NY Times Article Blames Russia for 5G Opposition in U.S. Without Mentioning The Outlet’s Joint Venture with Verizon to Build a 5G Journalism Lab

Brave or crazy? The New York Times is willing to defend the safety of 5G even when the telecom industry is not.

Apparently, congressional testimony is no big deal to the New York Times who blames the Russians for convincing Americans to oppose 5G, and not research that has proven that 5G is harmful. If this bold stance has anything to do with the outlet’s joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab, they aren’t saying. Bwah!

For those just getting familiar with the 5G controversy – it’s not just Americans who are opposed to it. Journalist William J. Broad who wrote the article also has a long history of ignoring science to promote telecom interests.

Regardless – the 5G controversy is increasing. Here in the States, telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick and his organization, The IRREGULATORS, are suing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding accounting issues associated with federal 5G promotion and forced installation. Bruce has written many articles on this topic including recently published: 5G Wireless? Short the Stock and Question the “Forward Looking Statements”?*

The IRREGULATORS, joined by others, are appealing an FCC decision about the Agency’s deformed accounting rules, which have allowed AT&T and Verizon to use the state-based public utility construction budgets to build out their wireless networks and the other lines of business. At the same time, this caused massive, but artificial losses that help the FCC, AT&T et al. to claim that it is not profitable to upgrade the wired networks to fiber optics, especially in rural areas. The solution they preach now is some vaporware called 5G wireless.

Bruce and The IRREGULATORS also aren’t the only ones suing the FCC because of 5G (See 1, 2).

Elected officials are involved too (See 1, 2, 3). There’s legislation that’s been introduced that would return control of 5G installation back to local communities.

All things considered, it’s not been difficult for RT News and American 5G opponents to flip this back on the New York Times:

From RT News:

So whose interest does this article serve? The American public or corporate shareholders?

Rick Sanchez lays into the New York Times’ baseless and intellectually lazy attack on RT America’s coverage of the potential health hazards posed by 5G radiation. Then RT America’s Dan Cohen reports on the deep conflicts of interest between New York Times and US telecommunications giant Verizon and what ties between the two say about the Times’ motives for attacking RT’s coverage of 5G technology.

More from RT News:

From Americans for Responsible Technology::

The article, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” focuses exclusively on a television network most people have never heard of – RT America – and argues that the tiny network, controlled by the Russian government, is the sole driving force behind the growing public opposition to 5G.

The Times cleverly conflates 5G-enabled smartphones with 5G small cell antennas, and fails to note that RT America is just one of many media outlets that are covering the controversy over 5G antenna deployment, including Fox News and CNN.

It also neglects to mention the hundreds of recently published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies from highly credible academic institutions and our own National Institutes of Health that demonstrate biological harm, including cancer, from exposure to RF microwave radiation. A listing of some of the most recent studies is located here.

Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg welcomes New York Times CEO Mark Thompson at a recent announcement of their 5G joint venture. Although the Times acknowledges its investment in a 5G joint venture with the telecom giant Verizon, it fails to mention another clear conflict of interest: the pages of the Times are filled with full-page color ads for wireless companies like Verizon which stand to make billions from new services made possible by the deployment of 5G-enabled small cell antennas on virtually every block of every street in America.

In the article, the Times attempts to disparage a highly credible academic researcher and medical professional with no financial stake in the debate, while quoting so-called “experts” with ties to industry but no credentials or experience in public health. Without any evidence, the Times smugly concludes that there is absolutely no risk related to 5G.

Based on the science, we are certain of the risk, and believe that widespread exposure to wireless radiation will soon become a national public health issue. We are particularly concerned for children, who, notwithstanding the casual assertion of the Times to the contrary, are more vulnerable than adults to environmental exposures of all kinds.