You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘New York Times’ tag.

Yesterday’s post was about the Kavanaugh nomination and ritual defamation.

Ritual defamation is a term coined by Laird Wilcox, who researches political fringe movements and is the founder of The Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements, in the Kansas Collection of Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas.

If you think this is being hypersensitive, here is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) explaining that the Democrats ‘merchandise’ lies to the media about Republicans. Of the Wrap-up Smear, she says, ‘It’s a tactic’:

This is what Pelosi says in the video (emphases mine throughout):

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You demonize, and then you — we call it the ‘wrap up’ smear, if you want to talk ‘politics’. We call it the ‘wrap-up’ smear.

You smear somebody, with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you ‘merchandise’ it. And then you (pointing to the press) write it, and they’ll say “See, it’s reported in the press, that this, this, this and this…” so they have that validation, that the press reported the ‘smear’, and then it’s called ‘the wrap-up smear’.

Now I’m going to ‘merchandise’ the press’ report, on the smear, that we made.

And it’s, it’s a tactic. And it’s self-evident.

Today’s post looks at Wilcox’s list of extremist traits, which the Democrats and others on the Left, including media, have been displaying since Donald Trump won the 2016 election. One can only hope that, with all its madness, it climaxed with the Kavanaugh nomination to the US Supreme Court, because it really does seem as if demons are everywhere across the pond at the moment.

All of Wilcox’s listed traits are pertinent to the climate in America at this time. I have supplemented them with illustrations from the Kavanaugh nomination process. Excerpts follow, so please be sure to read his essay in full:

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration

2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don’t have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.

3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects

4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.

This is what happened to an ordinary American, Thomas Wictor, who tweets on politics. The Left does not like what he has to say, so one or more of their number reported him to the FBI (‘thread’ should be ‘threat’). He’s still suspended on Twitter:

5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours

Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke is the Democrat candidate running against incumbent Ted Cruz for US Senate in Texas:

Now back to Judge Kavanaugh:

6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.

7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.

Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the “right” position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often “those who are not with me are against me.”

8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or “quarantining” dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing “subversive” or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for “offensive” views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control

Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn represents Tennessee’s 7th District and is running for US Senate, but a senior Google engineer deems her a ‘terrorist’ and ‘violent thug’:

9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence …

10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to “ally oneself with the devil,” or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.

This is what happened. I feel sorry for the owner/executive chef:

12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.

Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority–a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special “elite” or “class,” and a kind of aloof “highminded” snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is “insensitive” enough to challenge these claims.

13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of “crisis-mindedness”

14. BELIEF THAT IT’S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A “GOOD” CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in “special cases.” This is done with little or no remorse as long as it’s in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an “enemy” becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.

15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call “education” or “consciousness-raising.” Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically …

16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see “latent” subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.

18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or “rules” there are that regulate the behavior of others–particularly their “enemies”–the more secure extremists feel.

Think Big Government. Now we know why we have so many nit-picking laws on the books!

19. INCLINATION TOWARD “GROUPTHINK.”

Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. “Groupthink” involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members’ observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the “propaganda” of the “other side.” The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.

We don’t need examples for this, do we?

20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.

Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their “enemies,” and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they “deserved” it …

In 2013, the Telegraph had an article detailing leftists rejoicing upon Margaret Thatcher’s death. People tweeted that she would burn in Hell, while others announced they were throwing parties.

21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.

For example, if they lose an election, then it was “rigged.” If public opinion turns against them, it was because of “brainwashing.” If their followers become disillusioned, it’s because of “sabotage.” The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them…

This last one cuts both ways and, today, is hardly extremist on either side. President Trump and his supporters believe that the 2016 system was rigged against him. Everyday Democrats largely believe the system is no good because they do not hold the majority at present. However, as we see from occasional reports on voter fraud, the Left do everything possible to flout voting laws (e.g. sending buses and vans of voters from polling station to polling station on election day).

But, that’s okay, because the Kavanaugh SCOTUS farce will wake up an important number of Democrats. The late Andrew Breitbart received a similar political epiphany nearly 30 years ago:

It’s important for all of us to identify extremism where it exists, no matter how downplayed it is.

Advertisements

The New York Times is appealing to Americans to help them cover the 2018 mid-term elections:

Hmm.

In 2017, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas revealed a rich seam of anti-Trump and anti-Republican bias at the New York Times:

New Project Veritas video exposes New York Times (October 10)

Project Veritas ‘American Pravda’ series: second video (October 11)

American Pravda Part III — more from the New York Times (October 17)

American Pravda Part IV — Trump Derangement Syndrome at the New York Times (October 19)

Does anyone think that the New York Times intends to cover the mid-terms with integrity?

Those who are not convinced by the Project Veritas undercover videos might wish to read an article by Eric Zuesse for the Strategic Culture Foundation, ‘How the New York Times Lies About Lies: Obama v. Trump as Example’.

Eric Zuesse documents various events of the Obama administration and how the New York Times reported them dishonestly. His article begins with this (emphases mine):

Although the New York Times says that President Donald Trump lies vastly more than did President Barack Obama, the definite liar in that comparison — based on the factual record, to be presented here — is the New York Times itself. It lies in alleging this, which isn’t to say that either President lies more frequently than the other, but instead, that the Times’s calculation fails to count, at all, but instead altogether ignores, some of President Obama’s very worst lies — ones that were real whoppers. These were lies that were essential to his maintaining support among Democrats (such as the owners of this corporation, the NYT, are), and that would keep Democrats’ support only if they failed to judge him by his actual decisions and actions (such as the NYT’s owners do — or else they secretly know the truth on this, but prevent this truth from being published by their employees). Even to the present day, Obama is evaluated by Democrats on the basis of his lies instead of on the basis of his actions. He’s admired for his stated intentions and promises, which were often the opposite of what his consistent actual decisions and actions turned out to be on those very same matters, on which he had, in retrospect, quite clearly lied (though that was covered-up at the time — and still is)

Zuesse carefully details Obama’s biggest lies, which the newspaper ignored. He concludes (emphasis in the original, purple highlights mine):

None of these whoppers was included in the listing that the NYT presented in their 14 December 2017 article “Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s”.

I am nonpartisan toward persons and toward political parties, and consider all of America’s Presidents since 1981 (if not since 1968, but with the exception of Carter) to be and have been loathsome people (not even well-intentioned), but ‘news’media such as the New York Times aren’t any more trustworthy (nor more honest) than these Presidents have been, and the pontifications from such ‘news’media (in both their ’news’-reporting and opinion-pieces) are just propaganda, mixtures of truths with lies — and more and more of the public are coming to recognize this disgusting fact, so these media’s pretenses to honesty and trustworthiness are having fewer and fewer believers. But these media claim that fake ‘news’ comes only from their non-mainstream competitors (some of which are actually far more honest than they). Preserving their cartel is crucial to them. And it’s crucial to the people who benefit from this cartel.

I mention this, because, recently, I got into a lively discussion with several people at an event about honest reporting about President Trump. To a man — and all have some of the best private school and university educations in the world — they not only read but believe whatever they read in the New York Times and other similar media outlets. They are not Americans, but they are firmly against the Republican Party and Donald Trump based on established media’s lies.

When I mentioned that they might want to peruse a site such as The Daily Caller to get another perspective, they sneered, calling it ‘fake news’. They’ve never even heard of, much less read, The Daily Caller.

This is a very sad state of affairs — great for the New York Times and parlous for those of us seeking objective reporting.

President Donald Trump’s on a roll.

He’s landed some hard punches via Twitter this past week.

On John Brennan

On security clearance

On Robert Mueller’s investigation

On Jeff Sessions’s corrupt Department of Justice

To Jeff Sessions

Once the United States gets a new, proactive, hard-hitting attorney general, expect all of the above — and more — to be investigated.

On Monday, August 6, 2018, Alex Jones’s Infowars was banned by several social media outlets.

Previously, these media outlets issued partial bans, but now, some have made no secret about removing him from their platforms entirely.

Contrary to what Big Media would have you believe, Infowars is the 7th most popular app in the US. Look at what Infowars is beating in the ratings:

Jones had anticipated this for at least three years. His apprehension started in 2015. After the election in 2016, even though Trump won, he was even more concerned about social media trying to cut off his access to viewers and listeners.

He details the various reasons for the ban in this video of his, made on the day it happened. It’s a keeper. Start with the video below (courtesy of variety) and continue on the link they recommend:

For a start, Apple and Google are working separately with China to develop censored social media projects and a search engine that filters and/or bans people and sites that go against the Establishment way of thinking. He says that the EU has also brought in censorship. (I recently heard a discussion about this on French radio, explained as, ‘They’re doing away with alarmist fake news, nothing more’, but it’s the same thing: silencing the opposition.) Then, there are the Democrats (example here) and their water carriers in the media who want to stifle support for Trump and the Republicans for the November mid-terms.

Jones says that none of the media outlets banning him have given him a specific reason why, other than to say ‘hate speech’. He says that there are people voting Infowars material down or flagging it as offensive.

Jones closed his video by saying people can still watch Infowars and read the news there on his own platform.

A lot of people don’t like Alex Jones, but, as he warns in the video, anyone could be next.

One rapper on Twitter says:

I don’t support or believe [what] ALEX JONES says but I don’t want powerful tech companies dictating what society is allowed to hear or see. They are too powerful. If they can delete anyone’s voice they want from the internet Who will be next?

Before going into further reactions, let’s look at two news reports about the Infowars ban. Emphases mine.

Howard Kurtz wrote a piece for Fox News, excerpted below:

Facebook said it has taken down some Jones pages “for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”

Apple said it removed the “Alex Jones Show” and other podcasts from iTunes and its podcast app. The company said it “does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users.”

Google’s YouTube dropped the ax on Jones’ channel, telling The Washington Post that it terminates users who violate “our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures.”

And Spotify banned Jones altogether after earlier removing some podcasts, telling the Post: “We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community.”

Hate content is not representative of the Infowars many know, and, unlike cable news networks, at least Jones apologises when he gets it wrong. Even Kurtz had to admit that in his editorial.

CNBC had more:

Pinterest removed the official InfoWars board on Monday afternoon after multiple people alerted the company to policy violations.

“Consistent with our existing policies, we take action against accounts that repeatedly save content that could lead to harm,” a Pinterest spokesperson said. “People come to Pinterest to discover ideas for their lives, and we continue to enforce our principles to maintain a safe, useful and inspiring experience for our users.”

CNBC’s article got to the crux of the issue:

Tech giants have faced calls from both sides of the political spectrum to be more transparent about the way they approach content flagging and banning. On the left, there are critics who say these firms are not doing enough to take down harmful and offensive content, while on the right there are some who think internet firms are routinely censoring conservative posts.

As private companies, there is nothing in law to bar them from removing user-generated videos and audio as they see fit. But a number of mostly conservative commentators have framed the issue as a matter of freedom of speech.

The Conservative Treehouse made excellent observations:

The corporate thought police moved in unity today to unperson Alex Jones and his Info Wars media site from popular social media platforms.

Imagine if BP, Exxon, Chevron and Sunoco all moved, on the same day, at the same time, to charge $5.00/gal for gasoline at their service stations.  That would be illegal collusion to take advantage of a monopolistic positionThat’s essentially what happened today when Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify simultaneously banned the Alex Jones broadcast from their platforms; in an effort to purge him from the internet …

Oddly enough this was entirely predicted.  Back in the Fall of 2015 Matt Drudge appeared on the Alex Jones broadcast to warn of this exact situation.  Drudge talked about the need to stay off their platforms, because he could see the political use of platform control was likely to happen in the next few years.  In hindsight Drudge was eerily prescient:

 

The political left, and all the control elements of the Marxist Silicon Valley monopoly gatekeepers are moving in unity, taking action they deem will influence the 2018 elections and beyond. In the big picture this coordinated effort is a move to attack political opposition by weaponizing and controlling social media platforms.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Alex Jones, all should take this action seriously and think through the long-term ramifications….

Meanwhile, many social media platforms allow questionable content, including what were once deviant, criminal practices — and still are, to many of us. Yet, when Alex Jones tries to expose the ugly, painful truth behind them, perverts want him censored:

Then, there are the foul television shows, but they’re okay, because that’s free speech:

And let’s not forget newspapers like the New York Times which recently appointed a woman with a history of racist tweets to its editorial board:

Yes, it’s odd that Twitter never called Ms Jeong out.

And what about the death threats against President Trump that are allowed to stay on social media?

And isn’t incitement to war an example of ‘hate speech’? Alex Jones is not guilty of that, but what about Big Media?

One woman called the Jones ban what it is — censorship:

Alex Jones would agree:

I said above that Jones will issue lengthy apologies and explanations when he gets things wrong. Others in media are not so inclined, like CNN’s Brian Stelter, host of Reliable Sources (!?):

Media analyst Mark Dice compared the Jones ban to book burning:

An independent journalist said:

Infowars’ English editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson had this to say about Facebook:

And censorship in general:

Another Englishman agrees:

So, is it time to break the social media monopoly?

In the meantime, this will not go down without a fight. Here’s investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s request (more at the Gateway Pundit):

He and his Project Veritas team want to know more about things like this:

Also, other platforms are making it clear they will continue to broadcast Infowars. Here’s one of them:

This situation is a slippery slope and extends beyond banning an independent media outlet. Lying is now considered ‘protected speech’. You could not make this up:

Good heavens! Whatever next?

Stay strong and frosty in the search for the truth.

The American actress Roseanne Barr has long been an advocate for children. Having worked in Hollywood for so long, she knows that many young stars have been molested and drugged.

She wants it stopped, which is one of the reasons she supports President Donald Trump.

On Passover — Saturday, March 31 — she tweeted:

President Trump has freed so many children held in bondage to pimps all over this world. Hundreds each month. He has broken up trafficking rings in high places everywhere. notice that. I disagree on some things, but give him benefit of doubt-4 now.

I happened to read it hours after it was posted. She did catch flak for it, and tweeted about Passover being synonymous with freedom from slavery. Unfortunately, she has taken both tweets down and is now focussing on her newly revived eponymous sitcom.

That day, CNN reported about that and an older Barr tweet in which she wanted to hear from Q because she had information to give (emphases mine):

“The Storm,” as Newsweek, Mediaite and others have explained, alleges that high-profile Democrats and other famous people are involved in child sex-trafficking rings, and that Trump is breaking them up and arresting those involved in their operation. The theory has been traced to the online message board 4Chan, where an anonymous user known as “QAnon,” or simply “Q,” has propagated the theory.

Uh, keep up, CNN. Q has been on 8chan for some time now.

Anyway:

Twitter users concerned about Barr’s involvement in such theories quickly pointed to past tweets by her that would further explain her involvement in the theory. In November, Barr tweeted, “Who is Q?” The Daily Beast reported. The actress added hours later, “tell Qanon to DM me in the next 24 hours.”

Of course, many media outlets picked up on this, but Q provided the CNN link (message 1061):

Many headlines were identical. How does that happen organically? It can’t. I posted about Mockingbird last week, pointing out that someone researched the word for March 26, which was ‘gamble‘.

Someone on 8chan grabbed a screenshot from March 31:

Roseanne’s eponymous — and highly popular sitcom — originally ran from 1988 to 1997. Nearly everyone I knew watched it. I tried, but it wasn’t my cuppa. My late widowed mother never watched it, either.

For those living outside of the United States, these tweets give you an idea of the show and how happy millions of viewers are to see it return:

The new series premiered on Tuesday, March 27, 2018 with such phenomenal ratings that it was renewed for another series on March 30! In the meantime, Trump rang to congratulate her:

Think about how many Americans Roseanne reaches on television (and Twitter). Her returning character is a Trump supporter. Connecting the dots, we can see how many minds she can influence. As a Tablet magazine article pointed out:

Roseanne is the first decent argument that Donald Trump has had in the culture business since he got electedIt’s even more powerful coming from a comedian like Roseanne who, bless her soul, may be the single most important feminist symbol in America, relevant because she belongs not to the moneyed and privileged chattering vanguards but to the working class. Roseanne herself knows Trump, and appears to personally dislike him.

Wrong:

Continuing with the article:

But she’s given him this arguably undeserved gift because she also agrees with him on several key issues, like trade and political correctness. She also understands that Trump plugs in to the frustrations of millions of Americans who’ve been getting shafted for nearly three decades now with neither Democrats nor traditional Republicans doing much to help them out.

Almost for certain, the success of the new season of Roseanne will lead many bien pensants to call the comedian a crackpot or worse …

Indeed:

Here’s the exchange between Roseanne and the New York Times (Roseanne’s responses in bold):

Considering that Trump opposes many of the principles that you and Roseanne Conner have stood for, how can you support him?

No, he doesn’t, I don’t think he does. I don’t think so at all. I think he voices them quite well.

I’m thinking of abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights, labor protections —

He doesn’t oppose same-sex marriage.

He doesn’t favor it. He has not come out in favor of it.

He does. Yes, he does. He has said it several times, you know, that he’s not homophobic at all.

What about labor union protections and blue collar workers, and

What do you mean, the — oh, let’s not get into this.

[A representative for Ms. Barr interjected: “You don’t have to get into it. We can move on.”]

Well, you know, it’s —

Yes, let’s do.

A question people wonder about.

Well, I think working-class people were pissed off about Clinton and NAFTA, so let’s start there. That’s what broke all the unions and we lost all our jobs, so I think that’s a large part of why they voted for Trump because they didn’t want to see it continue, where our jobs are shipped away. So, it’s more, why did people support shipping our jobs away?

Now, let’s take this one stage further.

Although she won’t tweet about Q anymore, Big Media have plastered it all over television and the internet that Roseanne Barr knows about Q.

How long before Q goes mainstream?

For that, we have the unwitting media and the very much plugged-in Roseanne Barr to thank.

Expect millions more red pills to be dispensed this year, which will make The Storm that much easier for many Americans to understand once it breaks.

In closing, here’s a great quote from an 8channer:

If you told me in 1989 that Donald Trump, Roseanne Barr, and James Woods would save the world with what I knew as (NES/Atari260) hooked up to the phone line and a color TV…. I’d tell you that you were nuts.

yet here we are.

Indeed we are!

On Wednesday, January 17, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his first ever Fake News Awards.

He did not announce them by voice, but RSBN did a great job going through every item:

On Monday, January 15, Politico quoted ‘experts’ — including Republicans — who said that Fake News Awards could violate White House and ethics rules.

That’s rich. Big Media are violating ethics rules every day by reporting falsehoods lies.

The president’s tweet appeared later than scheduled. The Washington Post was quick to pounce before …

… and after …

But, once again, Fakey winner WaPo was wrong.

The GOP (Republican Party) page crashed from all the traffic:

This generated a greater American buzz than big-ticket award ceremonies:

Gateway Pundit reported (emphases mine):

Internet giants Google, Twitter and AOL publish the most popular trending subjects. And Wednesday night the most popular subject on all three sites was Trump’s Fake News Awards.

Even the trendy celeb news site TMZ covered it:

President Donald Trump came through on presenting “The Fakies” … his 2017 Fake News Awards. He teased it up as “The Most Dishonest and Corrupt Media Awards of the Year” … and here are the HUGE winners (losers?) in his words. No shocker, CNN took the most trophies. 

The tweet below has a screenshot of the winners, as posted on Legal Insurrection:

The GOP rightly introduced the results — including sources — with this:

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.

That is true.

Paul Krugman discredited

How wrong could Paul Krugman be? This is what happens when personal bias obliterates objectivity:

Donald J Thump — of Thump: The First Bundred Days — tweeted:

Here’s a page from the book, for children — and adults — alike:

Nothing for CNN’s Acosta

CNN’s Jim Acosta did not receive a Fakey:

He was told to leave after a press briefing in the Oval Office the other day in front of President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan.

Of course, Acosta paints himself to be a victim:

That was far from his first offence against Trump and his administration, which dates back to the post-election transition period in 2016.

Regarding this incident and Acosta’s history, The Conservative Treehouse sums it up perfectly:

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta has a history of rude journalistic behavior and disrespect that has never before been allowed in the White House.

… the CNN journalist exhibited a level of disrespectful behavior that should lead to his White House press credentials being revoked permanently.

In a lesser offence, last year, Acosta insisted that CNN reports the truth:

This is how Big Media see themselves:

How public sees media

This is the most accurate description summing up the media:

Praying Medic has a good take on Big Media stories from the past year, starting at No. 12:

Someone replied with this item about MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow:

Fake news remembered

Many of us remember not only the fake news but also the omissions from the news cycle in 2016:

Fake news can cost lives.

What will it take for these ridiculously overpaid so-and-sos to stop it?

Earlier this week, I posted about an anti-Christmas message from 2014 that the Washington Post recycled this year.

There is more news about WaPo to tell.

A WaPo reader is upset

Jean-Marie Simon, who has read WaPo for 20 years, gave the paper information about her Christmas flight on United. Simon had bought a first-class ticket — seat 1A — only to find that she had been bumped by congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).

The Daily Mail has the full story with photos and Simon’s relevant Facebook posts. It is not surprising that WaPo did not want to cover it. What is surprising is that Simon, a schoolteacher, thought they would do so (Facebook post courtesy of Reddit):

Here’s another — albeit facetious — view of the situation. Courtesy of 8chan:

One wonders if Simon will continue to read WaPo after this.

Perhaps this incident red-pilled her.

The Post

In other WaPo news, a movie — The Post — made its debut before Christmas. The New York Post gave it three out of four stars.

This film documents how WaPo increased its national prominence as a newspaper.

The story is about the Pentagon Papers, which was a huge exposé in 1971 about how Lyndon Johnson’s administration lied about the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg was the Edward Snowden of his day. He had worked on the papers, a study officially called United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense.

Ellsberg and a friend, Anthony Russo, photocopied the pages in 1969 and approached a few political luminaries to see if they would be interested in disclosing it. Henry Kissinger, who was Richard Nixon’s national security adviser at the time, declined. So did two Democrat legislators.

In 1971, Ellsberg approached a reporter at the New York Times, giving him 43 volumes the following month. These were not published until June 13 that year. The excerpts were dubbed The Pentagon Papers.

The Nixon administration quickly tried — but failed — to stop the NYT from publishing another excerpt on June 14. Although one would have thought Nixon — a Republican — would have relished this as Johnson was a Democrat, Henry Kissinger told him that allowing the excerpts to continue would be dangerous, as nothing would prevent newspapers from publishing dirty laundry from his administration.

Oh, the irony — think Watergate, which WaPo broke with daily coverage from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Furthermore, the Nixon administration argued that Ellsberg and his friend Russo were guilty of a felony because they were circulating classified documents.

Attorney General John Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal injunction forcing the NYT to stop publication after three articles. The NYT appealed and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly ended up in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Ellsberg had given other portions of the study to WaPo reporter Ben Bagdikian, who took them to the paper’s legendary editor, Ben Bradlee. WaPo began publishing the excerpts on June 18.

Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist asked WaPo to stop publishing, but WaPo refused. Rehnquist tried — but failed — to get an injunction issued in US district court.

Ultimately, the NYT won the case in the Supreme Court on June 30, 1971. Fifteen other newspapers began publishing parts of the Pentagon Papers. In 1973, all charges against Ellsberg and Russo were dismissed — because of theft and bribery by the Nixon administration with regard to the case.

The Post shows how WaPo decided to publish the Pentagon Papers with all the drama involved.

The film also shows the male-dominated world of Katharine Graham, the only female publisher of a notable newspaper at the time. She was WaPo‘s publisher from 1969 to 1979. She then became chairman of the board and CEO before relinquishing the latter position in 1993. She continued to serve as chairman of the board until her death in 2001 at the age of 84.

Graham wisely put investigative reporting front and centre in a successful effort to ensure the NYT would not grab all the big Washington stories, such as the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

The New York Post‘s review says that, when this film was made, a female occupant of the White House was envisioned for 2017.

So much for that.

The present occupant makes much out of fake news, predominant in today’s WaPo and the NYT.

Philip Graham

Katharine Meyer Graham rose to the top at WaPo because she succeeded her husband Philip. Also of note is that her father, Eugene Meyer, bought the paper in a bankruptcy auction in 1933. Philip Graham succeeded his father-in-law as publisher in 1946.

Philip Graham (1915-1963) was an interesting character with a lot of Deep State connections. Spartacus Educational has a well-researched entry on him. Do read it all, including the footnotes. A summary with excerpts follows.

He was born in a small town in South Dakota. His parents relocated to Florida during his childhood. Graham ended up attending Harvard Law School and edited the Harvard Law Review.

He married Katharine Meyer in 1940, during which time he was a law clerk for the famous Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. Graham joined the Army Air Corps in 1942. He worked for the head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), William Donovan. In 1944:

Graham was recruited into the “Special Branch, a super-secret part of Intelligence, run by Colonel Al McCormick”. He later worked under General George Kenney, commander of the Allied Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific. Graham was sent to China where he worked with John K. Singlaub, Ray S. Cline, Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, Mitchell WerBell, Jake Esterline, Paul Helliwell, Robert Emmett Johnson and Lucien Conein. Others working in China at that time included Tommy Corcoran, Whiting Willauer and William Pawley.

From this, we can see that he was incredibly well-connected to power.

After the war, as the publisher for WaPo, he expanded his network further with a group of men known as the Georgetown Set. They included:

Frank Wisner, George Kennan, Dean Acheson, Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Joseph Alsop, Stewart Alsop, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Braden, David Bruce, Clark Clifford, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Chip Bohlen, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averill Harriman, John McCloy, Felix Frankfurter, John Sherman Cooper, James Reston, Allen W. Dulles and Paul Nitze.

Whilst this is showing my age, I grew up hearing and reading a lot of those names.

It is likely that Graham already knew some of those men from the war. Allen Dulles, to name but one, ran the New York OSS office.

Dulles headed the CIA during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. Richard Bissell worked with him. Cord Meyer was in the CIA. Meyer was involved with Project, or Operation, Mockingbird, which used big media outlets to drive a government narrative:

According to Katherine Graham, her husband worked overtime at the Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the reputations of his friends who had organized the ill-fated venture.

By the time of the 1960 presidential campaign, Graham did what he could to get Lyndon Johnson in the vice presidential slot for John Kennedy:

Graham met Lyndon B. Johnson in 1953. Graham believed that one day Johnson would make a good president. Graham told Johnson that his main problem was that he was perceived in Washington as someone under the control of the Texas oil and gas industry. Graham added that his attitude towards civil rights was also hurting him with liberals in the North. He was advised to go a “bit beyond (Richard) Russell and yet far short of (Hubert) Humphrey”.

Graham was a supporter of the Democratic Party and did what he could to get Johnson the nomination in 1960. When John F. Kennedy defeated Johnson he sent Clark Clifford to ask Stuart Symington to be his running-mate. Symington accepted the post but said: “I bet you a hundred dollars that no matter what he says, Jack will not make me his running mate. He will have to pick Lyndon”.

In the background Graham and Joseph Alsop were attempting to persuade John F. Kennedy to appoint Lyndon B. Johnson instead. Despite the objection of Robert Kennedy and other leading advisers, Kennedy decided to replace Symington with Johnson.

Once Kennedy was in the White House, Graham succeeded in persuading him to appoint his (Graham’s) buddies to administration positions: Douglas Dillon as Secretary of the Treasury, Arthur Schlesinger (former OSS) as a presidential adviser and David Bruce as ambassador to London.

Graham was able to expand the Washington Post Company by purchasing a radio and a television station as well as Newsweek and two prominent art magazines:

The main person involved in arranging Graham’s takeover of other media companies was Fritz Beebe. He ran the law firm Cravath, Swaine, & Moore. This was the company owned by Al McCormick, who Graham met during the war. Averell Harriman was another one involved in these negotiations.

Behind the scenes, things were less rosy, Even before Eugene Meyer died in 1959, a rift was growing between Philip and Katharine — Kay, to her friends. Graham’s mental state was not very good, either. Meyer wondered whether he should turn the company over to his son-in-law:

The Post publisher took a mistress, Robin Webb, whom he set up in a large house in Washington and a farm outside of the city. A heavy drinker who reportedly had manic-depressive tendencies, Graham, in some respects, was his own worst enemy, stridently abusive to his wife, both privately and publicly.

Katharine Graham’s biographer, Deborah Davis, posited that Graham was beginning to bother the CIA. After his second nervous breakdown he talked openly about how troubling he found Operation Mockingbird in terms of manipulating journalists:

He said it to the CIA… He turned against the newsmen and politicians whose code was mutual trust and, strangely, silence. The word was that Phil Graham could not be trusted. Graham was actually under surveillance by somebody. Davis has noted that one of Graham’s assistants “recorded his mutterings on scraps of paper.”

Others suggest that Graham had been damaged from undergoing CIA and other psychiatric treatments involving mind-altering drugs.

Graham told one of his close friends, WaPo attorney Edward Bennett Williams, that he wanted a divorce and planned on rewriting his will to leave everything — including the Washington Post Company — to his mistress instead of to Kay.

Williams was able to delay a divorce, but Graham rewrote his will three times in the spring of 1963. The last version omitted Kay altogether.

Then, Graham addressed a newspaper publishers convention in Arizona in a tirade about the CIA and Washington:

even to the point of exposing his friend John Kennedy’s affair with Mary Meyer, the wife of a top CIA official, Cord Meyer (no relation to Katharine Graham).

Katharine heard about it and flew to Phoenix:

and snatched up her husband who was captured after a struggle, put in a straitjacket and sedated. He was then flown to an exclusive mental clinic in the Washington suburb of Rockville, Md.

On the morning of Aug. 3, 1963, Katharine Graham reportedly told friends that Philip was “better” and coming home.

Suicides

That day in 1963, Philip Graham killed himself at home while Katharine was napping upstairs. The New York Post gives us this detail that other media outlets often suppress. He:

committed suicide at age 48 by shooting himself with a 28-gauge shotgun in 1963, days after being released from a psychiatric hospital following six weeks of treatment.

As he was not of sound mind when he died, his will was declared invalid. As he died intestate, Katharine assumed control of the Washington Post Company.

On December 20, 2017, one of the Grahams’ sons, William, 69, also committed suicide. He did not work at WaPo. He was a lawyer and law professor at UCLA. In later life, he turned to philanthropy. He died at his home in Los Angeles.

WaPo reported:

The cause was a self-inflicted gunshot wound, said his brother Donald E. Graham, a former Post publisher and chief executive.

Like Philip, William also left behind a wife and grown children. I hope they find comfort in the months ahead.

William did not live to see the national release of The Post.

Yesterday, I wrote about the latest Project Veritas video in the American Pravda series wherein a longtime IT consultant for the New York Times discusses the paper’s rampant Trump Derangement Syndrome.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the NYT put out a lot of fake news about then candidate Donald Trump, including this gem from one year ago:

The information can be verified on the NYT‘s presidential election polling page.

Regular readers of the paper are aware that their journalists continue to publish fake news about President Donald Trump on a daily basis.

Not surprisingly, Trump is furious with news media but happy with public reaction:

Another prime purveyor of fake news is CNN.

Yesterday, they launched an advertising campaign to redeem themselves. This is not a very good ad …

… especially since it was lampooned hours later:

Looking back to 2016, what follows are a few CNN whoppers. The Conservative Treehouse has more. I have borrowed some of theirs (TheLastRefuge).

During primary season, CNN’s Jake Tapper denied the network used a polling organisation called PPP. Yet, one of their articles cites PPP:

They were economical with the truth when it came to Trump’s campaign speeches:

As the presidential campaign ramped up in the autumn, attention turned to Hillary Clinton.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN presenter had a hard time believing Hillary’s staff destroyed several mobile devices with hammers. Her request for a fact check backfired hilariously:

When WikiLeaks began releasing the Podesta emails weeks before the election in November, CNN’s Chris Cuomo told viewers that it was illegal for Americans to view the emails. Only media had permission:

After the election, CNN began participating in the Russian collusion narrative. Note the disconnect between the headline and the story itself:

CNN are still lying. I have a load of CNN fake news links, but those will have to wait for another day.

Further confirming the Trump Derangement Syndrome at the New York Times as featured in yesterday’s post, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released Part IV in their American Pravda video series on October 19, 2017.

This video features an interview with an IT consultant for the paper. Todd Gordon has worked for the NYT for 20 years. He describes the Trump Derangement Syndrome running rampant there:

Project Veritas also published a summary of the interview, excerpted below.

How can one trust a paper where everyone despises the president of the United States?

PV Journalist: “Have you ever had anybody in New York Times’ office come up to you and say, I actually enjoy Trump?”

Todd Gordon: “No, no, no.”

PV Journalist: “Really?”

Todd Gordon: “Not one person.”

PV Journalist: “Not one person?”

Todd Gordon: “Not one, not one. Everyone hates him. They hate him like the plague, dude.”

The NYT has a set of ethical guidelines purporting to promote political impartiality, yet:

Gordon says that without a voice of dissent, it is impossible for the Times to be impartial towards Trump, “They unfairly, yes. I agree 100 percent. They unfairly report on him.” He continues:

PV Journalist: “How can they report…”

Todd Gordon: “They can’t.”

PV Journalist: “Without being biased, right?”

Todd Gordon: “You’re right, 100%. 100%.”

Gordon adds that one NYT employee was so angered by Trump’s 2016 victory that he left the paper to move to Canada!

Be suspicious when you next read a NYT article accusing Trump of colluding with Russia. Gordon says:

… hearsay, it’s all hearsay. And they’re like grab that hearsay and let’s put it out there.

James O’Keefe says more videos are on the way.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas team released a third American Pravda video on the New York Times on October 17, 2017.

You can see previous videos by clicking the American Pravda link above.

The third video features an interview with Desiree Shoe, senior home page editor. She’s an American who works in London. The interviewers are British. Considering that she is married, she’s a bit flirty with them (plays with her hair a lot). Must be the accents.

That aside, there is much Trump Derangement Syndrome:

If you don’t want to watch the 13-minute video, Project Veritas have a summary of the interview and Shoe’s quotes. Excerpts follow.

We discover that Trump is good for getting new subscribers to the paper. The NYT have labelled this phenomenon the ‘Trump bump’:

The New York Times senior homepage editor goes on to explain the positive effect of Trump’s victory: “Since the election, like you know…Speaking on, you know, for The New York Times, our subscriptions have sky-rocketed since…I mean, they call it the Trump bump.”

When asked if the NYT is turning itself into a ‘click paper’, she responds:

I mean, you’re not wrong. Like, I would love to be able to speak my mind completely about…If I ever leave the Times I’ll go back to you guys and tell you exactly what I think. But, I mean, there’s stuff like…And this is what I was trying to say is like the last couple years it’s changed for the bad.

Shoe admits that the paper does lean leftward:

The New York Times is not…I mean, it’s widely understood to be liberal-leaning. But, American newspapers are not supposed to claim a bias, they’re supposed to be objective.

That sounds reasonable, but clearly, she is adamantly against President Donald Trump:

I feel like Trump is…is just a…is sort of an idiot in a lot of ways. Just an oblivious idiot.

Going back to 2016:

I think one of the things that maybe journalists were thinking about is like…Oh, if we write about him, about how insanely crazy he is and how ludicrous his policies are, then maybe people will read it and be like, oh wow, we shouldn’t vote for him.

That said, Shoe opposes impeachment because she really loathes Mike Pence:

If you impeach him, then Pence becomes President, Mike Pence, who’s f***ing horrible…I think maybe, possibly worse than Trump.

He’s extremely, extremely religious. He [Pence] at one point backed a bill that hinted at conversion therapy for gay people…Which is like electrocution, stuff like that.

(Sigh.)

After the video came out, Shoe quickly protected her Twitter account. Someone created an archive.

Shoe has worked for the NYT since 2009. To date, there has been no fallout from this video. However, it is interesting to see, once again, that the paper’s ethical guidelines on impartiality are being violated.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,204 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

December 2018
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,408,348 hits
Advertisements