In the world history of Propaganda, there is no doubt that the media-fueled COVID panic was among one of the most sweeping example ever.
Everyone should comply with the federal government’s narratives or else you’ll be censored, or worst you’ll get imprisoned. Governments directly lied to their citizens (” 15 days to slow down the spread,” e.g.) and made dubious claims based upon bad evidence (” mask up” to end the pandemic).
Not till this moment, as the saying goes, “For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light.”
Recently, during a unique interview on a British channel GBN’s “The Lockdown Inquiry” with host Dan Wootton, Mark Sharman exposed his disturbing understandings into the astoundingly collaborated media insurance coverage of the Covid pandemic.
The former news executive at global network Sky News, and veteran of BBC and ITV, has actually come out to expose what news audiences have previously only been able to speculate: Some news networks must have been ordered to adhere to the government’s pandemic narrative directives or run the risk of major reprisals (such as losing broadcasting licenses as well as other ).
Wootton started by saying:
“I know this is quite a big deal for you to come out from behind the camera where you’ve been an executive in the industry for so long. But I know you want to do it because you have been so disturbed by the coverage of many of your former colleagues, the organizations that you to work for over the course of the pandemic. So can you just start by explaining this chilling warning that Ofcom gave near the start of the pandemic and how you think that may have impacted the coverage?”
“I, well, I definitely think it impacted, it’s not so much an Ofcom regulation. It was advice or a warning actually.’
“Like a little bulletin, wasn’t it?”
Sharman responded to:
“Yeah, it was a warning to basically say, ‘do not question the official government line.’ Now to be fair to them, they said, you can have opposition voices on, but you must present as ‘must intervene’ if there’s any danger of harmful or misinformation.”
“So did that essentially turn presenters at the BBC, Sky News into, essentially, representatives of the government?”
“I think it did, not just on-air talent. I think, I think that warning affected all broadcasters. Most of the major broadcasters followed it and actually it was only the one or two little smaller ones who wouldn’t have that backup power who got caught.”
“I mean, a field community radio was censored for putting something out. But actually, I think what it’s led to, I think it’s created an environment which will lead to the biggest assault on freedom of speech and democracy I’ve known in my lifetime. I’ve never seen a warning from Ofcom like that. I’ve never seen the broadcasters toe the line and rather than question the government, they became cheerleaders for the government.”
“And why, Mark, why? That is the question I always ask myself because surely the job of the BBC, ITV News, Sky News to have, you know, the places where you used to work, surely, the first job as a journalist is to question the government and to question the official narrative. So why did they not do that? When it came to lockdown in process.”
“It is the first job, I mean, we’ve all been trained to ask, give both sides of a story and let the viewer decide. But clearly all the way through the pandemic, only one side of the story was given and the media, actually broadcasters and newspapers, picked up the thought that had been created by these behavioral psychologists and created this fear. The broadcasters picked it up with relish and that they really were spreaders of panic and fear.”
“They bought into the propaganda”
“They did, they bought absolutely into the propaganda. And I think it was very dangerous, but I think you have to probably look beyond Ofcom and beyond this country, because as you said this was a worldwide lockstep occurrence. And in parallel with media, you had big tech, new media who were censoring everything.”