Journalists Ask Stupid Questions To Push Their Narrative And Conceal The Truth

The other day, I was going about my business in the gym when I heard something on the TV that stuck in my ears like a sharp knife: I heard a journalist ask an intelligent question to Donald Trump.  I paused for a moment to hear his answer, as it was something I was actually curious about.  I quickly discovered the source of my confusion.  This reporter was a foreign journalist, not the White House press corps.

I made it a rule years ago to get my domestic news from foreign sources.  While it does not rule out bias, and there is the ever-present problem of unreported news, or lies of omission and distortion, the foreign press has little skin in the game, and far less of a reason to lie than the local press does.  Of course, globalism is changing all that, but for the time being it remains true.

The converse is also true.  I hold CNN International in high regard, and if I am outside America, would turn to them to find out what is going on around the world.  CNN still has the most news bureau stations worldwide, and the international edition is a completely separate network from its domestic propaganda arm.

Case in point:  I was abroad when US General Stanley McChrystal was fired for speaking his mind and making critical comments about his bosses, including President Obama.  The foreign CNN International reported this as a “sacking,” but when I returned home, domestic media including CNN all said the general had resigned.  You know, to spend more time with his family.

Foreign publications such as The Guardian have published exposes on fraud and political malfeasance by Greg Palast (American investigative journalist living in the UK) as well as being instrumental in the Edward Snowden revelations.  Russia Today has revealed important facts about Syria and the Ukraine that the domestic press does not want to discuss.  And Justin D Martin, a journalist currently working in Qatar, regularly publishes interesting stories not covered by the domestic press.

The White House Press Corps: Fools In Action

For years, I have been unable to watch a White House Press briefing without becoming angered at the level of stupidity and wasted opportunities to question the powerful.  The journalists typically ask questions whose answers are self-evident and only serve as softball setups for the propagandist press secretary to answer with a mouth full of blabbery nothingness.

A cab driver could both ask and answer questions more honestly and genuinely than either party at a press briefing.  One need only look at the presidential town hall debates, where the audience members asked relevant questions, as compared to the formal debates where journalists had crafted questions for the candidates.  This begs the question:  If you can’t ask a better question than Ken Bone, why are you a professional journalist?

The domestic press’s main tool of distortion is not outright lying, but distortion and omission.  And they do so not just in their reporting, failing to cover stories entirely, as detailed in the 2004 book Into The Buzzsaw, which documents spiked stories and censorship, but by reporting only pieces without the crucial context or explanation.

A great example is how the media NEVER asks WHY are there so many refugees in the wake of the Syrian war (Lauren Southern investigates and has trouble finding any actual Syrians in a refugee camp). Instead, time after time, as violent crimes are committed by outsiders, the answer is a vague “Islam is responsible” instead of tracing the problem back to the ongoing Syrian war and the West’s complicity in supporting the violent extremist rebels, a common theme of US foreign policy which results in mayhem and destruction on all sides.

Journalists regularly squander the opportunity to ask important questions to powerful figures.  I have theorized that the American public would be better served by replacing the entire press corps with a random array of men off the street.  The quality of questions would be higher, and the off-topic rambling answers would not be tolerated by your typical plain spoken, working unemployed American.

Testing The Theory: Roosh’s 2016 Press Conference

When the unwashed masses ask more intelligent questions than trained professional journalists, there is a serious problem. To test this theory, I reviewed Roosh’s press conference from one year ago, where journalists who had chosen to come to the Washington D.C. press conference to cover the story of the meetups that were labeled by the mainstream media as “rape clubs” had the opportunity to ask questions of Roosh directly. Let’s look at the 35 choice questions they wasted everyone’s time with.

Before we begin, think of ONE question you would ask Roosh, off the top of your head, and see how it compares to the quality of questions asked.

“Why do you think people think of you as a rapist?”

Really? We’re here at a press conference about the media calling the meetups “rape events,” and you JUST sat through Roosh’s speech dressing down the media for lying and slandering.  And THIS is the question you still have?

Obviously, people believe this only because YOU in the media TOLD them so!  Could anyone still be unclear about this?  Kudos for Roosh maintaining frame after this idiotic question.

“Do you acknowledge that some of your writing is offensive?”

Almost any intelligent piece of writing can be found offensive by someone. The obvious answer is yes, some people probably are offended at something. What a stupid question.

“Do you consider yourself a victim?”

Who really cares what word is used to label the target of a media assassination? This is the typical media gotcha question. It sounds important, but ultimately it’s utterly meaningless as one can draw no important conclusions from any possible answer. If Roosh thought he was a victim, or didn’t, what implication at all does that have on the story?

“Do you have any regrets about your publishing?”

Semi-interesting question. Hindsight is always 20/20, and so one can wonder if, knowing what we know now, one would take a different action. But of course it’s an utterly meaningless question because no one is omnipotent. What’s done is done—you live and learn.

Even if one made a mistake and later regretted it, or didn’t, how does that matter to anyone, outside the self-improvement for that person himself?  Roosh does address this later, stating simply “You have taken me from here [and raised me higher], based on a lie. I’d rather you not have done that, but it happened, and that is life.”

There are no takebacks.  Life 101.

“Why did you write it originally?”

That’s fairly obvious if one read the article in question. Stupid question.

“If a woman got raped, did she do something wrong?”

Well, that would depend entirely on the woman and the circumstances, wouldn’t it? In some circumstances, this would be true, and in others false. Stupid question.

And one can do right or wrong things, without justifying extreme consequences happening to them.  If I forget to turn off the gas on my stove, I did something wrong.  That doesn’t mean I deserve for my apartment to explode in flames.  But it’s a potential result of my negligence.

“What was the thought experiment specifically?”

Again, obvious if one took five minutes to read the article. These journalists took hours out of their day to cover this story, and physically traveled to the press conference in a hotel, but apparently failed to read the subject they were writing about.

“Can you break down the crux of your argument?”

Ha ha ha.  Can you read?

“You made a suggestion in this article that was what?”

It’s obvious in the title alone, if the article is too difficult to read.  How can you be a journalist if you can’t report on things without having them explained to you?

“Is this like a multi-year point though? What about Return of Kings?”

What about it?  There are many ideas presented here. They are presented by different authors and in different contexts to provide arguments and ideas. What the hell are you asking?  This is the kind of pseudo-psychological thinking the press likes to practice.  Let’s assume all the writers here agreed we were cooperating like the Borg to make a larger hive-mind point about society.  What is the implication of that?  It’s an open-ended question without a conclusion.

Is the mainstream press making a multi-year point?  Why do so many of your articles talk about (((feminism)))?

“The outrage isn’t only about that one article. A lot of people find it offensive that you write about women being submissive. Is that something you believe?”

Compound questions are a linguistic tool used to distort the other party’s answer.  This one gets bonus points for at least displaying nominal skill.  Are you asking if people are making an opportunistic attack based on preconceived hatred of Roosh, and that this “rape” story is only a ruse to attack him?

Or are you asking if Roosh believes women are submissive?

Or are you asking if women should be submissive?

The journalist can spin the answer in whichever way is most condemning. And all three of those questions are pointless. What Roosh thinks about the motivations of a mass group of journalists is his subjective reaction to a bunch of individuals with different motivations, all spreading the same lie.

You are the media, why don’t you tell us where the outrage originated, or why you personally felt outraged enough to copy and paste a hateful article, instead of asking Roosh to speculate on your motivations?

“What’s your justification for why you believe women should be submissive?”

Here we have a second halfway decent question, but a wild tangent from the topic at hand, and not a question that can be adequately addressed in this forum (that’s what this site and this one are for).

“People reading your works would say that you raped a woman if you had sex with her when she was drunk. You literally say they were too intoxicated to consent.”

Not a question.  I know no one who believes that having sex with a drunk woman is akin to raping her.  There are people who believe that.  They are crazy.  What is the question?

“Some absurd unintelligible question about a golf course.”

Roosh has no idea what he is talking about, and no one has any idea how this is an insightful question.

“What are your personal politics?”

Mildly interesting, but I generally don’t care about the politics of non-politicians.  ROK is including more political content so this could be justified.  Of course, many prefer to keep their politics to themselves, and I wouldn’t tell any journalist what my politics are.  In a two party system, there are only imperfect answers, anyway.

“Do you regret threatening to dox protestors?”

Typical framing of falsehoods in question form.  Do you regret beating your wife?  It’s also a ridiculous question, even if the premise were true.  Can anyone imagine an answer other than yes?  It’s absurd.

Do you regret distorting the facts about our meetup groups as pro-rape events?  That’s an answer I’d actually like to hear!  Are you sorry you got it wrong and labeled thousands of men rapists?

“Some stupid questions about whether Roosh lives with his mom and who owns the house he was doxxed at.”

How any of this is relevant is beyond me.  Here you have the opportunity to talk about a man with interesting and different ideas and you want to talk about where he is sleeping.

“What else has happened lately?  Did you receive dozens of pizzas?  Are your parents home?  Where do you office out of?”

Office is not a verb.  And seriously.  What is the journalistic content of any of this?  You people should be interviewing the Kardashians for the Hollywood Reporter.  This is not a gossip column or a discussion of what Roosh’s favorite coffee is.

“Can you confirm that you had to upgrade your website security?”

Boring.  As.  Fuck.  No one cares about this.  Can you imagine pitching a story based on this to your editor?  Hey this guy we accused of starting a pro-rape group had to improve his internet servers to handle increased traffic lately.  Isn’t that fascinating?  Maybe we can bring in a technical writer to talk about how many web pages per second the average server can deliver, and have an artist sketch up a rendering of the path internet traffic takes to a viewer’s PC.

I hope you’re now convinced that the quality of journalism can easily be measured from the quality of questioning that takes place. Without asking the right questions, how can you begin to uncover the facts, which is supposed to be what journalism is about? Whether you want to attribute the cause to hiring retards or a deliberate plan of obfuscation, it’s clear that the American media is no longer fulfilling its duty of informing the public.

Read Next: Australian Media That Defamed Roosh Inks Landmark Deal With Chinese Ministry Of Propaganda

63 thoughts on “Journalists Ask Stupid Questions To Push Their Narrative And Conceal The Truth”

    1. I’ve heard tongue-in-cheek allegations that Holt could be another “Shaun King”. I can kinda see where they’re coming from.

    1. Oh yeah, tell us more…
      Really keen on receiving ethic & moral lessons from a kgb jew that enables wars in every country they can.
      You’re doing yourself a disfavor by portraying mass-killers as good examples.
      Back to the library !

    2. Not a Jew. He has the close-set eyes and skinny nose my dad has, who is confirmed Eastern European, not Jewish by a DNA test. Not a Jewish look, nor a Jew.

    3. These “tower of babel” meetings…how does anything ever get accomplished at ’em?
      Case-in-point that we did ourselves a disservice ditching the “lingua franca” concept.

  1. Another nugget from Nassim Taleb:
    Anti-Fragile – one of his characters “Fat Tony” has a section on how to answer stupid questions

        1. Sieze his wealth and redistribute it to the nation. Do it with Soros and the Ford Foundation while we’re at it.

        2. They should float his dumb ass out a helicopter…
          And, uh, what the fuk say does he have on such issues anyway?

        3. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !sm138c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs428MediaFormGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!sm138c:….,……

    1. Made all the more pathetic when you realize that the Journo’s at the Roosh meeting were all men. Cucks the lot of them.

  2. Those who can, do.
    Those who cannot do, teach.
    Those who cannot teach, become journalists.

    1. True. They are paid propagandists. Most of them are not that bright and journalism school simply indoctrinates them on the proper narratives and topics to be regurgitated.

      1. Uh…I’m kinda slow at times (admittedly). Could you be more specific…I’ll give it a shot but I’m not 100% sure about what you are getting at, my friend.

        1. Western man restored whole will have nuclear powerbeards, sharp attenuated brains and full uncompromised uncircumcised dicks – – BEARD, BRAINS and BEEFSTICK.
          This ULTIMATE MANSTATE is the only avenue to regaining dominion over the herds of feral shebeasts and securing the future of our burgeoning great species here on this great green Earth. Shaved and butt-chinned, man loses his beardsenses. With the naivete of a child -‘boychinned’. In addition when a man is circumcised, dickchopped and lacking foreskin he loses >80% of neuro feedback from his cranius minor, his little head. All three are needed in tandem, his beard, his little head and his brain all communicating neurologically in a nonstop electrical loop in order to produce the neuro surge that fully unlocks the brain! Yes that’s a powerful piece of circuitry you and every man is sitting on. Claim yours. We’ll need every man on board. FIRE IT UP men. THROW THE TOGGLE ON YOUR BBB!
          THE BEARD hairs pick up RF signals and can sense fields.
          THE BRAIN modulates the beard signals and processes them into tangible information.
          AND THE DICKHEAD bridges the neuro information loop between all three. Sadly with circumcision, the dickhead nerve endings are severed, cauterized and choked. It’s like putting a lawnmower carburettor on a Chevy 350 – choked literally. Circumcision and shaving of the face and head impose restrictive blockades on the body’s busiest neuro information highway next to the spinal cord which is like the Autobahn. It must end. The neuro highway roadblocks must be battered down, kicked aside and thrown over the guardrails. BEARD, BRAINS and BEEFSTICK is the optimum state for thriving and dominant man.
          Many western men not only lack the beard, but also the functionality of the little head is handicapped 80%. That’s worse than a crash dummy without a helmet. Even a man with a good brain but who lacks the fully charged ‘BBB trio’ circuit, the brain might as well be harvested because it no longer serves the bloodline. It serves an external entity. With BOLTCUTTERS taken to his most vital masculine BBB neuro powerline, domesticated man becomes like a parcel of clipped and sheared barnyard livestock.

          Man’s body is the tool for man’s mind to autonomously control his surroundings, his reproduction and propogation of bloodline. The challenges that lay ahead for western man require that all circuits check. Western man must embrace the ultimate power trio of ‘BEARD, BRAINS and BEEFSTICK’!
          Many men live their entire lives never reaching full potential. They were shorted out. Zapped. To fire up the ‘BBB trio’, it is truly empowering. It is simply . . . . e . . what’s the word? . . e . . help me out here . . . .


    1. Even their catch phrase/slogan is disingenuous.
      “The people have a right to know…”
      …whatever we tell them to think
      …everything except anything that harms us or our money
      …but not until we figure out how to spin it

      1. “The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on TV.” – Richard Nixon

    2. journalist – The highest position in society a gamma male will ever occupy.

  3. These are some ultradumb questions, but it seems like the vice-bitch is falling in love with Richard during the interview:

    1. It’s clear they should for all accounts be screwing by the end of the vid. I don’t see ‘love’ with her as much as it is tingles. She’s so loaded with the shitlib college creed that it’s getting in the way of nature, even when being pounded by proper game. Minus her brainwashing if she were still 16, she’d be wearing his sunglasses, frolicking and trying to unbotton his shirt on that bench. He’d have to roll her in the grass to let some of her steam. That 4 years of shitlib education has really delayed and screwed up western females. It’s ashame.

  4. the media / journalism is supposed to be the fourth estate, an additional check / balance on the separation of powers required for any kind of democratic system. For journalists to perform that function they have to be capable of real investigative reporting, i.e. investigating the actual exercise of power, particularly where it deviates from acceptable conduct and transparency.There are very few journalists today that even come close to interrogating the system they are functioning in, and this has everything to do with the monopolisation of the fourth estate by a handful of cartels, that appear to dictate policy and content from above. There will always be journalists asking stupid questions to the extent that populism may gravitate towards the lowest common denominators, but the generalisation of stupidity, low standards, and triviality has a lot less to do the descent towards Ron Burgundy infotainment and a lot more to do with the infantalisation of an industry that is being prevented from performing its function

    1. check out a movie called Shoot the Messenger. investigative reporter tries to do the right thing, has his rep ruined, his employers turn on him, and he never works in the biz again((after winning some natl award for his reporting, you d think that would look good on the rez)

    2. So you’re saying it’s more of an organic degeneration of the profession, and less an influence of top-down management?

      1. I’d say it’s both. The main thing is they are not doing, and seem incapable of doing their job

    3. the media / journalism is supposed to be the fourth estate, an additional check / balance on the separation of powers required for any kind of democratic system.

      The problem is the media has long been the left’s fifth column.

      1. true, and as such they are committed to ‘changing the world’ rather than investigating it. Which is to say since they wish to change the world they will never investigate anything that involves changing the world i.e. leftist end justifies the means politics / social engineering

    4. I submit that the concept of a “fourth estate” is incorrect, at least in the US. If you consider what the founders did and were doing during the time of the Revolution, very few of them were working as journalists for some enormous media corporation. They were printing pamphlets and distributing them locally to spread news. Now, there were issues where the British had attempted to control the American media at the time, but many of the core concepts that drove the Revolution were published as broadsides and pamphlets – things from the Sons of Liberty and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. The first amendment does not use the term “media” nor does it use the term “fourth estate.” It uses the term “press” – a printing press. The idea is that every citizen has a right to speak, and also to put his words on paper (or any other medium) for distribution.
      The concept of the “media” as some special class for whom this right is reserved is perverse. It is actually a restriction of speech, and would have undermined the goals of the founders if used in that manner at that time.
      “Journalists” are not supposed to watch the government and keep it in check – we are. And if we are lazy and allow journalists to claim that responsibility as their own exclusively, we should not be surprised when we are fed complete shit at the direction of their puppeteers.

      1. I get what you’re saying, and in the modern context it makes some sense, but I think you’re making too much of the idea that the fourth estate is separate from the people at large. A cursory check on wikipedia doesn’t provide much in the way of a clear origin to the term, but there is a suggestion that the term arose around the time of the french revolution or thereafter referring to a necessary function of public scrutiny without which the branches of government and judiciary could not easily be held to account. I actually agree with you that the professionalisation of the function, and with it the cartelisation of the media potentially creates a further monopoly on power and that’s something that may need further thought, including with regard to how alternative media, citizen journalism can better perform the fourth estate function, but I see the problem here as relating primarily to the corruption of that function rather any inherent flaw in the idea. If you think about the idea, allowing for the obscure origins of the term, it seems to reflect the idea of montesquie or whoever it was who spoke of the need for a separation of power. In british parliamentary democracy, you have the executive, the (two houses of the) parliament and the judiciary, each of of which serves through separation, to check and balance the power of the other two branches. The idea of a fourth estate is informal not formal. When the MSM (like Brezsinski’s daughter) started complaining that common youtubers and reddit-users etc were usurping their function, that clearly goes against the spirit of the idea of the fourth estates as a check on power, but that is mainly because it is clear today that the MSM is no longer function in the sense Burke or whoever it was meant – as an independent press speaking truth to power, holding the great and the good or not so good to account where necessary. I do agree that citizen journalists etc may well have a vastly greater role to play in the future but why does that have to be as something separate from a ‘fourth estate’? Why does one need a press card, or work for a major corporation. Nothing in the idea of the fourth estate requires that. What it may require however is that anyone performing that function, or that kind of function – speaking truth to power, investigating the facts impartially etc – may nonetheless need to demonstrate their fitness to do so. A trained journalist should be fit to practice in a way an untrained member of the public would not be. The fact that is increasingly not the case, merely speaks of the corruption of the profession. But the fact remains that even if those corrupt and debased journalists no longer perform their function as they should, they are still more likely than joe public to be aware of principles of integrity, ethics, of fact-checking and verifying sources etc. All of those things can become open-sourced, and established on a more open and non-exclusive basis – de-professionalised, but insofar as that would still be to perform the function of journalism, or investigative reporting etc., the idea of the fourth estate would still apply: whether it’s Ron Burgundy, Tucker Carson, or you or me, it is the function that matters, not the formality of profession

    5. Um, I do not recall any mention of the media as a part of the government at any level. The constitution does not say anything about the press except its freedom to exist and publish.

      1. the media isn’t part of government. The idea of the fourth estate is that the press performs an essential function in serving to check the abuse of power in government (as elsewhere) by promoting transparency (which seems to be the opposite of what it is doing currently. The concept appears to european / british – ‘estate’ probably alludes to the french estates general – but since it isn’t a formal definition, I cannot see why it shouldn’t be equally applicable in an american context, notwithstanding the limits of the constitution, and the fact that america is a republic rather than a democracy

  5. I enjoyed the “journalist” having a hissy fit over Ken Bone’s remarks in the linked article. I like Ken Bone even more now. Well, except the insurance thing was a bit much. But the lines on Jennifer Lawrence, human submarines, and Zimmerman/Trayvon? Gold.

    1. Glad to know you realize what Breitbart and Infowars truly is. They’re just another version of biased propaganda outlets.

  6. I remember the story about an 11 yo boy back in the 70s who jumped off a bridge upon hearing news of the cancellation of the ‘Star Trek’ TV series. TV shows aren’t real. You have to hit some people over the head with the truth that programming isn’t real.
    MSM employs many creative and outgoing people who would otherwise be street artists, mimes, bullshitters, graffiti artists, doodlers and drunks at bars doing karoake. Anyone who has worked in media is surrounded by creative people who are always bustling with ideas how to make the presentation slicker, groovier and how to sell shit as shinola. It is an art. Employment in the news spin-shows and entertainment is a creative orgy, getting paid gravy salaries, driving nice cars. Socially it’s the love boat lifestyle for the MSM stars turned nuveau riche who would otherwise be street artists and impressionists. But keep in mind that their slick propaganda, creative as it is, is as fake and hallucinatory as a Picasso painting.

    1. That was a kid who committed suicide about the cancellation of Battlestar Galactica. That was indicative of the power that the media has over us!

  7. not sure you can use the term journalist anymore to describe anyone working for the MSM. i think political commissar or globalist footsoldier fits better

  8. I like how you went (((feminism))), because women didn’t actually create feminism. Women don’t organize and fight, suffrage is impossible.

  9. Sadly most ‘journalists’ see themselves as the assassins and guardians of the left striking down all of the right who challenge them with whatever lies they can develop, doing their best to discredit anything that challenged the group think of the modern left while at the same time promoting lies, half truths and whatever else that can prop up the liberal elite. They are more interested in making news than reporting it these days.

  10. Montana Congressman allegedly body slammed a British reporter, he won the election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *