Biased Media

Walrus Haulouts vs Netflix (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATED VIDEO:

…Unfortunately, despite Attenborough’s despicable attempts to yank on heartstrings, the population of dangerous polar bears is not falling.

The actual victims here are children young enough to take this crap seriously; ecoanxiety can be a serious psychiatric disorder, as Greta Thunberg demonstrates.

(MOONBATTERY)

Hoo Boy… now Netflix and other Media and environmental orgs are saying Walruses are a proof of Global Warming… except… this phenomenon has been observed for a long, long time. And IS NOT NEW like shown in popular media:

…Hype from the *Netflix/Attenborough ‘climate change is gonna destroy the world’ fearmongers earlier this year notwithstanding – or the media this summer trying to stir up climate change fever – the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined in October 2017 that the Pacific walrus is not being harmed by climate change and is not likely to be harmed within the foreseeable future (USFWS 2017). The IUCN Red List (2015) lists the Pacific walrus as ‘data deficient‘.

Large herds onshore are a sign of population health, not climate change, and walruses have come ashore in the Chukchi Sea during the ice-free season in summer and/or fall for more than 100 years (Crockford 2014; Fischbach et al. 2016; Lowrey 1985). Those are the relevant scientific facts….

(WUWT)

Dr Susan Crockford explains why the media coverage and statements by scientists and environmental organisations mislead people about the massive walrus haulout seen in Sept/October 2014. Read Susan Crockford’s paper, which refutes claims that Arctic walruses are in distress and danger due to global warming at: On The Beach: Walrus Haulouts Are Nothing New (PDF)

From POLAR BEAR SCIENCE:

I had an opportunity last night to watch the original Netflix ‘Frozen Worlds’ walrus episode and have some addition thoughts.

One big eye-opener was the final shot of the walrus sequence: a polar bear approaching from the water to feed on the carcasses below the cliff at Cape Kozhevnikov. This is additional proof that polar bears were in the area while the crew were filming. Yet the narrative in the film was silent on the risk to walruses on the cliff from polar bears and not a word was spoken of the hundreds of walruses that had fallen off that very cliff just days before after being spooked by approaching bears.

Oddly, I have also discovered that the Russian scientific advisor to the film, Anatoli Kochnev, wrote a scientific report in 2002 (translated into English) on walrus deaths at two regularly used beach haulouts on Wrangel Island from 1989-1996, when walrus population numbers were much lower than today and summer sea ice extent was higher (Kochnev 2002). He concluded that stampedes initiated by polar bears were responsible for most of the walruses found trampled to death.

This means Kochnev knew that polar bears nearby were a huge risk factor for walrus stampedes over the cliff but went along with the official ‘Our Planet’ narrative that no polar bears were involved and only lack of sea ice and poor eyesight were to blame for the carnage presented in the Netflix film.

In addition, a Google-translated photo-essay published by Kochnev’s friend Yevgeny Basov who had been invited to witness the spectacle at Cape Kozhevnikov in the fall of 2017 (posted 11 November 2017, original link here)(h/t WUWT commenter “it doesn’t add up”). The metadata on the photos in this essay shows that Kochnev was there on 16 Septmber 2017 (photo #2) and that walruses were already dying from falls off the cliff on 17 September (photo #22, see below), two days before the ‘Our Planet’ footage was shot.

This is almost certainly the event reported in The Siberian Times, when 20 polar bears were said to have spooked walruses at the top of the cliff, with hundreds fell to their deaths on the rocks below…..

* Season 1, Episode 2 Frozen Worlds

Some Examples of NYTs Faux Pas’

Published by Papa Giorgio

DAILY CALLER zeroes in on the first claim:

The New York Times has issued an absurdly written correction to a story about President Trump and Russian meddling.

White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.

[….]

Haberman’s story repeated a claim liberals began circulating following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October on the Russian influence campaign. Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.

The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.

The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview in May where she again repeated the phrase. Certainly, none of the other agencies disagreed on the record, but that’s to be expected if they didn’t conduct a separate analysis…..

(See also THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

MY PAST POSTS ON THE MATTER:

More on the second claim regarding the Steele Dossier being Russian propaganda — even though it was touted for over 2-years in the pages of the NYT:

Who knew? …On Saturday, the New York Times published a story about how the “Mueller Report [was] likely to renew scrutiny of the Steele Dossier.” The Times reports that the dossier’s contents could even have been a Russian disinformation operation aimed at then-candidate Trump. Which comes as no surprise to conservatives who have been following the story.

Remember, the Steele dossier came about because the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm, which then hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then paid a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who leaned on contacts close to the Kremlin to get information that was used in the preparation of the dossier.

Is it any wonder that those Russians, who wanted to sow discord in the United States, would jump at the opportunity to provide misinformation, knowing that the media would eat it up?…

(THE BLAZE)

ALSO (hat-tip RED STATE):

As it turns out, back in January 2018, New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the lead reporter on this story, was a member of a panel that somewhat resembled the Star Wars cantina scene at the International Spy Museum titled “Unpacking the Russia Story with the Experts Who Have Covered It.” The video is cued up to the appropriate cut for your convenience:

And regarding the New York Times correction to a story about Trump’s tax plan:

The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.

The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.

Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.

“Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but The New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point,” Freeman wrote on Feb. 27. “Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade The Times to reconsider?”

Well, The Times did reconsider — but it may still not be 100 percent accurate…..

(FOX NEWS)

A FEW MORE

The New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction to its story about another decades-old accusation of sexual misconduct against US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — because it failed to tell readers that the alleged victim doesn’t even remember the incident.

As The Post reported in its front-page story Monday, the Times piece omitted that crucial fact.

The Times article had been adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The newspaper claimed that Max Stier, a former classmate of the justice years ago at Yale University, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down at a party, and his friends then pushed his penis into the hands of a female student….

(NY POST | See also the NEW YORK INTELLIGENCER)

5 Biggest Screw-Ups by The New York Times So Far This Year

  1. Corrects Claim That 17 Intel Agencies ‘Agree’ on Russia
  2. Mistakes Parody Twitter Account for North Korea’s Official One
  3. Flubs Story on Food Stamps and Soda—Twice
  4. Editor Forced to Correct Statement on Attorney General
  5. Corrects Editorial Attacking Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory 

(DAILY SIGNAL)

The New York Times was forced to issue four corrections to a failed hit piece against Foundation for Defense of Democracies founder Mark Dubowitz.

Last week, the Times published a piece aimed at portraying Dubowitz as corrupt, unethical, and incompetent because he opposed former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and applauded President Donald Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the horrendous pact.

The embarrassing article falsely claimed that a GOP donor with financial ties to the United Arab Emirates gave FDD $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference; that Dubowitz “paid himself” twice as much as others who head think tanks; that Dubowitz created his own salary to far exceed his peers in the industry; and that the FDD is connected to Israel’s Likud Party.

Every single one of those claims is completely false, and the Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction admitting that its error-ridden piece had to be updated.

As noted by the correction, here’s the truth: Dubowitz’s compensation is determined by a board of directors, meaning he doesn’t arbitrarily create his own salary; his annual salary is almost identical with other think tank leaders; the FDD is not directly tied to the Likud Party in any way; and GOP donor Elliott Broidy gave $360,000 for the  FDD conference, not $2.7 million….

These weren’t minor errors where someone’s name was misspelled or the date of an event was wrong. This was intended to be a disgusting, salacious, hit piece against Dubowitz because he gave credit to Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal.

The piece is uniquely embarrassing because of the volume of the embarrassing errors and how easy it should have been for editors to catch the erroneous claims.

In fact, the errors are so egregious it appears like the Times deliberately inflated figures and peddled falsehoods to ramp up the heat on Debowitz….

(I LOVE MY FREEDOM)

ETC., ETC., ETC….

Coronavirus and Media Hype

Published by Papa Giorgio

First a post by ACE OF SPADES, with a large excerpt from the NY POST article:

The breathless reporting from pretty much every source, with the exception of Michael Fumento in the NY Post is typical of the no-nothings in the media and their tenuous relationship with logic and the Scientific Method and pesky little things like data and numbers and statistics.

And the facts are very, very thin. We don’t know much other than what the Chinese government is telling the world, and I believe them about as much as I believe that Epstein killed himself. Maybe it’s worse than they are reporting. Maybe it is overblown to deflect attention from other things in China, like Hong Kong! And maybe it is just like most of the other diseases that emerge from China and then fizzle in developed countries because we are healthier, cleaner, have better medical care and more efficient ways to get that care to the people who need it.

I have no idea how this will shake out. Is it the next pandemic, with hundreds of millions dead? Maybe, but I doubt it. Is it the next SARS? Probably. And how many Americans died of SARS? From the CDC:

  • In the United States, only eight persons were laboratory-confirmed as SARS cases. There were no SARS-related deaths in the United States. All of the eight persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS had traveled to areas where SARS-CoV transmission was occurring.

For all of American medicine’s faults, we do a pretty good job of minimizing the severity of things like the flu and TB and Measles and Pertusis and all sorts of diseases that are major killers in other parts of the world. Will I take a trip to Wuhan? hell no. But until there is evidence of this virus being a significant health threat in the developed world I will not worry too much.

Here is the NEW YORK POST:

A CNN reporter broadcasts from Wuhan, China, on the recent viral outbreak. There is nobody near who could possibly infect him ­— unless the cameraman has Guinness Book of Records coughs and sneezes. So why does he insist on wearing a blue surgical mask while talking?

It’s called “drama,” which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019-nCoV or Wuhan ­virus. It should actually be called the DvV, or Déjà vu Virus, because we have been through these hysterias before. Over and over. Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.

Once you start debunking mass hysteria over outbreaks, it gets easy, because the same patterns repeat themselves.

The best remedy for all epidemic hysteria is perspective. How is this new outbreak different and thus potentially more dangerous from other diseases we have dealt with in the past or are dealing with now?

Wuhan is repeatedly labeled “deadly” — but so is every other ­virus most people know about. But especially deadly? Nearly 600 cases have been confirmed with at least 17 reported deaths.

[….]

What we can say for sure is that Wuhan will be a lot worse in China, simply because health care there is vastly inferior. It appears that, like flu, Wuhan usually kills through ­often treatable secondary infections. Well, treatable in the West. You’d be surprised at how many potentially deadly diseases ­(malaria, TB) Americans get that wreak havoc in much of the world but kill essentially none of us.

It also appears those most likely to die of Wuhan virus fit the same profile as flu fatalities: people over 65, those with compromised immune systems and those with serious pre-existing conditions. Two of the 17 Wuhan dead were 89-year-olds with pre-existing conditions; the youngest was 48 and suffering from diabetes and a stroke.

Contagiousness is highly important, of course. But so far, there is no evidence that Wuhan, first ­reported more than three weeks ago, is more contagious than ­influenza or spreads differently.

Those are the important factors; everything else is noise and tinfoil-hat paranoia.

[….]

It’s inherently bad because it’s new, we’re told. So were swine flu and SARS.

Chinese health officials warned it could mutate further to either become more deadly or more contagious. Same was said about the aforementioned outbreaks. Actually, viruses usually mutate to become less deadly, to preserve the host body and hence themselves.

The media are correct in saying the closest comparison here is SARS. It also was first reported in China and was what’s called a coronavirus. But while they want you to remember SARS as akin to the Black Death with cries of “Bring out your dead!,” fact is, there was a grand total of only 8,098 cases, of whom 774 died. Then the disease simply disappeared. More than 7,000 of those cases and about 650 of the deaths occurred just in mainland China and Hong Kong. The United States had just 75 cases and zero deaths.

By contrast, the CDC estimates about 80,000 Americans died of flu two seasons ago.

So if you want, buy a (probably worthless) surgical mask to play “twins” with those “courageous” TV newsmen. Or you may consider that flu shots are still available.

 

FLASHBACK: Media Bias During 2008 Election (Larry Elder)

Published by Papa Giorgio

*Larry Elder uses a question by CNN’s Dan Lothian to Obama and Salon’s editor and columnist Joan Walsh’s interview with Howard Kurtz regarding the media “swooning” over Obama to make a point about — yep — MEDIA BIAS. (Nov 17, 2011)

*My Vimeo account was terminated; this is a recovered audio from it. (Some will be many years old, as is the case with this audio.)

Dan Lothian question documented by:

Joan Walsh and Howard Kurtz discussing the 2008 media reaction to Obama:

History Began Long Before Trump Killed Soleimani

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally from the Houston area, Congressman Dan Crenshaw is a 6th generation Texan, a retired Navy SEAL, and a current member of the U.S. House representing Texas’s second congressional district.

THE FIVE — BONUS:

Glacier National Park Removes “Gone By 2020” Signs

Published by Papa Giorgio

This video was found on WUWT’S WEBSITE…. “But by 2019 NOT EVEN ONE of the glaciers had disappeared.” (See also a previous post on this)

One can see pictures with dates on them, that the glaciers are not shrinking as predicted, in which Roger Roots documents some of the most famous spots the adorn most walls from Glacier National Park (WUWT):

…The average date of first freeze in East Glacier, Montana is September 13th.  It is only then that one can assess whether the glaciers are getting bigger or smaller than in previous years.

In September 2015, Lysander Spooner University launched an annual research project aimed at visiting GNP’s glaciers every year at their lowest points.  This year a small group of us opted to hike to the popular Grinnell Glacier and take a few snapshots on September 16.  We hiked the 5.5 miles from the Many Glacier Hotel and arrived at glacier’s edge late in the afternoon.

The Grinnell is perhaps the most iconic of two dozen named glaciers in the Park.  Untold thousands of people have hiked to it.  Millions more have been exposed to government imagery of the Glacier melting away.  The nearby Many Glacier Hotel features pictures on its walls showing the Grinnell’s decline from the 1880s to 2008.  Numerous blog posts and magazine feature stories have also addressed this theme.

Upon our return to the Hotel after visiting the Glacier, we noticed that our brand-new photos appear to show that the Grinnell Glacier has grown slightly from the 2008 images that are displayed on the Hotel walls.  There has been no reporting of this in any newspaper or broadcast that we know of.  (In fact, all news coverage reports the precise opposite.)  The smaller Gem Glacier—which is visible from the valley miles below—also appears to be slightly larger than it is shown in 2008 pictures on display….


….

ZEROHEDGE note from WUWT’s article, the following, with an addition:

….The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

  • I live very close to Glacier National Park, and while the media has been saying for years that the glaciers are “disappearing”, there has been no significant change in the park’s glaciers in the time I have resided here.  The news above only reinforces the reality that if the climate is “changing”, it is only getting colder, NOT warmer…. – Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market.com

But again, this is nothing new… glaciers have been shrinking (thank gawd) for 20,000 years. And the Scare tactics are nothing new (click pic for link):

 

Removing Trump From Home Alone 2

Published by Papa Giorgio

(DAILY CALLER) Fox & Friends guest Mark Steyn criticized the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) Thursday after it omitted President Donald Trump’s scene from the movie “Home Alone 2” during December airings.

Conservative commentator Mark Steyn spoke on Fox & Friends about the omission, accusing the broadcast corporation of being “terrified” about reminding people “just how deranged his [Trump’s] opponents are.”

  • “I think they’re actually terrified that people will remember that before [Trump] was the new Hitler, he was a beloved mainstream cultural figure”

EVERY TRUMP cameo:

James Baker Lied Then With What We Now Know

Published by Papa Giorgio

LIBERTARIAN HUB notes this recent rumination from Baker and then the FLASHBACK video:

…In an interview on CNN, Baker went further in his critique of the bureau than did FBI Director James Comey, who said Sunday that he believed the FBI was “sloppy” in its efforts to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page.

“Sloppiness is completely unacceptable. That is not the way you operate in front of a federal court. I don’t know what word you want to use, it’s terrible, it’s unacceptable, it shouldn’t happen. That is not the way we should be filing matters in front of a federal court,” Baker told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“I was distressed about it. I was completely distressed about it,” Baker said of his response to the inspector general’s (IG) findings.

Baker has testified that he personally reviewed the FISA applications against Page, given their political sensitivity….

MSM Told Us The FISA Warrants Were Good for 2-Years

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via ACE OF SPADES: The Media Told You For Two Years That Everything About the FISA Was Perfect and Beautiful: The Supercut IG Michael Horowitz’s testimony erases Democratic talking points about the FBI’s handling of the outset of the sprawling Russia investigation.

Fiona Hill’s False Dilemma (Plus: Russian Bots)

Published by Papa Giorgio

One of the dumbest things I heard from Fiona Hill is the following:

[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/actdottv/videos/1227037777483174/” width=”680″ height=”400″ onlyvideo=”0″]

Rep. Elise Stefanik responded well to this false binary choice. It is like “Freydo” asking time-and-time-again if his guest didn’t trust the CIA when his guest was just speaking about Brennan. It is true that Russia interfeared with our elections in minor ways…

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE)

…it is ALSO true that Ukraine interfered with our elections. Here is the kick-ass Representative responding:

 

Gregg Jarrett Documents 6-Lies To The FISA Court

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gregg Jarrett filled in for Sean Hannity on Friday (11-27-19) and discussed aspects of the FISA Warrants I am sure many do not know. All of this can be found in his book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“.

I add a quote from HotAir (just pass the 8-minute mark) discussing the New York Times saying the Steele Dossier is garbage and probably Russian propaganda. But this is after two years of them using it as “Gospel Truth” – here is that and a couple other noteworth articles:

  • NY Times: Say, This Steele Dossier Appears To Be False (And Maybe Was A Russian Disinformation Effort) (HOT AIR)
  • If This New York Times Reporter Suspected the Dossier Was a Fraud Why Is He Only Reporting on It Now (RED STATE)
  • NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual (DAILY WIRE)
  • WTF MSM!? NY Times Admits the Dossier May Have Been a Russian Disinformation Operation (THE BLAZE)

At any rate, this is a great pre-cursor to the December 9th IG Report… which will be followed up by clarifications from Durham, surely.