News

Assume That Journalists Are Cannibal Zombies, Coated in Plutonium – The Stream

Why do people keep doing it?

Why do they keep … talking to … reporters?

I’m not only referring to conservatives who might trust a journalist, only to get burned when the story is printed or airs on TV. Liberals also make themselves look like idiots when they talk to the media. Wittingly or not, they wind up appearing as co-conspirators in a plot to defame and destroy other people.

Journalists are trained to act like sociopaths, and will not hesitate in harming you. When their lies blow up, even the lefties who trusted them (or tried using them to advance their own agendas) wind up getting burned.

They Simply Have the Morals of Trousered Apes

The Washington Free Beacon just reported on a brand new opposition researcher for the Democratic National Committee, who still impersonates a reporter:

Former 60 Minutes producer Marley Klaus Dowling has set off both confusion and alarm bells … leaving some with the false impression that she is a working journalist. Klaus Dowling, herself a Democratic donor and the founder of TBD Research, which raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 2022 election cycle for research and strategic consulting, has appeared on these people’s doorsteps — presenting herself, at various points, as a ‘fact-checker,’ according to one; as a researcher, according to another; and as a reporter, according to a third.

Why do people keep putting their hand onto this blazing stove? All it took to ruin Bud Light as a brand was one endorsement from transgender dingbat Dylan Mulvaney. But despite evidence of media correction from Walter Duranty spreading Russian propaganda in the 1950s to the Brett Kavanaugh hit, people still open their hearts to reporters. It’s like foraging for mushrooms in Chernobyl.

Guess Who Else Got the Brett Kavanaugh Treatment?

Today’s media fiasco involves actor Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey, as the Federalist reports, “was recently acquitted of nine sexual offense claims in a London courtroom. It was the third time on two continents that he has been acquitted in courts of law.” It goes on:

This series of allegations against Spacey first emerged with a Buzzfeed News article released in October 2017. All of the cases and charges that followed that article effectively ended Spacey’s career and public life. The article was written by journalist Adam Vary and claimed Spacey had sexually assaulted actor Anthony Rapp when Rapp was just 14. The article came out at the height of #MeToo in the midst of a war for clicks and a “Believe All Victims” moral panic. It contained allegations of criminal and just plain creepy behavior by Spacey dating back to 1986.

There was only one “issue” with the story. Rapp had claimed he was triggered when he saw Spacey at the 2008 Tony Awards. But there is zero evidence Spacey attended the awards. The Federalist noted this: “Vary was asking readers to believe Rapp could remember, in detail, an encounter with Spacey over 30 years ago in 1986, but now knew Rapp was substantially wrong about an event less than a decade ago.”

Vary then hid this from Buzzfeed’s readers. No, he didn’t question his source or rethink his story. He just strategized on how to sell it. This is the text message he sent to Rapp:

One thing to make you aware of: We can’t seem to place Spacey at the Tony’s in 2008. He didn’t present and wasn’t nominated, and there’s no photos we can find. We don’t doubt he was there, but we don’t want to nail down a specific date that Spacey could then just flatly deny. We’re still looking, but if we can’t nail it down, we’ll likely say that you saw him at an industry event or some such.

That wasn’t all. Vary wrote that Spacey took Rapp and “a 17-year-old” to a nightclub a few days before the alleged incident. The “17-year-old” was a man named John Barrowman from Rapp’s hometown. Barrowman was actually a 19-year-old adult at the time. Vary might have learned that, had he bothered to contact this alleged witness. Spacey’s lawyers did, and it revealed a totally different story. From the Federalist: “Barrowman said there was no party, as Rapp claimed, and there was no separate bedroom where Rapp claimed the alleged sexual abuse took place. All this cast serious doubts about whether the assault could have physically happened.”

Once again: “reporters” will not “get things wrong.” They will make stuff up.

The More Awards a Journalist Wins, the Worse He Probably Is

Readers of The Stream know my book, The Devil’s Triangle, and my story. In September 2018, I was sitting at home reading when I got a call from Ronan Farrow, a writer for the New Yorker. Farrow informed me that I had been named in a letter accusing my high school friend Brett Kavanaugh of “sexual misconduct” in the 1980s.

Brett had been nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. Farrow could not tell me who the accuser was or where it allegedly happened. At the time, popular blogger Allahpundit described the situation well:

Judge apparently found out he was named in [Ford’s] letter when Ronan Farrow called to ask about it. Farrow offered no details about when the incident supposedly happened or where, or even the name of the woman. Judge has been accused of participating in an attempted rape with a would-be Supreme Court justice, in other words, and can’t even get the basic facts of the allegation provided to him. It’s Kafkaesque.

Brett’s accuser, a woman named Christine Blasey Ford, launched her attack through the media — specifically the Washington Post. Just like Buzzfeed, the Post withheld an exonerating witness from the story. In her book Supreme Ambition, Post reporter Ruth Marcus claims that Blasey Ford wanted to contact me about her supposed recollections during the summer of 2018, but “didn’t know how” to reach me.

So she went instead to a leading Democrat senator and the national media. If she could reach Senator Feinstein, Blasey Ford could certainly have reached me, plastered as I was across social media, with published stories and my email address in many places.

No, Blasey Ford wanted to launch a Pearl Harbor surprise attack in the media, which happily accomodated her. The facts be damned.

Reporters Don’t Make the News. They Make It Up.

In his book We’ve Got People, leftist journo Ryan Grim admits that reporters themselves often help to create stories, then report on them. “Oftentimes reporters are the mosquitoes that carry the rumor from office to office in attempts to confirm it.” Grim wrote.

On September 12, Grim published a story in The Intercept that Senator Dianne Feinstein was having an argument with Senate colleagues. The subject was a letter a woman named Christine Blasey Ford had sent to Feinstein describing an alleged sexual assault in high school at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh.

Just as FBI Director James Comey had used a “debriefing” with Trump to leak the Russian dossier story to the media, reporters created the very story that they then reported on. Grim observes that reporters were “mosquitoes,” carrying the news of Blasey Ford’s letter to senators on Capitol Hill to get a reaction. In other words, creating the story they would then break.

Grim confesses as much:

Whether the allegations in [Blasey Ford’s] letter were true or not — or, indeed, what the precise allegations were — was its own story, and I didn’t have it. But the fact that Feinstein was battling with fellow Democrats on the committee over the issue was a separate story. And that one I had.

Yes. Because the Feinstein conflict had been manufactured by the “mosquitoes” in the media itself.

Journalists are sociopaths. They are no different from the East German Stasi. They will break your legs and drive away laughing.

The Devil’s Triangle, my book exposing their evil, was published six months ago. Despite my role as a minor historical figure in one of the most explosive political episodes in the last decade, the book has been ignored by the press.

Ask yourself why.

Mark Judge is a writer and filmmaker in Washington, D.C. His new book is The Devil’s Triangle: Mark Judge vs the New American Stasi.

React to This Article

What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.

Previous ArticleNext Article