In a quaint country nestled between rolling hills and lush landscapes, a peculiar phenomenon has caught the attention of keen observers – a population of foxes and a small group of wolves dominating the media landscape. As the media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing societal discourse, the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a select few wolves raises significant questions about the health of democracy in this country.

The metaphorical foxes in this story represent the general public, diverse in their perspectives and experiences. Meanwhile, the small group of wolves symbolizes a concentrated ownership of media outlets, wielding immense influence over the narratives that reach the ears and eyes of the foxes. In a democracy, a free and unbiased media is essential for fostering informed citizens and promoting a healthy exchange of ideas.

The concern arises when a handful of media entities, owned by a select group of wolves, begin to dictate the narratives that shape public perception. This concentration of media power can lead to a lack of diversity in voices and perspectives, stifling the rich tapestry of opinions that is essential for a vibrant and thriving democracy.

One of the primary issues that arises in such a scenario is the potential for biased reporting and selective coverage. The wolves, with their vested interests, may inadvertently or purposefully promote narratives that align with their agenda, sidelining important issues that don’t fit their narrative. This selective reporting can mislead the foxes, hindering their ability to make informed decisions and participate effectively in the democratic process.

Moreover, the dominance of a small group of wolves in the media landscape may lead to the suppression of dissenting voices. A healthy democracy thrives on open dialogue, constructive criticism, and the ability to question those in power. When media ownership is concentrated, there is a risk that alternative perspectives may be marginalized, limiting the diversity of opinions that should ideally flourish in a democratic society.

To address these concerns, it is imperative that the foxes, the general public, become aware of the dynamics at play in their media landscape. Investigative journalism and public discourse are vital tools in unveiling the motivations and potential biases of media owners. By actively engaging with various sources of information and encouraging media literacy, the foxes can empower themselves to critically evaluate the narratives presented to them.

Furthermore, regulatory bodies and policymakers should closely scrutinize media ownership patterns to ensure a fair and diverse representation of voices in the public sphere. Implementing measures to prevent monopolies or oligopolies in media ownership will contribute to a more democratic media landscape.

In conclusion, the story of foxes and wolves in this country serves as a compelling allegory for the importance of media diversity and transparency in a thriving democracy. As the foxes awaken to the realities of media ownership, it becomes crucial for them to demand accountability, transparency, and a media landscape that reflects the true plurality of their society. After all, a democracy flourishes when the voices of all its citizens are heard, not just those of a select few.

Karma, the sweet smell of poetic justice, the bully gets punched in the nose in the end! Fake news finally gets counted out and David to the Goliath is a teenager named Nicholas Sandmann the MAGA hat wearing unassuming media slayer.

Nicholas Sandmann and his legal team has announced a settlement with The Washington Post on their $250 Million dollar suit. This comes also on the heels of the multi-million dollar suit against CNN. They have stated 2 down and six to go.  Here is their list:

NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Gannett, Rolling Stones.

Many have tried to get the media companies to report fairly but even Billionaire hardball players like Donald Trump are impotent against the media smear machines. Politicians, celebrities and any adults in the public realm have diminished rights when it comes to defending their reputation against lies and attacks from media behemoths. This is a sad state of affairs and what’s lead  to the monumental rise of fake propaganda news.

In steps Nicholas Sandmann who was wrongly accused by many media outlets when the story broke of belligerent  teens harassing a Native American man beating a drum in a rally. There were duel rallies in the area. Since the teen was wearing a MAGA hat the news media or better yet fake news media went into overdrive bashing the kids. When the whole video was viewed any honest person could see the kids did nothing wrong in the whole confrontation. But this blatant truth means nothing to fake news. They hate Trump so lies are okay as long as it hurts their intended target. Nicholas Sandmann is a normal American well behaved teen. With him being a teen or minor the laws give him protections not afforded a public figure. So he could aggressively defend himself with a good legal team. Now truth and justice has a chance to rule and not the mob rule of the left. If this could happen more often we would have a more honest press. But we know they have financial donors and backers that pay them to spread these lies so we will have to see what is coming down the pike in hopes there will be more honesty in reporting. But don’t hold your breathe.

News@11

By Michael Ameer

New England – A Twitter page for a group called New England Identitarians was temporarily suspended evidently for using the word “Identitarian”. The page had zero followers at the time, and was yet to even make a tweet. In fact, the page was set to private. 

Regardless of what you might think of “Identitarian” ideology, most people can agree that the word itself shouldn’t trigger a ban from the public square, which is what social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are functioning as. The First Amendment was intended to protect the public from government censorship, but in the current day the main medium for public discourse is social media. Practically speaking, there is no difference. It must be lawfully determined if these companies are neutral platforms, or if they function as publishers with editorial judgement. 

The same goes for the popular video platform YouTube as well. Formerly known as a free speech medium, it’s now only friendly for what are deemed acceptable opinions. Across all of these sites, “hate speech” is broadly used as an excuse to censor political views that the company doesn’t like, with a strong partisan bias against conservatives. Other free speech friendly social media networks to try are Telegram, Gab, and Parlor. An up-and-coming alternative to YouTube is BitChute.  For livestreaming, there’s D’Live. Perhaps it’s time that we all begin to migrate away from the tyrannical mainstream sites.