TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

This is, very abrupt. Very abrupt. The discussion centers on jawboning and public pressure: “This is all about jawboning. It's all about public pressure.” “license revocations are extraordinarily rare.” “The threat is not that the FCC's actually going to take away a license. It's about the public noise. It's about the shame and embarrassment.” “Brendan Carr going on podcasts and embarrassing ABC.” “Trump vowed retribution on the campaign trail, and he's getting it.” “For every reaction, there is reaction.” “Stephen Colbert has already been joking about getting hired somewhere else.” “Kimmel will probably end up somewhere else.” “We're gonna see more of that.” Van Jones: “There was nothing hateful about And what was even hateful speech is protected. This is this is not acceptable.” Congressman Garcia: “the idea that someone is gonna get pulled off a news program, off a news a channel that's supposed to be independent, and that ABC is making this decision because of possible political pressure through the president is is both stunning and outrageous.” “This is a red line that has been crossed for our industry, for the First Amendment, for the right of people to speak.” “Here's Jimmy Kimmel.”

It's alarming that a candidate running for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, potentially our next prime minister, learned of her disqualification via an email received by the media outlet interviewing her. While shocking, it's not surprising. Our internal polls showed my campaign was neck and neck with the front runner. They didn't want me on the debate stage or on the ballot. The Liberal Party wanted to ensure Mark Carney's coronation. The allegations against me are completely false.

Speaker Johnson claims CBS edited his video on "Face the Nation" to make Kamala look better and him look less effective. He says the editing was even more direct on "Face the Nation" than elsewhere. Because of this alleged editing, he will never agree to a non-live interview with CBS again. Speaker 0 notes this is not the first instance of CBS editing videos, referencing a previous instance where they allegedly took a question and matched it to another answer. Speaker 0 states that this is why Speaker Johnson will only do live interviews. Speaker 0 contrasts this with Trump, who said he was good when his long answers had to be edited down, while Kamala needs to be edited up.

In the fall of 2023, an interview opportunity with Elon Musk arose after an attempt to bring the Twitter files to CBS News. The offer was to do a live interview with him on X. CBS News executives declined a live interview, citing uncertainty about what Musk might say. A number of conditions were set on the possible interview, including taping, editing, and restricting it to the CBS News platform. The speaker felt ashamed that a news organization would place so many restrictions on an interview.

That is why we exist, not to knuckle under, not to do what we're told, but to stand up and to say, listen, if you want to pull these licenses, then we're going to go to court and we'll be in the court of public opinion. But you don't get to go on a podcast and set policy for American media, for an American media institution that's been around a lot longer than me, you or Donald Trump. This a red line that has been crossed for our industry, for the First Amendment, for the right of people to speak. There was nothing hateful about And what was even hateful speech is protected. This is this is not acceptable.

I will be questioning the RCMP commissioner tomorrow about why they chose not to investigate Justin Trudeau's actions in the SNC Lavalin scandal. Trudeau pressured Jody Wilson Raybould to offer a deal to SNC Lavalin, but she stood firm. I will ask why Trudeau wasn't charged with obstruction of justice. Stay tuned for updates.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

The two speakers discuss the media coverage surrounding a high-profile case. The second speaker says the media coverage has been absolutely unfair and biased. They’ve done many interviews and are reaching a point where they won’t do them anymore, trusting the media less. They note a preference for live interviews because edited pieces distort their message. A concrete example is CBC’s Karen Pauls: she interviewed Russ Harald, Sudhoo, and several families who forgave. The second speaker claims Harald told them Pauls didn’t include half of what he said, and that she did the same to Andrea and Shauna Nordstrom (Logan Hunter’s mother). They allege that Nordstroms were given a bit part in a story that portrayed the subject as loving and forgiving, downplaying negative aspects, making it seem like the subject was sympathetic. The second speaker claims Karen Pauls twisted the narrative, and contends that much of the media has done this. Consequently, they’ve declined numerous interviews and no longer trust mainstream media regarding this story. The second speaker adds that there are people with no vested interest who want to express approval or forgiveness to feel good about themselves and to allow the subject to stay in the country. They contrast this with others who are deported for other offenses, such as those who steal $5,000 cars and are permanent residents who get deported. They have listened in on immigration and refugee board hearings to learn more about the process. They claim that because the case is so prominent, some people want to excuse the subject, even if it means allowing criminals or poor drivers to stay, thereby harming the system. The first speaker asks what precedent would be set if the subject were allowed to stay in Canada. The second speaker replies that it would imply that 16 lives mean nothing and questions how many people one would have to kill to be deported, underscoring the idea that the mere possibility of killing someone is central to the debate. They insist that raising the question of whether the person killed anyone is itself “crazy.”

"President President Trump ran directly at these legacy broadcast outlets, and he exposed them to these market forces." "It would it was not remotely market market forces. The market was operating before. It was pure government coercion and threats from Brendan Carr and from Donald Trump and the brow beating of corporations who need the FCC's approval for various broadcast licenses and so on to go and do this." "He is openly broadcasting the fact that this was what we call under the First Amendment viewpoint discrimination. He doesn't like what they're saying." "Under the First Amendment to the constitution of The United States, you have the right to engage in speech that is distasteful and offensive and disagreeable to other people."

My name is Kian Bexy from the Countersignal, an accredited journalist at the Alberta Legislature. We're in Edmonton, and access is being blocked by someone who doesn't even claim to be part of the campaign. This individual is preventing multiple journalists from entering the building to cover a potential future prime minister's appointment. Is this the kind of country he aims to create? This behavior is unacceptable, especially when a diverse group of journalists, including students and accredited professionals, are waiting to enter.

Tucker Carlson and the host discuss the evolving casualty figures and the media’s handling of them. The conversation begins with the host recalling that on March 9 they reported, citing a military source, that 147 Americans were wounded, and that Reuters later published an exclusive stating 140 soldiers were wounded; the Pentagon confirmed that figure, and they note that many of the wounded have serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, not minor injuries. The host asks Carlson if his sources, close to the White House, confirm those numbers and why the media might be hiding them. Carlson offers two reasons. First, he suggests the media hesitates to push on the matter because they “support the war reflexively” and because of institutional loyalty and fear of criticizing the war. He adds a provocative comparison, saying some in the media “support big organizations” and implying that certain prominent figures have incentives to align with defense contractors. Second, he says there is a legitimate moral concern about reporting numbers when families are involved, describing a “moral blackmail” that discourages reporting about deaths and injuries. He acknowledges that, in his experience, families deserve consideration, which can complicate reporting, but asserts that there is also a pattern of lying and censorship surrounding casualty figures. He notes that ground troops, while the U.S. military presence may be limited, certainly includes special operations and Tier One units, and expresses concern about overuse of those forces. He emphasizes that there is a broader issue of deception and AI-generated misinformation making it hard to know what is true. The discussion then shifts to Israel. The host asks for Carlson’s sense of daily life in Israel and what is happening on the ground, noting a “total blackout” on Israeli attacks. Carlson replies that he is not as well sourced in Israel as before but has connections in the Gulf, where sharing social media video of destruction is illegal in six monarchies. He mentions a single clip that has stood out in his thinking for years: a video showing a missile segment near the Dome of the Rock in the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex, and references Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre. He warns that the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex and the Dome of the Rock could trigger a global war and possibly a nuclear exchange, suggesting that some prominent Israelis would want such an escalation; therefore, he argues the U.S. government should make protecting the Dome of the Rock a priority, not because of sectarian reasons but to prevent a world-ending conflict. A separate segment (omitted as promotional) includes Carlson’s remark that denial of censorship and government blocks complicates reporting and that he values the ability to access diverse sources. The hosts then pivot to audience dynamics, with Carlson noting that some audiences who were skeptical of him have become supporters, and reflecting on the cultural shift in political loyalties. Toward the end, the host asks Carlson for his take on last night’s events involving Thomas Massey and Donald Trump in Kentucky; Carlson describes it as a reflection of a broader battle in American politics. He recalls his experience with Trump’s 2020 coalition and laments that neoconservatives allegedly destroyed the coalition, elevating figures like MTG and Massey as enemies. He expresses a desire for a new political coalition of “normal” people who want a government that does not hate them and seeks to improve their lives, acknowledging differences in approach but emphasizing good-faith effort over insults or aggressive foreign policy. The program closes with mutual thanks and well-wishes.

I love this show because we can discuss important topics freely. Recently, I received some criticism for saying Elon Musk was pro-apartheid. I don't know for sure if he was, but he did grow up while apartheid was happening. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't – he might have been too young. So, please don't sue me! It feels like others can say anything they want, but we have to be very careful. That's why this show and platform is so important.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

We broke the public's trust and shut down one side of the debate. We portrayed doctors and experts chosen by the CBC as competent and trustworthy, while labeling those who questioned the narrative as dangerous and spreading disinformation. This affected me personally as a journalist with solid contacts in the community. I heard stories of suffering and pain from people who were not being heard. Some were injured, some lost their jobs due to vaccination status, some were ostracized, and others were depressed over lockdowns and mandates. Parents agonized over whether to vaccinate their children. I carried the weight of their truth not being given a voice, which affected my well-being.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

Speaker 1 discusses government interference in news coverage at CBS, citing pressure from political officials to shape stories. They mention feeling pressure from employers to withhold stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 suggests a policy where officials must submit objections in writing rather than through phone calls. They express concern about intelligence agencies violating rights without sufficient oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their input. Translation: Speaker 1 talks about government influence on news coverage at CBS, highlighting pressure from political officials to manipulate stories. They mention feeling pressured by employers to hold back stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 proposes a policy where officials must submit objections in writing instead of through phone calls. They express worry about intelligence agencies violating rights without proper oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their insights.

The speaker states that the CBC betrayed the public trust by shutting down one side of the debate, branding chosen experts as trustworthy while portraying others as spreaders of disinformation, regardless of their background. As a journalist, the speaker was contacted by people with stories of suffering, including the vaccine-injured, those who lost jobs due to vaccination status, families torn apart, depressed students, and parents agonizing over vaccinating their children. The speaker felt the burden of these untold stories and felt they had failed to give voice to their truth. The speaker witnessed the collapse of journalism and believes they were pushing propaganda, defined as one-sided information broadcast to influence opinion, or manipulative persuasion in service of an agenda.

Anita Krishna, a former control room director at Global News, discusses her termination and the biased coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. She criticizes the constant focus on unvaccinated individuals and the lack of accountability in reporting. Anita attended a rally in North Vancouver where she unexpectedly spoke about her concerns. The speech was recorded and shared online, leading to her suspension for allegedly violating journalistic principles. Anita questions how she violated these principles when Global News failed to report on community events and important hearings. She believes that Global News is the one violating journalistic principles by withholding information from the public.