Author Topic: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues; foreign manipulation of US media/social media  (Read 1149742 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
advertisers abandoning Tucker
« Reply #2550 on: August 09, 2019, 08:20:15 AM »
due to fake Left wing news hysteria:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-advertisers-abandon-fox-130319075.html


estimated # of people killed *world wide* by white supremacists over the last * 8 yrs . = 175 :

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-white-nationalism-linked-attacks-
worldwide

during the * 4 yr . * time period in the US alone *fifteen thousand deaths from gangs estimated by the FBI :

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems

Certainly was not saying white supremacy induced murder is non existent or not a bad thing.  But he is 100% correct in stating the degree of it is so totally blown out of proportion and trying to link it to Trump all political hysteria.

PS I don't waste my time with twitter otherwise I would twitter this above post to him.  Don't know if he has email.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 08:22:56 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Got to link the Republicans to everything bad
« Reply #2551 on: August 10, 2019, 06:47:41 PM »
https://abcnews.go.com/US/houston-man-charged-placing-hidden-camera-airplane-bathroom/story?id=64897031

explain to me why Dick Cheney's name need be mentioned in this article.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
cnn
« Reply #2552 on: August 15, 2019, 05:10:39 AM »
funny how when the market is doing great you hear almost nothing about it.
this am there are a cast of leftist characters with giant grins on CNN happily chatting about tariffs and recession and dropping market and Trump all in the same 1 to 2 sentences

if Dems can come up with viable candidate
 we lose in '20.
I am convinced

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Cuomo working out
« Reply #2553 on: August 15, 2019, 08:06:53 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/ChrisCCuomo/videos/i-stopped-posting-exercise-videos-but-you-guys-keep-asking-for-them-i-see-them-a/1852439388342042/

one never knows when one gets a chance to throw a right wing "deplorable " down a flight of stairs so one must be ready

thank God I only have been calling him  "Mario's kid" ( to reflect his partisanship) . not the dreaded "F " word that I did not know what even referred to till GM explained once to me on the board about a yr or two ago I think.

I remember back in my frat days 6 of my frat brothers tried to drag me upstairs to put my hand in the toilet as some sort of frat prank.

They could not get me free and carry me to the toilet so they gave up. I was proud of my strength back then .

But now at 62 Cuomo probably could shove me down the stairs.

Don't screw with a "CNN anchor" man.   :-D

though Baldwin can throw me down any time ..........
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 03:13:17 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2554 on: August 15, 2019, 10:57:50 AM »
Check out the younger Chris in the FOX Files piece on the Dog Brothers done in 1998 that I posted on the Martial Arts forum.  :-D


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
MSM the modus is clear
« Reply #2556 on: August 18, 2019, 03:02:45 PM »
has decided to fight the Right / Republicans / Conservatives / Trump
by making this about whites vs everyone else narrative

they see this as the way to lock down their power within the Democrat Party
and to speed up the demographic shifts by ignoring illegal  immigration .

Offer to take from some to pay for free immigration voting rights schooling healthcare and pay raises for all their voting groups


Plain as day .





« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 03:14:07 PM by ccp »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: MSM the modus is clear
« Reply #2557 on: August 18, 2019, 10:26:47 PM »
has decided to fight the Right / Republicans / Conservatives / Trump
by making this about whites vs everyone else narrative

they see this as the way to lock down their power within the Democrat Party
and to speed up the demographic shifts by ignoring illegal  immigration .

Offer to take from some to pay for free immigration voting rights schooling healthcare and pay raises for all their voting groups


Plain as day .

Yup


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Ministry of Truth wants a recession
« Reply #2559 on: August 22, 2019, 04:47:04 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/382947.php

Professional journalists who care about the American people!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
O'Donnell apology sort of .
« Reply #2561 on: August 28, 2019, 02:22:21 PM »
from O'Donnell,

"Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president’s finances that didn’t go through our rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn’t have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight."

Me,

this in one way to get 3 or 4 people to watch his show.........

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
question remains : why?
« Reply #2562 on: August 30, 2019, 04:26:48 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/29/report-alleged-west-wing-leaker-madeleine-westerhout-ousted/

Was it because she is a Romneyie?  and does not approve of the President?

Was it the thrill of being an insider with "secrets" to share?

Was it money?

I favor # 3 .  I have seen how money can buy off almost everyone.

But of course we will never know.
I could see all the interview requests she will get now.  From Left wing media , authors, others.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
no such thing as "off the record"
« Reply #2564 on: September 02, 2019, 04:25:22 PM »
when we are talking Trump

when will those around him learn?

Gotta love this one :
"“Philip Rucker is one of the best and most scrupulous reporters in the news business,” Steven Ginsberg, national editor at The Post, said in response. “He has always acted with the utmost honor and integrity and has never violated Washington Post standards or policies.”

so off the record does not mean off the record for the Washington compost............

when will those around Donald learn to keep their mouths shut?  No coincidence alcohol being served.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Media role in Russia Trump collusion Hoax, Clapper, Jake Tapper, CNN
« Reply #2565 on: September 04, 2019, 07:29:50 AM »
One point being made in the aftermath of the hoax is that this high of a level of surveillance did not happen without President Obama knowing about it and approving it.  Another question is exactly when in a two plus year investigation did the special counsel Mueller know there was nothing to it.

Now the question is being asked, what role did the media play knowingly hyping a false story, i.e. fake news.

The NY Times and Washington Post both benefited from receiving a Pulitzer Prize for 5 articles each on what we now know is a false story.
-------------------
Interesting story here about reports and accusations against CNNs Jake Tapper and his denial of having the Dossier and knowing it was rubbish while leaking its most salacious parts to help the story get wings.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/09/03/cnns-jake-tapper-gets-really-upset-contact-james-clapper-steele-dossier-pointed/

For years now, there’s been a primary suspicion that CNN and Jake Tapper (who led the reporting on it) were tipped off about the Steele Dossier and a briefing to Donald Trump on it by James Clapper, who was still technically part of the Obama Administration at the time.

This all went down in January of 2017, when Tapper suddenly started reporting on details of the dossier and how the newly elected President had been told about it. The CNN newsman would later express his anger that Buzzfeed published the dossier, which showed it to be a farce in short order. Though he claims his objections were based on the unverified nature of the dossier, that doesn’t make sense. Why would CNN not want to the entire dossier published but at the same time be leaking parts of it if they felt it wasn’t proper to publish? The more obvious explanation is that CNN and Tapper really wanted to keep leaking damaging details of the dossier without its ridiculous nature being exposed. It was only after Buzzfeed printed it that it was able to be essentially debunked.

The former DNI later changed his story after he was confronted specifically about his communications with Jake Tapper of CNN.

“Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic,” the report continued. “Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA,” or intelligence community assessment.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/house-intel-report-james-clapper-lied-dossier-leaks-cnn/

James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, is a player in the false story but also a media figure in the story's rollout and coverage, a paid analyst of CNN.

Jake Tapper is the Chief Washington Correspondent for CNN, anchor of the CNN weekday television news show The Lead with Jake Tapper, and anchor of the CNN and CNN International Sunday morning affairs program State of the Union.

"There are two explanations here. Either James Clapper lied to Congress or Jake Tapper is lying."
-----------
What does Glenn Reynolds say, think of them all as Democratic Party operatives and it all makes sense.  In this chapter of American history, this is far more diabolical and high reaching than ordinary partisan politics.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2566 on: September 04, 2019, 07:37:50 AM »
ANYONE WHO THINKS THE MEDIA DOES NOT BRIBE PEOPLE

FOR INFORMATION / LEAKS

 then consider this from Doug's post above :


"For years now, there’s been a primary suspicion that CNN and Jake Tapper (who led the reporting on it) were tipped off about the Steele Dossier and a briefing to Donald Trump on it by James Clapper, who was still technically part of the Obama Administration at the time."

"James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, is a player in the false story but also a media figure in the story's rollout and coverage, a paid analyst of CNN."


ANYONE WHO THINKS THE MEDIA DOES NOT BRIBE PEOPLE

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Napolitano usual anti Trump rant
« Reply #2567 on: September 06, 2019, 06:31:36 AM »
ex judge :

 "[T]he Republicans who rejoice in this will weep over it when a Democrat is in the White House. No president should have unconstitutional powers."

Me:

where have you been .  Obama already had been doing this.
and do you think if the Trump played nice the Democrats would for one second return the favor.

what is this ex judge drinking?  just go away.........

---------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump Violating US Constitution
Andrew Napolitano sits and speaks on television about president donald trump
Judge Andrew Napolitano (AP)
By Solange Reyner    |   Thursday, 05 September 2019 04:02 PM

Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano says President Donald Trump is violating the U.S. constitution by funding the border wall with federal money not approved by Congress.

"After Congress expressly declined to give him that money, Trump signed into law – rather than vetoed – the legislation that denied him the funds he sought and then spent the money anyway," Napolitano wrote in a scathing opinion piece for Fox News.

Napolitano also ripped Trump's so-called "tariff" war with China.

"The question regarding presidential power has also been asked with respect to Trump's imposition of sales taxes – Trump calls them tariffs – on nearly all goods imported into the United States from China. These are taxes that only Congress can constitutionally authorize."


Trump's abuse of presidential power, says Napolitano, has come up in previous administrations.

But Trump is setting a dangerous precedent.

"After years of faithless Congresses legally but unconstitutionally ceding power to the presidency, we have arrived where we are today," Napolitano wrote. "[T]he Republicans who rejoice in this will weep over it when a Democrat is in the White House. No president should have unconstitutional powers."

Read Newsmax: Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump Violating US Constitution | Newsmax.com
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump? Vote Here in Poll

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Surprise! Only Fox Reports on Joe Biden's Eye-Bleed; Rest of the "Mainstream"
« Reply #2568 on: September 06, 2019, 06:54:00 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383180.php

Ah, if only BigDog were here to explain down to us how that is an example of professional journalism.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Conrad
« Reply #2571 on: September 12, 2019, 05:00:46 AM »
Brilliant guy
I have to use online dictionary to decipher some of his exotic words at times

I don't know what to make of his criminal problems
Frankly too complicated for me to understand

The case he makes for himself sounds like he was railroaded.

He is a strong Trump supporter which makes me sure that is why he in part at least got a pardon.
He like me wished if Trump would only cut out the constant bullying and name calling he would get another 10 % to his approval column
But he will be disappointed like everyone else in this regard

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Conrad
« Reply #2572 on: September 12, 2019, 01:28:02 PM »
Brilliant guy
I have to use online dictionary to decipher some of his exotic words at times

I don't know what to make of his criminal problems
Frankly too complicated for me to understand

The case he makes for himself sounds like he was railroaded.

He is a strong Trump supporter which makes me sure that is why he in part at least got a pardon.
He like me wished if Trump would only cut out the constant bullying and name calling he would get another 10 % to his approval column
But he will be disappointed like everyone else in this regard

Fraud convictions, all but one, were struck down on appeal and the rest pardoned by constitutional authority.  For me that takes him back to presumed innocent unless there is good reason to think otherwise.  It looks like contractual business differences were criminalized.  Most unresolvable business disputes go through a civil court process instead, not criminal.  In my business, people defraud me or attempt to all the time, pass a known bad check or make a bad promise to get more unpaid time in their house for example, and the city attorney won't touch it no matter the evidence.

I agree, Conrad Black' writings are excellent and should be judged on their own merits.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2574 on: September 18, 2019, 04:54:13 AM »
" But the better question is whether CNN — which has ruined its reputation and profits in an Ahab-esque effort to destroy the Trump white whale — is any longer a media organization at all, or a failing entertainment channel, or a boring Orwellian Ministry of “Truth.”"

I love that metaphor.


I also like the one VDH uses where in Trump is Gary Cooper in the movie High Noon.
Cooper as movie buffs will recall he throws his badge in the dirt at the end of the movie after cleaning up the town of a criminal gang who was thankless for his life risking efforts.  Just like DC...... :-D

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
In the Land of No Consequence, Bad Behavior Festers
« Reply #2575 on: September 19, 2019, 05:05:27 PM »
https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/16/in-the-land-of-no-consequence-bad-behavior-festers/

In the Land of No Consequence, Bad Behavior Festers
What’s the point of having political power if you can’t protect your own people from egregious attacks or punish lawbreakers?

 Julie Kelly  - September 16th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Another day, another whopper by the news media and their handlers in the Democratic Party.

Shortly after the New York Times published a “bombshell” article over the weekend that described more graphic, decades-old sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the paper was forced to post a significant correction to its original story.

“An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party,” the editors wrote. “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.” The book, due for release this week, is authored by two Times reporters.

The correction was prompted not by the Times’ own fact-checking but after Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist and co-author of a book detailing the Kavanaugh debacle, identified the blatant error on Twitter early Sunday morning. (The Times has refused to review Hemingway’s book, which was released in July.)

But by the time “America’s newspaper of record” sheepishly admitted its (intentional) error, the damage had been done. Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment while celebrities and columnists wailed about the patriarchy, white privilege and, of course, the Bad Orange Man. Willfully ignorant zombies on the Left continue to regurgitate the falsehood.

Rewriting History
The timing of the Times’ latest fraud is notable for its coincidence: Three years ago and one year ago this month, Democrats, with full complicity from the media, unleashed two of the most divisive and fabricated campaigns against Trump World: The Trump-Russia collusion hoax and the Kavanaugh rape charges.

In September 2016, Yahoo News posted its infamous article authored by Michael Isikoff that suggested Trump campaign aide Carter Page was a Kremlin tool—the piece was sourced by dossier author Christopher Steele and cited as evidence in the FISA warrant against Page—publicly fueling the nascent Russian collusion storyline. And in September 2018, the Washington Post identified Christine Blasey Ford as the woman accusing Kavanaugh of decades-old sexual assault.

But despite the widespread misconduct, malfeasance, and irreversible political, professional, and personal damage connected to both travesties, not one person—lawmaker, staffer, reporter, or witness—has been held accountable for their actions. The perpetrators, thus far, have suffered no consequences.

To the contrary, mouthpieces for both scandals are cashing in by selling books that rewrite history, or worse, fabricate more charges intended to inflict additional harm. (A former Comey aide and current CNN contributor also will release a book this week that whitewashes his former boss’s leading role in the Russian collusion hoax.)

No Evidence? No Problem
Here are just a few offenses that remain unpunished: High-level public officials leaked classified information to the media—a felony—in  2017 in an attempt to destroy Page and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Top Justice Department officials, including former FBI Director James Comey, submitted fabricated evidence to a secret court while refusing to disclose the financial motivations of the key source. Several people, including Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson, misled Congress.

FBI agents accepted gifts and other perks from friendly news reporters in exchange for unauthorized leaks of nonpublic information. Several officials and sources, including Steele, lied to federal investigators, committing both perjury and obstruction of justice. Lawmakers such as Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) misled Congress and the American public about evidence of Russian collusion for years.

Where is the declassification of key documents, including texts and emails between key collaborators, we’ve been promised? Where are the Senate hearings to compel public testimony from the wrongdoers in these scandals?

Numerous witnesses, including Blasey Ford, made false statements to Congress and attempted to obstruct justice in a concerted ploy to delay a public hearing and permit time for more unfounded allegations to surface. (Recall how Blasey Ford’s celebrity legal team claimed she was afraid to fly despite social media posts boasting about her international travel.)

After the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), issued a lengthy report detailing the fiasco. The report concluded that “investigators found no verifiable evidence that supported Dr. Ford’s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. The witnesses that Dr. Ford identified as individuals who could corroborate her allegations failed to do so, and in fact, contradicted her.”

Deborah Ramirez, a subject of the Times’ reporters’ new book and another alleged Kavanaugh victim, repeatedly refused to cooperate with the committee’s probe after she was featured in a lengthy New Yorker expose making more unfounded claims against Kavanaugh. “Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence to support Ramirez’s allegations,” the report stated.

In other words, these women made up false accusations against an innocent man and presented those phony claims to the United State Senate and to the FBI, which is a federal crime.

Grassley did refer two perpetrators in the Kavanaugh travesty, attorney Michael Avenatti and accuser Julie Swetnick, to the Justice Department: “I ask that the FBI investigate whether Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired with Ms. Swetnick to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation,” Grassley wrote in October 2018.

Neither of them has been charged. Christine Blasey Ford now is heralded as a feminist hero and raked in GoFundMe contributions while Ramirez is enjoying yet another turn in the public spotlight.

Further, the journalists, columnists, cable news hosts and editors who perpetuated both scams at great cost to the country as a whole remain employed and unchastened. (Keep in mind that Fusion GPS paid “media companies [and] journalists” to report their political propaganda. A list of names remains under seal.) It’s hard to argue that conduct doesn’t meet the legal threshold of conspiring to defraud the United States.

Empty Threats, Unkept Promises
Threats made by the president, Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other Republican leaders to hold the perpetrators accountable are unfulfilled. As I wrote last November, Republicans, with few exceptions, are as responsible as Democrats for mismanaging the Russian collusion matter from the beginning.

Where is the declassification of key documents, including texts and emails between key collaborators, we’ve been promised? Where are the Senate hearings to compel public testimony from the wrongdoers in these scandals?

Where is an indictment or investigation into the people who have been referred to the Justice Department, including Steele, Avenatti, and Swetnick, by Senate Republicans? Where are the charges against former Obama officials who illegally leaked classified information to reporters more than two years ago? Where is the public hearing about the Justice Department inspector general’s reports on both the Clinton email investigation and Comey’s mishandling of his own memos? Where are the ethics charges against Schiff, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), and Senator Cory Booker (D.-N.J.)?

We are reassured constantly that Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have all of this under control. But much like the costly delay in the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing, further delays foster more bad behavior, encourage more phony claims of wrongdoing against innocent people, and postpones the comeuppance that the American public is impatiently waiting to see.

The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied painfully applies here. Brett Kavanaugh and his family found this out—again—the very hard way. It’s time for Republicans, including and especially the president, to stop this injustice today. Trump tweeted several times over the weekend and on Monday about the latest smear on Kavanaugh, suggesting that “the Justice Department should come to [Kavanaugh’s] rescue.”

Last I checked, Trump is in charge of the Justice Department. Bill Barr, a lifelong Republican, runs the department. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell controls the Senate and Graham chairs the judiciary committee. What’s the point of having political power if you can’t protect your own people from egregious attacks or punish those who break the law to do so?

This isn’t a harmless game or an opportunity for pointless Twitter banter from the president. It’s time to follow through on empty threats and promises and stop this dangerous cycle. At this point, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

Julie Kelly
Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Chuck Todd Media Issue: Hunter Biden already investigated, nothing there
« Reply #2576 on: September 25, 2019, 07:27:25 AM »
I know we have a thread for the scandal, but the media treatment of it here is disgraceful.  Chuck Todd of "Meet the Press" is a "professional journalist"?

More like Democratic operative and activist.  Notice the nervous laugh he has when he makes his most indefensible points.  Did I  already say disgraceful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=349&v=HUhvgSEgs58

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/24/chuck_todd_biden_was_already_probed_sen_kennedy_who_investigated_biden_and_cleared_him.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Fox News
« Reply #2577 on: September 27, 2019, 06:35:17 AM »
We can't win with cans like this:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/26/report-paul-ryan-pushing-fox-news-to-decisively-break-with-trump/

Interesting story.  Fox News, like National Review and others, never was in the Trump camp.  The article references the Megyn Kelly episode.  Before he attacked her, she laid into him with misogyny charges to start a debate, because people he had criticized included women.  No one at Fox  told her what tact to take.  Like the other network faces, she wanted to raise her own profile, but being a serious questioner and treating him as a serious candidate with tough economic and foreign policy questions, in hindsight, would have had a better chance of taking him down.

Fox News on radio has the same biases of ABC, NBC and CBS.  Their goal as I see it is to be one of them, not have a different take.  On the other side of it, Fox still has opinion hosts like Sean Hannity that make the market think the whole network is conservative and they aren't.  Chris Wallace isn't conservative and same for Rupert Murdoch's sons.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/fox-s-once-and-future-crown-prince-keeps-investors-guessing

Fox News started off conservative as a business decision, targeting an under-served market and succeeding.  Now that they are number one and leadership is changing, their mission is shifting.  As they move to the center and further left, where do conservatives go?
---------------------
Discussing news with a liberal friend, I pointed out that the NY Times and Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for 5 pieces each on a story (Russia Trump collusion) that was false.  On the scale of honesty and accuracy with Trump only a hair above zero, isn't it sad that the nation's top newspapers come in beneath him.

My friend asked, where do you go if you can't trust the main news, NYT or local StarTribune for examples to get it right?  I have no easy answer for that. There is no one-stop-shop, not Fox News, not National Review, not WSJ, not Drudge, where I can refer someone who is not a conservative to get the news right.  I have to search far and wide to find what I trust to be true.  There are shows, columns and outlets that talk only to conservatives, but are complete turn-offs to others.  Very few present the facts in a reasonable manner with great insight without obvious bias.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2578 on: September 27, 2019, 06:51:14 AM »
news max

collects news from other outlets in a way that might be for both sides
with conservative slant .

agee overall with you though

just have to slog thru multiple sites to try to get more balanced "news/opinion/propaganda" .

Even the news of "studies" are at least 50 % of time BS.  Even academics are full of it a lot.......

We can add Shep Smith as a liberal Democrat.  And CAvuto certainly is anti Trump.

Fox news therefore is really far more balanced than the 100% leftish MSM but no one on the Left will give them "credit" for it.
Anything on the right has to be squashed , delegitimized, labeled "hate", etc.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Drudgereport ?
« Reply #2579 on: September 30, 2019, 05:00:40 AM »
more left wing slant the past week ?

 :| :-o

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Drudgereport ?
« Reply #2580 on: September 30, 2019, 05:56:54 AM »
more left wing slant the past week ?

 :| :-o

Really don't care how Drudge tries to get his clicks. 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Drudgereport ?
« Reply #2581 on: September 30, 2019, 06:24:42 AM »
more left wing slant the past week ?
 :| :-o

I got to know the views of Matt Drudge when he had a Sunday night radio show.  I would call him a Pat Buchanan Republican, maybe an Ann Coulter and about where Trump is now.  One of his big scoop sources was Breitbart, the man not the website.  When the networks would sit on a story, he would run it anyway right off their desk.  He broke the Monica Lewinski story when they sat on it if I recall correctly.  Rightward bias and truth were both parts of the attraction; there was a real lack of sites to go to if you were not satisfied with the msm.

Now in the Trump era it, there is definitely a lack of a pro-Trump bias one might expect.  Either Drudge the man is less involved or it is a business decision to aim for balance over bias.  If anything, they lean slightly anti-Trump during his Presidency, IMHO.  Good for them but they aren't really breaking stories anymore that can't easily be found elsewhere.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Malkin on Ana Cardenas Navarro
« Reply #2582 on: September 30, 2019, 08:34:13 AM »
who makes a name for herself by being a Latino pretending to be a Republican:

http://michellemalkin.com/2019/09/25/impeach-amnesty-ana-tvs-foulest-open-borders-windbag/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Brave truthtellers/professional journalists hide the corruption
« Reply #2583 on: October 07, 2019, 10:08:11 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
question is not where will shep wind up
« Reply #2584 on: October 11, 2019, 02:14:54 PM »
we know it will be CNN
 or maybe mslsd

or maybe ABC nbc cbs etc . no loss to Fox.  If I want to watch a leftist newscaster I don't want to watch him/her on fox.

the real question is who will replace him @ Fox?  ; maybe Paul Ryan can get him a job.

Maybe Trish Regan?  :|

« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 03:08:12 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Media watch: SNL's Warren
« Reply #2585 on: October 13, 2019, 10:36:40 AM »
I'm not a big fan but is this the same actor playing Warren who played Hillary?

If so, I think that makes an unintentional point about similarity.

https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1183229954361872384/video/1

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2586 on: October 13, 2019, 02:00:36 PM »
yes ,
Kate McKinnon
 played (s) both.

For the record I never cared much for SNL even going back to the 70's.

I remember kids saying SNL is on and getting excited and me sitting there bored and wishing to do something else.

Some similarities to Clinton.

The latter is much more innately evil to me.
Again if we lived in another age I feel Hillary would have slaughtered all Republicans who did not submit.








DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Media, Ministry of Truth, The Climate of Alarmism
« Reply #2588 on: October 31, 2019, 06:26:42 AM »
All drought is now human caused.  Therefore all deaths from drought is blood on our hands.  No need to prove it anymore because "the science is settled".  Anyone who suggests pulling the US out of the Paris Accords is a genocidal murderer, even if the accords did not lower emissions or stop the rising of the oceans.

"As Donald Trump denies Climate Change, these kids die of it."
[Posted previously in Cog Diss of the Left]
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

This is not the work of one columnist of the the Left.  It was the NYT who paid for his trip with camera crew to Madagascar in pursuit of inflammatory propaganda.  This is a campaign of the Ministry of Truth that runs through nearly all of academia and media. 

The logic is simple.  Ignore two thousand years history of on and off droughts, hunger and famine in third world countries.  Ignore the fact that places like Israel with similar or less rainfall are healthy and prosperous.  Ignore their horrible, slash and burn land management practices in this region.  Ignore that other parts of the island nation receive ample rainfall with  not water capture, sharing or preservation.   
 Ignore that this happens every el Nino.  Ignore that China burns ten times more coal than any developed country.  Ignore that fossil fuel consumption emits more water vapor than CO2 or that atmospheric CO2 content still rounds to zero parts per thousand, not exactly smothering us or blanketing the atmosphere.  Blame Trump and affluence or whoever the Republican of the moment is.

Famine around the world is not getting worse.  The US had record rainfall last year.  CO2 emissions in the US have fallen as fracking has enabled the switch from coal to natural gas.

Children have been dying of famine, drought and poverty for as long as we can remember and Americans have been the most generous in the history of the planet in terms of assistance.  Blame Americans.

Now children like Greta are dying of anxiety and depression as they are continually fed this line of BS unsupported in math, science and history.

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2177.msg100994#msg100994



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Media, CBS Jan Crawford
« Reply #2591 on: November 01, 2019, 07:51:51 AM »
Just giving credit where credit is due, even though this is CBS [SeeBS].  Jan Crawford was one of my favorites from over at PBS News Hour because she could report on Supreme Court proceedings without noticeable bias.

Univ of Alabama undergrad, southern charm.  U of Chicago Law School grad, a truly credentialed journalist, with no sarcasm needed to say that.

Here she eats up a never Trumper and an anti-Trumper 'journalist' and then flips back to the world series.

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2019/10/31/double-whammy-cbs-journo-shuts-hillary-clinton-jen-rubin-trump-judicial-nominee-criticism/

Simple point, like them or not, Trump's judicial picks are plenty qualified.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Katherine Herrige of FOX going to CBS?!?
« Reply #2592 on: November 01, 2019, 07:59:48 AM »
VERY sorry to hear this!  KH is an outstanding reporter, especially on intel and related issues.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
The mooch
« Reply #2594 on: November 05, 2019, 06:32:57 AM »
scarimucci

amazing how this guy who was a nobody previous to being picked by Trump for house press sec. , got fired in 2 days for incompetence is now a media darling making a new career out of bashing the guy who made him a celebrity.

only in the usa as they say......

talk about grifters and charlatans .......

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
ABC squashed the Epstein story for three years.
« Reply #2595 on: November 05, 2019, 07:14:05 AM »
Agreed on Scaramuci.  What a little shit he is.

=============

What a spectacularly self absorbed woman this is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&fbclid=IwAR3ILtueLt7nlmU99yqDdY3N-9pbQcPvJIVLHL19Y8l1El3SfNivF70Urxc

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2596 on: November 05, 2019, 07:31:02 AM »
well if she is such a crusader and not out for her self
why did she not come out in public and points out ABC or whatever network, covered it up.

spineless if you ask me

Veritas had to expose HER bs.

can one not say she also conspired by her silence to cover it all up?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« Reply #2597 on: November 05, 2019, 08:57:58 AM »
well if she is such a crusader and not out for her self
why did she not come out in public and points out ABC or whatever network, covered it up.

spineless if you ask me

Veritas had to expose HER bs.

can one not say she also conspired by her silence to cover it all up?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Toward a theory of journalistic objectivity
« Reply #2598 on: November 05, 2019, 09:18:00 AM »
Toward a Theory of Journalistic Objectivity
By: George Friedman

Last Sunday, I received an email from a close friend telling me and others that after 60 years he was canceling his subscription to The New York Times because he was tired of its bias against U.S. President Donald Trump and, even more, its failure to cover the world except through the prism of Trump. A few weeks ago, another friend of mine said that he was no longer able to write about the world without making clear the harm that Trump was doing and the disgraceful sort of man he was.

The interesting point is that one believed that The New York Times was falsifying reality with its hostility to Trump, while the other said that describing Trump in any way other than vile was falsifying reality. Few of us hold opinions we know to be false, and therefore few of us see ourselves as falsifying reality. We think of ourselves as clarifying reality and as being the victims of others. That makes each of us a spokesperson for truth and those who disagree with us as in error. The political question is how should we treat those we think are in error? One way is to think of them as reasonable people, to be respected even in disagreement. The other is to regard them as either too stupid to realize they are in error or deliberately corrupt. If you follow the latter approach, they are unreasonable people and unworthy of respect.

Both are very intelligent, reasonable men, and in other circumstances they would like each other. The issue here is not the intellectual, moral or emotional differences between the two, but how the media should present a president about whom they disagree. This debate transcends the current national frenzy over the president. We have had many such times in American history. Rather it is a question of what is the intellectually appropriate manner for a newspaper or other media to deal with the frenzy.

Opinion vs. Fact

The New York Times is clearly hostile to Trump. The Times would argue that it is not hostile but faithfully reporting the news, which in the case of Trump happens to paint him in a bad light. Its critics say that the paper deliberately interprets Trump’s actions in the worst possible way and, even worse, spends so much time disparaging him that it either has no space for other vital global news or views all world events as affected by Trump’s actions, no matter how marginal they might be.

This raises the question of what a newspaper ought to be. Benjamin Franklin published the Pennsylvania Gazette in the 19th century. It mixed news and opinion without shame. Early newspapers were not committed to neutrality. Franklin believed he was committing himself to truth, and achieving it by stating his opinion. The difference between The New York Times and Franklin rests in the fact that Franklin did not believe providing thoughtful opinion was unethical whereas modern journalism thinks that it should be presented on editorial pages, separate from the news pages. More precisely, modern journalism draws an ethical line between opinion and fact. But in practice it is hard to distinguish what is, from what ought to be. More important, the vision of what ought to be seems to define what is important. The hidden sphere of opinion rests not in how the story is being told, but in the choice of the story that should be told. In making decisions over what is and what isn’t important, the newspaper is already painted over by opinion.

The problem is not with approaching your life’s work as a journalist with a vision of the world. It is impossible not to. The problem is pretending, particularly to yourself and then to your readers, that your selections are devoid of prior choice, that the editor and reporter are blank slates, reflecting reality without prejudice. The presentation of facts without framework is impossible.

Ben Bradlee was the editor-in-chief of The Washington Post. He was a close friend of the Kennedys and he hated Richard Nixon. It was the Post that transmitted the information provided by Deep Throat, a senior FBI official, to the public. The fact that the Post didn’t reveal for decades that its secret source was an FBI official left out a critical dimension of the story. It was not that Nixon was not guilty, but it was also true that the source and Bradlee wanted Nixon to fall. The Post wanted to get Nixon, and Nixon committed a crime. Both statements can be true. But the Post pretended to be neutral and hid the fact that its source was in the FBI. The framework of motives was hidden from the public and dismissed when Nixon supporters charged the Post with burying important details.

An Evolution

According to contemporary journalism, approaching a newsworthy subject with a personal agenda is unethical. The difference between Franklin and Bradlee is that Franklin made no claims about journalistic ethics. Bradlee did. For Franklin, having a view on fishing or justice is not incompatible with being a good journalist. The only caveat must be that the view is openly stated and held to be true by the author. Indeed, Franklin reveled in using his paper as a platform. His ethical principle, if there was one, was that he stood responsible for what he wrote.

After World War II, there was an evolution in newspaper publishing toward the idea of journalistic objectivity. Most newspapers had political leanings before the war, and while these persisted after the war, the major newspapers sought increasingly to draw a sharp distinction between the editorial and news pages. Part of this had to do with the increased power of journalism schools and the rise of technocracy. Before the war, the local news beat was frequently covered by high school graduates with street smarts and little formal journalistic education. Over time, these reporters could be promoted to covering national and even international news. H.L. Mencken, one of the great reporters in the first half of the 20th century, symbolized this. He was a high school graduate who mixed reporting with his own pungent views liberally.

With the rise of journalism schools, journalism was seen through a technocratic lens paralleling the other professions. It possessed a method taught in journalism schools that required expertise. But more importantly, and less consciously, the journalism schools taught not only how to cover the news, but what constituted the news. It is hard to encapsulate what their vision of the news was, but we can get a sense by recalling what was covered by what used to be called the “mainstream press.” The mainstream press reflected the dominant ideology following World War II. It focused on the Cold War, on the American economy and on the politics of the two political parties and the framework in which they thought. The John Birch Society and the Communist Party were observed as oddities, not as valid movements.

Writing and editing without a framework is impossible. As I have said, the mere selection and rejection of what is to be published shapes the newspaper. One of the tasks of an editor is to decide what stories make it to print. There is only so much space in a newspaper or time on television, and there are many things happening in the world. The decision on how much space to devote to a subject derives from some concept of what is important and what is not. This is the foundation of journalism and almost any field. And that decision has its roots in some model of reality, whether it’s conscious or not.

The Problem With Modern Journalism

The problem is that modern journalistic ethics insist that simplistic objectivity is possible, and it compels journalists and newspapers to pretend that their political beliefs, or support for the Redskins, does not shape the way in which the news is presented. Franklin would never hide his personal views, nor would he ever see them as prejudices. Rather, in his mind they were well-honed reflections that he provided the world as a gift, without prejudice. In this sense, reporters at Fox and CNN are better journalists and more honest than those at The New York Times or The Washington Post. They make no bones about who they are, nor do they hide how they shape the news. They don’t have what used to be called the mainstream press’s objectivity and don’t pretend to have it.

Objectivity is not impossible. But the first step of objectivity is to know yourself and to be aware of what you are doing and why. Knowing your own motive and not being ashamed of it allows your readers to choose whether to read your publication and allows you to impose the discipline of your own intentions. At any case, it can’t be hidden and, over time, becomes readily apparent to your readers, who may approve or disapprove but will read your publication nonetheless to hear another view. But without that objective evaluation of your purpose, all other objectivity is lost.

True objectivity is enormously difficult, as all great things must be. I face this dilemma every day. I solve it not by pretending not to have a view, but by practicing an idiosyncratic method, geopolitics as I understand it, that allows me – I believe – to understand the world more deeply. To use geopolitics well, you must force yourself to separate your superficial political views from your work. That is not easy; I and my staff are human. But we believe that only by abandoning the politics of our time can we actually understand the deeper structure of things. We are less interested in whether Trump is right or wrong than in the underlying forces that created his presidency, and all other presidencies.

There is the objectivity of knowing your politics and the objectivity in caring for something other than the daily political discourse. But objectivity is more than simple neutrality. It is being conscious of your ends and the methods that help you to reach those ends, and freely admitting what those ends are. Objectivity is enormously difficult, as is rigidly separating belief in method from beliefs on current affairs. The objectivity I am speaking of has more in common with Benjamin Franklin than with contemporary journalism.

True Objectivity

It is impossible to be perfectly objective, even in my terms. But then it is difficult to love, to be courageous and to be just. The difficulty of each of these things does not excuse anyone from trying. The shallow claim to objectivity of contemporary journalism is transparent. That does not mean that objectivity is impossible, as imperfect as all things human might be. But clinging to an objectivity that is both simplistic and transparent undermines the Republic. Objectivity is not pretending not to have an agenda, but showing clearly what that agenda is. You cannot live without an agenda and you cannot free yourself from the responsibility of having it. And then the world can see the degree to which your agenda is profound or trivial. The agenda does not have to be a political goal, although if it is, then that is legitimate. For me, it is a consistent method of understanding how the world works and what things are more important than others. I try to make it clear that I am working from this model, geopolitics, and that the breadth and emphasis of what my organization, Geopolitical Futures, addresses comes from there.

Franklin made no bones about the reasons he chose to write as much as he did on what he did. This I think is true objectivity. Newspapers in the United States used to be unabashedly political, and that meant they covered some topics obsessively and ignored others. But we knew who they were. Defining objectivity as possessing no preconceptions works if you really have no preconceptions, but what human is a blank slate, and what human has the discipline not to care? Journalism, like all crafts, requires a structure that defines the proportions of their craft and then the content, and that structure must be visible to those who care to understand it. The mere assertion of objectivity is not such a structure. It is merely a principle that neither constrains nor compels.

Donald Trump will pass into history, and so too will the passions of the moment. But the problem of objectivity will live on. Anyone can claim to be objective. It is not a structure that guides or constrains. It is just an intent that does not impose order. The irony and intentions of Franklin can be understood and seen in his writing. The problem is not the writing of The New York Times or the selection of stories; it is the assertion of objectivity without definition or rigor.