Hundreds and thousands of “journalists” should be red with shame and embarrassment but they probably haven’t even read this. Still more proof they are not journalists.
There are many doctors and scientists at PhD level who are not qualified. Education in the academic sense stopped being what education was 30 years ago. It’s clearly agenda driven today (pharma, and controlled release of truth). Any doctor or PhD scientist who is not working additionally, outside of interests financial and otherwise, who are not self fascinated by true independent thought. Do not qualify for much of anything.. other then towing the line. Let’s be clear.
There are some issues on Team Reality as well, such as Berenson asserting that antibodies are produced immediately after infection or vaccine, (wrong; it takes weeks), or Chudov asserting that Hepatitis A is transmitted by sexual activity, (wrong; fecal-oral route is most common route of Hep A transmission). When I and other doctors correct them, this information gets buried in hundreds of comments. Journalists who write about medical matters should check with physicians or double check their assertions first with PubMed info.
I'm not a journalist or medical professional, but even I began recognizing red flags regarding covid and the vaccines early in 2020. It wasn't until I stumbled on Steve's substack late last year - and subsequently those of Robert Malone and others - that I felt vindicated that my months of arduous research was validated. I felt like a lone island in the middle of the ocean before I found qualified individuals vindicating my stance. Finally, I had some big names to throw at people who vilified me for being an anti-vaxxer (which I am not) or a conspiracy theorist (which I have become, for good reason.) Thank you Steve, et al!
It's not the journalist's job to "tell the truth" or "hide the truth". They are not supposed to have opinions at all in their writing. Otherwise known as a bias. They are the reporter, not the narrator. It's their job to report the facts and allow the public to decide the truth. It's not their job to be an expert. It's their job to interview experts and to give an accurate representation of views.
Cherry picking who they interview (i.e. censorship) isn't journalism.
Journalism has been corrupted into narrative warfare (propaganda). That's what the issue is.
The journalists who want to ask questions won't get their stories run by management or they no longer have a job. That's the way it works right now.
We no longer have a "free" press. That's a huge problem.
There are very few "journalists". What happens if you, as a "journalist", expose crimes against humanity? - Ask Julian Assange! Ask Paul Craig Roberts! There are mostly "presstitutes" and "media whores" used by the power elite in order to fuck us all and to fuck the children.
The issue here is honesty. Who can we trust to tell the truth ~ the unbathed, make-up free, honest-to-God truth?
Sadly, when even our physicians remain silent or are outrageously mendacious (never mind the “Do no harm” oath) I have no hope that left leaning journos (ie, the majority of them) have even a smidgeon of integrity.
Unqualified journalists are just responding to their readers, who are mostly unqualified to read articles on medicine. Readers are just looking for talking points and direction, and journalism is just the outlet for issuing those talking points and orders. The problem isn't bad journalism, it's bad readers. Those are manufactured by bad schools. Save the schools to save society.
Just like you, Steve, are unqualified to perform statistical analysis and conduct survey research. Yet you attempt to do these things anyway. As I have suggested repeatedly enlist the help of a qualified statistician. By qualified I mean someone with advanced degrees in mathematical statistics, probability theory and has decades of research experience. It's pathetic that so many people think they can just collect some data any way they want, throw the data into a computer and out of the computer comes "research". This is why 99% of all social science research it utterly useless rubbish.
You can always spot the weak-minded--they avoid talking about Event 201, which has been published online for over two years. People won't discuss it because of the fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist." Our own eyes tell us the facts, but we refuse to discuss the facts about Event 201. We can't talk about what our eyes see because we might be called "conspiracy theorists."
Hans Christian Andersen wrote about this exact situation, explaining the social acceptance mind game, "Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid."
Steve, I think you are asking the WRONG question. It has nothing to do with being QUALIFIED (hell, I'm not qualified and even I get it - it's not complicated if you look).
What you need is a BRAVE, HONEST, OPENMINDED (and probably sacrificial) journalist whose editor, channel/publication hasn't been bought by Gates or pHarma.
But then you have the problem of mass psychosis with their audience...
Would they even believe it if they were told after two years of indoctrination.
And would they even want to know or acknowledge the murderous truth of what has been done to them and their children?
If I may take the liberty to modify your headline:
“Are there any mainstream journalists who are qualified to write articles?”
Journalism used to mean understand your brief, research a topic, investigate situations, talk to as many learned and knowledgable people with experience and understanding of the topic, challenge assertions and claims, look for evidence and then write a concise, grammatically correct, interesting, informative account.
Today journalism is cut-and-paste idiotic Twitter streams from ill-informed, prejudiced, deranged individuals, or to cut-and-paste from Government press releases, and in between mangle the English language with literary skills of a 5 year old.
In our modern times, would Watergate have been investigated and reported or suppressed as disinformation?
Yes!
You’ve proved your point Steve.
Hundreds and thousands of “journalists” should be red with shame and embarrassment but they probably haven’t even read this. Still more proof they are not journalists.
There are many doctors and scientists at PhD level who are not qualified. Education in the academic sense stopped being what education was 30 years ago. It’s clearly agenda driven today (pharma, and controlled release of truth). Any doctor or PhD scientist who is not working additionally, outside of interests financial and otherwise, who are not self fascinated by true independent thought. Do not qualify for much of anything.. other then towing the line. Let’s be clear.
Might there be any retired but still highly respected journalists who might look over these materials? A Ted Koppel or Dan Rather?
There are some issues on Team Reality as well, such as Berenson asserting that antibodies are produced immediately after infection or vaccine, (wrong; it takes weeks), or Chudov asserting that Hepatitis A is transmitted by sexual activity, (wrong; fecal-oral route is most common route of Hep A transmission). When I and other doctors correct them, this information gets buried in hundreds of comments. Journalists who write about medical matters should check with physicians or double check their assertions first with PubMed info.
I'm not a journalist or medical professional, but even I began recognizing red flags regarding covid and the vaccines early in 2020. It wasn't until I stumbled on Steve's substack late last year - and subsequently those of Robert Malone and others - that I felt vindicated that my months of arduous research was validated. I felt like a lone island in the middle of the ocean before I found qualified individuals vindicating my stance. Finally, I had some big names to throw at people who vilified me for being an anti-vaxxer (which I am not) or a conspiracy theorist (which I have become, for good reason.) Thank you Steve, et al!
It's not the journalist's job to "tell the truth" or "hide the truth". They are not supposed to have opinions at all in their writing. Otherwise known as a bias. They are the reporter, not the narrator. It's their job to report the facts and allow the public to decide the truth. It's not their job to be an expert. It's their job to interview experts and to give an accurate representation of views.
Cherry picking who they interview (i.e. censorship) isn't journalism.
Journalism has been corrupted into narrative warfare (propaganda). That's what the issue is.
The journalists who want to ask questions won't get their stories run by management or they no longer have a job. That's the way it works right now.
We no longer have a "free" press. That's a huge problem.
There are very few "journalists". What happens if you, as a "journalist", expose crimes against humanity? - Ask Julian Assange! Ask Paul Craig Roberts! There are mostly "presstitutes" and "media whores" used by the power elite in order to fuck us all and to fuck the children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et4eekh-5XE
The issue here is honesty. Who can we trust to tell the truth ~ the unbathed, make-up free, honest-to-God truth?
Sadly, when even our physicians remain silent or are outrageously mendacious (never mind the “Do no harm” oath) I have no hope that left leaning journos (ie, the majority of them) have even a smidgeon of integrity.
Unqualified journalists are just responding to their readers, who are mostly unqualified to read articles on medicine. Readers are just looking for talking points and direction, and journalism is just the outlet for issuing those talking points and orders. The problem isn't bad journalism, it's bad readers. Those are manufactured by bad schools. Save the schools to save society.
Just like you, Steve, are unqualified to perform statistical analysis and conduct survey research. Yet you attempt to do these things anyway. As I have suggested repeatedly enlist the help of a qualified statistician. By qualified I mean someone with advanced degrees in mathematical statistics, probability theory and has decades of research experience. It's pathetic that so many people think they can just collect some data any way they want, throw the data into a computer and out of the computer comes "research". This is why 99% of all social science research it utterly useless rubbish.
You can always spot the weak-minded--they avoid talking about Event 201, which has been published online for over two years. People won't discuss it because of the fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist." Our own eyes tell us the facts, but we refuse to discuss the facts about Event 201. We can't talk about what our eyes see because we might be called "conspiracy theorists."
Hans Christian Andersen wrote about this exact situation, explaining the social acceptance mind game, "Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid."
https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
So if some journalist like Sharyl Atkisson were to question vaccines, then that journalist would no longer remain mainstream?
Steve, I think you are asking the WRONG question. It has nothing to do with being QUALIFIED (hell, I'm not qualified and even I get it - it's not complicated if you look).
What you need is a BRAVE, HONEST, OPENMINDED (and probably sacrificial) journalist whose editor, channel/publication hasn't been bought by Gates or pHarma.
But then you have the problem of mass psychosis with their audience...
Would they even believe it if they were told after two years of indoctrination.
And would they even want to know or acknowledge the murderous truth of what has been done to them and their children?
If I may take the liberty to modify your headline:
“Are there any mainstream journalists who are qualified to write articles?”
Journalism used to mean understand your brief, research a topic, investigate situations, talk to as many learned and knowledgable people with experience and understanding of the topic, challenge assertions and claims, look for evidence and then write a concise, grammatically correct, interesting, informative account.
Today journalism is cut-and-paste idiotic Twitter streams from ill-informed, prejudiced, deranged individuals, or to cut-and-paste from Government press releases, and in between mangle the English language with literary skills of a 5 year old.
In our modern times, would Watergate have been investigated and reported or suppressed as disinformation?
Too harsh?
QED = Quickly Ends Dandruff.
The better question is: "Are there any doctors qualified to talk/write about health?"
Because the majority of doctors push Big Pharma drugs and KNOW NOTHING about health.