Tuesday, April 11, 2017 by JD Heyes
In a normal world, in normal political times, this kind of buffoonery would be easily discernible: Google, one of the world’s largest media companies, is using other media entities as “fact-checkers” who have themselves been repeatedly found to be altering facts in order to push a far-Left Marxist agenda.
But alas, we don’t live in normal political times. Partisanship between Right and Left is the highest it’s ever been in the modern era. Republicans and Democrats occupy ground on either side of a widening ideological chasm that many political scientists and analysts believe has grown too big to bridge.
One major reason for the existence of the divide and its yawning gap is the so-called “mainstream media,” which was always Left-leaning but which has exposed itself since the election of Donald J. Trump as nothing more than a propaganda instrument for the Marxist Democratic Party. (RELATED: Washington Post Caught In Blatant Fake News LIE, Forced To Change Article)
The mainstream’s narrative following Trump’s historic win was that he was assisted, in large part not by Hillary Clinton’s uninspiring, criminally investigated campaign, but by a host of “fake news” that wildly distorted her views and records while promoting Trump and downplaying his flaws.
Google and other social media sites, such as Facebook, then came under fire from other media for not filtering out the allegedly false news surrounding Trump and Clinton.
What to do?
The “solution” was to merge with other media to “fact-check” news stories running on their massive news feeds. But the goal has never been to fact-check the mainstream outlets; no. The only ones “fact-checked” are going to be the pesky alternative media sources who scored bombshell after bombshell during the campaign, as the only news sites willing to scrutinize Clinton properly.
Google – along with the other social media behemoth, Facebook – is clearly in the camp of the Marxists, so any notion that the company plans to be fair and accurate when it comes to telling readers what is and is not valid news should be dispensed with. We can tell there is no effort to be fair because of who the company has chosen to “fact-check” the news: Outlets themselves who have demonstrated a propensity to publish fake news.
Who are the vaunted checkers, the ones charged with sussing out the truth and stating it without bias? Salon. Buzzfeed. Snopes. The Washington Post. Politifact.
Seriously. Couldn’t they find more liberal “news” sites?
Google calls them “authoritative sources.” Snopes? Buzzfeed? And The Washington Post of today is nothing like it was 40 years ago. Jeff Bezos has taken the paper far left, and it’s day-to-day content skews hardcore liberal.
Take as an example, some information that was “fact-checked” by Snopes. If you look up the phrase, “Hillary Clinton sold uranium to Russia” on Google, the results will return a small icon at the bottom that says, “Fact-check by Snopes.com: False.” (RELATED: Check out the truth about Snopes.com at Truthwiki.org)
False? As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was one of several government officials who oversaw and approved the sale of one-fifth of U.S. strategic uranium reserves to a state-owned Russian company (all while millions in donations flowed to the Clinton Foundation). How true is it? From The New York Times:
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
…[T]he ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One. [Emphasis added].
Maybe Clinton didn’t sell the uranium herself, but she certainly had a hand in approving the sale. Not false.
Don’t be duped by these media fakes. GoodGopher.com is a non-corporate-owned search engine designed to protect your privacy and bring you unfiltered news from quality alternative sources, while Censored.news is a collection of the most reliable news and information sites on the Web today, updated hourly.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.