Mediaboss Marketing

Ever since alternative media sources made Hillary Clintons health a legitimatecampaign issue, much of the mainstream media has been comically and instinctively rallying aroundher, smugly proclaiming that anyone who questions Her Highness physical or mental fitness for office to bea deranged rightwing conspiracy theorist.

Whats so amusing about the tacticsof these self-important pundits is their willingness to do the exact same thing they demonize fringe bloggersof doing:playing doctor.Most of those rushing out to confidentlyensurethe public that everything is just fine and dandy with Hillary Clintons health lack any medical credentials. Theyre just journalists and pundits who have decided Hillary is fine based on atwo-page letter from internist Dr. Lisa Bardack. Doeswritingfor theWashington PostorCNNmake them the authority on Hillary Clintons health? Of course not.

To highlight just how unquestioning and extremely biased much of the mainstream media really is, lets take a look at what comes up as the top story when I search Hillary health debunked.

Does this makeCNNsound like a legitimate media source or just a Clinton-pandering tabloid?The new birthers, debunk and conspiracy all in one title.Seems a bit over the top doesnt it? Kinda like something you might findon a fringe blog.

The author of the article, Gregory Krieg, is described byCNNas a reporter at CNN Politics covering buzzy political news. Perhaps Im missing something, but looking athis LinkedInI dont see any evidence of medical expertise. So his credentials are more or less in line with fringe bloggers when it comes to medicine, but I suppose he can still brag to his friends about writing for the Clinton News Network. Which means nothing to anyone at this point.

In order to get some semblance of neutrality on the Hillary health story, you have to go to much less mainstream websites. Such asThe Hillfor example.

Here are a few excerpts from anarticle published earlier today titled,Clinton Health Questions: Off Limits or Legitimate Issue?

Hillary Clintonis 68 years old. Shes been diagnosed with cerebral venous thrombosis;head trauma, pregnancy, cancer, brain infection, autoimmune diseases and inborn clotting abnormalities are all predisposing factors, per The Washington Post.Shes currently taking blood thinners. Fouryears ago, Clinton fainted, hit her head and suffered a concussion.

Shes also the odds-on favorite to assume one of the most strenuous jobs on the planet as president of the United States.

But lately many in the media have become outraged that Clintons health is being broached at all. And what are the primary two words associated whenDonald Trump, a Trump surrogate or conservative media bring up Clintons medical condition?

A prime example comes in the form from Beth Israel Medical Centers Dr. Bob Lahita, who is not a fringe medical expert or one who engages in political advocacy.

Dr. Lahitas resume is impressive: Currently chairman of the department of medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. His opinion is so respected, hes been tapped as a medical expert by CBS This Morning, MSNBC, ABCs Good Morning America, Fox Business Network and Health on 12 in New Jersey.

He has also written numerous books, including Lupus: Everything You Want to Know and Women and Autoimmune Disease, The Mysterious Ways Your Body Betrays Itself, via Harper Collins. He serves as the editor of the Yearbook of Rheumatology.

So with that kind of reputation and resume, its notable that on the Fox Business Network recently, Dr. Lahita made a compelling argument regarding both concerns around Clintons health and the need for more transparency regarding health records of any presidential candidate.

This is a very unusual story with Hillary, said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots shes been diagnosed with in the past. The very fact that shes having these clots and shes had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least.

When asked if questions about Clintons health are legitimate and not part of a political conspiracy, Lahita said without hesitation,I dont think its a conspiracy.

It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time, he continued, So we have issues here and I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the polls.

Interestingly enough, Woodrow Wilson is the guy who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, on the day before Christmas Eve in 1913.

Clintons last release was a two-page letter from Mount Kisco, N.Y., internist Dr. Lisa Bardack more than one year ago simply stating she was as a healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies.

So heres a respected medical doctor who is publicly saying that questioning Hillarys health is not a conspiracy theory, and that its a legitimate campaign issue. He also says that both candidates should be subject to an independent medical review, which is something I agree with given the age of both Trump and Clinton.

So youd think Dr. Lahitas statementswould be big news that would be covered by Americas so-called independent, competent media, but youd be wrong. Here are the Google search results for Dr. BobLahita Hillary.

Crickets from mainstream media, and Id note there was no mention of Dr. Lahita in theCNNarticle by Gregory Krieg, despite it being published today and highlighting the opinions of otherdoctors. Which brings me to another point

Some in the mainstream media are so freaked out about Hillarys health becoming a campaign issue, they are publicly begging Google to hide results deemed to be conspiracy theory byNew York Timescolumnists.

What I am referring to is this, now famous, tweet by Farhad Manjoo:

He proceeds to explain whats really bothering him, the fact that Infowars appears at the top of Google search results on the issue.

This is particularly interesting because as I demonstrated above, when you search the very non-conspiracy theory sounding Dr. BobLahita Hillary, you also getInfowarsat the top of search.

Howis this Googles fault? Either the mainstream media isnt covering the issue at all, or it is doing so in such a non interesting way that no one is reading their articles. As such, alternative media sites end updriving all traffic on these issues, which leads tomainstream media columnists whiningto Google for help.

They now demandthat Google rely on the facts (determined by the geniuses attheNew York Timesof course), and work to separate all conspiracy theory from non-conspriacy theory in global news.Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, perhaps I missed it since I dont follow him, but I failed to see the outraged tweet from Mr.Manjoo demanding that Google hide the ubiquitous Trump is a Russian agent conspiracy theories from search, which mainstream media gatekeepers have no problem propagating liberally.

Of course, theNew York Timesrendering judgment onthose pushingconspiracy theories would be downright hilarious if it werent so sad. For example, the paper itself exhibited no such restraint when it came to peddling U.S. government conspiracies about Iraq in the run up to one of the most inhumane, unnecessary and destructive foreign policy blunders in American history. In fact, the paper was ultimately so embarrassed by its own behavior, it issued a statement in 2004 titled,FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq. Here are a few excerpts:

We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged.Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on regime change in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.)Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations in particular, this one.

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted.Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.

So because we failed to do our job, millions of lives wereruined, ISISemergedout the resultant power vacuumandover $2 trillionin U.S. taxpayer money was squandered. Sorry everyone!

But look, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, cheerleading a nation into a disastrous unprovoked war in the Middle East seems just slightly more damaging than asking questions about Hillary Clintons health. So whats really going on?

I am of the opinion that the mainstream media is not freaking out about the popularity of Hillarys health as a campaign issue just because they are biased in her favor (which they are).My contention is that this goes a lot deeper than that.

As I lookat the landscapein 2016 to-date, I observe emergentsigns that alternative media is finally beginning to take over from the legacy mainstream media when it comes to impact and influence. The mainstream media (unlike with John McCainin 2008), had decided that Hillary Clintons health was not an issue and chosenot to pursue it. Many in thealternative media world took a different position, and due to mainstream medias failure to inform the American public for decades, the alternative mediadrove that issue to the top of the news cycle. Thats power.

This is an incredibly big deal, and the mainstream media intuitively knows what it means. It means a total loss of legitimately, prestige and power. All of which is well deserved of course.

Two tweets I sent out yesterday perfectly summarize what I think of the situation (excuse my typos):

So heres the bottom line.2016 represents the true beginning of what I would call the Media Wars. Alternative media is now capable of driving the news cycle. Mainstream media now has no choice but to fight back, and fight back it will. It will fight back dirty. This is going to get very ugly, but by the time the dust has settled, I think much of the mainstream media will be left as a shell of its former self.

All completelywell deserved of course.

For related articles, see:

You Know You Are a Conspiracy Theorist If(one of my most popular posts ever)

Why Isnt the Media Covering Hillary Clintons Extremely Bizarre Behavior?

Yes the Government is Spying on You Through Your Webcam Another Conspiracy Theory Proven True

Conspiracy Fact How the Government Conducted 239 Secret Bioweapon Experiments on the American People

In Liberty, Michael Krieger

The rest is here:
Questioning Hillarys Health is Not Conspiracy Theory ...