Biased Media

The New Morality | State Religion

Published by Papa Giorgio

Albert Mohler’s [important] Briefing from 4-20-18. My previous post on this is entitled: “California Wants To Curtail Free Speech.” Usually I grab a smaller clip from THE BRIEFING, but this is an attack on our faith that needs full attention. Here is the descriptions from the shows segments:

  • California set to enact legislation barring sale of any books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs on sexuality (NATIONAL REVIEW has an important article on this “wind change.”)
  • Christians no longer welcome? What’s really behind the line of questioning in a Senate committee hearing (Dennis Prager discusses Cory’s TOTALITARIANISM)
  • Army chaplain under fire after refusing to facilitate a marriage retreat for same-sex couples (Here is the ARMY TIMES article)

THE FEDERALIST has an important article on the matter as well. The entire article is worth spending some time with over a cup of joe:

FactCheck.org has joined Snopes as another sneaky liar with their article on Apr. 25 entitled “California Bill Wouldn’t Ban the Bible.” Although per the “Editor’s note,” “FactCheck.org describes itself is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false stories,” it is not without its left-wing biases.

Article author Angelo Fichera claims that California Assembly Bill 2943 has no bearing on the sale not only of the Bible but also of any Christian book that makes the case, in whole or part, for orientation, identity, or behavior change. Although Fichera asserts claims about AB 2943 banning books “are indeed not supported by the language in the legislation,” he does not actually analyze the contents of the bill.

The extent of his “research” is to cite a tweet from the bill’s author, California assemblyman Evan Low, and an email from attorney Anthony J. Samson, a registered state lobbyist who “provided Low with technical assistance on the bill.” Another quote from Samson is now offered in the updated Snopes article.

Low and Samson are hardly impartial sources. They have a vested interest in getting the bill passed into law before massive opposition can galvanize. FactCheck.org never bothered to do the most basic investigative work of all: “factcheck” the bill’s author and his assisting attorney in relation to the language of AB 2943.

FactCheck-org would never take Donald Trump’s or Jeff Sessions’s word for what a certain anti-immigration bill of theirs says. So why does FactCheck-org take the word of Low and Samson about what AB 2943 allegedly says, particularly since it appears to be at odds with the wording of the bill?

[….]

Bill’s Author Agrees It Can Apply to Churches

Now let’s go back and see how the bill’s actual wording applies to Low and Samson’s remarks. Low’s first comment in his tweet is a devastating new admission: “A church or individual may still practice conversion therapy if they do so without charging for this fraudulent service.” The flipside of this statement is that “a church or individual” cannot “practice conversion therapy” if there is a charge for the service.

Contrary to what many supporters of the bill have been saying, the bill’s application extends beyond mental health professionals (note that the Snopes article claims this is unclear). There is no exemption for religious instruction. We now have confirmation from AB 2943’s author that the bill would indeed apply “to a pastor, Bible study or house church leader, member of a parachurch organization working to help people afflicted by same-sex attractions, or indeed anybody who attempts change if goods or services involve an exchange of funds.”

AB 2493’s wording does not support Low’s second statement: “It does not ban bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would have you believe.” The only way that such a statement, particularly the second half, could be true is if the sale of a book were not included as “a transaction… which results in the sale… of goods… to any consumer” or did not come under the heading of “selling a financial product.” It is difficult to see how that could be the case.

For example, the California government’s own guide to “Understanding California’s Sales Tax” gives as its first example of how “sales tax . . . depends on the tax rate and the dollar value of the goods sold” that of a retailer who “sells five books costing $20 each” at a tax rate of 8 percent (my emphases). There is no puzzling over whether the sale of “books” could count as a sale of “goods.” It’s obvious.

“Goods” are broadly defined in AB 2943 as “tangible [movable] chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” By what rationale, then, can Low claim the sale of books is excluded from the bill’s designation “sale of goods”? If Low were so concerned to exclude book sales from his bill, he would have to have excluded “books” from the category of “goods” explicitly…..

The Utter Collapse of Trump-Russia Gate

Published by Papa Giorgio

Rush Limbaugh discusses the utter collapse of the conspiracy known as “Russian Collusion.” The latest bombshell is by Rep. Devin Nunes, which I add near the end of this first hour [35-minutes here] of yesterdays show (TRANSCRIPT), destroys the narrative every news org (save one) has been making. B-u-t, people like to be told what to think, and so “group think” looms large on the Left.

Censorship On Largest Scale In Human History

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Don’t forget the IRS scandal or lying to FISA Court judges, or the JournoLIST scandal or the ClimateGate issue [and the MANY others] in order to weaponize the government against conservatives or to push Leftist ideology by way of obfuscation of the truth.)

Bozell says, “This is the emerging of the greatest censorship of free speech worldwide in the history of man. Now, let me explain this, the left is on a jihad against conservative thought. It’s happening in academia, entertainment, business, religion, everywhere.” More from NEWSBUSTERS:

….The Media Research Center has undertaken an extensive study of the problem at major tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube — and the results are far more troubling than most conservatives realize. Here are some of the key findings:

  • Twitter Leads in Censorship: Project Veritas recently had caught Twitter staffers admitting on hidden camera that they had been censoring conservatives through a technique known as shadow banning, where users think their content is getting seen widely, but it’s not. The staffers had justified it by claiming the accounts had been automated if they had words such as “America” and “God.” In 2016, Twitter had attempted to manipulate election-related tweets using the hashtags “#PodestaEmails” and “#DNCLeak.” The site also restricts pro-life ads from Live Action and even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), but allows Planned Parenthood advertisements.
  • Facebook’s Trending Feed Has Been Hiding Conservative Topics: A 2016 Gizmodo story had warned of Facebook’s bias. It had detailed claims by former employees that Facebook’s news curators had been instructed to hide conservative content from the “trending” section, which supposedly only features news users find compelling. Topics that had been blacklisted included Mitt Romney, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Rand Paul. On the other hand, the term “Black Lives Matter” had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending. Facebook had also banned at least one far right European organization but had not released information on any specific statements made by the group that warranted the ban.
  • Google Search Aids Democrats: Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had assisted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats. One study had found 2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had revealed the search engine’s results had favored both Clinton and Democratic candidates. Google also had fired engineer James Damore for criticizing the company’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” The company had claimed he had been fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore is suing Google, saying it mistreats whites, males and conservatives.
  • YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos: Google’s YouTube site had created its own problems with conservative content. YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels “by mistake” to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special Creators for Change section is devoted to people using their “voices for social change” and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account celebrate progressive attitudes, including uploading videos about “inspiring” gay and trans people and sharing the platform’s support for DACA.
  • Tech Firms Are Relying on Groups That Hate Conservatives: Top tech firms like Google, YouTube and Twitter partner with leftist groups attempting to censor conservatives. These include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both groups claim to combat “hate,” but treat standard conservative beliefs in faith and family as examples of that hatred. George Soros-funded ProPublica is using information from both radical leftist organizations to attack conservative groups such as Jihad Watch and ACT for America, bullying PayPal and other services to shut down their funding sources. The SPLC’s “anti-LGBT” list had also been used to prevent organizations from partnering with AmazonSmile to raise funds.
  • Liberal Twitter Advisors Outnumber Conservatives 12-to-1: Twelve of the 25 U.S. members of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council – which helps guide its policies – are liberal, and only one is conservative. Anti-conservative groups like GLAAD and the ADL are part of the board. There is no well-known conservative group represented.
  • Tech Companies Rely on Anti-Conservative Fact-Checkers: Facebook and Google both had partnered with fact-checking organizations in order to combat “fake news.” Facebook’s short-lived disputed flagger program had allowed Snopes, PolitiFact and ABC News to discern what is and is not real news. Google’s fact-checkers had accused conservative sources of making claims that did not appear in their articles and disproportionately “fact-checked” conservative sources. On Facebook, a satire site, the Babylon Bee, had been flagged by Snopes for its article clearly mocking CNN for its bias. YouTube also had announced a partnership with Wikipedia in order to debunk videos deemed to be conspiracy theories, even though Wikipedia has been criticized for its liberal bias.

(Full Special Report can be found here.)

The New York Times Best Seller List IS #FakeNews

Published by Papa Giorgio

The New York Times best seller list really isn’t that. What it is is merely an editorial “what you should read, not what actually sells the best.”

The NYT’s even had the audacity (or the lack of self awareness in their egalitarianism aims) to publish a graph of the male and female authors by decade. It showed a clear male dominance over the women. However, as the decades progressed, the sexes got closer to being even, until, the final decade in the graph, they were very similar in books on the New York Times best seller listing.

But this graph, then, is merely an illusion. Since they control the list and who makes it on the list — they can control whichever factors they wish to. Like gender for instance. So they can even out the sexes on the list to give the appearance that male and female authors are writing and selling great books, equally. It does not reflect reality. Nor does this “evening-out process” have anything to say about how well something is written. It merely projects what the few editors think is important to the New York Times.

The majority of authors are — I presume — white. So soon a similar graph will surely show an evening out of minority vs. Caucasian authors.

Facebook “Convo”

I posted a link to this article discussing Trump’s foreign policy advancements as compared to Obama’s in regard to “Nobel Peace Prizes.” Here is part of the article:

North and South Korea are discussing plans to make a stunning announcement at their leaders summit next week: a permanent end to the 68-year state of war between the two, according to reports.

North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in may release a joint statement saying they will seek to end military conflict, an unidentified Seoul official told the Munhwa Ilbo newspaper, Bloomberg reported.

The two men are scheduled to meet April 27 in the border village of Panmunjon — the third-ever summit of leaders from the two Koreas.

Pyongyang and Seoul have technically been at war since the 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended with a truce. Despite occasional flare-ups between the two nations in the years since the armistice, the two Koreas have managed to avoid an all-out war.

A successful summit could pave the way for a historic meeting between Kim and President Trump — the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader….

Later we find out that Pompeo met with the North over Easter weekend. A person simply said “Wow…..” MIND YOU, I am reading a lot into his “Wow,” but here is my response to the larger issue:

You do realize people like myself do not really want Trump to get the Nobel Prize in Peace, but what is being intimated by the article (OP) is that Obama got his just eight and a half months in the White House.

The prize was nothing more, then, than Leftist panels awarding a Leftist person they idealized with a hopeful fiction.

(In fact, all of Leftism is an idealization of a Utopian dream. A “Super Man” in the “Nietzsch’ian sense”… genderless, able to offend no one, always concerned for the welfare of others in the market place, etc. REALLY THEN, a pipe-dream but one enforced by legislative acts. Dangerous in other words.)

It is similar, then, to the NYTs posting this graphic as if it means something (https://tinyurl.com/y9jck4x3). Since the NYT Best Seller list are really editorial choices and not based on the reality of “which books actually sell the best,” their being proud of an evening-out of male-to-female authors is meaningless. (Unless you live in a bubble: SNL – https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI)

It is a form of self-gratification, or as David French calls them, the “New Holy Rollers.” That is, “social justice warriors.” The NYT sees themselves as such in creating a fictitious reality in order to fool people with what is really an illusion that says nothing of literary excellence.

You see, when you believe you are morally superior, when you have dehumanized those you disagree with, you can justify almost anything.

Like giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a person who will hold to an illusory ideal created whole cloth from nothing.

So, if that is the standard…

…then…

…the Trump administration has already surpassed it. As we found out with the meeting over the Easter weekend. Ultimately nothing may come of it, but it is more “hope and change” to the real world than what Obama had “accomplished.”

THAT is the point.

Facebook Was FOR Data Mining BEFORE They Were Against It

Published by Papa Giorgio

Just so we are clear on the numbers (GP):

  • Facebook announced in early April that the data of up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared with a political consulting firm connected to President Trump during the 2016 election.
  • But in 2012 the Obama campaign harvested data from 190 million Facebook users.

The media cheered in 2012 the sheer brilliance of the Obama campaign. Data used for similar GOP “mining”? Not so much.

TIME (11/20/2012):

…But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. For supporters, the app appeared to be just another way to digitally connect to the campaign. But to the Windy City number crunchers, it was a game changer. “I think this will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign,” says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign’s digital director.

That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them. “People don’t trust campaigns. They don’t even trust media organizations,” says Goff. “Who do they trust? Their friends.”…

Another interesting article that links to Obama’s campaign managers Twitter is this one at THE DAILY MAIL:

‘They were on our side’: Obama campaign director reveals Facebook ALLOWED them to mine American users’ profiles in 2012 because they were supportive of the Democrats

  • Carol Davidsen, who worked as the media director at Obama for America, claimed Obama campaign mined millions of people’s information from Facebook
  • She said that Facebook was surprised at the ease with which they were able to ‘suck out the whole social graph’
  • But the firm never tried to stop them when they realized what was doing, and even told them they’d made a special exception for them
  • They ‘were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,’ she tweeted
  • Davidsen said that she felt the project was ‘creepy’ – ‘even though we played by the rules, and didn’t do anything I felt was ugly, with the data’
  • Davidsen posted this in the wake of the uproar over Cambridge Analytica, and their mining of information for the Trump campaign

[….]

Carol Davidsen, who worked as the media director at Obama for America and has spoken about this in the past, explained on Twitter that she and her team were able to ingest massive amounts of information from the social network after getting permission from Facebook users to access their list of friends.

‘Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing,’ wrote Davidsen.

She wrote that, not only did Facebook not try to stop them, but the company said they’d made a special exception for them. 

‘They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,’ she tweeted.

Davidsen was then careful to note: ‘I am also 100% positive that Facebook activity recruits and staffs people that are on the other side.’ ….

Also, remember this?

BEFORE IT’S NEWS has the transcript:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.

“That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

Trump’s First 60 and 100 Days of Media Coverage (+ More)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Jump To EXHIBITS)

Fox Business discusses the issue:

Here is the first 60-days assessment by PEW RESEARCH:

  • …immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)

For this study, MRC analysts looked at all 505 evening news stories that mentioned President Trump or his administration in January and February. Out of 851 total minutes of airtime devoted to the administration, the networks spent almost one-fourth of it (204 minutes, or 24%) on the Russia investigation, eclipsing other major topics such as the economy, immigration reform, and even the gun debate.

Since Trump took office on January 20, 2017, the three broadcast evening newscasts have spent a combined 1,438 minutes on the Russia investigation, accounting for more than one out of every five minutes (21%) of coverage of the Trump presidency….

(MEDIA RESEARCH – March 2018)

It’s no secret that the media are not President Trump’s loudest cheering section, but a new study released Thursday by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy lends a certain amount of credence to President Trump’s recent claim that “No politician in history” has been “treated worse or more unfairly” by the media.

The report, based on an analysis of “news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Timesand BBC, and Germany’s ARD),” found that media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days “set a new standard for negativity” at 80 percent negative coverage.

Clinton received 60 percent negative coverage during his first 100 days, George W. Bush had 57 percent negative coverage, and Obama had just 41 percent negative coverage.

“Trump’s coverage was unsparing,” the report found. “In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”

[….]

“CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study found. “Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post(83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative).”

“Fox was the only outlet where Trump’s overall coverage nearly crept into positive territory—52 percent of Fox’s reports with a clear tone were negative, while 48 percent were positive. Fox’s coverage was 34 percentage points less negative than the average for the other six outlets.”

“Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump,” the study’s authors noted, “Should it continue, it would exceed even that received by Bill Clinton. There was not a single quarter during any year of Clinton’s presidency where his positive coverage exceeded his negative coverage, a dubious record no president before or since has matched.”

“Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level,” they add. “During his first 100 days, Clinton’s coverage was 3-to-2 negative over positive. Trump’s first 100 days were 4-to-1 negative over positive.”….

(TOWNHALL – May 2017)

…For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant….

(MEDIA RESEARCH – April 2017)

FACEBOOK CONVERSATIONS

In a discussion on Facebook, a person noted the following:

…That said, I also know that the first step in indoctrination of a population is to demonize the press. Look at any fascist, communist, autocratic, dictatorial government and you will find the same element.

All of the far-right Trump supporters love to scream “fake news” whenever they hear something they don’t like. That’s not how the world works: Truth is truth, whether we like it or not.

If the only “sources” these people consult are Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, er. al, then they are simply getting a reinforcement of their narrative.

— Robin HB

(Notice how broad brush strokes are used, no examples given… you will see that I give examples of why often times the label “Fake News” should be used. But if one needs approval by “specialists,” the ATLANTIC says it’s okay to use the term. I would like to say as well that Robin used ad hominem attacks in describing anything that veered off of a Leftist point of view.)

This neither noted the fact that FOX NEWS has the most balanced audience of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Nor did it respond to the idea that FOX NEWS is actually fair and balanced. Nor does it deal with the idea out of the television news shows that FOX is the only slightly right leaning broadcast. (You see, this cannot be allowed to happen without Fox being lumped in to Info Wars or Prison Planet!)

Here is my response specifically to her statement I posted, some of the above may be repeated. Note as well that the idea here is that there really is #FakeNews, and that Pulitzer Prizes are won because of it:

Firstly, “FAKE NEWS” as a term was used by Hillary before Trump used it… so its etymology predates Mr. Hotel. Second, states like those of Communists and Fascists (Italy) and the neo-Pagans in Germany use the media. And in fact, many Leftists that visited Venezuela praised Hugo in “federalizing” the media.

Here is another example of the bias in media, and so, #fakenews in what it omits and admits (I can show hundreds):

★ EXHIBIT ONE ★

Of 141 stories on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows that mentioned the efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and their Senate counterparts during the ObamaCare repeal/replacement debate, and discovered that while congressional conservatives were overwhelmingly given ideological labels, those that opposed them were rarely, if ever, labeled by journalists.

(More can be found in my post, here: MEDIA SHOWS THEIR BIAS BY LABELING)

★ EXHIBIT TWO ★

  • “There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” –New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
  • “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
  • “Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
  • “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” –New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
  • “There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” –New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

(More in my post here: JEFF FLAKE’S STALIN COMPARISON #FAKENEWS)

★ EXHIBIT THREE ★

PBS’s American Experience documentary About Clinton

In a great example of how the media guides it’s listeners down a path full of narratives they [said media] wish were true… we find in a touted “honest” Clinton documentary many lies and missteps (Clinton | American Experience). Larry Elder is in his element here as he excoriates the depths of this false narrative. His article is a must read for those interested. Near the back-half of the audio Larry offers other media silence on issues surrounding Democrats. They [Democrats] apparently have a no fly zone in regard to honest reporting.

★ EXHIBIT FOUR ★

Chuck “Sleepy Eyes” Todd  admits to using “Alternative Facts.” [Hear him say as much!]

★ EXHIBIT FIVE ★

A week from the 2000 Presidential Race

Rush Limbaugh discusses journalistic “parroting” talking points. He takes us back to June of 2000 when “Dubya” announced Dick Cheney as his VP — the montage is from 2:00-to-2:55, and the voices heard in it are listed on Rush’s site as well as belolw. Great stuff, I missed this montage from soo many years ago, even Conan O’Brian used it (January 2014). See more at NEWSBUSTERS.

Here are the montage voices:

  • AL HUNT: He meets all of George W’s weaknesses, lack of gravitas.
  • JUAN WILLIAMS: We see the son, who is seeking some gravitas.
  • CLAIRE SHIPMAN: They were looking at candidates with gravitas.
  • STEVE ROBERTS: But he has the gravitas and you can sum it up in one word, stature.
  • VIC FAZIO: It may go to the gravitas.
  • JEFF GREENFIELD: We’re to use the favorite phrase, gravitas.
  • LESTER HOLT: This is a vice president who brought gravitas.
  • WOLF BLITZER: This will give some gravitas, add some credibility.
  • ED ROLLINS: I think the gravitas that Cheney brought to the ticket.
  • JONATHAN ALTER: What he gets is gravitas, a sense of weight.
  • BOB KERREY: He does not need anybody to give him gravitas.
  • MARGARET CARLSON: It means that, you know, gravitas.
  • MIKE MCCURRY: I think he also needs some gravitas.
  • SAM DONALDSON: To give gravitas.
  • ELEANOR CLIFT: Well, he brings gravitas.
  • WALTER ISAACSON: He does seem to bring some gravitas.
  • AL HUNT: It’s called gravitas.
  • MARK SHIELDS: A little gravitas!
  • JUDY WOODRUFF: You certainly have gravitas tonight.
  • SAM DONALDSON: He displayed tonight a certain gravitas.
  • MARIO CUOMO: I think gravitas is the word. Unfortunately for the Governor, you can’t graft gravitas. … He has gravitas.

★ EXHIBIT SIX ★

How about the 157 journalists making stories up in order to divert attention away from Obama’s racism? Known as “JournoList” There is a “JournoList 2.0” as well. THEY ARE LIBERALS FIRST, JOURNALISTS SECOND.

★ EXHIBIT SEVEN ★

(Back to how print and media LABEL guests)

Dennis Prager discusses a recent example of bias in how the media reports issues, here is an example from the article, “… becoming the second candidate from the city’s political right to launch their candidacy Monday. Swain, outspoken and polarizing…” (TENNESSEAN)

Montage of Media Parrots from 2000 (Bush/Cheney)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Rush Limbaugh discusses journalistic “parroting” talking points. He takes us back to June of 2000 when “Dubya” announced Dick Cheney as his VP — the montage is from 2:00-to-2:55, and the voices heard in it are listed on Rush’s site as well as belolw. Great stuff, I missed this montage from soo many years ago, even Conan O’Brian used it (January 2014). See more at NEWSBUSTERS.

Here are the montage voices:

  • AL HUNT: He meets all of George W’s weaknesses, lack of gravitas.
  • JUAN WILLIAMS: We see the son, who is seeking some gravitas.
  • CLAIRE SHIPMAN: They were looking at candidates with gravitas.
  • STEVE ROBERTS: But he has the gravitas and you can sum it up in one word, stature.
  • VIC FAZIO: It may go to the gravitas.
  • JEFF GREENFIELD: We’re to use the favorite phrase, gravitas.
  • LESTER HOLT: This is a vice president who brought gravitas.
  • WOLF BLITZER: This will give some gravitas, add some credibility.
  • ED ROLLINS: I think the gravitas that Cheney brought to the ticket.
  • JONATHAN ALTER: What he gets is gravitas, a sense of weight.
  • BOB KERREY: He does not need anybody to give him gravitas.
  • MARGARET CARLSON: It means that, you know, gravitas.
  • MIKE MCCURRY: I think he also needs some gravitas.
  • SAM DONALDSON: To give gravitas.
  • ELEANOR CLIFT: Well, he brings gravitas.
  • WALTER ISAACSON: He does seem to bring some gravitas.
  • AL HUNT: It’s called gravitas.
  • MARK SHIELDS: A little gravitas!
  • JUDY WOODRUFF: You certainly have gravitas tonight.
  • SAM DONALDSON: He displayed tonight a certain gravitas.
  • MARIO CUOMO: I think gravitas is the word. Unfortunately for the Governor, you can’t graft gravitas. … He has gravitas.

A Dylann Roof “Mantra” Still Alive at CNN

Published by Papa Giorgio

NEWSBUSTERS has this conspiracy myth:

On Thursday’s At This Hour on CNN, Symone Sanders joined Angela Rye in the list of liberal CNN political commentators who have repeated a discredited myth that the gunman in the Charleston church massacre, Dylann Roof, was given special treatment by police before being incarcerated.

[….]

Sanders jumped in: “Okay, pardon me. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, are we really going to … I really think it’s problematic here when we start to demonize the victims in these cases.”

She soon cited the debunked myth of Roof as evidence of special treatment received by white criminals as she soon added:

I’m not going it sit here and let you say that Alton Sterling was basically a criminal that was reaching for his gun and deserved to get shot because, guess what, the young man that shot and killed 17 people on a high school campus the other day, he was taken into custody alive. You know, Dylann Roof, who walked into a church and shot nine people, he was taken into custody alive and then was taken to Burger King to get a burger before they took him to jail. 

So the problem here is, it seems at though when we have suspects or people who are engaged in situations with police officers that are a little bit more melanated than some of our counterparts, they seem to not make it out of the situations alive.

On Tuesday, Rye also repeated the claim about Burger King as she debated conservative CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson on the Alton Sterling case.

But, as documented by Snopes, Roof was not taken to Burger King by police. He was simply supplied with food from Burger King while he awaited transfer to a larger jail because the small jail where he was initially incarcerated did not have the facilities to supply with him in-house food, and the restaurant was nearby. If the liberals want to argue that prisoners should be denied food, that would make an interesting segment…….

Nets MUTE Dissenting Points of View (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Andrew Pollack’s daughter was killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Kyle Kashuv was a student there. They both have a message that the media does not want you to hear. But on the eve of the March For Our Lives, it is a message that needs to be heard. (Hat-tip to DC CALLER)

NEWSBUSTERS points out the following: “Nets: Parkland Anti-Gun Activists Overwhelm Gun Rights Advocates by 11 to 1“

  • CBS handed over the most amount of time (28 minutes, 8 seconds) to anti-gun rights talking heads and guests. The pro-gun rights side was allowed a mere one minute and 30 seconds on CBS’s evening and morning shows.
  • NBC offered 21 minutes and 8 seconds of airtime to gun control activists to just one minute and 37 seconds to Second Amendment supporters. 

Updated via BREITBART: Parkland Victim’s Father on Mission to Make Schools Safer… Without Grabbing Guns | Son Blocked from Speaking at D.C. March: ‘Guess He Didn’t Have the Right Agenda’

Before his daughter was shot and killed in her high school, Andrew Pollack was living a simple life in Florida.  

He was semi-retired, worked real-estate on the side, coached lacrosse, ate right, went to the gym twice a day and spent part of the day training his dog and spent time with his kids. 

“I went from blessed to cursed,” he says about the tragic day that his daughter Meadow, a high school senior, was murdered by a psychotic former student who walked into her school with a rifle. Now his life has changed forever, and Pollack is on a mission to make schools safer, but not by marching to demand more gun control. 

Instead, Pollack went to work with Florida state legislatures, met with the Speaker of the House with simple messages, viz; Make our schools safer. Secure our children.

His efforts ended in landmark legislation passing in Florida. 

“I’m like a lion right now, I tell everyone, I’ve got the heart of a lion since my daughter was murdered, I’m been empowered to work 1,000 times harder on getting this done,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News in Washington, DC. 

Pollack traveled to Washington with his family to attend the March for Our Lives, spending the week meeting with Trump’s cabinet members, Members of Congress, and political allies with the same message.

He felt hope after his message was well received in meetings across town, but when his son Hunter was denied a chance to speak at the march, he was frustrated. 

“I guess he didn’t have the right agenda, I don’t know, I’m frustrated,” he said. “When my kid is frustrated, I get frustrated.”

[….]

He blames the media for turning every mass shooting into a  gun control issue rather than focusing on the simple task of making the schools more secure. 

“That’s all you hear now … When they start with the gun control, I take it personal, it’s not going to fix the schools,” he said. 

He chooses not to disparage the kids from Parkland, after they rallied at the March for Our Lives, but admits that he feels that the movement got hijacked. 

“This whole march was politicized, you know, but they’re kids, so you can’t really blame them, they’re scared, they think they’re doing the right thing,” he said. 

Pollack was largely apolitical until the 2016 election where he voted for Trump together with his two sons. 

“It was the first time I ever voted,” the 52-year-old says about his vote for President Trump. “Can you imagine where we’d be if Hillary became president?”  

He credits the president for standing up and running for office to fix the country, despite universal opposition from the media. 

“The guy gets bashed every hour of the day,” he said. “I don’t know, I give him credit for doing it, he’s 20 years older than me and he works like a maniac.” …..

 

Trump’s “Stormy Weather”

Published by Papa Giorgio

In some excellent Tweets (chirp; chirp; chirp; chirp) Larry lays out the hypocrisy of the Left in regard to Trump’s consensual “Stormy affair” and Democrats concern over fellow Democrat predators.

CNN Promotes Cuckolding (UPDATED with Megyn Kelly)

Published by Papa Giorgio

— CAUTION —

ADULT (FALLEN WORLD) THEMES

Mark Dice UPDATE

CNN is reporting that watching your wife have sex with another man can be beneficial for your relationship, advocating cuckolding. (MOONBATTERY H-T)

While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.