In recent times, the release of the movie “The Sound of Freedom” in America on July 4th has sparked heated debates and drawn attention from the mainstream media. Interestingly, the media’s response has been sharply divided, with some readily attacking the film. However, taking a closer look at the situation, one can discern a perplexing pattern of double standards.
What many fail to realize is that when a movie like “The Sound of Freedom” exposes the horrifying reality of child human trafficking, certain media outlets, including CNN, The Guardian, MSNBC, and Rolling Stone, are all too eager to criticize and discredit it. This raises questions about their motives and what they might be trying to hide.
To gain a deeper perspective, let’s rewind a few years to the release of a controversial film called “Cuties.” This movie showcased young children dancing inappropriately, prompting a major debate on the sexualization of minors. Surprisingly, the mainstream media came to its defense, sparking outrage among concerned citizens. This stark contradiction raises an important question: Why would the media be quick to protect a movie that seemingly exploits children in a sexual manner while attacking a film like “The Sound of Freedom,” which seeks to shed light on a genuine story of someone fighting against child human trafficking?
The issue of child slavery, thriving through the gaps in the border walls between America and Mexico, is an industry worth billions of dollars in the United States. America stands as the largest consumer of this dark content, prompting the need to explore its origins. Though unproven, one might speculate that those defending the inappropriate portrayal of children in “Cuties” could be linked to the consumers of this disturbing content.
Could it be that the same media giants attacking “The Sound of Freedom” are also the ones consuming this dark material? Such behavior raises suspicions about their intent and possible involvement in these actions. Are we witnessing a group of defendants trying to protect their interests by discrediting the exposure of child exploitation?
The contrasting reactions of the mainstream media to “Cuties” and “The Sound of Freedom” underscore a troubling pattern of double standards. As society grapples with important issues like child exploitation and trafficking, it is essential to scrutinize the media’s stance and question the motives behind their actions. Only through open dialogue and transparent discussions can we hope to address these critical concerns and safeguard the well-being of our children and society as a whole.
Mainstream media made the suggestion that the word freedom is linked to QNON conspiracy theories “The Guardian” stated the following:
Now you don’t have to look very far to realise that this is a media outlet intent on defending child exploitation? attacking any move to expose the dark truth this movie reveals, keeping in mind the billions of dollars made through child exploitation has to come from somewhere, could this be linked?
But even worse, there’s an article written by the Rollingstone magazine, and they make the claim that the movie was made for conspiracy riddled dad’s with brain worms. Check out the heading below:
Imagine the audacity of implying that people concerned about the welfare of thousands, well tens of thousands of children, a movie that happens to be a true story about a guy who actually saves children from the darkest parts of humanity, to suggest that these people are conspiracy riddled and have some sort of brain malfunction is exactly the type of indication that would suggest that the article is not written because of fact? the article isn’t written because of a journalist integrity it is written to defend a type of behaviour.
The type of behaviour that seems to be something that a defendant would offer in a police interrogation room, with a victim blame mentality rather than admit the truth, could we be seeing the admission of a guilty party right here in the statement Plainview for all of society to see?