Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

The media is giving up its place in our democracy see note please Chris Wallace

The media feeds anti-Trump bias disguised as news which is taken up by Facebook and social media and then taken as absolute truth…..and Fox, while more nuanced is part of the problem…..Note Tucker Carlson’s obsequious interview of rabid leftist Max Blumenthal….rsk
Chris Wallace is anchor of “Fox News Sunday.” This op-ed is adapted from a speech he gave Nov. 9 to the International Center for Journalists.

Whatever side you’re on in the debate over journalism these days, you’re not going to like some of what I have to say. Let’s start with a basic fact. President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on the free press in our history. Since early in the campaign, he has done everything he could to delegitimize the media — attacking us institutionally and individually. And I think his purpose is clear: a concerted campaign to raise doubts over whether we can be trusted when we report critically about his administration.

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, between Jan. 10 and the end of October, Trump tweeted about “fake news” 141 times. One stands out. On Feb. 17, the president tweeted this: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American People!” And that was precisely his point. If we report negatively about something he’s doing, we are hurting the country.

Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, was my guest on “Fox News Sunday” two days later. When I asked him about the president’s tweet, he complained that, yes, we covered what Trump did, but that “as soon as it’s over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies.” I answered: “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama. He whined about Fox News all the time. But he never said we were the enemy of the people.”

But don’t take it from me. Listen to William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL for 37 years, the man in charge of the missions that captured Saddam Hussein and killed Osama bin Laden. McRaven graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in journalism. He’s now the chancellor of the University of Texas system. And after the president’s tweet, he told students: “This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”

Remember, this is a man who fought the Soviet Union, who fought Islamist terrorism. But when I asked him about his comments, he said, “Those threats brought us together. Both the president and I swore an oath to the Constitution. And the First Amendment of that Constitution is freedom of the press. When the president says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy.”

It turns out McRaven may have understated the threat. A Politico poll a couple of weeks ago found that 46 percent of voters believe that major news organizations make up stories about Trump. A Newseum Institute poll in May found that 23 percent think the First Amendment “goes too far.” And 74 percent don’t think “fake news” should be protected by the First Amendment.

But there is another side to this debate, as there usually is. There’s an old saying: “Even hypochondriacs sometimes get sick.” And even if Trump is trying to undermine the press for his own calculated reasons, when he talks about bias in the media — unfairness — I think he has a point.

A Leftist Crank on Fox News Tucker Carlson fetes an Israel-hater. Sohrab Ahmari

Strange ideological changes are afoot over at the Fox News Channel. The latest sign came Tuesday, with a Max Blumenthal appearance during prime time. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/leftist-crank-fox-news/

The anti-Israel author and agitator–whose virulent hatred of the Jewish state has long made him a darling of neo-Nazis and Iranianstate television–looked delighted to be on the network, courtesy of Tucker Carlson. And with good reason. Here was a fine opportunity to hawk his conspiratorial vision of Israel and U.S. foreign policy to a conservative audience that is normally well-disposed toward Jews. (Full disclosure: I used to work for the Wall Street Journal, whose parent company and Fox News share common ownership.)

The topic was the Justice Department’s decision on Monday requiring the Kremlin propaganda outlet Russia Today (RT) to register as a foreign agent. “It’s no defense of the content of RT,” Carlson said, “to wonder why journalists who are rightly concerned about any government attempt to regulate their product are applauding the regulation of this cable channel. Why is that?”

Blumenthal framed the DOJ move as an attempt to silence brave dissidents such as, well, Max Blumenthal: “I go on RT fairly regularly, and the reason I do so is because, while the three major cable networks are promoting bombing and sanctioning half the world, at least the non-compliant nations, RT is questioning that.” Yes, and when RT’s “questioning” comes up short on facts, the network resorts to using video-game footage to claim that Washington is supporting Islamic State.

There was no pushback from Carlson, usually known for his spunky, combative style. Nor did he bother to present a charitable version of the opposing argument. In the Washington Post, Brookings fellow and COMMENTARY contributor James Kirchick has written a strong brief for why the U.S. should make it harder for RT to access American airwaves. Yet I’m not quite persuaded of the wisdom of such restrictions. I worry about opening the door, even an inch, to government regulation of broadcast speech, even if that speech comes from an adversarial, autocratic regime. Perhaps such moves make sense in small, fragile, Kremlin-endangered states that lack a robust indigenous media. But in the U.S., with its large and diverse media market, the best antidote to Moscow’s lies is truthful reporting.

But never mind all that. What Blumenthal wanted to talk about were the real sources of malign foreign influence in Washington: the Jews. Or as Blumenthal put it to Carlson, “the Israel lobby and organizations like [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which have been promoting a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, war on Lebanon, war on Iran, which is [sic] not required for some reason to register as a foreign agent, and I don’t why that is.”

CNN Makes Compelling Case Why It Shouldn’t Exist Daniel Greenfield

CNN has had some really dumb stories about President Trump. There was CNN’s claim that he was afraid of stairs.And that he had two scoops of ice cream.But CNN has really outdone itself.

CNN, like the rest of the media, spends a lot of time complaining about being under attack by the White House. And then making lots of noises about the First Amendment. No one doubts that CNN has a First Amendment right to run “Trump’s face found in a dog’s ear “.

But maybe at this point shutting down CNN would be doing it a favor. Not in a punitive sort of way, but just as an intervention.

CNN, like the rest of the media, can’t quit Trump. Its Trump Derangement Syndrome just leads it to humiliate itself with utterly insane broadcasts like this.

Trump doesn’t have to convince anyone that CNN is fake news. CNN does that all on its own.

Forget the fake part. I’m not too sure CNN can even convince anyone it does any kind of news.

Fake News: 53 Pastors Didn’t Endorse Roy Moore After the Sexual Assault Allegations By Tyler O’Neil

Contrary to numerous media reports, 53 pastors didn’t just endorse Roy Moore after the sexual assault allegations against him. Conservative Christians are very divided over whether or not to continue their support. That did not stop quite a few outlets from portraying Christian leaders as utter hypocrites, however.

“A group of 53 Alabama pastors signed onto a letter pledging their support for alleged child molester and Senate candidate Roy Moore,” Newsweek’s Carlos Ballesteros began his report. “The letter, first posted on Moore’s wife’s personal Facebook page, describes the embattled candidate as a friend to religious conservatives and a staunch opponent of the ‘Washington establishment.'”

The Newsmax report also said the letter came out Monday. “Fifty-three Alabama pastors on Monday released a letter of support for Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore despite multiple accusations of sexual misconduct on his part,” that story read.

Even conservative outlets like The Washington Examiner and RedState reported this fake news. AL.com, HuffPost, and the The Daily Caller also originally reported this lie.

What actually happened? Moore’s wife Kayla reposted an old letter … from August 15! Here’s the letter she posted:

Pastor’s Letter

Dear friends and fellow Alabamians,

For decades, Roy Moore has been an immovable rock in the culture wars – a bold defender of the “little guy,” a just judge to those who came before his court, a warrior for the unborn child, defender of the sanctity of marriage, and a champion for religious liberty. Judge Moore has stood in the gap for us, taken the brunt of the attack, and has done so with a rare, unconquerable resolve.

As a consequence of his unwavering faith in God and his immovable convictions for Biblical principles, he was ousted as Chief Justice in 2003. As a result, he continued his life pursuit by starting the Foundation for Moral Law, which litigates religious liberty cases around our Nation. After being re-elected again to Chief Justice in 2012, by an overwhelming majority, he took another round of persecution for our faith as he stood up for the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

The Media That Cried Wolf By Tom Trinko

In a week in which CNN cried wolf when there was no wolf by falsely condemning Trump for poor fish-feeding habits, is it surprising that decades-old charges of sexual impropriety being leveled against Judge Roy Moore aren’t being unquestioningly accepted by voters?

We can all remember a number of times when the media has proclaimed a wolf was present when we later discovered they were wrong.

There is Global Warming… err, Climate Change where we were told that by now the world would be doomed but somehow that hasn’t happened.

We were told that the black man shot in Ferguson was holding his hands up to surrender.

In the last century the media informed us that overpopulation would lead to mass starvation. Of course, that was bogus.

We were told that many women had been assaulted by Trump but the fact that they all apparently disappeared after the election makes reasonable people wonder if there was a wolf.

The media can’t stop talking about Russian colluding with Trump even though after months and months of investigation absolutely nothing has been found.

Clearly a reasonable person would hesitate before assuming that salacious charges raised weeks before a contentious election by a highly biased news source is true. The media has cried wolf so often when there was no wolf that sane people reserve judgement until there’s more proof.

That attitude is exacerbated by the fact that when wolves do appear the media often fails to mention them.

We know that none of the major networks have mentioned the fact that for more than two months a Democratic senator has been on trial for accepting bribes.

We know that the media ignored a credible claim that Bill Clinton raped a woman.

We know that the media ignores the fact that thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democrat-run cities.

A political reality moment at the NYT By David Zukerman

New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, in his November 13 column, “Democrats, Don’t Be Fooled By Victory,” reflected on Democratic election wins, particularly the re-election of a Democrat as governor of Virginia.

Leonhardt noted: “The reality is, the Democratic victories occurred almost entirely in areas that had voted for Hillary Clinton last year. In Trump country, Democrats continued to struggle.” Leonhardt went on to cite Virginia, cited the study of “Patrick Ruffini, a savvy conservative pollster,” that of the 15 legislative districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat, “only a single one of those 15 districts had voted for Trump.” Leonhardt also pointed out that Ralph Northam, Virginia’s governor-elect, did worse than the current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, “outside of the big metropolitan areas,” having “fared worse” than McAuliffe in 89 of Virginia’s 133 counties and cities.

Leonhardt advised Democrats “to get the white working class to focus on the working-class part of their identity rather than the white part.” This, however, would require first, that Democrats put an end to disparaging white voters and, second, that they shift their campaign pitch from demonizing President Trump to finding ways and means of seeking common ground with his voters.

An exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” November 12, between Martha Raddatz and Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez indicates that a Democratic shift away from the politics of Trump-hate will not be easy for the left:

RADDATZ: OK. In our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of Americans say Democratic leaders are mainly criticizing Trump, not presenting alternatives. Is the Democratic message too much about Trump and not enough about your vision?

PEREZ: Oh, we were leading with our values in Virginia and elsewhere. And, again, we talked about health care a lot, because health care is a right for all, not a privilege for a few. And the number one issue for voters in Virginia was health care. They understand that the Republicans are trying to take their health care away.

RADDATZ: Let’s go back to President Trump again — and again, 61 percent of Americans say Democratic leaders are mainly criticizing Trump. You say that’s not true. Billionaire Tom Steyer, he’s the single biggest donor to the Democratic Party in the last two election cycles, put millions of dollars behind an ad calling for President Trump’s impeachment.

An Immigration-Enforcement Fairy Tale from the New York Times The Gray Lady’s latest argument against stricter enforcement doesn’t pass the smell test. By Jessica Vaughan & Steven Camarota

The New York Times recently highlighted a new analysis of immigration-enforcement data that is sure to be used in the coming months to undermine the initiatives of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. The Times article, by staff writer Eduardo Porter, argues that years of “tough” enforcement under Obama failed to improve conditions for working Americans. Been there, done that, as it were, in response to President Trump’s call for tougher enforcement.

This analysis is deeply flawed, for two reasons. First, it uses inappropriate, incomplete, and doctored enforcement statistics to present a misleading picture of recent enforcement trends. Second, Porter relies heavily on a working paper and a forthcoming analysis by pro-immigration economist Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, to argue that enforcing immigration laws does not help natives and in fact harms the economy.

Let’s examine the arguments on enforcement first. Porter states that “President Barack Obama went on a deportation spree in his first term.” To illustrate this “deportation spree,” he includes a bar graph labeled “Immigration Shock.” It claims to show annual interior apprehensions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the leading interior enforcement agency, from the period 2000 to 2015. The graph depicts a distinct “surge” beginning in 2008 and accelerating in 2009 before dropping off in 2013. This is meant to show that enforcement was ramped up considerably in the Obama administration:

The first problem with this is that Porter chooses apprehensions, or arrests, as a metric to illustrate a deportation spree. But an arrest is not the same as a deportation, and is not by itself an ideal metric for measuring the effectiveness of enforcement. Not all those arrested for immigration violations are deported. Why not just show deportations, since those statistics also are available?

Further, especially under Obama’s “prosecutorial discretion” policy, a significant number of the aliens arrested by ICE officers were released after only a short time in custody. Some of these individuals had their charges dropped or thrown out of immigration court; others were let out of custody on bond or under “supervision,” but skipped out on their hearings and melted back into the illegal population. In fact, according to our calculations, the number of interior deportations over the period 2009–2015 (1.15 million) is only 63 percent of the number of interior apprehensions (1.84 million), illustrating that a very large number of those apprehended by ICE in the interior during this time were never deported from the country. If illegal immigrants who are arrested at some point nonetheless remain in the country, then so does their labor-market impact, undermining the enforcement-does-not-help-native-born-workers argument advanced by Porter’s piece.

It gets worse. These statistics aren’t just an unsatisfactory measure of enforcement; they are also inexplicably doctored, in a way that changes the timing and shape of the enforcement surge. The apprehension totals in the bar graph, which are sourced to the Department of Homeland Security and to Peri, do not match the official statistics published on the DHS website. We asked Peri about the discrepancy, and he told us that the Times had made adjustments to the numbers. Specifically, he said, the Times had subtracted from the annual totals any cases where the apprehension location was not specified, which are collectively labeled “Unknown” in the DHS statistical tables. Peri said that the Times wanted to count only interior arrests. But the DHS table makes clear that all arrests it attributes to ICE are interior arrests (as opposed to arrests made by Customs and Border Protection officers, including the Border Patrol). It is not clear what innocent explanation there could be for subtracting these “unknown” cases.

Celebrating Islam across North America From Mississippi to Ontario, adults and children alike are being fed the most grotesque of lies. Bruce Bawer

It’s happening all over North America – including places you might think were too remote to even conceive of such activities. Take Missoula, Montana, where the local newspaper, the Missoula Current, reported last April on a group called Standing Alongside America’s Muslims (SALAM), formed a year earlier “to push back against a rising tide of Islamophobia.” The Current report on SALAM, as it happened, appeared two weeks to the day after the deadly suicide bombing in the St. Petersburg, Russia, Metro, by an affiliate of Al-Qaeda. (You already forgot that one, didn’t you?) The Current also brought the news that the Missoula City Council, in an effort to address supposed “waves of anti-Muslim sentiment,” had designated April 24-30 as “Celebrate Religious Freedom Week” to coincide with SALAM’s own “Celebrate Islam Week.”

What is SALAM all about? A tour of its Facebook page indicates that it’s especially focused on the fount of evil that is Donald Trump and on his satanic attempt to establish a “Muslim ban.” The page contains graphs and charts illustrating how few Muslims live in the U.S. and how few Americans die from jihad terror compared to other causes. (There are no charts showing the recent surge in both the population and deadliness of European Muslims.) One evening in September, SALAM sponsored a quiz about Islamic culture, containing such questions as: “What spice do Syrians like in their coffee? How do you say ‘delicious’ in Arabic? What stringed instrument do Iraqis play?” (Presumably there were no questions about the several different types of female genital mutilation, the Islamic penalty for apostasy, the punishments for homosexuality prescribed by various Islamic theological traditions, or the age of Muhammed’s wife Aisha at the time of their marriage.)

While delicately avoiding any mention of jihadist attacks, moreover, SALAM’s Facebook page does a great job of compiling stories about, for example, women who claim to have been called names for wearing hijab. It has also reprinted such garbage as a Foreign Policy article whitewashing Jonathan Brown, the head of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, who has defended Muslim slavery, child rape, and execution of gays.

News Nanny: The Race to Censor Internet News If we don’t fight now, conservatives will vanish from the internet. Daniel Greenfield

How can you tell that internet censorship is really taking off? Easy. It’s becoming a business model.

Steven Brill is raising $6 million to launch News Guard. This new service will rate news sites on their trustworthiness from green to red. Forget politically unbiased algorithms. The ratings will be conducted by “qualified, accountable human beings” from teams of “40 to 60 journalists.” Once upon a time, journalism meant original writing. Now it means deciding which original writing to censor.

“Can trust be monetized?” The Street’s article on News Guard asks. But it isn’t really trust that’s being monetized. It’s censorship. It’s doing the dirty work that Google and Facebook don’t want to do.

The Dems and their media allies have been pressuring Google and Facebook to do something about the “fake news” that they blame for Trump’s win. The big sites outsourced the censorship to media fact checkers. The message was, “Don’t blame us, now you’re in charge.”

Facebook made a deal with ABC News and the AP, along with Politifact, FactCheck and Snopes, to outsource the censoring for $100K. When two of these left-wing groups declare that an article is fake, Facebook marks it up and viewership drops by 80%.

Facebook is reportedly considering adding the Weekly Standard to its panel of fact checkers. Even if that were to happen, it would be the difference between putting the New York Times without David Brooks or the Times with David Brooks in charge of deciding what you can read on Facebook. Adding a token conservative who is acceptable to the left doesn’t change the inherent bias of the system.

Not only does the roster of fact checkers lean to the left, but so do its notions of what’s true and false. For example, Snopes and Politifact both insist that General Pershing’s forces never buried the bodies of Muslim terrorists with pigs. But General Pershing specifically stated in his autobiography, “These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig.”

Permanent Investigation: How the Media Uses the anti-Netanyahu Playbook Against Trump And how to resist it. Daniel Greenfield

The latest news from Israel’s left-wing media outlets is that Ratan Tata, an Indian billionaire, testified to the Israeli police about Prime Minister Netanyahu. The story turned out to be fake news. And that’s true of most of their anti-Netanyahu hit pieces along with the police investigations that accompany them.

But that doesn’t matter.

Americans are just now being introduced to the permanent investigation and its scandal rolodex. Israelis have been living with this Deep State assault against their democracy for much longer. Over eight long years, leftists in the judicial system and the media have manufactured a non-stop campaign of scandals and investigations against Netanyahu. The investigations and the scandals fall apart, but it doesn’t matter because there are usually several being rotated in and out from the scandal rolodex.

The scandals and investigations fall into two categories that should be familiar to Trump supporters.

Category one scandals link some random billionaire to Netanyahu through a chain of connections. The random billionaire in this case is Indian. Then there’s an Australian billionaire in Mexico, German shipbuilders and whatever part of the globe the media-judicial alliance throws a dart at next.

The fake news media in this country is following the same game plan. The latest media hit pieces target Wilbur Ross, Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, in much the same way. Indeed the Russia scandal developed out of media hit pieces that used Trump’s international network of businesses to build up very similar conspiracy theories about foreign interests and influences.

These types of scandals constantly imply corruption without ever actually proving it. But by generating a whole lot of them, they create the sense that Netanyahu or Trump must have done something wrong.

Though no one can say what, because no one can keep track of all the fake scandals.

Category two scandals are character attacks. “He’s a bad person.” Typical examples are Trump’s condolence call controversy and accusations that Netanyahu’s wife is mean to employees.