Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

The New York Times’ Cynical Exploitation of Anti-Semitism Crocodile tears when a leftist agenda is served. Ari Lieberman

On February 16, the New York Times, the go-to paper for the alt-left, ran an attack editorial piece deriding President Donald Trump’s response to two reporters who queried about how his administration sought to address the scourge of anti-Semitism. The editorial insinuated that Trump was aloof about the subject and insulated himself from criticism by pointing to his Jewish familial ties and strong support for Israel. It also implied that anti-Semitism is a recent phenomenon, a product of Trump’s immigration policies.

Admittedly, the president could have responded in a more forceful and robust manner in addressing this very important issue. In at least one instance, Mr. Trump likely misunderstood the reporter’s question – which was somewhat incoherent and rambling – leading to an unfortunate, charged exchange. But the New York Times’ editorial was not only far off the mark, it was disingenuous and reeked of hypocrisy.

During Obama’s tenure, college campuses across the United States experienced an explosion of anti-Semitic acts. These incidents have been well documented by watchdog groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Amcha Initiative. According to Amcha, anti-Semitic incidents are nine times more likely to occur at the universities or colleges that host groups like the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine or similar Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

These acts of overt Jew-hatred have manifested in various forms and have included intimidation tactics, verbal abuse, graffiti scrawls, denial of free speech or the right to peaceably assemble and increasingly, physical assaults. Often, school officials are completely indifferent to the plight of Jewish students or worse, complicit in anti-Jewish or anti-Israel incidents. In many instances, campus police have been told to stand down in the face of rowdy anti-Jewish protest, laced with anti-Semitic vitriol.

The situation for Jewish students on many college campuses has become so intolerable that some watchdog groups have invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in a desperate bid to combat Islamist driven Jew-hate. Yet during its two terms of office, the Obama administration did virtually nothing to combat this malevolency. Moreover, the rise of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses received scant coverage from radical leftist outlets like the New York Times. Obama’s inaction on the matter was effectively immune to challenge.

“Very Fake News”? You Bet Trump’s indictment is still an understatement. February 20, 2017 Bruce Bawer

I moved to Europe in 1998, and it was just about that time that the New York Times went online in a serious way. I still remember sitting at an Amsterdam café one day at happy hour and having an American tourist say to me, with obvious wonder: “Did you know that you can read the New York Times online every day? The whole paper? For free?” For years thereafter, nytimes.com was the first site I went to every morning. It was, after all, the “newspaper of record.” And at the time, I was a regular contributor to it. In those days, hardly a month went by without my byline appearing in one section of the paper or another – the book review, the travel section, the op-ed page, Leisure & Arts, Week in Review. Even after I published my book on Islam, While Europe Slept, in 2006, and the phone calls and e-mails from the dozen or so Times editors I worked with mysteriously stopped coming all at once, I continued to peruse the Gray Lady while sipping my morning coffee.

Even as it became clearer and clearer that the powers that be at the Times had committed the paper to a see-no-evil position on Islam, I kept reading it, although it became increasingly maddening to do so. After a certain point I started trying to break free – but it was tough, like trying to kick heroin. A few weeks ago, unable to bear the daily onslaught of anti-Trump propaganda, I finally managed it: I stopped reading the New York Times. Hold the applause: I’m pretty sure that at some point I’ll fall off the wagon.

But for the moment it feels good. What makes it feel even better is that I’ve also been entirely CNN-free for several months now. Well, almost entirely. I’ve slipped up a couple of times. The other evening, having read and heard about the wall-to-wall Trump-hate now on display at CNN, I felt obliged to check it out. Sure enough, when I put on Don Lemon’s show in medias res, he and a panel of “experts” were discussing Trump’s latest actions and statements. Uniformly, their reactions to everything were a combination of fake outrage and chuckling condescension. In short, nothing had changed since the campaign. None of them had learned anything. None of them was thinking seriously about anything. They were all still in the same reflexive mode. Who would want to watch any of this, except to see a reflection of his or her own lockstep hatred?

GERMANY’S “DER SPIEGEL” INCREDIBLE ANIMOSITY TO AMERICA SEE NOTE

Deutschland is struggling with an invasion of migrants many of whom are criminals, the EU is splintering, and the arrogance of Trump hatred is appalling. The recent issue had the following headlines:
Trump’s AmericaDemocracy at the Tipping Point
‘America First’Trump and Bannon Pursue a Vision of Autocracy
Trump as Nero Europe Must Defend Itself Against A Dangerous President
The Pain of a Donald Trump Presidency
Travel BanDonald Trump Better Watch Out!
Trump’s Attack on Germany and the Global Economy

And this column is the nastiest……
How America Lost Its Identity By Holger Stark
Reporter Holger Stark spent the past four years as DER SPIEGEL’s Washington correspondent during a time in which the country changed radically enough to elect Donald Trump as its president. What led this once mighty nation into decline?

On a frigid January evening one year ago, I was standing in a line of around 1,000 people in Burlington, Vermont, to see Donald Trump. I reported my very first story on the United States in 1991 and had been living in the country since 2013. I thought I knew the country well. But on that evening in January, I realized that I had been mistaken.

Burlington lay under a blanket of snow and next to me in line stood Mary and Tim Loyer, both wrapped in dark-blue parkas. Mary was unemployed and her son Tim had a job at a bar. Both told me they were Bernie Sanders supporters. Tim said he was particularly bothered by the power held by large companies, that the division of wealth was unfair and that people like him no longer had opportunities to improve their lives. It was the anthem of the working class.

When asked what he found attractive about Trump, Tim said: “Bernie and Trump are the only politicians who say what they’re thinking and do what they say,” as his mother Mary nodded along. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is corrupt, he said. In an election pitting Trump against Clinton, Tim said he would not vote for Clinton. Again, Mary nodded.

At the entrance, security personnel patted us down and asked if we were planning on voting for Trump. Only those who said yes were allowed to proceed.

When Trump began speaking, a demonstrator stood up and yelled that Trump was a racist. The candidate paused, shook his fist and demanded that security throw the protester out. “Keep his coat. Confiscate his coat,” Trump said from the stage. It was 21 degrees Fahrenheit (-6 degrees Celsius) outside. Trump snarled as his fans jumped to their feet hooting and jeering. One was reminded of a lynch mob.

I learned three things on that evening in Burlington: In the fatherland of capitalism, anger with the elite is so vast that even leftists would rather vote for a narcissist billionaire than a veteran of the political establishment. In a country that values freedom of opinion higher than almost any other country in the world, there were now attitude tests prior to admission to political rallies. And many Americans, who are otherwise so polite, lose all restraint when confronted by those who think differently.

Everything that I associated with America seemed no longer to apply on that evening in Burlington. What had happened to this once-proud country?

I found answers to this question on a journey through American society — to places like Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island and Virginia. Those are just a few of the places I have visited in the last four years — places where those symptoms could be seen that together add up to the huge crisis that has gripped America. This self-confident country that has spent decades exporting its values with imperialist hubris has lost its identity. Democratic capitalism no longer works well enough to keep together a country of 325 million people and to guarantee domestic peace.

The United States is not alone in having been struck by this identity crisis: It has also hit the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other countries. But America, where capitalism flourishes to a greater degree than anywhere else, has been hit the hardest of all.

The secret to the country’s success was not just that societal cohesion was anchored by one of the most liberal constitutions in the world, but also by the promise of advancement inherent in the American Dream. The result was an extremely powerful country that seemed unlimited in its possibilities. It wasn’t always attractive, and sometimes it was downright ugly, but the U.S. was always the country that the rest of the world looked to. America proudly led the way.

The America of today has lost faith in its own superiority. It has become a regressive country that is turning its back on the world. If you leave Washington, D.C., behind and travel through the country, from Alabama to Alaska, you will find that the American Dream has been lost. The country is no longer proudly leading the way.

With his diabolical instinct for the country’s political mood, Trump captured this shift on campaign evenings like the one in Burlington, distilling it to a single maxim that warmed the hearts of many in the United States: “America First.” Trump epitomizes America’s desire for a new identity, he has lit a beacon of hope for the white majority that still makes up two-thirds of the country’s population. Many of them have come to feel like foreigners in their own country. More than anything, though, he has promised to return greatness and values to this unsettled and adrift slice of society. That he will “Make America Great Again.”

Why the Media’s Trump Lie Machine is Failing No one believes the media anymore. Daniel Greenfield

Every five minutes the many mouths of the media broadcast, type, post and shriek that President Donald J. Trump is a liar. After months of this treatment, more voters find him truthful than them.

49% of voters believe that Trump and his people are telling the truth. Only 39% believe that the media is.

The media’s war on President Trump isn’t hurting him. It is destroying the media’s own credibility.

After Trump’s win, the media came to the conclusion that its biased attacks on him had been too subtle and understated to connect with the “dumb” voters. So it decided to be far more overt about its smears.

The New York Times, which used to be the best at disguising its biases in the omnipotent voice of professional journalism, called President Trump a liar in its headlines. The media cheered this descent into naked partisanship by the paper of record. But it didn’t hurt Trump. It hurt the Times.

Headlines blasting President Trump as a “liar” are easy enough to find on the internet. The New York Times derives much of its influence from its appearance of serious professionalism. Calling Trump names made it hard to distinguish the New York Times from the Huffington Post.

The first time the New York Times called Trump a liar was during the election. Times editor Dean Baquet insisted that while Hillary Clinton might “obfuscate, exaggerate”, Trump was a liar. And when the Times printed lies about Trump, it too was no doubt merely obfuscating and exaggerating rather than lying.

The Times can’t call its own candidate who lied about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia, negotiating peace in Northern Ireland and being kept out of NASA and the Marine Corps by sexism, a liar. And yet it expects someone, anyone, to believe that calling Trump a liar is anything more than a partisan smear.

Before the first debate, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and Politico all ran stories accusing Trump of being a liar. The coordinated attack failed to accomplish anything at all.

Washington Post Whitewashes Hater Of Women, Gays, And Jews Because He’s A Muslim Convert By Ilya Feoktistov

The Washington Post’s ‘hip, tolerant imam’ turns out to be a raving hater—and it’s all on tape.

What did it take for the Washington Post to accuse a Jewish man of racism for exposing a white man as an anti-Semite? That white man’s conversion to Islam.

That’s how reporter Bill Donahue treated Charles Jacobs, the president of my organization, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, in a January 17 puff piece on the influential Muslim convert and cleric, Imam Suhaib Webb: “An unlikely messenger becomes a guiding spirit to young Muslims.”

Jacobs marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and received the “Boston Freedom Award” from MLK’s widow, Coretta Scott King, for his work freeing black slaves in Sudan. But he is now apparently a racist because our organization’s research into the radical Islamic ideology of an Oklahoma-born white male conflicts with the Post’s portrayal of Webb as a cool former hip-hop DJ who knows how to hang with the kids while sharing his religious wisdom and liberal politics in rap lyrics.

I don’t quite get the hipness angle. Webb’s awkward affectations bring to mind Sacha Baron Cohen’s parodic character “Ali G,” a cringe-worthy mix of cultural appropriation, poseurism, and banality that would make Rachel Dolezal blush through her spray tan. But Donahue is a reporter on a mission.
Who’s Slandering Whom Here?

That said, his cool pose isn’t what makes the imam so objectionable, it just distracts from the underlying reality: Webb’s hateful rhetoric towards gays, women, Jews, and American society, and his connections to terrorism. So Donahue had to resort to outright falsehoods in ad hominem attack, claiming that Jacobs “alleged that Webb was anti-Semitic, homophobic and in cahoots with the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, even as Boston’s leading rabbis disagreed and one U.S. attorney, Carmen Ortiz, told the New York Times that Jacobs’s claims were ‘incredibly racist and unfair.’”

Some of these claims are demonstrably false. (Where is the Post’s editor?) Jacobs never accused Webb of being in cahoots with the World Trade Center bombers. In fact, in 1993, when the bombing happened, Webb was just beginning to explore Islam after a youth spent smoking weed and getting involved in drive-by shootings as a member of the Bloods gang.

Worse, perhaps: Ortiz said no such thing regarding Jacobs’ claims about Webb. She did pull that race card when Jacobs embarrassed her by pointing out that Webb’s former mosque, a partner in the Justice Department’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program that she led in Boston, is itself a major source of violent extremism.

It turns out Ortiz is not a credible source on matters of character, and this is not the first time she has slandered people. She resigned in disgrace after bipartisan outrage over her penchant for making baseless claims and “indicting the good guys” soon after Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz committed suicide after Ortiz indicted him on trumped-up charges.

For the Media, the Only Jihad Is Against Trump By Roger L Simon

In their zeal to “Jump on Trump,” is our media — not to mention their 9th Circuit cohorts — doing an immense disservice to the American public by obfuscating, effectively censoring, serious discussion of Islamic immigration and what to do about it?

It’s a global problem, surely, and we have a lot to learn from the mistakes of the Europeans who — according to the latest polls — are expressing serious regrets about their open-border immigration policies.

Several countries are beginning to return their migrants, sometimes offering economic incentives. And you can see why, reading last Friday’s report from the Gatestone Institute:

Several young gang-rapists started laughing in a Belgian court while yelling:

“women should not complain, they should listen to men.”

The seven ‘men’ were seen in a video where they are standing around an unconscious girl who is lying on a bed, then seen pulling down her pants and raping her. Also in the video, they are dancing around the victim and singing songs in Arabic.

The gang of perpetrators, aged 14 (!) to 25, consist of five Iraqi nationals, and two who hold Belgian citizenship. At least two of them are currently in their asylum procedure.

I imagine they’ll be getting some “extreme vetting.” Let’s hope so anyway. But does this “extreme vetting” go far enough? In America’s case, it’s complicated by the fact that Trump’s original seven countries in his travel ban are rather circumscribed and arbitrarily limited, despite having been the seven singled out by Obama. As we have seen on multiple occasions, second-generation jihadists come from all over Western Europe, like two of the above un-magnificent seven, not to mention North Africa and the obvious omissions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They come from Russia and the Far East as well. Shouldn’t they all be on the list? Yes, I realize the seven countries were chosen because at least some keep no verifiable records of who’s coming and going. But I’m not sure that matters. These days identities are more easily forged than ever. The Daily Beast reports you can buy an undetectable UK passport from the Neapolitan Camorra.

So can “extreme vetting” finally do the job it’s supposed to do? What is the real extent of its capability?

The Times Manipulates the Climate Science Scandal Data By Tully Borland

If you were only to read the New York Times’ latest article on the most recent Climate Change scandal first reported by the Mail and the Daily Mail, you would never know that there was any scandal to speak of in the first place. Headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” Well, not all researchers. The background of the data manipulation story revolves around accusations made by David Bates, a recently retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Among his several accusations is that NOAA “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris agreement on climate change,” a paper which would have been welcomed with open arms by the Obama administration. On February 4, Bates wrote a lengthy blog post at his website detailing the accusations. Here is a brief list of some of the charges:

1. Climate scientist, Tom Karl, failed to archive the land temperature data set and thus also failed to “follow the policy of his own Agency [and] the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation.”

2. The authors also chose to “use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95%,” and according to Bates, the authors failed to give a justification for this when pressed.

3. Karl routinely “had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Bates adds, “[a] NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming.”

4. Experimental datasets were used that were not run through operational readiness review (ORR) and were not archived.

The truth behind the under reporting of terrorist incidents By Ed Straker

President Trump initially said the media didn’t report some terrorist incidents, which was quickly clarified to mean that they underreported them. The New York Times released a long list of terrorist attacks they had covered in their reporting to counter Trump’s claim.

The Times was correct on the very narrow question but totally wrong on the underlying truth.

No one questions whether the Times, and the media, have reported most terrorist attacks. They have. But they report on terrorist incidents the way they report the weather. It is brief, to the point, and usually gone the next day. Most importantly, there is never any examination of the “why” behind terrorist attacks. The Times simply reports “A man shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ went and killed three people. He is now in custody,” expressing no greater interest in what caused the incident than what you would see about what caused rain on a particular day.

The underreporting that Trump is referring to is that total lack of curiosity on the part of the media about the motivations of the attackers. From that list the Times provided, you can see there have been many, many terrorist attacks by Muslims. Why are they committing so many attacks? Is this part of some trend that should concern us? The Times doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know.

Contrast that with the story of how a private security guard shot and killed a black man who was trying to pound his head into the pavement. The Times published literally dozens and dozens of articles exploring the possible racist motivations of the security guard. Every time a police officer shoots a black man (which, in a nation as large as 300 million people, can happen from time to time), the Times empties a well of ink trying to draw larger conclusions about the racism of the police.

Not so with radical Islamic terrorist attacks. There are no days and days of follow-up about the ideology that drove an Islamic terrorist. It happened, it’s over, that’s it, like a passing raincloud. That’s the underreporting I believe President Trump is referring to.

An inadvertent boost to Bannon by Ruthie Blum

In yet another attempt to discredit U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, The Washington Post inadvertently did just the opposite.‎

In a piece on Friday, national reporter Matea Gold revealed that she had obtained a draft ‎of a movie proposal written in 2007 by Bannon — at the time a Hollywood filmmaker — ‎aimed at warning viewers about radical Muslims turning the U.S. into the “Islamic States ‎of America.” ‎

According to Gold, the envisioned three-part documentary, titled “Destroying the Great ‎Satan: The Rise of Islamic Fascism in America,” was to open with a scene showing ‎the flag on the U.S. Capitol building emblazoned with a crescent and star, while chants of ‎‎”Allahu akbar” emanate from inside. Quoting from the film’s ‎outline, she said its purpose was to caution not only against jihadists, but against the “enablers among us.”‎

Gold said Bannon wrote that these unwitting Americans, with the “best intentions,” ‎were the media, the Jewish community and government agencies engaged in appeasing ‎Islamism and paving “the road to this unique hell on earth.”‎

She made sure to remind readers that the author is the ‎same Bannon who helped Trump forge his executive order restricting entry into the U.S. ‎of citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries. This unsubtle juxtaposition was supposed ‎to give credence to the claim, widely circulated prior to and since Trump’s election, that ‎Bannon is both an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe. ‎

But the stab at a double whammy fell flat on its face. If anything, Gold’s account was ‎cause for optimism about Bannon’s role in the administration that is taking shape in ‎Washington. ‎

Indeed, anybody outside Israel who grasped 10 years ago that radical Islamism was a ‎force not only to be reckoned with but guarded against in the West is a person who has ‎been paying attention. Despite the national trauma caused by the attacks on the World ‎Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, Americans quickly covered themselves in ostrich ‎feathers and put their heads in the proverbial sand, hoping that the war against al-Qaida that was ‎being fought far from their homestead would remain something they might catch a ‎glimpse of on the nightly news, but not feel, smell and taste. ‎

Unlike Israelis — virtually all of whom are soldiers even when in civilian clothes — citizens ‎of the United States are blessed with a choice about the extent of their involvement in ‎matters of national security and defense. As a result, many can and do go through life ‎without ever encountering men and women in uniform, let alone marching alongside them. ‎

The Anti-Trump Media’s Attack on Monica Crowley The nation loses a skilled national security analyst over a CNN hit job. Andrew C. McCarthy

My friend Monica Crowley was the subject of a major hit job by CNN a few weeks back. She is a serious scholar, but she was portrayed as a serial plagiarist who never had an original idea in her head. The emotional toll of the uproar caused her to withdraw from her appointment by President Trump to be the senior director of communications at the National Security Council.

It is the country’s loss. Over the last two decades, Monica has been one of the most effective commentators on the national scene regarding the geopolitical challenges confronting the United States, and in particular the phenomenon of jihadist terror catalyzed by sharia-supremacist ideology — radical Islam. As much as anyone I’ve encountered, she has been invaluable: communicating the threats, debating them, and defending sensible national-security measures.

All writers make mistakes. But Monica’s have been blown wildly out of proportion, to the point of smear. The well-regarded copyright attorney Lynn Chu has done a careful study of the plagiarism allegations and posted her findings on Facebook. Two things leap out.

The first is context. Readers were presented with a series of passages in which Monica is shown to have relied on the work of other writers (including yours truly) in two of her most notable written works: a bestselling 2012 book called What the (Bleep) Just Happened?: The Happy Warrior’s Guide to the Great American Comeback, and her 17-year-old Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation, “Clearer than Truth”: Determining and Preserving Grand Strategy. The Evolution of American Policy Toward the People’s Republic of China Under Truman and Nixon. What was not well explained to readers is that the cited passages constitute a bare fraction of what Ms. Chu correctly describes as “long, heavily researched, synthetic work[s]” — 361 pages in the case of the book, 461 pages in the dissertation, both heavily footnoted.

Secondly, about those footnotes: According to Ms. Chu, CNN itemized 37 passages out of the 461 dissertation pages as improperly mined from the work of others without sourcing; but 26 of these items were “straightforwardly false” because, in order to make Monica look like a plagiarist, CNN omitted her footnotes. As Chu writes:

Ms. Crowley’s paraphrases were correctly sourced in her footnotes. But in most of these 26, CNN had omitted her footnote references. CNN hid from readers that her footnotes gave proper credit to the source. Readers were disabled from being allowed to see or infer that sources were in footnotes. It seemed to selectively delete footnote references (though some were left in) — perhaps so that readers would assume no visible reference mark meant no footnote existed.

If this happened, it is shameful.

With respect to the book, of the 61 passages mined out of the 361 pages, Chu found 57 of them to be “unwarranted accusations” of plagiarism, stacked to make matters look much worse than was actually the case. She elaborates:

The match often seemed computer-generated from shared proper names and generic phrases, or news and anecdotes repeated by aggregators and editorialists. This type of material is generally considered fair use and/or public domain. As a result, this CNN list was misleadingly long, possibly a calculated attempt to condemn her with manufactured, but false, bulk.

To be sure, Chu found passages that should have been sourced. From a legal standpoint, these were woefully insufficient — both in number and scope — to support an allegation of plagiarism. Of course, writers understandably want credit for their ideas, and for their words even if the ideas they are expressing are not unique; thus, they tend hold other writers to a higher standard than the law does — which is as it should be.