What is the Narrative™ about Trump and Putin?
What is the Narrative™ about Tulsi Gabbard and Putin?
We all know. For a decade, the media has told us that Trump is a Putin asset. A Putin puppet. An apologist for Vlad the Mad Putin, and he picked Tulsi Gabbard because he wanted a reliable anti-American ally to sell out our country to Putin.
That Narrative™ has formed the foundation of most of the attacks–hoaxes, really, aimed at Trump.
The @AP is total trash. DNI @TulsiGabbard was referring to PM Modi & President Trump and this is the headline they publish.
This is why no one trusts the maliciously incompetent and purposefully bias media. If this isn’t a clear example of pushing a solely political narrative,… pic.twitter.com/1chFZQqTEd
— Alexa Henning (@alexahenning) March 18, 2025
Trump is a Putin puppet is the first and foundational lie from which many of the hoaxes about Trump derive their plausibility. Millions of people still believe this slander, and the media still keeps pumping out stories to support that Narrative™.
So imagine my (non) surprise at the Associated Press adding yet another story to buttress the hoax, just at the time that Trump is desperately trying to bring peace to Europe.
Gabbard was actually talking about Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which the AP now acknowledges.
But when the AP makes a mistake like this, it’s far worse than other news organizations. pic.twitter.com/Pz9yAVMMun
— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) March 18, 2025
The transnational elite is determined to keep the forever war upon which much of their grift depends. Bombs need replacing, defense contractors make bank, “emergencies” demand emergency measures and continued censorship of “misinformation,” and money can be laundered through Ukraine.
Putin’s puppet is a nice excuse for deriding peace talks as if you ever make peace with anyone but your enemies, or the best way to negotiate peace is to relentlessly insult your adversary.
As I have explained before, The New York Times is the designated Narrative™ setter, and the Associated Press are the big guns to spread the damage. Their work appears almost everywhere. Most of the “news” you get is filtered through the AP, which are the arteries of information flow.
And correcting these stories is a daunting task. It’s not as easy as a click of a button. The original story will often need to manually be removed from local news sites, which doesn’t always happen.
Also, by the time a story is corrected, search engines have usually already…
— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) March 18, 2025
The AP doesn’t just provide the “facts” that get used in most news stories, it also chooses the words that may be used to describe those facts through the AP Stylebook, which most news outlets use as their writing Bible.
With limited exceptions, no other news organization wields this kind of power and influence.
Not to mention, most journalists religiously follow the AP Stylebook, which has its own set of flaws, such as pushing politicized language.
— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) March 18, 2025
When you see all the news outlets suddenly change the language they use, that is likely because the AP Stylebook has set the rules.
When the AP “corrects” a false story, that “correction” often doesn’t make its way through the news system. The original stories have been printed or broadcast, and the “corrections” are minor notes that are put there to be unnoticed. No outlet likes corrections, so they avoid having them seen.
“News” outlets can lie with abandon, especially about public figures who are fair game for slander due to our libel laws. “Absence of Malice” is a broad standard and hard to overcome.” All the outlet has to do is say “oops, it was a mistake” and they are off the hook.
So when Trump talks about the Indian Prime Minister being a “good friend,” the AP can change Modi to Putin and let it hang out there for hours and spread. Then “correct” the story once it has been spread far and wide.
To those who call it a mistake, riddle me this: the AP is by many measures, the largest news organization in the world. It has enormous resources to fact-check, and if this story were true, it would have a dramatic impact on worldwide relations. Yet they never checked this implausible admission. Is that plausible? Would they have run with this if the president were named Obama or Biden?
The Associated Press and the administration are in a spitting match over the AP’s demand they get special access to the president. They are angry. And they print lies that promote one of the most vile hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.
Coincidence? I think not.
