly owned by the CIA, ostensibly an arm of the American government, although in many ways above it. Operation Mockingbird was a CIA project to penetrate and covertly control the media. It began in the 1950s under then CIA director Allen Dulles, the very same one who had a key role in the hit on JFK.
Declassified files show how the CIA totally infiltrated the US MSM. It bought up journalists, reporters and newsmen, and once they were on the CIA payroll, it persuaded them to write CIA-sanctioned pieces, which were then inserted into TV, newspapers and journals everywhere as “news” when they were nothing more than lies and propaganda. Richard Salant, former President of CBS News, once said that “our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
Former CIA Director William Colby confessed that “The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media.”
Mockingbird was famously exposed in the 1975 Church Committee hearings (see an video excerpt here). Nothing much has changed today. Journalists worldwide are still on the payroll, and some were brave enough to talk about it, such as the late German reporter Udo Ulfkotte, who admitted he was being essentially forced to write anti-Russian pieces to better fit the New World Order narrative.
So why doesn’t YouTube give some warnings under the channels of the MSM, such as:
“CNN is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”
“NBC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”
“MSNBC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”
“ABC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”
“Fox is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”
Don’t hold your breath waiting – you will suffocate.
Do you really think that the Alphabet-Google-YouTube behemoth want their viewers to be genuinely informed? That they care so much about you and just want to make sure you are getting unbiased news? Or is it more likely the new YouTube warnings are a thinly disguised effort by the technocracy to keep the internet free of alternative views by dissuading viewers from watching certain channels? Smells like more soft censorship. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
*https://youtube.googleblog.com/2018/02/greater-transparency-for-users-around.html
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIaFkR9uriU
The post New YouTube Warnings: An Attempt to Dissuade Viewers From Watching RT, PressTV and More? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
In a shocking admission by a high-level mainstream media operative, the CEO of News Corp. has revealed that major media corporations are pushing the likes of Google and Facebook to censor the alternative media despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans have little to no trust in the establishment press.
The comments, made by the CEO of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing arm, Robert Thompson, were revealed in an AFP article about the so-called “dysfunctional” online environment which in reality actually refers to a free internet where independent reporters can reach the masses themselves.
Amazingly, Thompson not only made clear that the mainstream media wants to censor the alternative press, he even admitted that it not only has to do with the control of information but also straight up money.
AFP reports:
Thompson said the steps announced by Google and Facebook to stem misinformation and improve the quality of online news were “modest steps toward changing a digital environment that is dysfunctional at its core.”
“The bot-infested badlands are hardly a safe space for advertisers, whose brands are being tainted by association with the extreme, the violent and the repulsive.”
Thompson said News Corp is seeing growth in online visits and subscriptions to its media properties such as the Wall Street Journal and The Sun of Britain, but added that “the potential returns for our journalism would be far higher in a less chaotic, less debased digital environment.”
A longtime critic of the dominant online companies, Thompson said he welcomed the decision by Google to end a “first click free” requirement for news items in search queries, and Facebook’s efforts to enable readers to know more about sources of articles on its news feed.
In other words, we would make more money if those pesky social media giants would just commit to full on censoring any media outlet that isn’t approved by the establishment.
Interestingly, multiple media outlets owned by News Corp. have also began a push to censor alternative viewpoints on platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In fact, news outlets across the mainstream media are engaging in a concerted effort to stifle independent, American voices.
Infowars reports:
It’s understandable why Thompson is so paranoid about mainstream publications being supplanted given News Corp’s recent financial figures. The company recorded a $66 million dollar loss for the quarter ending in December. Advertising income is also down 6 per cent from a year ago.
The Wall Street Journal has led a crusade against independent content creators for the last year, most notoriously smearing YouTuber PewDiePieas a “nazi” as part of a campaign to drown out non-mainstream voices.
Earlier this week, the WSJ published yet another hit piece which lobbied YouTube to censor alternative media by having its algorithm demote non-mainstream content.
The writer of the article, Jack Nicas, bragged about how he had compiled a list of “fringe” and “divisive” content and then presented it to YouTube, who then promised they’d be working harder to bury such content in favor of mainstream media outlets.
At this point it cannot be more clear. The establishment, deep state puppets in the mainstream media are actively pushing the liberal leaning social media giants to censor news outlets such as this one in a desperate attempt at stopping Americans from learning the truth.
[image: 21stcenturywire.com]
(The Real Agenda News) Facebook excuses its censorship on a plea to “end disinformation” and “sensationalism” on the internet.
It will not be enough to have a large audience or be registered as a medium, Facebook wants to measure the trust that the media possess to prioritize their content on the social network.
As of Friday, more than 2 billion active service profiles will see 4% of content generated by professional pages instead of the current 5% in Facebook’s latest attempt to control what information people have access to and what information they are banned from seeing.
Starting next week, users will have a relevant role when it comes to choosing which media are the ones with the most preponderance, Facebook claims.
The company will ask you how much you trust a medium, with an emphasis on local media and the sources used.
Mark Zuckerberg announced the first changes to give more relevance to what was published by friends and family at the expense of the official pages of brands and media:
“Following the 2018 goal, we want to make sure that time on Facebook is a time well spent,” said Zuckerberg.
In a new message on his wall he explains that he is obsessed with quality information.
“There is too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world,” he points out as support for a decision that moves the waves in which the media live a little more.
“Social networks allow information to be disseminated faster than ever, but if we do not confront these problems we will end up expanding them,” he says.
The change not only affects media pages, but also the links that particular users put on their wall.
Just as Google does when pondering the value of a medium or page to make it appear before one domain or another, the so-called Google Rank, Facebook will create its own rating system to give more visibility, or less, depending on the reliability.
As in the case of Google, the quantities and ingredients are not provided to discover their secret sauce, as they like to call success formulas in Silicon Valley.
That is perhaps because that is how Facebook, Google and other social media manage to openly censor accounts and alternative media publications.
According to the calculations of the founder, the amount of news will decrease to 20%.
In the last year, the relationship between the media and Facebook has become blurred, especially at the political level, where they have been accused of having a bias in favor of both Republicans and Democrats.
Facebook maintains that this change and its weighting model will be based on objective data, but the size of the media or its political bias will not be taken into account.
Facebook claims that the decision to delegate to the community aims to provide objectivity to the decision:
“We have decided that it is the users who decide broadly what is the most objective”.
The director emphasizes that they will not show the results of the surveys, because it would not give a real version of the whole process.
There are several points that will have weight in this valuation system: the title, who writes it, who speaks and so on.
The post Facebook and its Open War on Independent Media appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
French President Emmanuel Macron says he will push a new law aimed at cracking down on alternative media and news that isn’t liberal. He invoked the term “fake news” saying he hopes to have the law in place by the end of the year.
Oh, the irony of guys like Macron thinking censorship is “freedom.” Speaking at a news conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Wednesday, Macron said such a law was essential, especially during elections. Sure. We can’t be having people pointing out that Macron is communist. That’s not good for reelection chances. He even says it’s to protect “liberal democracies” as if this is some sort of page out of a novel about a dystopian society.
“The freedom of the press is not a special freedom, it is the highest expression of freedom,” Macron said. “If we want to protect liberal democracies, we have to be strong and have clear rules.” He added that “A law will follow in due course.” No law has ever given anyone freedom, rather by their very nature, take it away and list a punishment, so the illogical rant flowing from his mouth is more than enough for most rational humans to roll their eyes at.
The idea of an individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology. The only reason to hold individual speech and information rights would be to better the society, a condition which would likely be met only in certain instances rather than across time, making the default a lack of freedom. –Stanford.edu
Macron said the law should require websites to disclose their source of funding and have a cap on the amount of money they receive from sponsored content. During an election, the government would be authorized to block a website, he said. He insisted that “press freedom” could be preserved under such a law. Of course! Suppressing free speech is always a good start to press freedom.
The Washington Post notes that “On the eve of the vote, Macron’s campaign suffered a massive cyber attack that it compared to the hacking of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign last year. U.S. intelligence agencies have blamed that operation on the Russian government.” But magically, Macron was still elected. Meaning those who voted for him didn’t care about the information released or didn’t read it anyway.
If you’re looking for logical consistency from a socialist or communist though, it’s going to take some mental gymnastics. But is anyone really surprised that a communist wants to limit free speech and press freedom? They can’t have people running around saying bad things about the government, now can they? How dare people want to free!
An alternative media journalist reported a story before her local media did and so she was arrested and charged with felonies.
Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,
Arriving behind the anti-Trump “resistance” and the Russia-gate “scandal” is a troubling readiness to silence dissent in the U.S., shutting down information that challenges Official Narratives...
A stark difference between today’s Washington and when I was here as a young Associated Press correspondent in the late 1970s and the early 1980s is that then – even as the old Cold War was heating up around the election of Ronald Reagan – there were prominent mainstream journalists who looked askance at the excessive demonization of the Soviet Union and doubted wild claims about the dire threats to U.S. national security from Nicaragua and Grenada.
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier outside the Kremlin wall, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)
Perhaps the Vietnam War was still fresh enough in people’s minds that senior editors and national reporters understood the dangers of mindless groupthink inside Official Washington, as well as the importance of healthy skepticism toward official pronouncements from the U.S. intelligence community.
Today, however, I cannot think of a single prominent figure in the mainstream news media who questions any claim – no matter how unlikely or absurd – that vilifies Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country. It is all Russia-bashing all the time.
And, behind this disturbing anti-Russian uniformity are increasing assaults against independent and dissident journalists and news outlets outside the mainstream. We’re not just entering a New Cold War and a New McCarthyism; we’re also getting a heavy dose of old-style Orwellianism.
Sometimes you see this in individual acts like HuffingtonPost taking down a well-reported story by journalist Joe Lauria because he dared to point out that Democratic money financed the two initial elements of what’s now known as Russia-gate: the forensic examination of computers at the Democratic National Committee and the opposition research on Donald Trump conducted by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.
HuffingtonPost never contacted Lauria before or after its decision to retract the story, despite a request from him for the reasons why. HuffPost editors told a BuzzFeed reporter that they were responding to reader complaints that the article was filled with factual errors but none have ever been spelled out, leaving little doubt that Lauria’s real “error” was in defying the Russia-gate groupthink of the anti-Trump Resistance. [A version of Lauria’s story appeared at Consortiumnews.com before Lauria posted it at HuffPost. If you want to sign a petition calling on HuffPost to restore Lauria’s article, click here.]
Other times, the expanding American censorship is driven by U.S. government agencies, such as the Justice Department’s demand that the Russian news outlet, RT, register under the restrictive Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires such prompt, frequent and detailed disclosures of supposed “propaganda” that it could make it impossible for RT to continue to function in the United States.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
This attack on RT was rationalized by the Jan. 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” that was, in reality, prepared by a handful of “hand-picked” analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Their report included a seven-page addendum from 2012 accusing RT of spreading Russian propaganda – and apparently this Jan. 6 report must now be accepted as gospel truth, no questions permitted.
However, if any real journalist actually read the Jan. 6 report, he or she would have discovered that RT’s sinister assault on American democracy included such offenses as holding a debate among third-party candidates who were excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates in 2012. Yes, allowing Libertarians and Greens to express their points of view is a grave danger to American democracy.
Other RT “propaganda” included reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and examining the environmental dangers from “fracking,” issues that also have been widely covered by the domestic American media. Apparently, whenever RT covers a newsworthy event – even if others have too – that constitutes “propaganda,” which must be throttled to protect the American people from the danger of seeing it.
If you bother to study the Jan. 6 report’s addendum, it is hard not to conclude that these “hand-picked” analysts were either stark-raving mad or madly anti-Russian. Yet, this “Intelligence Community Assessment” is now beyond questioning unless you want to be labeled a “Kremlin stooge” or “Putin’s useful idiot.” [An earlier State Department attack on RT was equally ridiculous or demonstrably false.]
And, by the way, it was President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who testified under oath that the analysts from the three agencies were “hand-picked.” That means that they were analysts personally selected by Obama’s intelligence chiefs from three agencies – not “all 17” as the American public was told over and over again – and thus were not even a full representation of analysts from those three agencies. Yet, this subset of a subset is routinely described as “the U.S. intelligence community,” even after major news outlets finally had to retract their “all 17” canard.
So, the myth of the intelligence community’s consensus lives on. For instance, in an upbeat article on Tuesday about the U.S. government’s coercing RT into registering as a foreign agent, Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and David Filipov wrote, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the network and website push relentlessly anti-American propaganda at the behest of the Russian government.”
In the old days, even during the old Cold War and President Reagan’s ranting about “the Evil Empire,” some of us would have actually examined the Jan. 6 report’s case against RT and noted the absurdity of these claims about “relentlessly anti-American propaganda.” Whether you want to hear the views of the Greens and Libertarians or not – or whether you like “fracking” and hate Occupy Wall Street – the opportunity to hear this information doesn’t constitute “relentlessly anti-American propaganda.”
The U.S. government’s real beef with RT seems to be that it allows on air some Americans who have been blacklisted from the mainstream media – including highly credentialed former U.S. intelligence analysts and well-informed American journalists – because they have challenged various Official Narratives.
In other words, Americans are not supposed to hear the other side of the story on important international conflicts, such as the proxy war in Syria or the civil war in Ukraine or Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians. Only the State Department’s versions of those events are permitted even when those versions are themselves propagandistic if not outright false.
For example, you’re not supposed to hear about the huge holes in the Syria-sarin cases, nor about Ukraine’s post-coup regime arming neo-Nazis to kill ethnic-Russian Ukrainians, nor about Israel’s evolution into an apartheid state. All right-thinking Americans are to get only a steady diet of how righteous the U.S. government and its allies always are. Anything else is “propaganda.”
Also off limits is any thoughtful critique of that Jan. 6 report – or apparently even Clapper’s characterization of it as a product of “hand-picked” analysts from only three agencies. You’re not supposed to ask why other U.S. intelligence agencies with deep knowledge about Russia were excluded and why even other analysts from the three involved agencies were shut out.
No, you must always think of the Jan. 6 report as the “consensus” assessment from the entire “U.S. intelligence community.” And you must accept it as flat fact – as it now is treated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and other mainstream news outlets. You shouldn’t even notice that the Jan. 6 report itself doesn’t claim that Russian election meddling was a fact. The report explains, that “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”
But even quoting from the Jan. 6 report might make an American reporter some kind of traitorous “Russian mole” whose journalism must be purged from “responsible” media and who should be forced to wear the journalistic equivalent of a yellow star.
Of course, much of this anti-Russian hysteria comes from the year-long fury about the shocking election of Donald Trump. From the first moments of stunned disbelief over Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the narrative was put in motion to blame Trump’s victory not on Clinton and her wretched campaign but on Russia. That also was viewed as a possible way of reversing the election’s outcome and removing Trump from office.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
The major U.S. news media quite openly moved to the forefront of the Resistance. The Washington Post adopted the melodramatic and hypocritical slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as it unleashed its journalists to trumpet the narrative of some disloyal Americans spreading Russian propaganda. Darkness presumably was a fine place to stick people who questioned the Resistance’s Russia-gate narrative.
An early shot in this war against dissenting information was fired last Thanksgiving Day when the Post published a front-page article citing an anonymous group called PropOrNot smearing 200 Internet news sites for allegedly disseminating Russian propaganda. The list included some of the most important sources of independent journalism, including Consortiumnews.com, apparently for the crime of questioning some of the State Department’s narratives on international conflicts, particularly Syria and Ukraine.
Then, with the anti-Russia hysteria building and the censorship ball rolling, Congress last December approved $160 million for think tanks and other non-governmental organizations to combat Russian propaganda. Soon, reports and studies were flying off the shelves detecting a Russian behind every article, tweet and posting that didn’t toe the State Department’s line.
The New York Times and other leading news organizations have even cheered plans for Google, Facebook and other technology companies to deploy algorithms that can hunt down, marginalize or eliminate information that establishment media deems “fake” or “propaganda.” Already Google has put together a First Draft coalition, consisting of mainstream media and establishment-approved Web sites to decide what information makes the cut and what doesn’t.
Among these arbiters of truth is the fact-check organization PolitiFact, which judged the falsehood about “all 17 intelligence agencies” signing off on the Russian “hacking” claim to be “true.” Even though the claim was never true and is now clearly established as false, PolitiFact continues to assert that this lie is the truth, apparently filled with the hubris that comes with its power over determining what is true and what is false.
But what is perhaps most troubling to me about these developments is the silence of many civil liberties advocates, liberal politicians and defenders of press freedom who might have been counted on in earlier days to object to this censorship and blackballing.
It appears that the ends of taking down Donald Trump and demonizing Vladimir Putin justify whatever means, no matter the existential danger of nuclear war with Russia or the McCarthyistic (even Orwellian) threats to freedom of speech, press and thought.
This report was originally published by Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars
YouTube has sensationally censored a viral video that criticized a liberal comedian for claiming that white men were a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists.
The video, entitled The Dumbest Liberal Ever, had received over 700,000 views before it was hidden behind an interstitial that reads, “The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.”
Users have to be signed in to watch the video, while comments, likes, and views have all been removed.
In the video, I completely debunked, using primary sources and hard data, comedian Josie Long’s claim that the “far-right” and white men in general represented a bigger violent threat than Muslim extremists.
The video contains nothing other than perfectly legitimate criticism of a celebrity and public figure’s opinion. It is now included on a censored list that includes neo-nazi content, Islamic State propaganda and hate speech.
This is precisely what we have warning about since the YouTube “adpocalypse”. In August, I made a video warning that YouTube had sent out a message, “don’t have controversial opinions about anything or you will be punished” and that YouTube has made it, “abundantly clear that it doesn’t support free speech.”
YouTube is now censoring content that debunks the arguments of leftists who run defense for Islam. This is a new level of thought policing.
You can watch the original video below via Twitter.
This is the video CENSORED by YouTube.
It would be a shame if it got retweeted thousands and thousands of times.
STREISAND EFFECT.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) October 24, 2017
Back in July, Long announced that she was temporarily leaving Twitter, but not before she aimed a tweet at me encouraging people to, “Continue fucking him up,” which itself appears to be a violation of Twitter’s “targeted harassment” rule.
A real good treat, go on, continue fucking him up please, it"s a delight.
— ghost of josie long (@JosieLong) July 28, 2017
An appeal has now been made with YouTube to re-instate the video. I did not even receive a notification email telling me it had been censored.
In addition, every video I upload to my channel is now automatically de-monetized, emphasizing once again how YouTube is turning into a safe space for big corporate news networks and left-wing comedians while strangling the voices of independent creators, the people who built the platform in the first place.
Earlier this month, James O’Keefe revealed how former Democratic campaign operative and New York Times Audience Strategy Editor, Nicholas Dudich, admitted that establishment news outlets have relationships with YouTube staffers that allow his “friends (to) curate the front page.”
The video also shows YouTube’s Ernest Pettie admitting how the company deliberately prevents the Alex Jones Channel from appearing in its trending or news sections and buries our content in favor of “legitimate” channels.
Top YouTuber Ethan Klein also highlighted how YouTube has special relationships with prominent leftists channels, such as Jimmy Kimmel Live, that allow ads to run on “controversial” videos, such as Kimmel’s rant on the Las Vegas shooting, while videos discussing the same topic but with a different opinion have ads removed and in some cases the video is censored altogether.
The Facebook version of the original video that was censored by YouTube is embedded below – it already has over 2 million views.
Please help us fight intensifying censorship of perfectly legitimate political discussion by sharing this video.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
White House chief of staff General John Kelly has instituted a new system to control the flow of information that means President Trump will not be handed stories from Infowars or other non-mainstream outlets.
“The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by Kelly and Porter and distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure that the president won’t see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven’t been vetted,” reports Politico.
According to Axios’ Jonathan Swan, the change means that Trump will no longer be handed Infowars stories.
John Kelly cuts down on Infowars, Charles Johnson stories https://t.co/0tgysPzCwX
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) August 24, 2017
This confirms what Jack Posobiec reported weeks ago, when he was told by White House sources that Jana Toner, a member of the Presidential Personnel Office, was threatening White House interns that if they shared content from Infowars on social media, they would be fired.
The news will undoubtedly bolster complaints emanating from Trump’s base that he has been isolated and surrounded by globalists who have no interest in furthering Trump’s “America first” message.
Trump has cited Infowars stories on numerous occasions, both on Twitter and during his public speeches, enraging many in the mainstream media and the left.
Celebrating Michael Savage"s 75th birthday, Matt Drudge, founder of the largest news aggregator site in the world, DrudgeReport.com, paid him a surprise visit and guest hosted for a short while, fielding some calls and offering his opinion on the ongoing struggle between Trump versus the world.
Almost begrudgingly, Drudge declared that Trump, single handedly, saved the main stream media from death spiraling amidst catastrophic ratings -- thanks to public disinterest. Because of Trump, Drudge believes, the opposition has "consolidated", "following every bouncing ball", which has created a revitalization in the media not seen in years.
“I’m getting a little bit nervous about the media situation. Do you know, the media was near death. The New York Times was hanging on the short hairs. Do you know Vanity Fair was going under. CNN barely had a fraction,” Drudge said during an appearance on Michael Savage’s radio show.
Trump saved media
Drudge: "Trump saved the media" pic.twitter.com/qWp2bL0CPv
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 1, 2017
Case in point, the share prices for all of the major media companies are sharply higher this year.
Being a provider of both financial and political news, I can tell you, first hand, our finance traffic pales in comparison to the political stuff. People are simply transfixed by this administration, because the man, Donald Trump, love him or hate him, is a lightening rod for controversy. We"re living through a reality show, the White House edition, and the media loves it.
Drudge also touched on Twitter, suggesting their audience is inflated and not that big. Largely, it"s an echo chamber for junkies.
Twitter"s audience isn"t that big. It"s for junkies.
Drudge: Twitter"s audience isn"t that big. It"s feeding the junkies pic.twitter.com/4wevx1B7U7
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 1, 2017
Lastly, he cited recent Rasmussen poll numbers that showed Trump with a 44% approval rating. He said he trusted Rasmussen and that the bad polling data was "a danger" for Trump and a consequence of having been dealt a bad hand, with everyone working in concert against the President. Drudge believes taking some time away from the limelight would do the President some good, judging the tree by the fruit it produces.
Drudge is worried about Trump"s poll numbers.
Drudge: Rasmussen approval ratings real danger for Trump. Thinks President should be more low key. pic.twitter.com/OY8QMFaGed
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 1, 2017
Here"s the full clip.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge does not personally tweet too often, so when he does, it is either when something has infuriated him or, more rarely, when he has words of affirmation. Today it was the latter, when Drudge praised Senator Rand Paul, tweeting that he had an "Intriguing lunch in hill office of America"s best senator, Rand Paul. He"s bold, brave and has somehow kept his heart in such a corrupt city."
Intriguing lunch in hill office of America"s best senator, Rand Paul. He"s bold, brave and has somehow kept his heart in such a corrupt city
— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) March 30, 2017
While according to many, Drudge was a driving force behind the Trump election, Drudge has been very outspoken recently about his displeasure with the GOP.
In early February, Drudge tweeted that the "Republican party should be sued for fraud. NO discussion of tax cuts now. Just lots of crazy. Back to basics, guys!" and "No Obamacare repeal, tax cuts! But Republicans vote to shut Warren? Only know how to be opposition not lead! DANGER "
One month later, Drudge was even more direct, saying "Republicans lied about wanting tax cuts. Can we get our votes back?"
Then, last Thursday, amid the struggle to rally enough Republican votes to pass an ObamaCare repeal-and-replace plan, he tweeted, "The swamp drains you," which many saw as a jab at President Trump"s campaign pledge to "drain the swamp."
As The Hill notes, this was not the first time he"s singled Paul in a favorable light: earlier this month the Drudge Report featured a headline touting, "The return of Rand Paul," which was viewed as a warning to moderate Republicans. The headline linked to a Washington Examiner story that outlined Paul"s problems with the GOP"s healthcare bill.
Rand Paul has consistently called for repeaking Obamacare first, and worrying how to replace it later. So far this strategy has proven unsuccessful.
The mainstream corporate media is visibly dying out in the United States and around the world — and their problems are about to get worse: Anti-Media just rolled out its new project, “The Homepage of Independent Media.”
Anti-Media’s new homepage is the new destination for independent thinkers looking for real anti-establishment news sources free of corporate bias and the fake news of the mainstream media. “The Homepage of Independent Media” has partnered with The Free Thought Project and dozens of other hard hitting news and information sites from across the political spectrum to create a “one-stop-shop” for news junkies to find the stories, articles, videos and other content they won’t see anywhere else. We no longer have to hope that Facebook’s notoriously biased algorithm decides to show us news from the outlets we already follow.
But wait, it gets better. Anti-Media has not only created a new home for the rapidly growing independent media movement, it has also put you in charge of deciding what’s on the homepage. With Anti-Media’s new Reddit-style algorithmic upvote/downvote system, you tell the site which stories should be on the front page using their social content curation system.
There’s even more. Once you create an account on TheAntiMedia.org using just an email and password, you will be able to submit news stories yourself in the “MY NEWS” section of the Anti-Media homepage. Any news articles, videos, social media posts, or even photos you think are newsworthy can be posted. Anti-Media’s editorial team will quickly check the link’s factual accuracy, make sure it’s less than two days old (or relevant to current news), and then it will be live. With a few upvotes from other Anti-Media readers and friends, the link you submitted could be on the front page of Anti-Media! People who work with independent news outlets but aren’t official Anti-Media partners yet can also submit links in the “MY NEWS” section to get their content on the homepage.
READ MORE: Instead of Reacting Militarily, Nashville Police Welcomed Protests: No Violence or Looting
The Internet is the Wild West of information and Anti-Media’s “Homepage of Independent Media” is here to help us make sense of it all. By bringing together dozens of independent news outlets from across the political and ideological spectrum, Anti-Media aims to create an ever-improving ecosystem of reliable factual news and information that challenges the status-quo. In the face of encroaching government censorship and algorithmic bias by Internet gatekeepers Facebook and Google, now is the time to join The Free Thought Project and support the independent media movement by making TheAntiMedia.org your news homepage.
Thanks to CNN and BuzzFeed, a war now rages among corporate media outlets, a true study in irony, as the New York Times and Guardian hurl accusations the two outlets are guilty of publishing Fake News — the same Fake News all of the aforementioned have cited in unabashed attempts to discredit legitimate alternative media.
CNN first published an article citing without including information ostensively ruinous to President-elect Donald Trump’s political career — but BuzzFeed took that ball and ran — publishing documents believed to have originated from an unnamed British intelligence officer and admittedly unsubstantiated and unverified.
Careless reporting by the mainstream press, in other words, has reached critical mass — and known publishers of Fake News are now calling each other to task for egregiously vapid journalism.
“BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Igniting a Debate,” the Times’ headline asserts, while — going a step farther — the Guardian’s article is entitled, “BuzzFeed publishes unsubstantiated Trump report, raising ethics questions.”
CNN first reported on the dossier allegedly obtained from the unnamed British intelligence official, but left out the more lurid and revealing details from the 35-pages BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith later decided were fair game for publication — despite “serious reason to doubt the allegations.”
BuzzFeed reported Tuesday, “The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.”
Mainstream outlets scrambled over each other to ride the viral wave when BuzzFeed’s article garnered over one million views in short succession — and 3.5 million less than 24 hours later — but none of those organizations bothered to restrain themselves in the interest of investigating the dossier further.
Incidentally, the Times was among them — and in its scathing critique, curiously notes,
“The reports by CNN and Buzzfeed sent other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, scrambling to publish their own articles, some of which included generalized descriptions of the unverified allegations about Mr. Trump. By late Tuesday, though, only BuzzFeed had published the full document.”
As if reporting on unsubstantiated claims without providing the documents you’re citing somehow excuses the Times’ capricious abandonment of journalistic due diligence. Nevertheless, the article contends,
“BuzzFeed’s decision, besides its immediate political ramifications for a president-elect who is to be inaugurated in 10 days, was sure to accelerate a roiling debate about the role and credibility of the traditional media in today’s frenetic, polarized information age.
“Of particular interest was the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that fueled some of the so-called fake news — false rumors passed off as legitimate journalism — that proliferated during the presidential election.”
Again, the Times reported on the exact information BuzzFeed did — but didn’t provide the contentious document for the public to evaluate — so, in essence, it’s accusing itself in the mix.
According to each outlet — either parroting another or making its own assertion — the 35 pages had been passed around behind the scenes in both the media and intelligence communities. That fact alone, if indeed true — which would be hard to glean from this imprudent crowd — raises questions on the decision to publish so close to inauguration day.
In addition, that intel officials have indeed had possession the dossier but have yet to verify its contents sufficiently to provide comment to the press intimates the striking potential the documents are inauthentic — or the information isn’t accurate. CNN might have held back from publishing those pages, but its article contained the equally dubious claims,
“Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.”
BuzzFeed, in what might come to be an act of journalistic suicide, said to hell with it — took CNN’s report as a cue, and ran the laughably flawed document — admitting at the time that by doing so it was essentially publishing Fake News.
And now the New York Times and other corporate press seem to believe eschewing the blame for contributing to the mess — under the pretense of plausible deniability for refusing to publish the actual dossier to back their allegations — is as simple as publicly castigating the original outlets they copied.
Glenn Greenwald adroitly summarized this media shit show, writing for The Intercept,
“All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.”
Hell bent on pinning blame for its own journalistic failures throughout the election cycle, corporate media began targeting alternative outlets as Fake News and Russian propaganda for its stellar reporting on the contents of leaked documents deleterious to Hillary Clinton.
But because the mainstream press constitutes little more than a mouthpiece for the U.S. political establishment, independent journalists — aware of this nonsense — have continually called out the errant and viral reports from outlets like the Times, CNN, and Washington Post.
Indeed, the backlash over falsely labeling independent reporting Fake News has been so intense, the outlet that championed and initiated the use of that term — the Post — came forward this week to pompously declare its retirement.
Indisputably, however — and particularly as the American public watches this unseemly and mortifying abandonment of journalistic integrity play out — mainstream media is now little more than a picked-over carcass of its former self.
To believe anything a corporate press this errant and devoid of the standards, principles, and rectitude its roots were founded on — unless purely for entertainment’s sake — would plainly be foolhardy. Garnering reliable information from mainstream presstitutes is like agreeing to play Russian roulette with facts.
It’s time to admit the patently obvious — mainstream media is dead.
Hero cop Dominick Izzo witnessed such expansive corruption in his department, he shattered the notorious Blue Wall of Silence to blow the whistle, but — like nearly all officers who break ranks attempting to hold bad cops accountable — found himself the subject of false allegations and under suspension for the effort.
Now — after earning the scorn of Round Lake Park, Illinois, Police Chief George Filenko and other officers stridently loyal to the Thin Blue Line — Izzo has come forward again to set the record straight about alternative media outlets who report on police misconduct.
Naming The Free Thought Project, Police the Police, End the Drug War, and others in a recent live video on Facebook, Izzo emphatically asserted,
Izzo’s followers, comprised primarily of current and former law enforcement officers — some supportive, some more loyal to the badge than the imperative to call out misbehavior lurking behind it — harbor misperceptions about factual reporting on incidents of police misconduct.
While seemingly countless officers brutalize, shoot, and even kill with reckless indiscretion — and under near impunity, given the paltry rate of conviction for legitimate misconduct — accurate media coverage still comes under fire by cops who’d like to the the Boys In Blue can do no wrong.
Izzo addresses fellow officers in the video — particularly those willing to step over the Thin Blue Line as he did — imploring them to understand so-called “anti-cop” forums like The Free Thought Project are simply mischaracterized and are supportive of anyone in law enforcement holding wrongdoers accountable.
Izzo believes accurate reporting on police misconduct and the occupation of law enforcement are not mutually exclusive.
“This is a chance for us to bridge the gap and show the great cops out there who can’t speak,” he said, referring to good cops unable to come forward for fear of reprisal. “And for those of you cops who are so frustrated, who have been emailing me about your frustrations, guys, I’m doing what I can for ya. I’m going to go to bat for you and I’m going to do what I can, when I can.
“So, I appreciate your pain; trust me, I know it. I’m living it, and I know it.”
After publicly condemning the Round Lake Park chief and department — and resisting intimidation and threats that followed — Izzo has become something of a police folk hero across the country, as officers in similar situations and those considering speaking out flooded him with correspondence.
When a cop like Izzo has the courage to speak out — damn the consequences — the brave act can be contagious, encouraging more to do the same.
But Izzo — who once earned an award for disarming a knife wielding, would-be attacker without firing a single shot — didn’t stop with truth-telling about alternative media. He addressed egregious law enforcement mishandling of an incident captured on video that went viral this week.
On Wednesday, a Fort Worth mother called police after her seven-year-old son was allegedly assaulted by a neighbor who claimed the child had littered — but she wound up under arrest, along with two of her daughters, when the cop showed up and blatantly sided with the man who’d supposedly carried out the assault.
Jacqueline Craig summoned the cops after the neighbor allegedly began choking her son for refusing to pick up a piece of trash he’d allegedly tossed on the ground. While, indeed, littering is wrong, assaulting a child is a violent crime.
But that didn’t matter to the responding officer.
In fact, the first words out of the callously indifferent cop’s mouth when he arrived on scene were, “Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?”
“It doesn’t matter if he did or didn’t. It doesn’t give him the right to put his hands on him,” Craig replies.
“Why not?” the officer indignantly asks.
Infuriated at the notion littering is somehow a more abhorrent infraction than an adult choking her son, Craig begins yelling at the cop.
But the officer, who seemingly never had any intention of investigating the actual possible crime that brought him to the scene, then worsens the situation, telling the mother, “if you keep yelling at me you’re going to piss me off and I’m going to take you to jail.”
As one of Craig’s daughters tries to de-escalate the rapidly deteriorating situation, all hell abruptly breaks loose — and the cop apparently takes Craig to the ground, places her in cuffs, and eventually does the same with two of her daughters.
That officer has now been placed on restricted duty while the department performs and investigation — and, as Izzo explains, the cop made one grievous error in handling the call.
“Look, if you’re a cop — and I’ve done it, we’ve all done it — that famous line, ‘Your mouth is about to get you arrested,’” Izzo explains, “you cannot say that, or any variance of [it].
“In the video — I don’t care how edited it was, I don’t care how non-edited it was. I don’t care how loud that woman is. I don’t care if she’s black and the other guy’s white and he’s chokin’ her kid out. I don’t care what it is.
“That cop just lost every leg he wanted to stand on when he said that he’s about to bring her to jail because she’s yelling at him. It is a violation of her free speech. You can not take someone to jail for what they say.”
As Izzo notes, there exists no legal grounds for arresting anyone for yelling at an officer — and the officer thus wholly violated a constitutionally-protected right by threatening and then arresting her for exactly that. Accordingly, Izzo pleads,
“Please. Do not defend this cop. I don’t care how righteous his actions may have looked [on] unedited video … The moment he said ‘Your yelling is pissing me off’” and threatened to bring her to jail, he overstepped the line.
“He’s not a professional,” Izzo says. “He does not deserve to do this job.”
The whistle-blowing officer concludes his live video with a thank you to alternative media outlets who “support what we do. Because we’re going to bridge the gap between the public we serve and the amazing cops out there who do serve them — who aren’t getting recognized.”
Such outlets, Izzo reiterates, “are here to help. And we can. We can do this together.”
This article was written by Kurt Nimmo and originally published at his Another Day in the Empire blog.
Editor’s Comment: While nobody puts much stock in Obama’s meandering speeches to blame his opponents and anyone calling out the lies and deception of his administration, allies and surrogates, it is alarming that the powers that be are attempting to crack down altogether on the web.
The warnings have been out there for many years now about the plans to streamline and corporatize a Web 2.0, where dissent is buried from view, but now we’re approaching that day.
It is truly unsettling to see a chilling of speech and a blanket demonization effort being directed against those who are either against the status quo, or attempting to expose the truth – this is what is becoming of our technological revolution. Will these measures continue during Trump’s administration? There is every sense that it will, as it only requires cooperation from a handful of companies – Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. – and the complicity of the mainstream media who see the voices on the Internet as their only true competition…
In the 21st Century and the age of the Internet, the gulag may not be just a place with dim lighting, bad food and prison work, but a cold and lonely corner of the web where people cannot find your website, your IP is blocked/censored/flagged, and one cannot stumble upon the truth, and cannot communicate freely if one wishes to discuss anything of any substance.
Obama calls alternative media “domestic propagandists”
by Kurt Nimmo
The war on alternative media intensified today when Obama blamed talk radio and other “domestic propagandists” for the rise of “fake news.”
“If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect,” Obama said. “It doesn’t seem that farfetched compared to some of the other stuff folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.”
“To the extent that our political dialogue is such that everything is under suspicion, everybody’s corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons and all of our institutions are, you know full of malevolent actors and if that’s the story that is being put out there, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument, the facts are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.”
In other words, if the alternative media investigates and posts a story about the government and this is picked up by Russian state media, then it is a categorical lie.
This article was written by Kurt Nimmo and originally published at his Another Day in the Empire blog.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Meanwhile, the repression of alternative news and free thought in general is moving forward.
WeAreChange.org is warning that they are being blocked from ad revenue as a result of being labeled “fake news.”
The main stream media has yet again been caught doing lazy journalism with their recent attack on alternative media and free speech with another hit piece this morning. This is not the only problem this independent news organization faces as WeAreChange was just issued a legal notice from our ad company about being labeled fake news with a verified sourced documented article.
CBS News Caught Lying And Slandering WeAreChange and Free Speech
Things are getting really nasty. Are they really going to get away with shutting down free speech and institutionalizing pro-state propaganda?
Pete Souza/whitehouse.gov(INTELLIHUB) — President Obama has fired the latest shot in the ongoing war against the alternative media after he blasted conservative talk radio and independent news organizations as “domestic propagandists” for reporting news that he believes makes voters vulnerable to foreign disinformation.
This startling direct attack on his political enemies under the guise of the new leftist McCarthyism shows once again that the entire corporate media “fake news” operation was and is designed not to take out obvious fake news outlets but to destroy the real alternative media.
“If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect,” Obama said.
“It doesn’t seem that farfetched compared to some of the other stuff folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.”
The least transparent President in history went on to say, “To the extent that our political dialogue is such that everything is under suspicion, everybody’s corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons and all of our institutions are, you know full of malevolent actors and if that’s the story that is being put out there, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument, the facts are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.”
Perhaps the most sinister part of his speech came when Obama went on to hint that some sort of censorship is on the horizon to help save Americans from news outside the hard left leaning corporate press.
“So, if we — if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we better think about how to make sure that our — our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it’s been,” he warned.
Obama’s direct attack on talk radio and the alternative media comes on the heels of plans by Facebook to use the corporate media and a Soros backed group to label and bring down so-called fake news on the social media giant.
“Facebook has announced plans to partner with a list of establishment media outlets, along with the Soros backed International Face-Checking Network, (IFCN) to help them determine what is and isn’t fake news,” Intellihub reported.
“The publicly stated goal of the plan by Facebook is to use these so-called fact checking agencies to help determine if a news story is fake which would then lead it to be flagged as disputed with “a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”
From the New York Times CEO calling for ad networks to ban anyone they deem to be “fake news” to CBS and Salon openly deciding that Infowars is straight up fake, there is a concerted ever to destroy the alternative media and these steps by Facebook seem to line up directly with that goal.”
Over the last eight years conservative talk radio and the independent media have either stopped or at least attacked plans by President Obama at every turn and now, with the election of Donald Trump, Obama appears ready to fire back in a big way.
