Thomas Wictor

Objective truth DOES exist, no matter how much it’s denied

Objective truth DOES exist, no matter how much it’s denied

A million years ago, I tried to make a documentary about the Hamas murder of Ismail Bakr, Mohammed Bakr, Ahed Bakr, and Zakaria Bakr, four Palestinian boys said to have been killed by the IDF on a beach in Gaza, July 16, 2014. I learned during the process that what I’d heard is correct: Journalists do not believe in objective truth.

I contacted one of the reporters seen below.

reporter_Gaza_beach

This person had given three different versions of what happened. I wanted the person to appear in my documentary, but this is the answer I got.

“I can’t serve as an eyewitness, because what I saw is my own personal narrative. There were fifty people on the beach that day, so there are fifty different narratives. My own narrative is just one, and it represents only me. Therefore I can’t be in your film.”

No objective truth

A famous former journalist told me that the Columbia School of Journalism teaches students that since it’s impossible to keep biases out of a story, a reporter shouldn’t even try. In fact journalists should be as biased as possible, because there’s no such thing as objective truth. Each reporter’s narrative is as valid as all the others.

We now have video of a journalist saying exactly that. Or attempting to, since she’s only semi-literate.

Michelle Fields doesn’t know the word “biased.” She uses “bias” as an adjective, and her grammar is so poor that she’s almost incomprehensible.

They want to hear the journalism either tell them what they want to hear or tell them what their opinion is or what they think about it.

She’s saying that consumers of journalism want to hear news that comports with their own viewpoints. As an alternative, consumers of journalism want to hear reporters’ opinions.

I think it’s impossible to not be bias, so I don’t think that, I don’t think that there’s a need to not be bias because it’s impossible to be bias.

Breitbart hired this woman. That’s how far standards have fallen.

Objective truth

I make no secret of my support for Donald Trump. Here’s the objective truth about his pledge to stop Muslim immigration until we can improve the screening process: It’s a worthless, counterproductive proposal. Stopping all Muslim immigration to the US won’t make us safer. We’re threatened by the terrorists already here.

James_O'Keefe

In fact, if the US were to stop all Muslim immigration, I guarantee that it would trigger a mass-casualty attack on American soil, carried out to weaken and discredit President Trump and provide the greatest propaganda victory that Muslim terrorists had engineered since 9/11. Imagine what only 100 men and women with assault rifles could do all over the US in five minutes.

The real solution is for Trump to hire counter-terrorists from Israel and Muslim nations right now and have them draw up new regulations for US immigration officials. Trump can implement these new regulations the day he takes office.

See? Despite my bias, I can report objectively. EVERYONE CAN.

If they choose to do so.

Objective rationalization

Here’s more from Michelle Fields.

Even if you’re interviewing someone, you decide what you think is important, what you think people will like. You’re still, you still have biases, so I don’t see the problem with bias reporting. Reporting from a certain angle.

I was an interviewer for ten years. In fact I published a book about it!

Ghosts_Cover

As an interviewer, I felt I was obliged to present the subject as objectively as I could. My own views were utterly irrelevant. There were musicians I interviewed who I thought were awful. In those cases I asked them to describe their work, and then I reported what they said. I never put myself in the position of being either advocate or critic.

The best interview of my career was with bassist Gene Simmons of the band Kiss.

Gene_Simmons

I’m not a fan of Kiss, but I was fascinated by this Israeli immigrant who didn’t know what television was when he arrived here. Mine was the first interview that a serious music publication did with Simmons. I pitched the idea to my editor Jim Roberts, who was doubtful. Simmons himself was uncomfortable because he thought that I was going to do a hatchet job on him.

At the time, I was afraid of everybody and everything, but I somehow forced this implacably self-regulating man to give me an interview in person. Simmons controls every single aspect of his public persona. He wanted to do the interview, but my condition—that it be face to face—made him suspicious.

I met him at a recording studio in Los Angeles, and he did a few things to dominate me. It didn’t matter. I didn’t take them personally. After twenty or so minutes, I took a big gamble: I began asking him ostensibly combative questions, but before I did so, I got out of the leather-covered easy chair and sat at his feet like an acolyte.

He looked away, trying not to smile. I knew then that he understood. From that point on, he let me ask him anything. We even got into screaming matches. It was performance art. He grasped that we were creating something unique. It was a business arrangement, but it was also fun. For two hours, neither of us had egos. He knew he had nothing to fear from me.

It was the most successful interview in the history of the magazine.

Gene_Simmons_Bass_Player

My book that contains the unexpurgated interview is in its sixth printing, I think.

Quality is durable. Superficiality is disposable.

Objective decay

Final thoughts from Michelle Fields.

People who read my stuff, watch my videos, they feel as though their voice is not in the media, and so I’m providing a voice for them, and I think that’s great. They feel as though they’re not represented in the media, and they e-mail me and tell me, “You’re the only person in the media that I trust.”

And I think that’s important. They feel that there’s not a voice for them in the media, and I’m providing it for them.

What a pathetic wanker she is. She’s providing a voice for imbeciles who don’t know the word “biased.”

Journalists rationalize their lying by telling themselves that they represent “the powerless.” This allows them to make false accusations against Israel or Saudi Arabia or Donald Trump, because untruths illustrate a greater truth.

Even though there’s no such thing as objective truth.

Do you see the bind that journalists put themselves in? They lie in order to present a greater truth, but they also deny the existence of objective truth. The result is this.

three_boys_beach_Gaza

At least six western journalists actively took part in the Hamas military deception operation that murdered Ismail Bakr, Mohammed Bakr, Ahed Bakr, and Zakaria Bakr. The participation of the reporters is all on video. I can name those six people. So can the IDF.

Every journalist who was in Gaza in the summer of 2014 knows what really happened. They’ve rationalized it. Here’s American photographer Heidi Levine being threatened by a Hamas terrorist because she didn’t obey when he told her to move back from the ambulance.

Heidi_Levine_Hamas

Look at the fear in her face.

The western journalists in Gaza knew that Hamas commits murder while the IDF takes nearly insane measures to protect civilians. But since there’s no such thing as objective truth, it’s permissible to lie.

In the name of greater truth.

Michelle_Fields


This article viewed 604 times.