A false version of the world is asserted by mainstream news agencies including the BBC and heavily biased versions of ‘reality’ are communicated by the likes of Guardian.
To defend yourself start by analysing and learning how each news agency unfolds breaking events, pay attention to the version of they’re pushing. Understand how they’re portraying a version of the world that doesn’t exist.
Expect the following to be liberal (left wing) and conservative (right wing):
- Guardian (ultra liberal fantasist)
- BBC (enforced imperial liberal apologist)
- Economist (analytical and overly optimistic)
- ITV (all things to all people, risk averse, barely has an opinion)
- Sun (straight talking and focuses on mainstream sentiment)
- Times (critical and pessimistic with strong well thought through views)
- Telegraph (critical of wishy washy liberal ideals and slightly unforgiving)
- Daily Mail (straight to the point, focused on what worries and excite the public)
- Breitbart (uses bad news to emphasise there are bad things and people in the world)
Think about what it means when a news source reports in an overly objective way that ignores what people are thinking.
Key information for most incidents at the moment are: where the perpetrator is from and religious motives. If the perpetrator is an Arab looking man with a beard, this is relevant information and it is biased to ignore it.
When news agencies like the BBC avoid covering news with meaningful details they are denying the truth and forcing a false version of events in a subtle way.
Avoiding key details for hours (even after other agencies have communicated these not-so-secretive-details) is trying to control the narrative. Fortunately even the giant mega monopoly of the BBC can’t hold back the plain truth for long.
Actual sub title on the BBC News homepage on the evening of the Westminster attacks:
‘Four people have died, including a police office and the attacker, after a terror incident outside the Houses of Parliament in London’
Compare these actual headlines from the top of the websites and start to understand how liberal media are attempting to whitewash [how long till they consider that a racist term] horrendous incidents.
Their bias comes from a place of endless ‘white guilt’, desperation for meaningfulness from their privileged lives and naive thinking that bad people don’t really exist. Somehow it’s the West’s fault, ‘We did this to ourselves’, ‘We should’nt’ve bombed Iraq’, ‘We’re the real terrorists’ they say…
Bad things must be pointed out and not ignored, liberals are creating a dangerous world where there are too many themes that cannot be discussed because they are automatically described as racist. At close second, our priority must also be to protect associated communities (every muslim isn’t a terrorist), it is not a ‘right wing’ view that people should be unfairly persecuted. It should be all our view that we discuss bad things without big media hiding and misleading and liberals shunning any mention of race/religion/colour as racist.