The obvious conspiracy theory answer is that the elite own the mainstream media and so they quash anything. But I'm learning more and more now that the mainstream media isn't really a news reporting service like we think it is. It's actually purely commercial. Anything you see on the news is there because it makes money. If someone decides that pedophilia doesn't make money it doesn't see the light of day. And there's also the matter of parents who complain at the very mention of anything like that saying "how do I explain this to my little child".

It's actually purely commercial.

Really? You don't think it's at all political? And it's not also used to influence opinion, or to aide an agenda? The media is a propaganda and control tool first, and a money machine second..

Sure. The politicians use the tool. But in the end it's all about profit. And politics is all about profit as well.

But in the end it's all about profit.

Not true. The media is not quick to report on 'profitable' stories that go against their agenda. This alone proves they have bigger priorities than money.

I don't agree. They do run nonprofitable stories but those are just to keep the audience coming back for the profitable stuff. It's a show after all. Just like any other. So they have to be careful to at least appear to have standards. Otherwise the audience goes away. They are anyway. The news was once among the top rated shows. Now it's way down the list. One thing to keep in mind. When they talk about the millions of dollars in campaign spending, where do you think most of the money goes? From both sides. And why do the lessor candidates get almost no coverage? Because they didn't do the media buy. And notice how the winner Trump was trashed by the media? He didn't spend as much. If the news was truly unbiased they would play up the third parties for dramatic effect if nothing else. But there's no money in that and the people giving them money do not want that.

they go hand in hand, the government control the Media by allowing access to information that sells, if you dont play ball they take you off the list and discredit you.

Yea but one outweighs the other

Even an elementary analysis of corporate media eg Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (which uses statistical data and zero conspiracy theory) eliminates that claim, ie that it's all about eyeballs. I mean if they only card about ratings they would just air Japanese game shows. The media is actually the single most important institution in maintaining elite control of the populace.

Chomsky has no agenda.

Eyeballs = money. It's all about eyeballs because the ad revenue is based on viewership. Also pretty much everything on the news is paid for native advertising. Do you really think the news cares about the new McDonalds sandwich? No. It's a paid story. And when you see some story with unfamiliar reporters talking about something that has a commercial angle you can bet it's paid for and provided by some company. The government also provides news directly and they pay to have it put on the air. And the other news that is legitimate like some fire broke out or shooting is there a simply to draw an audience.

The government also provides news directly and they pay to have it put on the air.

They don't need to "pay" to put things on air. They help manufacture the "news" along with the PR industry. I mentioned Manufacturing Consent; another good introductory text on the media is The Science of Coercion by Christopher Simpson.

But they do.

To some extent I think you're right. But the MSM has manufactured fear for years. This causes people to buy M&Ms , not feel like cooking, have a beer, take a prescription drugs , etc.

Take away the BLM stories and look at how many mosquito viruses have there been.

Fear generates views. So that is commercial too

Look at the commercials on the news. It's mostly sponsored by the drug industry. You won't find very much in the way of negative drug reporting. whenever there's a shooting you never hear about his prescription drug history for instance. I'm thinking that guy in Ohio that drove his car into a crowd and started slashing people with a knife was probably on some antidepressant drug and went off of it. Can't have that sort of information out there now can we?

You raise a lot of good questions, and unfortunately I don't have the answers. But I wanted to thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge here.

Consider the amount of news coverage we get on any sort of "organised crime" or "white collar" multi-million dollar chicanery versus all the more mundane accounts of small-time crooks and villains caught breaking the law.

Does the Mafia still exist? Of course it does. Do we ever hear anything about it or any arrests made of known, alleged , or suspected members of it?

Not usually or very often, or let's say that information isn't usually given out. There are a variety of reasons for that. Fear, big money, influence, bribery, corruption, etc. etc. so to provide it means that there would be some public expectation that the authorities should be doing far more about it when they actually can't and have their hands tied because of that and the fact that they lack the resources and have a hard time justifying long term covert investigations that aren't always going to be successful.

Law enforcement knows and is aware of all kinds of well-organised criminal activity but the whole thing about it being well-organised is that there all kinds of protective layers that surround the people who actually run, control, and profit off the proceeds from it in a way that's almost impossible to prove, while all the police can do is occasionally nab one or a few out a whole host of petty criminals that work the streets for far larger and more complex operations they themselves don't actually know very much about beyond the fact that it's "easy money" that it's better to not ask too many questions about if you want to continue to receive it for doing whatever is wanted.

It's called "compartmentalization" and providing information strictly on "a need to know basis" that intelligence agencies and their spies copied from organised crime that had invented and successfully used it long before most of those agencies existed, and not the other way around. That may also explain why it's prone to criminality and corruption within those agencies themselves even though that was never the intention.

I used the Mafia as an example here because it was the one that used networks of what appeared to be ordinary pizza parlors to both sell drugs and launder the proceeds from them as well as for illegal betting, and other nefarious activities that could be handled without raising any suspicions. The pizza joints used as fronts were indistinguishable from countless other very ordinary and honest ones and the illegal traffic through theirs didn't look any different from and was camouflaged by all the normal traffic going through them at the same time. Those in the know used specific code words and signals to indicate what they wanted and so forth.

If the police ever stumbled upon one, arrested those who's been directly involved and shut it down, they'd simply open another one up somewhere else and carry on.

Now pizza is pizza and we all like it once in a while and so do our kids. Most pizza outlets don't push anything but deals on pizza and don't care about whether it's for a quick boardroom lunch, enclave of nerdy computer programmers, or adult, teen or juvenile parties because it's all the same. By and large it's all take-out and delivery with very limited seating, if any. The only exception I can think of to that are the Chuck E. Cheese emporiums that specifically deals with well supervised children's parties on their premises and nothing more.

Comet Pizza pushes itself as a "family restaurant" but the actual décor and sideline of ongoing "all ages" parties and the kind of entertainment being promoted and provided at them is nothing that any typical or responsible parent would ever want to expose of take any of their kids to or allow any teenage ones to attend on their own if they knew anything at all about it.

And ping-pong? What kind of an attraction is that this day in age unless of course it's symbolic of something else entirely? Certainly not as hip or way-cool as it's bizarrely and brazenly presented to be which is not to say that the symbolic meaning isn't just about as rad, and positively outrageous as it can possibly get.

An article that I consider very important to this whole discussion and well worth thinking about and discussing further focusses on "the banality of evil" and "normalizing the unthinkable" and can be found here...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7278.htm

Those in control of mainstream media are either involved personally, fear retaliation from those who are involved, or are just pieces of shit who don't have morals. They are in the same circles as the politicians and the pedos.

they dont want to bite the hand that feeds

so its up to us to cut that hand off

When you say gay men are involved, how old are the minors? I'm not defending pedophilia or debating age of consent, but it's idk, "normal" for May/December flings in the gay community?

(WARNING for content ) Again - I'm not sold that Pizzagate is real.

In other cases the whole spectrum. Truthfully it's as bad as it's ever been from stories I've heard. There are children under 3 that have been raped in LA & Miami this year.

Goddammit. Tonight had been a bad night for pedophilia on reddit for this user. Fuckin shit. I'm too upset to try to sleep yet, but past 4:30am. Ugh.

What I would love is for children to be protected and for offenders to know that society will not tolerate such action. What I fear is that the MSM only cares about covering it when a straight celebrity or conservative commits the crime. Even though I have my own reservations on PizzaGate being real or not , it disturbs me that news outlets rushed to claim that Comet Pizza was innocent before doing a thorough independent investigation ( ie - news outlets denying validity because Wikileaks , Reddit , 4chan are the enemy because they support Trump )

The rate of sexual abuse is alarming. And what no one really speaks out about is INCEST. We live in a highly sexualized, yet shaming society. Shit is so prevalent at this point, it's one of the many reasons I'm choosing not to have children.

I was confused about what you're saying about gay men. Are you saying they do more child rape than straight men? If so, why should I take your word on that? Do you have sources that back up your claim?

Many gay men prefer younger men. Not necessarily pedophile by definition, but young "twinks." Not really surprising as many Straight men like younger women, so why wouldn't gays have the same preference.

In the legal since rape would include all children sexually abused - including children involved in trafficking.

With regards to sexual abuse , most of this occurs in the family so the numbers side heavily towards straight (or closeted) males sexually abusing boys.

RE: Trafficking

This is my subjective experience working in 10 years of government & working with social workers that deal with TRAFFICKING - I would say that in terms of men paying for trafficked male children it would be 2/3 open 1/3 straight or closeted homosexual.

With Male Child Pornography I do not deal with any of that so zero clue on statistics or owners of that.

Granted 75-95% of the people involved in the TRAFFICK are straight males ( or closeted straight males)

The only point I was trying to establish is that the media might not cover Sexual Offender cases because they do not want audiences to connect homosexuality with pedophilia which could cause the progressive movement to deal with more chaos from the conservative religious right.

Lawsuits, for one thing. Publicly name someone as a child molester and you better be damn sure they are one. Otherwise you've opened yourself up to a massive slander/libel lawsuit.

The other reason is: protecting the identity of the victim.

Third reason: Ick factor. Newspapers and TV news shows are in business to make money. So they tend to run/cover stories that result in higher circulation/ratings.

I'm guessing that stories about pedophilia/child trafficking result in lower numbers. I'd bet that a front page headline like that would be enough to stop some people from buying a newspaper/magazine. It's probably enough to get a lot of people to change the channel. If you lose money every time you cover a certain kind of story, pretty soon you're going to stop covering that kind of story.

Didn't Jerry Sandusky receive a ton of coverage? Same with the Catholic Church?

Anthony Weiner happened recently and they were able to attack him without naming the victim?

I feel like MSM - if it does have any amount of ethics within its foundation - is at the very least upset at HRC's emails / Wikileaks losing the campaign.

Their owners are involved.

The MSM is really just 6 corporations, so there is a monopoly element. Also, advertising dollars. Why lead the nightly news with depressing child trafficking, when you can do a feel good fluff piece?

Then there seems to be a pattern of abuse networks infiltrating the judiciary, law enforcement, social services, medicine and education to form an air tight ring that is immune from prosecution.

Keep in mind this would only be a small handful of the homosexual population - and there is still a large straight male and female population that partakes in these acts.

Use concentration ratios or location quotients:

X = % of pedos who are gay / % pedos who are hetero

If X > 1 : Pedos are more likely to be gay If X = 1 : Pedos are pedos If X < 1 : Pedos are more likely to be hetero

The media will cover stories of law enforcement seizing hard drives or female teachers seducing underage students, but the more horrific stuff never seems to see the light of day.

Same reason the FBI doesn't track child trafficking/abduction statistics. Ignorance is bliss.

Also, regarding the skew towards reporting only the gay pedos, just... this.

Huh? You couldn't turn on broadcast TV in the 00's without seeing some "reality" show or "news" show about pedophilia. There were even reddit memes: "have a seat over here...". It was a craze, and this hysterical "pizza" obsession is likely a direct effect of so many kids growing up hearing that fear mongering sensationalism for years.

Everyone here is myopically focused on "pizzagate", and meanwhile actual evil that undeniably exists (banksters, war profiteers, domestic spies) are sitting pretty without our scrutiny aimed at them. It's a shame.

(WARNING for content ) Again - I'm not sold that Pizzagate is real.

In other cases the whole spectrum. Truthfully it's as bad as it's ever been from stories I've heard. There are children under 3 that have been raped in LA & Miami this year.