Kim Iversen Showing Us Integrity Remains in Reporters and Media
My thoughts on the events on 'Rising', the beleaguered news program offered by The Hill, and how they chose to serve the dark side over respecting their audience
I thought I'd write up a little blurb about this in case any of you are like me and *USED TO* watch 'Rising' and keep up with The Hill at some point in the last few years.....
Story outline first: **Kim Iversen, one of the last remaining bright spots on the Hill's centerpiece internet news program 'Rising', has left the show following controversy surrounding a recent appearance by Dr. Fauci on the show.** [She explains her perspective and the situation in a video posted on her channel here.](
She says in her account that she was jerked around by the show's leadership ahead of a full length interview with Dr. Fauci that was scheduled. After being given the OK to appear with him for the interview, last minute communications between the show and Fauci's team ended with her being removed from the time slot and scheduled to appear on the show on segments after Fauci's interview. It appeared that his team did NOT want Kim to be able to question him, likely because of her explosive reporting on COVID-19 last year.
**Iversen was one of the first to break the story that the vaccines did NOT protect individuals from exposure to the virus, according to breakthrough studies. She remained very critical of Fauci and was also one of the strongest reporters to push back on earlier censorship measures of big tech and government in partnership. No doubt Fauci viewed her as a threat and wanted to avoid any discussions of his actions or rationale: no one wants to face the truth after telling a bunch of lies.**
This is the second such departure of a popular contributor to the Hill's programming in as many years. Like Krystal and Saagar, Ms. Iversen was a high profile member of the show who drew audiences and retained good creditability as a reporter who did not mince words or facts. Also like the former hosts, her departure was unexpected and raises questions about potential attempts to censor or limit opinions of its own contributors on 'Rising'.
There is no doubt that this will cause further damage to the credulity of the Hill, which has been in serious question already, reflected in sharp declines in ratings Ms. Iversen has said she will continue to endeavor to deliver truth in her news, meanwhile, whether she remains independent or moves on to another news agency.
About the Hill: Yes, I KNOW that they HAVE ALWAYS BEEN Controlled Opposition and run by the same multi-billionaires that fund the Big Media and they are ultimately grifting, marketing themselves as 'cool and edgy & for young, intelligent audiences' while they just espouse the mainstream narratives and check the boxes next to the daily CIA fax-over of talking points 95% of the time.
That being said, it WAS one of the rarest shows of a kind remaining: simply by virtue of having a left-wing AND a right-wing (basically) opposing perspective that was covered between the two co-anchors, as they rolled through the daily news and interviewed guests & panels.
Now, you can say that even when it was Krystal & Saagar that deep down, ultimately there really was very little distinctly different in their worldviews - it comes down mostly to how you felt about Saagar, who I have some respect for because of his willingness to call out the neoconservative Washington cronyism - but of course at the end of the day Saagar is NOT really pro-Trump or MAGA or a part of the active movement, he is pointing his finger into the mirror when he calls out the neo-corporate class and his takes to the idea of replacing old warhawks and neo libs with younger, slightly more based warhawks and neocons and neolibs....
At least i think so? Saagar is kind of a hard one to figure out, **and that's part of what made Krystal and him so interesting and unique** among the otherwise disgusting, zombified landscape of corporate news today.
Personally, I find the whole saga of 'Rising' to be quite a sad commentary on the state of our media in general. How pathetically awful and petty has our politics become that shows can no longer tolerate ANY alternative narratives to the prevailing one their program is meant to put out. Even pithy attempts like *Hannity and Colmes* and the later years of *Crossfire* seem practically ancient by this point.
So even if they were ultimately center left and right and far too moderate to support much of the needed structural changes that come with my views and the candidates i support it was nice to actually feel a sense of dichotomy in the perspectives between the two.
With ALL that said about how they really were pretty milquetoast and NOT what they purported, HOW BAD IS IT THAT THEY COULD NOT TOLERATE THE HILL and the exceeding pressures put on them, to the point that they walked away and did their own thing ARGUABLY WAY SOONER than they would've liked?? I'm sure it wasn't their ideal choice; i mean if you're someone like O'Reilly Bill who cultivated an audience over many years and you spin off, you won't feel the speedbumps much because your audience is so big and dedicated and they will follow you regardless of where you're at. The other example is Glenn Beck who simply catapulted to an extreme level of popularity so fast and loud that it was unsustainable to NOT create your own platform to appease that audience, which was made of activist types that craved more likeminded content that was wholly unavailable from where your current broadcast was stationed at the time. One of those things was not like the others: I have always been surprised at the rapid success Glenn Beck enjoyed and how well he spun it off in a short timeframe.
Krystal and Saagar, and now Kim Iversen, were NOT positioned in such ways. So in the short term having to leave will hurt them, but give them credit for taking the longer view and realizing that *maintaining your integrity and living to fight another day was the ONLY REAL approach if you want to be taken seriously and meaningfully contribute to the conversation in the future.* Its shameful that the Hill put them in that position. Its truly foolish that they appeared to NOT learn their lesson even AFTER losing their biggest draw and suffering mightily in viewership.
In the end, this could be the death knell for 'Rising' and if it isn't, it will certainly send their ratings further toward the bottom, PUN INTENDED. To compound the irony, it came at a moment where they had a **near perfect** opportunity to help their cause and do something compelling. Allison Morrow in a recent video argued that Kim Iversen's breakthrough reporting in August '21 about vaccine effectiveness was a rare bright spot on 'Rising' since Krystal & Saagar departed and the ratings certainly reflected that. Her tenacity in holding the medical power brokers accountable and reporting truthfully on the subsequent scientific information around COVID and the vaccines WAS timely and she had a lot of initial pushback before being solemnly proven correct.
She was also quick to call out the hypocrisy of the censorship and their attempts to whitewash the issue completely after they were exposed as the ACTUAL science deniers.
*How spectacular would it have been to see Kim with extended time to question Dr. Fauci, one of the heads of the snake behind the entire sham!?* There's no doubt in my mind she would've made big waves in the news if they had supported her. It would have helped immensely for ratings and perhaps more importantly, to repair the damaged credibility of the show.
*It is a testament to just how deeply embedded the whole corporate media is within the deep state and how tightly those relationships are bound up together that they balked at the opportunity, instead deciding to play games of misdirection with Kim as she recounted and give assurances of comfort and soft speak to a known scumbag like Fauci.*
They would rather shoot themselves right in the foot and risk the reputation and survival of their whole operation than make one of their demonic masters draw even a bead of sweat.
[The actual interview was pathetic; Bill Gates was grilled harder by his own network than Fauci when he came on Rising 2 weeks ago.](
Pathetic.
Kim Iversen deserves credit and attention for walking away with her integrity. There's no doubt in my mind she will remain an important voice in media for years to come and stay on the cutting edge of topics that Americans actually want to know about.
The Hill and its centerpiece show Rising meanwhile are destined for obscurity. They have no shame and its no problem for them at the end of the day it seems.
Thanks for reading and godspeed!