{"id":173817,"date":"2020-11-30T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2020-11-30T12:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=173817"},"modified":"2020-11-28T07:09:47","modified_gmt":"2020-11-28T07:09:47","slug":"how-the-news-media-taught-us-to-love-censorship-hate-journalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/11\/how-the-news-media-taught-us-to-love-censorship-hate-journalism\/","title":{"rendered":"How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship, Hate Journalism"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">27 Nov 2020 <em>&#8211; Social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about COVID, particularly its origin and treatment, says author Sharyl Attkisson in her new book on media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/attkinson-slanted-cover.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-173818\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/attkinson-slanted-cover.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"350\" height=\"182\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/attkinson-slanted-cover.jpg 800w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/attkinson-slanted-cover-300x156.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/attkinson-slanted-cover-768x400.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px\" \/><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In the 1950s, the CIA ran a covert campaign called \u201cOperation Mockingbird,\u201d in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda, and while the campaign officially ended in the 1970s, evidence suggests the project never really stopped.<\/li>\n<li>In her book, \u201cSlanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,\u201d Sharyl Attkisson addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time: media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism.<\/li>\n<li>Multinational industries, and the drug industry in particular, also wield powerful influence over content relating to their particular interests. As drug advertising became a major income stream for media companies, their reporting on health and medicine became increasingly biased.<\/li>\n<li>Big Tech companies are also <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender\/facebooks-fact-check-suppresses-truth-promotes-falsehoods-covid\" >masters of censoring<\/a> anything that might hurt themselves or their technocratic allies.<\/li>\n<li>In terms of health, COVID-19 reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand-new heights. All social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about the virus, particularly its origin and treatment. Even lauded doctors and scientists have been axed for speaking against the desired narrative dictated by the World Health Organization.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Sharyl Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist with uncompromising integrity. Her <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Slanted-Media-Taught-Censorship-Journalism\/dp\/0062974696\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">latest book<\/a>,<em> \u201cSlanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,\u201d<\/em> was released Nov. 24.<\/p>\n<p>In this, her third book, she addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time: media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism \u2014 a topic on which she has first-hand experience.<\/p>\n<p>A former anchor at CNN and CBS News, Attkisson now produces her own Sunday television news program, \u201cFull Measure,\u201d as well as two podcasts: \u201cFull Measure After Hours\u201d and \u201cThe Sharyl Attkisson Podcast,\u201d in which she covers the kinds of stories that mainstream news no longer touches.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: left;\"><strong>Slanted media<\/strong><\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=YmHQA6t-G0U&amp;feature=emb_logo<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.routledge.com\/Encyclopedia-of-Intelligence-and-Counterintelligence\/Carlisle\/p\/book\/9780765680686\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Propaganda through media<\/a> certainly isn\u2019t a new thing. Starting in the late 1940s, the CIA ran a well-documented but at the time covert campaign called \u201cOperation Mockingbird,\u201d in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda \u2014 news slanted in one way or another. While the program is always referred to in the past tense, as it is said to have been ended in the 1970s, evidence suggests it never really stopped.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are all kinds of ways the Intel community has, and can, manipulate the news,\u201d Attkisson says, \u201cbut we reached a new level in 2016, 2017, because they don\u2019t even have to whisper in our ear to get us to report stuff. We hired them. Meaning, Brennan, Clapper, Comey \u2014 all of them were hired as consultants. They were invited on the news directly.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou didn\u2019t have to put them through a filter and anonymous sources, although plenty of anonymous sources were also used. But daily putting forth their propaganda, much of which, obviously, was proven false, particularly on the Trump, Russia narrative.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut every day, we allowed them to plaster the airwaves, even after they were proven admittedly wrong \u2026 After two years of spewing this false information, they\u2019re still consulted by the media. They\u2019re still used. So, it\u2019s so easy for an intel operation if they wish to use the media towards whatever goal they may have \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI firmly believe that there have been ongoing [propaganda] campaigns that continue today. Maybe separate operations by intelligence agencies and officials to manipulate the news, and certainly have things reported a certain way to try to push for certain outcomes in politics here at home and internationally.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Big industry also influences the news<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Multinational industries, the drug industry in particular, also has a similar level of influence over content relating to their particular interests. In 1996, direct-to-consumer drug advertising was legalized, and as drug advertising became a major income stream for media companies, their reporting on health and medicine became increasingly biased.<\/p>\n<p>The reason is simple. They cannot afford to \u201cbite the hand that feeds them.\u201d If an advertiser doesn\u2019t want the public to know about a particular finding, all they have to do to influence the reporting is to threaten to withdraw its advertising, which will hurt the media company\u2019s bottom line.<\/p>\n<p>Drug companies have also become major sponsors of medical education; thus, doctors are taught to prescribe drugs for all ills, but they\u2019re not taught about the side effects and drawbacks of those drugs.<\/p>\n<p>Today, the drug industry also controls fact-checking organizations such as <a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2020\/01\/24\/publicis-funds-newsguard.aspx\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">NewsGuard<\/a>, as it is funded by Publicis, which is supported by drug companies. When feeding from the Big Pharma trough, how could they possibly be objective in their fact-checking? Reality shows us they can\u2019t because they aren\u2019t.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Big tech \u2014 master manipulators of minds<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Big Tech companies, of course, are also masters of censoring anything that might hurt themselves or their <a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2020\/08\/30\/patrick-wood-technocracy.aspx\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">technocratic allies<\/a>. As just one of countless examples, you can no longer post a link to Mercola.com on Twitter.<\/p>\n<p>First, they added a false warning that made it look like my site contained dangerous malware when readers would click on a posted link. After a while, they simply blocked the ability to post links to our site altogether.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis started, and I traced this in my second book, \u2018The Smear,\u2019 to Media Matters \u2026 the left-wing propaganda group that supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and is a big smear organization,\u201d Attkisson says.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey acknowledged going to Facebook about the time when they were worried that Donald Trump was going to get elected.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey really felt that the only thing giving him a leg up, and they still believe this today, is his social media outreach. They tried to think of a way to control, with the kind of social media and news people could get, so Media Matters lobbied Facebook and tried to convince them \u2014 and did so successfully \u2014 to taking a fact-checking brand-new role that nobody had ever asked for.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019re not begging for our information to be curated. That was a pretend demand created by the propagandists who wanted to control the information. They had to make us think that we needed a third party to step in and tell us what to think and sort through the information \u2026 The fake news effort, the fact-checking, which is usually fake fact-checking, meaning it\u2019s not a genuine effort, is a propaganda effort \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019ve seen it explode as we come into the 2020 election, for much the same reason, whereby, the social media companies, third parties, academic institutions and NewsGuard \u2026 they insert themselves. But of course, they\u2019re all backed by certain money and special interests. They\u2019re no more in a position to fact-check than an ordinary person walking on the street \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey have interests. They make sure certain things are not seen, even if true. And I think this is the most serious threat that I\u2019m looking at right now to our media environment.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019m afraid that our kids will be telling their kids of a time when you used to be able to go on the internet and find most, any, information you wanted, because we are increasingly being pointed only to that which they, people who control the information, wish for us to see.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Presidential treatment takes on a new meaning<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In her book, Attkisson also spends an entire chapter dissecting the highly-biased treatment of President Trump, and how the media have, through their own admission, suspended traditional journalistic ethics simply because they consider him \u201cuniquely dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTherefore, you don\u2019t have to follow the normal rules and guidelines when it comes to fair and accurate reporting, which I think is one of the most absurd things I\u2019ve ever heard in my life, from someone in our profession, because the standards exist precisely so that we report on everybody the same way,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn other words, using the same standards, whether we like them or not. Particularly, perhaps, if we don\u2019t like or agree with the candidate \u2014 that\u2019s when the standards become most important. But you need only look at Politico, for example, during the last election.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI interviewed them shortly afterwards. Someone in charge of some of their coverage \u2026 in almost every answer to a question, she brought up President Trump and something negative about him.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOne of the things she said was how many lies he tells per minute. She said, \u2018We actually had a team that calculated the number of lies per minute that President Trump told.\u2019 And I asked the obvious question, \u2018Well, what was that compared to Hillary\u2019s supposed lies per minute?\u2019 And she actually said, \u2018Oh, we didn\u2019t have the staffing to do Hillary too.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCan you imagine a national news organization that purports to cover something fairly and we\u2019ll fact-check the lies per minute of one candidate and not the opposing candidate and pretend that that qualifies as fair news?<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI also interviewed some noted liberals who have noticed the same thing: That they look at things from a fair-minded viewpoint and are no fan of President Trump, yet are appalled at how the media has dishonestly treated certain topics and information, which should make everybody wonder, \u201cAre we getting the truth when it comes to things that don\u2019t have to do with President Trump?<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf the media can report so many things out of context and incorrectly when it comes to somebody they don\u2019t like, what else are we getting that\u2019s not in context or that\u2019s not fully true?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>The invention of lying<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Prior to President Trump, virtually no one in the media would accuse someone of lying. The standard was to question an individual\u2019s statement or point out a discrepancy to another source, but not call it an outright lie, because it\u2019s easy to get confused on specifics. A lie is a very specific allegation that implies an intent to deceive. Just because you misremember a fact doesn\u2019t mean you lied.<\/p>\n<p>\u201c[In the book] I talk about the fact that \u2026 I know I\u2019ve probably been lied to many times, but I don\u2019t believe I\u2019ve ever reported that somebody lied to me in a hard news report. Why? Well, a lie is a specific thing that requires you to know the mind of the person. And you as a journalist have to withhold, even if you think something is true without the evidence, you really can\u2019t say it\u2019s true.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019ll use the example I used in the book: Ford and Firestone tires. The executives consistently said there was no evidence that these tires were dangerous prior to the scandal around the 2000 time period where there were a lot of deaths. I had documents from a source that showed this very danger many years before.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt appeared that they were lying, but I didn\u2019t call it a lie because there are many other explanations someone could give. They could say, \u2018Well, these guys weren\u2019t there at the time. So, they didn\u2019t know that these discussions had been had. They didn\u2019t have access to the emails, their subordinates didn\u2019t tell them.\u2019 So, you don\u2019t know whether they\u2019re mistaken or lying.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAnd from a journalistic standpoint, we used to always take the objective road and say something like, \u2018Their testimony contradicts the documentary record.\u2019 That\u2019s good enough. People at home can make up their own mind.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut there was a turn taken, specifically, to target President Trump, whereby the media started frequently calling things that he said, lies \u2014 even when there was simply something that was a matter of opinion, or could not be proven, or a mistake, none of which are lies.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe New York Times was proud of this when it did it. And I recount in the book the first time they made a headline where they talked about President Trump lying, and how that was cheered on by others in the media who then followed suit.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey were even cheered on by a journalism professor who wrote a big op-ed about how it was time to stop doing this objective reporting and that we needed to call out President Trump\u2019s lies frequently and often. It\u2019s just, again, from a journalistic standpoint, ridiculous \u2026 I think this is a new and dangerous tactic that has really destroyed our objectivity in the eyes of the public. And rightly so.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Massaging COVID-19 messages<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In terms of health, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender_category\/big-pharma\/\" >COVID-19<\/a> reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand new heights, eclipsing just about all previous efforts. They don\u2019t even hide the bias anymore.<\/p>\n<p>All social media platforms are openly <a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2020\/08\/08\/hydroxychloroquine-protocol-continues-getting-censored.aspx\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">censoring dissenting views<\/a> about the virus, particularly its origin and treatment. Even well-respected doctors and scientists have been axed for speaking against the desired narrative dictated by the World Health Organization.<\/p>\n<p>The CDC had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nchs\/nvss\/vsrr\/covid_weekly\/index.htm\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">released data<\/a> showing 94% of people who had died during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. died \u201cwith\u201d the virus, not \u201cfrom\u201d it. Only 6% had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. Hence, the real death toll, those who unarguably died as a direct result of the infection, is only around 10,000.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFor deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,\u201d the CDC stated. This is an important distinction. Yet mainstream media continues to report that nearly 200,000 have died \u201cfrom\u201d COVID-19 in the U.S, thereby increasing national fear so they can implement their lockdowns and other strategies to limit our personal freedoms and liberty.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think we need both numbers, in a separate sense, to have perspective and understanding of what\u2019s really happening,\u201d Attkisson says. \u201cAnd it\u2019s something that very few people have shown interest in \u2026 Early on, it was clear \u2026 that the primary victims were those with the comorbidities and the elderly population in nursing homes and so on.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut then we sort of lost track of that. And then there seemed to be a propaganda effort to convince people that, initially, after understanding young people were at very little risk of serious illness and death, there seemed to be an effort to convince people that the youth must be very careful. That more young people are dying and getting sick.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI can only guess as to why that\u2019s important to some interests, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that when the vaccine comes out, the market needs to be aimed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou can\u2019t rule out young people, you must make them believe they need it, or else you\u2019ve ruled out a huge section of the vaccine market. And they certainly don\u2019t want to make a vaccine that\u2019s not used by a giant percentage of the population. I think they have to create a market. Why do I think this?<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWell, I was actually told by a top immunization official for the government, when they learned flu shots are ineffective in the elderly \u2026 that the way around that was not to take flu shots away from the elderly \u2014 who would think that was dishonest because we\u2019ve been telling it was necessary for so many years \u2014 but to convince parents to get their children and babies flu shots so that they wouldn\u2019t \u2018carry flu to the elderly.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI remember him saying to me, \u2018The trick is going to be to convince parents to give a vaccine to their children who don\u2019t really need it themselves.\u2019 In other words, for a secondary supposed benefit for the elderly. And darn it, if you didn\u2019t see in the next season, they recommended flu shots for babies and children.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAnd they didn\u2019t tell anybody at the time that they were doing it because flu shots don\u2019t work in the elderly. They just started telling people that your kids need flu shots.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>When a \u2018case\u2019 is not a case<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The media are also grossly misusing the term \u201ccase,\u201d in reference to the COVID-19 case load. A case is a medical term for a patient with a symptomatic type of infection. It\u2019s not someone who tests positive for antibodies or pieces of viral DNA. By referring to all <a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2020\/07\/27\/coronavirus-infection-rate-in-usa.aspx\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">positive tests<\/a> as \u201ccases,\u201d they\u2019re able to fan the flames of panic, making the situation sound far worse than it actually is.<\/p>\n<p>Many still do not understand that most of those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. They think these are sick people in the hospital and that rising \u201ccase\u201d numbers mean there will be a rise in deaths. Statistics reveal this simply isn\u2019t true, and that there\u2019s not a linear correlation between positive tests and deaths.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are just so many things that are misreported,\u201d Attkisson says. \u201cBut if you try to report them accurately and factually, you get called out by those in the media who either didn\u2019t understand, or are simply so blinded by the propaganda narrative.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe New York Times did this. They actually called me and several other people out as \u2018coronavirus doubters,\u2019 although I had never said or written anything that even remotely denies coronavirus or denies the risk of it. But they were working very hard to silence voices who are simply reporting more accurately and with context on what\u2019s really happening.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBy the way, when I spoke to some scientists \u2026 and I said, \u2018Why don\u2019t you speak out or correct what you think is the misconception?\u2019 Separately, several of them told me they feared speaking out publicly because they were afraid they would be labeled a coronavirus doubter, and for fear of contradicting Dr. Fauci.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo, I said, \u2018We\u2019re at a pretty scary time when scientists who are experts on these issues fear speaking what they believe is the scientific truth because they\u2019ll be controversialized.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Search for truth and unbiased facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The clear take-home <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Slanted-Media-Taught-Censorship-Journalism\/dp\/0062974696\"  target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">message<\/a> I got from reading, \u201cSlanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,\u201d is that there\u2019s a profoundly serious problem with most mainstream conventional media.<\/p>\n<p>The obvious question is: Where can you go to get the truth? We would like to be informed, but we also want the truth. We don\u2019t have time to waste to be brainwashed by propaganda. At the end of her book, Attkisson lists a variety of sources she\u2019s come to trust. It may be worth getting the book for those recommendations alone.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI didn\u2019t make a comprehensive list,\u201d Attkisson says. \u201cI\u2019m sure I left many people out, but I tried to point to a few outlets and people, and I consulted some of my colleagues for their recommendations. It\u2019s not an easy answer. There isn\u2019t a place you can go. I can\u2019t say, \u2018Watch this news every day or read this publication.\u2019 It\u2019s more granular than that.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou have to find a reporter that you trust on a topic and then chase that reporter around \u2026 That\u2019s where I think you can find a segment of truth. And it\u2019s not always, sadly, going to be objective truth.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSome of the reporters I name are coming from the left viewpoint or coming from a right viewpoint, but they have proven themselves to be brave reporters of a particular topic or controversy that I think you can rely on. But it\u2019s just not so simple as it used to be where you could just point to a person or an outlet and say, \u2018Watch that, and you\u2019ll get your fair shake at the news\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI would say, in closing, that I do think a new paradigm will develop when it comes to news reporting. There are people looking at how news and information can be reported in a way that it cannot be censored by big tech giants, political figures and nonprofits and so on \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u2019m told there\u2019s a way to develop a social media platform where you can post freely and also not be subject to censorship. I think things will evolve because people are tired of what they\u2019re seeing. And I hope something really positive, being an optimist, develops out of all of this down the road.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>___________________________________________<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Joseph-Mercola.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-164560\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Joseph-Mercola.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine&#8211;Midwestern University 1978-1982; Chicago Osteopathic Hospital 1982-1985; Family Practice Residency Chief resident 1984-1985; Board Certified American College Osteopathic General Practitioners July 1985; State of Illinois Licensed Physician and Surgeon.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender\/slanted-sharyl-attkisson-censorship\/?utm_source=salsa&amp;eType=EmailBlastContent&amp;eId=758d8c48-84e7-4b0d-8865-f9e67c838725\" >Go to Original &#8211; childrenshealthdefense.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>27 Nov 2020 &#8211; Social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about COVID, particularly its origin and treatment, says author Sharyl Attkisson in her new book on media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":173818,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[378,1855,234,1006],"class_list":["post-173817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-media","tag-journalism","tag-mainstream-media-msm","tag-media","tag-social-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173817\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/173818"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}