The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - The Media Isn't Even Good At Propaganda!

00:00:00.000 This video I'm making today used to have a far different opening beforehand.

00:00:04.880 I was trying to make some big elaborate point about the legacy media based on the journalist

00:00:09.260 I'm going to highlight today, but I sort of discovered halfway through, like, why am I

00:00:13.380 doing this? I think the most salient point I could make is that some people in the legacy

00:00:17.700 media suck at their jobs. When I say suck at their jobs, I don't mean that they're biased

00:00:22.360 and that we don't like them because they're clearly liberal hacks pretending to be objective. 0.98

00:00:25.940 Everyone kind of knows that. Evan Solomon, I don't like him. He's clearly a left-winger

00:00:30.900 pretending to be a conservative almost in order to try to trick conservatives into thinking

00:00:35.820 that his brand of leftism is somehow at all related to what they should be believing.

00:00:41.700 But Evan Solomon's a professional. Evan Solomon is very polished. He's very good at what he

00:00:45.060 does and he's very subtle at sort of putting in anti-conservative narratives into the way

00:00:49.340 he talks about issues, especially whenever he has a conservative on his show and he acts

00:00:53.980 like they're being somehow contentious or offensive by just being conservative. Evan

00:01:00.860 Solomon's an issue, but that's a very different type of issue. I want to talk about Rachel

00:01:04.880 Gilmore today, who is a global news print journalist and she also makes some TikTok videos. Rachel

00:01:10.640 Gilmore proves that a lot of people in the legacy media are just bad at their jobs. They're

00:01:16.720 anti-conservatives, but they're so anti-conservative and they're so bad at hiding it that they become

00:01:22.280 just the best examples of why the legacy media is just rotten to the core. And the funny thing is

00:01:28.200 with Rachel Gilmore being an obvious anti-conservative, no legacy media person will ever disown her and

00:01:33.300 say that she does bad work. Yes, she's just an anti-conservative attack dog and she's clearly just 0.93

00:01:38.600 putting out opinion pieces and pretending like they're objective news coverage. No, no, no. Legacy

00:01:43.260 media journalists will cover her all day long because I think they lack the self-awareness to realize 0.83

00:01:48.200 how bad her own reporting looks. When I say that Rachel Gilmore's content is bad, I don't mean

00:01:52.680 it's bad in the sense that all legacy media reporting is bad. Like, well, of course, it's all

00:01:56.740 like bias to the left, her content's bias to the left is bad. I mean her content's bad even from a

00:02:02.320 liberal propagandist perspective. Her work is so sloppy and obvious in what it's trying to do that I 1.00

00:02:07.960 think even the most amateurish media consumer wouldn't be able to tell and would then reject her

00:02:12.580 premise. Like recently when she reported on Pierre Polyev marching next to James Topp on Canada Day,

00:02:18.120 she literally said in her headline that Pierre Polyev is associating with someone with far-right

00:02:23.460 ties. Now, what she means by far-right ties is that James Topp won on Jeremy McKenzie's show

00:02:29.580 and talked to him about him marching across Canada to oppose mandates. Now, I personally don't like

00:02:34.920 Jeremy McKenzie. I know tons of the people he associates with. I know a lot of things that he

00:02:39.620 personally believes he's like either borderline or is a white nationalist and anti-Semite. I have

00:02:45.540 really no respect for him, but I don't have any idea whether or not James Topp knows any of that

00:02:51.760 stuff about Jeremy McKenzie. They're both military veterans. I doubt that James Topp would have really

00:02:56.680 looked into him any further than that, and Jeremy McKenzie was willing to interview him when none of

00:03:01.320 the legacy media would interview him about his march across Canada. So, yeah, like there's nothing

00:03:05.780 there to insinuate that somehow James Topp actually knows anything about what Jeremy McKenzie believes,

00:03:10.700 and even if he does, we don't really have any strong evidence to suggest that. When the best

00:03:14.780 quote that Rachel Gilmore could pull in her article from that interview was him saying,

00:03:19.020 I appreciate you guys like giving me a platform and whatnot, and when he said you guys, it was in

00:03:22.900 the context of all the independent media people interviewing James Topp and getting his anti-mandate

00:03:27.920 message out there. But this is supposed to be, this is information that Rachel Gilmore thinks is

00:03:32.840 worthy of trying to hang Pierre Polyev worth. Pierre Polyev just marched down the street with

00:03:36.900 James Topp for several blocks or so, just talking to him, like just shooting the breeze, and then he

00:03:41.280 moved on. But somehow Pierre Polyev is supposed to do a background check on James Topp, know everything

00:03:46.780 about James Topp, and know every single person he's ever talked to, and know what they believe

00:03:51.300 personally, and he's supposed to associate with people based on this incredibly high standard. Like,

00:03:56.140 you could associate with nobody in politics if this was the standard. Like, every single liberal

00:04:01.700 in the liberal party cannot say that they don't have a friend who's done blackface.

00:04:06.620 Just saying. But Rachel Gilmore thinks that this is some sort of hard-hitting piece of journalism,

00:04:12.780 even though she got made fun of immediately because of how silly this entire, like, this entire framing

00:04:18.360 of an issue was. She even then got mad at people like Mark Sleplinski from Toronto 99 and some people

00:04:23.740 from some other independent media outlets who covered her story, saying that somehow they were out of line

00:04:28.400 for calling her out for smearing someone's reputation, acting as if they were smearing her

00:04:33.040 for trying to insinuate that Pierre Polyev hangs out with people who are okay with white nationalists.

00:04:39.220 Gilmore is a master of projection. She legitimately doesn't seem to think that she can be wrong in any

00:04:44.480 way. So she can smear Pierre Polyev on all of his supporters by acting as if they're somehow in league

00:04:51.100 with someone like Jerry McKenzie. But if you call her out for this about smearing someone,

00:04:55.320 then you're smearing her. It's a ridiculous way of living. And you can tell that she really has 0.99

00:05:00.980 sort of internalized this sense that I'm part of the legacy media. I'm important. Don't you know

00:05:05.360 who I am? It's incredibly funny to see because almost half of the stuff she puts out these days

00:05:10.840 on Twitter always has to be with people coming after her. And I saw recently she posted something

00:05:15.460 about how she got a death threat on the phone. And while that's bad, you're an idiot if you send 1.00

00:05:19.220 any journalist a death threat. Everyone gets death threats who works in journalism. I've gotten death 1.00

00:05:24.280 threats and I don't tend to post them because who cares? They're pretty much all fake. No one's

00:05:28.660 ever going to do anything. And a lot of people just like to bluster around on social media.

00:05:32.520 But her entire brand at this point is she's this put upon female journalist who's just trying her 0.86

00:05:37.640 best. It was hilarious. Actually, it was like a month or two ago she put out something about how

00:05:41.420 hard it is to be a female journalist. Then when other female journalists from the independent media said,

00:05:46.400 no, it's not. Stop trying to make yourself seem so important. She immediately attacked them as

00:05:51.560 somehow being sexist. As if women calling her out for just being flat out wrong about something

00:05:56.320 means that somehow she's being like attacked by the patriarchy. Another story that Rachel Gilmore

00:06:03.100 put out recently was this silly story that, well it's not really a story, it's a headline because

00:06:07.740 all of her stories are really just the headline, that Russia Today was the news outlet that covered

00:06:12.180 the Freedom Convoy the most. Who cares? I could care less who covers what the most. It really doesn't

00:06:18.580 prove anything, but she's kind of doing this weird implication as if Russia Today covers it the most,

00:06:23.320 then somehow the Freedom Convoy must be getting checks from the Kremlin. It's foolish, but her 0.97

00:06:30.120 whole thing is that somehow if I can just name check bad people or bad organizations or even bad countries 0.96

00:06:37.000 in a story about something that more conservative mainstream people support, then I can somehow make

00:06:42.960 that thing bad. Like, at the end of the day, who cares what Russia Today covers? If anything, it would just

00:06:48.740 prove that Russia sucks, so they'll cover things that make other world leaders like Justin Trudeau look bad 0.98

00:06:53.940 to make Putin seem good in comparison. But this is exactly what I mean by drive-by shooting journalism. 0.98

00:06:59.900 The tactic that Rachel Gilmore uses is she finds a couple bad people, couple bad organizations, or a bad

00:07:05.040 country like Russia, tries to generally kind of crowd them into the same area, whether or not other people

00:07:10.780 have done anything wrong or not, and then uses the fact that she's taking shots nearby Jeremy McKenzie

00:07:16.640 or something like that as justification that she hits people like Pierre Polyev, James Topp, or the

00:07:21.980 Freedom Convoy. She can just mow down an entire crowd of people in this metaphor, and it's all okay because

00:07:26.880 hey, at least she got her guy. It's an incredibly unethical way of working, but this demonstrates how bad 1.00

00:07:33.440 the legacy media has become in Canada. And she's the sloppiest kind of purveyor of these tactics,

00:07:38.380 which honestly I think just kind of goes to show that the legacy media does not care about quality.

00:07:43.840 I also previously mentioned that Rachel Gilmore makes TikTok videos for Global News, and I'm kind of just

00:07:49.440 doing this because I find it funny. It's hilarious the amount of money that the legacy media has, whether from their

00:07:56.160 own profits or from subsidies from the federal government, and they produce this low effort, low quality, low

00:08:02.580 information content, and then they have the gall to look at the independent media and act as if somehow

00:08:09.240 we're really not up to snuff. So just look at this video right here where she really jams in a lot of 1.00

00:08:14.540 projection, a lot of just flat-out falsehoods under the guise that she's informing young Canadians on TikTok.

00:08:21.840 Some Canadian politicians have been getting closer with the far-right, and experts are getting concerned.

00:08:28.340 Yeah, the experts that Gilmore's referring to is people from the Anti-Hate Network who were caught

00:08:33.780 spreading fake screenshots purporting to show that Freedom Convoy supporters in Toronto were handing out

00:08:39.900 anti-Semitic flyers. Here's what you need to know. In recent years, politicians from around the world have

00:08:45.740 toyed with far-right ideas. From spreading unfounded conspiracy theories about the World Economic Forum,

00:08:50.840 to amplifying populist ideas from the fringes of society for political gain.

00:08:56.180 Oh no, people are making up conspiracy theories about the World Economic Forum? Would any of these

00:09:01.000 conspiracy theories have anything to do with the things that they publish on their own website,

00:09:04.840 or the things that they say at their own conferences? Like, can she point out one WEF conspiracy

00:09:10.260 that isn't true? Like, I disagree with people when they say that someone like Justin Trudeau is a

00:09:14.760 literal puppet of the WEF, but the whole point is he's ideologically captured by them, or at least

00:09:20.240 promotes a lot of their crazy ideas. She doesn't name one, and then she moves on like, oh my goodness, 0.85

00:09:24.980 people are using populist ideas from the fringes of society? Like, I agree there's fringe people out

00:09:30.680 there that I don't like, but she doesn't name one because she's just trying to be vague as if every

00:09:35.080 single thing that conservatives say these days might be influenced by someone from the populist fringe.

00:09:40.020 Now, back in January, I reported that a number of key convoy

00:09:44.760 figures had made racist comments and had links to white supremacy. One organizer wore a hat and

00:09:49.640 hoodie bearing initials believed to belong to Soldiers of Odin, an anti-immigrant group first

00:09:54.360 established in Finland. Another prominent convoy supporter has posted a video where he shared the

00:09:59.720 race replacement theory, a theory that was thought to be a motivating factor in a mass shooting back in

00:10:04.360 May. Despite our reporting months ago, a number of MPs met with key convoy figures in June, but not the

00:10:09.240 ones I just mentioned. Yeah, it's like the MPs didn't actually meet with any of those people

00:10:13.880 because you're lying. Those two people that you're referring to were not convoy organizers.

00:10:19.240 They're clearly crazy and everyone condemned them. In a movement of hundreds of thousands of people,

00:10:24.680 clearly you're going to get nutcases. But again, Rachel Gilmore really doesn't care whether or not 1.00

00:10:30.040 they're real organizers because she's just trying to use them to smear people who are the actual organizers. 1.00

00:10:35.160 And even marched with James Topp, who has spoken out against vaccine mandates and spoken to Canada

00:10:40.200 Day convoy proto. This has some experts worried extremism could become mainstream.

00:10:44.520 So you saw there in a 30 second TikTok video, which I'm very sorry for subjecting you all to,

00:10:49.960 she couldn't actually make one far right connection to mainstream conservatives. The closest she got was

00:10:55.880 naming Jason LaFace in the Sons of Odin outfit, who I've talked to. He is crazy. I don't like him at all. 0.95

00:11:03.400 And I think she was insinuating Pat King. And she was saying that because conservative MPs met with

00:11:09.800 the real convoy organizers, ergo, they're somehow connected to these other people who they didn't

00:11:16.280 meet with who weren't real organizers and who the real organizers condemned for saying crazy 0.83

00:11:21.240 and stupid things during the convoy and having nothing to do with the movement. That's what she 0.96

00:11:26.520 considers good, like quality journalistic work. And she's putting this out on TikTok. And I wouldn't

00:11:32.200 doubt that there's a lot of young Zoomers and people in the generation underneath that, 1.00

00:11:36.680 I don't know what it is, would actually believe this crap. Because to a certain extent, people 0.98

00:11:40.920 will kind of just believe whatever the legacy media says, just because it comes with the brand, 0.99

00:11:45.320 even though you have clowns like this working for them. 0.94

00:11:49.560 Now there's just one more thing I want to talk about here, because it's sort of partially involved 0.94

00:11:54.360 Rachel Gilmour, but it more so just connects her back to the rest of the legacy media,

00:11:58.440 who are absolutely committed to each other's false narratives. Even if they don't work at the same

00:12:02.360 companies, they are in league with each other's fake news. So Rachel Gilmour, and I'll put the

00:12:08.760 tweet up beside me, literally retweeted this tweet from another legacy media journalist claiming that

00:12:14.680 CTV News' Glenn McGregor was attacked by Tamara Leach supporters when she was let out of prison.

00:12:19.800 It's insane, this claim that somehow Glenn McGregor, when he literally physically threw the front of

00:12:26.760 himself against the backs of Tamara Leach supporters who were kind of mobbed around the door when she

00:12:31.000 was walking out of prison to cheer for her and give her hugs and whatnot, that Glenn McGregor,

00:12:35.480 he was the one being assaulted. Like, I know Glenn McGregor's a ghoul, but I'm pretty sure he can't

00:12:40.920 physically pass through people like a ghost. But somehow this means that he was being physically

00:12:46.120 assaulted because he starts throwing up his body against people like he's trying to get into the

00:12:50.440 NFL. And someone had the audacity to turn around and give him a shove here and there because he was

00:12:56.040 literally attacking them with his body. Because I guess as a legacy media journalist, he's like

00:13:01.080 entitled for the interview with Tamara Leach after she gets out of prison, despite the fact that he's

00:13:06.360 probably been one of the most unfair and dishonest journalists to the convoy and to Leach over the

00:13:11.480 past several months. Well anyways, I guess I'm just going to leave it there. I'll see everyone next

00:13:16.760 time. If there is a next time, let's hope there is. Have a great day everyone.

The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - August 09, 2022

The Media Isn't Even Good At Propaganda!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript