Did the Media Help Cover for Epstein? Enjoy this clip from my conversation with Brian Karem on The Disinfo Detox

I guess we came to the point where we really need to stand up to preserve, or maybe even rescue, the freedom of speech, freedom of press and the liberties many generations before us fought for.

We cannot let conservatives take away the rights of women, minorities and the press.

Reality has more in common with clay than stone, it's more like a poem than a definition. Reality is no truer than what is printed in our newspapers, transmitting across our devices, and even misinterpreted through our own ignorance. Individuals, entities, and even ideas can change how we as a people interpret the world.

The free press was tasked with maintaining a unified version of reality based on truth. Through this lens, western society was able to centralize their societal beliefs, views, and nationalism. The Fairness Doctrine (1949-1994) required that opposing views be provided on all topics of public interest and any individual or group attacked by a report was provided opportunity to respond on the same program.

Congress attempted to codify this FCC regulation twice, but both Regan and George H Bush threatened to veto it. In 2009 the Obama admin came out against reviving it as well stating, "I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you're included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period." In 2009, the GOP controlled senate attempted to pass legislature that would prohibit the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, it did not pass the House.

Keep in mind, the corporate control was never a problem for any of these administrations. Need I remind the reader, that there are ways to hold the government accountable, but there is little to no citizen control over corporations. These admins placed our news in the hands of entities completely unaccountable to the people. Entities whose sole reason for existing is to make money.

Political reasonings on both sides of the aisle for abandoning the Fairness Doctrine are Orwellian in nature, that somehow providing a regulation or law that requires opposing viewpoints will polarize the media or provide control over their reporting. This is of course, a fascist dog whistle. Fascism requires maintaining only one point of view, normalizing no longer hearing opposing viewpoints is the first step towards that end.

A Free Press is only a threat to those who wish to limit the people or hide the truth. There is nothing lost from free reporting unless you are ab individual or organization that wishes to hide their actions from others. To this end, the Free Press is one of the first things to be lost in societal collapse. The people can't learn of the collapse if those tasked with reporting on it are owned by those very people bringing about the collapse.

In late 1994 the Fairness Doctrine was struck down, in 1996 Fox News began broadcasting. It's politically biased and often angry reporting quickly found its target audience. Rather than report reality, Fox News reported what its audience wanted to watch and hear. The news had become subjective - at least on the right side of the aisle.

The first battle for America's democracy was lost as news stations were purchased by corporations that were not in search of objective truth or societal knowledge but ratings, ad revenue, and market share. With the 4th estate in shambles, with multiple versions of every event being reported, all seeped in audience-favored bias, societal reality splintered.

Politicians no longer need to be justified or hold the moral high ground; they just need to have a media mouthpiece say they are right and just. But, with all things in the USA, nothing is free, and so the politicians find themselves returning the favor of favorable reporting with favorable legislature. This tit-for-tat cycle has been going on for over 20 years. But a system under constant abuse will fall apart, we are witnessing the unraveling of societal reality every day.

Analyzing Concerns Surrounding Donald Trump's Policies

In the realm of politics, no figure has been as polarizing in recent memory as Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States. During his tenure from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, his policies and leadership style elicited varied responses from the public and experts alike. While some praised his efforts, others expressed concerns over the potential erosion of democratic norms. In this blog, we will analyze some of the policies associated with Trump's administration that raised questions about authoritarian tendencies and their implications for democratic institutions.

Attacks on the Media: Preserving Press Freedom

One of the key tenets of a robust democracy is a free and independent press. Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump frequently criticized the media, particularly when faced with critical coverage. The "fake news" label became a common refrain, creating an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust towards journalists and media outlets. Critics argued that this rhetoric undermined press freedom and the role of the media as a check on government power, which is a crucial safeguard in democratic societies.

Executive Orders: Balancing Executive Power and Checks

The use of executive orders is a legitimate tool for presidents to implement policy decisions swiftly. However, Trump's administration was known for its extensive use of executive orders, sometimes bypassing Congress to enact policies. Critics expressed concerns that this approach could weaken the checks and balances system that ensures a fair distribution of power among the three branches of government. While executive orders can expedite decision-making, they should be used judiciously and in accordance with democratic principles.

Immigration Policies: Striking a Balance

Trump's approach to immigration was a central point of contention during his presidency. The "Zero Tolerance" policy, which led to the separation of families at the border, sparked significant outcry and accusations of inhumanity. Critics argued that it prioritized border control over humanitarian considerations and raised questions about how democratic societies should balance border security and compassion.

Rhetoric and Division: Fostering Unity and Inclusivity

Trump's rhetoric often targeted specific ethnic and religious groups, and his language against political opponents and critics was at times inflammatory. Critics pointed out that such divisive rhetoric could exacerbate social divisions and undermine national unity. In democratic societies, leaders are expected to foster inclusive dialogue and promote a sense of unity among citizens, regardless of their political affiliations.

Pardons and Self-Pardoning: Upholding the Rule of Law

The presidential pardon power is an essential element of the U.S. Constitution, allowing presidents to grant clemency to individuals convicted of federal crimes. However, some of Trump's controversial pardons raised questions about the potential abuse of this power for political purposes. Additionally, discussions about the possibility of self-pardoning raised concerns about the limits of executive authority and the need to uphold the rule of law.

Fuckin’ get ‘em.