Home > Issues > Fake News > Conflict of Interest, Hypocrisy and the Journalist Enemy -- a Reply to the Boston Globe

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Conflict of Interest, Hypocrisy and the Journalist Enemy -- a Reply to the Boston Globe

Peter Zohrab 2018

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map


On 15th August 2018, the Boston Globe led "hundreds of editorials from around the country" in an attack on President Trump's attitude to the media. The Boston Globe's article had the title, "Journalists are not the enemy."

Journalists are indeed the enemy! The Boston Globe quoted George Orwell, so I will use that quote against them, as follows:

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, "1984"

The Boston Globe is telling us to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears. It may well be the Boston Globe's final command (I hope so)! We can all see and hear the bias of the journalists (now that the Internet has somewhat freed us from enslavement to journalists) and the only question left is whether we agree or disagree with their Leftist bias. If we disagree (i.e. we are on the Right), then the journalists are our enemy. I disagree with the bias of the journalists, so the journalists are indeed the enemy.

That Boston Globe editorial refutes itself, for the following reasons:

  1. We pay the media in order to get the news which is provided by journalists;

  2. Along with news, these journalists give us their opinions;

  3. We have got used to seeing and hearing journalists' opinions;

  4. But we would never pay the media, if all they provided was opinions;

  5. We are quite capable of having opinions all by ourselves, once we have heard or seen the news;

  6. Our problem is getting other people to notice our opinions;

  7. We cannot compete with journalists, because they provide news, which entices millions of people to read their opinions as well as their news;

  8. So the packaging of news and opinions which journalists have been imposing on us is totalitarian and Orwellian;

  9. And the Boston Globe's power to get us to read its editorial is another example of that 1984-style dictatorship by the media.


If you google "Conflict of Interest President Trump" you get "About 22,700,000 results" (as at 25 August 2018). The top hit, "Trump embroiled in 'unprecedented conflicts of interest,' report warns," is on the site of the CNBC, which calls itself "the number one business and financial news network on the planet." I think I have thereby proved that the media have attacked President Trump for having conflicts of interest.

The point here is not whether President Trump has conflicts of interest or not. The point here is that the media attack him for having conflicts of interest, when the media have always universally had, and continue universally to have, huge conflicts of interest themselves! That is why the media are his enemy and my enemy.

As everyone knows, the media disseminate two main categories of information: news and opinion. The above-mentioned editorials are, of course, examples of opinion.

Do the consumers of this information have any choice as to whether to "consume" just news, just opinion, or both? Are there any media outlets which disseminate only news, without any opinion? As far as I am aware, the answer to these two questions has always and universally been : No!".

Is the function of the media in a Democracy to provide the electorate with opinions, or with news?


Since the media feel entitled to publish their opinions, they also feel entitled to let their opinions slant their news and current affairs and also to mount campaigns on selected issues. They slant their news in many ways, e.g.:

  1. From millions of possible stories, they select the ones they are going to allow us to be aware of (e.g. ones about successful women and evil men);

  2. They bias the coverage of those stories to suit their opinions on those stories (e.g. they only give the anti-male side of Domestic Violence stories);

  3. They keep harping on about issues that they want the Government to do something about (e.g. the so-called Glass Ceiling);

  4. They shut down information about topics once a relevant law has been passed which they happen to agree with (e.g. on abortion or gay marriage);

  5. They only ask patsy questions to Government Feminists, such as the Minister for Women or the Government SpokesDyke on Domestic Violence.

  6. They interview Feminist activists in a way that pretends that there are only two points of view on Sex War issues -- the Feminist view and the status quo.




Summary Haiku:

Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.


See also:



Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

5 September 2018