Our Overarching Theme at Meet Me in the Middle

We have been writing for several months now - time to tie things together

This week we would like to take a step back from our deeper analysis and look back at our major theme of the past few months: how the “Information Industry” influences what we think we know.

The Censorship Industrial Complex

In the first ever Meet Me in the Middle article, we looked back at how the Hunter Biden laptop story led to visibility into the censorship activities of social media platforms and how the government coerced companies into removing or suppressing true and authentic content.  The story told in that article is foundational to our overarching theme.  We care little about Hunter’s drug abuse and proclivities.  We do care about what this story revealed in terms of the censorship of authentic information that became routine among the major social media platforms.

We highlighted the public admission by social media executives of their role in suppressing an authentic story.  They acknowledged being contacted by representatives of the U.S. government with guidance to suppress a story because of suspicions of disinformation originating from Russia.  That turned out to be completely false, as confirmed by the release of the Twitter Files (and later the admissions of the social media executives).  Meanwhile, the suspicious content was verified by numerous reputable news organizations.  And it was uncovered later that the FBI had verified the contents of the laptop an entire year before the story was published.  And, by the way, the laptop story was published on October 14, 2020, at which point it was immediately suppressed — just two and a half weeks before the presidential election of the laptop owner’s father, who was implicated in questionable business dealings by the laptop contents.

In addition to the government coercing social media platforms to suppress an authentic story, members of the media attempted to discredit the journalists who published the Twitter Files.  The authors were accused of “doing PR work for the world’s richest person.”  The corporate media dismissed the merit of the totally true laptop story and dragged the journalists through the mud.  The journalists testified to Congress, and IRS agents visited one of their homes during their testimony!  It’s like something out of a Grisham novel.

A true story written by a professional journalist.  Government agents coercing social media.  Suppression and censorship of factual information.  All of this immediately preceding a presidential election.  Followed by government agents intimidating a journalist.  We live in scary times.

Unethical Journalists

In our article Captivating Media and Captive Audiences, we explored what corporate media really is, we touched on media consolidation and the domination of American media by only six corporations, and we emphasized the importance of tapping into independent media.  The following excerpt from that article exemplifies the perverted perspectives of corporate journalism:

“A stark contrast in priorities [is] revealed by a Pew Research Center Study that shows that, despite 76% of U.S. adults feeling differently, most journalists (55%) feel that every side of a story does not always deserve equal coverage. Journalists who serve a right-leaning audience are much more likely (57%) to strive to give every side equal coverage than those serving left-leaning audiences (30%).  Journalists on TV (55%) are also more willing to cover only one side of a story than radio (49%), print (43%), and online (37%) media.”

Reflecting upon the unethical practices of mainstream media, we also have the following excerpt:

“We need media that permit journalists to adhere to their own code of ethics.  What we have now is media that enables journalists who do not feel that all sides of a story deserve equal coverage.  This is a manifestation of bias and does not reflect the wishes of the consumer.  Corporate media promotes intolerance and galvanizes its consumers against the idea of open discourse.”

Omissions and Misleading Roe Rhetoric

In our article Upon Further Review: Fallout from Overturning Roe v. Wade, we highlight that the New York Times indicates that abortion is accessible to only about three-quarters of the U.S. population within the state in which they reside.  We revealed important omissions from their evaluation, specifically that 100% of American citizens have access to abortion to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, 97% of Americans have access to abortion in cases involving rape or incest of minors, and 92% of Americans have access to abortion in cases of rape or incest regardless of the mother’s age.

We also highlighted some of the misleading rhetoric that immediately followed the ruling to overturn the landmark decision as well as rhetoric that persisted over a year and a half later.  For example, President Biden said, “The idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.”  Except, the truth is 100% of Americans have access to abortion!  That actually is true.  100% of Americans have access to abortion in their home state.  But this, of course, is a corporate media-style half-truth.  As mentioned previously, the whole truth is that 100% of Americans have access to abortion in their home state when the life of the mother is in danger. But that is the game they play and their omissions amount to lies.

Unfortunate as it is, that is how the game is played.  Only tell half of the story so that a narrative or an agenda is advanced.  That is a game that we at Meet Me in the Middle refuse to play or abide. And we are committed to calling out.

Finally, we pointed out that legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg condemned the original Roe decision because it “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue.”  So, the original Roe v. Wade decision worked against real progress.  But that is also omitted from the outrage over the decision being overturned.

Jettisoned Journalists

In our article Lousy Journalism Comes Home to Roost, we spotlighted the budget issues and purging of “journalists” from biased online and print “news” outlets, like the LA Times, BuzzFeed News, Forbes, and The Daily News.  We put quotations on “journalists” because these people utterly fail to meet their own code of ethics.  We put quotations on “news” because their reports are really biased opinions sprinkled with facts.  For so long, these and other “news” organizations have failed to fairly represent the complete truth of the stories they publish.  Now these “journalists” are taking their unethical practices to the unemployment line.

“PolitiFact” Politi-FLOPPED

In our article The SouthWest Border Crisis, we highlight how the biased media is more interested in decrying the intense political rhetoric surrounding the border crisis than discussing how Biden’s policy literally enables rape, child labor, and human trafficking.  We also call out a “fact-checking” website called PolitiFact (you should be to discern why we use quotations here).  This is an excerpt:

“Quoting PolitiFact, ‘To fairly compare the number of immigrants entering the U.S. with the number of births in the country, someone would need the number of unique individuals who are encountered by border authorities and are allowed to proceed into the U.S. But that’s not available.’  First of all, this is lazy and loathsome (and typical of the abhorrent and unreliable ‘fact-checking’ industry), and it is exactly what you expect from a dishonest analyst.  It took little effort (the data is literally on the website to which PolitiFact links) to find official DHS data that shows 92% of the encounters in 2019 were unique, while 66% of the 2021 encounters were unique (look at that, PolitiFact, the data IS available!).”

Okay, so these hacks linked to DHS data, provided deceitful analysis, and claimed data (which was available in the DHS link that THEY PROVIDED) was unavailable.  It is no surprise that people distrust media — and “fact checkers,” for that matter.

Unacceptable Interview

In our article Carlson: Conspiratorial or Credible, we explored the Tucker Carlson interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  We pointed out that the mainstream media placed more focus on some Donald Trump news that nobody actually cares about rather than discussing a much more important discussion with the man who has the power to nuke the United States. 

Carlson was accused by an MSNBC stooge of “doing Putin’s bidding.”  He was accused on CNN of being a “traitor.”  He was called a Putin apologist.  And all of that was before the interview ever aired.  And after the interview?  Oh, well, Carlson was not hard-hitting enough.  Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called him a “traitor to journalism.”  The Wall Street Journal suggested that Carlson actually interviewed a body double, and that the Russian president has been dead for months.  And the Washington Examiner attempted to distract from the interview by posting the headline “Moscow building engulfs in flames as Tucker Carlson-Putin interview releases.” 

Did they discuss what Putin had to say about his motivations or what it would take to end the war?  No.  They did not.  Can you guess why?  Could it be because they are part of the machine that funnels taxpayer money to weapons manufacturers?  Or are they just covering for a mentally deficient President Biden and the pro-war practices of his puppet masters during an election year?  Whatever the reason, the mainstream media attacked Carlson for questioning someone who has immense influence and control over whether or not hundreds of thousands of people live or die.  And they insist on promoting a war that most Americans don’t support.

Emissions or Omissions - Which is More Dangerous?

In our article Spotlight: Even “Science” is Agenda-Driven, we illuminate the message of Dr. Patrick T. Brown, who published his account of how he successfully published a climate science article in the renowned journal Nature.  He explained that the elite journals are governed by editors that will only publish papers supporting pre-approved narratives, even if that means omitting important knowledge.  He explained that modern climate science is concerned with urgently warning about the dangers of climate change rather than understanding the complexities of the global climate.  The editors and their selected reviewers exert major influence on what the scientific community produces.  They shape how research is conducted by controlling what gets published.  They are the gate keepers for the agenda.  And they frown upon publishing important information about how we can use practical technological solutions to adapt to climate change because it takes focus away from addressing emissions.  Our article and Dr. Brown’s story illustrate how the gate keepers permit only part of the truth to reach the public.  And that is plainly deceitful. We are taught to “trust the science,” but this story puts us in conflict with that idea.

Bullying to Promote Incestuous Rape of Children

In our article Protecting Our Children, we discussed parents’ rights to have a voice about what published material their children are allowed to access in public schools, specifically in Florida. We started the discussion with a link to an interview of a parental rights advocate by ultra-biased TV personality Joy Reid of MSNBC.  They specifically discussed a controversial book called All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto.  Ms. Reid was incredibly disrespectful and employed shameful and cowardly bullying tactics to attempt to discredit her guest.  We provided details of the Florida law as it is written and of All Boys Aren’t Blue as it is written.  While Ms. Reid and many other corporate media news outlets would have you believe that Florida is banning books or that Florida law is enabling the banning of books, they leave something important out of of their condemnation of Florida law: the truth.  This story reinforces that there is a difference between saying something true and telling the truth. 

In this case, Florida law mandates a process and opportunity by which parents can object to any instructional material, any material used in a classroom, or any material made available in a school library.  Apparently, parents objected to a 17- or 18-year-old boy coercing a 13-year-old boy, his cousin, to perform oral sex on him.  Apparently, parents objected to the author’s graphic descriptions of the first time he inserted his penis into another man’s anus and of the first time another man was inserted into him.  Parents objected and school systems removed this book. 

But the media doesn’t portray how reasonable the Florida law is. And they don’t explain how graphic the content of the so-called “banned” books are.  And they don’t explain that anyone in the state can purchase those books and share these stories of incestuous rape with their children, if they so desire — that the books are not actually banned at all.  The media just attacks and deceives.  Omitting some of the true parts of the story amounts to a lie.  They are lying to their audiences by throttling the truth and their audiences foolishly believe the lie.

More Omissions in Alabama

In our article Breaking Down the Alabama In Vitro Drama, we explored how a court case found its way to the Alabama Supreme Court, how the court arrived at their ruling, how the national media covered the story, and how everything worked out just fine.  The media once again condemned someone for doing what was right — this time, it was the Alabama Supreme Court.  The media nearly universally reported that the court ruled that embryos are children.  What the media failed to explain – what they omitted – was that the court was compelled by this case to answer the following question:  Is there an unwritten exception in existing state law for extrauterine embryos (the answer to which was an obvious “no”).  They also omitted that all of the justices agreed that there was a hole in existing legislation and that this could only be fixed by new law.  And what happened after the ruling?  The Alabama lawmakers passed legislation to protect in vitro fertilization only three weeks after the court ruling.  And everything worked out just fine, but not a single media outlet was honest about the law, the ruling, or the response of the Alabama lawmakers.

Bloodbath Bias

In our “Special” Report Black Democrat Lawmaker Threatens Political Violence, we called out the hypocrisy of the corporate media and the insidious bias in their coverage of politics.  In mid-March of 2024, former president Donald Trump made a statement implying that the automotive industry faced an economic “bloodbath” if he did not win the November presidential election.  The media responded with headlines that presented that statement completely out of context.  We revealed that another politician used the exact same terminology only a few weeks earlier, but somehow went completely unscathed in the media.  Alabama House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels stated, “if this is not resolved it will be a bloodbath in November.”  We don’t care about race around here, but there is a party of race-focused politicians supported by a corporate media machine that won’t let racism fade into obscurity.  So, we called out that Representative Daniels is a black Democrat and, thus, it is acceptable for him to say things that Trump is not allowed to say without a media meltdown of ridiculous proportions.  The media intentionally misrepresented Trump’s words to help push the narrative that he is going to “end Democracy” if reelected.  They lie and they deceive, and their double standard is perfectly transparent.

Putting the Pieces Together

As we go through the process of exposing the Information Industry’s lack of ethics and propensity for deceit, each example is like a piece of a puzzle.  Slowly, as you figure out how one piece fits in with another, you begin to see the patterns and the bigger picture.

If you take a puzzle and turn all the pieces over, it is still possible to fit them together even though the pieces do not provide you with all the information they would if they were facing upward.  The corporate media contributes pieces to the assembly of “the puzzle” as well.  However, the information they share are often more like the blank side of a puzzle piece.  It takes a lot more work, but you can determine how one story fits in with other stories.  It is much easier when they are transparent and honest with their audience and help make the connections for you — and that is the kind of journalism we all want, is it not? But that is not what we get. What we do get is the blank side of the puzzle pieces, which means that we will never, ever be able to see the full picture if that is the news we choose to consume.

What we at Meet Me in the Middle are trying to do is to flip all of the pieces over, one at a time.  We want to reveal what the media obscures.  We do not want to only be told some true things — we want the WHOLE truth.

And people are awakening to the truth!  It is a beautiful thing.  People are putting the puzzle together and when they can start to see the whole scene, they realize it is much different than the picture they were shown by their favorite news outlet.  The “awakened” are abandoning the legacy media in favor of independent media that is honest in their reporting and authentic about their agenda and biases.

Picking Up on the Theme Yet?

Of course you are picking up on the theme.  The articles that we linked above expose how the Information Industry — news/opinion shows, social platforms, newspapers, magazines, and even scientific journals — is actively engaged in regulating the flow of true information with the intent to mislead audiences.  They do this through providing their audiences with half truths.  They do it by bullying and attempting to discredit perfectly reasonable people.  They do it by suppressing true information.  They install people and design systems to filter out some of the truth so that only the truth that fits with their pre-approved narrative is all that the audience is permitted to see.  They call people traitors when there is no evidence to support such a claim.  They attack an opponent for doing the exact same thing an ally does, and they splash inflammatory headlines on news reports and articles about the former while completely failing to report on the latter.  They are unethical.

We use the word “inflammatory” to describe some of the news coming out of corporate media.  And this word gives us a convenient analogy.  When the human body suffers an inflammatory trigger such as a physical trauma, inflammation is a normal and important response that aids in the healing process. But inflammation can also occur when there is no injury, and it can lead to a variety of chronic diseases.  Similarly, when we are hit with inflammatory triggers in the form of information delivered by way of typical news avenues, we tend to have an emotionally inflamed response.  Sometimes, it is appropriate to become emotionally inflamed when we hear troubling news.  More often than not, an emotionally inflamed response results from misleading information that was intentionally designed to promote that inflammation.  Just like exercise and healthy eating helps reduce inflammation within the human body, there are things you can do to lower your risk of chronic emotional inflammation that the mainstream media induces.  First, remind yourself that when you hear news, you are almost never getting the entire story.  Second, work on emotional conditioning so that you are more resistant to the inflammatory headlines.  Third, find trustworthy independent sources of information that are honest about their agenda and biases.

We have said it before, but it bears repeating — we genuinely want to be honest about the Meet Me in the Middle agenda and biases.  So, we will summarize it here as transparently as possible:

1. We are biased against the corporate/mainstream/legacy media that fails its audiences by obscuring significant details, by creating completely unnecessary division in society, and by allowing agendas and profits to supersede their ethical duty to demonstrate journalistic integrity.

2. As this article demonstrates, a big part of our agenda is revealing the malpractice of mainstream media institutions and exposing how their nefarious tactics harm the public.

3. One part of our agenda is to reveal the entire story.  We want to fit the puzzle pieces together so that all of the details of the picture are crystal clear.

4. Finally, the heart of our agenda is to seek solutions that have a hope of success. 

We all should have no tolerance for supporting a partisan system that has only led to more and more division among friends, family, and neighbors.  A vote for a hardcore ultra-conservative Republican or a vote for a hardcore ultra-progressive Democrat is a vote for division and offers almost zero solutions with a hope of success.  This article demonstrates the commitment of the Information Industry to maintaining this system of polarization and division.  We need to establish our independence from such a system, and we need to come together.

Unity begins with YOU!

If you have read some of the Meet Me in the Middle articles, you might sometimes think, “How is this helping us meet in the middle?”  Does the Meet Me in the Middle lack of tolerance for deceitful media appear to you to be one-sided?  The challenge of highlighting the deceit of corporate/mainstream media is that most of the major organizations that are part of the Information Industry tend to be left leaning and tend to support (and protect) Democrats.  Allow us to set the record straight.  It is not that we necessarily believe Republican policy is the answer.  In fact, we are equally suspect of both political parties and equally wary of their agendas.  It is our observation that nobody has let America down more than the Republicans, except maybe for the Democrats.

What we do believe is that most audiences that subscribe to mainstream media for their information will never be informed enough about Republican policy to make an informed decision about what is best for them, their families, their communities, their country, and the world.  And we make a pretty good case about the trustworthiness of the corporate media through the myriad examples on which we have written over the past few months and that we revisited in this article. 

Generally, it is necessary for most people to find a source of news they feel like they can rely on.  It does not mean that someone is lazy if they do not hunt down Supreme Court decisions and wade through the details of legal code just to gain a slightly better understanding of the issue versus what they learned from their trusted news source. It means they are normal.  We here at Meet Me in the Middle are abnormal for willing to do those things.  But we do it because there is essential insight to be gained!

What we are trying to suggest by emphasizing the theme of untrustworthy media is that there always seems to be more to the story.  The part of the story that makes it to your eyes or ears was crafted to deceive you and to drive a wedge between you and the people on the other side of the political spectrum.  Don’t be red.  Don’t be blue.  Meet in the middle and be purple!  You likely already are pretty purple, whether you realize it or not!  And it is not your fault if you are, but you do not realize it.  It is the fault of a deceitful industry that misguided the masses to suit their agenda.

Where does that leave us?  If our nation, our communities, and even our families are going to heal, it begins on an individual level.  It begins by looking within and acknowledging that one’s hatred for others might just be misplaced.  Even if you can only admit that it is partially misplaced, that is still a step toward healing.  It begins by rejecting the narrative and trusting the heart.  When someone sees something in the news and their heart tells them something does not seem quite right, they must listen!  And it begins by trusting that people with whom they disagree are not necessarily less intelligent or that they mean harm. 

Please be honest with yourself and answer the question:  Did any of these Meet Me in the Middle articles reveal even one instance where you felt like you had not been provided the whole story from your news source?  How many other headlines or news reports over the years may have misled you?  How truly and absolutely certain are you of your rightness on every issue?  Maybe, just maybe, you actually have something to learn from that fool on the other side of the political spectrum.  We will never know as long as we permit the media to keep us polarized, to keep us divided.  We will never know if we cannot listen to one another. 

The mainstream news sources do not promote individual growth.  They stifle growth.  They make us shrink.  They make us smaller mentally, emotionally, and socially.  They are doing harm to our society.  But you can break free.  You can be the change you want to see in the world.

Unity begins with YOU!  Are you up for the challenge?

Image Credit:  https://www.fanpop.com/clubs/pinocchio/images/6615991/title/pinocchio-wallpaper-wallpaper