For weeks since President-elect Donald J. Trump, now confirmed as the 45th president by the Electoral College, won the Nov. 8 election, the so-called “mainstream” media has tried to de-legitimize his victory with a series of fake news reports making wild claims.
Among them: The Russians “hacked” the election to harm Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton; the Russians used “alternative media” to “spread propaganda” that helped Trump and harmed Clinton; this was all done because Russian President Vladimir Putin “has a grudge” against Clinton; and so forth.
As to the Russian hacking charge, you’ll notice that despite the blaring headlines, not one shred of proof is offered to substantiate the claim. All we’re just supposed to believe is that “hacking” occurred—we’re not supposed to ask how it happened, what systems, precisely, were hacked; what the hackers did to actually affect the outcome of the election; etc.
Did hackers go in and change Hillary votes to Trump (and if so, how would that work in battleground states like Michigan—which a Republican hasn’t won in decades and which uses paper ballots)?
What’s this “grudge” Putin has against Clinton—the woman who, as secretary of state, helped Putin and Russia gain control over 20 percent of U.S. strategic uranium, the element crucial to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, while millions flowed to the Clinton Foundation?
The “Russian propaganda” accusation was probably the most laughable. As the Washington Post reported, citing dubious, unsourced “evidence” from some shady, never-before-heard-of organization, the paper claimed that some 200 alternative news sites (including ours) were willing dupes, being used by Russian intelligence to spread anti-Clinton propaganda (a story that the Post’s editors had to immediately walk back because they could not confirm any of it).
Despite all of this noise and deception, the mainstream media’s omission of certain documentable facts is a tacit admission that a) they are real; and b) that their own stories attempting to discredit Trump’s victory are not real.
For instance, none of the damning documents from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign that both claim were hacked by the Russians (without offering any evidence and despite the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said it was not the Russians) have been proven false. No one in either the DNC or the Clinton campaign denied the validity of the emails; they only decried the manner in which they claim they were made public.
And no one in the mainstream media has asserted they were false, either. Again, in covering for Clinton, the MSM decried the fact that the emails and damning documents were released, without refuting any of the content within them.
It is this lack of refutation that is the real story. As Assange himself has said, “There is no proof of that whatsoever. We have not disclosed our source, and of course, this is a diversion that’s being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. That’s a meta-story. The real story is what these emails contain and they show collusion. The very top of the Democratic party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is now being forced to resign. And other people from the party, which is meant to be neutral, subverting the process in order to make sure Hillary Clinton won the campaign.”
By failing to refute what is very obvious in the documents—the collusion by the DNC to shut out Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensure Clinton got the Democratic Party nomination—the mainstream media all but admits they are true.
What’s more, as noted by AllNewsPipeline, the media has admitted something else: That it, too, was colluding against Trump by doing all it could to promote Clinton, ignore the email revelations, downplay the FBI’s criminal investigation and so on.
This was laid bare by a stunning on-air admission by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who said, “We couldn’t help her anymore than we have. You know, she’s just got a free ride so far from the media and we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”
Who, exactly, are the purveyors of ‘fake news’?