Media
Top Five Huge Stories the Media Buried This Week
NEERA TANDEN: “The military requires accountability. It’s the most accountable organization. You are supposed to be accountable to higher-ups. Politics isn’t supposed to have to do with any of this, and the fact that that’s happening, that they’re just basically saying nothing to do here, is a big problem, I think, for those who believe in accountability.”
@ScottJenningsKY: “I think Republicans aren’t interested in any lectures on accountability in the military after the Biden administration. I mean, the bar for getting rid of a Secretary of Defense is apparently pretty high. You can get 13 people killed and go AWOL and not tell the commander in chief, and that’s not a fireable offense.”
“But these lectures about accountability and national security after letting 10 million people into the country who raped and murdered and committed violent acts and no remorse or accountability.”
NEERA TANDEN: “What are you talking about? They closed the border.”
#4 – Bill Gates says we won’t need humans “for most things.”
During an appearance on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon asked Gates a pretty direct question: “Will we still need humans?”
Gates responded, “Not for most things. We’ll decide … There will be some things that we reserve for ourselves, but in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems.”
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
REP JORDAN: “Is NPR biased?”
MAHER: “I have never seen any political bias.”
JORDAN: “In the DC area, editorial positions at NPR have 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans.”
MAHER: “We do not track the voter registration, but I find that concerning.”
JORDAN: “87-0 and you’re not biased?”
MAHER: “I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate.”
JORDAN: “October 2020, the NYPost had the Hunter Biden laptop story, and one of those 87 Democrat editors said, ‘We don’t want to waste our readers and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.’ Was that story a pure distraction?”
Video + Transcript via @Kanekoathegreat
While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more weekly news roundups.
#2 – Utah becomes the first state to officially BAN fluoride in all public drinking water.
For decades, fluoride was accepted as a safe way to prevent tooth decay. Few questioned it.
But last year, in a dramatic legal twist, a federal judge ruled that fluoride may actually lower children’s IQ—and cited evidence that could upend everything we thought we knew.
That ruling sent shockwaves through the public health world.
Judge Edward Chen pointed to scientific studies showing a “high level of certainty” that fluoride exposure “poses a risk” to developing brains.
He ordered the EPA to reexamine its safety standards, warning that the margin for safety may be far too narrow.
At the center of the case: dozens of peer-reviewed studies linking everyday fluoride exposure—even at levels found in U.S. tap water—to reduced intellectual capacity in children.
It wasn’t just one paper. The National Toxicology Program, a branch of the U.S. government, also concluded that higher fluoride levels were “consistently associated” with lower IQ in kids.
They flagged 1.5 mg/L as a risk threshold. Some communities hover right near it.
In response to the growing evidence, Utah passed HB 81, banning all fluoride additives in public water.
The law takes effect May 7. It doesn’t ban fluoride completely. Anyone who wants it can still get it—like any other prescription.
And that’s the point: Utah’s lawmakers say this is about informed consent and personal choice.
This issue is no longer on the fringe. Across the country, cities and towns are quietly rethinking water fluoridation—and some have already pulled out. Utah is the first state to take bold action. It may not be the last.
The conversation surrounding fluoride has shifted from “Is it helpful?” to “Is it safe?” And for the first time in nearly a century, that question is being taken seriously.
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
#1 – RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
Kennedy revealed that the CDC is creating a new sub-agency focused entirely on vaccine injuries—a long-overdue shift for patients who’ve spent years searching for answers without any support from the government.
“We’re incorporating an agency within CDC that is going to specialize in vaccine injuries,” Kennedy announced.
“These are priorities for the American people. More and more people are suffering from these injuries, and we are committed to having gold-standard science make sure that we can figure out what the treatments are and that we can deliver the best treatments possible to the American people.”
For years, the vaccine-injured have felt ignored or dismissed, as public health agencies refused to even acknowledge the problem. Now, there’s finally an initiative underway to investigate their injuries and to provide support.
Thanks for reading! This weekly roundup takes time and care to put together—and I do my best to make it your go-to source for the stories that matter most but rarely get the attention they deserve.
If you like my work and want to support me and my family and help keep this page alive, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.
|
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
|
|
|
|
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
From LifeSiteNews
Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.
Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.
Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”
Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”
Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”
I have a new favourite BBC presenter. https://t.co/l2gkThccty
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 22, 2025
When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”
Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”
READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air
In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”
Indeed. That “particular viewpoint” would be that only women can get pregnant.
The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.
The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”
Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.
Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.
Canada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers
It’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
US Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster
Chinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case
-
National2 days agoConservative bill would increase penalties for attacks on places of worship in Canada
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
armed forces2 days agoCanadian veteran says she knows at least 20 service members who were offered euthanasia
-
Alberta2 days agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Business1 day agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
Business1 day agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
-
COVID-191 day agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US