Fact Checkers claim they check facts for you, so you don’t have to. The dictionary definition of a fact is:
Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
The legal definition of a fact is:
An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error.
Like reality and truth, a fact is absolute. It never changes, it is immutable and eternal. Our understanding of the facts may differ because we only have the available evidence to inform our knowledge of the facts. The availability of evidence is vital if we are to have any hope of knowing the facts. Our access to evidence doesn’t change the facts, it merely limits or expands our knowledge of them.
The definition of knowledge is:
[Noun] [. . .] awareness, understanding, or information that has been obtained by experience or study, and that is either in a person’s mind or possessed by people generally.
Access to information is the key component for developing knowledge of the facts. Knowledge doesn’t mean we always get the facts right, but we have no chance if information is limited or deliberately restricted.
Some facts are relatively easy to understand. The boiling point of water is a fact we can physically measure with consistent results. Others are more difficult to know and therefore less certain from our perspective. For example, history comprises of nothing other than facts but for us to know what they are we need to sift through the evidence, some reliable some not, to build our knowledge of the historical facts.
The same is true with current affairs and public issues. The facts are fixed but our knowledge of them is determined by our access to information. Information is subject to many competing forces. Censorship, propaganda, commercial interest, fabrication, omission and basic human error all combine to distort, obfuscate or over emphasise information (evidence). This makes knowing the facts about contemporary public issues just as tricky as knowing the historical facts, often more so.
Fortunately, we can all employ critical thinking skills, cross reference the evidence from various sources and decide the facts for ourselves. Thanks to the current iteration of the internet, the logical pursuit of information, forming our own balanced judgments of the facts, has never been more accessible for ordinary folk. The process called thinking is the service the fact checkers are selling.
Fact checkers claim their knowledge of the information (evidence), which identifies fact, is both complete and indisputable. They are certain about what happened, thoroughly understand all the relevant circumstances, have a complete grasp of reality, knowledge of all the relevant information and are accurately able to determine what is fact.
In short, they say they possess the truth. If you disagree with them, you don’t know the truth and are therefore wrong, regardless of the evidence you cite.
If you rely upon the fact checkers for your facts you must accept this: you no longer need to think critically or examine the evidence yourself.
The fact checkers will do the hard work for you. They will tell you what the information is, give you your knowledge and cement the facts in your mind. All you need do is “Google it.”
What Do Fact Checkers Do?
The State has decided people are incapable of critical thinking and can’t tell the difference between facts and disinformation. Further, they propose legislation that will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. It is in this political environment that fact checkers have been commissioned to discern the facts and present the truth to the confused public.
In 2014 there were just 44 Fact checkers worldwide. As of June 2019 there were 188. While the whole of Africa, Asia, Australasia and South America have 67 fact checkers between them, the much smaller geographical and less populated regions of Europe and North America have 121. So there must be more incorrect information in the U.S. and Europe than anywhere else in the world.
Fact Checking is a rapidly changing startup industry. In 2014 nearly 90% of Fact Checkers were directly funded by mainstream media corporations. Today that figure has dropped to just 56% with many more claiming they are independent. We are going to look at how independent they are.
Some independent fact checkers, such as the UK’s Full Fact, have been given charity status. The UK Charity commission accepted Full Fact’s charitable purpose:
To provide free tools, advice, and information so that anyone can check the claims we hear about public issues.
Fact Checkers make money by fact checking for multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), wealthy charitable foundations and the mainstream media. Global corporations, notably the tech giants, are under considerable political pressure to employ fact checkers and devise ways of stopping the spread of so called disinformation. Disinformation being anything that questions official narratives.
Recently Facebook announced that its subsidiary Instagram was working with fact checkers to deploy a rating system. They will apply a rating “label” to all information as either true, partly false or false. Information rated as partly false or false will then be removed from search results and associated hashtags denied. Once the label is activated Facebook and Instagram bots seek out all “matching” content and label it accordingly. Thus effectively removing the offending information from the public domain.
The public will then be redirected to the correct information:
[. . .] If something is rated false or partly false on Facebook, starting today we’ll automatically label identical content if it is posted on Instagram (and vice versa). The label will link out to the rating from the fact-checker and provide links to articles from credible sources that debunk the claim(s) made in the post.
“Credible sources”, as far as most International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) fact checkers are concerned, often means the mainstream media (MSM) who they cite while seemingly oblivious to the MSM’s never ending stream of fake news output.
Independent Fact Checkers?
For fact checkers to have any credibility they need to be scrupulously unbiased, thoroughly independent and as objective as possible. Any evidence that they are not means they are not fact checkers at all but rather political organizations that offer an opinion. If they are paid by people or groups with clear agendas then they have no credibility and everything they say needs to be treated with caution. We would still need to exercise due diligence and examine the evidence ourselves to establish if the fact checkers opinions are indeed facts.
When the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office established the Open Information Partnership (the Expose Network) they suggested their network of actors use approved fact checking services, such as Full Fact in the UK, who are members of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Poynter’s major funders include the Charles Koch Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Omidyar Network (Luminate), Google and the Open Society Foundation.
Therefore it is a fact that the IFCN, the “official” trade organisation for “approved” fact checkers, is funded by, among others, the multinational corporation Koch Industries, the C.I.A (NED), globalist venture capitalists (Omidyar), aggressive internet monopolists (Google) and globalist currency speculator & social change agent George Soros (Open Society). Nearly all of the fact checking signatories to the IFCN code have similar agenda driven backers. Members include Politifact, Full Fact, StopFake and AP Fact Check, to name but a few.
Full Fact, for example, list their corporate members to include the City of London Corporation (the UK financial sector and a global center for international finance), the global corporate law firm King & Wood Malleson, St Jame’s Place Wealth Management (a huge global capital investment firm), and the defence contractor Rolls Royce. Their funding partners include Google, The Omidyar Network and the Open Society foundation. They even wrote a policy proposal paper called “Tackling Misinformation In an Open Society.”
Full Fact’s trustees include former BBC Director of News and Current Affairs James Harding. James was responsible for one of the most egregious pieces of fake news war propaganda in modern history when he oversaw production of the BBC’s fake documentary Saving Syria’s Children.
Chair of Full Fact’s board of trustees is Conservative Party donor Michael Samuel and he is joined by fellow Conservative Lord Inglewood and Labour Peer Baroness Royal. The political establishment is well represented when it comes to making sure we have the right facts.
Another former Full Fact trustee is Lord Sharkey, the Liberal Democrat Peer and former strategic adviser to once UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Clegg joined Facebook in October 2018 to become Facebook Head of Global Affairs. In January 2019 Full Fact became approved third party fact checkers for Facebook and in September 2019 Nick announced that Facebook won’t “fact check” politicians in the same way that it fact checks the general public. Speaking of Facebook’s approach to the political class Clegg said:
From now on we will treat speech from politicians as newsworthy content that should, as a general rule, be seen and heard.
Obviously this carte blanche doesn’t extend to the general public. Presumably because we are all disinformation agents.
Another Full Fact trustee, Tim Gordon, was also an advisor to Nick Clegg. He co founded Best Practice AI which was the first UK AI firm invited to join the World Economic Forum’s Global AI Council (GAIC). The GAIC bring together representatives from tech giants including Microsoft , IBM and Google’s Chinese division with British government ministers, such as former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Jeremy Wright, who attending their council meeting in 2019.
GAIC is one of six WEF global councils focused upon technology and the fourth industrial revolution. Their stated purpose is:
[. . .] to provide policy guidance and address governance gaps.
So as Full Fact rolls out automated AI fact checking, fully funded by regular WEF attendees Pierre Omidyar and George Soros, with the full support of GAIC members Google, it is good to know these projects are rooted firmly in Full Fact’s independence. As they only report the facts they state on their website:
Full Fact fights bad information. We’re a team of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm it does.
“Bad information,” as far as the fact checkers are concerned, appears to be information that questions government policy agendas and harms globalist interests. These interests are defined for government by global institutions like the World Economic forum, where government ministers attend to get their orders. Independent, in Full Fact speak, apparently means “serving the interests of global corporations and oligarchs.”
The extensive political, intelligence, non governmental and globalist network steering Full Fact is by no means unique to them. A cursory glance at the supporters of the other fact checking signatories to the IFCN reveal a similar web of globalist and corporate interests in practically every case.
The IFCN, and its members, are paid by people with overt political, financial and social agendas. The alleged “independence” is of nearly all so-called fact checkers is non existent. The fact checkers claims of “independence” are overwhelmingly disinformation. It would be wise, therefore, to treat their similar claims of objectivity accordingly. Given their obvious propensity to deceive, their stated “facts” should be treated with caution.
Not Fact Checking
If fact checkers check facts then you would at least expect them to report the evidence accurately. However, all too often, they don’t. For example, AP Fact Check are IFCN members who report that World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) collapsed on September 11th 2001 as a result of fires. This “fact” was first reported by AP Fact Check on 13/06/2017 and remains as their statement of fact today (28/02/2020.)
The engineering department of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) undertook a 4 year long study into the collapse of WTC7. The UAF report cites the evidence it is based upon. It categorically states:
[. . .] fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.
[Updated September 2023] The UAF study represents the most thorough, up to date, peer reviewed scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC7. The NIST report, the sole source for the fire collapse theory, has never been peer reviewed. Anyone using AP Fact Check to check the facts about the collapse of WTC7 would be wrong if they believed AP Fact Check. AP Fact Check haven’t got their facts straight.
This is a common problem with so called fact checkers. Due to the political nature of their role, all too often they stray into opinion rather than fact. There’s nothing wrong with that except the fact checkers falsely claim their opinions are facts not opinions. What’s worse is that the Internet is being policed and information censored on the basis that the fact checkers opinions are facts.
In January this year the HighWire released a video which contrasted clips of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief scientist for the World Health Organisation (W.H.O). The Video was titled “W.H.O. Chief Scientist Caught Lying To The Public.” Their was no commentary in the Highwire video, viewers were simply presented with the two clips of Dr. Swaminathan. It was left to the viewers discretion to decide if they believed Dr. Swaminathan was, in fact, lying.
In the first clip, from an official W.H.O. vaccine promotional video, Dr. Swaminathan states:
We have vaccine safety systems. Robust vaccine safety systems [. . .]. [The] WHO works closely with countries to make sure that vaccines can do what they do best: prevent disease without risks.
The second clip records Dr. Swaminathan’s address to the U.N. Global Vaccine Safety Summit in 2019. She informs the summit:
[. . .] We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries [. . .] we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine. [. . .] One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of deaths are, but in most cases, there is some obfuscation at that level.
These two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true. If one is, the other is a lie or disinformation. Vaccines cannot both “prevent disease without risks” while “deaths [. . .] have occurred due to a particular vaccine.” The intention to deceive is an evident fact.
Yet Facebook’s automated fact checking labelling system flagged the video as ‘PARTLY FALSE‘ and directed users to two articles from two allegedly credible sources which both presented specious, illogical arguments to discredit the factually accurate HighWire video.
In September 2019 climatologists and environmental experts protested to Facebook after its fact checkers labelled the article “The Great Failure of the Climate Models” as ‘FALSE.’ The article was blocked and users could not share it. The information in the article was censored. The article was based upon the work of scientists and statisticians and was factually accurate. Facebook not only labelled the article FALSE they directed readers to a dubious, poorly evidenced source, calling that “credible.”
Facebook removed the FALSE label shortly after receiving the protest letter, without explanation or apology. They clearly accepted their fact checking wasn’t checking any facts at all, simply censoring factually accurate information. However, in the fast paced modern information environment, the damage was done, and the political objective achieved.
This is not fact checking. This is political opinion masquerading as fact checking, deceiving the public into believing something is factually accurate (or inaccurate) when, in fact, it isn’t.
Poynter and the IFCN also confuse their opinion with fact. In May 2019 Poynter were forced to issue an apology, of sorts, to a number of media organisations after they issued an index of ‘unreliable’ media sources. When some of the listed organisations inquired about the basis for Poynter’s unfounded accusations, requesting Poynter and the IFCN provide some evidence to back up their claims, Poynter quickly removed the suggested “blacklist.”
Poynter’s IFCN make a great deal out of their fact checking principles so it’s a shame they didn’t apply any when they issued their blacklist. Poynter’s managing editor, Barbara Allen, said the purpose of the blacklist was as follows:
[. . .] to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming [. . .]. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology. We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.
This was tantamount to the IFCN admitting they chose who to put on their blacklist based upon their feelings. When we look at who funds the IFCN it’s pretty clear who those feelings lean towards.
When requested to evidence their decision the IFCN, guardians of the fact checking industry, couldn’t provide any. They had no relevant information, had no evidence to back up their opinion and were simply stating something as a fact when it was nothing of the sort.
Just because an organisation claims they are a fact checker it doesn’t mean they check facts. They are essentially establishment stooges whose role it is to police information and make sure the wider public doesn’t have access to any evidence that challenges official narratives and policy decisions. These fallible groups of people, no better informed than anyone else, are being used by the internet giants, at the behest of government, to censor what we can say online.
Let’s ignore the establishment’s fact checkers and hang on to our critical thinking skills for a while. It looks like we are going to need them more than ever.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Good article. Opinions are being pushed at us as facts by powerful people.
For instance Fullfact labelled an error in a Guardian article as a “typo”, with no evidence. This was a powerful bit of information which circulated on social media for 6 months or so with the wrong figure: the cost per family of Brexit. £1,000 was added to the figure in the most prominent part of the article, more than doubling that cost amount.
To decide it was a “typo” was an opinion not a fact. I did get a response from Fullfact when I queried this.
Of course a common feature of propaganda can be to circulate an exaggerated version of something.
Thanks Dave. Yep, the more you look at the fact checkers so called facts the more you realise they are simply advancing the globalist agenda of their paymasters. They are no more accurate with their claimed “facts” than anyone else. So for them to be used as the arbiters of truth is both dangerous and absurd.
The toadies of state power have unlimited resources to push their party line. But they’re getting taken for a ride with ‘fact checkers’. If Der Angriff [CNN, NYT et al] won’t do it, these entities won’t add much. And those who don’t buy the bilge, are immune and don’t care.
Another tactic along the censorship lines being imposed by Facebook and Twitter. But, the internet is so pervasive and so essential that none of this is going to achieve more than to just seriously piss dissenters off and stiffen their resistance.
Recently, a friend warned that I should be careful what I wrote on the internet, that CSIS (here in Canada) or some other lettered service would be monitoring me. I recalled what Thomas Cromwell said when he was so warned about the doings of then Chancellor Thomas More. “Why? He already knows what I think”. However long they think their arm is they don’t and never will have the budget to hire and discipline enough humans to read and analyze all that said heretical. They can make an example of Assange but there are millions of us. It’s like herding cats.
So, knock yourselves out fools. Burn up your resources. You’re just pissing us off more. We’ll see you all out.
Well said that man. That’s why personal blogs and alternative social media platforms are so important. As the censorship increases I am determined to speak out more, not less and I couldn’t agree with you more John. This censorship and telling us what their truth is couldn’t be more transparent. For me. like you am millions of others, it merely serves to highlight what they want me to believe not what’s true. It encourages me to look closer at their narratives and seek out the evidence, not just accept whatever it is I am required to take their word for.
Top comment.
Hello Mr. Davis,
I would like to share a fact about Covid-19, Aids & the Flu.
My premise was that there would be likely more real photos of the flu & aids since the scientist have had many years to examine these.
I use Duckduckgo as search engine.
What I discovered was the fact that there are many variations of drawings in which the virus is always represented as a perfect round sphere with evenly spaced and equally long tentacles.
There seemed to be circulating just 3, 4 different photos photo’s and these photo’s were used to be depicting all 3 types of viruses.
They only differed in color (color filter was used) or displayed a zoomed-in version but were all exactly the same photo.
The apparent difference with the drawings were their odd shapes.
The tentacles differed in placement on the virus and also differed in length.
My conclusion is this : there are no reliable photos of viruses.
A few photos were claimed to be taken with a electron or molecule microscope.
In examining the photos I made a remarkable discovery: there appeared to be hidden many faces, demons, fish and a horizontal slice skull of a child with the backside of a motorcycle in front.
Just above and a little to the right of the center of this picture concerning the Corona-virus I counted 4 different faces, 1 smiling person, the same person showing sadness, a person with a huge black eye and a one-eyed minion which originates from a cartoon movie and that’s on 1 spot in the picture. Overal there must be around 30 other drawings you can find.
Yesterday I also found another photo made by an electron microscope which, on closer examination was hiding a numerous different characters.
Photo 1 – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Canine_coronavirus.jpg
Photo 2 – https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6102/6218215422_3bf4f1ee46_b.jpg
Photo 3 – https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview
Photo of Aids – ‘the cookie monster from Sesamestreet’- https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/mar/10/hiv-aids-schools-teaching-news-resources
Photo of the Flu – ‘mr. Potato head from the movie Toy story’ – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold#/media/File:Coronaviruses_004_lores.jpg
Photo of Corona – ‘the monkey or koala bear’- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-flu-actually-kill-people/
I aqm very curious on your findings, so please let me know.
friendly greetings from the Netherlands
Shaman O’Sanity
(humanist, animist, anarchist)
Off course I suggest due diligence for yourself and if you add just a half minute after finding a face you will have at least a half hour of shivers, rolling eyes and I guarantee you will not only be grinning but also laughing out loud (or at least I was) but in my heart I was also weeping a little.
Thanks Shaman. I can’t distinctly see the the features you describe in the photos. However, I do think there is a lack of clarity about the images we have been shown of this virus. I suspect this may be due to lazy journalism as the MSM use stock images for their articles in many cases.
On photo 3 – https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/211316-overview – I just discovered almost at the top and to the right, the famous painting the scream.
On this photo 4 – you can clearly see the face of a grey alien (3 blobs underneath the center) – https://www.flickr.com/photos/microbeworld/6218215422/in/photostream/lightbox/
These artists asked to create (paint or draw) these photo’s most certainly have watched many cartoons because almost all depictions of persons have a cartoon kind of look.
Thank you for any consideration to reply 😉
Thanks Shaman I can see what you are referring too as a “grey alien” but it looks like a cell structure to me. I think we sometimes see things in random shapes that are suggestive of other images, as this clearly is, but that doesn’t mean it is the perceived image, just something that could look like it.
TO BE RIGHT AND TO GET RIGHT IN PUBLIC ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.
I posted the wrong picture in my second comment – the scream can be found in this one – https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/coronavirosis_canina#/media/archivo:canine_coronavirus.jpg – straight up from the centre
No worries.
Thank you very much for replying Mr. Davis, I appreciate it.
I already thought that other people would stop too early and comfort their findings with the great hypnosis that claims humans tend to see faces in all kinds of images, even in clouds.
Perhaps the same reason that created plants, bugs and animals that scare away their natural enemies (f.e. the eyes on a butterfly).
I therefor want to make an effort in creating a catalog of all different (cartoon) characters I am able to find in the very few electron microscope photographs available for the public.
I cannot agree with these 2 or 3 different photos being the only ones ever taken from a virus as old as hiv/aids oer the flu.
A good comparison of this scarcity can be made by all photos of earth made from a significant distance in order to get the whole planet on 1 picture – f.e. by the hubble telescope.
In fact, despite the numerous requests, the hubble telescope never made any pictures of the planet as if such pictures are arbitrary compared to the hubble’s prime mission.
Another comparison would be the complete lack of real Scientific facts that are just as stated in this article :“An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error.”
So if I want to convince anybody I will have to do dip myself in the virtual acid of these images because I’ve seen at least about 20 to 30 different characters in the hiv/aids picture and at least 15 in the corona.
All to get peoples opinion on my claim :”If there are no verified electron microscope photographs of a virus, the virus doesn’t exist.”
Thank you for indulging my 4 comments and I assure you that before the 25th of may I’ll make a generous donation to this exquisite website that is tailored to my personal craving for true facts about serious news-items !
I’m in AWE when it comes to the enormous effort journalists like Eva Bartlett, the off-guardian team, Mr Corbett, Derrick Broze, in-this-together journalist Mr. You 😉 and many others (even the video-editors) put in to present the public with fact-driven-articles on a variety of news worthy subjects.
Seriously, if it weren’t for all of these news-heroes, I would have given up on alternative media long time ago because let’s be real : Alex Jones ? with his I’ll kill you and feed you to my daughter” is perhaps righteously banned from all popular media platforms and in this recording he made about the pending doomsday he clearly went berserk and should be involuntary hospitalized to protect his neighbors (lol).
With an open heart and complete confidence I salut you Mr. Davis
Shaman O’Sanity
(humanist, animist, anarchist)
Thanks Shaman for another thoughtful comment. I look forward to seeing your work on the cartoon characters you’ve identified and, given the need for some deep state players to make their intentions clear, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out and look forward to seeing them. Perhaps picking them out with different colours would help? I am greatful for your kind encouragement and agree with everything said about those other excellent sources. However, while I think Alex Jones is more interested in clickbait than truth, I still don’t think anyone should be censored.
Excellent article. As someone who knows something of the background to our very high exposure guidelines for radio frequency radiation and of the existence of thousands of studies proving the harm that can be done to human health, I am aware of the lies that are pronounced by “fact-checkers” on this subject. I would add, that to “fact-check” this stuff you need to be very highly qualified and specialised to do this properly.
Thanks Gillian. Yes I was amused to take the Politico (or Snopes or whatever – I can’t remember) COVID 19 fact checking quiz which joyfully announced that 5G has been proven to be safe for humans and that there were no known risks with it. Truly amazing “fact checking.”
Fact-checker!s, Hmm. We have some of them in Norway also
Like consultants,they are everywhere.in every language, in every possible form, to calm us down
They are telling us, everything is all right, go back to sleep, nothing here to see,
scheeple
They seem, like they are, hmm, well educated. By whom?
On our beautiful globe
We must not let the dark-side, politicians, and the fascistic, war-mongering, governments
rule over us any longer!
We must free our body, and our mind, from this enslavement
Love is contagious
regards, Helge
Thanks Helge, I agree.
Iain Excellent and timely article – much appreciated!
You are most welcome.
Whenever i see what the ” fact checkers” say, i believe the opposite.
A wise policy.
RE “The fact checkers will do the hard work for you. They will tell you what the information is, give you your knowledge and cement the facts in your mind.”
They are biased mind-controlling tools of the deeply criminal authoritative establishment serving mainly THEIR interests and not those of the public generally, like most other mainstream institutions and groups — see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room” … https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
As such political tools the fact checker club is just another sleazy corrupt and deceitful entity to diminish the power of the public and increase or sustain the power of the criminal pack of ruling psychopaths.
I agree Jesse, as I hope is evident from the article. I assume you recognised that the passage you cited was written in irony.