CNN issues retraction after using digitally altered photos of Trump & Loomer

Cnn logo red png 3.It’s interesting that you can find articles all over the media, & X about it.

But looking for “CNN Retraction” will not present you with a link to CNN.COM wherein you could actually read what they said. Nor does “CNN Correction” present you with what CNN actually did or said.

Rather than continue to fuck around with CNN’s obfuscation I’ll simply read the hearsay from other journalists.

The short story: Anderson Cooper and other CNN anchors used fake photos on Friday and Saturday presenting them as real in some sort of negative report on Trump and Laura Loomer.

Absolutely nothing new there! I don’t really give a shit CNN has become a televised “National Enquirer”. Although, that might be an insult to National Enquirer.

My train of thought went in a completely different direction. 

Regardless of CNN’s correction, retraction, misspeaking, or whatever. The damage is done. There are a shit ton of people who will never see or hear that CNN was wrong, again, and they will run off believing whatever smear CNN painted Trump & Loomer with.

Even if Loomer sues, as she’s threatening to do, it won’t matter. CNN will lose some money, Loomer will get some money but her reputation will still be sullied.

Anderson Cooper and the other anchors will still get their 6 digit paychecks, and they’ll blame the CNN staff for the mistake. The Anchors and Production Managers will say, “We can’t check everything prior to going on air in this competitive market…

I might even believe it… Except that it rarely happens, and when I say rarely, I mean 98.9999999999% of the time, when they’re talking about their favored Party, People, or Subjects. They don’t make mistakes, they check everything and are very quick to “Fact Check” anyone who speaks ill of their preferred narratives.

So with demonstrable bias, CNN and other news outlets blithely spew misinformation.

Wait

Haven’t people gone to jail for misinformation? Why yes… Douglass Mackey was sentenced to 7 months in prison for posting memes on Twitter encouraging Clinton supporters to vote via text message.

Hillary Clinton recently suggested that aside from indictments against Russians for direct election interference, that perhaps civil or criminal charges should be levied against Americans for parroting “Russian propaganda”. 

Oh, like the Hunter Biden Laptop? That Russian Propaganda? Where we had the news media and 51 Intelligence officers tell us the laptop was fake, just before the last election. We’ve since learned that had that information been widely presented instead of suppressed people might have voted for Trump instead of Biden.

Under Hillary’s suggestion, should we be charging and / or imprisoning members of the media or those 51 intelligence officers. One could argue they engaged in election interference and that the Russians had profited from the wide spread misinformation in the form of tipping the election toward Biden.

Hillary Clinton really hates Russians doesn’t she? She’s been going on about Russians one way or another, for almost a decade now…

CNN and other new outlets might be forgiven for their spewing of misinformation during COVID with regard to efficacy of vaccines, alternative treatments, etc. Generally speaking, they were acting in good faith based on the available information, much of it from government sources.

But, and this is just my opinion, they didn’t have to go the extra mile to ridicule and discredit scientists and doctors who expressed dissenting opinions.

These news outlets, to this day have never apologized for the damage they did to scientists and doctors who not only dissented, but as time moves on, appear to have been correct. The government apologizing to these same individuals for their part in harming the scientists careers,  would herald the apocalypse.

All of which begs the question. Can CNN and the legacy media be trusted anymore? If not, then where are we to get our information? It’s a foregone conclusion that our government cannot be trusted.

If I were conspiracy minded, I’d say this was part of an overarching plan to destroy all non government news organizations and once they’re throughly discredited they’ll be replaced with some form of State News Agency

American News NetworkANNNews from your government who is Father and Mother, protecting us all from threats internal & external.

That would certainly make control of the, what’s the word, proletariat, easier wouldn’t it?

Oddly, I seem to recall Kamala Harris speaking in favor of some kind of misinformation laws applied nationally.

However entering a search in google or duck duck go. Returns everything about misinformation as it’s been applied to Harris but not her actual stance on the matter.

“is kamala harris in favor of misinformation laws?” Or “has kamala harris proposed misinformation laws?” Presents ZERO information pertaining to the question.

As I’ve mentioned before, our search engine technology is becoming more useless every day. Why can’t the search engines present the most direct answer to the query then present other related materials.

They used to do this with ease. Now, it seems that even our search engines are purposely obfuscating information.

The problem might be that Harris routinely changes her mind and that might be confusing the search engines. Much as her stance on gun control and virtually every other thing she says is subject to change based on the direction the wind is blowing.

The point I was trying to make is, if Harris is in favor of misinformation laws nationally that are similar to those signed into law by Gavin Newsom, then it’s possible something like the ANN as I described above is closer than we think.

AOC, Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, Dan Goldman, Nancy Pelosi, and many other Democrats in Congress have on occasion expressed approval of, or desire for, abridgments of freedom of speech. With presidential backing misinformation laws and in fact an office of misinformation such as was proposed early in the Biden administration could easily become reality.

The justification used to “Sell” abridgment of The First Amendment to the American People could even be pointing to the permanent harm misinformation does to someone like Laura Loomer, Donald Trump, Doctors, and Scientists. 

That would be the ultimate slap in the face wouldn’t it?

The people harmed by institutionalized, approved misinformation who spoke out in defense of Freedom of Speech and demanded responsibility of the news media, having the harm done to them, used to curtail The First Amendment.

Harvard isn’t what it once was

And now I have a partial explanation for how COVID-19 became what it was and how vaccines that don’t work came to be foisted on the world as “Safe and Effective” when apparently they are neither.

An ars Technica article is reporting 37 questionable studies at a Harvard affiliated cancer research center.

For goodness sake. 

What the hell happened to data integrity? 

Anyone incorporating these research papers into their own research might be led down a research dead end not because their original theory was incorrect but because they used “facts/proofs” from these papers. 

That wastes time, money (in research grants) and potentially, lives of desperate people participating in clinical trials.

I suppose this is how we end up with snake oil being sold by “real” Doctors. I suppose it’s also how “real” Doctors can stand by, knowing that the “approved” treatment protocol for a disease, (For example COVID,) was doing more harm than good.

It’s how we get scientific “Consensus” that is almost entirely incorrect about a wide variety of things. Obviously, it’s not just medicine. The spooky thing is, if this is happening in medical research, where the highest level of diligence next to nuclear bomb research is supposed to be in place, then it’s probably everywhere.

Is current geologic research just slap dash and missing the signs of a 9.0 earthquake in Northern California where Mt St Helens, and the Yellowstone super volcano all blow at the same time? Are those signs being missed because the actual observation data doesn’t fit a shitty research paper, or papers and is being thrown out?

Have we missed new energy sources, or warp drive, because of some copy / pasted incorrect data dampening a brilliant mind that perceived an anomaly but decided not to research that anomaly because the literature said it’s an instrumentation or computational error?

SCIENCE is about truth! Above all else. 

Science is observing and recording what is. Science is using those observations to predict behavior of the natural world and once that behavior is understood, science can tweak the input variables to change the outcome.

Science is also about understanding and accepting that when we’re on the boundary of the “known” sometimes science can go no further. That road block is not failure, it’s a sign that either we missed something fundamental, or our tools aren’t sophisticated enough to proceed. While the initial data is checked, the sophistication of the tools increases and the road block turns out to be only temporary.

If so called scientists and researchers are willfully fucking over the integrity of data and disseminating false results, then the basic underpinnings of science and scientific process are contaminated and at risk. 

It is possible that Academia has sunk this low, and failed humanity in selfish pursuit of money over knowledge?

A reasonable question to ask at this point is:

Is the lack of integrity and principals confined to Harvard?

I strongly suspect that it’s not due to the competitive nature of grants and donors.

Can anything MIT, Yale, the entire UC system, Stanford, or in fact any “Top” research center or college publishes, actually be trusted?

Sadly, I think not. I say this with a heavy heart and ask you to consider the following.

Can we trust the climate change folks, or the climate deniers? We know that a large percentage of the “Climate Change Data” was falsified. The simulation used to claim the planet had 12 years left was rife with errors and inconsistencies where the data was manipulated to produce a dire outcome.

The reason for this appears to have been more research money, fame, & fortune! But it spawned the “Consensus” bullshit on the one side and the “Climate Change deniers” on the other. 

The impact is that instead of having real data that was as good as it could be, presenting that data to the people of the world and using it to become better stewards of our beautiful planet. Really good and accurate research was thrown out with the contaminated data by 1/2 the planet.

There are a few people like myself who think we each should do our best to limit our long term effect on the planet. At the same time, we must intelligently assess and balance human needs versus planetary ecology. We should also be able to place our faith in our advancing technological capabilities, because if we’re all thinking about using our resources wisely then our “mistakes of necessity” today can and will probably be mitigated by technology of tomorrow.

That only works IF SCIENCE is indeed TRUTH.

There’s danger in bad or politicized research too. Look at COVID. We were actively shutting down scientists, real scientists who had actual data describing the dangers of mRNA. They weren’t blue skying or theorizing. These scientists had actually used and in some cases abandoned mRNA because of its inherent instability.

Instability mind you, that made mRNA unsuitable for their research on rats.

The world censored them, and ignored their real world experience in the matter. That’s like ignoring the man with the charred hand telling you that fire is hot.

Our society did exactly that. This is not to say that at some point in the future mRNA therapies won’t be safe, stable, and effective. However, right now we just don’t know enough to call mRNA therapy Safe. The scientists warning against the use of mRNA weren’t saying it should never be used, they were saying that it wasn’t ready to be used, YET.

What about CERN? Those folks are playing with stuff that could really go awry, can we trust that they’re not faking data, or worse yet unknowingly using falsified data in their experiments? If they are using bad data, where might that lead given the nature of their investigations and experiments? I’m not in the “CERN will create a black hole that destroys the world camp.” But there’s a whole lot of energy CERN uses, and directs, I’d hate to think their math is wrong. 

I think that no scientist should be censored, and the politics has no place in scientific endeavor. I also think it’s time for cut / paste researchers or Phds to pay a price for their deceit. I believe they should be tossed out of their field and never allowed to work or teach their subject of study again. 

I know that’s super harsh, but the consequence should be so terrible that no-one would risk it. Mistakes are one thing, actual deceit for a grant is criminal.

It’s the only way I can see to restore the integrity of science.

Well There’s your problem!!!

Watching Harvard President Claudine Gay testifying before congress was one of the most disturbing things I’ve seen in a while.

Gay is a political scientist and should have been a politician. It’s rare that I see someone so unbelievable slimy, obviously duplicitous, and plain revolting. Listening to this vile cunt answering (with non answers) produced a visceral reaction that left me disappointed when a bolt of lightning from on high, didn’t fry her scummy ass.

Nothing pisses me off more in these hearings than hearing someone refuse to answer a yes or no question, with some long assed bullshit bunch of words.

Fuck! I’d bet if I asked this Harvard diversity hire if she was in fact black, she wouldn’t just answer the question.

Elise Stefanik wasn’t having any of this bullshit either. We all know nothing will be done though.

The other Presidents of higher educational campuses were no better.

I’m not sure that any of our Universities can be saved.

It’s absolutely obvious that these places are not about education.

Harvard, Yale, UPenn, and MIT no longer produce well rounded, educated lawyers, economists, or scientists.


Since God chose not to strike these people dead, I can only assume Hell’s admissions line is full.

I caught another clip showing the UPenn and MIT presidents responding with slimy weasel words instead of just answering directly.

God I miss plain speech!

I think speaking plainly is a lot more healthy than sliming your way around an uncomfortable subject. It’s like just grabbing ahold of a nasty splinter in your foot and yanking it out so you’re done with it, versus someone playing with the splinter because they “Don’t want to hurt you”. In the first case you get on with your day and by sundown you’ve forgotten you had a splinter. In the second case the splinter is still in your foot only now it’s starting to get infected.

Safe spaces, hate speech rules or laws, and intimidating folks into silence do not help us, or serve the greater good. There are people who will always hate each other. Better that it’s out in the open because then the hated know when and where to carry a gun.

If Harvard, Yale, UPenn, & MIT are anti-Semitic then fine. Tell all your Jewish students, refund them their current semesters fees, and housing and let them call it DONE. Then they can move on to a school that is not anti-semitic, finish getting their degrees, and get on with their lives.