Jun 1
seen from Russia
seen from Mexico
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from Spain
seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
The Democrat Party pay these supposedly independent 'influencers' to promote their propaganda. Look how Pronouns and Race are categories on the table:
And this is their guide to the niche audience of each:
When the Saturday Night Live Show illustrated the truth. 🤔
Who would have thought the Amanda the Adventurer trilogy would serve as an analysis on how corporations can corrupt children's media and use it to serve their own purposes?
Reports insisted that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling was a blow to ‘transgender rights,’ without ever adequately explaining — or justif
By: Becket Adams
Published: Jun 22, 2025
Reports insisted that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling was a blow to ‘transgender rights,’ without ever adequately explaining — or justifying — the term.
Parents, conservatives, and otherwise well-adjusted individuals celebrated a significant victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to uphold Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical interventions for minors.
It was a good day. Sanity and sound jurisprudence won.
Yet, from the way major media outlets reported it, the Supreme Court had all but overturned the 14th Amendment, undermining and jeopardizing the “rights” of a dangerously marginalized minority group.
What might those “rights” be? Who can say? Certainly not the press, which devoted nearly all of its coverage of the ruling to thinly veiled advocacy and hardly any to simply telling the story.
“A divided Supreme Court cleared the way for states to ban certain gender transition treatments for minors,” the Washington Post reported in a breaking news blurb, “a polarizing national issue the Trump administration has seized on in initiatives targeting transgender rights.”
A “divided” court? The ruling was 6–3. A “polarizing” national issue? The matter of banning transgender treatments for minors is a 70/30 issue, with the majority in favor of such bans. And which “rights,” exactly, have been targeted? The Post never bothers to address this relevant question.
Regarding the ruling itself, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion, “This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.”
“Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary,” he added. “Experts and elites have been wrong before — and they may prove to be wrong again.”
In an opposing opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to rise above pure emotional appeal, signing off gloomily with, “In sadness, I dissent.”
The ruling, along with its historical background and context, is straightforward. It’s easy enough to understand and report, even for the laziest journalist. Yet even on this point, our corporate press has failed. Its members are simply incapable of telling such stories straight, so accustomed are they to goosing these narratives with massive heaps of opinion, unnecessary commentary, and propaganda.
“Supreme Court OKs Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for kids, a setback for transgender rights,” reported the Associated Press, adding that the ruling was “stunning.”
“The decision comes amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people,” the AP said, “including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use.”
The news wire reported elsewhere, “Trump campaigned last year pledging to rein in rights of transgender people. He’s followed through on many fronts, though court challenges have resulted in some of his efforts being blocked, at least for now.”
Meanwhile, in an apparently forgotten corner of the internet, the same news organization claims that “getting the facts right has been core to AP’s mission since our founding in 1846.”
It’s ironic, in this specific scenario, that the AP should identify as a news organization when it frequently functions as the opposite of one.
At CBS News, the Supreme Court’s ruling was likewise characterized as a “stunning setback to transgender rights.” Like the AP, CBS declined to explain which “rights,” exactly, are under attack. CBS also characterized the 70/30 matter of bans on the surgical and chemical mutilation of minors as “polarizing.”
Where’s CBS’s Scott Pelley when you need him? Where’s his “light” to shine in “dark places”? Where’s that courage to “speak the truth even when it’s unpopular”?
At the New York Times, whose stated mission is to “seek the truth and help people understand the world,” the Court’s ruling was reported as a “major setback for transgender rights.” The ruling came “amid the Trump administration’s fierce assaults on transgender rights,” the Times added, reiterating for good measure that it marked a “bitter setback for their proponents.”
Reuters, whose Trust Principles require that it “report the news with integrity, independence, and freedom from bias,” opined that the wicked Court had backed a ban on “gender-affirming medical care,” which, of course, marks a “setback for transgender rights” that could “bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people.”
NBC News reported that the ruling “is a major setback for transgender rights.” The Wall Street Journal’s news desk, not to be confused with its sober-minded cousin, the opinion desk, likewise reported the ruling as “the latest setback for transgender rights.” PBS called the ruling on “gender-affirming care for transgender minors” — you guessed it — “a huge setback for trans rights across the country.”
News blurbs that mischaracterize basic facts, all while raising questions they have no intention of answering, perform the opposite function of informing the public.
As for the “rights” that reports kept referring to, as best I can tell, these journalists seem to believe that minors who’ve fallen victim to peer pressure, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or gender dysphoria have an unassailable “right” to the “affirmation model” of “care.” They believe it’s a “right” to have one’s colon scooped out to be repurposed into a faux vagina. It’s a “right” to undergo a procedure in which a male patient is consigned to a lifetime of dilation “to maintain the size and shape of [his] vaginal canal and to keep it open,” or else his “vagina may [irreversibly] shrink or close.” These journalists seem to believe it’s a “right,” even for teens, to undergo a regimen of experimental medication. It’s important, also, to retain the “right” to be referred to by one’s preferred pronouns, including the made-up ones “xe,” “xem,” and “xyr.”
We can only surmise these positions, since these news operations have made no effort to explain what they mean when they say “gender-affirming care” or that trans “rights” are under attack.
We see the same thing in the press’s mishandling of its immigration coverage, where journalists go out of their way not to refer to illegal immigrants as “illegal immigrants.” Basic facts are obscured for partisan purposes. We have only the impressions implanted by journalists — impressions that nearly always align with left-wing dogma.
That these organizations are incapable of performing even the basic functions of their jobs is bad enough. That they peddle their advocacy against the backdrop of constantly applauding themselves for telling the “truth” adds insult to injury.
[ Via: https://archive.today/kMmhW ]
==
You don't hate legacy media enough.
Source:
Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views
Pibby corruption slander memes lol
Edit: I was partially joking with these.
Billionaires discuss $50 million anti-Hamas media blitz | Semafor
A proposed campaign would “define Hamas to the American people as a terrorist organization.”