It is widely known at this point that the government was involved in pushing a certain covid narrative. In this article, a former news executive shares just how involved the British government was in censorship.

From TrendingPolitics. The Covid pandemic response beginning in 2020 was one of the most sweeping cases of media propaganda in world history. Governments not only lied to the masses (“15 days to slow the spread,” e.g.) and made dubious claims based on poor evidence (“mask up” to end the pandemic), but it censored even civilians for doubting the mainstream narrative.

View Comments (3)

Now, a former news executive at international network Sky News, as well as a veteran of ITV, has come forward to reveal what news audiences have only previously been able to surmise: Some news networks must have been ordered to adhere to the government’s pandemic narratives or risk serious consequences (such as losing broadcasting licenses and other reprisals).

Mark Sharman revealed his disturbing insights into the astoundingly coordinated media coverage of the Covid pandemic in a sit-down interview on British channel GBN’s “The Lockdown Inquiry” with host Dan Wootton.

“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,” Wootton began. “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 to work for over the course of the pandemic. So can you just start by explaining this chilling warning that Ofcom gave near the start of the pandemic and how you think that may have impacted the coverage?”

“I, well, I definitely think it impacted, it’s not so much an Ofcom regulation,” Sharman said. “It was advice or a warning actually.’

“Like a little bulletin, wasn’t it?” Wootton said.

“Yeah,” Sharman said. “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 present as ‘must intervene’ if there’s any danger of harmful or misinformation….”

“They bought into the propaganda,” Wootton remarked.

“They did, they bought absolutely into the propaganda,” Sharman replied. “And I think it was very dangerous, but I think you have to probably look beyond Ofcom and beyond this country, because as you said this was a worldwide lockstep occurrence. And in parallel with media, you had big tech, new media who were censoring everything….”

In the United States, this process may have been different than what was experienced in the U.K. The U.S. government paid millions of dollars to media outlets to run ads that pushed the desired narrative. But the chilling effect on free speech was essentially the same.

What do you think of Sharman’s story? Share your thoughts and prayers in the comments.

(Excerpt from TrendingPolitics. Photo Credit: engin akyurt on Unsplash)