BBC Misleadingly Uses Photo Of Independent Journalist Tim Pool With Headline About Texas Gunman

This is one of the most outrageous and blatant examples of journalists breaching ethics and entirely lacking morals. I am honestly flabbergasted at this. Below is a screenshot of the BBC’s article about “why some people are spreading false rumours about the Texas gunman.” Now, without reading any of the associated text and looking just at the headline and the photo in the screenshot, what do you assume?

If you’re a normal person, as most casual news readers are, then you are going to assume that the picture accompanying that headline is a picture of “the Texas gunman” referenced in the headline. That’s seems to be exactly what the BBC wanted you to assume. But you would be dead wrong.

That’s actually a picture of an independent journalists named Tim Pool, who has been very critical of the mainstream media framing of not only the Texas shooting, but of a lot of stories that the media propagandizes and manipulates. Additionally, the extremely suspicious social media account which the corrupt mainstream media claims belongs to the gunman makes reference to Tim Pool, which is, itself, rather curious. The BBC article is basically disparaging Pool as a conspiracy theorist who is “spreading false rumours” about the veracity of the suspicious social media account, because no one is allowed to question the veracity of the official narrative once it has been decided. He’s a thorn in the side of the establishment mainstream media, and extremely dangerous to their narratives and agendas, and they’d surely love nothing more than to destroy him.

Oh, and did I mention that the picture is more than a decade old? Did the BBC really dig up an old photo of a pesky independent journalist who routinely bucks the narrative and the establishment, and then use it as the featured photo on an article with a headline about a Texas gunman in a way that very clearly insinuates that it is a picture of the Texas gunman himself? Seriously, how much more intentionally and maliciously misleading can a “professional” organization possibly get? Yikes.