Just like the title says, this post aims to look at each of these US mainstream news outlets (their website – not their TV channels – I don’t watch TV – and I advise you to not watch television as well…) to compare with each other and see how deep and far the propaganda goes.
I never regularly visit these websites (and certainly not their homepage) and the only times that I even visit their site is to check out a related news article to what I’m looking up. I regularly clear “cookies” and website/search history, so I’m hoping these have no bearings on my findings.
First, I am capturing a screenshot of whatever first pops up on each of the website, and taking it from there.
So let’s get started.
(All screenshots were taken on 1/3/2021 between 10:00-10:30 A.M.)
Just taking a glance at some of these headlines literally gives me anxiety and I can feel stress levels start to arise. Thankfully, I can recognize when this is happening (and why it’s happening) which is why I always stress (no pun intended) to be aware of your surroundings and your own thoughts and emotions. Since I already know how these news outlets work and how they’re geared for the sole purpose of manipulating and controlling the public, and instilling fear and negativity, there’s something to be said for how these news outlets work on others who aren’t aware of this agenda.
And while NBC and MSNBC are among the same company, I wanted to show them as two separate entities. (And just as a heads up, even checking out PBS and CBS show similar results to the ones above.)
Now below, I’ve created pie charts to show what the majority of “news” they have to “inform” us are (at least according to the very first impression we get upon visiting their webpage) :
Now, I admit, since we’re heading off into the electoral vote (which allegedly is supposed to mean something and we should definitely not think there’s anything corrupt going on with our government and should instead trust them blindly that there was no election fraud (or any other corruption, for that matter…..)) the results of this finding is bound to be skewed towards that of politics specifically. Which is why I’ve already decided that once all of these politics sort of quiet down and things are finalized once and for all, I will re-visit this post and do an updated version of what these same news channels cover. Just to see how much has changed and what they choose to focus on next.
Next, I want to see what kind of biased/descriptive terminology we can see from these websites.
Let it be noted, first and foremost. I am not above this. I admit it outright. I will sometimes use certain adjectives to describe and reveal my frustration and thoughts on certain matters. But while I am an independent writer not affiliated with any mainstream news media, my opinions are based on several different outlets and sources. It is not labeled as a “news” platform, and these should be based on facts and honest reporting. As it is, what you will find at this site is honest findings and my personal views on the matter. Not paid promotion or propaganda, unlike the very obvious (there’s one) agendas of the msm.
CNN’s favorite words
So just looking at the very first link of the CNN screenshot from above, we can see the term “conspiracy theories” that a lot of people like to use in order to discredit any kind of alternative source to what the main narrative is pushing for. Never mind the fact that numerous esteemed doctors and health/science experts don’t agree with the main narrative; yet, if we are to believe the government endorsed agencies on what “experts” mean, it seems to only apply to those who are in agreement with whatever “information” the government and msm is presenting to the public. Anyone else who raises speculative and alternative theories (even based on facts and studies) are immediately “debunked” and ostracized.
Let’s take a look at what NBC offers.
Trump throws grenades into high-stakes Georgia Senate runoffs in final stretch – “Outgoing President Donald Trump is throwing one rhetorical grenade after another into the high-stakes Georgia Senate runoffs in the final days before the Tuesday election.“
(Phew! I’m glad they added that it was “rhetorical grenades”. With the news media reporting lately, sometimes I wonder if they literally want people to think Trump is throwing actual live grenades…)
In this article, apparently “grenades” actually means “false” allegations into election fraud. The terms “false” and “falsely“, I realize, is used a lot in the mainstream media and social media platforms in order to describe the “alleged” presidential election fraud. (And whatever else they deem as “fake news”.)
Let’s see what the next articles says:
Fauci pushes back on Trump: Covid death numbers are ‘real’ – “Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday pushed back on President Donald Trump’s false claims that the U.S. coronavirus death toll is “exaggerated.“
Well, that was fast. Two articles, back to back? Both focused on alleged “false” news? Reminds me of CNN with their usage of “conspiracy theories”.
Another word used in this article that is everywhere in order to manipulate the public, is “misinformation“. Who decides if something is “false” and who “fact checks” and labels something as “misinformation”? None other than the propagators of this whole agenda. Why do some people still continue to believe them? Perhaps because they were raised and conditioned to believe these sources, neglecting to realize that it has now become a front to indoctrinate the masses.
More buzzwords from ABC
‘There’s no running away from the numbers:’ Fauci laments surging COVID deaths as Trump claims ‘fake news’ – “Fauci’s comments came minutes after President Donald Trump misleadingly claimed in a tweet that the numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of infected persons and deaths in the country are “exaggerated,“
I am not going to go into the inconsistencies of the covid reports/cases, etc. – because, indeed, there is so much misinformation surrounding this subject, and I encourage you to investigate for yourself and use several different outlets to come to an educated theory. This is not the post for that. Just to show you the ways that these news outlets lead (mislead) someone into believing a certain narrative.
Here is another article (keeping in line with the politics/covid topics) that is written to, again, mislead the reader into what to believe (and not to believe):
Congress opens new session as virus, Biden’s win dominate – “It’s often said that divided government can be a time for legislative compromises, but lawmakers are charging into the 117th Congress with the nation more torn than ever, disputing even basic facts including that Biden won the presidential election.
Fraud did not spoil the 2020 presidential election, a fact confirmed by election officials across the country.“
Funny. I thought “facts” are confirmed by truth and evidence, not by election officials. But you learn something new everyday…
MSNBC’s point of view
Most of the articles on this site is linked to a video, which I am not going to watch, but here is the only written article that I can present, with, again, their own allegation of no proof in the supposed election fraud that occurred.
Trump allies shouldn’t be sworn into office until cleared of their own claims of election fraud – “But this time, some GOP members if Congress have indicated they will object — or are considering objecting — to counting the electoral votes from key battleground states, claiming without proof that there was widespread voter irregularities or fraud that renders the election results illegitimate.“
It seriously makes me wonder what they would consider as “proof“.
There is also this at the very end of the same article: “Any other result will undermine the public’s confidence in our election process — which is already dangerously under attack by Trump and his comrades in arms.
“Dangerously under attack”? “Comrades in arms”? I hope this is another rhetorical allegory and not implying more grenades…
That brings me to the last major news media on this list. Let’s check out a couple of their articles to see if we can find some interesting correlations like the ones above.
From actively trying to look at all of these news sites with an unbiased view and deliberately trying to find leading content, the main article from the above screenshot: GOP senators want election commission similar to what decided disputed 1876 race seems to just depict straight-forward reporting. (At least at the time of its last update.)
Keeping in line with the above method, let’s take a look at one more article. (Note: I did not cherry-pick any of the articles. I picked the main story of each page, and made sure that one article dealt with a political angle, and one with a covid/vaccine angle. Just to keep all of them fair and similar. Since there are no articles dealing with the covid situation on FOX’s screenshot, I have chosen to look at the very next written article I see on this page.)
Cruz says Supreme Court ‘better forum’ for election disputes amid Electoral College objection push – The only thing I can find on this article would be the following sentence: “Evidence of any widespread voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election, however, has been lacking.” – But then we see it following up with this sentence: “Former Attorney General William Barr declared that to be the case weeks after the election“. This is not contested, and these are facts. The fact that, yes, William Barr did indeed say that.
But when we take this particular sentence and actually analyze it, it’s interesting that it has to specify that “Evidence (which certain individuals can certainly avoid simply by labeling it as “not evidence enough” or “not proof”) of any widespread voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election, however, has been lacking” … Needless to say, his choice of words is extremely strange and lends credence to the idea that although voter fraud, does, in fact exist, it is not “sufficient” enough in his findings to make a difference.
(I think a lot of us are underestimating (or in complete denial about) the amount of corruption, bribery and/or threats that are coerced upon those in a high position that would make these decisions… But I digress.)
So here was a quick rundown of 5 news outlets and the initial findings of how they can manipulate and coerce their reader into a certain way of thinking. This was just the written findings that were on the front page of their website, and did not even touch upon the videos and their verbal dialogue with each other and those with opposing points of views. We didn’t get to see body language and voice inflections, condescension or aversion towards different ideologies. I can only imagine what kind of impressions I would get from watching the videos. (Perhaps that will be another post for a different day as well.)
And from the two articles from FOX, it seems as if this has been the least manipulative/(mis)leading source of the 5 different news outlets covered.
Honestly, I find it fascinating that what is labeled as “news” is nothing more than highly partisan perspectives constantly bombarding the viewers/readers in most cases. And, by looking at just the few articles and topics from their website, we can see a lot of negativity and propaganda.
While being informed is important, we have to realize that the definition of “informed” is:
in·formed adj. 1. Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion. 2. Knowledgeable; educated: the informed consumer.
SYNONYMS: commonsense, commonsensible, commonsensical, firm, good, hard, just, justified, levelheaded, logical, rational, reasonable, reasoned, sensible, sober, solid, valid, well-founded
It doesn’t mean to believe biased sources based on opinionated points of views and alleged “facts” that haven’t been verified (or have been verified and are just labeled “disputed” by those very same propagators…).
When it comes to being informed, we have to use our best judgement and discernment and realize that the goal of some of these individuals and corporations is to literally control the masses. What better way to inundate them than with disinformation disguised as “news”?
Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.
Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.