you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes? And?

He's saying things that a year ago would have gotten him banned and censored. Things we all knew but weren't allowed to say. Now the corporate media is allowing it.

Why are you trying to discredit him? What a bizarre reaction to such a heavily sensitive topic being openly discussed.

[–]neolib 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the corporate media is allowing it

This is an opinion section of Newsweek, which if you missed it is now owned by some shady organization:

In 2013, IBT Media acquired Newsweek from IAC; the acquisition included the Newsweek brand and its online publication, but did not include The Daily Beast. IBT Media, which also owns the International Business Times, rebranded itself as Newsweek Media Group, and in 2014, relaunched Newsweek in both print and digital form.

In 2018, IBT Media split into two companies, Newsweek Publishing and IBT Media. The split was accomplished one day before the District Attorney of Manhattan indicted Etienne Uzac, the co-owner of IBT Media, on fraud charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

IBT Media is an American global digital news organization with over 90 million monthly readers, owned by followers of religious leader David Jang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media

That's why they allow all kinds of stuff there now.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, really getting a lot of pushback on this one! I guess this one is important! I'd better share it at a few other sites.

This is exactly the way the media establishment works. They never actually dispute what's being said - the topic. Instead they engage in character assassination. Once you notice it, you can't stop noticing it everywhere. It's standard operating procedure.