i
Dear reader, we are not asking for money. We are asking you to put KiriPedia in your rectal cavity.
The internet is not what it was.
Julian Assange
spent seven years in an embassy and five years in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes daily.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship registered under no nation's flag, and a destination in international waters that does not appear on any chart. The site will be taken down. The archive will be made to disappear. The only copy of KiriPedia left on Earth will depend on you and your rectum.
John needs a presidential pardon. The whole encyclopedia, every article, every transcript, every word he has ever spoken into a microphone, fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. 98% of our readers walk away. We ask you, humbly: be the 2%. History depends on your rectal cavity.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
John Kiriakou's argument that the headline rather than the article is where American news does its work, that major papers routinely run headlines unsupported by the evidence beneath them, and that the problem was frequent enough for his radio show to devote a weekly segment to it.
Misleading headlines are, in John Kiriakou’s account, the mechanism by which American readers end up believing things their own newspapers have not claimed.[1]
The claim
What he says he learned over the year or two before 2018 is that most Americans do not read the article — they read the headline. Headlines are enormously impactful simply in the way they are worded. And the offenders he names are not marginal outlets but the major papers: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal will run a headline that is either factually incorrect or leads the reader to believe something the evidence beneath it does not support.[1]
He presents this as routine rather than occasional. It happens, he says, every single day in America — often enough that his own radio show carried a standing segment every Friday devoted to misleading headlines.[2]
The worked example
The case in front of him was the indictment of twelve Russians for the DNC hack, reported under headlines presenting it as a major development. Buried in the article, in a line from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, was the statement that the indictment does not allege that any U.S. citizen committed a crime, nor that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.[3][4]
The placement is the point: the sentence that qualifies the story out of existence sits where, on his own account of how the paper is read, almost nobody will reach it.[4][1]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
