90% of media controlled by 6 companies

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
We can accept that most news today is filtered and used as political propaganda or by big business as an extension to promote their interest and to stop bad news hurting them

Information that comes from people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi or journalists who set out both sides of the subject is the best way to seek some clarity

The reports by Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi show what is not reported and gives an insight into the level of manipulation and non reporting that is going on

Google is just part of this filtering and manipulating of news as does the old media

Look for one sided stories and reporting

For example compare Dr Fauci's coverage to his Swedish counterpart.

Dr Fauci gets no real negative media reporting about his actions despite politicians doing some limited questioning and his favoring big pharma solutions and blocking trials of cheap alternatives.

Dr Fauci is someone who seems media protected his Swedish counterpart is not

Clearly Dr Fauci is well connected with big pharma and powerful himself as he allocates billions of $ in grants and has been a NIAID Director since 1984. One of his nicknames is J Edgar Fauci

Dr Fauci's connections to Peter Daszak are well known which leads on to an example of filtered news

Peter Daszak and his appointment to UN and Lancet Commissions to investigate Covid

The media and his colleagues including Dr Fauci failed to query Dr Daszak's conflicts of interest even though it was all well known

If the media filters out what we already know is clearly wrong then we can have little confidence in their letting us know what is not already known

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9710875/Peter-Daszak-removed-COVID-commission-following-bombshell-conflict-report.html
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
We can accept that most news today is filtered and used as political propaganda or by big business as an extension to promote their interest and to stop bad news hurting them

Information that comes from people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi or journalists who set out both sides of the subject is the best way to seek some clarity

The reports by Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi show what is not reported and gives an insight into the level of manipulation and non reporting that is going on

Google is just part of this filtering and manipulating of news as does the old media

Look for one sided stories and reporting

For example compare Dr Fauci's coverage to his Swedish counterpart.

Dr Fauci gets no real negative media reporting about his actions despite politicians doing some limited questioning and his favoring big pharma solutions and blocking trials of cheap alternatives.

Dr Fauci is someone who seems media protected his Swedish counterpart is not

Clearly Dr Fauci is well connected with big pharma and powerful himself as he allocates billions of $ in grants and has been a NIAID Director since 1984. One of his nicknames is J Edgar Fauci

Dr Fauci's connections to Peter Daszak are well known which leads on to an example of filtered news

Peter Daszak and his appointment to UN and Lancet Commissions to investigate Covid

The media and his colleagues including Dr Fauci failed to query Dr Daszak's conflicts of interest even though it was all well known

If the media filters out what we already know is clearly wrong then we can have little confidence in their letting us know what is not already known

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9710875/Peter-Daszak-removed-COVID-commission-following-bombshell-conflict-report.html
Mr. Observer.. I'm not sure it is well understood what you think the problem is or what solutions you would find acceptable. Maybe you should clarify will some examples of a solution? All news is filtered to some extent. Differences in ideology are at work in the filtering?
 

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
Apart from reading the type of sources I mentioned

its about discussing how the media let us down and admitting once we see this and went along with what we were told

I made some comments in an earlier post below that give examples

 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Project Veritas
Project Veritas logo.png
Logo
FormationJune 2010; 11 years ago[1]
FounderJames O'Keefe
Some info on the project....
TypeNGO
Legal status501(c)(3)
PurposeDisinformation[14]
Location
Methods
FundingDonors Trust
Websitewww.projectveritas.com
Project Veritas is an American far-right[37] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[41] The group produces deceptively edited videos[24] of its undercover operations,[16] which use secret recordings[17] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[49][50] Project Veritas also uses entrapment[23] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[2] and has propagated disinformation[14] and conspiracy theories[57] in its videos and operations.
 

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
The questions to ask are

who wrote that wiki info you quote?

did the journalists who lost their jobs have a real point to make ?

why would a far right group want to discredit FOX ?

are the things being said in the undercover reporting things that any employee would admit openly or they would be fired for discussing it openly ?

is the point being made in one of the videos on the web site is that the News Channels are driven by revenue not by news?

is it ok for the media to set up fake events and present them as real ?

would the media admit it was doing any of these things openly ?

Its up to you to decide if what is being said is happening or not

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9faQkIA6YNU&feature=emb_title
 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Observer...Who wrote the Wikipedia piece? It is referenced, but it doesn't matter. You are preaching to a wide audience. Regardless of what is going on and who may be responsible for it, someone or some group would have to take over to change it. An unelected group? So, the arbiters of "truth" you and I might pick would be different from what others might choose. This is the dilemma that has been in place for eons...a battle between ideologies. At the moment the left has the stage, aided and abetted by the press with the help of social media outlets who can silence anyone they choose. Not a pleasant thought for the future.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
It is interesting that there has been no coverage of the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services inspector general reported last year [2019] that the value of NIH grants associated with such conflicts was $1 billion in fiscal 2018.

Federally funded health researchers reported more than 8,000 “significant” financial conflicts of interest worth at least $188 million since 2012, according to filings in a government database obtained by ProPublica.

These outside interests range from stock holdings in companies that may benefit from the outcome of research to payments for royalties, consulting work and speaking engagements.

The total value of the conflicts is likely much higher than $188 million, in part because 44% of the disclosures did not place a dollar value on the investigator’s financial relationship.


In some cases, the institutions reported additional details about the amount of equity held by researchers, but the NIH blocked those details from disclosure, citing an exemption for withholding trade secrets, and confidential commercial or financial information.

The NIH initially indicated it would require institutions to post details of the financial dealings online. But that requirement was dropped before the final rules were issued, reportedly at the insistence of the White House budget office. In its place, the NIH gave institutions a choice: They could either post the filings online or disclose the information only when asked for it.

David Weiner, a leading vaccine researcher at the nonprofit Wistar Institute in Philadelphia who reports an ownership interest in Inovio Pharmaceuticals. On its website, the publicly traded Inovio indicates it has the exclusive right to license intellectual property arising from a collaboration with Weiner and his lab at Wistar. Inovio is also listed as a subrecipient of an NIH grant to Wistar for Weiner’s vaccine-related research.

Inovio, in 2018 and 2019 filings with the SEC, disclosed that Weiner held just over 1 million shares of company stock.

INOVIO has 15 DNA medicine clinical programs currently in development.....
including coronaviruses associated with MERS and COVID-19 that are being developed under grants from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the U.S. Department of Defense. DNA medicines are composed of precisely designed DNA plasmids, which are small circles of double-stranded DNA that are synthesized or reorganized by a computer sequencing technology and designed to produce a specific immune response in the body.

 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
It is interesting that there has been no coverage of the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services inspector general reported last year [2019] that the value of NIH grants associated with such conflicts was $1 billion in fiscal 2018.

Federally funded health researchers reported more than 8,000 “significant” financial conflicts of interest worth at least $188 million since 2012, according to filings in a government database obtained by ProPublica.

These outside interests range from stock holdings in companies that may benefit from the outcome of research to payments for royalties, consulting work and speaking engagements.

The total value of the conflicts is likely much higher than $188 million, in part because 44% of the disclosures did not place a dollar value on the investigator’s financial relationship.


In some cases, the institutions reported additional details about the amount of equity held by researchers, but the NIH blocked those details from disclosure, citing an exemption for withholding trade secrets, and confidential commercial or financial information.

The NIH initially indicated it would require institutions to post details of the financial dealings online. But that requirement was dropped before the final rules were issued, reportedly at the insistence of the White House budget office. In its place, the NIH gave institutions a choice: They could either post the filings online or disclose the information only when asked for it.

David Weiner, a leading vaccine researcher at the nonprofit Wistar Institute in Philadelphia who reports an ownership interest in Inovio Pharmaceuticals. On its website, the publicly traded Inovio indicates it has the exclusive right to license intellectual property arising from a collaboration with Weiner and his lab at Wistar. Inovio is also listed as a subrecipient of an NIH grant to Wistar for Weiner’s vaccine-related research.

Inovio, in 2018 and 2019 filings with the SEC, disclosed that Weiner held just over 1 million shares of company stock.

INOVIO has 15 DNA medicine clinical programs currently in development.....
including coronaviruses associated with MERS and COVID-19 that are being developed under grants from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the U.S. Department of Defense. DNA medicines are composed of precisely designed DNA plasmids, which are small circles of double-stranded DNA that are synthesized or reorganized by a computer sequencing technology and designed to produce a specific immune response in the body.

Adam.. I think everyone here who has been paying attention to this has gotten these messages from several sources. The bottom line question remains..What is it that can be realistically done about any of this going forward? Who will take charge to investigate and where will they get the authority?
 

Observer

BANNED
Aug 15, 2020
47
2
55
This is the dilemma that has been in place for eons...a battle between ideologies. At the moment the left has the stage, aided and abetted by the press with the help of social media outlets who can silence anyone they choose.
As Adam has not replied I will try

A short term solution based on the whats set out later could be to require all Tech and Media companies to post online what public data the Media and Tech companies own compliance and legal departments should already be collecting anyway (as should their journalists) so it should not be complicated to set up

Post on a special simple and searchable web site with date of posting

all public documentation of all legal actions and FOIAs etc (including detailed filings)

against any entity with whom they shared a board member or advisor in the last 5 years,

or any client from whom they have received more than 0.25% of their gross advertizing revenue in any of the last 5 years

or of any party who owns more than 2% of their equity

I guess Adam posted the PBS story above as another good example of why we need change as this FDA/NIH conflict should have been heavily reported but would have angered pharma businesses and stopped media advertising revenue

What can we do longer term?

A simple solution based on the above would be to require all media and tech outlets (so including Google Facebook Twitter etc) to pay 0.1% of their gross revenue and with this fee set up an independent NGO whose job is to run the fastest and best website with totally independent management and staff to provide raw data

This would include the legal filings and other public data on matters set out originally

Lets call this new NGO - NGO Openness

So NGO Openness would make easily available online and searchable by name and date all

legal actions and court filings and
regulatory filing complaints
and
news reports found in Googles top 200 search results about the above legal and regultory filings (plus any related public research data)

made against any

NGO Openess funder / client / advisor / related entity.

The details can be modified over time as the data gaps appear.

As the NGO Openness funders should anyway collect most of this public data about their clients and advisors this cannot be very complicated.

NGO Openness could identify which data has been supplied from NGO Openness funders and which from other sources and when it was provided.

This will give some reference about who is being open.

There is no simple answer, its up to us to suggest solutions and keep chipping away at whats being hidden or not discussed

These livescience pages offer a place to highlight news the mainstream media ignores

Lets not make it about left or right.

Left and right seem just a game to keep us fighting ourselves and not looking at whats really going on

If we keep presenting what is not being reported in a low key rational way it will be good

We as humans need to make progress for ourselves and our childrens children
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY