The advent of New Media is driving liberals crazy. There was a time when there were only three TV networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Daily newspapers were the daily source of printed news. Some cities had morning and evening editions. Given the paucity of these old-tech news sources, liberals could easily manipulate the news. Those days are long gone.
There is so much information available to people on a near split-second basis from around the world that no one can keep up. Net Neutrality legislation was proposed to stop the competition. It went nowhere, and won’t go anywhere under a Trump administration.
Since Hillary Clinton’s loss, liberals don’t know what to do. They’ve been playing the race card, but it’s worn out its effectiveness. The new tactic is to claim that “fake news sites” are the real culprit. But who gets to define what’s fake? If a liberal gets to decide, then a fake news story is any story that a liberal disagrees with. The facts aren’t the issue. The propaganda value of the narrative is what matters.
Trending: Science is Settled
Let’s not forget that in addition to fake news stories from liberal news sources, there are stories that are never reported on. For example, Monica Lewinsky’s sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton was first published by the tthen-upstartnews aggregation site The Drudge Report after it had been spiked by the editors at Newsweek.
That’s the day when everything changed. The Internet brought a sea-change of information and news that has swamped the so-called mainstream news outlets.
Fake news has been a staple among liberals. Do you remember the Al Sharpton/Tawana Brawley incident? “In 1987, when she was 15 years old, Brawley received media attention when she accused six white men, some of whom were police officers, of raping her.” Sharpton got involved and hyped the story. “After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack. The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.”
One of those advisers was Sharpton. “The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements against one of the defendants.”
In 2004, Sharpton was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. He makes regular guest appearances on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. He is the host of MSNBC’s “Politics Nation,” a weekend talk show.
Supporting false accusations and being sued for defamation has not stopped his career. In fact, it seems to have enhanced it. He’s still considered a spokesman for the Black community.
Lesbian Charlie Rogers invented a story where she claimed to be “accosted in her own home . . . by three men who bound her, carved anti-gay slurs into her skin and tried to burn the place down. . . .” After a thorough investigation, “police said that evidence uncovered during the course of the investigation revealed that the victim herself was the likely assailant.”
Then there’s the Duke Lacrosse Case. In 2006, three members of the men’s lacrosse team at Duke University were accused of raping Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American student who attended North Carolina Central University. Players were suspended, the coach was forced to resign by the athletic director, and Duke President Richard Brodhead canceled the rest of the 2006 season. The accusation proved to be false.
Jesse Jackson supported the false accuser to such an extent that his non-profit Rainbow/Push Coalition organization offered to pay her tuition whether she fabricated the story or not. “A poster that ‘looked like a wanted poster’ was distributed on campus and in nearby neighborhoods shortly after the allegations surfaced in March 2006 showing pictures and names of 40 members of the lacrosse team, urging them to ‘come forward’ with information on the alleged rape.”
Ken Burns described the Duke Lacrosse players who were charged with rape as “three rich white boys who were mildly inconvenienced by rape charges that proved to be false.” The story was front-page news in every news outlet around the world. A group of 88 Duke University professors added their names to an advertisement that was published in the Duke Chronicle “implying that the charges were true.”
Even after it was learned that the accusations were false, Duke Faculty member Wahneema Lubiano declared that the players could never be cleared, no matter what the evidence. Lubiano considered the team members to be “‘almost perfect offenders,’ since they are ‘the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus.’” Lubiano promised to continue to pursue justice regardless of the “truth.”
Much of the legislative action on so-called “hate crimes” and “hate speech” came by way of the Matthew Shepard murder case. In October 1998, Shepard “was tortured, killed, and left hanging grotesquely from a fence. He was discovered almost a day later and later died in the hospital from his horrific wounds.” Immediately the homosexual community turned the story into a cause célèbre to push for “hate crime” legislation.
The claim was made that Shepard was murdered because he was a homosexual. A new blockbuster book argues that Shepard had been murdered by his “gay lover.” There’s no political capital to be gained by such a story, so a more useable political narrative had to be created:
“According to The Advocate, one of the premier gay publications in the country, [Stephen] Jiminez ‘amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certain[ly] less central than popular consensus had lead us to believe.’
“Even before Shepard died, two of his friends were peddling the narrative that he died at the hands of vicious homophobes. Within days the gay establishment latched onto what would drive the hate crimes story for years to come. . .”
So what’s the real story? According to Jiminez, the author of The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, “Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.”
As expected, those in the homosexual community denounced the book and the media all but ignored its assertions. By the way, the author of The Book of Matt is a homosexual.
This isn’t the first time a false narrative had been created to push a liberal cause. The same process was evident in the 1973 pro-abortion decision. Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in the Roe v. Wade case, “never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but young, pro-abortion feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used McCorvey’s case as a means of attempting to overturn Texas’ law making most abortions illegal.” The reason most Americans don’t know the fake story behind the 1973 decision is because the media refuse to tell it.
What most Americans also “don’t know that McCorvey, who was ‘pro-choice’ on abortion at the time, is now a pro-life advocate. She is now dedicated to reversing the Supreme Court case that bears her fictitious name, Jane Roe.”
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”