America’s top 12 most EVIL news publications

While the web is filled with immeasurable information, most of it is controlled by a select few media companies that work tirelessly to promote big industries and spread disinfo. Media is so consolidated that only six companies control 90 percent of what we read, watch or listen to, compared with 50 companies in 1983.

The media plays a very important role in the amount of freedoms Americans have; after all, information is power. But if the majority of information is government- or corporate-controlled propaganda, then we’re essentially all helpless slaves to the media monopoly, which is why we have decided to bring you “America’s top 12 most EVIL news publications” to help make your search for the truth easier.

Check out Censorship.news, powered by FETCH.news, for more important information and breaking news regarding the propaganda and lies excreted by the mainstream media.

1. Forbes.com

Topping the list at No. 1, the American business magazine Forbes.com takes the cake, as it’s responsible for employing some of the world’s most villainous pseudo-journalists, including industry shills and pesticide apologists Henry I. Miller and Jon Entine, who were bought out long ago by powerful, EVIL poison-pushing corporations to attack anyone working to expose their crimes against humanity, defending the industries at every cost and acting as their personal attack dogs.

Top12MostEVIL

Henry I. Miller’s friendly relationship with the biotech industry dates back to the 1990s when he helped expedite the licensing of the first genetically modified organism (GMO) product for human use, artificially made insulin called Humulin. In 1993, he helped found a major tobacco industry front group that convinced thousands of doctors to assure the public that tobacco was safe and viciously tried to discredit research suggesting that smoking causes cancer and heart problems.

Miller worships Big Agriculture, using his Forbes.com platform to praise the industry’s every move while simultaneously attacking anyone against genetic engineering, calling them “anti-business, anti-technology and anti-American.”

Despite the total lack of science proving the safety of GMOs, Miller portrays GMO critics as being crazy, paranoid lunatics who border on extremism. He uses his position as a Forbes.com writer to smear the reputation of clean food advocates including Natural News’ Mike Adams and America’s favorite doctor, Dr. Oz

Equally as vile is Forbes.coms’ Jon Entine, a “corporate propagandist and pseudo-journalist who utilizes his media savvy to promote the opinions and positions of chemical corporations by posing as an independent journalist,” as delineated by TruthWiki.

Like Miller, Entine is notorious for viciously attacking proponents of natural health freedom, calling them anti-science quacks who base all of their information on wild conspiracy theories.

The attacks, which include publishing false and fictitious information through sites like Forbes.com and the Genetic Literacy Project (where Entine is the executive director), are funded by Entine’s close-knit relationship with biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta. Entine’s strikes are downright abusive as he calls truthers and consumer health advocates a danger to society.

Entine isn’t just abusive on the job but also in his personal life. In 2008, Entine underwent a messy divorce with his wife in which she was granted a protection order against him after he abused her and their young daughter. Entine’s wife described him as a belligerent, violent and mentally unstable individual, who committed acts of violence against her and psychologically traumatized his own daughter, according to court records.[PDF]

As if he couldn’t get any creepier, Entine’s wife accused him of installing surveillance cameras to watch her every move. He even attempted to compel her therapist to testify against her in court.

Entine’s wife says he is “irrational and unpredictable,” highlighting his mental instability, which makes him completely incompetent to be holding a position in the media, especially given his violent past.

Sources:

CenterforFoodSafety.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

SourceWatch.org

BusinessInsider.com

NYTimes.com

TruthWiki.org

TruthWiki.org

2. Slate

Owned by Graham Holdings Company (formerly The Washington Post Co.), the online magazine Slate is affiliated with CBS, NBC and ABC and prides itself in helping readers making sense of the real world; however, what they’re really good at is sympathizing with Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of dead baby parts.

Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern wrote in late July that Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted fetal tissue is “deeply commendable.” Stern staunchly defends PP, arguing that fetal stem cells are the only answer to curing ALS.

A report by Breitbart describes how Stern uses a story by FactCheck.org that unfairly addresses only one of the seven PP sting videos, conveniently ignoring the rest while arguing that the non-profit does not “sell” fetal tissue based on the following quote: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line,” Dr. Nucatola said in the first sting video.

Nucatola also said, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” While Nucatola made those statements, she also explained that their goal is to make it look good:

I think every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.” I know in the Planned Parenthood world they’re very very sensitive to that. And before an affiliate is gonna do that, they need to, obviously, they’re not — some might do it for free — but they want to come to a number that doesn’t look like they’re making money.

Stern wrote: “Although I have no patience for those who claim, incorrectly, that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue, I sympathize with those who feel distress or moral outrage at the sight of an aborted fetus.”

His reporting is irresponsibly reckless and 100 percent incorrect, as PP admitted to making money off fetal tissue, and beyond that, made it clear they wish to do so without getting caught.

Stern also calls a woman’s right to donate her fetal tissue for medical research “an act of altruism,” not killing. Once again, he completely ignores evidence exposing technicians who procure fetal tissue without patient consent. At least one woman was even told she couldn’t have an abortion without signing the donation consent form. It’s doubtful she’d call her forced consent an act of “altruism.”

Slate: If you don’t get the recommended 49 vaccines by age 6, you’re an “anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist”

In addition to being pro-sale of aborted baby parts, Slate is pro-vaccine and anti-medical choice. Following the 2015 CNN GOP debate in which presidential frontrunner Donald Trump was questioned about his belief that too many vaccines in too short of a time frame may cause autism, Slate accused Trump of using the debate to “push anti-vaccination myths.”

According to Slate, if you’re an advocate for safer and/or fewer vaccines or even an extended vaccine schedule, you’re an “anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist.”

Slate’s pro-vaccine reporting is downright EVIL. By the time children in the US are one year old, the CDC recommends 26 vaccine doses[PDF]; babies in this country get more vaccine doses than anywhere else in the world, yet the US infant mortality rate ranks 34th in the world.

Despite the US spending more per capita on healthcare than any other country, 33 nations have better infant mortality rates than the US. Vaccine injuries are real and more common than you might think. You can learn about them at VaccineDamage.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Sources:

Slate.com

Breitbart.com

CenterforMedicalProgress.org

YouTube.com

CenterforMedicalProgress.org

FactCheck.org

LifeNews.com

Slate.com

TruthWiki.org

3. The Washington Post

This daily left-winged “American” newspaper has a long history of acting as the mouthpiece for corrupt corporations including Big Agra and the chemical industry, as well as disastrously bad government due to their corporate funding.

Pro-GMO, pro-Big Government and pro-Big Pharma, the Post fills reader’s minds with corporate propaganda and liberal bias while pretending to be non-partisan. Similar to Forbes.com, the Post is 100 percent pro-Monsanto and routinely repeats its advertiser’s propaganda verbatim. If you’re a reader of the Post, you can expect to be told that pesticides are great, GMOs are God’s gift to the world and vaccines have absolutely no risks.

The Post’s loyalty to Monsanto (controller of the global GM seed market) was illustrated when the paper attacked Chipotle following the chain’s announcement to remove GMOs from their menu. While the restaurant’s decision was clearly a clever one due to the growing demand for cleaner, non-toxic foods, the Post described Chipotle as being anti-science, calling the move a “gimmick” and somehow “potentially harmful to vulnerable populations around the world.”

Even worse, the Post’s attack was authored by the entire “Editorial Board,” which according to Natural News Mike Adams “functions as a group of hilarious quack science Monsanto operatives pretending to be engaged in reporting real news.”

Stay up to date on the misinformation being spewed from this propaganda outlet at WashingtonPost.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Sources:

CouncilforVaccineSafety.org[PDF]

NaturalNews.com

WashingtonPost.com

TruthWiki.org

4. Mother Jones

With a well known leftist leaning, the American magazine Mother Jones is 100 percent pro-vaccine and routinely pushes Big Pharma propaganda. They’re complete deniers of the link between vaccines and autism and attack advocates of informed consent exhaustively.

When presidential frontrunner Donald Trump was asked about his belief that vaccines may be linked to autism during the 2015 CNN GOP debate, Google searches on the topic spiked, highlighting the general public’s skepticism and interest in the matter.

Instead of praising Americans for getting informed, Mother Jones and the rest of the liberal media slammed the candidates and CNN for honestly responding to questions on vaccines, arguing that they lack the expertise to do so, despite two of the candidates being doctors. This tactic is commonly used by Big Agra when they say only scientists are equipped to hold an opinion on GMOs, not activists or the general public.

Below are a few examples of Mother Jones’ vaccine propaganda:

Last Night’s Republican Debate Was Literally a Public Health Risk”

“Media Advisory: Don’t Help Turn Vaccines Into a Political Football”

“13 Tweets That Definitively Prove That Donald Trump Is Not a Scientist”

“If CNN, and other media, continues on the course of unprecedented politicization of vaccine safety by treating it as a campaign issue, the societal consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines may be eroded at tremendous cost.” [emphasis added]

“Basically, everything Trump said about vaccines was wrong. A lot of what his opponents said was wrong, too.”

“Donald Trump has announced he’s running for president! And while the real estate and necktie tycoon has no chance of actually winning, a White House bid would provide him with an even larger platform to spread his unique blend of anti-science nonsense.”

“Trump is an advocate for the completely baseless theory that vaccines can cause autism.”

Clearly, Mother Jones was enlisted by Big Pharma to combat negative press on vaccines.

For more information on the scientifically proven childhood injuries caused by vaccines, including permanent brain damage, visit VaccineDamage.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Sources:

MotherJones.com

MotherJones.com

MotherJones.com

5. PolitiFact

Operated by the Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact is an online “critical” newspaper that pretends to provide a public service by “fact-checking” and debunking statements made by top politicians. Cherry-picked comments are published online with special “Truth-O-Meter” ratings developed by PolitiFact editors ranging from “Completely Accurate” to “Pants on Fire,” the latter meaning blatant lies and false claims.

The publication fails in that its counter-“facts” are poorly researched, often cannot be proven, and are biased and sometimes downright fraudulent. Independents, conservatives and liberals alike have taken turns ripping PolitiFact apart due to their incompetent reporting. PolitiFact spins criticisms that don’t fit their agenda into propaganda to protect political lies, instead of actually debunking them, reports TruthWiki.

“Their main goal seems to be eliminating certain conversations from public discussion and angling other subjects to keep political myths alive and fueling the debate. This is a strategy and platform that’s quickly losing its cover.”

PolitiFact just doesn’t spin disinfo, they straight-up lie. Following the Disneyland measles outbreak vaccine hype in early 2015, PolitiFact Georgia wrote that NO vaccines recommended for children have contained mercury since 1999, when in fact, flu shots still contain mercury in the form of thimerosal, as admitted by the CDC on their website.

Natural News’ Mike Adams tested mercury content in flu shots and discovered that they contained 25,000 times the maximum level of mercury that the EPA allows in drinking water.

PolitiFact GA also printed lies about contacting Adams for comment regarding his views on mercury in vaccines, attempting to make it look like Adams refused to stand by his findings. They wrote he “declined to speak” with them, when truthfully, PolitiFact GA received a canned response from a public support staffer, but portrayed it to readers as a personal response from Adams.

When confronted with this information, including proof that some vaccines recommended for kids still contain mercury, PolitiFact GA refused to retract, stating that they “reviewed” their “sourcing” and are standing by their lie about no childhood vaccines containing mercury.

For more important news and information about the neurotoxic mercury still added to vaccines, check out Thimerosal.news.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

6. The Atlantic

The American magazine The Atlantic was recently exposed for colluding with Monsanto-funded scientists after it refused to retract or correct a story that pushed pro-GMO statements made by university scientists who claimed to be “independent researchers” but were later exposed as having been bribed by the biotech industry.

The discovery was made following the release of The New York Times article “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O Lobbying War, Emails Show,” which revealed that the University of Florida’s Kevin Folta and dozens of other scientists were working with Monsanto and other biotech giants to promote GMOs and their associated pesticides in exchange for money to travel to Hawaii and unrestricted grant funding.

The Atlantic gave Kevin Folta free rein to attack clean food activist Vani Hari, a.k.a. the Food Babe, in which he accused her of dishonesty and running a “scam,” all while denying any ties to Big Agra.

It was later exposed that Folta was the one running a scam, and does in fact have financial ties to Monsanto and was willing to do whatever they wanted him to.

“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like,” Folta wrote to Monsanto[PDF] on Oct. 23, 2014.

Despite the revelations, The Atlantic refused to retract their story, ignoring all inquires about the matter from Natural News.

Their decision to protect Folta makes it clear they are not “independent” media, but rather are controlled by corporate interests.

A few months before The Atlantic ignored Natural News’ request for a retraction, they interviewed Adams for a piece on alternative medicine. But instead of using Adams’ thoughtful and intelligent comments on the evolution of alternative medicine, they cut the interview entirely, instead quoting sleazy vaccine developer and known Big Pharma puppet Paul Offit, who routinely violates ethical standards by promoting vaccines while failing to disclose his financial interests to the industry.

The Atlantic celebrates criminal Fed boss Ben Bernanke

ben bernanke the atlantic cover

The Atlantic displayed corporate favoritism yet again when they placed former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the cover of their April 2012 issue captioning his headshot: “The Hero.”

The issue’s cover story credits Bernanke, who served as Fed chair from 2006 to 2014, for steering “the economy out of its worst slump since the Great Depression.”

The author completely ignores Bernanke’s criminal misconduct, including his contribution to destroying America’s “middle class and handing over the nation to a handful of criminal oligarchs,” as illustrated by Liberty Blitzkrieg.

Audaciously, Bernanke penned a memoir claiming that “more Wall Street executives should have gone to jail for criminal misconduct that led to the financial crisis,” reports The Intercept, which adds that he “was in a pretty good position to actually facilitate criminal misconduct proceedings, if he wanted to see them so badly.…”

The Intercept reports:

The Fed, like all banking regulators, can initiate criminal referrals to the Justice Department for individuals they find to have broken the law. This acts as the first line of defense to discipline criminal misconduct on Wall Street.

But such activities were absent during the period when Bernanke was chair, according to criminologist and law professor Bill Black. “The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination,” Black told Bill Moyers in 2013.

And when Bernanke took action, his stumbling attempts at accountability weren’t just inadequate; they were absurd. The one major action his Federal Reserve took regarding specific conduct regarding the financial crisis wound up as the most embarrassing display of fake accountability in the history of the Obama administration.

The Atlantic’s attempt to frame Bernanke as a hero is an outright assault on the American people who ultimately paid the price for the former Fed chair’s criminal actions – highlighting yet another reason to disregard anything this magazine prints.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

NYTimes.com

NaturalNews.com[PDF]

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

TheIntercept.com

LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

TheAtlantic.com

7. National Geographic

Once considered an excellent source for educating young minds about science, wildlife and the environment, National Geographic now aggressively promotes industry-backed “science” and poison-pushing corporations that are destroying the very planet that Nat Geo initially vowed to protect.

If their cover wasn’t already blown, Nat Geo’s March 2015 cover was a dead giveaway that the magazine has completely sold out to corporations.

National-Geographic-Cover-The-War-on-Science

Nat Geo’s message is clear, if you refute industry-backed “science,” such as questioning the safety of GMOs or water fluoridation or doubt whether climate change is caused by humans to the extent it’s alleged, then you’re a Looney Tune who also probably believes evolution can’t be possible and that we never landed on the moon.

By placing “vaccinations can lead to autism” (a statement that’s supported by scientific evidence), next to “genetically modified food is evil” (a subjective statement that fails to address widespread concerns from a significant portion of the scientific community), Nat Geo is falsely equating questions on vaccines and GMO safety with stereotypical “conspiracy theories.”

The question of whether or not GMOs are safe for long-term human consumption is hardly agreed upon in the scientific community, yet Nat Geo says those who question GMOs are waging a war on science.

In fact, it is Nat Geo who is waging a war on science, not the other way around.

Timothy A. Wise with the Global Development and Environment Institute wrote[PDF]:

Since when is the safety of genetically modified food considered “settled science” on a par with the reality of evolution? Genetically modified food is evil? First of all, what business does “evil” have in an article about scientific consensus? … How in the world does author Joel Achenbach define “scientific consensus?”

Clearly, Achenbach and Nat Geo define “scientific consensus” as the biased statements pushed by industry-hired rent-a-scientists.

While disappointing, the puzzle begins to piece together once you understand that Nat Geo is nearly 100 percent advertiser-funded by Big Pharma, Big Agra and the chemical companies.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

ASE.Tufts.edu[PDF]

8. Newsweek

The second-largest weekly news magazine in the U.S., Newsweek, reports on news and opinion about international issues, technology, business, culture and politics. While the magazine has published some decent reporting on Big Pharma (for example, they exposed the fraud behind antidepressant drugs), unfortunately, Newsweek also pushes a “death agenda that devalues the lives of elderly citizens and actually encourages citizens to have their own parents killed in order to reduce medical costs,” according to Natural News Mike Adams.

Newsweek’s September 21, 2009 cover, “The Case for Killing Granny,” pushes the idea that unnecessary, end-of-life medical treatment for the elderly is driving up healthcare costs and needs to be stopped.

The magazine’s death agenda piece is captioned, “Curbing excessive end-of-life care is good for America.” [emphasis added]

case for killing granny cover

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas wrote in the cover’s feature story, “We Need to Talk about Death,” that “the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate.”

According to Thomas, the best way to cut costs is to reduce spending on end-of-life treatments because “that’s where the money is.”

Rising healthcare costs is bad for the economy, says Thomas, and may force the U.S. to adopt death panels, a system in which the government decides whether or not patients get sought-after treatments. Death can only be delayed for so long, and they wait, grim and degrading, writes Thomas, insinuating that we might as well speed it up and save money.

Newsweek leaves readers asking: Are end-of-life treatments worth the cost? Or should we just let them die?

Sources:

Newsweek.com

Newsweek.com

NaturalNews.com

9. TIME

Just like Newsweek, this American weekly news magazine endorses killing people for cost savings and convenience.

TIME magazine pushes a death agenda that, as Natural News’ Mike Adams explains, “devalues the lives of elderly citizens and actually encourages citizens to have their own parents killed in order to reduce medical costs.”

Their June 11, 2012, edition, “How to Die,” promotes a cost-saving death agenda encouraging readers to practice the Geisinger Health System model, which reduces medical costs by eliminating return visits to the doctor.

How do you eliminate these trips? “Pull the feeding tubes” from your dying elderly parents, causing them to dehydrate and die.

Written by Joe Klein, the author describes the inconvenience he endured when his parents grew elderly, eventually requiring around-the-clock care. When Klein’s father began suffering from acute kidney failure, his Geisinger doctor told him that rehydrating his dad “was probably the wrong thing to do.”

“Renal failure is a good way to go,” said the doctor.

“You just go to sleep. Your dad’s kidneys are pretty much shot. You may revive him, but he’ll be back here in a month, six weeks.” Klein agreed.

“We could keep Dad going with intravenous hydration, and he might last a month–there was no question of inserting a feeding tube–or we could stop. I called my brother and told him that I’d decided to let Dad go. He agreed, as he had every step of the way.”

TIME magazine’s article is a soft kill introduction to the killing system. Under the Geisinger model, refusing medical treatment for those nearing the end of their lives produces 18 percent fewer hospital visits, 36 percent fewer return visits and 7 percent cost savings. Because you can’t return to the doc once you’re dead.

Sources:

YouTube.com

NaturalNews.com

TIME.com

10. USA Today

Purportedly an American daily newspaper that reports on US and international news, USA Today focuses heavily on irrelevant sports stories and celebrity non-news, dumbing down the American public while ignoring important events that its readers should be learning about. These are the tactics responsible for a uninformed public.

When the “Nation’s Newspaper” reports on Tom Brady’s hair, Beyonce’s new album or cute, cuddly cat videos as opposed to true investigative stories, it’s obvious that their reporters are not interested in performing real journalism, a direction that’s likely passed down by their corporate sponsors.

While Kim Kardashian’s derrière is one of USA Today’s favorite topics, every now and then they’ll shake things up by transitioning from celebrity news to social engineering.

When Chipotle revealed its plan to remove GMOs from their menu and General Mills announced it would take them out of Cheerios, USA Today’s editorial board said the moves validated “ignorance and hysteria.”

The newspaper compares questioning the safety of GMOs to the following conspiracy theories: “The 1969 moon landing actually occurred on a Hollywood set. Fluoride in drinking water was a communist plot. Paul McCartney is dead. Elvis is alive.”

While the long-term effects of consuming crops genetically engineered to produce their own insecticide has never been studied, USA Today blames GMO critics for “fear-mongering” and forcing companies to ban GMOs based on “misinformation.”

USA Today said the European Union declared GMOs are no more risky than conventional plant breeding without reporting that GMOs are completely banned for consumption in the EU and are only used for animal feed.

They quote the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) as saying: “The science is quite clear: Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

The AAAS has been proven to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the biotech industry, namely Monsanto. A quick Google search by the article’s author would easily reveal this tie; however, clearly USA Today is unwilling to speak ill of Monsanto and their products.

In 2012, just before Californians voted on GMO-labeling Proposition 37, the AAAS pushed disinfo claiming the bill would “only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers,” insinuating that the public is too dumb to make up their own minds about GMOs.

AAAS’s position on GMOs utilizes Monsanto’s rhetoric nearly verbatim and is therefore far too completely biased of an organization to be cited in a fair article about GMOs.

USA Today’s reporting is obviously funded and controlled by corporate interests.

Sources:

USAToday.com

USRTK.org

Twitter.com

11. NBC News

Bought by Comcast (whose parent company is General Electric) in 2011, NBC News is the oldest major broadcast network in the U.S., giving it plenty of time to attract corporate sponsorship from all the major industries (which still isn’t enough to prevent the network’s ratings from tanking).

In addition to pushing vaccines and other sinister corporate agendas, NBC News employs reporters who falsify news stories, all while earning a big fat paycheck (comparable to the salary of professional athletes).

In 2015, anchorman Brian Williams (the face of NBC News) admitted to fabricating and embellishing news report details on numerous occasions, not only on the Nightly News broadcast, in which he starred, but in public appearances and as a guest on talk shows for at least 12 years.

Williams admitted to concocting a popular story about being shot down in a U.S. Army helicopter during the Iraq war in 2003. Despite Williams’ reluctance to travel overseas for journalism and his complete lack of foreign or war correspondence experience, when convinced to go, would return “with these great stories that kind of put himself at the center of things” revealed a former NBC executive in a Vanity Fair article.

Williams was not on the helicopter that had been shot down, but in a separate aircraft “that came upon the damaged chopper about an hour later.” The talking head was found out after several soldiers involved in the incident disputed Williams’ account, arguing that it couldn’t have happened the way he said. They contacted a reporter with Star and Stripes who subsequently called NBC.

Williams was earning $10 million a year when NBC suspended him for six months before eventually firing him after his lies unfolded.

One of William’s favorite embellishments was the “Berlin Wall story,” which details his account of being with his colleague Tom Brokaw at the Berlin Wall when it fell in 1989.

“But he wasn’t. He was there the next day,” the NBC executive said.

Evidently, Williams garnered a reputation for telling tales. “It wasn’t malicious—it’s just Brian being Brian. It’s the part of Brian’s personality that bothers Tom the most.”

The fact that a highly admired anchorman responsible for delivering news to Americans had a reputation around the news room for making up stuff highlights the network’s total disrespect for their viewers, as well its willingness to employ and compensate a known liar tens of millions of dollars.

Reportedly incapable of admitting he lied, instead, Williams conjured up excuse,s including that perhaps he had a “brain tumor,” or that his insecurities living up to Brokaw spurred him to make up stories in an attempt to live up to his well-respected colleague.

“Williams puffed up his war stories to stand tall next to former ‘Nightly News’ anchor Brokaw,” according to reports. “Brokaw was one of NBC’s most celebrated names and Williams succeeded him on “Nightly News.”

The Williams scandal offers a peek inside the corrupt operation of corporate-run newsrooms, where personal relationships, overpaid celebrity reporters and workplace politics dictate the information received by the general public, subsequently misleading viewers about important real-world events.

While Williams lost his job on NBC Nightly News, he kept his job as an anchor reading news and special reports and was shuffled to MSNBC, a sister channel to NBC.

Rather than hold Williams accountable for his complete lack of integrity and betraying the trust of his loyal viewers, he is allowed to continue work as a “journalist.” Allowing Williams to continue delivering information to the public is similar to letting bank managers manage money after they were caught stealing.

As confirmed by his colleagues, Williams’ nature is to lie, making it a monstrosity that he’s still working in journalism.

However, the good news is that the Brian Williams scandal has not been forgotten. When Williams debuted his return to TV on MSNBC reporting on the arrival of Pope Francis in the U.S., the public quickly took to Twitter, ridiculing and mocking the disgraced anchorman.

See more breaking news regarding Brian Williams’ newest mainstream media employer at MSNBC.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Sources:

VanityFair.com

NYDailyNews.com

NBCNews.com

NBCNews.com

12. Rolling Stone

Like NBC, the pop culture magazine Rolling Stone found itself entangled in a lie after it was forced to retract an article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity – that never happened.

Written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the report solely went off the account of a purported rape victim who claimed she was lured into a dark room and raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity during a party in September 2012.

Sensitive to the rape victim’s alleged attack, Erdely ignored her “journalistic training,” instead convincing her editor to overlook fact-checking of the story’s claims. Erdely failed to interview three of the victim’s friends and did not provide the fraternity with enough information to adequately respond to questions from Rolling Stone.

Following the article’s publication, Phi Kappa Psi revealed that they didn’t even have a function on the weekend the alleged victim said she was raped, a fact that could’ve easily been discovered if the writer had done any research.

A report on the article published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone further investigated the claims and yielded little evidence to back up the victim’s story, discovering instead that basic “reporting pathways” were violated.

The magazine “failed to engage in ‘basic, even routine journalistic practice’ to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely,” according to the Columbia University review.

Erdely “was willing to go too far in her effort to try and protect a victim of apparently a horrible crime” said Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone. “She dropped her journalistic training, scruples and rules and convinced Sean [the report’s editor] to do the same. There is this series of falling dominoes.”

The report’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the magazine’s managing editor, Will Dana, and the report’s editor, Sean Woods, were all allowed to keep their jobs, despite failing to perform them according to minimal journalistic standards.

Just as in the case with anchorman Brian Williams, once you violate the principles of ethical journalism, as well as the trust of your readers, you should not be allowed to continue in the field.

Rolling Stone’s inability to perform real journalism destroyed their credibility, as well as damaged the reputation of the falsely accused.

Sources:

NYTimes.com

RollingStone.com

Dishonorable mentions

Unfortunately, evil media publications are a dime a dozen these days, and listing them all would take a long time – which is why we decided to cap it off at 12. However, the following are worth mentioning: CNN, WIRED magazine and Salon magazine.

CNN – CNN is hugely pro-vaccine and very much the White House’s liberal mouthpiece. Whatever propaganda the White House is pushing, you can guarantee that CNN will be reporting it verbatim. CNN is known for two things: Government/industry propaganda, and cute, cuddly animal videos – nothing in between. CNN is pretty much indebted to the vaccine industry, as illustrated through some of their headlines:

Sources:

CNN.com

CNN.com

CNN.com

WIRED – like CNN, WIRED magazine LOVES vaccines and HATES free medical choice. They actually commit the same offense they accuse vaccine skeptics of doing: FEAR MONGERING. The following headlines perfectly demonstrate this hypocritical attack method:

Sources:

WIRED.com

WIRED.com

WIRED.com

Salon – the liberal leaning news website and magazine that’s pro-pedophiles recently printed an outrageous piece titled “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster” that aims to draw sympathy and understanding for child sex abusers.

Written by Todd Nickerson, a self-admitted (but according to him, non-offending) pedophile, the article encourages readers to sympathize with non-offending pedophiles, in other words, those who are sexually attracted to children but have never acted on it and allegedly never would.

While Nickerson says he’s never abused a child and never would, he does admit to mingling in chat rooms with those who have.

I’ve been stuck with the most unfortunate of sexual orientations, a preference for a group of people who are legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires. It’s a curse of the first order, a completely unworkable sexuality, and it’s mine. Who am I? Nice to meet you. My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile. Does that surprise you? Yeah, not many of us are willing to share our story, for good reason. To confess a sexual attraction to children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet, one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal life. Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be. I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography.

Salon is also anti-Christianity, routinely mocking the religion and calling for Christians to be persecuted.

In a piece titled “The right hides behind a fictional Bible: Memo to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — your favorite book is made up,” Salon attacks Christianity, calling the Bible fictional and even going so far to compare the LORD to a rapist and Mary to a sexual assault victim – highlighting their evil, sinister agenda to dismantle one of the world’s most popular religions.

Sources:

Salon.com

Salon.com