One thing I remember learning from childhood was, that ones own experiences in life, was the only sure-fire way to be absolutely certain of the true facts concerning those events.
After all, if you were to witness an event first-hand, or are/were an integral part or the only participant in said event, you may also be one of very few people who actually know what really happened, as opposed to somebody who was not actually there, and has to rely on whatever information that may or may not, be made available afterwards.
In this instance I am referring to a recent experience I had, and one in which I played a central role, and was reported in a number of the mainstream media outlets here in north Wales, and was also carried by the online media outlet, Breitbart London the following day.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that, there was a reporter in attendance, so I fully expected some coverage, but what was actually published was not only innacurate, it was almost unrecognisable from the event in which I played a central role.
It was so innacurate in fact, both myself and a number of people contacted the journalist, who’s article Breitbart had used as their only source, who upon being asked about her role in writing something that amounted to: “Unsourced Nonsense which she should not allow her name to be attached to” – admitted: “She was not there on either day, had not checked it’s veracity, and had simply published what had been sent to her via a regular freelancer”.
I will not go into the details of the published article here, as I have since been in contact with Breitbart London, and upon request, have supplied them with documentary evidence of what actually transpired, and which directly contradicts the details contained in the article they published.
Up until a few weeks ago, I did have some faith in Breitbart’s reporting of current events, as they did not seem as ‘nailed-down’ or as averse to accurate coverage of the news as the mass media clearly are, and although they are a relatively ‘new’ media source, they did on the surface, appear to be a more reliable media source.
“Breitbart News Network (known simply as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a conservative news and opinion website and radio program. Breitbart.com was founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) and identifies itself as being on the political right” – Wikipedia.
Their recent coverage of the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe for example, is the polar opposite of anything you will read in the mainstream or see on the television; so you would be forgiven for thinking that Breitbart, like any number of other ‘new’ online media outlets, are seemingly outside of what most people associate with the mass/mainstream news agencies – and therefore more trustworthy and reliable in the accuracy of their reporting.
However, from personal experience, and from what I have already outlined above, their publishing practices appear to be no more reliable than any number of national or local rags, and that may be the reason why increasing numbers of people no longer have any faith in them – and the decrease in sales of printed media would certainly support that.
A link posted to the Outlaw this evening, by one of it’s regular readers and commentators (Thanks Old Git), has shed a little light on some of these ‘New Media’ outlets, and Breitbart in particular, in an article titled:
‘More Manipulative Media Exposed – Website Ownership Driving Ideological Content….’
The article goes on to explain:
“For many of us, one of the biggest revelations is how the content of ‘New Media’ (information, news and discussion websites) is actually owned by entities who set them up for specific propaganda purposes.
It really is jaw-dropping when you dig into it.
Almost all of the most well-known ‘new media’ entities are owned by Wall Street individuals or Wall Street corporate groups for very specific advocacy purposes. None of their intentions are good. The ‘new media’ are now just as compromised as mainstream media.
Billionaire Robert Mercer purchasing Breitbart.Com is perhaps one of the more well known ideological political purchases.
There are some instances where the ownership and intent is transparent, such as the Salem Media Group. However, for most of the outlets, the design money is quietly hidden below the surface and paying off the fronts to deliver specific advocacy content.”