Tech giants, mainstream media have all adopted a “code of censorship” to eliminate information they don’t want the public to see

by: Ethan Huff

Image: Tech giants, mainstream media have all adopted a “code of censorship” to eliminate information they don’t want the public to see

(Natural News) Despite its constant whining about how the “press” is supposedly “under attack” by the Trump administration, the mainstream media sure does enjoy silencing the truths it doesn’t want us to know in conjunctive collusion with Big Tech.

The systematic censorship of the identity of the impeachment “whistleblower” is a prominent example of how true journalism died long before President Trump came up with the term “fake news” to describe it.

As you may have noticed, very few media outlets have been brave enough to publish the identity of the “whistleblower,” who has since been revealed as none other than Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff’s future son-in-law whom Schiff, before Ciaramella’s identity went public, claimed he didn’t even know.

This is a huge revelation that the left-wing media obviously didn’t want anyone to know, which is why it colluded with the tech giants to censor all content containing Ciaramella’s name.

Back in September, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) came to the conclusion that this then-anonymous “whistleblower” – who works for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), by the way – has demonstrated “political bias” and shown favor for “a rival political candidate” to Trump in 2020.

This rival is more than likely Gropin’ Joe Biden, seeing as how Ciaramella used to work for Biden – another little tidbit of information that the mainstream media and Big Tech is desperately trying to conceal from the public.

The very few media outlets that have dared to publish such information have been barred from posting any of it on pretty much all of the major tech platforms, and we now know why: This so-called “whistleblower” is soon to be a part of Adam Schiff’s family, which means he’s a coup asset, not a whistleblower.

The fake news is pretending to be the real news while suppressing actual real news

As explained by Joel B. Pollak, writing for Breitbart News, most major media outlets – including some that pose as being “conservative” – hate Trump just as much as Schiff and the rest of the Democrats. Thus, they were more than eager to pretend as though Ciaramella’s identity was somehow supposed to remain protected under federal law, which is not the case.

“Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation,” notes Pollak, “but they can often expect to be identified. The relevant law, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, only prevents the ICIG from identifying the whistleblower.”

Schiff essentially manufactured a statutory right to whistleblower anonymity, only to later admit that it was completely fake. But have the fake news media outlets and tech giants that went along with the ruse by covering for him come clean? Of course not.

So, what we have here is a case of mass projection involving a fake news cartel that’s actively muzzling true journalism while claiming that journalism is under attack. It’s the thing of sociopaths, and while at least half the country can see this, the other half is still buying into Schiff’s lies, which are all being exposed.

Keep in mind that many of the same media outlets whining about how Ciaramella’s life is in danger now that his identity has gone public have in the past ruined the lives of manyreal whistleblowers by publishing their identities. So, why the sudden concern for whistleblower safety now? Because Ciaramella is a fraud, and the publishing of his identity proves it.

“The tech giants had imposed a code of censorship, and the mainstream media, supposedly so sensitive to any threat to press freedom, (mostly) willingly complied,” Pollak notes, as if the entire information realm put on the same credibility suicide vests.

“The most consequential political fact of our lifetimes, sitting in plain view, cannot be mentioned. The press cannot fulfill the purpose for which its freedom exists: namely, to inform the citizens of a democratic republic,” Pollak concludes. “And unlike official government suppression, this cannot be challenged in court. It is, in a way, a more brutal form of censorship.”

For more related news, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Sources for this article include:

Breitbart.com

Twitter.com

NaturalNews.com