Correction. I said they don't want to, and on that note, they barely do.
Then “don’t want to” is unsupported mind-reading, while “barely cover it” concedes they did cover it. Not giving it the attention or conclusion you prefer is not suppression. Fauci was an adviser, not an enforcer, and his promotion of vaccination and other measures that reduced severe illness and transmission more than likely saved lives. Calling him a criminal still requires identifying an actual crime.
Is what it is. I see it. you don't.
You “see” a conspiracy because the coverage does not match your preferred framing. The clip itself admits CNN covered the hearing, while AP, Reuters, PBS and others did too. Fauci’s pardon was preemptive, not proof of crimes, and invoking the Fifth is a constitutional protection, not a confession.
Is what it is. I see it. you don't.
You “see” a conspiracy because the coverage does not match your preferred framing.
A false accusation.
The clip itself admits CNN covered the hearing, while AP, Reuters, PBS and others did too. Fauci’s pardon was preemptive, not proof of crimes, and invoking the Fifth is a constitutional protection, not a confession.
No one said they didn't. Even I'd tell you they covered it. I'm also saying they don't want to cover it cause they're not "covering" it.
You'd never admit it, but you know this is even happening because of me.
A false accusation. No one said they didn't. Even I'd tell you they covered it. I'm also saying they don't want to cover it cause they're not "covering" it.
Calling it a conspiracy is not a false accusation when you claim outlets secretly “don’t want” to cover a story they are demonstrably covering. You have now reduced the claim to “they covered it, but not enough,” which is subjective and not evidence of suppression.
A false accusation. No one said they didn't. Even I'd tell you they covered it. I'm also saying they don't want to cover it cause they're not "covering" it.
Calling it a conspiracy is not a false accusation when you claim outlets secretly “don’t want” to cover a story they are demonstrably covering. You have now reduced the claim to “they covered it, but not enough,” which is subjective and not evidence of suppression.
They don't want to cover Trump either, but they have to for two reasons.
The 2nd reason is to defame him in support of his rival, though that backfired. But yes, they really don't want to cover him either.
Not wanting to do something doesn't mean it'll never get done.
The MSM does NOT widely report on this matter. It's a big deal after all the shit we've been through.
This guy:
Also streams now: https://www.twitch.tv/uligamingwonders
They don't want to cover Trump either, but they have to for two reasons. The 2nd reason is to defame him in support of his rival, though that backfired. But yes, they really don't want to cover him either. Not wanting to do something doesn't mean it'll never get done.
The MSM does NOT widely report on this matter. It's a big deal after all the shit we've been through.
The media is not obligated to elevate a conspiracy merely because you think it deserves wider coverage. Fauci became a political target for people who had already spent years condemning modern society, romanticizing older social orders, and defending rigid hierarchies and rules developed under completely different material conditions.
Those older frameworks were shaped by high mortality, limited medicine, scarcity, and dependence on traditional authority. Vaccines and other medical treatments undermine that world by keeping far more people alive and making many of its rules less necessary. That helps explain why modern medicine is so often recast as corruption, weakness, or unnatural interference by people who claim to want a return to the past.
The hearings do not prove their accusations. They show hostile politicians publicly persecuting a health adviser they had already selected as a symbol of everything they resent about the modern age. Mainstream outlets reporting the hearings without treating every accusation as established fact is not suppression. It is simply refusing to confuse political resentment with evidence.
