TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal lines, which is dangerous for our democracy.

"New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD." "Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist." "Anti defamationally gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes. If you're reporting about the about the Arab Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia." "There is a a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia." "Daily Caller not allowed." "Life site news not allowed." "Sputnik, of course, not allowed." "TV Guide allowed." "The Uns review not allowed." "TV Guide totally cool." "Uns. V dare not allow." "Mister x is the name of his account." "This is obviously huge news."

Why do conservatives believe fact-checking is biased against them? If your information is constantly flagged as false, what does that say about what you're sharing? What exactly were conservatives sharing on platforms like Meta that resulted in so many flags? Were they perhaps disseminating false information? More importantly, what is the eagerness to get rid of fact checking all about? What's the underlying reason Republicans seem so intent on ending the practice of fact-checking altogether? What kind of information are they trying to share, and what's the motivation behind not wanting it to be verified?

New forms of journalism are needed to reaffirm facts and separate them from opinions, as diversity of opinion is desired, but not diversity of fact. Some government regulatory constraints around certain business models may be required, consistent with the First Amendment. A distinction should be made between platforms allowing all voices to be heard and business models that elevate hateful, polarizing, or dangerous voices that incite violence. This will be a significant challenge.

"There is a reliable sources group essentially that debates it." "There are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially." "It's called paid editing." "There are 833 administrators as they're called." "16 bureaucrats who can name the cops." "Only nine, fourteen point five percent are named." "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia on the editorial side are anonymous." "They can libel people with impunity as they do you." "There is no legal recourse because they are anonymous." "The Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity, which means it can't be sued in The United States."

We are responsible for serving our Treasure Valley, El Paso, Las Cruces, Eastern Iowa, and Mid Michigan communities. We are proud of the balanced journalism that CBS 4 News produces. We are concerned about one-sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. Some members use their platforms to push their own personal lives and agenda to control what people say. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

The professionalization of journalism is crucial for ensuring trustworthy information. Currently, anyone can claim to be a journalist in Canada, posing a significant problem. Unlike other professions, journalists have no mandatory regulations. Should partisan media like Rebel News or Epoch Times be treated as activists rather than journalists? With 46 professional orders in Quebec, why not establish one for journalists given their impact on society? Upholding a code of ethics and verifying journalists' backgrounds is essential to combat fake news and protect the public's right to accurate information.

Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a worldwide system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ad revenue. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing well-known writers and interviewing influential figures. The GDI defines disinformation as narratives that are adversarial, even if factually accurate. The GDI is a government-funded organization that receives money from various sources. Unheard argues that this type of censorship is dangerous and stifles important discussions. They urge individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going and to support independent media.

We're carefully considering which reporters attend our events. While we welcome questions from all, those who act as propagandists for the Democratic Party will be treated accordingly. We've already seen a shift in who is present; many new media representatives and young voices are emerging as key players in news. For instance, Carolyn engaged with Matt Boyle from Breitbart, highlighting the changing landscape. Traditional outlets like MSNBC and CNN are losing viewership, especially among younger audiences, who are drawn to new media that asks real questions rather than pushing propaganda. Joe Rogan, once aligned with Bernie Sanders, exemplifies this shift by focusing on inquiry rather than ideology. Unfortunately, mainstream media seems uninterested in this approach.

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.

The speaker expresses outrage over a debate commission event, claiming right-wing "incel asswipes" turned it into a "clown show" by exploiting Michelle Cormier's weakness. They allege the commission allowed Ezra Levant and "arsonists" into the room and provided them with opportunities to record everything. The speaker, along with Corey, Kathleen, and others, were kicked out of the media filing room while The Rebel was allowed to remain. This led to "pandemonium" where the Rebel harassed media and provoked people, then ran to the police claiming assault when challenged. The situation escalated to the point where CBC's Dave Cochran and Rosie Barton required security escorts due to concerns about their physical safety. The speaker asserts these individuals disrupted a democratic process, profited from it, and that Michelle Cormier and the commission were unable to manage the situation, resulting in a "complete fuck show."

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a global system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ads. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing reputable content. The GDI defines disinformation as adversarial narratives, which allows them to target publications they disagree with. The GDI is funded by various governments and organizations, including the UK government. They determine what is considered disinformation and have listed conservative-leaning websites as the most dangerous. Legal action has been taken against the GDI for infringing on First Amendment rights. The problem of censorship extends beyond the GDI, and it is important for individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically by Rebel News and Ford Canada, alleging both are owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of being a disgrace to journalism. The reporter counters that the individual is out of control emotionally and that their facts are wrong. The exchange escalates, with accusations of lying and being an embarrassment. The individual defends their ability to do the work of multiple reporters, while the reporter suggests they don't understand what they're looking at.

NPR and PBS heads testified before Congress this week, facing accusations of liberal bias. The question is whether the government should continue funding public broadcasters. Republicans have long sought to eliminate PBS. The speaker believes NPR is far left and that government subsidies are no longer necessary. These outlets became popular when political polarization was lower. Now that Republicans and Democrats are at odds, such organizations are no longer viable as public entities and should be private.

What's new about misinformation is that narrative trumps the truth, and stories against the narrative get killed. Organizations like Media Matters for America tell reporters what to report, or they will smear them as haters and go after their advertisers. Before being fired, the speaker received instructions on framing stories, like the one about the Algerian boxer in the Olympics, advising to portray anyone against the boxer as part of the hateful right and providing specific language to use. NewsGuard ranks reporters and news outlets, influencing where advertisers spend money. Deviating from their approved narrative results in a lower grade, similar to a credit rating, and fewer advertisers. They rank and rate stories, providing direction on the "right" course.

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.

- Grokopedia is introduced as a new alternative to Wikipedia, built on Elon Musk’s xAI model designed for deep understanding and reasoning, not just regurgitating text. - The program suggests Wikipedia has shifted left over time. It recounts how, ten years ago, Wikipedia was praised as a dream and as a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, with Britannica’s editor deriding encyclopedias as requiring paid researchers, while Wikipedia grew to become the world’s go-to resource and Britannica stopped printing books. - The speakers claim that, although Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, politics on the site is dominated by leftists. They point to examples of editors who advertise socialist views and display images of Che Guevara and Lenin. - They state that Wikipedia’s bias is evident in who counts as reliable or not, asserting that conservative media are deemed unreliable while outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones are considered reliable. They claim Fox News is treated as unreliable, while Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable. - The narrative asserts bias in topic coverage and notability decisions. They mention a controversy over an article about a Ukrainian refugee that was deleted on the grounds it might not meet notability, contrasting it with other crimes that remained in Wikipedia. They also note a case where a suspect’s name was blacked out because he hadn’t been convicted, but another case (Kyle Rittenhouse) was named despite his status as a minor and not convicted. - The discussion includes claims that public pressure can sway Wikipedia at times (e.g., Irina Zerutsko’s article staying after outcry), but overall “nothing changes.” They describe a group of editors they call the “gang of forty,” who allegedly push propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict by removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, and they describe a page titled “Donald Trump and Fascism” created just before a presidential election as interfering with elections. - They argue that Wikipedia presents a single worldview on major topics, excluding other perspectives, citing Fidel Castro’s successor Raul Castro as lacking the term “authoritarian” on his page, while other leaders have such labels applied. They also discuss government censorship and state-controlled outlets influencing Wikipedia’s content, noting that Chinese government censors flood the site and that China runs state propaganda outlets cited tens of thousands of times. - The COVID-19 lab-leak theory is discussed, with the speakers claiming that while evidence later emerged suggesting a lab origin, Wikipedia still claims “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement,” calling it a conspiracy theory. - Grokopedia is presented as offering an alternative where Grok lists investigations that affirm a lab-leak as the most probable origin, and the speaker says Grok is better than Wikipedia on their own page, which they claim contains mistakes and smears on the Wikipedia platform. - They mention other competing projects like Justopedia, founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who wanted an alternative due to perceived left-wing bias; Scienceopedia and Justopedia are described as gaining momentum to provide more source variety. - The discussion closes with perspectives on governance of Wikipedia’s editorial direction: Catherine Mayer, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, is portrayed as evolving Wikipedia toward a woke and DEI ideology, with Maurer described as shaping critical years starting in 2016 and steering the foundation toward a social justice mission. - The speakers conclude with a call for dedicated, area-specific editors to enter and influence topics, suggesting that a few dozen committed editors could make a difference, though acknowledging the time required.

The speaker says the reason for the checks is to get attention. When they do these things, the legacy media loses their minds and runs it on every news channel. The speaker says they couldn't pay for that kind of coverage, that it would cost 10 times more to get it.