Washington Post Wonders Why All Media Are Banning All Comments

Screen shot 2016-09-05 at 9.40.08 AM

The New York Times front page that allows zero comments on anything.


This must be the biggest, fattest, Pravda-level lying headline, ever:  Everyone seems to hate online reader comments. Here’s why I treasure them. – The Washington Post wonders.  This is, of course, a silly, ridiculous article by a the new lady hired to run the comments at the Post.  I have been banned at the WP for arguing with them.  I was uniformly polite and used my real name and was banned for disputing facts with the political reporters.  The NYT boasts about their insanely stupid comment sections which are rarely allowed and is hidden like Easter Eggs.  All these publications had fantastic comment sections I heavily used until the 2000 election when we suddenly, in December, ceased having real elections when the Supreme Court ruled, votes don’t need to be counted.


As someone who was very intensely involved in using comments sections to organize people to deal with the Bilderberg gang and who did this using Bilderberg tools, I was not shocked when I raised hell in DC about the suspension of vote counting and introduced the Uniform Voting Act in the Capitol.


The media, which began reporting all this, within 24 hours ceased all comment and erased the stories for fear, citizens would see it and I was then systematically eliminated from all news forums across the nation and this is why I started my tiny blog which will go nowhere because I am now a ‘nonperson’.


Hell’s bells, even Inofwars is now in the news and growing, Hillary and Obama mentioned Infowars, lucky ducks, and don’t dare mention me.  So I am a ‘nonperson’ in the US and we go rolling off a cliff with the Bilderberg gang screaming like banshees at us all.


Here is the creature from the Dark Lagoon of NYC, Margaret Sullivan, now working for the Washington Post, the Whore of Babylon itself or maybe just one of the heads of the Beast, lying her head off:


 At the New York Times, where I was public editor until last spring, I found the reader comments an irreplaceable guide to my constituency. Of course, I also got response on Twitter and Facebook, and in an endless flow of emails, but commenters provided some of the most thoughtful feedback and discussion.


When the commentariat occasionally blasted me, I took it seriously and made course adjustments. And the appreciation expressed there softened that tough job. (The Times employs a dozen or so moderators who approve most comments before they are posted; that’s expensive and, for most news organizations, unrealistic.)


And this is why this monster creep won’t let me comment there: she lies.  All the time.  About everything.  The NYT banned many, many people in the last 15 years.  I know because I track names.  Then, they cut the number of places you can talk to about 1% of the articles there.


Then this she-banshee came up with a great idea!  They hide the comments, don’t have anything saying where they are, and in the middle of the article, to one side, they have a little blue box, very, very small, with a number in it!!!  This is their marvelous comment section!  She created it!!!  How very clever.  Only people who are sleuths know about this thingie she devised to allow comments but not allow comments to be read.


When NPR announced last month that it would no longer feature comments from readers on its website, general rejoicing followed.


“Good riddance — and everybody else should do the same” was the tone of the response I saw on Twitter. USA Today columnist Rem Rieder, noting that other news organizations are moving away from comments as well, wrote, “Their disappearance is welcome.” And even NPR’s ombudswoman, Elizabeth Jensen, wrote that the move made sense to her, since such a small slice of the audience was participating.

Screen shot 2016-09-05 at 9.42.06 AM

Washington Post editorial stable of creeps.  Note the chatter about not enough workers since much of the black population is of no use in this regard.  This is a push for more cheap foreign illegal alien labor.  Sigh.


HAHAHA.  Imagining preventing comments means people love reading the propaganda is pure communist ideology.  Yes, this is all about Pravda.  I used to read Pravda, in Russian.  It was often truthful about what we were doing and lying about what Russia was doing.  Very useful to me.


In the 1970s and 1980s I would take the subway to this fine Russian restaurant in Manhattan that had all international newspapers each Sunday and read a selection of these.  This is how I got around the US propaganda machine which is nearly uniform when lying about something.


The NYT still had real news stories back then but that was many years ago.  Not now.  Never, ever do they carry news without tampering heavily with it all.  And to prevent hearing us tell them this, they eliminated comments on nearly everything.  90% of the articles that do allow hidden comments are stupid ‘human interest’ ones.


I disagree. I find value in reader comments that can’t be adequately reproduced elsewhere. The argument that the conversation has migrated to Facebook and Twitter is flawed. Those are good places for discussion, but they are no substitute for having discussion take place where the story itself lives. I’m convinced that many smart readers with something to contribute will not follow a story onto social media to talk about it. News organizations should fix online comments rather than ditch them.


You lying bitch!  I will note that this creature refuses to explain how she prevents most readers from reading comments, not only do you have to Easter Egg hunt them down and they are rarely allowed, when you do read them, they are all very short comments and in this thin line on the far side of the screen and very hard to scroll through.  A waste of time.


Deliberately so!  Make it as nasty as possible and no one will comment, seems the goal.


They need fixing, for sure. Too often, they are a place where trolls congregate, ready to offer their mean-spirited opinions. Too often, comments are racist, misogynistic, abusive and even libelous. They can also hurt newsgathering, sometimes criticizing reporters’ sources and making them more reluctant to talk to reporters next time.


In 2010, when I was the editor of the Buffalo News, managing editor Brian Connolly and I were disturbed enough by the gutter-bound, destructive comments to try an experiment. It was weird enough to get us some national attention, though that wasn’t our goal: We took away the anonymity of reader comments, requiring readers to use their names and tell us their locations, in much the same way as traditional letters to the editor.


I was never, ever anonymous.  Never.  And am universally banned.  I never cuss or do libel or anything illegal, illicit or even slightly rude except for an occasional ‘hahaha’.  I stuck to facts.  Everyone I knew who did the same were all banned.


The media is a method of controlling populations via propaganda.  This always fails in the bitter end when societies collapse.  Why do societies collapse?  Oh, no one listens to the people!  They are ruled by cruel elites who want to do stuff and not discuss this with others which is why they have all these top secret meetings with foreign powers to plot further schemes at stripping the populace of wealth and power.


At the New York Times, where I was public editor until last spring, I found the reader comments an irreplaceable guide to my constituency. Of course, I also got response on Twitter and Facebook, and in an endless flow of emails, but commenters provided some of the most thoughtful feedback and discussion.


When the commentariat occasionally blasted me, I took it seriously and made course adjustments. And the appreciation expressed there softened that tough job. (The Times employs a dozen or so moderators who approve most comments before they are posted; that’s expensive and, for most news organizations, unrealistic.)


Good lord, the NYT allows roughly 2,000 comments a day, maximum, usually, it is less than 300.  I could do that alone in a short time!  12 people censoring comments there?  HAHAHAHA.  They must hate my guts, then.  Forced to read real stuff and all that.  Biting commentary is verboten, Komraden!


Here at The Post, I read comments on my columns and on many articles with interest. They can be pretty snarky as well as good-natured. When I wrote recently about how Donald Trump might be considering a new TV venture as a fallback should his presidential bid fail, there was, for example, this comment from one Humahumahummus1: “Oh honey, that was the end game all along. You need to be quicker than that. The rest of us could see it coming a mile away.” I’ve also been called every nickname for Margaret — and I’ve been called a few other choice names, too.


HAHAHA…very funny…snore.  Good lord, look at the fine examples this little witch can dish for us.  How delectable.  And note how her favorite commenters happen to be Hillary bots.  Duh.  We are not allowed to dispute this little witch.  She will ban us with her magic wand if we try to throw cold water on her.


“These platforms are clearly providing us greater access to new audiences, but they’ve also made it easier than ever to insulate ourselves from ideas that differ from our own,” said Amanda Zamora, chief audience officer for the Texas Tribune, who spoke last week at a Poynter Institute confab on 10 years of participatory journalism.


She took it further: “By abandoning comments, news organizations are not only giving up an important role in shaping public discourse — they are giving up a key avenue toward having direct, sustainable relationships with their audiences.”


The entire reason to ban comments or hide them is simple: propaganda needs silence.  It has to be Big Brother, the only voice.  Citizens are not allowed to influence thinking by talking about things.  Shut up, citizens, or else you will be re-educated by Madame Mao and her gang.


 An organization called the Coral Project is working on it. Funded by the Knight Foundation and involving The Post, the Times and the tech developer Mozilla Foundation, it’s an effort to find the best ways for news organizations to engage with their audiences — on their own sites.


That includes a renewed commitment to reader comments, done right.


All this woman and her gang have to do is return to the way things were in 2000.  They most certainly will not do this.  None of us ever thought the news people would listen to a word we said, but we knew that READERS would and this is why the media hates comments so much: too much chatter with each other.


We organized marches and meetings at the NYT site, for example.  It was a fine tool for communicating what we planned to do next. THIS is why I was banned!  While making news, they had to stop me somehow so they banned me, there was a ‘riot’ online when this happened and then they killed the forms entirely.


Through open-source tools, it hopes to give even the smallest newsrooms a way to filter and manage response from readers.


For example, a tool called Trust, through elegant and precise filtering, would “highlight the good as much as punish the bad,” allowing the best commenters to be identified and fostered, the project’s director, Andrew Losowsky, told Columbia Journalism Review.


It’s tempting to say that comments are more trouble than they’re worth.


HAHAHA. This little witch thinks we are trying to talk to her and her Bilderberg buddies.  Nope.  No way.  We want to talk to EACH OTHER and of course, embarrassed at running organizations no better than Pravda, they need the appearance of reader feedback and alternative opinion while not giving it so they will allow certain citizens to write stuff like, ‘You are so right, I agree, comrade!’ instead of being disputive and disruptive of the storylines being fed to the people.


Now on to great evil:  The Washington Post’s propaganda for WWIII:  U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections.  HAHAHA…good lord.  Our rulers are insane, dangerous and stupid.  More propaganda with no one allowed to tell each other, this is insanity.  Or maybe they want Putin to laugh to death.


U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are probing what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence and congressional officials said.


Some of the dumbest people on earth are hired by the Bilderberg gang to make up excuses for wars and they are quite naked about this and when committing war crimes, do so nakedly.


Can Democrats ride an anti-Trump wave to take control of the House and Senate? is just hilarious.  It won’t cause WWIII but then, if the Bilderberg gang wins power, it will.  NO ONE voting for Trump will vote for the Democrats down ticket which is why the Bilderberg gang is freaking out.  They have to pretend there is this ‘opposition party’ when it comes to Bilderberg gang desires, suddenly we have one party politics like in Mao’s China.


Trump’s feud with a swing state GOP senator just heated up a few more degrees as Flake fights off Trump and openly declares he is really a Bilderberg tool.  And Flake thinks he will win this fight if Trump sweeps into office?  Nope.  Won’t happen.  Alienating one’s own voters is suicidal.  But then, why bother with counting the votes?


This is exactly why the Supreme Court made an illicit, illegal ruling back in December, 2000, saying that vote counting doesn’t matter due to crummy voting systems and then also saying I couldn’t sue over this issue and demand uniform voting systems.  This is the only court ruling in history that says you can’t use it as precedence.  And the reason was so criminal activity could continue!  And not a peep from all our many media giants.  No, these clowns celebrated this ruling.


sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:




209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.


sunset borger




Filed under .money matters

20 responses to “Washington Post Wonders Why All Media Are Banning All Comments

  1. Lou

    I have been banned at the WP for arguing with them. It is a
    A badge of courage.

  2. these rumblings regarding Russian interference in our elections and suggestions that homeland security take over our voting procedures are very ominous. this propogandistic squawking seems to be coming from all corners. watch your back americans!

  3. emsnews

    Yes, it is Coup #2. All over again. I was furious the first time and by March, 2001, most forums were being heavily censored and after 9/11 it was all shut down and today, continues to die rapidly.

  4. Joseppi

    “propaganda needs silence”

    Silencing or labeling dissension as treasonous are the signposts on the well-trodden path to authoritarianism and fascism.
    Great post Elaine! Thank you.

  5. floridasandy

    I do like this column because it exposes the arrogance of the media-that their opinion deserves all the space and is infinitely more valuable. That’s why the meme is that the “uneducated” voters favor Trump, although I find that the people who would vote for self over country generally aren’t the educated ones.

    Just another reason newspaper subscriptions are down

    I think that is why many Americans often read the foreign newspapers (Daily Mail, etc)– because they actually allow uncensored comments on their site, and many are interesting and add something to the dialogue.

  6. nclaughlin

    One problem with shutting down comments is that the media no longer gets feedback as to whether their propaganda is believed. In consequence it becomes less and less believable over time, and therefore ineffective.

    For example, as the Russians approached Germany in WWII, Goebbels continued to harangue about German victories. Except that people began to notice that these victories were getting ever closer to Berlin.


    ELAINE: HAHAHAHA…indeed, so true! And we were alway winning the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan wars…that is ‘war’ with an ‘s’…and Iraq…good lord.

  7. JimmyJ

    Between the cries of Russian interference, the all-out attacks on Trump by GOP insiders and the likelihood of a Trump popular win vs a Clinton technical win, there’s every sign whatever the election result it will have zero credibility with either “side”. The only question in my mind is what’s next- will there be a visible coup attempt or something slower burning. If the chance of a nuclear war is in the cards, some powerful folks will be highly motivated to try to prevent it even if it means a coup.

  8. emsnews

    They will kill Trump and announce we can’t have an election. This is how most coups go. Remember, the CIA is big on coups.

  9. Jim R

    Back when I first saw the Infowars site, I never thought it would become a ‘go-to’ source of news. There were some true stories in there, along with wild conjecture about things like fluoride or ‘chemtrails’.

    But since then, the WaPo and NYT have devolved into almost 100% lies, and Infowars is looking better.. And The Daily Mail is practically the Gold Standard in news now.

  10. e sutton

    It is truly unbelievable the amount of crap that passes for news in the MSM. The lies they spew are deafening. The Daily Mail is fine if you can get past all the bull shiite around celebrity scandals, the Trashcanians, and articles on how to appear slimmer in your next one piece.

    The biggest mistake that bitch Hillary made was mentioning Alex Jones. The traffic on his Infowars reportedly has increased ten-fold. I could not believe she gave Jones that free publicity. Glad she did it, but wow, what a stupid bitch. And this broad is going to run the country. Or rather, she will mouth the words and be a good little servant as is our current House Negro in Chief. 🙂

  11. Petruchio

    @#2 detihw 1: Yes, I heard that story as well about DHS “taking over” the US Presidential Election this November. The elites want and need ‘Madame’ Clinton to be the next US President. The only obstacle–as these overinsulated fools see it–is how to rig the Election without making it too obvious that the election is a fraud. I ask, since WHEN do the elites care what the common folk think? Maybe the Real Rulers are getting nervous? In any event, the Rulers are going to ram Hillary Clinton down the American people’s throats whether we like it or not.

  12. Ken

    Elaine & Lou,

    I get the impression (indirectly) that there is a lot of turnover at these newspapers. Have either of you recently tried posting comments? Perhaps you could sneak something in past the new censors. Unless you are on a list that is passed down to each new “journalist.” You might get banned again, but not before letting some fresh air into the comments section.

  13. emsnews

    HAHAHA.. Neither paper allows me to comment. And both have covered stories about me in the past when I did various international or domestic actions that got our dear rulers all hot and bothered.

    I am ‘nobody’ now and even back in 1985, when they had me on TV, they would only show my hands or show the person (President of mayor of NYC, for example) talking with me but not show my own face.

    It was hilarious. For a while, only CNN would show me and the Daily News actually told readers my name. But that was long, long ago. No more.

  14. Christian W

    In any event, the Rulers are going to ram Hillary Clinton down the American people’s throats whether we like it or not.

    That is a verbatim quote of what I said on here at the start of the election cycle. My comment was partly based on the sickening Hillary arse-kissing going on in the European (NATO) media already back then. It was obvious that in the eyes of the elites the election had but one forgone conclusion and no alternatives were even to be considered (“democractic process” be damned – or fixed rather). EU NATO media is about as bad as US media, not quite CNN/WaPo/NYT level of complete lunacy yet but getting there fast.

  15. Lou

    Liberals and Leftys here, say byebye to commenting at NPR.
    NPR is funded thru PBS? and PBS gets half billion a year, if I recall.

    It’s not a coincidence that liberal news outlets have disabled comments.

    Liberals cannot win in a fair and open debate. In an anonymous forum they aren’t able to threaten the careers of their critics. Liberalism requires deceptive tactics

    NPR is getting rid of comments and deleting all existing ones.


  16. emsnews

    They are all doing this now. I was one of the very first people to be eliminated across the board, long, long ago and I warned everyone else, they were going to be next.

  17. Richard Wicks

    Rejoice – because to me, the elimination of comments by corporate media is showing their desperation and loss of control.

    I think there’s a fair amount of the population that recognizes if you cannot comment on a news article, it’s not a news article – it’s just propaganda.

    During the run up to the Iraq War, yahoo still allowed commenting, and there was healthy debate even in their very limited comment section. Reading through the comments and posts, you could find out who Scott Ritter was, who April Glaspie was, Hussein’s willingness to kill Islamic radicals and the unthinkability that he would work with binLaden, what it takes to enrich uranium, the errors in the document about yellow cake showing it to be an obvious forgery, etc, etc, etc.

    Then yahoo deleted everything, and then shortly thereafter, the narrative was “nobody could have known the truth, it was just an intelligence mistake”.

    People who participated knew that it wasn’t an intelligence mistake, and they had proof it wasn’t, until yahoo deleted everything. Today, people are far more wiser, and everybody is on the Internet. Nobody with any sense trusts anything that is written that doesn’t allow feedback on what is written – and a lot of people do have good sense – which is why the corporate media is on life support.

  18. Lou

    EMS—They are all doing this now. I was one of the very first people to be eliminated across the board, long, long ago and I warned everyone else, they were going to be next.

    You were right. I was banned by a site, not sure if it was the site or Discus banning me from commenting.
    This week, I tried to look at someones Google Calendar [local business keeps their schedule there] and Google wanted me to log in to look at the calendar. I avoid Google. Google is tracking people as much as it [il?] legally can.

  19. Radar Jones

    I’ve also been banned apparently from the “Democracy dies in darkness” WP. LOL. I never violated their guidelines other than stating facts they don’t want stated. POS rag. Media is cutting its own collective throat.

  20. I am banned all over the place. I have been online, believe it or not, since the birth of the internet way back before it was offered to the public. Back when it was totally a CIA operation, thanks to my dad.

    Who was CIA. I have watched it explode in size and then crush down again, people had greater control over it briefly from 1995-2000. With the failed election and vote count and us using the net to organize against the Supreme Court ruling that was ‘you can’t use as precedent’ the crack down on the net began with me being one of the first people attacked back then.

    This is all old hat to me now. It freaked out our rulers how we could force them to do things or stop lying. They hated that in particular, they are very addicted to lying in the news media which is run mainly by Bilderberg gang conspirators.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s