Most Journalists Don't Know They Are Part Of An Evil Lie Machine. That's How The Conspiracy Works
The mainstream media is a massive conspiracy against the public but even people who work inside the mainstream media often aren’t aware of this, as I discuss on my podcast with Bob Moran.
Bob used to be The Daily Telegraph’s chief cartoonist. I used to be a star feature writer in lots of MSM publications including the Telegraph and the Mail. We are, so far as I’m aware, the only two people to have worked at this level in the UK mainstream media to have gone rogue and called out the Plandemic, the vaccine scam, the Ukraine scam, the Gaza scam and all the other fake news narratives inflicted on us by our disgusting former industry.
But this is not necessarily because our old colleagues are lying cowards or teat sucking whores of the Beast System. Not all of them, anyway. No. It is quite possible to work for years and years within the mainstream media, to genuinely believe that you are basically one of the good guys, and that your job is kind of heroic because it’s about ‘speaking truth to power.’ I know this because that’s more or less how Bob and I thought, before the scales fell from our eyes.
How could we have been so deluded and stupid? Well it’s easy to make these kind of angry judgements if you’ve never worked in the media. But if you have, you’ll know it’s like being a member of an agreeable club, which is pleasingly hard to get into, and which once you’re in seduces you with all manner of perks: exotic travel opportunities, the chance to hobnob on semi-equal terms with the rich, famous and powerful, freebies, decent-ish expenses, and, maybe best of all, the company of bright, gossipy, like-minded folk who are a lot more fun to be with than drones with real jobs.
Every industry is subject to the corrupting influence of what the French call ‘La Déformation Professionnelle’. In the case of journalism, that corruption comes from being with other journalists, valuing their opinions and mores too highly, and failing to understand that they are not necessarily representative either of truth, objectivity or broader morality. Better a thousand children should die than that you should lose the good opinion of your peers. Hence that self-policing mechanism known as the “Overton Window”.
Most journalists don’t need to be told what subjects to avoid because they know already: anything that might lose them that well-paid column; anything that earns the dubious compliment “that was very, er, brave of you, that thing you wrote the other day”; anything you think might get your colleagues muttering “well I used to be such a fan of his stuff, but he does seem ever so slightly to have gone off the reservation, of late…”
So, for example, in all my years as an MSM journalist, never once did I hear any of my colleagues say: “You know, I think there might be something in that 9/11 Truther stuff.” As journalists, we ought to have been curious - curiosity being, you might have thought, one of the prequisites of our trade. But we weren’t because the soft voice in our head had already warned us that it just wasn’t worth going there. If it had been worth going there, one of our colleagues would already have done so and found out the truth, right?
Unlike the lonely mavericks depicted in the movies, real life journalists are herd animals. It’s why war correspondents tend to shack up in the same hotel: they’d much rather all write the agreed-on story than stoke up bitterness and rivalry by heading off on their own in search of a risky scoop. Your scoop, after all, might be good for your ego but it means an editorial bollocking for all those of your fellow hacks who failed to get it. Is their enduring hatred really worth it? Wouldn’t you much rather have them on-side, watching your back, feeding you the details you missed from that key press briefing, comparing notes to ensure you’re all coming up with a consistent narrative?
You’d be amazed how much journalists depend not on their own research but on the ‘expertise’ of other journalists. Up to a point this is fair enough: you would not unreasonably expect the Defence Correspondent to have the inside track on the Military, the Health Editor on medicine, and so forth. The problem is that specialists can too often end up going native. The Health Editor, for example, will invariably end up in the pocket of Big Pharma (not in terms of brown envelopes, necessarily, but definitely in terms of being granted access to key players). Diplomatic and Defence correspondents, meanwhile, quite often end up being recruited by the security services - if, that is they weren’t already working for them.
For any large-scale conspiracy to work, the vast majority of those involved have to be unaware that they are part of the conspiracy: otherwise there’d be too many whistleblowers, too many principled objectors opting out of the system. It was true of the ‘moon landings’: most of those involved believed they were sending man to the moon. It’s true of journalism: most journalists - despite all the glaring evidence to the contrary - do not and cannot comprehend that are a cogs in a gigantic Lie Machine.
Bob gave a good example in our podcast chat of how the system works. When an editor turns down your cartoon or suggested feature idea he never says: “Ooh no. We can’t go there!” Instead, it’s invariably “the readers wouldn’t be interested.” As a writer you feel placated by this. After all it’s the readers who pay your salary. You’re not being censored. You’re just responding to ‘the market’.
And you don’t think of yourself as a mercenary whore, pushing right-wing or left-wing buttons according to the partisan requirements of your publication. Rather you think of yourself as a vital counterbalance to all the nonsense being put about by your enemies on the other side of the political divide. If you write, say for the Telegraph, you imagine you are fighting the fight for conservative values; if you write for the Guardian, you’re sticking it to the evil Tories. Never does it occur to you that you might just be a puppet playing your designated role in a Punch and Judy show which promotes the illusion of open debate, free choice and diversity of opinion.
When, for example, all those years ago I joined that element of the commentariat pushing for military action against Iraq it wasn’t because my MI6 controller had had a quiet word. I actually believed in this shit. The West, I thought, was the best. It was our moral duty to bring ‘peace’ to those benighted corners of the world where diarrhoea was a way of life. Our brave boys in the military needed our support. Saddam was an evil dictator who fed his opponents into mincing machines. The world had never been a better place than when the sun never set on the British Empire. etc.
Where did I imbibe this stuff? Partly it was a product of education and upbringing. [“Every boy and every girl that’s born alive is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative”, as WS Gilbert put it]. Mainly, it was because I believed all the house experts on the newspaper I worked for. Some had been lecturers at Sandhurst; some had served in the military; some had ‘access’ to high level diplomatic and military sources. Many of them I knew, liked and trusted. If you’d told me then that at least some of these sources were indeed getting their briefings straight from the intelligence services - and that those intelligence services were not in fact goodies but mendacious baddies working for the nameless and boundlessly evil true rulers of the world - I would have looked at you like you were bonkers.
Nowadays, of course, I can glance at any MSM news report or feature and parse within a few seconds what the hidden agenda behind the ostensible story is. The other day, for example, there was an op ed in my old newspaper The Telegraph by a sassy, female feature writer playing - quite unwittingly I’m sure - the designated James Delingpole role. Her piece made lots of red-meat, angry-reader noises about the awfulness and stupidity and pointlessness of those dreadful lockdowns. “What’s not to like?” you can imagine your typical Telegraph reader thinking. “Here is somebody voicing exactly what I intuited about lockdowns at the time and finally here I am being proved right. Finally this wretched, fake Conservative government of ours might sit up and listen…”
But that’s just part of that illusion-of-democracy trick I mentioned. The real point of the piece was buried about half way through. “When the vaccines arrived, rather than calmly making the (strong) case for people to have the jab, it was considered desirable instead to browbeat the public with grim emotional blackmail…” This message is reinforced in a subsequent paragraph praising the measles vaccine - “tremendously effective against a highly infectious disease” - followed by a neat little jab against “anti-vax disinformation.”
See how it works? It’s a bit like subliminal advertising. Normie Telegraph readers are consuming what they think is a tremendously sound diatribe against hate figures like Devi Sridhar and against government overreach when, under the radar, they being indoctrinated with exactly the same message that Sridhar and the government have been so relentlessly pushing: the vaccines are safe, effective and necessary.
Perhaps the piece’s author genuinely believes that vaccines are safe, effective and necessary. Perhaps the subs tweaked it just a bit with intensifiers like that word ‘strong’. Perhaps, she wanted to write the anti-Sridhar/anti-lockdown diatribe and her editors said “yeah, great - but if you wouldn’t mind just bunging in a couple of pars about vaccines, to tie in with that other news story about the resurgence of measles.” Whatever, I can guarantee that that journalist will not have lost sleep over having been compromised because she wouldn’t even have noticed. “The main thing is I got to stick it to that awful Sridhar woman and those dreadful Lockdown freaks. And got paid for it. And that’s a win!”, she’ll likely have thought.
This is not, of course, to let my old industry off the hook. I think the media is one of reasons the world is in such a mess because - with the film, TV, video game and music industries - it is the propaganda department of Big Evil. It lies to us, misdirects us, fleeces us, despises us, conspires in our destruction. But then, to be fair, so do all the other tentacles of the Beast System from the law to academe, from politics to the Established church. And that, ultimately, is the problem. Though every industry and institution is compromised, the vast majority of people working within those industries and institutions are blissfully unaware that they are compromised. They think - if at all - that this is just how the world works. And they’re right: it’s just how it does.
