Inside Media Corruption w/ Dan Schneider

Posted in: Judicial Watch, News, Patriots


View Video Summary View Video Transcription MP3 Audio


➡ On Watch is a podcast that investigates behind mainstream media headlines and attempts to revive lost history. The podcast also invites guests to discuss various media-related topics, such as the work of the Media Research Center (MRC) and the shift of information delivery from traditional news broadcasting to digital sources.
➡ The text focuses on perceived biases in the media, particularly favoritism towards the left and non-reporting of negative stories related to Joe Biden or Democrats. The author discusses their work with NewsBusters and CNS NewsBusters, pointing out media biases and underreported stories. The author also criticizes the use of government resources against conservative organizations, and alleges attempts by the media to undermine American principles.
➡ The text outlines the perceived manipulation and bias embedded within government and large tech companies, emphasizing their alleged intent to sway public sentiment towards fear or a certain political agenda. It discusses Google’s significant influence on people’s views through algorithm manipulation for election results, censoring of certain political content, and the future concerns about their use of AI.
➡ The narrative mentions the limitations and biases of AI in disseminating information, highlighting political biases in media representation, and Google search results. It also speaks of instances where the media is controlled or threatened by external forces, creating biased news coverage. There seems to be forceful suppression of certain stories in the media. The impending release of information concerning language enforcement by the Biden administration is also mentioned. It further discusses the risks posed to journalists who dare to defy these restrictions.
➡ Dan Schneider discussed the upcoming publication of a book by his wife, Dr. Shay Bradley Farrell, about Hungarian national sovereignty within the EU context. He also highlighted the importance of Media Research Center (MRC) – a resourceful platform for facts and information.


I’m Chris Farrell, and this is on watch. Welcome to on watch, everybody. The Jewish Watch podcast, where we go behind the headlines to cover some things the major mainstream media doesn’t want you to know, where we try to recover some lost history and explain the inexplicable. We appreciate you taking time joining us. Please be sure to subscribe. Whether you’re watching us on YouTube or Rumble or you’re listening to us in the audio version of this podcast on any of the platforms that are out there, be sure to subscribe to us.

Leave us a rating, and also we want to hear from you. Be sure to email us with ideas and suggestions for our show today. A really great treat for you. Joining me is Dan Snyder, who is the vice president of the Media Research Center. If you don’t know the Media Research Center, you should, and we’ll talk about their work with Dan. Welcome to OnWatch. Thanks, Chris. But for your listening audience, if you really dislike me, don’t leave a rating.

You can develop memes if you’d like to, just put them up on social media. Dan, the work of Media Research Center is incredibly important. Maybe there’s folks there who are not familiar with your work. They should be. Give us a little overview. Well, I guess I’ll start at the beginning. 1987, Brent Bozell founded the Media Research Center. I remember it well. I was always so upset at the nightly news and how biased it was.

Right. And back then, the American public thought that the media was reliable. And I’d watched Sam Donaldson kind of pretending to be neutral and all the anchors. And I opened up my National Review and there was an announcement about this new thing called the Media Research Center, and it was going to show improve media bias. I was thrilled. And of course, MRC has largely succeeded in that part when the American public is polled and asked if the news media is trustworthy or reliable.

Abysmal numbers, sure. But 30 some years ago, those numbers were very high. The media was an institution that people believed in. Most people did not. The knowledgeable people. Well, there was a time when the media was viewed as sort of America’s conscience or the notion that they were going to uphold the citizens right to know certain information. But over time and this is the sort of gromgian incrementalism, this long march through the institutions, the media was captured by the left.

And rather than there being, well, some editorial skews left, some right, it went like 95% left. And we’re living in that now. Yeah. And look, I think even back then, the major broadcasters and of course the broadcasters dominated media coverage back then, even back then, I think the reporters and the anchors would have been 95% left of center. But they had the decency to pretend that they were neutral.

And even though their reporting was kind of skewed, they had either the honor or the decency or the necessity of trying to appear balanced. Even though I could see the bias back then, at least America still had a cohesive media that even though it made me growl, it was unifying. Nonetheless, today the media doesn’t even pretend to be biased. It’s shocking. Right now, just in the last two weeks, we’ve seen this new development where people in the media are warning against violence.

If we are not shut down by journalists, they are forecasting prophesying violence. I’m concerned that that projection is a reflection of the left’s reality that if they don’t get what they want, that there will be violence in the streets. It’s an outgrowth or it’s an expression or a manifestation, really, of Marxist principles. It really is. I mean, it’s rare to even have the sort of frank conversation you and I are having, because to acknowledge that, to say that that’s verboten, it’s impossible.

But they have the truth. They believe that they own it and that any variation or deviation from that is punishable. And it has to be not just intimidated or limited. It has to be punished. It has to be suppressed actively. And that’s where you run into the violence question. And what we’re saying here is not hyperbole. Brian Stelter, formerly of CNN, was just on MSNBC yesterday saying, it’s the job of journalists to shout down or be louder than those of us who are engaged in disinformation.

Of course, disinformation is anything that disagrees with the left’s narrative. So when MRC. Got going in the then really up until now, doing what it does. And I love the way you guys track coverage. I think that’s one of the most important elements of your various missions. But even the question of what is media has changed radically. Before it was the big networks. Then it was cable and the growth of cable and the variety there.

But now an awful lot of people I can tell you my experience. I taught journalism law at George Mason University for five years as an adjunct. And what I learned was if it didn’t come out of your phone, it didn’t exist. So for 19 year old college sophomore, they’re not in front of a television or even in front of a screen of a laptop. It’s all what’s coming out of the phone.

That’s media to them. Right. How has that changed? MRC’s. Work you’re right. And one big fundamental change is that we don’t really even talk about news anymore. It’s now information. Yeah. How do people get information? It’s interesting. It’s still the big broadcasters ABC, NBC, CBS and The Washington Post and The New York Times. NPR pravda is Vestia and TASS. That set the tone, set the narrative, right. So they’re still just as important now, even though their ratings and readership have declined significantly.

But the rest of the media take their cues from these big networks and big outlets, plus politico and some others. There are now other assigners of stories to the legacy media and the broader media and the information producers, but they get their signals from on high, and then everybody follows those signals. That’s why you can watch Morning Joe on MSNBC or you can watch CNN, and they all have the exact same talking points, right? The exact same talking points.

Literally. They’re using the same language, the same little phrases and buzzwords and terminology, and they just keep repeating the Debunked Hunter Biden laptops. They’ll all use the exact same terminology, same propaganda, right? And so who’s emailing that? Who’s sending out the Morning Bulletin of, hey, these are the top three things we want you to talk know. We run the risk of thinking that the left operates the same way the right does.

On the right, there are going to be people who say, here are the news stories that should be covered. But on the right, we’re really terrible about following any other sort of leader. We’re all very independent thinkers. On the left, they’re very disciplined, so disciplined, they don’t need a person dictating what the narrative is. The New York Times, the Washington Post, AP, Politico, they kind of write a story and everybody says, follow the story.

It’s tacit collusion, to use sort of an economic term. I saw an AP story I think it’s yesterday, but it may have been a day or two old. AP came out with a story that had really aggressive sort of militant sounding language about an army on the right that was formulated under Heritage and their 2025 program. And they tried to use the most aggressive, alarmist militia conspiracy, violent extremist language around what, frankly, every political group does.

And that is they look ahead to the next election and they lay out policy plans, and the left and the right does it, dems and Republicans. And so Heritage is a 2025 plan. Surprise, surprise, they’re trying to look ahead and say, hey, with the next administration, what are the priorities? But this AP story was so dishonestly aggressive and used such scare language. I read that and I said to myself, this is bad business, trying to pretend to be journalism.

Yeah. So most people don’t know how media work. The AP has what’s called the style book, and there’s an editor of the style Book, and I know this guy. I’ve met with this guy. I spent a year trying to get him to redefine a certain term. But this guy defines the terms that shall be used. Shall be used. For example, he defined the alt right, which was a term that was commonly used in media four or five years ago, the alt right.

So every media outlet would follow the AP style guide. Sure, the alt right comma, an offshoot of conservatism. Comma. So anytime the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, any media outlet out there would write a story on the alt right, they would use the AP style guide. Of course, the alt right has nothing to do with conservatism. So to define it was intentional by this guy and he’s a radical leftist, of course.

So the AP and legacy media wanted to define the alt right as something connected to us because that made us look bad. It suited the alt right’s narrative. They were trying to legitimize themselves by being connected to us. I spent a year trying to convince this AP editor not to do the Biding of the radical left. The radical left meaning the alt right, as you and I know, the alt right wants big government enforcement of their horrible views.

Big government enforcement. That is a left wing tool, not a tool of the right. Correct? It’s philosophically hard, over, in centralized government. So as I guess as sort of the notion of the term media changes over time, what has your organization done to kind of shift with it? How do you adapt? Yeah, so we just recently took a poll. We’ve not released the results. But where do people get their news? How do they get their information? What do they find persuasive? And while I haven’t gone through the cross tabs yet, what’s clear is that it’s still the big networks and the big publications that lead the direction of our news media, which of course means when there’s really terrible stories about Joe Biden, silence it’silence.

Of course. The major publication at MRC is called NewsBusters. NewsBusters just ran a nine the nine scandals in the Biden administration that the media will not report. And one by one by one, ABC, NBC, CBS, zero Minutes, devoted to everything that most of your listeners probably know of. Tony Bobalinski saying the big guy is Joe Biden. Right? 10% for the big guy. And how Joe Biden released almost a million barrels of oil from our strategic petroleum reserve to a Chinese company.

Why would Joe Biden give our strategic petroleum and meaning strategic for our national security purposes, that petroleum is reserved for the US navy and for the Marine Corps. Why would he sell or give almost a million barrels of oil to this Chinese company? We don’t know because the media will not cover it. But we do know that Hunter Biden is connected to a big investment firm with a big investment in that Chinese petroleum company.

It’s all just a coincidence, naturally. You know what? Hypothetically, it might be a coincidence, but why is the media not asking if it’s a coincidence or if there’s something there? Right? Over and over and over. The media will not cover stories that might reflect badly on Biden or Democrats broadly. So there’s NewsBusters. What other sort of projects or publications or efforts do you have? Okay, so we also have CNS NewsBusters Reflects Focus on Media Bias and exposing that media bias.

For example, ABC, NBC, CBS not covering this news the same day that Donald Trump was indicted. It was revealed that Joe biden did in fact have connections to hunter’s business associates. Of course, the networks had 527 minutes devoted to Donald trump. I bet you can guess the number. Zero. Mathematicians would argue whether zero is actually a number, some would say it’s not a number, but zero minutes devoted to the biden bribery scandal or the sequence of events also.

So whenever there was something that would bubble up in the news that was not favorable to Hunter or had some negative impact on President Biden, shockingly, within twelve to 24 hours there’d be a superseding indictment of Trump or some other I mean, it was nearly one followed the other. And it wasn’t just one or two occasions when that happened. It’s something like five or six. Another thing that we’ve done, and in no way are we trying to encroach on the godfather of FOIA.

That’s judicial watch. Lots of organizations are doing their own FOIA efforts now. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I will say again, judicial watch is the godfather of this effort. And I will further stump for the value of know. Back when Obama was president and John boehner was speaker of the house, john boehner had very clear and specific orders to his committee chairman, do not investigate Obama.

And I think he had some sort of theory that if we dug into the obama administration, be bad politics for republicans. Don’t ask me to explain john bay. It’s judicial watch that was the sole organization getting the corruption out of the obama administration, the evidence of it, and then forcing house republicans to do investigations. So judicial watch remains the godfather and leader in FOIA. We have launched our own investigative efforts.

We do it differently. It’s all good. It’s wonderful. We’re sort of the marine corps snipers going behind enemy lines, going to where other people aren’t, finding little tidbits. And so we’ve uncovered shocking stuff you may recall, and the pyramid of far right radicalization Department of Homeland Security using terrorism taxpayer dollars supposed to be used to target terrorists, instead being used to target Judicial Watch and the heritage foundation and the Christian Broadcasting Network and the GOP and MAGA movement as connected to terrorism and fascists and using our taxpayer dollars against us.

So it’s our team that found that document out of university of dayton, and we’re breaking news shortly. More nefarious conduct about what the biden administration is doing with our tax dollars to silence us. But so that’s another project of ours. And MRC has the news analysis division, which is really the heart of MRC. And it’s the original portion of MRC. That does showing how the media is so biased and that bias by omission is the worst thing committed by the media.

How many folks do you have working over there? If I were the president, I would know. I think it’s about 80. About 80. But I’m only the vice president. One of the vice presidents because there’s a lot of work. I mean, there’s a lot of stuff out there. I could say 82 and make it sound like I actually number, but I only asked that because it’s a tremendous volume of work.

I mean, in order to go through and you have the tedium of having to actually watch a lot of this programming, right, and evaluate facts and language and use of terms or the lack thereof. I mean, it is not an easy thing to do. So I just met with some senators and some House members that your audience would know really well their names. And I’ve explained to them that when their name appears on a ballot, the name opposite them is not their opponent.

It’s the media, the mainstream legacy media that really is the opponent of fill in the blank of your favorite senator or your favorite House member whose ever name appears on a ballot. The media is going to say that person is the person worthy of attention and votes and funding. Not Ted Cruz, not Mike Lee, not Jim Jordan. Those people engage in all sorts of terrible. Whoever is on the ballot opposite Marshall Blackburn, that’s the person that the papers in Nashville and Knoxville will say is great.

The media is the biggest opponent of pro American people. Pro America people. The media is out to destroy the very ideas of America’s founding. They hate what we stand for, and they’re out to end us. So when you identify some of these crazy skewed coverage issues, whether it’s minutes of coverage or whether it’s sort of the language that’s used, and you point out all the disparity and the reckless kind of conduct, do you ever get any kind of pushback? Any of the media people come back to you and know, retract what you’re saying or I don’t know.

I’m just wondering if there’s yeah, the media and I’m vice president of free speech, so I’m on the big tech side. The big tech watch Google and Facebook and Twitter, and we haven’t even touched on that’s yet. Another thing that MRC does, it used to be that legacy media would publicly try to push back on MRC’s research. They’ve stopped because you’re right, it’s unimpeachable. The reason why they have no comment MRC doesn’t make anything up.

It’s objectively true. Stuff that we publish, that’s what I love about our work, is we get government records and documents, and people become hysterical. Well, they’re not our records or documents. We sue to get them. It’s the government’s records. If you want to get hysterical, you may not like our editorial language about how we describe it, but go read it for yourself and you tell me what it means.

So legacy media has stopped commenting because if they were to comment on our stories, it’s just another day’s story. So they don’t comment on us. But it is so clear that reporters and editors, they just bristle at being called out for their bias. That’s another thing that is very important. And you’ll see it more on social media. Obviously, you don’t see it in the subject media that we’re talking about, but sort of the commentary on reporting.

And that is one of the greatest tricks of journalists, is to not cover something because then it doesn’t exist. Right? I mean, that’s really the effort. Yeah, Chris, I’m laughing because that sounded so similar to a quote from a movie. I’m forgetting the name of the movie, but the greatest trick Satan ever committed was to tell him that he doesn’t exist. That Satan doesn’t exist. Yeah. That’s how the media operates.

Greatest trick is not to cover the negative things about the left. Right. Or I love the H. L. Menken quote about the priority or the function of government is to scare the public with hobgoblins so that the public runs to the government seeking protection. Right. And so it’s in their interest to continue to have a nonstop stream of crises and threats and war, pestilence, famine, because as long as the public is agitated and fearful when they’re feeding on fear, they run to the government.

Well, this goes back to what I said at the beginning of the show. I have seen just in the last two weeks, the media legacy media ramping up the rhetoric, the forecasting of violence if disinformation is not shut down. Right. And this educational process that’s going on right now explaining the difference between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation is when we intentionally lie to people, we’re the liars, and we’re intentionally lying to people.

And I just laugh. The examples that are given ignore the whole allegation that Trump is a Russian asset, okay? The left can point to some things, absurd things that caught on on the right, that chips were being implanted into people’s bodies with coronavirus vaccines and things. But nothing was more absurd than Trump is a Russian asset. To the extent that your viewers don’t know this, president Obama was briefed on this tactic while sitting in the Oval Office a week or two later.

Vice President Biden was briefed that the Hillary Clinton campaign was going to use this lie as a centerpiece of her campaign. Neither President Obama nor Vice President Biden did a thing to stop the misuse and abuse of our FBI and DOJ by the Hillary Clinton campaign to create this lie about Russia and Donald Trump to the detriment of our national security. They were in on it. They knew.

They knew they were in on it. Hillary employed it. They all thought that they could go ahead and abuse government for their political agenda because she was going to win and there’d be no repercussions. And once Donald Trump won, there was the oh, darn, what do we do now? Moment. Yeah. And then so they doubled down. And then the goal was to quickly decapitate the national security apparatus by eliminating General Mike flynn I know.

Within eleven days, because he would have identified what was going on in about 30 seconds based on his background of experience. He would have seen the machinations, and they could not have that happen. So out with Flyn and the Attorney General. Say what you will about Jeff Sessions and his ability as a senator. He completely buckled at the knees. Correct. When mid level ethics officials from DOJ went in and said, well, you were at a big event with hundreds of people at the Republican event shaking hands when a couple Russians were.

You must, you must abandon any role here. And what a strange thing for such an experienced guy to roll over and play dead on that. It doesn’t make sense. Chris, I’ve done a lot of personnel appointment work. Rule number one, never pick a politician to run DOJ. Yeah, a politician is always going to be concerned about his or her political future, which would never pick and the President Trump picked a politician, Jeff Sessions.

It was a mistake from the beginning. Let me go to what you talked about a few minutes ago, and that is your role at MRC, having to deal with all the big tech companies increasingly. I know you talk about the importance of sort of the legacy mainstream media setting themes and everyone kind of lining up, but all the social media platforms, everything coming out of Silicon Valley, that’s what’s pervasive, that’s what is Insidious in its ability to influence thinking and communication.

Tell me about some of the stuff you’re working on. So if you work for me at MRC, you know my mantra, google is the font of all evil. Whatever people think of as Facebook and Twitter and instagram and suppression has taken place across all these platforms, including Wikipedia and LinkedIn. It just goes on and on and on. The worst of them all is Google. The Google DC area headquarters is right across the highway from my office.

I look out my office window and there’s the Google banner on the and I’ve been sort of at war with Google for several years, but Americans don’t really know this. They think of Google as just this search engine with a cute little symbol with all these colorful things. Like it or not, it’s the go to for it’s penetrated our consciousness with language. Well, what about blah, blah, blah? I don’t know.

Well, go google it. Go Google it. That’s what people are said. And it’s like saying Coke, right? If the brand name means a bunch of other things, but it is. So there’s a left of center PhD researcher named Robert Epstein who voted for Hillary Clinton. He is upfront and bold about the fact that he’s a liberal, he’s a Democrat, but he cares about society and he cares about democracy.

And he’s done extensive research showing that every election cycle, google is responsible for swaying two to 8 million votes in favor of democrats through manipulation of search results. And he’s testified in front of Congress a number of times. We’ve done a number of our own Google studies. Initially, we were doing search engine studies, but quickly we discovered that Google stands apart from Bing, DuckDuckGo, Tusk, several others. Google stands apart at how nefarious they really are.

In the 2022 midterm elections. If you Googled with a clean computer, we had a methodology that was clean and unimpeachable. If you Googled the Senate candidates by name, state, and the race they were seeking, the Republican campaign website was almost always buried. You couldn’t find it, but the Democrat was always like, top three or four of search. The first five entries are for you. And then more recently, before the first Republican presidential debate, we again using a clean computer with no cookies, just typed in presidential campaign websites.

Five presidential campaign websites came up on the Google search results. The first to appear was Joe Biden. The second to appear was Marianne Williamson. RFK, by the way, didn’t show up at all. The single biggest what does that say? The Joe Biden winning the nomination. His campaign website didn’t. But again, this is before the Republican presidential campaign debate, right? The next one after Marion Williamson was Bernie Sanders, and then the fourth was Pocahontas, and the fifth was Hillary Clinton.

Not a single Republican had a campaign website that appeared in Google search results. The only ones who appeared were Joe Biden and anybody who was no threat to his. I mean, that is another real twist. And I think the more they frantically try to ignore RFK Jr. The more it points out how totally rigged and skewed everything, you know, besides Joe Biden denying him Secret Service protection. Whether you like him or know, he’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent attorney and sort of public policy guy with significant political support among Democrats and right.

And I don’t know about you, but I could not even begin to imagine a Joe Biden RFK Jr. Debate. He’s a lefty. They won’t permit it. That’s the other part of it. Yeah. Look, RFK, there are many people who like him on sort of our side of the ideological spectrum because of his views on vaccines and masks and that sort of thing. He’s a lefty, but he’s a traditional left of center guy.

And I have a feeling I could be wrong, but I have a feeling he’s sort of an honest leftist. Yes, that’s what I mean. Traditional left. He cares about individual rights. He wouldn’t try to arrest or indict his opponent. Correct. Right. He sees that as abuse of government. He remembers the time when government went after Martin Luther King Jr. Because the FBI didn’t like MLK Jr. And the big government to attack political opponents.

He doesn’t want that. But he’s but he also recognizes how pernicious things are outside of government, whether it’s big tech or big banks. The whole debanking effort. He has a healthy suspicion, and that’s also something else that I again, I’m not an RFK Junior supporter, but I admire sort of the frank honesty that he approaches and he has a healthy suspicion about all the things you were just discussing.

You type in something in Google, you cannot trust the results you’re getting. You can’t believe them. And now we see AI I don’t know what your opinion is. You go on to the Bing AI search thing. I’ve experimented with it. I’ve given it what I know to be sort of loaded questions, and it comes back and talks about conservatives as being dangerous extremists who are intolerant. It’s only going to get worse and worse and worse.

AI. Is with us. There’s nothing that we can do about that. In fact, if we don’t use AI, the Chinese will destroy us. My biggest concern about AI is how the Biden administration and others, the Biden administration and big tech oligarchs, they’ve been very clear. All the data sets that are used to train AI, they are eliminating data on the right so that the results will be intentionally skewed left.

They mean to hurt us with AI, and that is a form of civil war that has to be stopped. I’ve gone in and I’ve played with AI, asked it questions, and on occasion sort of boxed it in in the string of questions and then asked it why it didn’t list, whatever. And then it bails out. It shuts down. It says, we can’t discuss this anymore. I’m sorry. Perhaps there’s another question you’d like to because you bump up against the narrative it’s been trained to promulgate, and when you counter it and there’s any sort of factual tension, it ceases to function and tells you to go find another topic that will also condition people.

Exactly. That’s how two to 8 million votes are skewed. Right. Because people who aren’t aware of what’s going on then just are deceived in thinking that there’s a truth out there that they have found. There was a writer with The Federalist just two or three weeks ago wrote a piece. It was really interesting. The Google search engine is now powered by AI separate from Bing or separate from its AI tool.

And this reporter at The Federalist wanted to find some information about the connection between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. And what was produced in the search result was a warning, a warning label saying that search results are not going to be appropriate either because of a false narrative coming from one side of the story or because the story is so fresh and new. Of course, the story is five years old, and the only coverage of it has really been on the right because the left refuses to educate people about the story.

In fact, let me just you asked what different things MRC does. There’s a poll that everybody now knows that they just don’t realize that it’s an. MRC poll that showed that 45% of Joe Biden voters had never heard of the Hunter Biden laptop story. 9. 4% of Joe Biden voters would not have voted for him had they known of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. That’s a poll that we did because we were trying to expose the media for how political the White House put out a sort of directive or a commentary telling reporters what they should and should not report on with respect to indictment of Hunter and the opening of an impeachment inquiry.

Has the White House ever done that before to, your know, I’ll speculate and think that if the a White House has ever done it, it would have done it during World War II. And I mean this literally. Yeah, I could imagine them doing it in World War II. Directing media to be careful about either Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany efforts to propagandize the American public I don’t know that both of which were foreign hostile elements.

Yes, exactly. Not domestic news reporting. But yeah, but no, this is I’ll go ahead and say it’s unprecedented for a White House to instruct the media not to cover a story that would be harmful toward the President of the United States. Don’t cover it a lawful, impeachment inquiry. It’s just an inquiry. They haven’t impeached anybody. They’re asking questions about it and they’re instructing the media on how they should report.

I think it’s extraordinary. It’s really off the charts. I had the good fortune to interview the Washington Times White House correspondent and try to have him explain the ongoing psychosis that we see in the White House press room. He’s a fellow Kansas, by the way. I’m originally from Kansas. Talking about Corrine Jean Pierre and her performance in the White House briefing room. Does MRC. Launch people in there? Do you have reporters or CNS representatives who are credentialed there? So CNS has a White House seat.

I’m sure you will not be shocked that rarely has our CNS reporter inside the White House been called upon. The reporter I’m discussing with you said they never get past the third row. And the third row is all the usual, you know, it’s the state organs that reliably take know they’re sonographers, not reporters. In fact, let me just address something, because on Fox we’ll oftentimes see right? Yeah.

Wait, is it the father’s son who’s in the White House? Ducey. Peter Ducey. Steve. Peter Ducey. Peter Ducey. Why does Corrine Jean Pierre call on him? Because now what happens is he’ll ask the question, she’ll shake her head and walk out. Right? Well, she’s telling the media which stories not to cover. Right? I’m not responding to du. C, I’m walking out. That means you are not to write the story either.

There’s this tacit communication going on at all levels. This is the story not to cover, folks. See, I’m walking out. I’m not responding. Nothing to see here. It’s creepy. I mean, it’s really earlier in our conversation, you made reference to orwell or Orwellian, and that really is what we’re going through. It’s very dangerous stuff, and people are manipulated by the media and the language that’s chosen in reporting, and they’re being psychologically conditioned, and I don’t think they always know it or appreciate it, and that’s a very grave threat.

So MRC does tremendous work. What is something that MRC has done or is doing that the public is not aware of? If you had over a cup of coffee, you’d say, listen, you will not believe this, but we found out or people need to know that we’re doing X because no one else is talking about it, nobody else is doing it, kind of thing. All right. Well, I’ve got to be careful with what I say because there are media outlets that have been granted exclusives.

Okay, all right. But you just said how creepy it is that the media is taking cues with language. Right. Very soon, we are going to release shocking information about how the Biden administration is enforcing that very principle excellent. The type of language permissible in media and what is not permissible and how that impermissible speech pattern will be suppressed. That is very, very interesting. It is horrific. Something I’ve tried to convey to people, whether it was in the classroom or talking to Judicial Watch supporters, is and not everybody realizes this.

Of course you do, and you’ll have examples, but of the freeze out. So you’re a reporter, and you’ve got something interesting, and you’re pursuing it, and reporters can get frozen out from the top or from the bottom or from the government. And I’m not telling any tales out of school, but a good friend of mine personally, but somebody that I’ve worked with when she was mostly at Fox is Catherine Herridge, who used to be their chief intelligence, one of the few real journalists left in America.

Right. And she will be very frank and tell you that there were instances, and I won’t say who or when, but there were instances when essentially the threat was made. Either it’s an editor saying, go find another story to work on it’s like, well, no, I have a great story here. I want to report. Go find another. And they’re directed or pushed away, or a government official saying, if you report on this, that’s it.

You’re done. You’ll never get another interview. And that kind of frees out pressure is exerted on reporters, and you have to be very brave to tell somebody dropped it. I’m doing this anyway. Catherine Herridge is truly a great journalist and brave. She’ll tell somebody dropped it. I’m going to report on it anyway. Yeah. And I just want to point out something. When the New York Times editor tells its reporters, don’t cover something.

Right. We can all agree that’s bad. When the government says, don’t do it, or you’ll never get information from us, again, that’s called a crime. Yeah. That is called extortion. That is actually a crime. But government officials in Democrat administrations do it all the time. If you do this, we’re going to harm you. This it is literally a crime. Yeah. And that goes on more often than not if you ask unpleasant questions or pursue a line of inquiry beyond their talking points and you say, well, yeah, I understand what you’re talking about, but why did that happen? You can’t ask that question.

And reporters get that a lot, and many of them, sadly, like I said before, are just taking dictation there’s stenographers and they’ll say, okay, and that’s it. They close their notepad and they go home. It takes real bravery to continue to push. I’ll remind people, James Rosen, who at one point was at Fox, he’s now with Newsmax, I believe. So he was under indictment by the Obama Biden administration for doing his yep.

And then, of course, when I can’t remember, he was formally indicted or if he was about to be indicted, but when it was made public, of course, people went nuts. They also went and they got a secret warrant and one of these Pfizer related warrants, and they had phone coverage. He went back to New York to go visit his parents out in Queens or something and went there for, like, Labor Day weekend, and they were watching the phones.

It’s a retired couple in Queens. Has nothing to do with his reporting, but they were so overly aggressive, trying to cover every angle, but that’s what they do. They overstep their bounds all the time. Yeah. Dan, it’s wonderful that you’ve joined us. Is there anything I want to give you the last word. Anything we haven’t talked about that we should or any issues we haven’t talked about? Your wonderful wife, I got to really know her in Hungary a year and a half ago.

The amazing, brilliant, and beautiful Dr. Shay Bradley Farrell, the good doctor, is really smart and really good on foreign policy issues. She has a book coming up, by the way. What’s the book about? It’s about Hungarian national sovereignty in the context of the European Union. She’s a fellow with the center for Fundamental Rights in Budapest. Right. And she just turned it into the editor. And they’re going to move a comma or two around and it’ll go to publication, be out December.

I do not want a free copy. I want to buy the book. I want to be part of the people who helps their numbers grow on the book reviews. Very good. Very good. So, yeah, that’ll be out in December. And I think it’s going to be great because Hungary serves as a wonderful model for America. And also a warning. So we’ll tease the book, and when I have a certified or official title, I’ll let you know.

Good. So, Dan, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. If you want to find out more about the work of the Media Research Center. What should they go to? Where should they type into their URL? The easy one is mrc. org. You can also go to NewsBusters. org. I’m free speech, America. But mrc. org is the place where you can go that’ll launch you to the right thing.

And if you haven’t been to the website, you need to straighten up and get your act together and make sure that you go to mrc. org. Lots of great information. It’s like wandering around the Judicial Watch website, all kinds of things there to learn and to understand and share it with friends because a lot of your friends and family who would otherwise be thinking and speaking and voting in a different way, it’s only because they don’t have the facts, they don’t have the information.

Great place to find it all is@mrc. org Dan Schneider, vice president of MRC. Thank you so much for being with us. Thanks, Chris. I’m Chris Farrell on watch our channel. .

Sign Up Below To Get Daily Patriot Updates & Connect With Patriots From Around The Globe

Let Us Unite As A  Patriots Network!




algorithm manipulation biases CNS NewsBusters conservative organizations Democrats election results Google government resources information delivery investigate JOE biden lost history mainstream media Media Manipulation Media Research Center NewsBusters podcast political agenda public sentiment tech companies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *