It’s easy to be a news anchor these days. Invite people on the show and then yell at them until the interview slot runs out. That’s the perfect way to fuel critical debate.
On the morning of Tuesday, June 1st 2021, I had the misfortune to be in the same room as a television. Good Morning Britain was on, being hosted by Adil Ray and Ranvir Singh. Outside of corporate American television, I don’t think I’ve seen such a one-sided, childish display of something masquerading as “news”.
Firstly, there was a debate – and I use that term loosely – around the notion that it’s time to ditch your friends if they haven’t had the COVID jab. Seriously, this is the message that our unbiased mainstream media is now portraying: that those with natural immunity and those that choose not to have the “voluntary” shots are somehow to be shunned by society and thus pressured into having it by threats of reduced civil liberties, and now friends, for the greater good.
Join ussssss… jooiiin usssss.
I still fail to see how someone who has had COVID-19, or otherwise has immunity, can benefit from a manufactured injection that purportedly emulates some of the virus’ payload. Neither having the shot, nor having natural immunity, prevent a person from contracting the virus in any of its forms or variants, so why the urgency? Why the pressure?
We’re told it lessens the severity if you do catch it. So, how much less severe does that make it for the estimated third of the world (or higher) who’ve already contracted coronavirus and didn’t even notice? Those that went about their daily lives as super-spreaders, like motorway gritters spewing out germs, giving them to… people who have… already had the jab to…. reduce the severity of falling ill. Erm. I’m confused.
I’m still waiting for someone – scientist, politician, globalist, naysayer, central bank, anyone – to give me a credible answer why it’s necessary to prick the entire world, from a medical standpoint, without even considering those that aren’t remotely affected by the virus.
That aside, Ray’s interview technique is marvellous and should be made into a seminar at journalism school:
Step 1: Ask a loaded question of a guest that supports your worldview.
Step 2: A few seconds into the response, rudely interrupt and say the guest is wrong.
Step 3: Don’t wait for any further information in order to respond, just continue to raise your voice, talking over the other person.
Step 4: Patronise the other party by repeatedly using inflammatory language such as admit that your government, [person’s name], made a mistake and when a reply is attempted, start shouting again.
Step 5: Repeat until, “We’ve run out of time, thank you for talking with us today,” and move onto a segment where you fawn over Sinead O’Connor in a BLM top, and pretend to have read her book that the producers have been paid to promote on the show.
It’s utterly laughable.
Firstly, one of the guests, Dominique Samuels, had some very valid points about why anyone would wish to demonize their friends over the jab. She was arguing that it was an individual’s choice, not the state’s, whether to line up and take the shot. Apparently, that wasn’t the right answer for Ray, who spent the entire segment barely letting her speak, and every time she did say something he shouted over her like some opinionated Bill O’Reilly wannabe.
After a few minutes she lost her rag with his petulant behaviour and called his stance “psychotic”, which was kind of funny, if a little foolhardy because it made him rant even more and, predictably, that was the only clip the mainstream media picked up to repeat, since it was the only soundbite from the entire broadcast that made her look bad.
The Adil Ray show
When they moved on, I thought that was the end of it. But no. They got some Tory lackey, Paul Scully, on to answer questions on why YOUR GOVERNMENT deliberately put the nation at harm by continuing trade with India when Bangladesh and Pakistan had been treated differently while the “Indian variant” of corona virus ravaged the shores. Ray conveniently sidestepped the inconsistency that if the “vaccine” that’s been administered already does its job, this latest crisis third wave will be as big a damp squid as the Y2K bug.
Ray was like a puppy tearing into a chew; attempting, presumably, to imitate that Piers Morgan twat, or Jeremy Paxman of old. Scully on the other end of the video call sat there listening to him ranting his questions, opened his mouth to answer, got maybe eight or ten words out and Adil shouted over him, getting more and more flustered, ad nauseum until they ‘ran out of time’. It was frankly embarrassing.
Apparently Adil pulled a similar stunt a week or so earlier asking for someone in government to admit to mistakes, so he clearly has a beef he wants to air in public.
I’m not quite sure what the point of the debate was, besides Mr Ray asserting his stance at being the biggest Labour supporter in the room and reiterating that everything in the media about the virus is gospel. He might as well have just muted the microphones of the others.
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s healthy. But interrupting them over and over, and yelling, What have you done about it? Admit your government made a mistake. Admit it! is hardly journalism at its finest.
Throughout the “interviews”, co-anchor Singh just sat there interjecting the equivalent of those useless hangers-on in the background of mumble rap videos who nod and go, yeah, whaddup while the main guy attempts to master English.
Not sure if she was bemused by his outburst or was just letting him get on with it, but either way she might as well have gone home.
Why is debate one-sided during COVID times?
The mainstream media have barely covered the few hundred thousand who marched in London at the weekend – and the papers that did, focused on a small part of it with almost identical headlines about ‘hundreds’ trying to get into a shopping centre. Why downplay this? Why are hundreds of thousands of people asking questions not news? Is it because it doesn’t fit the desire to push the jab into everyone? Maybe any sniff of dissent might make people consider motives for mass vaccinations, and we can’t have that.
Meanwhile, a few days before, Dr Peter McCullough joined the ranks of people asking questions about the scale of this vaccination programme. While American-centric, it raises valid points on why discussions are not taking place over safety concerns and the fact certain types of people shouldn’t be taking it (children, pregnant women, etc). Maybe the people dying after being injected should never have been offered it due to contraindications, and only agreed because they were coerced through fear of future social restrictions?
Why does everyone – naturally immune or not – need to have a jab in the arm? What’s going on with this voracious need to catalogue every citizen of the planet in the wake of something that’s treatable and survivable by the majority? Why have other vaccination programmes been paused or stopped after a handful of deaths in relation to it, when this one hasn’t? Oh, it’s those pesky underlying health conditions they had. They’d probably have died anyway. And we did say it was experimental on the label, didn’t we?
Facebook and Twitter are removing content that might oppose the mainstream narrative, citing unverifiable information:
A Facebook spokesperson says, “We’re taking down groups that repeatedly share this content, removing related groups from the recommendations we show people, and directing people who search for Covid to credible information from leading health organisations.”
Define a credible source? The pro-Labour BBC or the Guardian or The Mirror? The pro-Conservative Times or Daily Mail or The Sun? The pro-vaccine WHO? The pro-cyber-control World Economic Forum? Who chooses what’s credible or not? Why can we not be presented with both sides to an argument and make up our own minds? Are we not trustworthy? Or is there something else at play?
The forced alternative: with us or without us
Predictably, the media are using divisive techniques to lump people into two groups: if you go along with it, great. If you don’t, you’re an anti-vaxxer. That’s nowhere near the truth and they’re not polar viewpoints. Inoculation has its place when used responsibly, not indiscriminately. It’s a similar technique they use with climate change or holocaust denial – it’s labelled a binary viewpoint when the reality is that it’s far more nuanced.
I’m not the world’s greatest conspiracy nut because a lot of the tinfoil brigade drag disrepute along for the ride. But when this alarming pattern of behaviour is rolling out unchecked without much apparent thought, and no logic behind the media mouthpiece, suspicion begins to rise. Who have vested interests in furthering this on the entire world population? Who benefits? In which direction does the money and power shift in the aftermath?
While I was once willing to give the benefit of the doubt and was glad that people I know and love have been injected due to the reported health risks from COVID that could exacerbate their underlying conditions, this vaccination drive now increasingly seems to be something else entirely.
With barely anything approaching clinical sign-off, just big pharma’s assurance that what they’re profiting from is safe, and the insane pressure from the media and government to have the jab, I’m starting to wonder what we’re going to discover, long-term. Not just with health implications, but socially and ethically. What awaits us in the next few months/years/decades now this treatment has been administered to millions of guinea pigs in exchange for the promise of future freedom once the majority are registered in databases for sale to any bidder?
I’ve been directed to a study conducted in a Brazilian town which perfectly demonstrates my point. They have approached the situation rationally, choosing who to vaccinate based on need and leaving other people alone who already have some form of immunity.
Even though only half the town were vaccinated – and only those that were over eighteen and not pregnant or with underlying health concerns – combining that with those people who already had some form of immunity, took the immunity ratio to over 75%; enough to lower the transmission rate. It stands to reason. It’s common sense. It’s to be applauded.
At no point did they foist the vaccine on everybody. At no point did they threaten people with no access to public services or restrictions on travel. At no point did they tell people to shun friends who didn’t have the shot. They approached it rationally and the results came out favourably.
That’s all I ask we do in the rest of the world. Coercing people into this by saying they’ll need a vaccination passport to visit the doctor or to go abroad or go to the shops, and they should uninvite their guests to a dinner party because they haven’t had the shot is madness.