this i post only because of what is says about mcstain. it gets into other public faces as support for its main points which are historically correct but you won't see presented by 'our free press';

The death of John McCain has been met with the traditional response. The media outlets you would expect to support the official line, because they do not report anything else, are full of praise for this former presidential candidate, war veteran and distinguished public servant, choosing to focus on those dimensions of his career rather than others.

However the ones which print the stories the mainstream ones won’t print are taking the opposite line. They are reminding readers of McCain’s sordid record as a gun runner for terrorists, and one who made his fortune from organised crime. He was bankrolled by the arms dealers whose products strangely ended up in the hands of terrorists who McCain told “we are with you”, without ever defining who “we” were. It is not that the other outlets don’t know these facts, but that they aren’t interested in them, and don’t want the public to associate them with McCain now his story is over, and we can evaluate the whole picture.

You would expect agendas to be at work here. But the question remains, who sets them? Independent outlets are as biased as mainstream ones, which is one reason people still place undue trust in mainstream outlets. But there is a fundamental difference between the two which prevents the agendas of the big outlets being discussed, a fact they have long exploited.

The more people consume an outlet, the more that outlet is assumed to publish stories reflecting all shades of opinion, even when it firmly supports one political side or another. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have a significant number and range of consumers. Smaller outlets are perceived to reflect smaller ranges of opinion, and be responding to cult audiences. Therefore they are thought to be guiltier of following party lines, even if they are merely digests of articles from across the board.

So bigger outlets can say what they like, just like smaller ones, but couch it in terms of observable facts everyone assumes are the ones they themselves would observe if they were on the spot. Those who actually observe those events may see things differently, but they are only isolated individuals. The generality must have seen what the big outlets saw, or those outlets wouldn’t report them for such audiences. One person’s insignificant detail is another person’s core fact, if the mainstream media says so.

We are told what those in power wish us to hear about John McCain. But as in many other cases, this doesn’t matter very much. The interesting thing will be what is said when those same powerful people decide they don’t want to defend him any more – and that will tell us who is also guilty, and why they don’t want us to know.

You are our fears

History shows many examples of people’s reputations, good or bad, changing after their deaths. Sometimes this happens merely when they have finished their jobs.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/09/john-mccain-a-most-convenient-and-timely-death/

https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/09/john-mccain-a-most-convenient-and-timely-death/