The story that never was

6397e72ab175ed1aaddb157e70302df4

A news story was reported on. It involved a school covering up the truth. People reacted to the news story. The news story was edited and key information was removed. People continued to share the story online; in fact it went viral. The story was removed completely because the news organisation decided it was too sensitive. By this time it had already been shared all over the world.

Here is the story that never was. The story that a news organisation decided was too sensitive for people to know about.

screenshot-whaleoil.co.nz

screenshot-whaleoil.co.nz

 

A major newspaper in Canada has removed a story about two refugee children who choked a girl with a chain while shouting “Muslims rule the world” in a shocking example of politically correct-driven censorship.

The original article published by the Chronicle Herald described how a grade three girl at Chebucto Heights Elementary School was choked on two separate occasions by two “refugee boys” who had arrived in February and that “a chain was used on both occasions”.

According to the girl’s mother ‘Missy’, who didn’t want to be named because she feared retribution, the boys yelled “Muslims rule the world” while they carried out the assault, but were not even disciplined by the school.

252 refugee students are currently enrolled in the region, with another 71 waiting on settlement of permanent housing.

Another mother quoted by the Herald also claimed that her daughter begged her to be allowed to stay home from school after she was “slapped after she and a classmate disagreed in the schoolyard,” and that the school again took no action and didn’t even call her.
But perhaps the most shocking turn of events came when the Herald, which had already printed the story in its hard copy, first edited the article on its website to remove the “Muslims rule the world” quote and then deleted the story entirely.

After social justice warriors chimed in with a flurry of complaints, in a bow to political correctness, the Herald replaced the story with a mealy-mouthed apology stating, “Bullying is a sensitive subject. So is the integration of newcomers, particularly those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here.”

The fact that the headline may have caused offense to an “identifiable cultural group” was also described at “problematic” by the newspaper, which also lamented the fact that news outlets critical of Islam had shared the story.

“What they’re really saying is – we accidentally told the truth, we’ll work harder to prevent that happening in the future,” wrote the BlazingCatFur blog.

“This being PM Useful Idiot’s Canada we already know the press ignores stories unfavourable to the Liberal lie. But now they’ve taken to “disappearing” news unfavourable to the Liberal narrative they’ve accidentally reported.”

The Chronicle Herald is the highest circulation newspaper in the Atlantic provinces and is the largest independently owned newspaper company in Canada.

The fact that the story was removed from the Internet after being published in the physical newspaper attests to the complete cowardice of the Chronicle Herald in bowing to public pressure from perpetually outraged social justice mobs.

Because the story completely demolished the leftist narrative about the wave of “refugees” now arriving in the west, it was censored.

-infowars.com

 

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Bud

    What opened my eyes to the extreme bias of the new medias was the internet. When the Drudge Report came on line (mid 90’s?) there were links to all the news feeds at the bottom of the page and I would read them and think ‘Ok, they found some of Saddams chemical weapons in Iraq, that will be a big story,” then I would watch the evening news and there would be nothing. This happened over and over and over, and I was forced to conclude that although the news media might not be outright lying, they were only reporting news that fit their agenda, which is pretty much the same as outright lying. So I stopped watching the news and reading the papers and have been fishing around the internet ever since.

    • Woody

      My wife has difficulty understanding why I sometimes yell at the TV when she insists on watching the programme formerly known as the news. Sometimes “news breathlessly reported as breaking which I had read about on WO 3 days earlier with links to all the facts not just one side and then the presenter interviewing the reporter to get their expert view – give me strength.

      • Bud

        I was at a State Fair years ago with a country cousin of mine and he would insist on stopping at every stall where someone was espousing the wonders of steak knives or some other not particularly interesting product. After spending a couple of hours with him watching all these presentations and him not buying anything I was losing my patience. I asked him why we were wasting our evening with this crap. He was a bit taken aback and said “Oh, I just love to watch a good pitch man.” He didn’t care about the message or the product, he was just enjoying the show. This is the only reason I can come up with for anyone watching the news.

  • Diehard

    I think we need to accept that all media are biased and there really is no such thing as old fashioned factual reporting any more. Every story seems to have slant and or some meaningless comments copied off social media from some nobody, all packaged together to try and sell advertising.

    • Orca

      We do have organisations like the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Why don’t such “Standards” include things like: not deliberately trying to mislead the public?

      • Woody

        Because it is an ineffectual organisation seemingly inhabited by people with the same mindset as retired squash players.

    • phronesis

      Media has always been biased. What has changed is that it is now illegal to present the facts as they may be defined as hate speech by some looney lefty. Truth is not a defence against prosecution by the human rights commission etc, etc.

      • kereru

        That stems from the plague of our times – nothing can be claimed for certain, everything is relative to the one making the observation. I posted this article a few days ago, but not sure if anyone read it. It goes a long way to help us understand the dynamics operating today.

        ‘Everything is fluid, situational, pragmatically determined. As the founder of existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “existence precedes essence.” With “God dead,” as Nietzsche famously proclaimed, ethical absolutes are no more. Values are a matter of personal choice — and one is just as good as another. Nothing and no one is better or worse. Just “different.” There is no “truth” but multiple “truths.” And, following another postulate of post-modernism articulated by Nietzsche, “there are no facts, only interpretations.” Hence the on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand approach of elite media which gives equal credence to, say, democratically elected governments and unelected dictatorships.

        Similarly, there are neither “just” defensive wars nor “unjust” wars of aggression. All are “conflicts” and “violence.” Hence, any “peace” (aka, “political solution”), no matter how strained, short-lived, or outright fraudulent, is preferable to the battle for the victory of good over evil.’

        On the other side of the chasm are millions who crave certainties. They believe that there is an absolute hierarchy of values. That there is “right” and “wrong.” Their moral credos or “essence” shape and guide their “existence,” not the other way around.

        They believe that there is truth and that some facts are irrefutable and not open to interpretations. One such fact is that some hatreds are inexpiable, that conflicts they lead to are unappeasable and cannot be resolved by negotiations or concessions but only by a victory of the one side over the other. And in such cases they believe one should strike first. They also believe that borders are sovereign and that militaries exist to be used to defend principles and territories.’

        http://www.aei.org/publication/the-clash-of-philosophies/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly040916

        • Doc45

          The problem for those who claim there is no truth is that their statement may or may not be true. Being absolutely certain there are no absolutes is daft even juvenile. The nature of human beings is that they need to live with boundaries and certitude.

  • Dan

    This highlights one of the problems with the Internet. We see constant changing of articles as the true facts come to light or some , like this one, outraged out of existence altogether. In the future, knowledge of History itself will be unreliable and hard to decipher as false stories get retweeted, liked, G+’ed and pinned according not to facts but trends. History can be easily modified by way of the ‘del’ key, akin to burning book crusades.

    The only thing future historians will gain is a knowledge of the mood swings of humanity but not what actually happened.

    As avid readers of WOBH, we witness the live-changing websites of the Media Party all the time. Some of us, I am certain, witness things like headlines changing between refreshes.

    Science itself, being heavily reliant on the internet, is prone to failure too. Just witness the modification of data going on with historical thermometer readings. Someone once diligently took those readings, penned them and saved them in some vault or wherever, only to have supposedly respectable organisations declare them wrong and tweaking them. The lazy, or not so lazy researcher is none the wiser because, the Internet.

    I take the bible as an exampe. There are over 5300 early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and over 20,000 fragments of scripture, giving a great deal of plausibility as to its 99.5% authentity (irresptective of where you sit on the religious spectrum). As a historical book alone, it stands out in this regard. Compare that to only seven copies of Plato, nine complete manuscripts of Josephus’s 5th century work, ‘The Jewish War’; and Homer’s Illiad at 647. Yet they are all deemed accurate with good reason.

    Yet, even today there are arguments over the biblical interpretation of “Son of God.” And this has to do with presenting the bible to Muslims who say, “God has no Son.” And that in the Islamic understanding, to have a son means to have sex and that means God had sex with someone once to have made Jesus as his only begotten. So some now attempt to go against those early manuscripts to appease the Islamic world. I kid you not! It is the religious equivalent of Climate Scientology.

    Now take today and a world event, we get a fudged story of Israeli brutality against Gazans, coupled with hundreds of thousands of tweets and facebook posts, campaigns, msm articles, youtube clips, give-a-little, and lo and behold, history is rewtitten within minutes! If these thousands of fragments and manuscripts are examined by a future historian, what conclusions would be drawn? The chances of the truth being deciphered would be close to zero.

    In years gone by, there have been attempts to remove the bible from history – Voltaire being one of the famous ones, but unsuccessful, however, how easy would it be to remove any authored work from history it it is all electronic? A despotic leader, or in fact any government could delcare things blocked, or removed from the Internet (OH! that happens now) and history changes. People writing truthful posts against certain groups would find their posts deleted by some authority (Oh, that happens now too), and commenters, despite having somethign relevant and poignant to add, see their comment blocked out because it did not fit the narrative.

    The MSM through the tool that is the internet, has not only chosen not to tell the news, but it has also moved on from being the news to now deciding to rewrite history.

    • Teakay

      If I have understood you correctly you seem to be saying that the stories in the bible must be “authentic” (I assume you mean true) because of the number of historical supporting documents. Does it not occur to you that this is a very circular argument? What if the original documents are simply the fictional ramblings of individuals who were either seriously deluded or motivated by power and/or money to scare the living “shite” out of the ignorant and uneducated peasants who were their audiences?

      • kereru

        Events in the Bible are verifiable both historically and archaeologically. Each year more and more evidence supports the Biblical accounts of both Testaments. In fact archaeologists draw on Biblical accounts of places and events to site their digs.

        • Teakay

          I suspect we are talking about 2 different things here. There has never been, nor ever will be, any archaeological or factual evidence that would support biblical accounts of such matters as the beginning of the earth and mankind (ie creationism) because the biblical account are pure fiction.

          • kereru

            Of course not, but by the same token what evidence exists for origins from the scientific point of view? No such event has ever been observed, nor can it be replicated.

          • Teakay

            It sounds like you are going to get a big surprise if you google “scientific evidence in favour of evolution” or maybe go to this site: http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html.

          • kereru

            I’m referring to origins, not evolution. To state the obvious, something has to exist to evolve. And there must be an agency as well as a mechanism The big question is why is there anything rather than nothing, and how did it originate.

      • Dan

        You have not understood me correctly. What I aluded to by way of historical works is that what was written was written. The 40 authors of the bible wrote what they wrote and this has been copied down almost verbatim for millennia and is deemed authentic to the original. Likewise Homer wrote what Homer wrote, again copied verbatim . Ditto Plato Homer’s work is fiction but still deemed authentic and accurate, Plato’s is philosophical and deemed authentic and accurate, the bible is what people make of it yet is still deemed authentic and accurate. The bottom line is that Paul, Matthew, Luke, Peter, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Moses, Josephus, Homer, Plato cannot deny what they wrote or jump on a computer and erase or modify their work because there are too many ‘hard copy’ manuscripts about. However a journalist these days can write one thing one day and instantly change it the next. This destroys any credibility on the authencticity or accuracy of the article.

  • Crowgirl

    I hope this story isn’t true. Judging from some other coverage of it on mainstream sites it seems like it was written without proper editorial oversight, and the school board has investigated and not been able to corroborate any of it. I’ll take it with a boulder of salt for now.

  • Superman
48%