The Media Lie...Even About Peppa Pig

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes 19 seconds

THE MALIGNANTLY MENDACIOUS MEDIA ARE SLANDERING POOR PEPPA PIG BY CLAIMING THE SHOW IS SHOCKINGLY VIOLENT

Not even kiddies’ favourite Peppa Pig is safe from media excess, with major outlets claiming that it is shockingly violent. But unraveling the details of this curious story gives clear insight into how deceptive the mainstream media can be.

The media are deliberately misrepresenting a study to stoke a panic over alleged violence in the children’s animated show Peppa Pig. Across the political spectrum the headlines have been absurdly alarming. “ASSAULT ON PEPPA: Peppa Pig and Disney’s Frozen are too violent for Children, experts claim” shrieks the right-wing The Sun, while the left-wing The Independent breathlessly declares, “Peppa Pig: Experts Find Shocking Levels of Violence in Children’s TV Show”.

According to the media it isn’t just Peppa but also Daniel Tiger, The Octonauts, Paw Patrol as well as Toy Story 3 and 4, Frozen, Finding Dory and a handful of other kid shows and movies supposedly deemed too violent.

As a vigilant and diligent parent of a young child that routinely watches Peppa Pig, Paw Patrol, The Octonauts and Daniel Tiger, I find these headlines and their revelations alarming.

The Sun’s and The Independent’s headlines had me deeply concerned that I was allowing my child to be exposed to violent and damaging material via Peppa Pig.

I myself have watched countless hours of these shows with my child and found them to be rather benign and good-hearted children’s programs, so I wanted to learn more about the ‘shocking violence’ that experts discovered of which I was apparently blissfully blind.

According to The Independent, “A new study looking into violence featured in animated series and films found that more than eight moments of pain and brutality were inflicted across a selected range of entertainment aimed at children.”

As I read The Independent story further though, a bunch of red flags popped up. For example, the thin article made a bizarre shift in its closing three paragraphs when it dropped the violence angle altogether in order to inform readers that actress Harley Bird, who voiced Peppa, recently stepped down from the role after thirteen years. I was expecting to read that Ms. Bird had been brutalized while working on the show or had turned into a violent hooligan, but no, the article just ended with that odd whimper of a factoid.

The biggest red flag of all though was that neither The Sun nor The Independent ever linked to the supposed “study of violence in children’s entertainment” they were referencing, nor did they include the name of the journal in which it was allegedly published.

Being the intrepid non-reporter that I am I did what The Sun and The Independent’s actual reporters hoped readers wouldn’t do…I searched for the report.

Upon finding the study in everybody’s favorite magazine, Pain: The Journal of the International Association of the Study of Pain, I was shocked to learn that not only are Peppa Pig, Paw Patrol and Daniel Tiger not viciously violent shows creating serial killers and sociopaths, but that the “study” in question HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH VIOLENCE.

The study is actually titled “The socio-cultural context of pediatric pain: an examination of the portrayal of pain in children’s popular media”.

The study wasn’t investigating “violence featured in animated series and films” but rather how kid’s entertainment presents pain and reactions to pain on-screen.

The banal study concluded, “A narrow depiction of pain was presented in children's popular media, with an overall underrepresentation of pain, numerous maladaptive portrayals of pain, and gender differences in both sufferer and observer responses.”

That is definitely a less sexy headline than “Assault on Peppa Pig!!”

The British and Canadian researchers behind the study were actually trying to understand how to use the power of children’s entertainment to help kids understand regular, everyday pain, and how to be empathetic.

You wouldn’t know that from The Sun or The Independent’s click-bait headline and lazily reported story, which isn’t just meant to garner ad revenue by deceiving viewers but also to gaslight parents and instill in them a growing sense of fear, as well as further undermine, confuse and conflate common language.

For example, making the terms ‘pain’ and ‘violence’ interchangeable, as both media outlets did in this case, is totally in line with the insidious woke culture that distorts language beyond recognition and brazenly and shamelessly declares that, “silence is violence”.

Trust me when I tell you that silence is not violence. Violence is violence. Only someone who has never been punched in the face will tell you that silence and violence are the same thing.

This Peppa Pig story is just another obvious example of the media’s mischievous and malicious mendacity. One can go through the list of much more egregious media lies that had, or potentially could have, much more catastrophic impact than just besmirching poor Peppa Pig.

For instance, the establishment media’s slavishly slanted coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq war, or the propaganda surrounding Syria’s supposed chemical weapons attacks, or the cavalcade of Cold War inspired disinformation regarding Russia…be it alleged interference in the 2016 election, or supposed hacking of power grids, or use of “microwave weapons”.

This manufactured Peppa Pig story is proof that the corporate media aren’t interested in uncovering facts, only in pandering for profit, and that their loyalty is always and every time to money, not to Truth.

The bottom line is this…Peppa Pig is a safe and trustworthy show for kids to watch, but the establishment news outlets of both the left and right are not a safe or trustworthy product for adults to consume.

A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2020

The Media Hates Lance Armstrong for Being a Liar and a Cheat, and Conveniently Forget They Enabled his Lying and Cheating

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes 19 seconds

Lance, the fantastically compelling two-part ESPN documentary on disgraced American cyclist Lance Armstrong that concludes Sunday night, makes up for years of sports media coddling by finally holding its subject’s feet to the fire.

Lance Armstrong is a proven fraud and the adversarial attitude animating this documentary is exactly what was missing in the coverage of Armstrong during his deceitful heyday. 

Even at the height of his popularity, I was never a Lance Armstrong fan. I was always dubious of his success and the manufactured narrative within which the media gently cloaked him.

The reason I like the documentary is because it not only exposes Armstrong’s duplicitous nature, but also unintentionally reinforces my long held belief regarding the American media’s malignant malfeasance.

For years Lance was able to pedal through the journalistic raindrops, and due to the establishment media’s starry-eyed compliance and Armstrong’s near sociopathic ability to lie, he never got wet.

The media swooning over Lance in the wake of his meteoric rise from the ashes of near-death from cancer to the podium of the Tour de France, was absurd to the point of journalistic travesty.

The press consistently chose to tell the story they wanted about Armstrong, instead of the story that was actually there. As a result, they shamelessly enabled Lance’s diabolical duplicity.

For instance, the media made Armstrong into an American inspiration for surviving testicular cancer in 1997 while completely ignoring the possibility, if not the probability, that Lance’s cancer was a direct result of the use of performance-enhancing drugs, a notion that Lance himself does not discount in the documentary.

The press also set aside all skepticism and made Lance into an American icon when he “miraculously” won the Tour de France seven consecutive times from 1999-2005.

The American media then wrapped Lance in the flag and relentlessly marketed him to the public as the perfect symbol of America - a resilient, ambitious, determined and courageous underdog that overcame the odds and dominated the competition. This flag waving idiocy made him extremely desirable to corporate America and very wealthy.

Even now after Lance has been exposed as an unadulterated fraud, the media still use him as an avatar upon which they can project whatever fantasies they need in order to tell the story they want, as opposed to the story that is actually there. 

For example, Aaron Timms of The Guardian, who apparently watched the documentary with his woke goggles on, sees Armstrong as a malevolent symbol of toxic male rage who, “was practically marinating in insensitivity from the womb.”

Timms contorts the documentary beyond recognition and concludes that it shows that Armstrong is not just a liar, cheat and bully, but the poster child for “men in general: their incurable ambition and violence, the fragility of their morals.”

I guess when you’re a woke media hammer, the whole world looks like a toxically masculine nail.

What is so fascinating to me in regards to the media’s response to Lance, is that they couldn’t get enough of Armstrong when he was telling them what they wanted to hear while lying through his teeth, but now that he is speaking some semblance of the truth, they want him to shut up.

For instance, in reaction to Lance USA Today writer Christine Brennan wrote an article titled, “enough is enough, let this be the end of the Lance Armstrong story.”

Brennan declares, “Armstrong never was just another rider, or athlete. He was far more than a sports hero. After beating testicular cancer, he transcended sports and became the world’s most famous cancer survivor.”

What Brennan fails to acknowledge is that it wasn’t Armstrong who made himself more than another “rider, athlete or sports hero”…it was the mainstream media. Armstrong certainly exploited the endlessly deferential coverage of him, but he didn’t create it.

Brennan continues, “He was an international icon, bringing his too-good-to-be-true story of survival and triumph to schools and banquets and hospitals, where patients read his books for inspiration as chemo dripped into their arms….This was a ruse for the ages”.

Let’s be clear, Lance Armstrong is entirely to blame for all of his numerous misdeeds, but when Brennan says his story was “too good to be true” she unintentionally indicts her entire profession. If something is “too good to be true”…which Lance’s narrative certainly was… then that is exactly when reporters should sink their teeth into a story to find the truth instead of journalistically genuflecting before their new American hero.

And Brennan is correct, this was a “ruse for the ages”, but she leaves out that the negligent and gullible media were directly complicit in that ruse and shamelessly aided and abetted Lance’s despicable deception.

Brennan concludes by stating, “Armstrong is the worst of us; a lying, cheating, vindictive scoundrel.”

This is also true, but another truth is that by choosing to elevate and exult the scoundrel Lance Armstrong, instead of say…Greg LeMond, an equally compelling figure and an even better cyclist of impeccable moral character, the media made themselves just as guilty as the man they now love to hate. (Watch the ESPN documentary Slaying the Badger to learn more on LeMond).

 In conclusion, Lance has revealed its infamous subject to be a petulant, bitter, defiant, angry and self-pitying man entirely incapable of any self-reflection…which ironically, makes him exactly like the media that catapulted him to stardom in the first place.

 A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2020

'Hoaxed' Exposes the Mainstream Media's Relentless Bias…and Its Own

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes 27 seconds

Mike Cernovich’s documentary about the media’s disregard for truth is a missed opportunity due to its inability to fully break free from the heavy chains of partisan politics.

Hoaxed, the movie about the fake news phenomena in the mainstream media, produced by right-wing firebrand Mike Cernovich, has not generated much heat since it was released nearly a year and a half ago in January of 2019.

The establishment press, the target of the film’s ire, has not responded to it with the usual tactics of belittling or obliterating the film with scathing reviews…in fact, they haven’t reviewed it at all.

Cernovich believes that the media ignored Hoaxed, directed by Scooter Downey and Jon du Toit, because it is “high art”. I personally would assign more malevolent motives to the media’s maneuvers, because I can assure you that Hoaxed may be a lot of things, but high art is not one of them.

Sadly, Hoaxed, despite its compelling theory regarding the corporate media’s nefariousness and disregard for the truth, stumbles in its execution, as it is a rather uneven and scattered polemic dramatically weakened by its lack of thematic focus.

As a cinematic exercise, the movie is not quite slick enough to generate gravitas, but a little too slick to take seriously.

Hoaxed makes the case that the mainstream media are not meant to inform the masses but to keep them uninformed and in conflict. As someone who writes often about media manipulation and propaganda, I wholly concur with the film’s thesis.

The problem though is that the movie cannot maintain its focus on that premise alone and ends up wasting too much time wandering down side streets and alleyways wallowing in its own partisan and ideological bias.

In this way, Hoaxed, which boasts a who’s who of media outsiders such as Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Luke Rudkowski and James O’Keefe, often feels like fan service for those already in Cernovich’s camp, which is a shame, as the movie’s message about the mendacity of the media needs to be heard across the political spectrum.

That said the film definitely has some insightful sequences, most notably those featuring feminist director Cassie Jaye, and Hank Newsom, a Black Lives Matter activist who does not fit easily into stereotypes.

The Newsom sequence comes in the last twenty minutes and makes the extremely compelling case that the corporate media do not care about black lives or white lives, just about “the show” and generating ratings through manufactured conflict.

Other notable sections deal with both the media’s flexible ethics when deciding to use photographs of dead children as propaganda tools, the perils of Antifa and the imperative of free speech, topics I have written about at length.

These sequences are factually damning, and due to their simplicity, elegant in their execution, which should’ve been the blueprint for the entire film.

Unfortunately, the movie does not stick to that approach, as evidenced by the awkward “Pizzagate” section, which is irritatingly incoherent and frustratingly muddled.

Another stumble comes in the form of a rambling case against communism by Stefan Molyneux. The validity of his arguments aside, conjuring the boogeyman of communism has nothing to do with the topic at the heart of Hoaxed, and thus distracts and dilutes the narrative.

The biggest negative is the conflating of the actions of the mainstream media just with Democrats, instead of simply with the depraved elite of both parties.

At times the film is at cross-purposes with itself, such as when it highlights the media complicity in deceiving the public to support both of the Republican led Iraq Wars, a fact which flies in the face of the film’s common refrain that the media solely push a liberal/Democratic agenda. I think it would have been wiser, and more accurate, if the film stated that the media are not just cheerleaders for the Democratic agenda, but for the establishment agenda.  

Prior to watching Hoaxed I knew little about Cernovich, having never read or watched his work. I believe my ignorance on the controversies surrounding Cernovich was actually an asset as it helped me to simply review Hoaxed, as opposed to reviewing Cernovich.

All I knew going in was Cernovich was considered an alt-right firebrand and provocateur. The film taught me that Cernovich has disavowed that alt-right label, and rejects any white supremacy and neo-Nazism supposedly associated with it, but also that he really is a firebrand and provocateur, and relishes the role.

In my opinion Cernovich’s provocative and self-promoting nature, an example of which is his being both producer and de facto star of Hoaxed, does diminish the film and its thesis to a great degree, even as it elevates him…a problem common to performative and participatory style documentaries.

Ultimately, like the corporate media it rightfully despises, Hoaxed all too often trades fidelity to truth for the glory of its own ego and the familiarity of the partisan swamp, much to its detriment and to my disappointment.

If you really want to break the chains of your mind and exit the cave of media manipulation and propaganda, I recommend you skip Hoaxed, which is just another set of illusory shadows dancing on the wall, in favor of reading Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s seminal work on the subject.

Manufacturing Consent will arm you with intellectual tools that will empower you to crack the code of the corporate media, unlike Hoaxed, which does little more than mimic the media’s dishonest framing and distortions of the truth for its own purposes. 

A version of this article was originally published at RT.

©2020

Has the Fear of Putin Seized Hollywood?

Estimated Reading Time : 5 minutes 04 seconds

Is Hollywood cowering from their most frightening bogeyman Vladimir Putin, or is the business of anti-Russian propaganda stronger than ever?

 Los Angeles is a very strange place to live. The weather is almost always sunny, comfortable and clear, leaving the city in a state of perpetual summer. On the rare occasion it does rain, the local media cover it as though the apocalypse were underway. This glorious weather may sound heavenly to those who suffer with brutally humid summers or bitterly cold winters, or both, but it has a downside to it, namely it can be terribly disorienting.

The longer you live here the more disorienting it becomes as you are rendered incapable of remembering if something in your past occurred on the Fourth of July or Christmas Eve, as those days, and nearly every other day, look exactly the same. 

This disorientation is heightened by the constant influx of beautiful young people who come to the land of milk and honey to find their fame and fortune. This yearly harvest of fresh blood combined with the interminable glorious weather leads many Angelenos to live in a state of surreality, where their imagination and the real world morph into one. 

An example of this bewildering condition where fantasy and reality blur, occurred this past Wednesday, July 19, when The Hollywood Reporter published an article provocatively titled “Vladimir Putin Cut From Two Upcoming Hollywood Movies”. Upon reading the headline I wondered if the Russian President was moonlighting as an actor and had felt the bitter sting of being left on the cutting room floor. Sadly, as entertaining as that premise may be, upon reading the article it was revealed that was not the case.

What the article did claim was that Hollywood studios are so petrified of retaliatory hacking by Vladimir Putin, they will not even mention his name in two upcoming Russian-themed films, The Red Sparrow and Kursk, for fear of angering him.

Apparently, Putin has become a kind of Creature from the Black Lagoon, or in this case the Black Sea, who if provoked, will rise from the depths to terrorize the innocent folk of Tinsel town. And like the citizens of Tokyo in a Godzilla movie, the studio big wigs are doing all they can not to agitate the great beast Putin in order to save their hides.

Studio executives are not exactly known for their profiles in courage, but the level of Putin-phobia described in this article is bizarre to say the least. That said, it would be understandable for Hollywood to cower in fear of Putin considering the steady diet of anti-Russian hysteria that they are continually fed by the mainstream media. The establishment press has turned Putin into a combination of Darth Vader, Sauron, Lord Voldemort and Hannibal Lecter, an omnipotent purveyor of evil who not only controls Trump, but aches for global domination and eats America’s elections with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

A case in point of the media’s voracious appetite for anti-Russian stories is that the aforementioned Hollywood Reporter article with its Putin headline, which was printed in an industry periodical and geared toward entertainment professionals, quickly spread and was reported on by standard news outlets across the globe, with similarly misleading headlines.

If Hollywood is afraid of hacking, it is not entirely unfounded, as Sony was the victim of a devastating hack. That hack occurred in 2014 and was blamed on North Korea who was allegedly trying to stop the release of The Interview, a comedy about trying to assassinate leader Kim Jong-Un.

One illuminating piece of information to come out of the 2014 Sony hack was that a senior U.S. State Department official, Richard Stengel, was actively trying to get Hollywood studios to create anti-Russian propaganda. This is an intriguing piece of information to keep in mind when digging through The Hollywood Reporter- Putin story in question.

The Hollywood Reporter article says that, despite their apparent fear of hacking reprisals, “the film industry is finding the Russia theme too irresistible to ignore” right now. The article mentions no fewer than 8 Russia-themed films that are either in production or in the pipeline. The list of films includes the previously mentioned Jennifer Lawrence vehicle Red Sparrow and the true story of a Russian submarine disaster, Kursk, along with a Wonder Woman sequel where Wonder Woman goes back in time to fight the Soviets, a Rocky spin-off with a Russian villain, a potential Mikhail Gorbachev bio-pic, and films with titles such as The Tracking of a Russian Spy, How to Catch a Russian Spy and The Girl in the Spider’s Web.

 Combined with Russian portrayals in recent feature films such as the dreadful Child 44 and the abysmal Bitter Harvest, and in television shows like House of Cards, which featured a Pussy Riot cameo and a recurring evil Russian leader meant to be Putin, and it seems as though the State Department were successful in their quest for assistance from Hollywood in the propaganda department.

No doubt the greatest propaganda comes from the news media though, and I have to include The Hollywood Reporter in that category.  Upon closer inspection it becomes very clear that this ‘fear of Putin hacking’ story is little more than “fake news”.

The only person quoted in the article who makes any mention of Putin and hacking concerns is Ajay Arora, who does not work in the film business, but rather runs a computer security firm. Mr. Arora being the only source for the Putin claim is absurd, since his company stands to gain mightily by stoking the fears of studio executives over hacking.

The article also states that, “Insiders describe the moves (to excise Putin) as ‘creative choices’, but by avoiding Putin, Fox is also steering clear of any Russian hackers who might protest.” This is quite a remarkable sentence, as the writer quotes people who are speaking anonymously and are therefore free to speak their mind, but who say it is a “creative choice” to remove Putin, and yet she sticks to her premise, despite a lack of any evidence that hacking is the real reason for Putin being removed from the pictures.

The writer makes the rather illogical case that Russia-themed stories are blossoming everywhere in Hollywood, but the film industry is so scared of Vladimir Putin hacking them they won’t even mention his name in a movie. I guess Putin is so narcissistically evil that he will only retaliate against those that speak ill of him but not his nation, and Hollywood executives know this and are confident in this knowledge. This is obviously, absolutely and completely preposterous.

The Hollywood Reporter article ends by claiming, “But while Hollywood is willing to feed the public's hunger for all things Russia, studios will likely continue to play it safe when it comes to depicting the current leadership. After all, even Oliver Stone, who directed the pro-Russia documentary series The Putin Interviews, left the president out of last year's Snowden.”

Yes, even that America-hating, pro-Russian shill Oliver Stone cut any mention of Putin from his film Snowden! In fact, Oliver Stone was so afraid of Putin he went to Russia and interviewed him for a four-hour documentary.  Wait…what? The article’s final paragraph is a perfect synopsis of the incoherence of the entire story.

The writer of this Hollywood Reporter article is guilty of not writing an article around the provable facts of the story, but rather manufacturing a story to suit her preconceived narrative. No doubt she had to search far and wide to scrounge up the agreeable quote from Mr. Arora that quenched the thirst of her hypothesis.

Does that approach to journalism sound familiar? A great number of mainstream journalists have done the same thing over the last three years in regards to most any Russian story. Open the New York Times or the Washington Post and you will read lots and lots of assumptions, innuendo and self-serving opinions regarding Russia, but very few facts.

This sort of rancid propaganda and lazy journalism serves no purpose but to feed the fever of Russian hysteria, and foster a Dr. Strangelovian paranoia over fear of Putin contaminating our precious bodily fluids, namely our “sacred” elections.

When powerful institutions that shape our culture, like Hollywood and the media, set out to incite hatred against Russia and its people, it can only end badly. The spate of shamelessly one-sided news reporting and the villainous portrayals of Russians in entertainment have ignited an anti-Russian frenzy and panic that borders on delirium. The dehumanization of Russians is now at a fever pitch and will grow into madness, and from that madness will come war.

The Hollywood Reporter fantasy of Putin hacking movie studios is but a symptom of a wider disease that will inevitability lead to catastrophe. Cue Slim Pickens and his nuclear bronco ride to our oblivion. 

This article was previously published on Sunday, July 23, 2017 at RT.

©2017