You can set your clock to violence narratives in the media.
If a black person suffers fatal violence at the hands of anyone of a race other than another black person, then the media will not stop talking about it for as long as they can. It's good for business, not just for the media, but for any connections they have in Washington, which are, predictably, left-leaning.
But if it's against anyone else, the narrative goes through a variety of categories before it inevitably dies. A story's shelf life is tied directly to its usefulness to the Left. So, if a story won't last long, the Left has to get as much use out of it as they can before it inevitably dies, usually by their own hand.
This is why you see the knee-jerk reaction from leftist media figures being "right-wing violence" after almost every killing that gets elevated to national news. You've seen it innumerable times before, but you can see it again very recently.
A terrorist attack occurred in Poland over the weekend. Immediately, "authorities" were reporting that it was a person who was "fascinated by far-right ideologies," according to the AFP, which put that little snippet both in the post on X and in the first paragraph of the article they used to report it.
🇵🇱 ⚠️ Poland on Sunday launched a terrorism probe as mourners brought candles and flowers to Krakow's Main Market Square in tribute to six people killed by a gunman who authorities said was "fascinated by far-right ideologies" ➡️ https://t.co/HLlJDoC0KB https://t.co/TgnjDklnMY
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) November 8, 2026
The person who claimed it was right-wing violence was the Minister of Internal Affairs in Poland. In response to his claim, some public outcry went up about censorship of right-wing commentary, as well as other suggestions.
Now, in a very, very short time, it was discovered that the terrorist was actually very left-leaning and had been closely attached to Antifa ideology. Predictably, the story died in the legacy media pretty much immediately. The people are still talking about the discrepancy pretty exclusively at this point.
Now, if you think that the legacy media has egg on its face and is feeling at all embarrassed, you'd be sorely mistaken. The media hoped the shooter was right-leaning, but they know just as well as you and I that the odds of that aren't exactly high. They see the pattern, just like you and I do, of left-wing violence being one of the leading causes of politically motivated death and murder in the Western world. They aren't blind to it.
This is why the media, with all its professional contacts, global reach, and investigative ability, will fire off unproven and often dubious claims without acknowledging their dubiousness. They need to set the narrative using their reach and power before the investigation actually happens. There's no profit in "wait for the facts" because a societal narrative is on the line.
Right-wing violence is a thing they need to be a thing because it's a talking point they can use to further initiatives and laws. You saw it taking shape immediately in Poland after the "right-wing violence" that wasn't right-wing violence at all. Still, the narrative took hold, and now most people still believe this was a right-wing terrorist despite all evidence to the contrary because few people will actually follow up on the story. They'll walk around under the false belief that those right-wingers really are dangerous and violent.
Moreover, the people in politics who want to believe this story will see the correcting evidence and continue to believe that right-wing violence is a major problem because they want to, and these useful idiots will help carry the false idea that the right is an actual problem.
It works beautifully, and it shows you just how pervasive the legacy media, a global conglomerate of news organizations with a very far reach and very deep pockets, can be when it comes to brainwashing the public. If it weren't for X, the number of stories that would go uncorrected would be astronomical, and we'd likely be looking at a very different political landscape than we do today.
But it chiefly shows that the legacy media is not a news distribution mechanism. It's there to sell ads and convince you to vote Democrat.
