LETTER TO JOURNALISTS re: Effects of Blockages in the Information Trail

This works for just about any topic -wherever journalists or policy makers have been prevented from accessing full information on two or more sides of contentious issues.

Hello, you are receiving this email as you are the (MEDIA PLATFORM) journalist who has previously written about (TOPIC). There have been new developments in this area but but I do not yet see any new reports in your (MEDIA PLATFORM) so far.

I wonder whether journalists such as yourselves are ASSIGNED stories to cover, or if you are free to follow up of your own volition, for example, when a story you have previously reported on continues to evolve.

The implications of the (TOPIC) are far larger than most people realize. They are very clearly outlined here: (XXXX). —> Find the larger issue. For example:

The disciplinary hearing revolves around whether or not Constable Grus' attempt to follow up on one possible cause of sudden infant deaths being reported at the time was AUTHORIZED. This despite the fact that her very status as police officer gave her the only authorization she needed. If she loses the case now before the OPS disciplinary panel, the implication is that ANY time ANYwhere in the country, if someone does not like the direction in which a police officer's investigation is going, someone will have the authority to stop it, for example, the heads of police agencies themselves. IF they are corrupt, we arrive at the end of the rule of law.

For a past event: It looks like neither you, or anyone from (YOUR MEDIA PLATFORM) or the CBC, CTV, Global, ….etc. chose to inform Canadians of this important story. Why not? Is there a reason that readers of major Canadian newspapers or viewers of major Canadian news shows should NOT be informed of the recent developments in a case of such importance? Why should it only be Canadians who follow (NAMES OF ‘alternative’/’independent’/’free’ journalists) who are being exposed to this story? Why should Canadians not find out about ….?

To support busy journalists, Canadian Shareable News has prepared a press release, as well as three addenda all posted here.

I also encourage you to review the new feature on CSNews - the PDF Scrum Time Questions Worth Investigating (launched in Issue 41 here)

NOW TO THE INFORMATION TRAIL…

The graphic below shows 2 very different pathways by which scientific information makes its way to the public: Trail A in green shows the censoring powers that prevent decision makers in governments, workplaces and throughout society from having access to evidence-based scientific information. The dotted green line indicates "underground" pathways via uncensored (usually smaller independent) platforms.

If you follow the green trail, you will see in a simplified form, how evidence-based information did NOT make its way to policy makers, employers, media influencers, etc. but did make its way to people who make a point of accessing multiple sources of news, not only mainstream reporting but a wide range of smaller independent sources, such as those we follow at CSNews. (See the collage of logos inculdedin our special year-end issue 40!)

Other parts of the population only had access to information that was outdated, filtered, curated and fraught with 'disinformation by omission' as represented by Trail B in orange. —> This changes depending on the story at hand: Det. Grus was obviously privy to early evidence-based information that her superiors either did not have or did not wish to acknowledge. The reason that people like Detective Grus sounded out of place in their places of work was that the majority of the colleagues and supervisors were unaware of the existence of a whole "other side" to the story. The forces blocking Trail A used no end of defamatory silencing tactics to keep decision makers and the public from knowing that "alternate" explanations and recommendations existed. A key tactic was to purposely misinform the population, by telling them that to share uncompromised evidence-based information was to 'spread misinformation'. The classic example of this is Canada's top public health official making claims that the mRNA injections were safe and recommended for pregnant women while at the same time having access to data that did not support those claims, and that, if followed correctly, totally countered those claims. (Has anyone on mainstream media dared to report this? https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/featured/covid-19-mrna-genetic-vaccines-were-pregnant-and-breastfeeding-women-told-the-truth/ Will YOU be the first 'mainstream' journalist to breach the code of silence?)

Given that all mainstream media outlets were invited to attend the many hearings held nationwide by the National Citizens Inquiry, why is it that next to NONE attended or simply reported on the live streamed proceedings? A YEAR AND A HALF ago, lawyer Shawn Buckley testified under oath that changes to Health Canada's drug approval process resulted in the agency NOT PROVING COVID-19 vaccines safe and effective before authorization. Please investigate to prove us wrong when we claim that this bombshell of a story was never reported on in our government funded major media platforms. ALL mainstream platforms abdicated their duty to provide this information to Canadians.

Currently, summaries of "mainstream" media reports are the only sources provided to our federal MPs in the course of their work. Absent active, honest and fulsome reporting of crucial issues by mainstream media platforms, Canadian politicians like Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health MP Yasir Naqvi end up relying on patent falsehood in the course of their work. https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=COVID%20vaccine%20proven%20safe AND it took nearly FOUR ENTIRE YEARS from the start of the roll out of the COVID-19 injections before these Conservative MPs started asking questions - questions that should have been up for public discussion BEFORE the mass roll out of known toxins in the fall of 2020.

Here we see government sources admitting having used taxpayer dollars to keep Canadians, their medical and legal professionals and all manner of decision makers from having access to a full understanding of argumentation of multiple sides of key issues. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/records-show-feds-paid-369k-to-silence-critics-during-covid/61049

Access To Information records show the Trudeau Liberals in 2019 launched a costly “fact-checking” program to “counter coronavirus misinformation.”

Records obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter show then-Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould paid researchers nearly $370,000 to discourage media and the public from questioning authority. Media Smarts of Ottawa, the federal contractor, was paid $369,975 for the project titled Critical Thinking In The Digital Age: Countering Coronavirus Misinformation. It encouraged media and the public to avoid questioning government advisories.

“Our review drew on literature on social norms which established that a very small number of dissenting voices, in some cases even just one, can weaken the power of a normative belief,” wrote researchers.

The complete success of those blocking the free flow of evidence based scientific information and the failure of Canada's mainstream journalists to seek evidence based information directly need to be addressed and mitigated as soon as possible. Honest coverage of the hearing of Det. Grus as well as the recent disciplinary action against Dr. Sonja Kustka (Issue 38) and the upcoming action against Dr. Rochagne Killian https://opsdt.ca/hearings/upcoming-hearings would be a great place to start.

Sincerely,

NAME