Match Exact Phrase    

Whatfinger: Frontpage For Conservative News Founded By Veterans

"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"

May 6, 2019

Prepare For The Ultimate Battle In The  'Virtual' Civil War That Is In Progress Between Independent Media And The Dying Mainstream

By Susan Duclos - All News PipeLine

After the Soros-funded Poynter Institute humiliatingly had to delete it's list of "unreliable" and "fake" news websites they targeted for blacklisting by advertisers, because they found their own list was in fact unreliable and fake news, big tech companies and the media rushed in to carry out the job they so spectacularly failed at. Big tech started mass banning conservatives and others, not for violating policies, but because people like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey considers thought that doesn't fit their own ideology to be "dangerous."



In March 2017, the Columbia Journalism Review put out a study, biased of course in how they call Independent Media "partisan," or "right-wing," while ignoring the complete liberal bias of the mainstream media, simply labeling it "traditional,"  but they did manage to basically out themselves and the liberal media complex in much of what they admitted.

They admitted that Independent Media forced the liberal media to cover stories and issues that they wouldn't have focused on if Independent Media didn't exist. They refer to Independent Media as "Breitbart-led right-wing" media, claiming that we, independent media collectively "altered broader media agenda."

That was their title believe it or not. In an attempt to justify how "traditional" aka liberal media, "looked for external disruption to explain the unanticipated victory," of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, they admitted that the liberal media complex had an agenda, which we now know was to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016.

First off before unpacking some of the CJR assertions, let us point out that a Trump victory was not unanticipated by anyone other than the MSM that believed their own hype and their own skewed polling, by Democrat politicians that followed them, and by liberals that also followed them and excluded any outlets that did not agree with them.

In contrast to what the CJR article asserts, online Trump supporters did not enclose themselves into an echo chamber bubble, but Hillary Clinton supporters did, as proven by their own graph in the article comparing the websites that Trump supporters retweeted most often to the ones that Clinton supporters retweeted most often.

(If you appreciate stories like this, please consider donating to ANP to help keep us in this battle for the future of America.)


Via CJR:

We have a less exotic, but perhaps more disconcerting explanation: Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.

First Point: How was the CJR writers not able to see their own image above disproved their main assertion of who lived in the bubble and who didn't. As shown above Trump supporters did share liberal websites like New York Times, CNN and Washington Post, along with independent conservative leaning websites, while Clinton supporters do not have one right-leaning site on their list. That remains the number one reason so many liberals were blindsided in November 2016, they believe their "sources."

Second Point: With the documented consistent 90+ negative coverage against Donald Trump by the liberal mainstream media, how is it that CJR calls pro-Trump media "hyper-partisan," yet the MSM simply "traditional?"

While readers can read the entire lengthy attempt by CJR to explain how the Independent Media went to war with "traditional" media and won the  battle in 2016, for themselves, I would like to address just one more portion before moving along.

Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it.........

The attacks on the "integrity and professionalism of opposing media," in light of the last two years of coverage by the liberal mainstream media that has been proven to have been false, inaccurate, resulting in multiple examples of corrections, editor's notes, complete story and headline changes, resignations from high profile writers from CNN, and the suspension of an ABC News host for spreading fake news that tanked the stock market, were and are well deserved.

In fact that whole portion has been proven to apply more to the liberal mainstream media than to Independent Media as a whole, as they have spent the last three years pushing the Russia collusion hoax, which has now been shown to be completely false.

Other examples include the disastrous coverage of the Covington Catholic school students because the MSM was triggered by a MAGA hat, and the pouncing on the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax, just to name two of the many, many examples.

Who, as a whole, has been pushing "disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading?"

Yes, that is right, it was CNN, NYT, WAPO and other liberal media outlets.

Maybe CJR should conduct a study on how the mainstream media collectively lost their minds and destroyed their own credibility.

They can write a million words to claim that it is Independent Media fomenting distrust against the mainstream media, along with President Trump, but history shows that the MSM has eroded their own credibility, as mistrust in the media has dwindled since the late 1970s.



Without Independent Media the "traditional" liberal media would have been able to continue slandering the Covington Catholic high students as racists that "surrounded" and "mocked," and "taunted" an elderly Indian "Vietnam" veteran, because it was Independent Media that highlighted and hammered the entire video that showed the Indian approached the students, not the other way around. Independent Media forced the MSM to admit they had misrepresented a selectively edited clip, to which the entire video showed the students were the ones being attacked.

It was the Independent Media that called out Jussie Smollett for faking a hate crime against himself, the media didn't catch up to the truth until the police outed Smollett.

The results of the MSM continuously lying to the public can be seen in their own ratings. Look at CNN, there are now more prostitutes in U.S. than CNN viewers. See the list of things more popular than CNN over at NewsBusters.

After the special counsel Robert Mueller's report was released, showing "no collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia, CNN and MSNBC, both outlets that pushed the 'collusion delusion' for three straight years, saw their ratings crater after viewers realized they had been lied to.

While big tech and social media have done their best to destroy traffic to IM sites, and bankrupt them, which IM readers countered and kept many in business to fight on by generously donating, Independent Media is now much less dependent on liberally run social media traffic, as alternatives have popped up.



In 2016 the mainstream media lost the first battle in the information war, and throughout the last three years, the MSM has been forced to retract, apologize, and delete entire articles due to their push of disinformation, which has created entirely new audiences for IM websites, people "red-pilled after discovering how badly they have been lied to on a daily basis.

Heading towards the 2020 election, polling shows the general public sees the economic good news, no matter how badly the MSM tried to downplay it. This goes to show that IM is still getting through to Americans, despite social media and their censorship, the downranking by Google, the demonetizing by YouTube and every other dirty trick they have tried, including the latest Poynter failure to target Independent Media for blacklisting by advertisers.

To me, that means we are winning the information battle. Any time a person indicates they are new to alternative media, and have just "awakened," is yet another piece of evidence to show the MSM has squandered what public trust they had.

Independent Media must continue to offer linked, sourced and documented truths, provide embedded documentation when possible. Most importantly we must call out every lie, every misleading headline, every "fake news" story the liberal media complex pumps out.

With the 2020 presidential election approaching, prepare for the ultimate battle in the 'virtual' civil war between Independent Media and the dying mainstream.

We offer our heartfelt thanks to our readers for making sure we still here to continue to fight in this battle for truth.

 ONGOING FUNDRAISER: Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.

So ANP is accepting reader donations.


One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:



Donate monthly from $1 up by becoming an ANP Patron.


Donate Via Snail Mail

Checks or money orders made payable to Stefan Stanford or Susan Duclos can be sent to:

P.O. Box 575
McHenry, MD. 21541


WordPress Website design by Innovative Solutions Group - Helena, MT
comments powered by Disqus

Web Design by Innovative Solutions Group