I did a quick scan of the news this morning, not much change. While almost every publication/site is practicing spreading their pixie dust deceptions, some really blatant examples come to the fore. Here are a choice few:
If you didn’t know better, you would have thought that Trump pardoned Snowden; that simply isn’t so. When you get into the article the author ‘supposes’ that republicans would disagree about a pardon.
Again, if you weren’t paying attention you’d of thought that the military is on alert. Not so. Then there is this gem that would have you think that the National Guard has been called out. ‘The biggest mobilization since WW2’!
I’m happy to report that almost every single guardsmen in the country is at home with their family.
Finally, here is a cute example of the press forcing the racial narrative by implying that this good doctor was denied care as a Kung Flu patient. Wrong again, she was denied narcotics some time ago, before she ever contract the virus, when the physician that was treating her was concerned about administering addictive drugs.
Why do I have the distinct feeling that this deception is going to grow worse with the incoming administration?
These headlines are what I refer to as a ‘True-ism’.
Not to be confused with a Truism:
truism (plural truisms)
A self-evident or obvious truth.
A banality or cliché.
A True-ism, is a statement who’s precise words are ‘factually accurate’ but are presented in such a way as to convey a completely different message. True-isms are utilized when one want to lie to you, but protect themselves from any kind of liability for said lies by being able to point to the factually accurate statement, blaming the accuser for ‘misinterpreting’ what they said.
Legacy media is rife with True-isms, as are most of our politicians. Coumo presents a CLASSIC example in a radio interview from October:
https://www.fingerlakesdailynews.com/2020/09/30/642307/
(relevant part starts at 5:45-ish on the bottom audio track)
True-ism #1: He makes the ‘factually accurate’ statement that the order prohibited ‘discrimination’ against admitting covid patients, but prior to that claimed that didn’t mean they were ‘forced’ to admit them.
(actual copy of the nursing home order https://tinyurl.com/yyqvw4fr )
If you aren’t ALLOWED to say no, then you are by default REQUIRED (forced) to say YES.
True-ism#2: ‘…it just never happened…where we NEEDED to say to a nursing home we NEED you to take this person even though they are COVID positive…” (emphasis mine)
Of course he can’t help but issue a flat out LIE as well (@6:40) : “…but you’d have to be able to take care of them without infecting other people, and if you can’t do that then you can’t accept them…”
Show me where it says that in the order!