Why Do Virtually All ‘News’ Media Hide an Exposé of CNN’s Lies?

On April 3rd, a news report was submitted to virtually all news-media, concerning the falsehood of a certain CNN story that allegedly explained why the U.S. is sending F-15 fighter-jets to Iceland. The CNN report placed it into context of U.S.-Russian relations, and falsely represented Russia’s and America’s respective roles regarding the change of government that had occurred in Ukraine in February 2014, and regarding also the reasons for the breakaway then of Crimea from Ukraine, which resulted from that Ukrainian change-of-government. 

---

Of all news media — including all of the major ones and all of the major ‘alternative news’ sites — only the following five media published this news report about a clearly false news report (which my story, as you will see, documented to be false, with links that went directly or indirectly — via links within those news stories — to the ultimate sources), which CNN had issued; and none  of the others reported, at all, about CNN’s lies. Here are the five:

---

thepeoplesvoice.org

---

All of these five are, obviously, not major-media (meaning not big-audience) news-sites, as CNN is.

---

The editors and producers, at especially the major ‘news’ media, receive, each day, hundreds to thousands of news stories submitted from independent outside sources — virtually no ‘news’ medium publishes or broadcasts only  in-house-generated news-reports. Their selection of what to publish (or broadcast) is what determines which news you see, and which you don’t. Those people are the gatekeepers, which let their audience see some news, but exclude the rest. How important is it to know the extent to which CNN lies for propagandistic purposes? Only those five small media thought it’s important enough to report.

---

Why are the competitors to CNN (especially all of the other  major-media news sites, besides CNN) not interested in exposing even blatant and easy-to-document lies from CNN, which — according to the basic theory of competition in economics — they would all  be very eager to do, and would  do? (That’s also the theory of ‘the free press’, at stake here; that theory is based upon the economic theory of competition.)

---

What does this finding show about economic theory? (And about ‘the free press’?) (And, even, about the alleged intention — or seriousness — of ‘alternative news’ sites, to expose fraudulent ‘news’ in the major or ‘mainstream’ news-media?) Judge it all for yourself:  Here  is the news-report that virtually all news-media refused to publish, but that had been offered, to all of them, to publish, free of charge, and they chose  not to:

---

On Saturday April 2nd, CNN headlined, “U.S. F-15s Deployed to Iceland,” and Zachary Cohen opened:

---

---

Next to that text appears a video from Christiane Amanpour, “Amanpour in Focus,” which opens with her saying:

---

Of all the crises plaguing Europe right now — Grexit, Brexit, the migrant crisis, the economy even still — the worst, by far, is the Ukraine-Russia crisis, which still has the potential to flare into open warfare beyond the borders of Ukraine; and who would have thought that in two thousand [inaudible]teen, we would still hear President Vladimir Putin sometimes raise the nuclear option. This extraordinary state of affairs has come from Ukrainians protesting for their independence — they saw off one President, and they elected another one, Petro Poroshenko.

---

 

Here’s the actual history behind all of that:

---

Back in February 2014, Obama overthrew (please click on the link if you have any doubt about anything that’s being said here) the democratically elected President of Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, in an extremely bloody coup, which was at least a year in being set-up, and the rationale for this ‘democratic uprising’ was that that actually democratically elected President was corrupt — but no one mentioned that all of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been  corrupt. Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to take over control of Ukraine as soon as the coup would be completed, and that person did become appointed — and top officials of the EU were shocked to find out that it had been a coup. The “armed militias in ski masks” that Obama referred to in the coup (and in the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ afterward), were actually his, not Viktor Yanukovych’s (the President whom Obama overthrew); they were America’s mercenaries, not either Yanukovych’s or Russia’s operatives as he pretends they were. And, now, after the extremely bloody civil war that resulted in Ukraine when the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the President whom Obama overthrew rejected  Obama’s coup-regime and refused to be ruled by it, Ukraine is even more corrupt than it ever was, but, for some mysterious reason, the United States isn’t overthrowing the post-coup government. Obama had gotten what he basically wanted out of his coup: Russia’s ability to pipeline its gas into the EU is now severely hampered by the necessity to establish alternate pipeline-routes. Ukraine is crucial to strangulating Russia, because most of Russia’s gas-pipelines into Europe run through its formerly friendly neighbor, Ukraine, which now is rabidly anti-Russian. So: the coup and ethnic-cleansing and all the rest have been just a part of America’s effort to strangulate Russia; and all of the maimed and dead people are merely collateral damage — no concern of Obama.

---

Obama lies about Russia and Ukraine and Crimea; and, the same aristocracy that control the U.S. government, control also the U.S. ‘news’ media, such as CNN; so, this is America’s ‘free press’, in America’s ‘democracy’: nonstop lies and propaganda, to fool the suckers to elect their candidates.

---

Consequently: when this CNN ‘news’ story said, “The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region,” what was the source of the term, “aggression,” that was being used against Russia, there? It was, now, under Obama, the official U.S. government term to refer to Russia: for example, in Obama’s National Security Strategy 2015, he had used that term on 17 of the 18 times, when ‘aggression’ was being charged, in that document, against a foreign nation.

---

However, it’s not Russia that surrounds America with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; it is the United States that surrounds Russia with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; and which, on top of this, has the nerve to accuse Russia as being the ‘aggressor,’ when Russia is merely defending Crimeans (and Russia’s own naval base) from America’s takeover of Ukraine — and allows Crimeans to plebiscite on rejoining Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine. (Even Western-sponsored polls in Crimea showed overwhelming support among them for rejoining Russia.) To add insult to injury, America then organizes global economic sanctions against Russia, for, essentially, defending Crimeans, and for defending itself, against American aggression.

---

And, then, the American President has the arrogant audacity to proclaim that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” meaning that not only Russia, but every  other country, is ‘dispensable.’

---

It’s the official line. And America’s ‘news’ media promote it, unquestioningly (as if it’s not outrageous). And, if you ever wondered why people like this get promoted at major ‘news’ media, while people like this get the boot and are blackballed by them, you now know.