Same CNN that declares vaccines to be ‘safe’ now claims Hillary Clinton’s health is outstanding


J.D. Heyes
August 29, 2016

When it was launched, the Cable News Network – CNN, as it would come to be known – was considered a bold experiment in journalism. Would anyone watch a 24-hour network dedicated strictly to breaking news?

As it turns out, the answer was yes, and CNN went on to command large audiences, especially when the news was equally large, such as during the first Gulf War. CNN’s Baghdad correspondents provided in-depth, real-time coverage of American combat forces as they quickly pulverized what was the fourth-largest army in the world at the time.

That was then. Today, the network is a shell of its former self, in terms of viewers anyway, and there is no one to blame but management itself. Since becoming a shill for every Left-wing cause and political candidate that comes down the pipe, the network has slipped dramatically, and is no longer considered credible by scores of Americans.

Case in point: The network is so in the tank for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton that it refuses to spend any time at all seriously scrutinizing her very obvious health issues.

In recent days the network managing editors have come to the conclusion that a letter from Clinton’s doctor “debunks” concerns over her health, while at the same time some show hosts are insisting that a similar letter from the physician of GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is not to be taken seriously.

CNN asking viewers not to believe what they’re actually seeing

Anyone who has been paying any attention at all to the election this cycle is well aware that her health is a major issue, especially after a series of photos which appear to show that the candidate needs assistance just to climb a small set of stairs, and after leaked emails dating back to 2009 show that she herself told aides she did not feel well.

Even popular left-wing talk radio host Dr. Drew Pinsky has insisted recently that he is “gravely concerned” about Clinton’s health.

However, during a broadcast last week, CNN host Don Lemon and his panel claimed that discussion of Hillary’s health was nothing more than “conspiracy theories,” meaning we’re not actually seeing what we’re seeing Clinton do – stumble, babble incoherently and avoid the press and public like she did in 2012 after fainting and hitting her head.

No, Trump’s letter is bogus, while Hillary’s letter should be believed without question – that is essentially what Lemon and his panel alluded to.

And, of course, to substantiate their claim that Trump’s physician letter was bogus, Lemon played a clip of CNN contributor Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, from an earlier program, in which he claimed there was too much “hyperbole” in it to be believed.

Clinton’s doc is spot-on but Trump’s doc ‘cannot be substantiated’

Gupta, a long-time Democratic operative who was also a key health advisor to Hillary Clinton in the 1990s, and who was considered for the post of surgeon general by President Obama, has since been regularly attacking Trump’s physician letter, Breitbart News reported.

In calling those who question Hillary’s medical report conspiracy theorists, Gupta has established himself as a Trump medical conspirator, claiming that the letter is an attempt to hide Trump’s medical condition(s) from the country.

But the network is perfectly willing to take Hillary’s letter at face value – while ignoring the very real physical evidence that she a) does indeed have medical issues; b) they are becoming well-documented; and c) it is a matter of public record that she is taking blood thinners and thyroid medication, and that she did indeed faint, fall and strike her head, leading to a blood clot.

During Lemon’s show his panel giggled and chuckled at the letter from Trump’s physician. They labeled it “unusual” because of its verbiage, and then said that the claims it made could not be substantiated, and therefore, “open the door to people asking more questions about his health.”

They added that Trump – not Hillary – must “come clean with more than what he has put forth” regarding his health.

Then again, this is the network that claims that vaccines are safe.

It’s “reporting” like this that has led to CNN’s decline.

Read More At:



Media Manipulation: HLN Cancels Dr. Drew After He Questions Hillary’s Health

Source: RTAmerica
August 29, 2016

Dr. Drew Pinsky’s show was just cancelled by CNN’s sister network, HLN, only days after he questioned her health. It was the second time he did so. The first time, he issued a formal apology. This time, his show was cancelled

MEDIA COLLUSION: CNN Admits “We Couldn’t Help [Hillary] Any More Than We Have”

August 12, 2016

It appears we have passed the point where hiding the collusion is even necessary…

Here is CNN’s New Day host Chris Cuomo explaining how – for Hillary Clinton – “we [CNN] could not help her any more than we have… she’s got just a free ride so far with the media.”


This seemed appropriate…


As writes, it’s no secret that the mainstream media is a giant liberal cesspool willing to do and say anything to make sure their Democrat candidate gets elected. In this case it’s Hillary Clinton. Yet in the midst of two consecutive email scandals, her record of failure, including letting four Americans die in Benghazi, and having the father of the terrorist responsible for the worst attack since 9/11 sitting behind her at a recent rally, all the media can report is, “Hey, look, Trump said something distasteful again!”

In the compilation video (below), the YouTube channel “Centipede Productions” has amassed 10 minutes worth of CNN claiming technical difficulties, shouting down guests, and flat-out cutting the microphone of people who attempt to speak the facts pertaining to Hillary Clinton’s scandal-ridden past and present…

But we are reminded of what Senator Rand Paul exclaimed after discovering Hillary’s collusion with CNN

The liberal media has taken their Clinton sycophancy to a new low. CNN needs to address this bias and lack of journalistic integrity,” Paul’s chief campaign strategist Doug Stafford, said in a statement.


“This email revelation should give Republicans pause as to their coverage and possibility of fair treatment towards Sen. Paul during the next debate. All eyes will be on CNN’s response to their employee colluding with Hillary Clinton in order to attack a prominent U.S. senator on their dime.

Of course, it’s not just CNN… It’s AP.. and everyone else at NBC, ABC, and CBS…


Why The Mainstream Media Refuses To Talk About The Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]

Claire Bernish
August 2, 2016

United States — After two years with nary a mention from the mainstream press, the corporate windfall otherwise known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) finally earned some, albeit still inadequate, attention.

Considering a New York Times poll from June 2015, which found an alarming 78 percent of respondents had no substantial knowledge of the looming agreement — 30 percent said they hadn’t heard or read much about it, while 48 percent had zero knowledge of it whatsoever — the dearth in coverage by mainstream media allowed the TPP to go virtually unnoticed by the public it directly affects.

From August 1, 2013 through January 31, 2015, Media Matters for America tracked how often the TPP earned a mention from the Big Three major cable news outlets: CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. During that lengthy period, CNN andFox acknowledged the TPP just one time each — and while MSNBC appeared more on the ball, with 73 mentions, the now-canceled The Ed Show was responsible for 71 of those.

While it might seem remiss, if not wholly irresponsible, for such an expansive international trade agreement to escape the mainstream media’s attention, the omission wasn’t unintentional.

As Zaid Jilani explained in the Intercept:

“MSNBC’s owner, Comcast, has lobbied for the TPP. Last year, it fired host Ed Schultz, an outspoken opponent of the agreement.

“Time Warner, the parent company of CNN owner Turner Broadcasting, also lobbied for the TPP. 21st Century Fox — the legal successor to News Corporation, which operates Fox News — lobbied for passage as well.

“But using the television transcription service TV Eyes, The Intercept found that during the month of July 2016 alone, the TPP was mentioned 455 times by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — about six times as often as during the entire 18-month period studied by Media Matters.”

Those mentions, most assuredly, demonstrate progress in bringing light to the shady deal; but, with the exceptions of The Ed Show and Bernie Sanders and his supporters, the content has been generalized, rather than substantive, as a component of the presidential election. Donald Trump frequently decries the TPP as unacceptable and undesirable, though — in typical form — his tirades lack a depth of explanation.

As revealed in documents obtained by Wikileaks and reported by independent media, the TPP is nothing short of a grand corporate coup — some have even termed the measure ‘NAFTA on steroids,’ for its resemblance, exponentially, to the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA notoriously facilitated the ability for manufacturers to seek lower-wage workers outside the United States with little restriction — leaving at least one million skilled workers without employment, while lining the pockets of countless big businesses.

Now, the TPP promises to do more of the same — with countless nefarious additional provisions that go far beyond the manufacturing sector to directly impact the lives of every person in the U.S. And that, in itself, summarizes precisely why the pending trade agreement has been negotiated covertly, with secrecy normally provided only to matters of utmost national security.

But perhaps even the shallow attention brought to the TPP by the presidential election has sparked curiosity sufficient enough for the public to begin to question its efficacy.

As David Dayen wrote in Salon:

“Here’s one of the best indicators that Congress won’t approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership: business groups are running a public campaign in support of it. I know that sounds like a paradox, but if the image of the TPP weren’t so tattered, there would be no need for such an overt PR campaign.”

Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey

This article (Why the Mainstream Media Refuses to Talk About the TPP) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to

Television News Illusion: “Reporter In The Field On Location”

Jon Rappoport
June 21, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

All mainstream television news is built on transitions from one item to another. These transitions are called blends or segues. For example, the anchor in the studio goes to a “reporter on location” where “the news is happening” in real time.

However, in many cases, the anchor in the studio already knows what the reporter on location is going to say. That field reporter could just as easily be sitting in a public bathroom a block away from the studio, for all the good he does. Or he could be sitting in the studio in front of a fake backdrop. It’s a con.

But the sense of transition from one place and person to another imparts the sense of importance. The viewer thinks, “They’re going right to the spot where the shooting occurred an hour ago.” Yes, but the shooting, or whatever actually happened, is over. Or if it’s still in progress, the field reporter is getting his information directly from the police—he could have accomplished that with a phone call from a thousand miles away.

No network news operation allows a reporter in the field to discover something unofficial on his own. That’s verboten. It can get him fired.

So if the reporter on location wanted to tell the truth, he would say, “I’m standing here on a street corner five blocks away from the shooting, and I have nothing new to report. The cops just held a press conference, and they merely said the event was under investigation. I could have told you that while I was in bed back in my apartment. That’s it from here at the moment. I’ll be back with more meaningless updates as they occur. Stay tuned.”

Then the anchor back in the studio would say, “Thanks, Craig. I already knew about the press conference where nothing of substance was mentioned. You added zero to that zero. But you’re there. That’s what’s important. You give the illusion of live presence. We’ll be back after this break. Now we have to sell pharmaceuticals you don’t need. Stay tuned.”

Both the anchor and the reporter in the field earn their paychecks by making the viewing audience feel they’re “transitioning” from one important place (the studio) to another (the street corner). That’s the key. Here one minute, there the next. Most of the time, here and there are as vital as someone posting a video of himself sleeping.

“Now we go to Cairo, where street protests are taking place. Our reporter, Jeff Hassenfeffer, is there. Jeff?”

Cut to close-up of people milling about on a street. They’re yelling, shoving, and running. Jeff is standing in front of them. But who are these people? What are they really doing? Why are they there? What’s the issue? Do the protestors understand it? Are they trying to overthrow the government? If so, would it do any good? Would the new government crack down even harder than the old one? Are all these milling people know-nothings? Are they mere fronts for a new dictator in the shadows? The “reporter in the field,” Jeff, doesn’t know and doesn’t care. He’s there. That’s the important thing.

“Thanks, Jeff. Wow. People in the street. A revelation.”

Again, the reporter in the field isn’t doing any actual digging to come up with independent information. He’s there because he’s wearing a tan shirt with a lot of pockets, and he has a reasonably nice face, and his voice is a strong baritone. In college, he sang “Fiddler on the Roof.”

There is one thing a field reporter can do. By accident. He can interview a witness to an event who says something that departs from the official scenario. “There were three shooters, not one.” But this momentary flicker is shut down, never to appear again.

When the field reporter shows up at work in the studio the next day, someone will say, “Good interviews. Good job.” But what that means is: “You interviewed people. They said something. Anything.” That’s all.

People have accused CNN of faking on-location footage during the 1991 Gulf War, and later in the coverage of Sandy Hook. Regardless, all the information on the War and the school shooting came from official sources. The field reporters weren’t discovering news—they were taking dictation.

Continue Reading At: