Leonard C. Goodman Media Criticism Original

Beware of the Fact-Checkers

A case study in how allegedly neutral analysts hired by publications or social media can effectively cancel good-faith questions and opinions because they challenge dominant narratives.

By Leonard Goodman / Original to ScheerPost

Opinion columnists are familiar with the traditional role of the fact checker. Prior to publication, an editor checks accuracy of quotes and the sources for factual assertions. Erroneous or unsupported assertions are removed or revised.

But times have changed. Today, an entire fact-checker industry has emerged to check your opinions, making sure you have not strayed beyond acceptable limits for public discourse. These professional fact-checkers are often brought in after publication of a controversial article, opinion piece or podcast to quell a controversy. Acting more like business consultants, they help media platforms large and small stay on the right side of government officials and corporate sponsors.

COVID-19 has been a boon to the fact-checking industry. Big outfits like Politifact and Factcheck.org have special divisions just to police COVID “misinformation.” Like the Ministry of Truth imagined by George Orwell in his epic novel, “1984,” these outfits will tell you what you can and can’t say about the lockdowns, masks, and the mRNA vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna.

I got a window into the world of professional fact checkers last November after I published an op-ed for the Chicago Reader called, “Vaxxing our Kids, Why I’m not rushing to get my six-year-old the COVID-19 vaccine.” In it, I considered the arguments for and against the official policy to vaccinate every child. And I apparently crossed a line by including opinions held by a significant number of prominent scientists and physicians who believe healthy children don’t need the vaccine because their risk of severe COVID is minuscule, the vaccine may do more damage than good to children, and it does little to stop the spread of COVID.

Vaxxing our Kids was my 21st column for the Chicago Reader. Founded in 1971, the free and freaky Chicago Reader has a long history of taking on centers of powers and inviting controversy, including articles exposing the Chicago Police department’s systematic use of brutal torture to extract confessions from murder suspects (1990-2007), the Catholic Church’s role in covering up allegations of child molestation by priests (1991), and the Israeli government’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (2002-05).

In 2018, the Chicago Reader was insolvent and faced dissolution. I partnered with a Chicago real estate developer to purchase the Reader for $1. We assumed its debt and helped pay its operating expenses with the intention to transition the paper to not-for-profit status as the best way to assure its survival into the future.

In 2019, I began writing a semi-regular opinion column for the Reader. Taking advantage of its fifty-year history of providing a space for dissent, I focused on subjects that would not be welcome in mainstream papers, such as the connection between convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Intelligence[1], the persecution of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning[2], the Obama Foundation’s move to privatize 20 acres of historic public parkland on Chicago’s South Shore and cut down a thousand trees in order to build a 235-foot-high museum tower on the shores of Lake Michigan[3], and the collaboration between corporate-friendly federal judges in the Southern District of New York and the Chevron Corporation to punish a lawyer who is trying to make Chevron pay for its deliberate destruction of a large section of the Ecuadorian Amazon.[4] Scheerpost co-published several of these columns.

But apparently expressing concerns about giving my six-year-old daughter an mRNA vaccine that was not tested on humans until 2020, and that has been approved only for “emergency use” in kids, took me into forbidden territory. Like all my columns, Vaxxing our Kids was submitted on deadline, fact-checked and edited. At publication, my editor thanked me for taking on the difficult topic and pronounced my research to be “bulletproof.” She predicted that the piece would be controversial, but that many parents of young children would appreciate hearing a different point of view. This prediction was accurate. Vaxxing our Kids received 772 likes on Twitter and 323 retweets even though the Reader did not support the column. Dozens of parents reached out to tell me that they too were struggling with the decision whether to give their young child an mRNA vaccine and were grateful for information that could not be found in other media. On the other side, a small but angry group of readers and pro-pharma operatives lashed out, demanding that Vaxxing our Kids be taken down off the Reader website and that I be fired as a columnist.

Scheerpost co-published Vaxxing our Kids.[5] But the way Scheerpost and the Chicago Reader handled the exact same content and the ensuing controversy could not have been more different. Scheerpost put the column front and center on its website and invited readers to comment and debate. Last I checked, there were 105 on-line comments and a robust debate, for and against the policy of mass vaccination of children. Many of the posters on Scheerpost shared knowledge, research and expertise on the questions raised in the op-ed, a shining example of how the First Amendment is supposed to work.

The Chicago Reader took a different approach. Rather than embrace the controversy and welcome a debate over an important issue of public health, the Reader let “the mob ha[ve] the final edit” as one journalist remarked in the Chicago Tribune.[6] After disabling all comments on its website, Reader management hired an external and anonymous “fact checker” to rewrite my column and issue a report with nine points of disagreement, later expanded to fifteen points of disagreement. The publisher offered me two options: either remove the column from the Reader website, or replace it with the new version that was “extensively modified” by the fact-checker, to be followed by the fact-checker report. I asked to publish a rebuttal to the fact-checker report and was told: “As for rebuttal: Your side is the actual column. The rebuttal is not a ‘side’ it is a fact-checker’s report.”

At this point, the Reader’s board got involved to protest management’s handling of the controversy over the opinion column. The board passed a resolution demanding that the Reader guarantee a space for dissenting views before it transitions to not-for-profit status. Management has dug in and refused to engage with the board’s demands, leading to a stalemate which threatens the future of the Reader.

I accept that it is theoretically possible that I could publish an opinion column that, although extensively researched, edited and fact-checked pre-publication, could be so riddled with factual errors that it needed to be either taken down or extensively modified. On the other hand, I have written more than thirty op-eds for a half dozen publications and never once had to correct a single factual assertion after publication. So it seems highly unlikely that there could be fifteen factual errors in Vaxxing our Kids.

Also, a careful examination of the fact-checker report reveals it to be highly dubious. Most of the items in the report begin with a declaration that a sentence in my column is “untrue” or “misleading,” followed by a convoluted word salad that winds up by conceding that what I wrote is 100% accurate. The remaining items in the report are just disagreements with the opinions of the experts that I accurately quote in the column.

For example, item number one in the report takes issue with the following sentence of my column: “Moreover, by not advertising their vaccines by name, Pfizer-BioNTech and other drugmakers are not obliged, under current FDA regulations, to list the risks and side effects of the vaccine.” The fact-checker report pronounces this sentence to be both “untrue” and “misinformation.” The report then confirms that, “Vaccine manufacturers have not advertised their vaccines at all” and then adds, “If Pfizer begins to advertise its vaccine, which received FDA approval earlier this year, it will have to follow regulations and list side effects.” In other words, the report confirms that what I wrote is 100% accurate but nevertheless labels it “misinformation.”

Items two and three assert that it was “misleading” for me to criticize the FDA for going “to court to resist a FOIA request seeking the data it relied on to license the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.” But here again, the fact checker concedes, in convoluted fashion, that what I wrote is 100% true – the FDA did in fact go to court to resist a FOIA request for the “raw data underpinning the trials.” So how is what I wrote misleading? According to the fact checker, I should have credited the FDA’s explanation that, because of “its small department of ten FOIA officers (who are already handling hundreds of other requests)”, it needed 55 years (until 2076) to go through the documents and redact “patient information and trade secrets.”

In other words, in the age of the fact checker, an opinion columnist is required to credit the official word of government bureaucrats, even when those bureaucrats are clearly lying, as they were in this case. How do I know they were lying? In early January, about a month after Vaxxing our Kids was published, a federal judge in Texas ordered the FDA to release all the data it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine at a pace of 55,000 pages a month, rejecting the FDA’s argument that its short-staffed FOIA office only had the bandwidth to review and release 500 pages a month. The FDA has so far complied with the court order. And in March, as was widely reported in the media, the first batch of vaccine-trial data was released revealing that Pfizer was aware of 1,291 adverse side effects from its vaccine when it applied for FDA approval.[7]

Most of the other items in the fact-checker report criticize me for accurately quoting opinions that the fact-checker disagrees with. For example, my column cites recent statements from Mexico’s health minister, Jorge Alcocer Varela, “who recommends against vaccinating children, warning that COVID-19 vaccines could inhibit the development of children’s immune systems.” The fact-checker asserts: “There is no evidence that this is the case with COVID vaccines or any other vaccines.” But the mRNA vaccines have only been given to children for about a year. No one knows for sure what the long-term effects will be. Dr. Alcocer Varela believes this vaccine could hinder the learning of a child’s immune system. He may be right and he may be wrong. But he is entitled to his opinion. And considering his credentials as an immunologist, researcher, teacher, healthcare professional and government official, parents like myself have a right to consider his views in making health-care decisions for our young children. People who disagree with Dr. Alcocer Varela are also entitled to express their views in opposition. That is the way free speech is supposed to work.

I got additional insight into the anonymous fact-checker report after a journalist from the Poynter Institute wrote an article weighing in on the controversy at the Chicago Reader.[8] The Poynter Institute is a self-appointed leader in “accountability journalism” through its International Fact-Checking Network. The Poynter journalist wrote that “Goodman’s column [Vaxxing our Kids] received backlash from readers and staff due to inaccuracies and misleading statements within the piece.” In an email, I demanded that the journalist identify these “inaccuracies and misleading statements within the piece.” She responded in part that my article cited the views of Dr. Robert Malone; but an article at Politifact.com explains “why he cannot be considered a ‘reputable’ source on the COVID-19 vaccines.”[9]

In other words, Dr. Robert Malone has been cancelled by Politifact. Therefore, op-ed columnists are not permitted to cite Dr. Malone’s views even though he is one of the original inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology and scores of people around the world are interested in what he has to say.

I should also point out that the Poynter Institute owns Politifact.

I wrote twenty columns for the Chicago Reader, most of which expose connections between government officials and their corporate partners. But it was only after I questioned the official narrative on COVID vaccines that the Reader felt compelled to bring in the professional fact checkers to justify censoring my opinions and cancelling me as columnist.

I suspect that the real objection to Vaxxing our Kids has nothing to do with factual errors. Rather, the piece may have stumbled onto some uncomfortable truths about our official policy to vaccinate every child in America for a virus that poses almost no risk to healthy children. Perhaps the bigger concern was the following excerpt from my column that escaped entirely the fact-checker’s red pen:

“This year, Pfizer has banked on selling 115 million pediatric doses to the U.S. government and expects to earn $36 billion in vaccine revenue. Congress is so in the pocket of Big Pharma that it’s against the law for our government to negotiate bulk pricing for drugs, meaning taxpayers must pay retail.”

That kind of money flowing to a corporate partner makes it hard for government officials to focus on the science.

Moreover, data now becoming available shows the vaccine to have been ineffective in kids. As recently reported by NBC News, “Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine offer almost no protection against coronavirus infection in kids ages 5 to 11, according to new data posted online — a finding that may have consequences for parents and their vaccinated children.”[10] Also, more than 17,000 doctors and scientists recently signed onto a declaration that “healthy children shall not be subject to forced vaccination.”[11]

These developments, coupled with the court-ordered release of the data from Pfizer’s vaccine trials showing more than a thousand undisclosed side effects, may explain the mad scramble to shut down dissenting voices.

As a WWII Air Force pilot was reported to have said: “If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.”

Since the age of Socrates, truth has been discovered through reasoned debate and discourse. As the places in media to host that debate keep disappearing, some brave board members at the Chicago Reader are fighting to rescue the paper from the dark forces of censorship and to preserve its fifty-year tradition of embracing dissenting views.

Leonard Goodman
Leonard Goodman

Leonard Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and Adjunct Professor of Law at DePaul University.


  1. So-called “fact checkers” are just corporate/establishment propagandists. They have no credibility, and they’re actually the ones who need to be fact checked.

  2. Mr Goodman is a lawyer and lawyers are good with qualitative arguments but not quantitative ones. So lets look at the big picture.

    America’s performance on Covid has been, and continues to be, shameful. Over one million people dead and still counting. Conversely, Communist China has a death rate about one one- thousandth (1/1000) as high. Why the difference?

    In the final analysis it is a choice between the supposed risks or benefits for the individual versus the society, i.e. the ‘community’ as in the root word for ‘communist’. Individual Chinese might not want to get vaccinated or locked-down. But it is obvious that, collectively, that is the greatest good for the greatest number. So another way of explaining the large difference is to say that we are ‘selfish.’ Mr Goodman is entirely right about the outrageous profits of ‘our’ drug companies. Also shameful. Yes, as a nation, we are greedy and selfish.

    Is there an inconvenience, minor pain, and miniscule risk to Mr Goodman’s 6-year old daughter? Yes. Is the vaccine perfect? No not perfect but quite effective, as we all know. Could the 6-year old kill her Grandma, or somebody else’s Grandma by passing along Covid? Of course; each dead Grandma had to catch it from somebody. Fundamentally, Mr Goodman doesn’t care.

    Is Mr Goodman being censored? Yes and to use ‘fact checking’ as an excuse is misguided. I believe it is really willful blindness to the shameful selfishness that we tolerate or perhaps even encourage.

    1. @Len Schwartz
      First, this post was about supposed “fact-checkers,” not about COVID-19 vaccines.

      Second, your premises are dead wrong, starting with the FACT that COVID-19 vaccines, like all “leaky” vaccines, don’t prevent either contraction or transmission of the disease. Even the head of the CDC admitted that last August, though some of us who haven’t been brainwashed by corporate propaganda have known it for far longer. Additionally, China has a much lower vaccination rate for older people than the U.S., and that’s the population that’s by far the most vulnerable to death from COVID-19. Therefore, China’s much lower death rate has nothing to do with vaccinations. Everyone in China gets healthcare unlike in the U.S., where at least 200,000 people have died from COVID-19 from their inability to get it. Finally, the death rate in the U.S. from COVID-19 has been greatly exaggerated, because they count people who died WITH the disease as people who died FROM the disease. The government openly admits this, it’s not a conspiracy theory or open to debate.

      Your attempted shaming of people who don’t want the vaccines and/or don’t want it given to their children is disgusting. People have a right to their own bodily autonomy. If you think the vaccine works, then get it. But whether other people get it must be up to them, and they shouldn’t be forced or coerced in any way to do so. What’s good for society is usually more important than what’s good for individuals, but forcing or coercing people to put things in their bodies that they don’t want takes that way too far.

      1. Yup .. the issue isn’t even that the Chicago Reader is in danger of being a shill Big Pharm (young journalists are so gullible) .. As much as I adore the Reader, I have never held it to much higher journalistic standards than the Weekly World News .. it not being fact-checked was part of the fun .. the problem is that it suddenly and selectively FROWNS upon anti-establishment material that does not fit some approved agenda.

    2. Leonard, Some of us are worried about your column because we are affiliated with members of the pediatric hospital community, and we know of many kids that were getting very ill and being hospitalized. I sent you a screen shot to your twitter that showed you the number of articles in 1 day across the country of the spike in child hospitalizations. If your column prevents a parent who otherwise would have vaccinated their child from doing so, and that child ends up really sick, or hospitalized, well, that’s a real concern. The government has not mandated vaccines for children, but you shouldn’t scare parents out of getting them. And you shouldn’t use your owner position at the Reader to insist that your column not be fact checked after the fact. Doctors at pediatric hospitals come home and make sure their kids are vaccinated. They see what can happen with covid and it scares them to death. Spend some time on a child covid ward at the height of the pandemic before you continue to insist that you are correct to take this approach. I’m very disappointed that this seems about you, and not about the children at all.

      1. @J
        Utter BS, you’re playing off parents’ hysteria regarding their children. Almost all of the people who’ve died from COVID-19 were over 60 (95%), and the majority of the remainder were obese. Almost all the rest had at least four co-morbidities. Young children are at more risk of dying from the flu than from COVID.

        You’re “affiliated with members of the pediatric hospital community”? What exactly does that mean? Sounds more like you work for one of the pharmaceutical companies that’s making an illegitimate fortune off of these vaccines.

      2. Write and submit your own essay .. don’t try to edit or ban someone else’s.

    3. So you advocate killing 116 kids to save 1, You advocate young boys and men to risk getting myocarditis when they are perfectly healthy. Never has a vaccine created so much harm, the injuries and deaths would never have been accepted in any other case. The vaccine spreads all over the body to the liver, ovaries, testis and brain. Do you know what that will do?

      I am sorry Mr. Schwartz but I am looking at the big picture and no vaccine should ever be as risky as this one is and be mandated, promoted and required to be taken regardless. This is the kind of vaccine that you use with utmost care and with serious individual patient assessment, Or even better not use it at all until they go back to the drawing board and resolve all the identified issues with it.

      Never in the history of vaccine use have we allowed such a risky vaccine to be released so broadly to the general public. The long term impacts on our communities and society have yet to be seen. The best way to manage COVID is early treatment, with known and safe drugs. If you cared about the community and the greater good, you would go beyond the narrative and learn. Your lack of knowledge in this is the shameful part.

      1. So do you have numbers to back up what you say? You do not believe that there are a million people dead in this country from covid? I assume you have not been vaccinated. Or are you a hypocrite or is it none of my business?

      2. Please dont talk to me like I wear a tin foil hat, yes COVID exists and people have died from it. My point is that people have been very harmed by the vaccine that frankly if they got covid they would have survived no problem, but they did not fair well with the vaccine.

        I dont find joy in this kind of study, I dont like having to understand this science, spend time reading and listening to talks about COVID, but I have found over time, but what I am told by my government and health agencies and what is closer to the truth do not align. I also am highly sensitive to actions by government officials to segregate and ostracize a specific group of people, you only have to crack one history book to know that never goes well. So our situation on COVID is apportant to me, so this is what I spend my spare time doing.

        I have done tonnes of research, here are some books – “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert Kennedy Jr., I have bought but have not yet read “Covid-19 and the global predators” by Dr Peter R Breggin, MD and Ginger Ross Breggin.

        You can check out some substacks by Pierre Kory, Steven Kirsch’s newsletter, Voice of Science and Solidarity, and Igor’s newsletter. You can google Dr Ryan Cole I havent found a site he manages, but he does interviews etc. There is the work of Dr Peter McCullough. You can also check out https://drtrozzi.org/ he has lots of good articles from scientists and doctors on this subject. There is also Dr John Campbell on Youtube. If you want to see some data yourself, go to https://phmpt.org/ where you can study the pfizer documents that FDA was force to release., as of today there are 166 documents.

        Dr Robert Malone, also has a substack article that teaches one how to read scientific studies.

        Finally, Senator Ron Johnson held a session called: Covid19: a second opinion – https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html. It is 5 hours, but I found it very helpful.

        This means you will have to look beyond “the government” and beyond what the mass media tells you. You might not like looking at who they have cancelled and who they have shunned. I dont know why, they have i dont know why this approach has been taken. I also dont understand why government’s do not focus on early treatment of COVID, why do they wait until people are the in the hospital to treat. Sigh, I am not sure we will ever find out.

        Honestly, my vaccine status is irrelevant, if vaccinated I think I would feel anger for the unnecessary risk that my government and health care professionals put upon me, my husband and my children and scared for any long unknown long term impacts. I think if I was not vaccinated, I would feel relieved not to be vaccinated, but I would also be unemployed and scared about what else the government will do to me for my stand.

        I live in Canada by the way, where our constitution is our government’s toilet paper.

      3. @Angela Anderson
        You should have just said that no vaccine should be mandated. People’s bodily autonomy should take priority. Furthermore, if a vaccine works, it’s no one else’s business whether someone gets it. If you’re concerned about getting the disease, get the vaccine. It makes no difference to you whether other people got it.

    4. If you are living in this world and have people around you, and I’m sure you do you know that no matter what your vaccination status is for covid 19, your going to get it. We all know that, all you have to do is talk to friends, family, coworkers, strangers everybody has gotten or will get it. Grandma may die or a six year old. Actually it’s not may it’s will because that’s what happens in life.

    5. @Len Schwartz
      Actually, a million people in the U.S. have not died FROM COVID-19. The government even admitted this in public. One million people have died WITH COVID -19, some from it, some from other causes, and some from a combination.

      Both the disease and the effectiveness of the vaccines have been substantially exaggerated. Yes there was a pandemic, yes it killed a lot of people, and yes the vaccines kept people from dying or being hospitalized. But the death rate from COVID-19 is much lower than the 3.5% still being used (it’s around 0.1%, as proven by a Stanford scientist who bothered to actually track it in southern California), and the vaccines don’t prevent contracting the disease nor transmitting it to others.

      The pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune from these vaccines and they’re very happy to keep people unjustifiably terrified and thinking that they need to get vaccinated when in fact they don’t. Omicron and the following strain are basically colds for people who aren’t old, obese, or have comorbidities, but people are hysterically panicking over these mild strains. Elected officials get millions of dollars every year in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, and media get millions of dollars each year in advertisements from them, so they’re happy to parrot the industry BS and keep everyone scared. As the Public Enemy song says, “don’t believe the hype!”

  3. Fact checkers now are all about enforcing propaganda. Facts have become pesona non grata.

    1. Unless and until fact-checkers become transparent on WHO owns them and what conflicts of interest may be present, they cannot and should not be trusted. And yet, the media is so full of these conflicts of interest, Big Media makes certain that we are kept in the dark AND that we are spoon-fed misinformation .

      1. @Dana Ullman, MPH
        The media is propaganda, not news or proper information. The fact-checker scam is just the latest of their propaganda methods that started over 100 years ago and have been refined into the most sophisticated propaganda in the world. Americans have no idea how brainwashed they are!

  4. Free speech is dead. Journalism is dead. Privacy is dead. The rule of law is dead. Democracy is dead and pushing up daisies. But the Empire of Lies remains….

    I live 1984 every damn day. Call me Winston.

  5. Because of this I believe NOTHING the Government says and will never believe my government or its Coward Corporate Cabal. I look for the Robert Malone’s of the world and use discernment in everything I do. I dismiss everything government tells me.
    My motto is Believe Nothing Question Everything!!!! And seek only true Knowledge.

  6. Since the “modernization” (abolition) of our domestic anti-propaganda law (the Smith Mundt Act) almost ten years ago, the State Department/ CIA now LEGALLY controls the Establishment Official Narratives and their stenographers in State Media. Although Orwellian, this allows for more efficient control of the American population; under this system dissent and discussion cannot be tolerated.

  7. I’d say we are in a heavy duty moral crisis. A kind of hitech good vs evil morality play. I can picture an assembly line with fact checkers standing near a conveyor belt picking out facts that don’t fit the corporate paradigm. The solid facts get pitched into a bin , labeled harmful verbiage for disposal. The fluffy, marshmallow, useless, ‘facts’ get distributed to the masses.

    Thus the information we so badly need to help the planet is discarded. If the masses are unable to recognize evil when it is so prominent can anything we call civilization survive?

  8. A primary objective of the Pharmafia’s drug pushing of covid ‘vaccines’ (biodigital colonization) among children is to get its product on the childhood ‘vaccination’ schedule, thus mandating these bioweapons as gatekeeping passes into institutions like schools, for instance, and insuring the only kind of immunity these frauds of public health care about, legal immunity from damages their poisons inflict, such as the presence of chronic illness in over half the nation’s youth by now, subjected – since the 1986 SCOTUS case originally granting complete immunity to Big Harma’s ‘vaccines’ – to at least 72 of these mystery shots by 18 years of age.

    To be sure, this is good for the organized crime cartel’s bizzness of selling snake oil for unrivaled profits among our (fascist) corporate state predators. But it’s especially good for ruling elites’ power to control the general population, as education and tomorrow’s adult human resources provide a crucial means of normalizing Nazi medicine and biosecurity state mandates and passes. This intergenerational campaign against us livestock has contributed to such current payoff for our masters as so many, too many people, accustomed to uninformed consent to Frankenscience, continuing to comply with a global state of siege under cover of a state-of-emergency psyop to march obedient herds into slaughterhouses (e.g., The Vaccine Death Report,

    Fact-checking by the Ministry of Truth is a necessary part of the psyop, a truly Orwellian disinformation and doublethink campaign to control information among the general public by silencing and punishing dissenters, whistleblowers, and other various truthtellers and authorize the plandemic’s lies as knowledge, expertise, Science (as public discourse continues to refer to nonexistent virus, disease, pandemic, cases, death rates, and more). In fact, principal fact-checkers derive their existence and raison d’etre from the same philanthrocapitalist network of governance via the NGO/nonprofit industrial complex, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that is funding and overseeing the administration of global tyranny via (fascist) public-private agencies like the WHO, the IPCC, and other bought-and-paid-for branches of the UN.

    The psychological warfare extends beyond the fact-checkers, forming a vast coordinated effort among ruling institutions, from medicine, media, and military to sciences, schools and states, of class-based social systems across the world now concentrated and centralized among a transnational oligarchy of .001% unprecedented in human history, the intended result of approximately half a century of neoliberal class warfare, as attested by such elite planning documents as the 1971 Powell Memo/Manifesto and 1975 Trilateral Commission’s “Crisis of Democracy” (now succeeded by planning for the new abnormal world order in the WEF’s Great Reset/4th Industrial Revolution).

    Take it as faint praise at most when this author recognizes SP as exceptional to the MSM, whose standard of ‘news’ is so below the bar of anything beyond brainwashing. Like too many other ‘independent,’ ‘alternative,’ and ‘leftist’ outlets, SP largely has been toeing the line, self-censoring, and actively promoting the psyop’s panic propaganda, as those who decry the decline of investigative journalism here like Hedges shamelessly support the narrative of covid-1984. (“How the organized Left got Covid wrong, learned to love lockdowns and lost its mind: an autopsy,” by Christian Parenti: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/31/left-covid-lockdowns-mind-autopsy/.)

  9. FYI, the first highlighted link in this piece doesn’t work. You’re welcome. See what good fact checking can do for you?

  10. Posts like this just prove Chris Hedges is hauling this wreckage. He’s the only decent writer here, and the all of the commenters are useless third-party voters or apathetic (emphasis on pathetic). The Left indeed has that Cult of Beautiful Losers problem.

  11. The Internet as a mass medium of communication went through a difficult birth. Now, in it’s teenage years we have a situation of history repeating itself, basically something like book burning on the web. This will ultimately create a state of total control and then preempt a revolution on a global scale.

  12. I’ve noticed the last number of times I commented on these threads that my opinion was not moderated or published. Apologies if I do not articulate myself so well but I do have a voice whether you choose to publish my comment or not.

  13. People can’t discuss the same thing when they see different things in the same event Reality is biased by experience. This is why there is such a gap in both the Readers’ editorial experience of you, and your experience of the editorial staff and reporters.

    The Reader’s reaction to your column was not driven by what you fear; an intentional censorship of ideas. What you believe they are doing, they believe you are doing. The Reader’s concern was against the appearance of impropriety; an owner having a column that espouses personal views around a controversial and very active and pressing real fear in people’s lives involving their children. As a non-medical professional, it was a bad decision to let that kind of opinion column go thru. Tracy Baim did what she had to do to get the trust of readership back. It wasn’t about you – it was about the stance taken, a conspiracy stance, about an active medical issue, by a non-medical person. that is an owner. And now you want her fired, only something an owner could demand. The other difference in reality is also forcing an inability to discuss this and come to a resolution; the difference in life experience. People afraid for their and their families’ financial safety and their own occupational career identity, versus someone with experience of government power manipulating decisions impacting the public; a need to pay bills, support themselves and their families and maintain their work career, versus, fact-checking, free speech, undue government/pharmaceutic/financial influence on vaccines, I just wish you could step back, breath, and let this go. You will end up with many people supporting you if you do.

  14. I got to your “examples” that the fact checkers called you out on. I’d presume that you’d list the ones that you felt you had the strongest case in favor of your own argument. If that’s the case, then the Reader was absolutely correct to have you retract or reprint your column. Your vast experience of 30 columns notwithstanding, they were definitely misleading.

  15. Content is irrelevant. US Constitution by granting freedom of press explicitly excluded possibility of any fact checking done outside of editorial board. The problem of lack of accuracy or possible misinterpretation of facts and evidences was chosen by authors of First Amendment to be handled by rebuttals not by censorship preferably by means of another article in the same press outlet or in different outlet with similar readership. The most important for upholding freedom of press and speech is fundamental assumption of no apriori arbitrary merit-based authority of one side over another as nobody is infallible and nobody has monopoly on truth.

    It is upsetting seeing those attacks by blatant state or corporate propaganda outlets give any credibility or authority to Orwellian fact checkers that are not checkers of anything and do not know what facts are.

  16. As a grandparent, I have watched my children grapple with the question of vaccine/no vaccine. Although they choose to go with it, the issues brought up by Mr Goodman were important to consider. I read the piece when it first came out and welcomed the perspective. Many of the more”controversial perspectives were clearly citing the opinions of experts. A reader with a half a brain knows how to process opinion from fact. Agree or disagree, discuss, don’t cancel

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: