All this hysteria over alleged Russia "influence" since the election results, it's hard to keep it straight whether it was "hacking" or "rigging" or
"influence", or what exactly this "influence" they're talking about is supposed to mean on account all of this rhetoric is kept deliberately vague.
Was the hacking just the email servers, was it the actual election results itself? This "influence", was it genuine "fake news" (i.e. hoaxes), was it
propaganda; was the propaganda true or not? To the DNC & MSM here in the US (and in the UK press too ironically enough), all of that stuff is on the
table, it's all one in the same no matter what truth lies therein it cuts every which way, and none
of it is to be tolerated in the slightest.
I don't know about anybody else, but the bulk of my election news aggregation came from watching the new threads stream here in ATS, and from the news
stream at Google News. Once I finally started tuning in to the while affair in late Spring last year, I'll tell ya, I couldn't do a quick scan of
Google News without seeing articles from the two main UK press sites: The Time, and The Guardian. Here in ATS I got to see the the full spectrum of
'relevant' Trump news from the best the Trump supporters were posting to the worst Hillary people were posting. And when I'd see stuff from The Times
and The Guardian the pieces generally were of the worst kind of hit pieces.
In terms of US media coverage there are some
showing the undeniable pro-Hillary echo chamber slant from the
MSM (that even includes Fox News amongst the favoring Clinton camp). The following charts tell the media bias tale quite clearly:
Okay now factor the amount of coverage:
Which basically means there was round the clock Trump hitpieces being pumped out by the Establishment Propaganda Fronts, the same people going to
lecture everyone about "influencing" elections.
There's also my "Exclusive MSM Analysis Reveals: They Have Gone FULL TABLOID (Trump Tapes
vs. WikiLeaks Reveals All)
" piece I did one week following when the "Trump Tape" was released, which conveniently dropped about an hour after
the WikiLeaks Podesta archive first hit the web. Where there was just the one Trump tape, and a handful of followup allegations for the MSM to run
stories off of, in the case of the Podesta files there was easily
dozens of stories they could have run with. It was the ultimate in election
closeout controversy gold, yet the MSM entirely dropped the ball. What these two coinciding events gave us was surely the most choice insight into
just how crookedly biased the MSM here is. The MSM should have been out of their minds trying to contain themselves in the face of the WikiLeaks
(which even post-election to this day they haven't been), but instead they swooned like teenage girls chasing The Beatles over a single "lockeroom
talk" tape and some dubiously timed other "sexual assault" (kissing & groping) allegations regarding a de facto rock star & groupies (as if that's
somehow even surprising).
This followed an entire year of the MSM malreporting the controversies:
Now while I didn't find a clean study as above covering UK press, below I've pulled some story examples from Google News, and also applied the same
search methodology that I used in my above 'tapes vs. leaks' analysis piece. In terms of the 'tapes vs. leaks', it was about par for the MSM course
with The Times. With The Guardian, the sample is hard to gauge was some crazy results numbers come up as you'll see. I seriously don't even know how
they posted that many pieces covering the elections here, but regardless of the contents of all of the pieces they did run, their news was certainly a
factor in US news results thanks to Google (whom is at the forefront of this whole "fake news" auto-censorship push), which i find pretty incredible
as foreign "news" is clearly forbidden now given all of the rhetoric the past couple months now.
Now as you're about to see, the "news" being put out by UK media is clearly infected with propaganda
. In case you're at all fuzzy on what
"propaganda" is, it's simply communications meant to sway opinion (i.e. a political yard sign, a Nabisco TV commercial, a Gucci print ad in a
magazine, a documentary by a former president meant to scare the bejesus out of you over global warming, etc). Just look at this handful of header
images I pulled from some of the hitpieces from The Times, and then come tell the world that isn't propaganda:
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we United Statesians rebelled against the British Monarchy in 1776 (not to mention saved their
arses in WW2)!?! So then WTF were they doing meddling in our election like all of this?
'Dear God, America what have you done?': How the world and its media reacted as Donald Trump became US President-elect
Americans praise O'Riordáin for calling Trump a monster
A Trump victory would be perfect for Putin www.thetimes.co.uk...
Bunkers and bluster: a useful idiot's tartan tussles with Trump
Trump win 'a catastrophe for climate change' www.thetimes.co.uk...
Trump too wild for the west www.thetimes.co.uk...
Clinton is rigging the election, Trump tells his supporters
Facebook to stem its flood of fake news that favoured Trump
Ku Klux Klan planning a victory ‘klavalkade’ www.thetimes.co.uk...
Bragging about sex returns to bite Trump www.thetimes.co.uk...
Trump win ‘will knock trillions off share prices’ www.thetimes.co.uk...
Trump ‘a descendant of Russian ruler’ www.thetimes.co.uk...
Trump voters are hard to find in Ireland www.thetimes.co.uk...
edit on 4-1-2017
by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)