Biased Media
The Donald’s “Fascist” Flag Tweet
Here is how a friend puts the issue:
- “My conservative friends on FB, once proud, loud and arrogant are now incredibly silent. Buyers remorse anyone? Trump’s mental illness is self-illuminated with each passing day. What a freak show…. A year in jail and loss of citizenship for the burning of the flag? Read the constitution much?”
Larry Elder uses some audio (which I add video to) to build up to the main point… and it is this: “HILLARY CLINTON PROPOSED ACTUAL LEGISLATION DOING THIS!” That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:
- Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. (SNOPES)
Democrats Want 100% Control Over Media and Lifestyles
“The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources.” — Obama
What is funny is that Obama made this interview partly about “fake news,” which is ironic. THE BLAZE explains why:
…Obama then continued:
Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone. The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions. It’s making people exaggerate or say what’s most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it’s not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it’s going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models.
Absent from Obama’s take on “fake news” was the fact that the very magazine he was speaking to had just been found guilty of, in fact, publishing fake news. Earlier this month, the very same magazine Obama dubbed as “good journalism” was found guilty of defamation for an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Her article titled “A Rape on Campus,” appeared in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone and centered around a woman named “Jackie” and an account of a vicious gang rape at the University of Virginia. The story unfortunately turned out to be, well, fake news. The jury in the case found the story was written with reckless disregard for the truth and that Erdely was guilty of false reporting. Rolling Stone and Erdely were ordered to pay $3 million in damages to an administrator at the school who filed the suit….
GAY PATRIOT notes the left’s tendency towards control in all realms of life (public and private):
Let’s review how the American Democrat Left regards political disagreement:
- If someone votes the wrong way, it’s OK to destroy their business.
- If someone holds the wrong view on gay marriage, it’s okay to use the power of the state to destroy their business.
- If someone holds the wrong view on gay marriage, it’s okay to destroy their career.
- If a professor mocks a social justice wanker, they will try and destroy his career.*
It’s like Obama whining yesterday that the reason Hillary lost is because people were able to watch FoxNews in too many public places. Owning 99% of the media isn’t enough; the left must have all of it or it can’t succeed. Is the Democrat Left’s political philosophy so fragile that not even one voice of dissent can be permitted to question it?
[….]
* Love this quote: “Her claims to be a ‘queer Muslim’ are probably part of an act designed to fit into as many victim categories as humanly possible,” Adams elaborates. “Sometimes I wonder whether LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Thespian. So much drama, so few letters in the alphabet.”
Remember these stories?
How Leftists Portray Reality
Dennis Prager reads from an article by Neal Gabler via Bill Moyers’ website — who himself is a far leftist. In reading from the article, Dennis Prager gets ample opportunity to opine. I also included some video of violence done by Hillary/Bernie Sanders supporters [Leftists]. It is well known and documented that Hillary’s campaign may in fact have funded some of what you will see.
At any rate, enjoy the critique of progressivism.
Beware Fake News!
Or the Washington Post (WaPo) publishing an article on Thursday on how the Russians used American websites to push anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda in the 2016 election. The problem was, however, the the source for their story admitted to lying:
Surveillance Valley reported:
Within a day of the article coming out, PropOrNot’s story is already unraveling. The group admitted to lying about its partnering organizations and refuses to disclose why its media blacklist of “Russian agents” contains some of the best journalists in recent history: Robert Parry (who helped break the Iran-Contra scandal), Robert Scheer (who helped expose CIA funding of student groups in the 1960s as editor at Ramparts) and Yves Smith (the fearless founder of an invaluable and respected financial blog, nakedcapitalism.com). It’s shocking and disturbing that WaPo would smear respected journalists as traitors with no evidence.
Details about this group continue to emerge. It appears there’s a chance that PropOrNot is connected to groups funded the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spinoff that manages the U.S. government’s foreign propaganda division. If true, that would make PropOrNot’s activities illegal — in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States. Creating blacklists of American journalists, labelling them as traitors and then circulating this information to American newspapers would certainly fall into that category.
Maybe Russia has the means to “hack” America’s elections, but it’s hard to talk about it without real evidence. Sure, Russia’s been getting into the psyops game much more lately — with fake and biased news, comment trolls and Twitter bots. It’s cheap and effective, and good at exploiting people’s increasing lack trust in their country’s institutions and political process. But in reality it seems to have very little penetration of America’s media landscape. Let’s face it: life is miserable and getting more miserable by the day for most Americans — and no one in power seems to care one way or another. Americans don’t need a Russian Twitter bot to undermine their trust in the Democratic Party.
Or how bout when the L.A. Times knew about John Edwards affair while running for President, but kept the story bottled up:
The mainstream media’s near-silence about a tabloid report that former presidential candidate John Edwards had an extramarital affair with a campaign worker ended abruptly Friday when he admitted the relationship to ABC News.
The cable news networks pounced on the story, broken by the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer last year but largely unaddressed by major news organizations until Edwards’ admission.
Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all had extensive coverage of the scandal throughout the afternoon, and the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post quickly posted stories on their websites.
Several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. But the burst of attention after he confirmed a romantic relationship with Rielle Hunter, who produced video documentaries for his campaign website, was in marked contrast to the way those news organizations had tiptoed around the original reports….
(CONSERVAPEDIA and L.A. TIMES)
Or NPR’s bias of omission with 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments (CAMERA). Or, as the WASHINGTON TIMES notes, mainstream media outlets advocating certain outcomes:
“The study found a huge disparity in the airtime devoted to advancing more gun control versus arguments in favor of gun rights.,” he continued, noting that the time spent in favor of more gun control was 65 minutes, compared to eight minutes spent on Second Amendment rights and other pro-gun issues.
“CBS was the most stridently anti-gun rights network. By a whopping 10 to 1 ratio, CBS devoted more time to arguing in favor of gun control (30 minutes, 40 seconds) to time that supported gun rights (2 minutes, 56 seconds),” Mr. Dickens noted.
NBC followed with nine times as much airtime for anti-gun rights arguments, with ABC in third place with a 4 to 1 ratio.
“When it came to spokesmen, viewers were far more likely to hear from gun control advocates like liberal Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than Second Amendment defenders like GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump or Republican Senator James Inhofe,” Mr. Dickens stated. “Anti-gun spokesmen were aired three times as frequently as pro-gun ones (57 to 19), while 27 spokesmen were neutral.”
How bout the medias tendency to not be fair and balanced, thus, guiding public opinion in some way (stories linked in graphics):
Some older examples from ABC, NBC, CBS that include some stats on story imbalances…. as IF they are trying to advocate for something… hmmm:
 |
 |
So all the recent “HUB-BUB” in regards to “fake news” is really an attempt to control the news by corporate news interests. If you do not know WHY this is not a good thing, please read 1984 again. And this bias is not conspiratorial as much as a worldview issue that cause it’s adherents not to lie or conspire about slanting stories as much as a form of group-think. (ALTHOUGH THIS “CONSPIRING” DOES HAPPEN.) Often times this “group-think” is ripped from it’s context to say people are involved in a giant conspiracy.
- The media as a whole is said to be in a giant conspiracy to overthrow America or conservatives by a designed plan.
- No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates truth to them.
- Many people think there is a nefarious cabal of bankers, CFR and Bilderberger types, controlling human affairs on such a level that World Wars were started and guided by these people.
- No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates a border-less society with all being equal… “just ‘some’ more equal than others” (Animal Farm).
- I often hear people mention that “how could scientist all agree then with evolution? Are you saying there is a giant conspiracy? If you are, I am through listening to you, being that you are crazy.” [BTW, one can substitute “climate change” issues with evolution.]
- No… groupthink…
And this is the crux of the matter… No matter if there is a conspiracy or not, the goals are the same. BUT — and this is an important BUT — how one responds and interacts with society is impacted… greatly. In other words if you tell people of these “grand conspiracies” or “meta-narratives” you will not change anyone’s mind but harm your position. However, if you talk about worldviews and group-think, you will impact minds on the matter, thus, fortifying the case trying to made in regards to media bias.
Hugh Hewitt talks about a time he got to speak to a graduating class of journalists at [I think] Columbia University School of Journalism. He asked the crowd some questions and asked them to separate themselves to one side or the other of the auditorium ~ (questions like: are you pro-life or pro-choice?… are you pro 2nd amendment of for gun control? etc., etc.). By the end of the 5-questions, only a handful were left on one side… all the liberal/progressives were packed into one side of the auditorium. His point was to show this graduating class that what they believe now will impact their work, and that they should be aware [self-aware] of their own biases and try to be reporters, not “change” agents.
(Link to Wikileaks emails showing collusion with Hillary and the Media)
Another recent example can be expressed in donations to campaigns. In an excellent article entitled, “Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash: Far fewer making contributions to Donald Trump, analysis shows,” we see the percentages donated from journalists to the Hillary or Trump campaigns:
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)
(See more at MEDIA’ITE)
So, Let Me Get This Straight… (Updated)
…Thirteen percent of Muslims voted for Trump, triple the amount that voted Romney, are they are Islamophobic, bigoted, xenophobic, and racist?- Eight percent of blacks voted for Trump, seven percent more than Romney — not to mention the black men and women who didn’t vote for the president at all in a higher percentage. These same men and women previously voted twice for Obama. These persons of color… if I understand my detractors correctly, are racist bigots?
- A higher percentage (almost 30%) of Hispanics voted for Trump, more in fact than voted for Romney. These Hispanic and Latino men and women, like the others, are xenophobic, bigoted, and racist?
- One hundred-and-ninety-four counties that voted for Obama once switched to GOP in the 2016 election. And, two-hundred-and-nine counties that voted for Obama twice switched to GOP. Many of these people are union members as well as life-long Democrats. Am I now being told that these Democrats who voted for Obama are: racist. sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted?
- Am I being told that voter I.D. laws are racist and a way on keeping minorities from voting? But when the Obama administration used tax-payer money to help fund voter I.D. in South Africa and other African nations, he himself is racist and trying to stop the poor and minorities from voting?
- During Bush’s Presidency, there were bumper stickers all over the place that read, “Dissent is Patriotic,” when Republicans and conservatives dissented from Obama, they were called racists. Will dissent again be “patriotic”?
- Bill Clinton noted that Trumps slogan of “Make America Great Again” is a racist statement. Except in 1991 when he himself used it [Bill Clinton that is] at a campaign event in Little Rock, Arkansas, Mr. Clinton declared, “Together, we can make America great again.” It wasn’t racist then apparently. Nor when he used the same phrase again during a speech in 1992 and during a television interview that same year. Nor when he used it in a campaign ad for his wife in 2008, Mr. Clinton said, “It’s time for another comeback, time to make America great again.”
- More gays voted for Trump than voted for Romney, are they now homophobic bigots as well?
- Self defined Marxist Van Jones of CNN said there was a “white-lash” that got Trump elected, but more whites voted for Romney than did for Trump. (In other words, Trump was elected by “other-than” the white vote.)
- When a few people in Texas were head-bobbing breaking away from the Union, this was proof of bigotry and racism. Now a few people in California are head-faking leaving the Union, and all I hear is how this would work and nothing about bigotry or unseen racism.
- The KKK have voted since their inception primarily for Democrats. Still they vote in the eighty-percentage areas for Democrats, but only now that a higher percentage voted for Trump (and most likely voting Democrat the rest of the ticket) do Democrats get vocal about the voting habits of the Ku Klux Klan? Why are they never vocal about the almost one-hundred percent of Nation of Islam members, the members of the Nation of Gods and Earths (Five-Percenters), or the Communist Party of America’s voting habits?
Are you seeing a pattern? A convenient narrative surely. Every President on the GOP side have been compared to N.A.Z.I.’s and Hitler since Nixon. DON’T accept the comparison. Take their arguments and return them packaged in a nice little bow.
Democrats want to fundamentally change America. I don’t love my wife if I want to fundamentally change her. Black Life Matters protesters teach their children to burn American flags or march down the street chanting “What do we want?!” “Dead Cops!” “When do we want them?!” “NOW!” They argue America was founded on nothing but slavery and greed. Hillary Clinton backed this group even going as far as far as saying (at the NAACP) that “systemic racism” needs to be eliminated. Months later calling Americans all racists: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other and therefore I think we need all of us to be asked the hard questions ‘why am I feeling this way?’”
Democrats think I am an imperialist white supremacist Christian cisgender capitalist heteropatriarchal male. Apparently however, these many demographic changes across the board [noted above] seem to agree that Trump’s slogan was acceptable, “Make America Great Again.”
The Alt-Left Destroys Families
Dennis Prager notes the radicalism of the Left and their propensity to split families over politics. The “Alt-Left” calls on its lemmings to cut off contact with family that voted for Trump. Telling children to become orphans. Don’t know what the ALT-LEFT is, see:
The reason Leftists do this is politics BECOMES these people’s religion. And so, many myths of this religion are born, encapsulated around cultural Marxism (race-class-gender, the “Liberal Trinity”)
What a travesty the Left is. Here are some examples:
- That’s not Shannon’s style. In a series of interviews in the days after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, the gruff 42-year-old actor, let his opinion about the election off its leash. “No offense to the seniors out there,” Shannon told Metro newspaper. “But if you’re voting for Trump, it’s time for the urn.” (He was referring to this map, illustrating Clinton’s 504 Electoral College vote advantage among 18-25 year-old voters.) In the same interview, Shannon offered advice to young people whose parents supported Trump: “You’re an orphan now. Don’t go home. Don’t go home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Don’t talk to them at all. Silence speaks volumes.” (Michael Shannon on speaking out against Trump: “There’s nothing to lose these days”)
- Somewhere around 1:30 a.m. the morning after the election — an insurgency of white, rural Americans lacking college degrees having taken its revenge upon itself and the rest of us by granting power to a self-styled strongman with a long record of race-baiting, tax-dodging, creditor-stiffing, self-dealing, model-chasing, lie-disseminating and the hosting of rallies where journalists were confined to pens and subjected to taunts and promises of death printed on T-shirts (please, commenters, do tell us again about the Hillary Clinton e-mails) — I staged the only act of protest left in my immediate control.
I sent an e-mail to an in-law, telling him that his genial hockey buddy and Trump supporter friend Johnny was no longer welcome on Thanksgiving. I’m not a hater. Johnny’s a good guy. He means well and has done nice things for me. I’ve known him 20 years. But I can’t feed him any more of my potatoes. And I encourage everyone reading these words to defenestrate all the Johnnys in their lives, if they feel so inclined. Or better yet, they could emulate what the comic and patriot Wanda Sykes did last week in Boston, which is to condemn the rise of the strongman, brooking no generosity or period of cooling — and to flip right off anyone who doesn’t want to hear it. We are in new territory, but I have a feeling that people who follow demagogues will dislike getting flipped off by people who once took them into their homes in late fall, handed them a drink and told them about the new bird feeders. (After the election, break up: You voted for Trump? You’re off my list) - Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump, a man they say stands for things they abhor. Many who voted for Mr. Trump say it is the liberals who are to blame for discord, unfairly tarring them with the odious label of “racist” just because they voted for someone else. (Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too)
This ALT-RIGHT being all the rage and of course the older ALT-LEFT not being known at all reminds me of something:
Chuck Todd, who hosts Meet the Press on NBC, opened his show the way he often does, by introducing his panel of journalists. There was Luke Russert of NBC News, and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report, and there was “Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post … and Ken Blackwell, conservative columnist and former Ohio Secretary of State.”
Did you catch it? Eugene Robinson isn’t the liberal columnist of the Washington Post. He’s simply Eugene Robinson ofthe Washington Post. But Ken Blackwell is identified as a “conservative columnist.”
This may strike members of the so-called mainstream media as one of those “what’s the big deal?” issues — even though it happens all the time both on TV and in print. But if they’re feeling generous and concede that maybe it is somehow, some way, some kind of offense, it’s a misdemeanor of the lowest order. Journalistic jaywalking — at worst.
Sorry, but it is a big deal. A very big deal. One that goes straight to the heart of bias in the media.
Liberals, you see, don’t have to be identified. Liberals, as far as liberal journalists like Chuck Todd are concerned, aren’t controversial. They’re middle of the road. Moderate. Mainstream. Not so with conservatives. They need a warning label.
They put warning labels on packs of cigarettes and pesticides because they can be dangerous to your health. And, as far as many liberals – both in and out of the media — are concerned, conservatives need warning labels because their ideas can be dangerous to your health. I mean, if liberal views are middle of the road, moderate and mainstream, conservative views, being the opposite, must be fringe. And fringe ideas, in the liberal worldview, are most likely racist, homophobic and misogynist ideas, which are … well … dangerous!…
The Alt-Right ~ Larry Elder Interviews Joel Pollak
Larry Elder interviews Joel about the charges of white nationalism and anti-Semitism stemming almost entirely from left leaning media, radical Marxist orgs (like MoveOn.org), and all the people that get their news from them and John Oliver. In a very recent article (besides all the Jews that came out to defend Bannon) a Muslim conservative notes how Bannon flew to the UK to get him to come write for Breitbart: “Raheem Kassam: Steve Bannon Is ‘the Man Who Flew to London to Hire This Brown Guy from a Muslim Family’.” Yep, a white nationalist/anti-Semite for sure.
Dumb!
Get Ready For FOUR Years of This B.S.
Dennis Prager comments on some recent actions by those who did not vote for or do not support Donald Trump. From the youth rioting to the baseless claims of racism, anti-Semitism, and the like, we are only a week after the election… hold yur’ horses folks – this will be a bumpy ride!
Future Babies of the Democratic Party – Pampered Politics
Michael Medved covers some of the day’s news regarding Democrat continuing reactions to the Democratic process. Just more examples of insanity. HOWEVER, Bill Maher was a temporary breath of fresh air!
Larry Elder Covers Some Aftermath of the Election
I clipped and reordered a tad some of “The Sage’s” insights on the happenings since Hillary lost the election. Great stuff. Long, but worth the listen. BTW, for a shorter “Grand Dragon” endorsement, see here.
(Picture from the Washington Times)
David Horowitz Discusses the Media Lies About Steve Bannon
Remember, Horowitz is one of the people to “prove” Bannon’s anti-Semitism.
The discussion does not stay exclusively on Bannon, but it stays close to the broader issue. David Horowitz has apparently written a seventh book in his series.