Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

Fake News Is Fake News

Fake news is fake news.

By which I mean that fake news itself isn’t a real concept. It’s fake.

I remember back when fake news was just standard nonsensical clickbait – “Islington mum earns thousands working from home”

That was the original fake news, and it’s still there chuntering away (who clicks on this stuff?!)

Then Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump and the Left in America tried to convince us that fake news was actually just any negative stories about Hilary Clinton.

Probably paid for by the Team Trump.

Probably written by Russians.

And thus the whole Russian collusion story was born, the mockingbird media saw the power of the fake news narrative and embarked on a journey to paint all news critical of the Left as fake.

It didn’t take long for Donald Trump to realise the power of it and jump on board, and before the Left knew what had happened, their standard bearers like CNN and the state-funded BBC were also being called fake news.

Hoisted by their own retards, we might say.

The battle rages on today – all the left-leaning social media sites have spent the last two years demonetising and censoring material from the Right in the pretence it is fake news, de-platforming those on the Right at a furious rate, while allowing even the most heinous left-wing fake news to proliferate.

Of course government has never seen a problem it can’t misdiagnose, so even as commentators on the Right vanish from the large platforms, the politicians claim social media doesn’t do enough to decimate them.

While ignoring the epidemic of fake news from the Left (which people outside the leftard media bubble refuse to do, regularly holding up embarrassing placards behind the heads of CNN churnalists), of which the Jussie Smollet alleged race-attack hoax is just the latest iteration if proven correct.

It’s a fast-moving story so events may overtake me, but it seems his dim roided-up alleged co-conspirators have realised Smollett intends to throw them under the bus, and are singing like canaries. Surely Smollett is about to be charged with filing a false report, and if he is to avoid becoming a chew-toy for The Sisters on some reasonably serious charges, he must surely come up with an angle the left-wing media can run with while keeping a straight face.

And fast.

I guess he might claim it was all just Shia Leboeuf-style performance art designed to reveal the prejudice of the police? A social experiment in which his co-conspirators had to be kept in the dark to ensure their actions were credible?

“I did it to show how the police are racists, and the speed with which they disregarded my constructed story proves I was right!”

You know CNN and the BBC will lend a hand framing his new narrative for him.

Of course no-one with a functioning brain will believe it, but that doesn’t matter – the social justice crowd are getting desperate to salvage some shred of credibility, and even the flimsiest cover will be enough for them to mumble and nod and drool excitedly into their laps as their enfeebled grey matter churns over this new information.

Any minute now – “If ever proof was needed that Donald Trump and his supporters have destroyed our country, this intelligent and innovative demonstration of the rot at the heart of our institutions, from one of our best and brightest young black gay actors must surely be it?”

Mumble, nod, drool.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhoda Klapp
Rhoda Klapp
2 years ago

Of course the BBC is not state-funded. People who want to watch it pay for it. On pain of fines and imprisonment imposed by the state..

2 years ago
Reply to  Rhoda Klapp

‘People who want to watch it pay for it.’

If only this were so.

Anyone owning a TV receiver must pay the licence fee whether or not they want to or indeed watch the BBC. You don’t even have to use the TV set to watch broadcast TV, if for example you just use it connected to a DVD Player (or VCR) you need a licence.

I recall past court cases where people had adjusted the tuner in their TV set so it could not receive BBC stations only ITV, but it mattered not.

Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole
2 years ago
Reply to  Q46

It’s receiving live broadcasts (of any over-the-air-TV channel, and that includes via the Internet) that requires a licence. If all you do is watch catch-up TV (or play/download DVDs), you don’t need a licence. And that’s what most people under 40 are now doing.

The licence fee will be dead within another decade or, at most, two. The BBC will need to move to a subscription model, and they’re already preparing the ground with an iPlayer that requires sign-in,.

Dodgy Geezer
Dodgy Geezer
2 years ago

You know, this is the first article I have ever seen which slams the continual politically-driven media lies so overtly. Congratulations! I presume that it will shortly be removed from the net once the left wing get at your ISP…?

Can you help support Continental Telegraph?

If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against the Establishment. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x