The Highwire with Del Bigtree - TV EXEC REVEALS SHOCKING CENSORSHIP OF MEDIA

Episode Date: April 6, 2022

Former British broadcasting executive, Mark Sharman, recently spoke out about the incredible failures of the media during Covid by warning journalists not to question the official government line in their reporting.#MarkSharman #SkyNews #CensorshipBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We are under attack. Those that are trying to tell the truth are under attack. We have lost the free press. I've been saying this all along. In the United States of America, media, the news was considered the fourth branch of government. And basically the idea from Thomas Jefferson and beyond, they all said, if we lose a free news system, then we will lose democracy, we will lose America. The news must always be free, be unaffected by government.

so that it can always challenge government with whatever challenge it wants. It can always challenge any industry that is always asking the hard questions, and it never beckons to bias or agenda. It must be free, or we will lose our nation. I really thought and took that to heart as I saw an incredible interview being done on a network in the UK. This is Mark Sharman, former executive at ITV and Sky News. Take a look at what he said, and I want this to really sing. because he's not just talking about the UK, he's talking about the whole world.

Mark, it's such pleasure to have you here as part of the lockdown inquiry. I know this is quite a big deal for you to come out from behind the camera, where you've been an executive in the industry for so long. Yes. But I know you want to do it because you have been so disturbed by the coverage of many of your former colleagues, the organizations that you used to work for over the course of the pandemic. So can you just start by explaining this chilling warning that Offcom gave near the start of the pandemic and how you think that may have impacted the coverage? Well, I definitely think it impacted. It's not so much an offcom regulation. It was advice or a warning actually.

It's like a little bulletin, wasn't it? It was a warning to basically say, do not question the official government line. Now, to be fair to them, they said you can have opposition voices on, but you must, presenters must intervene if there's any danger of harmful or misinformation. So did that essentially turn presenters at the BBC Sky News into essentially representatives of the government? Yes, I think it did. Not just on-air talent. I think that warning affected all broadcasters.

Most of the major broadcaster followed it and actually it was only the one or two little smaller ones who wouldn't have that backup power who got caught. I mean, Uckfield Community Radio was censored for putting something out. But actually I think what it's led to, I think it's created an environment which will be lead to. the biggest assault on freedom of speech and democracy, I've known in my lifetime. I've never seen a warning from Ofcom like that. I've never seen the broadcasters toe the line. And rather than question the government, they became cheerleaders for the government. It is my honor and pleasure to be joined by Mark Sharman, former executive at Sky News and producer at ITV.

Mark, those are powerful words and dangerous. I mean, dangerous at a time where media is being told don't allow conversations like that to happen. Of course, you're not on Sky News when you're saying you're on a smaller network like GBN, the smaller networks that were the only ones brave enough to carry stories like this. Why are you going public with this perspective now? Well, hello, thank you for having me on. And first of all, I agree with every word you've just summed up. I mean, we have lost the free press.

And it goes against every principle I've ever been taught and grown up with. We were always taught to be fair and balanced and show both sides of a story and let the viewers decide. And that has just completely gone out of the window. It feels to me like free speech and democracy with it. We're in a room and the walls are coming in and the ceiling is coming down and the floor is coming up. And you've got big tech on one side and mainstream media on the other. closing us out. Somebody at world level, as you say, decides what the answer is and we're all prevented from that point on for asking any questions. It is not what journalism is about,

it never has been and it's a very, very dangerous precedent. Who are these people that are deciding what's information and what's misinformation? You know, who are they to dismiss scientists, eminent scientists and doctors who question the official narrative and say it's misinformation. I mean, since when did science stop? Since when did people stop reviewing it and asking questions and debating it? And we are losing the ability to debate. Yes. Let me ask you for those of us in America that don't know what off-com is.

What is off-com in the UK? Because that's who sent out this warning to all the media. media agencies basically say, you know, toe the line for the government. You can have someone that questions it, but then immediately stop them and hold them back from spreading misinformation. What is off-com for those of us that don't know? Well, in the UK, newspapers are partisan. They have political leanings and a political agenda. Television has always been independent. You know, we don't have the Fox News and the CNN with different political lines. They are independent.

Ofcom is the government regulator who in normal times actually take a light touch on things. They don't tend to intervene. Usually they react if they get via complaints. So as I said on the other clip, I've never seen an instruction that warns broadcasters not to question government policy. But I mean, what's emerging is it's not really government policy, it's worldwide policy. It's worldwide policy. It's WHO policy. You know, the actual instructions on the social media

that they list out on YouTube what you can and can't say about some of the treatments that might have been available as opposed to vaccines. It's all listed there. There is a, you know, it's not a coincidence that every country in the Western world reacted in exactly the same way. You know, what's happening in America. exactly the same as what's happening here and in Europe.

Anybody that questions that official line is taken down. I mean, I'll give you an example of how far it's got. I'm very concerned about vaccine injuries at the moment. It's a subject that's not really being investigated properly. Amen. We have a politician called Sir Christopher Chope, Sir, a knight of the realm, who has taken up the case of vaccine harm, and he's introducing a bill into Parliament.

His speech, as an elected member of the British government, given under parliamentary privilege, in the House of Commons, was taken down by YouTube. I mean, how dare they? This is democracy at work, and somebody in America decides that that is inappropriate for us to discuss. We cannot discuss vaccine injuries. I mean, how far has it got to go before people get, have had enough of this and say, hang on a minute, we live in a democracy.

When you, you know, obviously you've been in media, I have too. You know, I was just interviewed by an ex-New York Times reporter the other day. And I was saying to my friends how refreshing it was, just that no agenda, no baloney, hard questions being asked of me. Didn't, you know, like any, just challenging me from every side, but I enjoyed it. There seemed to be just strong inquisition, strong skepticism. That's the place of the journalist. The journalist is supposed to always be skeptical. We are not cheerleaders for any point of view.

I remember being in journalism classes, and at that time I was a fictional writer, and so I was always getting in trouble. I was getting bad grades in journalism class because the teacher kept saying, Dell, you're not being objective. You are instilling your opinion in this. journalism is about showing all sides being fair and balanced so that let the viewer decide what they're going to do or, you know, the reader, is journalism dead? Are they even teaching that in journalism school? Because I don't see anywhere in the news, certainly not in America, where we have that objectivity anymore. All it is is opinion. I mean, what happens if a world living on opinion with no actual objective news? Well, it wouldn't be so bad if there were various opinions, but you're only allowed one opinion at the moment. It has to be on the same track.

But I mean, there are plenty of questions to us. Look, I can understand the media in the first two or three months of COVID. I can understand why everybody was nervous. We didn't know what this thing was, and it was probably right to be cautious. But it became obvious quite early that the... numbers were being inflated. They weren't correct. And since then, you know, why are we not questioning why governments gave indemnity from prosecution to Pfizer? Why would you allow Pfizer to be secretive about their trials for 75 years? Right. Why aren't the mainstream

media looking at some of the Pfizer results, which are clearly showing, clearly showing that either they're either flawed or fraudulent. And they're certainly the vaccine certainly don't work as well as we've been made to believe. The questions are there to be asked, but no one in mainstream media is asking, but it's worse than that. I mean, constantly the figures of death figures were posted every night. The scare tactics continued. And I'm sorry to say that they exaggerated the situation in hospitals. They exaggerated those that were unvaccinated in ICU.

And they vilified those who didn't want to take the vaccine. They actually created deliberately a split in the nation. It's beyond precedent. It really is. How do you think when you look at this right now, I keep trying, you know, people ask me if you could take a time capsule, you know, 20 years from now. I said, I don't want one 20 years from now. I want one five years from now.

I want to see where we're at five years because we are either going to stand up against this and grab a hold of our liberty and our freedom and what our nations once, you know, believed in and hold back that sort of technocratic takeover, this horrible cabal of, you know, media owned by tech and pharma and, you know, all of these issues, or we're not. When you look at this and you think about the history books, should they get it right, what will the history books write about this pandemic, how the media handled it, how the government agencies. Will these people regret how they acted here? Well, it depends at what level it comes out and what questions are asked and what's revealed. I mean, I have great hope for your country,

actually. We're up against the same powerful enemy, but I do feel as though you've got much more firepower on our side of the fence, if you will. Yeah. And I'm hoping that it'll break in America, because if it breaks there, it'll break everywhere. And that's really our hope. Because we're in the same situation. The bill you just read out in California bill about the online safety. We've got exactly the same coming in the UK, the online safety bill. It deals with misinformation and disinformation

and basically makes off-com again in partnership with the big tech companies, the arbiterer of what's misinformation and what's information. You know, who gives them that power? Who gives them the knowledge? You know, who suddenly decided they were the fountain of all things accurate? But of course, like you, I mean, I'm suspicious of where the power's coming from and what the message is and what the agenda is, to be fair. What is your message to people that aren't reporters, aren't journalists like us, we're out there? I know you're trying to get the story.

You're fighting to get the stories of vaccine injured into the limelights so that people recognize what's happening there. But for your average person listening right now, what is it they need? to do in order to maintain a freedom in a space that maybe they're not fully aware of, which is the news and media. What can your average person do right now? It's very difficult because I think the average person, certainly in this country, probably still believes what they're being told. I mean, there's a very, very significant amount of people who do watch independent news, and as a consequence, don't trust the mainstream media at all.

But bear in mind, you know, we have the BBC. which retains a reputation for truth around the world. I'm sorry to say, it's not deserved at the moment. They employ their own disinformation reporter, and they also have a thing called the BBC trusted news initiative. But when you look at that, that's in partnership with Microsoft and Facebook and all the same people. And I mean, it's interesting.

They call it the BBC trusted news initiative. They wouldn't have called it the Zodiac. Zuckerberg, trusted news initiative, would they? So, I mean, it's, it has to, sooner or later, something major has to happen to make people realize that everything they've been told is not true. Not everything is untrue, but not everything they've been told is true. And in particular, in particular, it's why were people not told that this vaccine was experimental, that it had not gone through trials and that it was a risk to some people. You know, our figures now for our yellow card reporting system for vaccine injuries are something like 450,000.

But we all know that's a fraction of the real number. And I'm, you know, I'm getting all kinds of emails and talking to what sorts of people. And actually it's heartbreaking. People's lives have been totally, utterly ruined. by these vaccines. Now, it doesn't apply to everybody, but they should have been made aware. Number one, were you really at risk from the virus? Right. For the vast majority of the population, they weren't. And number two, if you do take these jabs, here is what it is, and here is what the risk might be. And that never happened. And I think there could be a huge anger

in the population if they find out they were continually told safe and effective when in fact it was neither to some people yeah well you're absolutely right that has been a major focus of us on the high wire mark i want to thank you for taking the time today to join us it's always a uh it's always a great moment to discover that i have a brother on across the ocean that is fighting the same fight standing for the same truth in journalism. It's so important to us here. And I just want you to know you're not alone. We're here with you. If you have any breaking story, anything you ever want to share here in America, you're right. I do believe America leads this fight. I believe we have the ability to beat this back and to stand as a beacon of light, of liberty, of free speech,

once again, it is hanging in the balance. And many of us, those that are watching the show, recognize what's at stake and what's in our hands and I want to thank you for sharing your sentiment though you're living in a different place we are all under the same regime at the moment that has to change thank you for taking the time today thank you very much please keep on the good work we will take care thank you