Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The European Union and a number of its member states’ governments are continuing in their quest to control media even more. The most recent move from the UK – to give an on screen seal of approval from the state in the form of a ‘Kitemark’ – was actually rejected by the House of Lords recently. This institution, made up of octogenarian buffoons – who mostly employ assistants to deal with their email boxes, such is the condition of their digital awareness – produced a report recently which they themselves ultimately rejected. The idea floated was that there would be some sort of regulator who would approve broadcast content with an on screen icon allowing viewers to see that the state had given it the thumbs up for being objective, unbiased and accurate. At this point you might have fallen off your seat laughing at this notion, given that practically all of the UK’s entire fourth estate – large players as well as individual journos – are the most bigoted, biased and, at best, ill-informed group of media folk you are ever likely to meet in your lifetime, given what he have seen in Ukraine and Gaza.

But the joke gets funnier. While we see over the last two years how out of touch the state is with how it is perceived, let alone its decisions to support the IDF in Gaza murder children and women or how it blindly supports Ukraine in its war against Russia, this idea that the humble citizens of the UK would place their trust in the government to direct them on the validity of media’s offerings is beyond parody. How did the House of Lords even get to have a hand in all of this is remarkable in itself, but the idea of the Kitemark gives you an idea of the direction of where a further media crackdown is heading. Perhaps the old buffers, before their afternoon nap, were onto something when they rejected it, thinking that maybe it would open up a Pandora’s box and backfire on those who created it.

Take the EU for example. What no British MEP, let alone Nigel Farage, who became an multimillionaire on the back of the Brussels beast he pretends to loath, is that this organization itself already spends hundreds of millions of its own taxpayers’ money on funding the biggest fake news operation for television ever known. Virtually all TV reporting which comes from Brussels is down with the production costs paid for by the EU, via is impressive state of the art studios and production teams all on hand to support the hapless Brussels correspondent. If this grotesque subsidy were to be taken away, there would be almost no reporting on the EU at all, which would of course be a fine thing as what the so-called journalists are doing to show their gratitude to the brown envelope of course is very complimentary to the project.

But back to the Kitemark. If we had such on screen logos to ‘direct’ viewers, how long would it be before the new eurosceptics in the bloc – Hungary, under the leadership of Viktor Orban – would insists that a new on screen logo should be seen by every report which comes from Brussels whose team have benefited from their entire report being paid for by the EU?

If even the most supportive of EU voters were to see such a symbol they might ask themselves a perfectly reasonable question: how objective can these reports actually be?

The House of Lords rejecting the on-screen Kitemark idea are thinking ahead of the game. They are assuming that most people will switch off altogether watching those reports and move entirely to social media for their information. In reality, this has already happened on a large scale as any journalist will tell you if you want to know what’s really going on in Gaza or in Kursk, it’s going to be social media where you will go.

The problem is the UK media model, once a respected beacon of its time which stood as an example to the rest of the world, is now entirely corrupted. It is rotten to the core and only serves one real purpose which is to keep the narrative from firstly, the U.S. and secondly the British government alive. Perhaps even funnier is the role of Sky News which has shown particularly on Gaza that it is the champion of fake news with its interpretation of the events entirely projected through the prism of the Zionists behind the genocide and their own depraved false narratives cooked up for western media, rather than for anything which comes close to raw, objective reporting of the events.

Several million people had a synchronized bladder failure across the world recently when Mark Austin, bless ‘im, told Professor Mohamed Morandi (an unofficial spokesman of Iran’s government) live on TV that the Iranian missile attack practically had no impact whatsoever on any of its targets in Israel. Literally millions of people pissed themselves laughing at this shameful overload of Israel’s bullshit fed to Sky News and dutifully replicated by the grey-haired numpties who perhaps once, back in the day, were actually journalists. The same excremental brown load of false reporting was also recently seen when a Sky correspondent’s report from Amsterdam was taken both off the air and removed from the twitter account of Sky after it painted a rather ghoulish picture of Israeli thugs on the rampage there.

Sky news bosses seem to be living in an irony free zone when they harp on about the network’s impartiality when, all along, they employ a news editor who proudly displays her zionistic credentials on Twitter. Its American Chairman who recently penned a piece for the Telegraph on the House of Lords decision, couldn’t help himself but to exploit the opportunity to keep the illusion alive that his network was independent and credible – when even the Lords themselves told him that he and Sky news were “part of the establishment”. If he can’t even see a problem with the insidious bias his own staff are construing in their own reporting, one would have to wonder if Sky is actually on the Zionist payroll, like so many of the MPs in Starmer’s cabinet. Who funds it? Who is really behind Comcast its U.S. owner? And who really is David Rhodes?