Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What liberal media?

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 6, 2015, 10:40:58 AM10/6/15
to
By Kyle Drennen

Throughout a live townhall event on Mondays Today, Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton was treated to one softball after another
from her adoring supporters at NBC. One sycophantic fan set the tone:
Secretary Clinton, you've had a lot of tough questions this morning.
This may be the toughest one you get all day. But many years ago we saw
another Clinton at his inauguration play an instrument and have a song.
What song or instrument would you play at yours?

As the crowd laughed, Clinton declared: Well, you know on Saturday
Night Live, Saturday night I sang "Lean On Me" with Kate McKinnon, who
plays me better than I play me, and so maybe that will be the song
because it wasn't as bad as I feared.

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/139906.html

Moments later, attendee Esther Dickinson proclaimed: Well, first, I
want to thank you for your candidacy, youre such a role model for women
my age. And so thank you for putting yourself out there.

After the friendly group applauded the declaration, the woman got to
her hard-hitting question about Clintons e-mails: So in your e-mails
you told Senator Mikulski you guys should go out and celebrate with
something unhealthy to drink so I'm wondering what your favorite
celebratory unhealthy drink is.

Clinton quipped: A martini, a vodka martini. And the James Bond way,
you know, shaken.

Minutes later, one man asked: Hi, Secretary Clinton. My question is
what is your favorite book?

Clinton pretended to struggle with fawning question: Oh my gosh, my
favorite book?

Some of questions that were actually substantive were designed to tee
up Clinton to promote her liberal policy agenda:

Like so many, I'm very distressed about the recent mass
shooting last week in Oregon, and frankly a bit ashamed to
be – about the uncontrollable gun violence in our country
right now, especially compared to other developed nations.
Again, my son is eight. I'm nervous to talk to him about it.
You know, there's regular lockdown drills at his school now.
I mean, it's part of life. And yet, I feel like I know I’m
not alone in saying enough is enough and I would like to
know as president how – what specifically you would do for
gun control or gun control.

Well, Secretary Clinton, like you, I'm a grandmother, I have
my grandson Evan Simon here with me today. I'm concerned about
my grandchildren and young children in this country, and my
question for you is how and what can you do, what will you do
to make college more affordable so that our grandchildren
here, from middle class families, can get the education they
need without overwhelming debt?

When I talk to my kids, I talk to my kids about politics, I’m
a bit of a junkie when it comes to that sort of thing, and I
tell them about how in order to make government work there
needs to be cooperation, there needs to be compromise, there
needs to be consensus. Honestly is there anyone left in the
Republican Party, I’m talking about the Senate and the House,
what you can work with. I mean, you're not going to be able
to do most of what you want to do by yourself. Who’s there?
Anyone?

Only two of the townhall questions challenged Clinton, both hitting her
from the left:

I’m a lifelong Democrat and I've admired your service to our
country for many years but you don't yet have my vote. My
biggest concern is what I see as the growing disparity in
wealth and income in this country. And I really feel it to my
bones that this is becoming an existential threat to our
country. We're just increasingly becoming a country of haves
and have-nots and unfortunately for many of us we’ve come to
know that the game or the system, whatever you want to call
it, is just rigged against us and we really desperately want
a hampion who will stand with us. So my question to you is,
and if you would please set aside the issue of who – which
candidate’s more electable in the general election, help me
understand why I should vote for you rather than Bernie
Sanders.

I served in Iraq as an army infantryman in 2004 and 2005, I
lost friends, a year of my life, and I suspect I'll be coping
with the experience as long as I live. You gave a rather
famous rousing speech in support of the War Powers Act which
allowed President Bush to go into Iraq. Given your history
and your close ties to elements within the military industrial
complex, what assurances can you provide that companies and
individuals who profit from war and militarism will not have
undue influence in a Clinton administration?

Co-host Savannah Guthrie who interviewed Clinton prior to the townhall
event wrapped up the infomercial by wondering: You often say you're
not running because you're a woman, you're running on the merits, and
one of your merits is that you are a woman. So my question is, what are
the merits of a female leader? What does a female leader bring that a
man doesn't? As the hour-long segment ended, fellow co-host Matt Lauer
remarked: It was interesting to see her in that type of a situation, in
that kind of forum. I thought the questions were good. News anchor
Natalie Morales chimed in: Really great questions, a very informed
crowd...


---
In the War on Women, Hillary fought an entire platoon of sexually
abused females on behalf of Bill.






Ubiquitous

unread,
May 2, 2016, 1:41:45 PM5/2/16
to
CNN president Jeff Zucker said in a recent interview with the Wall
Street Journal that critics’ past claims that the news network “was
a little too liberal” were legitimate and that steps have been taken
to reach a broader audience.

“I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little
too liberal,” Zucker is quoted as telling the outlet. “We have added
many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already
strong stable of liberal voices.”

He continued, “And I think that we are a much more-balanced network
and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the
audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.”

These comments come amid an ever-contentious electoral season — one
in which CNN has seen its ratings more than double to 435,000
viewers among 25-to-54-year-olds.

That’s a notable jump for the network’s target demographic, as the
Wall Street Journal reported.

But while Zucker said that CNN’s recent success is predicted upon
concerted efforts to reach a broader audience, a representative for
competitor Fox News had an entirely different view.

“CNN has been languishing in the basement so long that they consider
getting to the ground level in an election year a wild success,” the
unnamed spokeswoman said. “That speaks volumes about Time Warner’s
low expectations.”

--
Nick Gillispie describes the Obama-era media as "more prone to being
lapdogs than watchdogs." That has a nice ring to it, but it seems to
us the metaphor is a little off. The pro-Obama media are acting like
watchdogs--but watchdogs whose master is Obama rather than the
public.

Topaz

unread,
May 2, 2016, 5:25:49 PM5/2/16
to

Jews Do Control The Media
Elad Nehorai ("Manny Friedman") -- The Times of Israel
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media
... Let's be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control
the media. We've got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all
the big movie production companies it's almost obscene ... Did you
know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews? ... The truth
is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in
each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in
the world ... We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have
to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country. Instead,
we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge
responsibility - and opportunity.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 4, 2016, 6:30:35 AM5/4/16
to
Dan Gainor, the Media Research Center’s VP of Business and Culture,
tells Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon about a
recent episode of ABC’s “Quantico” in which a domestic terrorist
shouts “Make America great again” before an attack.

Obviously, the slogan has been popularized by the candidacy of GOP
frontrunner Donald Trump. “They are basically just taking the Trump
line, ripping it off and putting it in the mouth of terrorists. That
is ABC directly trying to impact the presidential election,” said
Gainor.

As Gainor pointed out, the show also recently took a shot at Ted
Cruz. “One of the characters is talking and she says, ‘I’ve worked
with some difficult people in Washington, bull-headed Republicans,
radical Libertarians, Ted Cruz’, like you know, he’s so much more
extreme than either of those other two groups, he gets his own
little category. That’s just another one of the ways they try to
influence the election,” concluded Gainor.

The MRC clip of ABC’s “Quantico” is here: As the Media Research
Center’s Erik Soderstrom noted, “Apparently, ‘Make America Great
Again’ is the equivalent of ‘Allahu Akbar,’ in Hollywood’s minds.”

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/quantico-drive-trumps-militia

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 weekdays
from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/dan-gainor

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 6, 2016, 7:58:46 AM5/6/16
to
by Chris White

As LawNewz.com reported on Wednesday evening, NBC News was the
second major news network to announce an upcoming interview with the
notorious Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, better known by the
name “Guccifer.”

Lazar, whose actions led to the exposure of Hillary Clinton’s use of
a private email server, was extradited to the United States in
March. He is alleged to have posted emails that were sent to then-
Secretary of State Clinton on the internet, including correspondence
from close Clinton family confidant Sidney Blumenthal. Lazar was
extradited to the United States just as reports indicate that the
FBI investigation into Clinton’s email server was in in full swing.
Lazar is charged with wire fraud, cyberstalking, identify theft,
unauthorized access to computers and obstruction of justice.

According to the NBC News press release, Lazar was interviewed by
reporter Cynthia McFadden from a Bucharest prison, where he admitted
to also hacking into Clinton’s private e-mail account. Here is the
transcript from the upcoming NBC interview special, On Assignment:


>###
>
>CYNTHIA McFADDEN:
>
>When Hillary Clinton says that her server is absolutely safe –
>you’re laughing.
>
>MARCEL LEHEL LAZAR (GUCCIFER):
>
>That’s a lie.
>
>McFADDEN:
>
>That’s a lie?
>
>GUCCIFER:
>
>Yes.
>
>McFADDEN:
>
>It’s not safe.
>
>GUCCIFER:
>
>It’s not safe at all.
>
># # #

As you can see from the transcript, Lazar is openly admitting to
hacking Clinton’s private e-mail account. The same private e-mail
account where federal officials found over 2,000 e-mails that
contained classified information, including at least 22 deemed to
contain “Top Secret” information. That is pretty explosive
information. To note, Clinton’s campaign has already fired back, in
a statement saying “There is absolutely no basis to believe the
claims made by this criminal from his prison cell.”

Now, this is where things get a little strange. As was noted
earlier, NBC News says Lazar made these claims to McFadden during an
interview in a Bucharest prison and we know Lazar was extradited to
the United States on or about March 31, 2016. So, it stands to
reason that McFadden conducted the interview before he was
extradited to the U.S. which means NBC News was sitting on these
explosive claims for more than one month. Which raises the
question, why would a major news network sit on such an explosive
allegation — especially when the claim directly relates to a
presidential candidate and the biggest story the 2016 presidential
election cycle?

Understandably, production on a special might take longer than usual
— but given the story — networks have turned interviews around in
mere minutes.

The delay cost them what would’ve been a huge exclusive, or at least
seemed to prompt them to hurry and put something out as Fox News
went with its own story and interview with Lazar late Wednesday. Fox
News clearly did their interview with the hacker after he arrived in
the United States. As they mentioned, they visited him in a Virginia
jail.

We reached out to NBC News for clarification and a spokesman
declined to comment at this time.

--
Please protest & shut down every Trump rally because we can't allow
intolerance.


michael biddy

unread,
May 8, 2016, 9:42:32 AM5/8/16
to
All part of the media's "Protect Hillary At Any Cost" orientation. The
way the media, NBC included, downplayed the thumping she got in this
weeks Indiana primary is criminal journalistic malpractice. He beat her
by 5 points and they all called it a "narrow margin" and the coverage
just ended. Had it gone the other way they'd have been honking all week
about it being a "decisive victory". And when she gets clobbered again
next week in West Virginia it will be the same. If Debbie
Washingmachine Slutz hadn't rigged the game with the superdelegates
she'd be in serious trouble for the nomination.

FPP

unread,
May 8, 2016, 8:43:32 PM5/8/16
to
On 2016-05-06 17:24:58 +0000, "michael biddy" <medwa...@primus.ca> said:

> If Debbie
> Washingmachine Slutz hadn't rigged the game with the superdelegates
> she'd be in serious trouble for the nomination.

Bullshit.

CLINTON
pledged: 1709
super: 515

SANDERS
pledged: 1406
super: 41

Hillary leads with over 300 delegates, not including super-delegates.

Bernie is losing badly with voters, despite what Fox news, Breitbart
or you think. He would need to win 80% of the remaining races, while
Hillary only needs to win 16%.

It's arithmetic... check it out sometime.
--
"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same." -Oscar Wilde

clairbear

unread,
May 9, 2016, 5:48:08 PM5/9/16
to
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ngom8v$p65$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-05-06 17:24:58 +0000, "michael biddy" <medwa...@primus.ca>
> said:
>
>> If Debbie
>> Washingmachine Slutz hadn't rigged the game with the superdelegates
>> she'd be in serious trouble for the nomination.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> CLINTON
> pledged: 1709
> super: 515
>
> SANDERS
> pledged: 1406
> super: 41
>
> Hillary leads with over 300 delegates, not including super-delegates.
>
> Bernie is losing badly with voters, despite what Fox news, Breitbart
> or you think. He would need to win 80% of the remaining races, while
> Hillary only needs to win 16%.
>
> It's arithmetic... check it out sometime.

So why does.nt the DNC do away with the DNC shills known as super delgates
and just let the voters decide If the sheople are dumb enough to elect
Hillary then the nation will get the screwing it deserves ant party shills
won't skew the result
Same thing goes for the GOP only delegates who are obligated to follow the
will of the voter should be allowed for either party

Ubiquitous

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 7:07:25 AM8/9/16
to
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump
is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and
nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American
dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United
States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out
the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part
of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way
you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump
presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your
reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than
you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and
uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve
ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal
standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?

Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous
candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It
threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse
opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded
coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion
on “Fox News Sunday” that James Comey, director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her
answers about her decision to use a private email server for
official State Department business — a grossly misleading
interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various
falsehoods in her public explanations.

And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of
journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive
for.

But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump
stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce
his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played
to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season:
His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much
as that of his closest Republican rival.

Now that he is the Republican nominee for president, the imbalance
is cutting against him. Journalists and commentators are analyzing
his policy pronouncements and temperament with an eye toward what it
would all look like in the Oval Office — something so many of them
viewed as an impossibility for so long.

You can see it from the minute the television news day starts, on
the set of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. A few months ago media writers
were describing a too-cozy relationship between Mr. Trump and the
show’s hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

Yet there was Mr. Scarborough on Wednesday asking the former Central
Intelligence Agency director Michael V. Hayden whether there were
safeguards in place to ensure that if Mr. Trump “gets angry, he
can’t launch a nuclear weapon,” given the perception that he might
not be “the most stable guy.”

Then Mr. Scarborough shared an alarming conversation he said he had
with a “foreign policy expert” who had given Mr. Trump a national
security briefing. “Three times he asked about the use of nuclear
weapons,” Mr. Scarborough said, describing one of the questions as
“If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

Speaking with me later, Mr. Scarborough, a Republican, said he had
not contemplated sharing the anecdote with the audience until just
before he did.

“When that discussion came up, I really didn’t have a choice,” Mr.
Scarborough said. “That was something I thought Americans needed to
know.”

Mr. Trump has denied Mr. Scarborough’s account. (He told The New
York Times in March he would use nuclear weapons as “an absolutely
last step.” But when the MSNBC host Chris Matthews challenged him
for raising the possibility he would use them, Mr. Trump asked,
“Then why are we making them?”)

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he
was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and
asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is
just irrational?”

Mr. Scarborough is on the opinion side of the news business. It’s
much dodgier for conventional news reporters to treat this year’s
political debate as one between “normal” and “abnormal,” as the Vox
editor in chief Ezra Klein put it recently.

In a sense, that’s just what reporters are doing. And it’s
unavoidable. Because Mr. Trump is conducting his campaign in ways
we’ve not normally seen.


No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put
financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies,
openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier, or entice
Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking
his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media
failed to get). And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism
aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to
temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or
questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican
heritage are new.


“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most
mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the
norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our
country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have
guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage —
copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The
New York Times’s senior editor for politics. “It doesn’t mean that
we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we
are and we will.”


You can fairly say about Mrs. Clinton that no presidential candidate
has secured a major party nomination after an F.B.I. investigation
into her use of a private email server for, in some cases, top-
secret national security information. That warrants scrutiny, along
with her entire record. But the candidates do not produce news at
the same rate.


“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report
that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If
one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than
the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not
one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”


Some of it was baked into the two candidacies. Mrs. Clinton has been
around so long that voters can more easily envision what her
presidency would look like. And to say she hasn’t been amply
scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates”
affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate
— than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.





Mr. Trump is a political novice who has spent his career running a
private company and starring in a hit reality show. He’s hardly an
unknown, but there is so much we still don’t know about his views
and his familiarity with the major issues. His positions would be
big news even if they didn’t so often seem to break with decades-old
policy consensus (which they do).


The media reaction to it all has been striking, what The Columbia
Journalism Review called “a Murrow moment.” It’s not unusual to see
news stories describe him as “erratic” without attribution to an
opponent. The “fact checks” of his falsehoods continue to pile up in
staggering numbers, far outpacing those of Mrs. Clinton. And, on
Sunday, the CNN “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter called upon
journalists and opinion makers to challenge Mr. Trump’s “dangerous”
claims that the electoral system is rigged against him. Failure to
do so would be unpatriotic, Mr. Stelter said.
Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
by Jim Rutenberg

While there are several examples of conservative media criticism of
Mr. Trump this year, the candidate and his supporters are reprising
longstanding accusations of liberal bias. “The media is trying to
take Donald Trump out,” Rush Limbaugh declared last week.


A lot of core Trump supporters certainly view it that way. That will
only serve to worsen their already dim view of the news media, which
initially failed to recognize the power of their grievances, and
therefore failed to recognize the seriousness of Mr. Trump’s
candidacy.


This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Ms. Ryan
put it to me, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and
precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be
disingenuous with readers.”

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn
duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most
powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But
journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s
definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the
readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand
up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 7:09:58 AM8/9/16
to
Video from Donald Trump’s speech last week in Daytona Beach shows ABC News
cutting the live fed as Trump begins to talk about Hillary Clinton’s
connection to ISIS.

Watch @ABC news cut the broadcast once @realDonaldTrump finally
exposes @HillaryClinton #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/rf4K2PM7Yf
— Viguen Volfmont (@volfmont) August 7, 2016

“Take a look at Orlando, take a look at San Bernardino, take a look at the
World Trade Center,” states Trump, before adding, “And we let ISIS take this
position, it was Hillary Clinton that….she should get an award from them as
the founder of ISIS. That’s what it…”

ABC News’ live stream coverage then immediately cuts out and goes to
background music.

The video comes back in but with Trump muted before returning to full
coverage.

While the media has repeatedly bashed Trump for his spat with Khizr Khan,
whose Muslim son died in Iraq fighting for America, and used it to portray
Trump as Islamophobic, Hillary’s support for policies in Libya and Syria
that led directly to the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
Muslims has been absent from the national conversation.

That may be about to change however, with Julian Assange’s promise that soon
to be released Wikileaks emails will prove Clinton had a role in arming
ISIS.

This is not the first time in recent weeks that a major network has
mysteriously cut the feed when negative revelations about Clinton are being
discussed.

Last month, CNN reporter Brianna Keilar began talking about Hillary’s
support for anti-crime legislation in the 90’s which contributed to the
“mass incarceration” of black people before the video was immediately cut.

https://youtu.be/FWqa2EIBAxY

FPP

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 6:16:00 PM8/9/16
to
On 2016-08-09 05:05:59 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump
> is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and
> nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American
> dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United
> States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Just report what he says, verbatim.
So far, that's been enough to tank his numbers.

>> Mr. Trump has denied Mr. Scarborough’s account.

Mr. Trump denies a lot of things... frequently right after he says them.
--
Professionals built the TITANIC. Amateurs built the ARK. Idiots believe this.

FPP

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 6:18:29 PM8/9/16
to
On 2016-08-09 05:09:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> That may be about to change however, with Julian Assange’s promise that soon
> to be released Wikileaks emails will prove Clinton had a role in arming
> ISIS.

You mean like Reagan armed Iran?

Oh, wait... that was REAL. Unlike Wikileaks.
--
"Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein

FPP

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 7:00:21 PM8/9/16
to
> On 2016-08-09 05:05:59 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>
>> If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump
>> is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and
>> nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American
>> dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United
>> States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
>
> Just report what he says, verbatim.
> So far, that's been enough to tank his numbers.
>
>>> Mr. Trump has denied Mr. Scarborough’s account.
>
> Mr. Trump denies a lot of things... frequently right after he says them.

See... it's working already. You don't have to wait long for Trump to
shoot himself in the face, and then walk it back.

> Trump’s loaded words fuel campaign freefall
> Detouring off script again lands the GOP nominee in perilous territory.
>
> Barely 24 hours after Donald Trump delivered a speech intended to reset
> his staggering presidential campaign, his off-the-cuff suggestion that
> people resort to violence against his opponent has him right back in
> the ditch.
>
> At a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, Trump applied his signature
> sarcasm to a political third rail, stating that "the Second Amendment"
> may be the only way to stop Clinton from getting to appoint federal
> judges if she defeats him in November.
>
> “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,”
> he said. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you
> can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I
> don’t know.
>
> The aside, delivered casually, drew light laughter from Trump’s crowd
> but a swift, emphatic rebuke from across the political spectrum, with
> Republicans and Democrats alike broadcasting their shock.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-campaign-statements-226840

The mentally ill can't help themselves. That excused Trump... what's
your excuse?
--
All those who believe in telekinesis raise my hand.

Topaz

unread,
Aug 10, 2016, 6:45:45 AM8/10/16
to


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

Ubiquitous

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:51:20 AM8/22/16
to
Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may
not become the first female president. But something else happening before our
eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as
we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama
White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream
of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike
anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like
the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair
play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no
precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the
daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the
Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by
comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream
media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No
future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of
fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant
fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos
of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands
that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes
routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War
and civil rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and
wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the
legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to
“keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of
reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion
and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one
reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill
that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness
in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like,
began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J.
Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic
tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be
dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are
you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way,
and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose
scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a
leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her
dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those
people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph
of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the
Times’ website. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as
its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who
agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in
others, but is blissfully tolerant of in itself. And with the top political
editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary
and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions.
Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to
enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the
whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in
easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s
also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses.
Shame would be more appropriate.

FPP

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 5:57:21 PM8/22/16
to
Why is there never a respectable Usenet Cop around when you need one?

Guess I'll have to say it... "And you posted this off-topic article
here because?"
--
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators don't know whether
to answer Present' or "Not guilty' - Theodore Roosevelt

NoBody

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:22:38 AM8/23/16
to
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:19 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2016-08-22 11:51:19 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>
>> Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may
>> not become the first female president. But something else happening before our
>> eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as
>> we know it.
>>
>> The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama
>> White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream
>> of the nation?s news organizations.
>>
>> The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike
>> anything seen in modern America.
>>
>> The largest broadcast networks ? CBS, NBC and ABC ? and major newspapers like
>> the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair
>> play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no
>> precedent.
>>
>> Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the
>> daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the
>> Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by
>> comparison.
>>
>> By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream
>> media?s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No
>> future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of
>> fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant
>> fashion.
>>
>> Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos
>> of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands
>> that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes
>> routine among most journalists, especially young ones.
>>
>> I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War
>> and civil rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and
>> wrong.
>>
>> My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the
>> legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to
>> ?keep the paper straight.?
>>
>> That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of
>> reporters? political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion
>> and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one
>> reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.
>>
>> Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill
>> that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness
>> in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.
>>
>> A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like,
>> began this way: ?If you?re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J.
>> Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation?s worst racist and nationalistic
>> tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be
>> dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are
>> you supposed to cover him??
>>
>> Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way,
>> and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose
>> scandals are deserving only of ?scrutiny.? Rutenberg approvingly cites a
>> leftist journalist who calls one candidate ?normal? and the other ­?abnormal.?
>>
>> Clinton is hardly ?normal? to the 68 percent of Americans who find her
>> dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those
>> people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times ?abnormal.?
>>
>> Also, you don?t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph
>> of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the
>> Times? website. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton?s view as
>> its own, then tries to justify its coverage.
>>
>> It?s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who
>> agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.
>>
>> It?s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in
>> others, but is blissfully tolerant of in itself. And with the top political
>> editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary
>> and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.
>>
>> It?s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper?s own traditions.
>> Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to
>> enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That?s the
>> whole point of standards ? they are designed to guide decisions not just in
>> easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.
>>
>> The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that?s
>> also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.
>>
>> Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses.
>> Shame would be more appropriate.
>
>Why is there never a respectable Usenet Cop around when you need one?

The c in "cop" should not be capitialized.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Aug 30, 2016, 11:39:56 AM8/30/16
to
Media defend aggressive standards for covering Trump
By Eddie Scarry

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?
trackingGroup=91212&siteSection=washexam590_ent_mus_sty&videoId=30660953

Several media figures are actively lobbying their peers to challenge Donald
Trump more aggressively when interviewing him or his surrogates, or even block
Trump's campaign from gaining access to the press in some cases.

Trump's campaign has benefited from billions of dollars worth of earned media,
and has put him in a position where he doesn't have to run campaign ads as
much, and yet still competes. However, more and more media figures are
mounting an effort to end Trump's free ride.

On Sunday, Jorge Ramos, anchor for the Spanish-language Univision, became the
latest news figure to urge other journalists to take a more active approach on
covering the Republican nominee. Ramos indicated that more reporters need to
act the way he did last year, by challenging Trump loudly and aggressively.

"And I think in this case, neutrality is really not an option," Ramos said on
CNN. "I think we have to take a stand, and in this case, Donald Trump is a
unique figure in American politics. We haven't seen this in decades, since
probability Senator Joe McCarthy."

Ramos earned notoriety on the campaign trail last year for his famous clash
with Trump on immigration. He was ejected from a press conference the
candidate was hosting after calling out to Trump and repeatedly interrupting
other reporters who had been called on to ask questions, though he was later
allowed to return and debate Trump for about 10 minutes.

But Ramos isn't alone. Last week, liberal New York Times columnist Charles
Blow argued on CNN that a Trump supporter who had joined him for the segment
should not have been booked to appear at all.

After Paris Dennard, a GOP former White House staffer, said Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton is attempting to suppress white voter turnout by accusing of
Trump of racism, Blow said that his appearance on the show "is why people have
a problem with us in the media."

"To let somebody like this come on and say what Hillary Clinton is doing is
suppressing the white vote by pointing out what Donald Trump has said in his
life, that's just patently false, ridiculous. … I'm not letting that slide,"
he said. "This guy should not be allowed to come on television and say
something like that."

Since Trump launched his unlikely campaign last summer, reporters and media
critics have grappled with how to cover Trump, whose unpredictability left
many in the media confounded and flatfooted. Trump has rarely backed away from
controversy, and is much more likely to strike back at critics with his
favorite medium, Twitter.

Some in the media say his controversial remarks and policy positions, which
often shift, demand a different level of coverage.

"If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous,
then your reporting is going to reflect that," wrote New York Times media
columnist Jim Rutenberg in August. "You would move closer than you've ever
been to being oppositional. That's uncomfortable and uncharted territory for
every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I've ever known, and by normal
standards, untenable."

"But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards
apply? And if they don't, what should take their place?" he asked.

CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter said on his show in August that it's
near treasonous for any journalist not to challenge Trump on his "dangerous"
rhetoric.

"Journalists cannot just play these soundbites, quote these claims and then
move on to the next subject," said Stelter. "We can't just let it seep into
the discourse like it's normal. We have to stop and fact check and
contextualize. … Right now, it's the Republican candidate for president who is
trying to delegitimize our democratic process without proof. It is unpatriotic
for any journalist or any interviewer to help him."

Ubiquitous

unread,
Sep 9, 2016, 7:27:26 AM9/9/16
to
Hillary Clinton took questions from the media Thursday — her first
formal press conference in 278 days.

She took only a handful of questions during the 10-minute presser,
and none of them focused on two of the biggest issues facing her
candidacy: potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton
Foundation and the storage of her State Department emails on a
private server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Instead, Clinton was asked about tight 2016 poll numbers, whether
her strategy in Iraq and Syria includes ground troops, her demeanor
during last night’s NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum, intelligence
officials’ unhappiness with President Barack Obama’s national
security strategies, her strategy for upcoming debates with
Republican nominee Donald Trump, Gary Johnson’s inability to answer
a question on Aleppo and her own Syria strategy.

Clinton mostly used the time to attack Trump for things he said in
the Wednesday forum, as well as throughout the campaign.

https://youtu.be/qZ47HHl5_Dk

In an answer about terrorism, Clinton said that the Islamic State
supports Trump in 2016:

They have … said they hope that Allah delivers America to
Trump, they have said that they hope that he is the
president because it would give more motivation to every
Jihadi, someone who has insulted Muslims, has insulted a
Gold Star family of incredibly heroic Capt. [Humayun] Kahn,
someone who’s said that he doesn’t want to let Muslims from
around the world even come to our country — that is a gift
for ISIS.

Clinton added that she doesn’t want to be treated more gently than
her GOP rival, but she argued that Trump taking the White House
would be detrimental to U.S. national security.

“Look, I’m not asking for any special treatment, I know the road
that I’m on, Ive been on it for 25 years,” she said. “I just get up
every day and keep moving forward. I love this country, I will serve
it with my entire heart, mind and soul.”


--
Hillary's throat condition has finally been diagnosed:
Chronic Liaryngitis


Ubiquitous

unread,
Sep 21, 2016, 8:44:05 AM9/21/16
to
Outspoken GOP presidential contender Donald Trump doesn't usually need
an assist in putting words in his mouth, but CNN did just that this
week. And by doing so, the network made the GOP candidate sound like a
racist.

Trump appeared "Fox and Friends" on Monday morning to discuss
Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's plan to increase the number of
immigrant refugees from countries such as Syria. Trump has called for
more vetting of people from terror-plagued countries because of the
lack of information about their backgrounds.
Sponsored Video: The New York Times - The Many Sad Fates of Mr.
Toledano

Here's what he said about it:

"You know in Israel, they profile. They've done an unbelievable
job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an
unbelievable job. And they'll profile. They profile. They see
somebody that's suspicious. They will profile. They will take
that person in. They will check out."

But as The Hill observed, all day long the cable network quoted Trump
as calling for "racial profiling" in its headlines. Fox News noticed,
too:

http://ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/profile-1-1024x584.jpg

The Hill reports that CNN kept up the misreporting:

"CNN has been running headlines throughout the day that
specifically quotes Trump as using the words 'racial
profiling.' CNN.com also is using the term 'racial
profiling' in its headlines."

Trump appeared on Fox News twice Monday and said the same thing, but
CNN kept misreporting his position, claiming he "defends racial
profiling":

There are many kinds of criminal profiling, including observing
behavior, background and psychological characteristics, but someone at
CNN assumed the 2016 Republican nominee meant racial profiling.

The Hill reports that's not the only unethical thing the network has
done in the past few days. Instead of putting words into Trump's mouth,
the network removed words from Democrat Hillary Clinton's:

"The decision by CNN to add 'racial' to Trump's comments comes
in the wake of intense criticism this weekend after the network
edited out a key portion of Hillary Clinton's Saturday night
statement following the terror attacks in New York and New
Jersey.

In a gaggle with the press aboard her campaign plane after
the attacks occurred, the Democratic nominee referred to
the explosions as 'bombings,' as Trump had earlier in
the evening.

Trump was later criticized on the network and elsewhere for
using the word 'bomb' too soon."

CNN used to be derisively dubbed the "Clinton News Network" during Bill
Clinton's presidency.

FPP

unread,
Sep 21, 2016, 5:44:19 PM9/21/16
to
On 2016-09-21 06:40:52 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

>
> Here's what he said about it:
>
> "You know in Israel, they profile. They've done an unbelievable
> job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an
> unbelievable job. And they'll profile. They profile. They see
> somebody that's suspicious. They will profile. They will take
> that person in. They will check out."
>
> But as The Hill observed, all day long the cable network quoted Trump
> as calling for "racial profiling" in its headlines. Fox News noticed,
> too:

What EVER gave CNN that idea, I wonder? Maybe it was the words:

> "Our local police -- they know who a lot of these people are. They are
> afraid to do anything about it because they don't want to be accused of
> profiling," Trump said on Fox News on Monday. Trump pointed to how
> Israel used profiling and "done an unbelievable job."
>
> "They see somebody that's suspicious, they will profile," Trump said.
> "Look what's going on: Do we really have a choice?

Gee... who would think the words "They see somebody that's suspicious,
they will profile." advocates racial profiling?

Certainly not most racists that support Hair Trump, it would seem.
--
"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and
stupidity… and I'm not sure about Hydrogen" -Ellison

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 6, 2016, 9:25:55 AM10/6/16
to
“Most voters believe news organizations play favorites when it comes
to fact-checking candidates’ statements,” according to Rasmussen
Reports, a polling firm:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online
survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust
media fact-checking of candidates’ comments. Sixty-two
percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew
the facts to help candidates they support.

Not surprisingly, those who favor the same candidate as the media
are less likely to see media bias:

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who support Trump in
the presidential race believe news organizations skew the
facts, while most Clinton backers (59%) trust media fact-
checking. Among the supporters of Libertarian Gary Johnson
and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, sizable majorities
also don’t trust media fact-checking.

The media certainly have a credibility problem, and “fact checking,”
with its pretense of authority, isn’t helping to overcome it.
Neither is nonsense like this, from an Associated Press dispatch
(emphasis ours):

At another rally hours later in Loveland, Colorado, [Trump]
returned to the argument, racing through his tax explanation
as if it were already part of his usual rally rhetoric and
drawing cheers from the packed arena crowd. But moments
earlier, he complained about the nation’s crumbling
infrastructure, _repairs to which could potentially be
funded [sic] by taxes Trump may not have paid_.

It’s as if journalists have watched Trump’s success and decided that
imitating him by throwing around their own half-baked opinions will
convince the public to trust them. But unlike Trump, the AP didn’t
build its reputation on bluster and hype.


--
To minimize the effects of Hurricane Matthew, FEMA will be briefed
by Pres Obama, the foremost expert in damaging the country.


FPP

unread,
Oct 6, 2016, 6:10:34 PM10/6/16
to
Nice try. We don't need fact checkers when there's video of someone lying.
All we need is eyes and ears.

Just ask Mike Pence...

> 6 things Trump definitely said that Pence claimed he didn’t.
>
> 1. Tax Returns. Tim Kaine said: “Donald Trump started this campaign in
> 2014 and he said, if I run for president, I will absolutely release my
> taxes. He's broken his first promise.”
>
> Mike Pence said: “He hasn’t broken his promise.”
>
> What Trump’s actually said: In 2014, while sitting down with an Irish
> television station, Donald Trump said, “If I decide to run for office,
> I will release my tax returns. Absolutely.” Adding, “I would love to do
> that.” While saying he will release his tax returns when a federal
> audit is complete, Trump’s surrogates, including his son, have implied
> that won’t actually happen. Trump also has said that only the media
> cares about his tax returns. "As far as my taxes are concerned, the
> only one that cares is the press, I will tell you,” Trump said in
> September. And even the press, I tell you, it's not a big deal."
>
>
> 2. Social Security. Tim Kaine said: “Donald Trump wrote a book and he
> said Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and privatization would be good
> for all of us.”
>
> Mike Pence said: “All Donald Trump and I have said about social
> security is we're going to meet our obligations to our seniors. That's
> it.”
>
> What Trump actually said: While describing Social Security in his 2000
> book “The America We Deserve” Trump said of Social Security, “Does the
> name Ponzi all of a sudden come to mind?”
>
> 3. Insults. Tim Kaine said: “Donald Trump during his campaign has
> called Mexicans rapists and criminals. He's called women slobs, pigs,
> dogs, disgusting ... He attacked an Indiana-born federal judge and said
> he was unqualified to hear a federal lawsuit because his parents were
> Mexican. He went after John McCain, a P.O.W., and said he wasn’t a hero
> because he'd been captured.”
>
> Mike Pence said: “To be honest with you, if Donald Trump had said all
> the things that you said he said in the way you said he said them, he
> still wouldn't have a fraction of the insults that Hillary Clinton
> leveled when she said that half of of our supporters were a basket of
> deplorables.”
>
> What Trump actually said: Trump called “some” Mexican illegal
> immigrants “rapists” and “criminals,” and some, he assumed, “good
> people.” He has used a variety of insults for women. Trump came under
> fire earlier this year for claiming an Indiana-born federal judge’s
> Mexican ancestry made him unable to fairly hear a case about Trump. And
> regarding John McCain, Trump said: “He’s not a war hero … He was a war
> hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
>
> 4. Putin. Tim Kaine said: “You've got to be tough on Russia. So let’s
> start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump
> and Mike Pence have said he's a great leader.”
>
> Mike Pence said: “No, we haven't.”
>
> What Trump actually said: Trump has repeatedly praised Putin’s strength
> and has called him “a leader, far more than our president has been.”
> Pence also said he thought it was “inarguable that Vladimir Putin has
> been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in
> this country."
>
> 5. Nuclear weapons. What Tim Kaine said: “Donald Trump's idea that more
> nations should get nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea.”
> He also claimed Trump had said “more nations should get nuclear
> weapons.”
> What Pence said: “Well, he never said that, Senator.”
>
> What Trump actually said: In a March interview with The New York Times
> and subsequent Republican town hall on CNN, Trump suggested it would be
> good for Japan and South Korea to have nuclear weapons. “I think maybe
> it’s not so bad to have Japan — if Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m
> not sure that would be a bad thing for us,” Trump said. Trump stopped
> short of promoting nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia, but he did say it
> was inevitable and that the country needed to be able to defend itself.
>
> 6. Abortion. What Tim Kaine said Donald has said “women should be
> punished ... for making the decision to have an abortion.”
>
> What Pence said: “Donald Trump and I would never support legislation
> that punished women who made the heart-breaking choice to end a
> pregnancy.”
>
> What Trump actually said: Trump in March said abortion “is a very
> serious problem, and it’s a problem we have to decide on …There has to
> be some form of punishment.” But he quickly walked that statement back
> saying, “This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states
> for determination.”
>
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-said-mike-pence-claimed-did-not-229171#ixzz4MDTbrgGN
--
>

"We used to look up and wonder about our place in the stars. Now we
just look down and worry about our place in the dirt." - Interstellar

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 7, 2016, 7:59:58 AM11/7/16
to
WikiLeaks: DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz
By Daniel Chaitin

Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest that the Democratic
National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April
to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an
upcoming interview.

In an email to DNC colleagues on April 25 with the headline "Trump
Questions for CNN," a DNC official with the email username
Dil...@dnc.org asked for ideas for an interview to be conducted by
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign
policy address on Wed. ... Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM
tomorrow."

The sender of the email would seem to be DNC Research Director
Lauren Dillon, who was identified in previous reports of DNC emails
released by WikiLeaks in July.

Several hours after the first email was sent, Dillon said in a
follow-up email that the interview had been cancelled, "as of now,"
but shared a list of questions thought up by the DNC that she said
could be used for the next interview.

Some of the questions included: "Who helped you write the foreign
policy speech you're giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically
did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you
any advice that you chose not to take?" Others explored Saudi
Arabia's alleged involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a
pre-preemptive strike against North Korea and court martials for
members of the military who didn't follow orders.

A separate email from Dillon that same day said "CNN is looking for
questions" for then-GOP primary candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and
"maybe a couple on" former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

CNN and the DNC did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

WikiLeaks dumped 8,263 new hacked DNC emails Sunday evening, the
second batch released after the first was leaked in July. Those
emails showed DNC officials plotting to undermine then-Democratic
candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of now-Democratic nominee Hillary
Clinton. The ensuing controversy led to then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie
Wasserman Schultz's ouster.

CNN has already dealt with a WikiLeaks email controversy related to
the 2016 election. Last month the network parted ways with interim
head of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile after emails
revealed she had funneled debate questions to Trump's opponent
Hillary Clinton in advance of two primary debates.


--
BREAKING NEWS
In other news, somehow Crooked Hillary still isn't in prison...



Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:16:32 AM12/13/16
to
As the left has searched for answers in the month since Donald
Trump’s election, we’ve heard a lot of talk about “fake news.” A New
York Times news story sums the matter up this way:

The proliferation of fake and hyperpartisan news that has
flooded into Americans’ laptops and living rooms has
prompted a national soul-searching, with liberals across
the country asking how a nation of millions could be
marching to such a suspect drumbeat. But while some
Americans may take the stories literally—like the North
Carolina man who fired his gun in a Washington pizzeria on
Sunday trying to investigate a false story spread online of
a child-abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton—many do not.

The larger problem, experts say, is less extreme but more
insidious. Fake news, and the proliferation of raw opinion
that passes for news, is creating confusion, punching holes
in what is true, causing a kind of fun-house effect that
leaves the reader doubting everything, including real
news...

“There are an alarming number of people who tend to be
credulous and form beliefs based on the latest thing
they’ve read, but that’s not the wider problem,” said
Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University
of Connecticut. “The wider problem is fake news has the
effect of getting people not to believe real things.”

He described the thinking like this: “There’s no way for
me to know what is objectively true, so we’ll stick to our
guns and our own evidence. We’ll ignore the facts because
nobody knows what’s really true anyway.”

“Fake news” is a problem on the right—but not only on the right.
“Real” journalists, most of whom lean left, ought to look in the
mirror. Or perhaps they are looking into their own distorted mirror
and don’t recognize what they see.

An obvious example is “climate change.” News organizations have
internalized alarmist orthodoxy, leading them to be dismissive of
facts that call it into question, such as the predictive failures of
climate models and the abuses of scientific process revealed seven
years ago by the “Climategate” emails.

“You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t
independently evaluate any of the climate science claims,” observes
Scott Adams. “You could try to assess the credibility of the
scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face
it—you aren’t good at that. So what do you do? You probably default
to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you.”

That’s what most journalists do, but readers may notice the
disjunction between facts and “science” and conclude that the latter
is bunk. Journalists react by digging in and becoming more dogmatic,
and the result is tendentious headlines like this one: “Trump Picks
Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.” That’s from
a “news” story in the New York Times, the same paper that’s
complaining about “the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for
news.”

Other examples are legion. In an interview published last week,
President Obama raised the problem: “One of the challenges that
we’ve been talking about now is the way social media and the
Internet have changed what people receive as news.” High school
friends of the president’s political director were “passing around
crazy stuff about, you know, Obama has banned the Pledge of
Allegiance.”

The interviewer suggests that maybe the free press needs a free
lunch: “Maybe the news business and the newspaper industry, which is
being destroyed by Facebook, needs a subsidy so we can maintain a
free press?”

To which Obama responds:

The challenge is, the technology is moving so fast that
it’s less an issue of traditional media losing money. The
New York Times is still making money. NPR is doing well.
Yeah, it’s a nonprofit, but it has a growing audience. The
problem is segmentation. We were talking about the issue
of a divided country. Good journalism continues to this
day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone.

Yes, Rolling Stone! The magazine that just last month lost a $3
million libel judgment for a fictitious story about a gang rape at a
University of Virginia fraternity house. Last year the Washington
Times reported that Emily Renda, who had “been publicly identified
in media stories as an adviser to the White House Task Force on
campus sexual assaults,” introduced Rolling Stone’s reporter,
Sabrina Erdely, to the accuser.

Oh, and the Obama interviewer who asked for a handout? It’s Jann
Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone.

Over at the Washington Post, columnist Petula Dvorak weighs in. “The
fake news stuff we’ve been talking about?” she opens. “That all just
got real,” with the pizza gunman incident, which reminds Dvorak of
something else:

Five years ago, it wasn’t fake news but an equally careless
use of words that helped incite an equally terrible burst
of violence.

Supporters of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin put out a
map with crosshairs targeting the districts of 20 House
Democrats and urging folks: “Don’t Retreat, Instead—RELOAD!”
. . .

On Jan. 8, 2011, the consequences were chilling: Jared
Loughner showed up with a gun outside a Tucson supermarket
where Giffords was greeting constituents and killed six
people and injured 20 more, including Giffords.

As the Associated Press reported in 2014, FBI investigative files
showed that Loughner “was unraveling in the months before the
rampage, issuing paranoid, expletive-filled Internet rants about
government conspiracies, suicide and killing police.” He had
apparently been unhinged for some time; “a woman who claimed to be a
psychic” told the bureau that “Loughner sought out her services in
2005 and that he frightened her, telling the woman, ‘I hear voices
and they tell me to do things.’ ”

No evidence has ever emerged that Loughner saw the SarahPAC map, or
that he had any comprehensible ideological grievance against
Giffords. As we noted at the time, confirmation bias led some
liberals to draw a false conclusion before any facts were in. That
was a mistake; the Post’s treatment of the subject now is a lie.
(Also, the text accompanying the SarahPAC map did not say “Don’t
retreat, reload,” although Palin had used that expression in other
contexts.)

An even better example also comes from the Post—in this column’s
judgment the news organization whose standards have fallen furthest
since Trump announced his candidacy. In a Thanksgiving-weekend story
the paper’s Craig Timberg reported:

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support
from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that
created and spread misleading articles online with the goal
of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican
Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy,
say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

This week the Post attached this note atop Timberg’s piece:

Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a
story on the work of four sets of researchers who have
examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to
undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was
PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which
issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that,
in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed
Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected
to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the
sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly
challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The
Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself
vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding
any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport
to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot
has removed some sites from its list.

So the Post published fake news about “fake news.” Welcome to
journalism’s hall of mirrors.


--
Crooked Hillary demands a vote recount--except in states she barely
won. Apparently, those were accurately tabulated.



FPP

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:36:17 AM12/13/16
to
On 2016-12-13 10:03:56 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> “Fake news” is a problem on the right—but not only on the right.
> “Real” journalists, most of whom lean left, ought to look in the
> mirror. Or perhaps they are looking into their own distorted mirror
> and don’t recognize what they see.
>
> An obvious example is “climate change.”

Moron. 97% of climate scientists agree.

Morons still question it.
--
"Today's college kids are multi-racial and international and actually
know people who will be hurt by a Trump presidency. Of course they're
scared. Especially the history majors." - Samantha Bee

FPP

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 7:38:20 AM12/13/16
to
On 2016-12-13 10:03:56 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> “You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t
> independently evaluate any of the climate science claims,” observes
> Scott Adams.

I'm not a mechanic, but I can tell when my tire is flat.

I'm not a plumber, but I can tell when my water heater bursts.

I'm not a proctologist, but I can tell when I'm talking to an asshole.

trotsky

unread,
Dec 13, 2016, 8:00:15 AM12/13/16
to
On 12/13/16 6:36 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-12-13 10:03:56 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:
>
>> “Fake news” is a problem on the right—but not only on the right.
>> “Real” journalists, most of whom lean left, ought to look in the
>> mirror. Or perhaps they are looking into their own distorted mirror
>> and don’t recognize what they see.
>>
>> An obvious example is “climate change.”
>
> Moron. 97% of climate scientists agree.
>
> Morons still question it.


In my opinion Pubie would have to go to school for a few more years
before he could be called a moron.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Feb 18, 2017, 5:53:53 AM2/18/17
to
The media is freaking out over the fact that Trump and his team are
calling on conservative media outlets in these pressers.

Here’s a few tweets:

Hunter Schwarz
Trump has taken Qs from 4 U.S. outlets his 2 most recent
pressers:
-Christian Broadcasting Network
-Townhall
-ABC 7 Washington
-Daily Caller

Kyle Griffin
Trump has so far called on Christian Broadcasting Network
and Townhall—he's only called on conservative outlets for
last three pressers.

Yashar
Next question just went to Town Hall - the conservative
website. Reminder, first question went to the Christian
Broadcasting Network.

Jonathan Karl
So -- the two reporters called on today: Christian
Broadcasting Network and Town Hall. No question on
Trump/Russia contacts.

Katie Pavlich responded to the criticism from Jon Karl:

Katie Pavlich
I asked about Flynn yesterday, wasn't going to ask about
Russia during an Israeli/US press conference
http://ow.ly/clsc3092mqc

Conservative media has taken a backseat to the MSM for a long time,
so I think it’s great that Trump and his team are allowing them to
not only come to the table, but to ask questions as well.

MSMers like Jon Karl and Katy Tur will quite simply have to get over
it, at least for the next four years.

UPDATE: Here’s more:

https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/831928356383907840?
embed_source=clientlib&player_id=0&rpc_init=1&language_code=en

John Whitehouse
CNN reporter @Acosta after Trump calls on only right-wing
outlets for the third straight press conference: "The fix is
in"

Stephen Miller
CNN seriously doesn't get how they are proving every
single bad cliche people think of them as by labeling
them this.
https://twitter.com/Jaggerr9923/status/831932225788792833

Baytown DOM™
@redsteeze His first question was from CBN. Since when is
that a right wing outlet only?


--
The liberal media's agenda is to make Trump as hated and distrusted
as
they are.

FPP

unread,
Feb 18, 2017, 7:37:40 AM2/18/17
to
On 2017-02-18 10:54:11 +0000, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> said:

> The media is freaking out over the fact that Trump and his team are
> calling on conservative media outlets in these pressers

A) He's afraid of questions from real reporters.

B) Who else would believe his bullshit?
--
Days Without President Twitler Being a National Embarrassment: 0

Ubiquitous

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 7:36:59 AM6/6/17
to

CNN reporter Jim Acosta actually asked White House spokesperson
Sarah Huckabee Sanders if Trump attacked the London mayor on
Twitter because he’s Muslim!

Watch:
https://videos.files.wordpress.com/LNuEN44Z/wh-presser-jim-acosta-on-racist-muslim-question_hd.mp4

Oh don’t you just love how CNN Jim couched it?

“There are going to be folks who are going to ask the
question…”

How they heck does he know people will ask this? Is he Jim
Nostradamus now?

This is exactly the kind of tactic that biased reporters use when
they don’t want to look like they are asking a racist, biased
question themselves, and it’s totally pathetic. They think we were
born yesterday I guess.

I know I was hard on Huckabee earlier today but in this instance
she’s right. It’s an outrageous question on it’s face – and dumb,
I might add.


--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.


FPP

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 5:55:08 PM6/6/17
to
On 6/5/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> CNN reporter Jim Acosta actually asked White House spokesperson
> Sarah Huckabee Sanders if Trump attacked the London mayor on
> Twitter because he’s Muslim!
>
> Watch:
> https://videos.files.wordpress.com/LNuEN44Z/wh-presser-jim-acosta-on-racist-muslim-question_hd.mp4
>
> Oh don’t you just love how CNN Jim couched it?
>
> “There are going to be folks who are going to ask the
> question…”
>
> How they heck does he know people will ask this? Is he Jim
> Nostradamus now?

Everybody I know asked the question.

--
Trump on Gropeghazi: "These things never happened, and furthermore,
they never happened a long time ago." - Farhad Manjoo

Ubiquitous

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 9:49:16 PM7/15/17
to
Apparently if you defend the 1st Amendment, you are guilty of hate speech.
That’s the argument put forth by several news outlets -- ABC, NBC, CNN -- and
even Teen Vogue.

On Tuesday night, June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech to
the members of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religious freedom
group. The ADF is assisting the Supreme Court case involving Jack Phillips, a
Colorado baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake.

Major networks are enraged. In headlines for both ABC and NBC, they called
the ADF an “anti-LGBT hate group.” On what would the networks base that
characterization? It’s the hysterical assessment of the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC).

Whether out of laziness or because it suits their bias, far too
many journalists use SPLC as a credible source, rather than the
agenda-driven liberal fund-raising machine it is.

NBC quoted Democratic National Committee spokesman Joel Kasnetz in his
condemnation of Sessions. Kasnetz accused the attorney general of “choosing
to spend his time speaking in front of one of the country’s leading anti-
LGBTQ hate groups.”

ABC further quoted Kasnetz as saying, “Sessions’ appearance at this event, as
the top law enforcement official in the country, brings in to question
whether the attorney general intends to protect all Americans.”

SPLC is best known for being the left-wing group that targets other groups
and individuals in the public eye for “hate speech” -- especially
conservatives and Christian groups.



Even POLITICO recently asked whether or not the group has pushed its civil
rights credibility too far. Writer Ben Schreckinger actually called the
founder of the SPLC “a little Trumpian,” the ultimate liberal insult. HBO
talk show host Bill Maher admitted recently that he would join in a crowd-
funded lawsuit against SPLC, according to the Washington Examiner.

In April, 2017, ADF attorney Kellie Fiedorek called the SPLC’s accusation
“simply false,” and stated that ADF is “not motivated by anti-LGBTQ
sentiment.” Even though NBC covered this story, the network claimed that the
ADF’s actions were hateful in themselves. Heidi Beirich, a spokesperson for
SPLC, was quoted saying that even though the ADF has denied being a hate
organization, “when the rubber hits the road is when ADF attorneys engage in
model legislation and litigation that attacks the LGBT community.”

Whether out of laziness or because it suits their bias, far too many
journalists use SPLC as a credible source, rather than the agenda-driven
liberal fund-raising machine it is. In its Sessions story, NBC referred to
SPLC as “a prominent civil rights watchdog.” Although it addressed ADF’s
defense, ABC quoted SPLC Deputy Legal Director David Dinielli calling ADF’s
hate label “rightfully earned.” ABC then piled on, citing Richard Painter,
Democrat Joel Kasnetz and Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Painter,
former chief ethics lawyer for the Bush administration, said on Twitter, “Why
is the attorney general hanging out with these nuts instead of doing his
job?” Imagine ABC quoting someone calling, say, the Human Rights Campaign
“nuts,” and letting it stand.

CNN carefully avoided any reference to SPLC, but it quoted other sources that
called the ADF a “hate group,” such as the Human Rights Campaign and the
National Center for Lesbian Rights. Because of course, defending the 1st
Amendment means you are full of malicious hate.

Far-left Teen Vogue ominously noted that media outlets were banned from
covering Sessions’ speech to the alleged “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” citing ABC
as a reference.

The ADF, founded in 1994, has been advocating for the right to freely
practice Christian values in American society. As quoted on its website,
“Alliance Defending Freedom defends religious freedom and opposes all
attempts to compel people to compromise their beliefs or retreat from civil
and political life as the price for following their faith.”

That’s the hate speech aimed directly at the LGBTQ community, apparently.

Who listens to the SPLC? Actually, a lot of people. Especially the Family
Research Council shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins, and the shooter of Rep. Steve
Scalise, James Hodgkinson. Corkins specifically used the “hate map”
conveniently provided by the SPLC website, and Hodgkinson liked and followed
their Facebook page.

The media have consistently refused to point out that these violent shooters
were familiar with the hate rhetoric of the SPLC.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Sep 15, 2017, 7:10:22 PM9/15/17
to
The broadcast network evening newscasts remain as hostile as ever towards
President Trump and his agenda, although the networks appear to be easing up
on their obsessive wall-to-wall coverage of the administration.

Since Inauguration Day (January 20), Media Research Center analysts have
reviewed every mention of President Trump and top administration officials on
ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News,
including weekends. As of August 31, coverage of the administration has
totaled nearly 74 hours (4,418 minutes) of airtime, or about 39 percent of
all evening news coverage.

For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015
and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the
available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more
coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two
years as President.

Analyzing the networks’ spin makes it clear that the goal of all of this
heavy coverage is not to promote the President, but to punish him. In June,
July and August, broadcast evening news coverage of Trump was 91 percent
negative — worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated
during the first three months of the administration, usually a traditional
honeymoon period for new presidents.

Methodology: Our measure of spin was designed to isolate the
networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan
politics. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely
showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting
Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied
evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or
negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts
presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements
from the networks’ own reporters.

Using these criteria, MRC analysts tallied 1,567 evaluative
statements about the Trump administration in June, July and
August, of which 1,422 (91%) were negative vs. a mere 145 (9%)
which were positive. Since Trump took office on January 20,
there have been 4,144 such evaluative statements, of which
3,712 (90%) were negative, vs. 432 (10%) which were positive.

The networks’s aggressive anti-Trump spin has been constant throughout 2017,
as it was during the presidential campaign last year. The closest the evening
newscasts came to achieving balanced coverage was in April, when a few
reporters and analysts praised the President’s use of cruise missiles to
punish the Syrian regime for a chemical weapons attack. Yet network coverage
that month was still skewed against Trump by a greater than four-to-one ratio
(82% negative, vs. 18% positive).

The rate of TV coverage has been intense. Early in the year, the networks
focused on the Trump presidency as if it were a national crisis, with White
House news consuming almost half (49%) of all evening news airtime in
January, February and March. That rate subsided in April and May (see chart),
and has averaged 32 percent over the past three months — more than triple the
rate of coverage of the last two years of the Obama administration (10%), but
a significant decline compared to the earliest days of the administration.

It remains to be seen whether this drop in Trump presidential coverage is
permanent, or merely reflects the traditional decline in political news
during the summer months.

Four topics consumed more than half (53%) of all Trump news from June to
August. The networks’ favorite topic was the ongoing Russia investigation,
which consumed 415 minutes of airtime (27% of all Trump news) during the past
three months. But the frenzied coverage of late spring has abated. In June,
the three evening newscasts devoted 236 minutes to the probe; that fell to
140 minutes in July and just 40 minutes in August.

The failed attempt to repeal ObamaCare was the second-most frequent topic,
with 176 minutes of coverage this summer. During these same months, Trump’s
handling of the crisis with North Korea was the focus of 136 minutes of
coverage, while his response to the violence in Charlottesville drew 97
minutes of coverage.

The Russia investigation was also the source of most of the negative comments
about Team Trump — 322 negative vs. 21 positive statements, yielding a 94%
bad press score. Evening news coverage of the effort to repeal and replace
ObamaCare was just as negative as the President’s much-maligned statements
about the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. There were slightly
more negative statements about the GOP health care replacement bill (240)
than the comments about Charlottesville (213), with virtually no positive
statements on either topic, for a matching score of 97% bad press.

A key difference, of course, is that the ObamaCare coverage unfolded over the
course of the spring and summer, while the Charlottesville coverage was
contained in an intense week of coverage in mid-August.

There was far less media spin regarding President’s handling of the showdown
with North Korea, with only 57 negative statements and nine positive ones,
for an 86% bad press score. Most of the coverage has actually been neutral,
with the negative press clustered around Trump’s “fire and fury” threat to
the North in early August.

The networks’ aggression in covering Trump contrasts with their docile, often
adoring coverage of President Obama. Both Presidents are, of course, highly
controversial — the key difference is that Obama’s policies matched the
liberal media’s preferences, while Trump’s agenda clearly clashes with the
establishment media’s world view.

On Friday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin gave the game away when
he admitted that Trump “will get good coverage, if he works with Democrats,
for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a
lot of people in the media like.” All Presidents deserve critical news
coverage from time to time, but the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump has
seen thus far is as much a reflection of the media’s ideological bias as
anything else.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 7:36:43 AM9/20/17
to
Last March, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin argued
that the Obama administration had ordered surveillance on the Trump
campaign and that there was evidence to suggest information gathered
during that surveillance was leaked to harm Donald Trump
politically.

Monday’s report that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
was wiretapped by the Obama administration before and after the
election confirmed what Levin had said, proving Levin’s analysis —
which was meticulously detailed and came from mainstream media
sources — was correct.

But back in March, the mainstream media dismissed Levin’s claims out
of hand. Levin was labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” the
“overwhelming” evidence Levin presented in great detail was largely
ignored, and Levin’s integrity was attacked viciously in the media.

Instead of following up on the evidence Levin presented:
1.ABC’s Brian Ross called Levin “a conspiracy-loving talk show
host.”

2.The Washington Post claimed Levin was “confounded” or “trying to
confound everyone who listens to him.”

3.Writing for the Post, Chris Cillizza labeled Levin’s claims a
“conspiracy theory” and wrote of his evidence: “The proof that all —
or any — of these events are tied together by actual facts as
opposed to supposition is not offered.”

4.The New York Daily News declared Levin “the conservative radio
host behind Trump’s wiretap conspiracy theory.”

5.CNN’s Brian Stelter accused Levin of having “cherry-picked news
stories that supported his thesis and omitted information that cut
against it.”

6.The New York Times called Levin’s detailed argument a
“conspiratorial rant.”

7.The L.A. Times said Levin advanced his claims against the Obama
administration “without evidence” and labeled it a “conspiracy
theory.”

8.The Guardian pointed at Levin as “the talkshow [sic] host behind
the baseless Obama wiretap rumor.”

9.The Daily Beast smeared Levin as “a perpetually angry conservative
media star and commentator who too often enjoys indulging in wild
claims and grand conspiracy-theorizing.”

10.The Atlantic referred to the matter as “Levin and Breitbart’s
conspiracy theory.”

11.The Associated Press falsely claimed that Levin “voiced without
evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.”


Well, now Levin has been vindicated, and these media outlets look
like fools. The mainstream media reaction to Levin’s accurate claims
is a sterling case in point for why Americans don’t trust the media.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Sep 28, 2017, 7:07:34 AM9/28/17
to
Why didn't TV networks show angry, booing NFL fans Sunday or Monday?
By Michael McCarthy

With President Donald Trump's attacks against protesting NFL players still
reverberating, the league's TV partners decided to air live coverage of the
national anthem before Week 3 games. Those partners left out a key element of
the coverage: crowd shots of angry fans.

Networks typically do not televise the national anthem except for the Super
Bowl and other special occasions, but they recognized there would be intense
viewer interest this past weekend.

Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
The audio mics picked up the boos. Yet the TV networks mostly avoided crowd
shots Sunday, so there was never a chance for viewers to see fans jeering
players.

A segment of Patriots fans in Foxborough, Mass., for example, nearly booed
their own players off the field when some Pats sat or kneeled, with some
screaming, "Stand up!"

WATCH: Patriots fans boo their team during anthem protest in wake of
Trump's comments. More from @arniestapleton:
https://t.co/5dfjstwRJs pic.twitter.com/kvLmSzG28w
— AP NFL (@AP_NFL) September 24, 2017

One behind-the-scenes TV staffer at another stadium told Sporting News that
camera operators were ordered to avoid crowd shots in case they showed fans
counterprotesting the protests.

NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports and ESPN pay billions each year to televise
live NFL games. The league saw this weekend's unprecedented anthem coverage as
a golden opportunity to demonstrate unity among players, coaches and owners --
and opposition to Trump's comments.

If crowd shots were indeed purposely avoided, it was a wise business decision
by the networks not to bite the hand that feeds them their most popular
programming, but a weak move from a journalistic standpoint. By covering one
of the most significant days in NFL history with rose-colored glasses, the
networks cheated viewers. We got an incomplete picture of what really happened
in stadiums on Sunday and Monday.

Yes, the main television focus should have been on the players, coaches and
owners sitting, kneeling or linking arms. But fans hold the ultimate power
over the networks and the league, and they were missing in action during
coverage.

CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Sabatelle told Sporting News no one at her network
was instructed to ignore the crowd.

"The anthem was covered by each crew in their own way, with many choosing to
stay with what was happening on the field," Sabatelle said. "There was no
directive given to not show the fans."

And yet, fans were hardly shown, much less interviewed, by NFL networks
Sunday.

During ESPN's "Monday Night Football" telecast of the Cowboys-Cardinals in
Glendale, Ariz., play-by-play announcer Sean McDonough noted, "Boos can be
heard from this sellout crowd" as Jerry Jones and the Cowboys collectively
took a knee.

But we never saw any of these frustrated spectators. Were they booing both
teams for protesting? Just booing the visiting Cowboys? Both? We got only one
quick shot of a fan holding Old Glory while Jordin Sparks sang "The Star-
Spangled Banner."

The booing at the NFL football game last night, when the entire
Dallas team dropped to its knees, was loudest I have ever heard.
Great anger
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

ESPN declined to comment, but a source said there was no edict from Bristol,
that it's up to the director of the "MNF" game telecast to make the call from
the production truck on what shots to use.

During NBC's telecast of "Sunday Night Football" in Landover, Md., we got
plenty close-up views of Raiders and Redskins sitting or linking arms during
the anthem. The fans were strictly in the background.

Fans booing Jets and Dolphins players were loud and clear during CBS's
telecast from East Rutherford, N.J. But we never saw them. Instead, we got a
lot of field-level shots of linked arms players and saluting police officers.

Thought I heard boos as #Jets +#Dolphins knelt or took a knee during
playing of national anthem. CBS avoided crowd shots. Anybody @MetLife?
— Michael McCarthy (@MMcCarthyREV) September 24, 2017

During the singing of the anthem before Giants-Eagles at Lincoln Financial
Field in Philadelphia, Fox stuck to up-close, ground-up shots of players,
coaches and owners. The only image of fans was one long shot showing them
clapping before the network cut to commercial.

Again, the story of fans who were not enamored of Sunday's anthem protests
were out there if TV networks wanted to show us. The reactions of those fans
should have been a bigger story.

In Detroit, a contingent of Lions fans booed their own players when they
protested for racial justice, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Perhaps it's unfair to judge networks by strict journalistic standards since
they are effectively billion-dollar business partners with the league. But
viewers shouldn't have to go to social media or local newspapers to find out
what really happens inside stadiums.

We're all big boys and girls. The sky isn't going to fall if networks show the
booing of protesting players.

Plenty of people are dubious about the league's real aim in all of this. Does
it really support the players' rights to protest, or was the emphasis on
"Unity" a self-serving PR ploy by a league seeking to deflect attention from
the real causes of Kaepernick's protest?

Deadspin's Tom Ley, for example, called BS on "Choose Your Side" Sunday: "The
NFL is literally using this for brand marketing."

Next time, the networks showing NFL games should keep it real. Give us the
truth, as uncomfortable as that might be, and not the glossy, Hallmark card-
version the NFL wants us to see.

FPP

unread,
Sep 28, 2017, 9:15:48 AM9/28/17
to
On 9/28/17 7:07 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
> protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
> The audio mics picked up the boos.

Booing at a football game?
I'm shocked!

And you're a moron.

--
"If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money,
and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office." -Molly Ivins

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 4, 2017, 3:52:28 PM10/4/17
to
Even Oprah Can't Wrangle a Productive Conversation Out of Trump
Supporters

https://jezebel.com/even-oprah-cant-wrangle-a-productive-
conversation-out-o-1818722396

Oprah made her debut as a special contributor for CBS’ 60 Minutes on
Sunday night, traveling to Michigan to interview 14 voters—half who
voted for Trump, half who did not—to ask how they think our current
president is doing. It’s all upsetting.

How do you think Donald Trump is doing? Oprah asks voters in
Michigan https://t.co/UI7z5pZqJb pic.twitter.com/xoyxEOXV7m
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 25, 2017

One voter still rooting for Trump is Tom, a man who says he loves the
President more and more everyday. But even Tom doesn’t like how Trump
handles himself on social media, saying, “I still don’t like his
attacks, his Twitter attacks, if you will, on other politicians. I
don’t think that’s appropriate. But, at the same time, his actions
speak louder than words. And I love what he’s doing to this country.”

Did the president draw a moral equivalence between the groups
that protested in Charlottesville? These voters are divided
pic.twitter.com/UvSwkEaVfF
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 25, 2017

Jennifer—a life-long Republican that voted for Hillary Clinton as a
protest against Trump—says that when the President is off the
teleprompter, his words make her sick to her stomach. Oprah then
shares Trump’s first address on the violence in Charlottesville with
the group (which was actually his more tempered speech) and, speaking
of feeling sick to your stomach, Tom insists that the president was
correct in blaming “both sides,” saying, “The KKK wasn’t fighting with
the KKK. There were two groups.”

Oprah Winfrey: “Describe in your mind the typical Trump voter.”
Answers: angry, frustrated, fed up, forgotten, misinformed,
wounded pic.twitter.com/sddhMR4Uv1
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 25, 2017

A woman named Rose, who voted for Obama before voting for Trump,
claims that the country hasn’t given Trump a chance. Oprah attempts to
argue that Trump is being judged on his words and actions, not
“preconceived notions” about his character, but Rose only repeats
herself:

Rose – who voted for Bush, Obama and Trump -- believes the
country isn’t giving the president a chance. #60Minutes
pic.twitter.com/oTBwVnRXrp
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 25, 2017

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the round table went on for over
three hours, with some people going out afterward to continue the
discussion and making plans to meet up later at a gun range. It
doesn’t seem like Oprah managed to drag much new information out of
people who voted for Trump, just the same old nugget: they don’t care
what the president says or does, and no one -- not even <s>god</s>
Oprah -- will make them think any different.

Byker

unread,
Oct 6, 2017, 7:22:52 AM10/6/17
to

On Sept. 24 a 25-year-old black man allegedly born in Sudan shot up the
Burnette Chapel of Christ in Antioch, TN. He killed 38-year-old Melanie Crow
Smith and wounded at least eight others, including himself.

Among the wounded were the church’s minister Joey Spann and his wife Peggy.

Police took accused gunman Emanuel Kidega Samson to the hospital, where he
was treated for injuries before being returned into custody.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/24/nashville-police-responding-
shooting-antioch-church/697968001/

Samson’s social-media posts reveal a deeply disgruntled black man obsessed
with black-identity politics and white supremacy and police brutality and
all the other topics that ensure that black men who myopically fixate on
them and never pause to smell the roses may ruin their chance at ever
escaping their chronic disgruntlement and embarking on a new life blessed
with never-ending waves of gruntling and regruntling.
http://gotnews.com/breaking-antioch-shooter-black-power-radical-posted-youre-
likely-killed-white-man/

The major American news media has wisely chosen not to make a big deal out
of this story for fear that it might unnecessarily cause racial tension...

http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_s5f9xu_--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--


Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 10, 2017, 8:45:50 PM10/10/17
to
Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.

In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”

According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
. . . my imprint is on every video we do.”

Dudich goes on to display his hatred for President Donald Trump and explains
how he is trying to destroy him:

I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and
Eric. ...

Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott ...
So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and
you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his
business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other
things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being
President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something
incredibly illegal, which he would have to.

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the
anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

Dudich also claims in the video that he “used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon
a time” and appeared to suggest that he has attacked people.

WATCH:
https://youtu.be/D5854-qAqkM

FPP

unread,
Oct 10, 2017, 9:28:31 PM10/10/17
to
On 10/10/17 9:41 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
> just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
> bias inside The New York Times.

No? Really!
You clowns are falling for it? Again?

What is Lil' Jimmie dressing up as today?--

FPP

unread,
Oct 10, 2017, 11:24:32 PM10/10/17
to
On 10/10/17 9:41 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
> just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
> bias inside The New York Times.
>
> In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
> Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
> YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
> replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”
>
> According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
> the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
> . . . my imprint is on every video we do.”

Yeah... that may be a bit of a stretch. He was in a junior position,
and he re-posted already published videos. That's some big fish you've
got there...

"Based on what we've seen in the Project Veritas video, it appears that
a recent hire in a junior position violated our ethical standards and
misrepresented his role," the paper said. "In his role at The Times, he
was responsible for posting already published video on other platforms
and was never involved in the creation or editing of Times videos."

So Lil' Jimmie found somebody that doesn't like Trump?
Shit! I could have helped him with that!

Let's start with the guy who called Trump "a fucking moron".
What was his name again? Oh, yeah... "Mr. Secretary.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 16, 2017, 5:42:20 AM10/16/17
to
Geraldo Rivera said his trip to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria confirmed
how badly biased the press is against President Trump.

"Having seen how he was treated in Puerto Rico and then seeing the press
about how he was treated in Puerto Rico it was almost an absolute 100
percent disconnect," the Fox News contributor told "Fox & Friends" on
Saturday.

Rivera visited Puerto Rico and interviewed the president and first lady as
they surveyed storm relief efforts in the devastated country.

He remembered crowds who were "ebullient" about the president's visit.

The federal government's response to Hurricane Maria has been far better
than it is given credit for, he continued.

"This president has the worst relationship not only with the press but with
those on the other side of the aisle that I have seen since Richard Nixon,"
Rivera said.

"He does not get the benefit of the doubt for anything. Anything he does is
construed in the most wicked, negative way possible."

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/10/14/694940094001_5610554987001_5610554664001.mp4

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 19, 2017, 7:14:06 AM10/19/17
to
Late on Tuesday evening, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL), one of the
more radical members of the House of Representatives, told the media
that one of her constituents, Myeshia Johnson, had been called by
President Trump. Johnson is the widow of one of the soldiers, Sgt.
La David Johnson, killed in Niger two weeks ago. According to ABC
News:

In an interview with CNN Tuesday night, the Democratic
congresswoman said of Trump's comment about Sgt. Johnson:
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed
up for. But I guess it still hurt.' That's what he said."
When asked by ABC Miami affiliate WPLG if she was sure that
is what she heard Trump say, Wilson responded, "Yeah, he
said that. To me that is something that you can say in a
conversation, but you shouldn’t say that to a grieving
widow. And everyone knows when you go to war, you could
possibly not come back alive. But you don’t remind a
grieving widow of that. That’s so insensitive."

President Trump fired back on Twitter:

Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to
the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof).
Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2017

Which led Wilson to return fire: “the president is evidently lying …
I have proof too, this man is a sick man.”

The media are running with the story; Wilson was, after all, present
on speakerphone during the conversation. But the level of initial,
unchallenged credibility accorded to Wilson is somewhat troubling.
It is worth noting that back in May, Wilson stated that Trump was
“on the brink of impeachment”; she made her national name by wearing
colorful hats and crusading for the imprisonment of George Zimmerman
in the Trayvon Martin case. She’s an ardent opponent of Trump’s.
Just two days ago, President Trump enraged his opponents by stating
(in evidence-free fashion) that President Obama did not call the
families of slain American troops; it’s rather convenient that
within 48 hours, an ardent Democrat would come up with a quote from
Trump proving his lack of compassion to those same family members.

It’s entirely possible that Trump said what Wilson alleges. But
we’re not hearing anything from Myeshia Johnson, who should be the
one making this allegation. And we’re not seeing a transcript or
hearing a recording. Which means that once again, we’re stuck in he
said-she said land, where various partisan players can choose
whether or not to believe their political favorites.

Here’s the position we should all be taking: we don’t know yet. We
can have our suspicions, but we simply don’t know. Even Wilson’s
replay of the conversation is a paraphrase, and there are ellipses
in her quotes that do a lot of heavy lifting. Did Trump say that
Johnson “knew what he signed up for” in response to something
Johnson’s wife said? Did he say something else that got lost in the
ellipses? We just don’t know.

So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

FPP

unread,
Oct 19, 2017, 7:54:04 AM10/19/17
to
On 10/18/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
> jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
> Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
It's a very, very short jump.
--
"Take a Tic-Tac and grab 'em by the pussy is the closest thing to a plan
Donald Trump has described this entire election." -Samantha Bee

NoBody

unread,
Oct 20, 2017, 7:23:33 AM10/20/17
to
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:54:03 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/18/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
>> jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
>> Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
>
>Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Yeah but what about Trump?

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 22, 2017, 6:25:24 PM10/22/17
to
In article <osa3or$ifp$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 10/18/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
>> jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
>> Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
>
>Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 22, 2017, 6:27:49 PM10/22/17
to
Heh.

So it turns out that rodeo clown proved herself to be a liar again.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 22, 2017, 7:00:38 PM10/22/17
to
Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly
sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the
media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.

“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to
1981.

Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump
is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian
collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think
there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes,
or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before
he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.

Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First”
strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international
relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes
Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant
character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not
going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming
forward.”

Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic
mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.

“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they
want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s
influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so
far as I know, been to China.”

He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”

In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a
legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address
the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought
to the country illegally as children.

Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the
publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even
yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.

He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major
immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald
Reagan.

“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that
Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he
does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.

FPP

unread,
Oct 23, 2017, 7:19:26 AM10/23/17
to
On 10/20/17 7:23 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <osa3or$ifp$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/18/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>> So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
>>> jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
>>> Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?
>>
>> Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
>
> Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.

Nobody believes anything coming out of the White House, or the
Leadership of either House.

President Weinstein has seen to that.
--
"The 2016 Republican Party Platform... it's not so much a platform, as
it is the Republican Party's suicide note." -S. Bee

FPP

unread,
Oct 23, 2017, 7:20:39 AM10/23/17
to
Cozying up to Carter now? Yeah... no hypocrisy, there...

FPP

unread,
Oct 26, 2017, 11:35:46 AM10/26/17
to
On 10/26/17 5:29 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
> infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
> payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
> to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
> eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
> 20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 26, 2017, 11:35:50 AM10/26/17
to
Here's one top takeaway from network news coverage in 2017: Sneaky Russian
influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves
Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary
Clinton.

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage of the Trump
administration since Inauguration Day. From Inauguration Day, January 20,
through last Friday, October 20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing
1,000 minutes of coverage discussing Russia's attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump's campaign may have colluded with the
Russians in this project.

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

According to an October 22 story by The Hill's John Solomon and Alison
Spann, FBI agents "were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check
that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in
the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped
arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin's
efforts to build his own country's version of Silicon Valley, agents said."

According to the same article: "'There is not one shred of doubt from the
evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary
Clinton's circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset
strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,' said a source
familiar with the FBI's evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of
anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media."

In fact, from April 2015 through last night, the Clinton/Uranium/Russia
story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage -
less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year
to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia.

ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News have been the most
intensive, churning out 350 minutes and 381 minutes of evening news coverage
of the Trump/Russia story, respectively, while the NBC Nightly News aired a
relatively restrained 269 minutes of coverage since January 20. (Note: These
statistics include weekend broadcasts, when aired in the Washington D.C.
area.)


Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of
coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the
Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news
this year.

There's no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors in exchange for
all of the cash going their way, but there's no proof that Trump and his
campaign team did anything wrong vis a vis Russia, either - yet the media
have made it their business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and
his presidency.

Now that they have a chance to be equally zealous in applying the same
standard to a Democrat, it's obvious that much of the media's interest in
the Trump/Russia story has less to do with Russia's attempts to infiltrate
our government and politics, and more to with a partisan news agenda.

FPP

unread,
Oct 26, 2017, 7:04:40 PM10/26/17
to
On 10/26/17 5:29 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
> infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
> payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
> to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
> eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
> 20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

--
"Tinkle, tinkle little Czar, Putin put you where you are." -George Takei

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 26, 2017, 7:43:33 PM10/26/17
to
In article <ossigr$s0n$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 10/26/17 5:29 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
>> infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
>> payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
>> to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
>> eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
>> 20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
>
>Nine. 9.

Nonresponse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 26, 2017, 7:45:17 PM10/26/17
to
In article <ostpm7$p51$4...@news.albasani.net>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 10/26/17 5:29 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
>> infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
>> payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
>> to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
>> eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
>> 20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.
>
>Nine. 9.

Nonresposnse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 27, 2017, 1:24:53 PM10/27/17
to
We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
on the Russia collusion story. The endless crusade to find the
smoking gun that links the Trump campaign colluding with Russian
intelligence operatives has only ended with delivering buckshot in
the Democrats’ direction. The latest bombshell in this story doesn’t
even have to do with Trump, though his name is on the dossier, it’s
the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Marc Elias, a lawyer for both entities, retained Fusion GPS, who
then used ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele to gather information
on Trump. He used sources outside and inside the Russian foreign
ministry and intelligence community to compile the unverified
documents that has served as one of the reasons why we have ex-FBI
Director Robert Mueller looking into the allegations of collusion,
acting as special counsel.

Former Bush aide Ari Fleischer noted that the DNC-funded this
outing, and the Russians gave Steele information which could be
construed as collusion, no? And the Democrats only funded Steele.
So, it seems there could be a Hillary/Russia angle. The Uranium One
deal, which has been fraught with pay-to-play allegations is also
back into the mix since we now know that the Obama administration
and the FBI knew the Kremlin was bribing their way to control the
Canadian mining company—Uranium One. The Obama administration kept
things quiet since they didn’t want to not upset the Russian reset.
The Russians took over the company in 2013, and its mining sites in
the U.S. It gave them control of 1/5 of our uranium supply. The
Committee on Foreign Investment, which oversees deals that could
impact America’s national security priorities, approved the transfer
of the majority stake to the Russians that led to the takeover of
Uranium One. During the process, Bill Clinton got a $500,000 check
for a speech from a Russian bank selling Uranium One futures. The
Clinton Foundation got $2.35 million from the then-chairman of
Uranium One. Hillary was secretary of state at the time, one of the
principals on the committee.

Yet, only a mere 20 seconds has been devoted to that development,
while at least 1,000 hours of coverage has been given to the ‘Trump
is the Manchurian Candidate’ hysteria. That constitutes one-fifth of
all the coverage the big three—ABC, NBC, and CBS—has given to this
administration. Rich Noyes at the Media Research Center broke it
down:

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage
of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day. From
Inauguration Day, January 20, through last Friday, October
20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing 1,000 minutes
of coverage discussing Russia’s attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump’s campaign may have
colluded with the Russians in this project.

[…]

According to an October 22 story by The Hill’s John Solomon
and Alison Spann, FBI agents “were surprised by the timing
and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank
provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer
of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton
helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow
to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s
version of Silicon Valley, agents said.”

According to the same article: “‘There is not one shred of
doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had
set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she
was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and
the assumed successor to Obama as president,’ said a source
familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only
on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to
speak to the news media.”

Imagine $500,000 in Russian money being paid for a speech
delivered by Donald Trump or a member of his family. But
Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news
coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s
This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first
disclosed the potential scandal.

[…]

There’s no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors
in exchange for all of the cash going their way, but there’s
no proof that Trump and his campaign team did anything wrong
vis a vis Russia, either — yet the media have made it their
business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and his
presidency.

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/hv/images/2017/299/43acd47d-
2a23-4232-9d04-053568527d16.png

On the Clinton funding the Trump dossier development, Kristine Marsh
added that ABC News gave a mere 31 seconds to the story, but devoted
10 minutes to the meeting Donald Trump, Jr. had with a Russian
lawyer in June of 2016, which turned out to be nothing.

The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed about this Uranium One
revival, snarkily calling it the “silence of the scams.”

The Rosatom [the Russian state-owned corporation that took
over Uranium One] director named Arkady Dvorkovich, was “a
top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one
of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on
Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14,
2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president
wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents
show,” wrote the Hill.

Mr. Clinton ended up meeting with Russian strongman Vladimir
Putin instead. The Russians ended up getting control of the
uranium. The sale benefited donors to the Clinton
Foundation, which failed to disclose some of the money
donated as required by an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama Administration.

To The New York Times’ credit, they did devote a lengthy article to
this story back in 2015. Yes, it’s par for the course concerning the
duration of the coverage—and the old “if this were a Republican’
game never gets old. It doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

FPP

unread,
Oct 27, 2017, 7:42:16 PM10/27/17
to
On 10/26/17 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
> on the Russia collusion story.

Nope. We all know you won't believe anything that contradicts your
dogma, that's all.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Oct 29, 2017, 12:43:13 AM10/29/17
to
In article <ot0g8n$8e6$2...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>Nope. We all know you won't believe anything that contradicts your
>dogma, that's all.

Projection noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 4, 2017, 9:56:08 AM11/4/17
to

On Friday, Rob Gronkowski of the New England Patriots appeared on CNBC
to discuss the augmented reality app, Mojiit, alongside its creator,
Jeremy Greene. During the segment, the hosts prodded the football star
with questions about the NFL kneeling controversy.

Gronkowski appeared to be taken off-guard by the first question
regarding the anthem protest. "Uh," he uttered, looking somewhat
perplexed.

Nevertheless, the hosts persisted, asking him three more times to offer
his opinion. Gronkowski managed to avoid answering each question.

Greene interjected: "I think the whole thing is just negative, and he
likes to focus on things that are positive, like this app." Gronkowski
replied: "Like Mojiit. I just focus on positivity."

https://youtu.be/mwec0fhpB2s

According to CNBC, "with Mojiit, a user takes a selfie video and sends
it to a friend. The recipient sees a hologram of the digital avatar
relaying the message projected onto another surface."

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:14:52 PM11/6/17
to
Early Monday morning, CNN posted a video of what they believed was a
horrific faux pas on the part of President Donald Trump, now
visiting Japan — but the network, whose new slogan is "just facts,"
appears to have deliberately failed to tell the whole story.

As Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Akasaka
palace in Tokyo on Monday, they were given boxes of food to feed the
palace's Koi fish, considered a de rigeur activity, and one which
confers certain blessings. According to the CNN video, which focused
only on the president, Trump shoveled a few spoonfuls of fish food
into the pond before unceremoniously — and wrongly — dumping his
entire box of food directly into the water.

Since the video shows only Trump — deliberately — and only pans out
to Abe once the fish segment is concluded, it appears that Trump
defied his host's home tradition, insulting the entire country of
Japan.

Leftists on social media pounced. Oh, that Trump! What an uncultured
swine!

But, once video of the full scene emerged, it became clear CNN was
endeavoring to tell only half a story. See if you can spot the
difference between AFP's fish-feeding video and the "facts"
network's:

You see, Abe dumped his fish food into the pond first, and Trump
just followed suit — although in a less delicate manner. He even
seems to have fun imitating Abe.

The president receives a lot of flack for calling CNN "fake news,"
but in this case, the network appears to have gone out of its way to
change how its own story was presented — allowing viewers to believe
that Donald Trump had made a serious fish faux pas when, in fact, he
was only following the example of Japan's own leader. CNN zoomed in
on Trump, and failed to tell the full story, then gave the video an
odd headline, implying Trump was the only fish over-feeder on the
trip.

In fairness to the fish, neither PM should have dumped his box into
the pond. Overfeeding is the top cause of death among Koi fish, and
these Koi are precious to the nation. But at least tell the whole
story.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 7:13:54 AM11/7/17
to
Liberal media fixates on laws that wouldn't have stopped attack,
ignores good guy with gun

Before knowing almost anything about Sunday’s mass public shooting,
gun control advocates are once again calling for more gun control.
The attack at the First Baptist Church in tiny Sutherland Springs,
Texas, claimed 26 lives and left people with an understandable
desire to “do something.” One thing is certain: the proposals put
forward by gun control advocates wouldn’t have stopped this attack.

What they ignored was what stopped the killer was a good guy with a
gun. As one witness said, without the good guy with a gun it “would
have been much worse.” If more people were carrying guns, the
attack might have been stopped even faster and more lives would have
been saved.

Democratic Senators such as Dick Durbin (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal
(Conn.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), and Kamala
Harris (Calif.) all immediately made statements that were various
versions of, “Congress must act.”


The media spent all day after the attack rhetorically asking whether
now was the time for more gun control. CNN’s Jim Acosta repeatedly
asked if President Trump is, “Content . . . with these mass
shootings exploding every month or so.”

Today, the day after the shooting, we know some more about the
killer. We now know that one of the victims who attended the church
was his ex-mother-in-law. That his conviction was for cracking the
skull of his infant son years ago. That he had a “bad conduct”
discharge from the military.

If the media waited even a few hours, they would have learned that
their calls for regulations — primarily for “universal” background
checks — wouldn’t have stopped this attack. Indeed, their proposals
wouldn’t have stopped any of the other mass public shootings in the
last couple decades. Kelley bought a gun at a gun store, and he
passed the background check that the store conducted on him. Lying
on the form doesn’t help you evade the computer background check.

Others on MSNBC immediately called for limiting magazine capacities,
but a magazine is just a box with a spring in it. They can be made
with very simple tools, and now-a-days 3D printers make it an even
easier project. We still don’t know if Kelley planned this attack
long in advance, though he bought the gun back in April 2016. It is
very common for killers to plan mass public shootings one or two
years in advance. It's not serious to think that a ban is going to
keep anyone other than law-abiding people from obtaining a magazine.

During his press conference early Monday morning in Japan, President
Trump worried that the attack was the result of a "mental health
problem at the highest level" and called the gunman a, “very
deranged individual.” Kelley may well have been suffering from a
mental illness, but mental health evaluations shouldn’t be counted
for much help. Psychiatrists and psychologists have an extremely
poor track record in identifying those who pose a threat to others.
Half of the mass public shooters of the Obama years were seeing
mental health professionals prior to their attacks. None of these
experts identified the killers as a danger to others.

Elliot Rodger, who killed six and injured 14 others near the
University of California at Santa Barbara, fooled not only sheriff’s
deputies but also the internationally-known Dr. Charles Sophy. Sophy
is medical director for the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services. That ought to give people pause before
they assume that there’s an easy solution for identifying dangerous
individuals.

We know that the attack at the Texas church could have been even
worse if it wasn’t for an armed civilian. According to the Texas
Department of Public Safety, “A local resident grabbed his rifle and
engaged the suspect, the suspect dropped his rifle and fled from the
church.”

Something should be done, but the question is what. Texas lets each
church decide whether to allow permitted concealed handguns, and we
don’t know whether this particular church allowed it. What we do
know is that time is crucial. The longer it takes for someone to
arrive at the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed.

If the media and politicians want to do something effective, they
could take a page out of Israel’s playbook. When there is a surge in
terrorist attacks , Israeli police call on permitted civilians to
make sure that they have their guns with them at all times.

Police tend to support an increase in permits. “What would help most
in preventing large-scale shootings in public?” PoliceOne asked its
450,000 American officer members in 2013. The most common answer:
“More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”

Eighty percent of the surveyed officers believed that allowing
permitted concealed handguns would reduce the number of victims of
mass public shootings.

Thank God, there was a good guy with a gun on Sunday in Sulpher
Springs.

:John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an
:economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States
:Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and
:op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime
:Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books
:including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on
:Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016).
:Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

FPP

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 7:50:04 AM11/7/17
to
On 11/6/17 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> What they ignored was what stopped the killer was a good guy with a
> gun.

Stopped what? Dozens of people were murdered.
He may have prevented more deaths, but he didn't "stop" shit.

--
"Donald Trump tweeted earlier today, 'It is so nice that the shackles
have been taken off me...' The only thing that ever shackled you was the
140-character limit on Twitter." -Seth Meyers

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 8:35:12 PM11/7/17
to
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

The fishy story began overnight Sunday, when CNN circulated a deceptively
edited video that appeared to show Trump, who was feeding koi fish with
his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, simply dumping his box of fish food
into the pond.

The apparent breach of fish-feeding protocol immediately went viral, as
Trump was seen as too impatient to thoughtfully spoon the fish food into
the pond, as Abe was doing.

Here's how CNN's edited the video:

Here is one of the many tweets CNN published:






CNN also wrote up a news story about the fake fish story:


The Huffington Post's Yashar Ali was one of many journalists to circulate
the false report, snidely tweeting that "Trump was supposed to feed the
koi by the spoonful with PM Abe but quickly got impatient and dumped the
whole box of food into the pond."

The New York Times's Julie Davis likewise helped spread the myth:




The only problem is that ... it's all untrue.

As the non-edited video below shows, both leaders casually spooned fish
food to the koi; after doing so for approximately 30 seconds, Abe dumped
the remainder of his box into the pond; Trump, following Abe's lead, then
does the same:

Yashar Ali, to his credit, deleted his tweet:






The other fake scandal concerns Trump apparently suggesting to Abe that
Japan should build cars in the United States and create American jobs,
rather than import them from Japan.

Haha, journalists sniffed, everyone knows Japan already manufactures cars
in America!

Take, for example, this sample treatment from Slate:




The Hill also helped make this fake story go viral:






As did CBS's White House reporter, Mark Knoller:






Again, the only problem with this story is that it's untrue.

After spreading uncorrected for almost 24, The Washington Post's Aaron
Blake tweeted a debunking:





As the full quote makes clear, Trump not only is aware Japan manufactures
cars in America, but he specifically thanks them for all of the jobs
they're creating. "I also want to recognize the business leaders in the
room whose confidence in the United States — they've been creating jobs —
you have such confidence in the United States, and you've been creating
jobs for our country for a long, long time. Several Japanese automobile
industry firms have been really doing a job," Trump says.

He then thanks Toyota and Mazda specifically for a new plant they're
building in the U.S.:

And we love it when you build cars — if you're a Japanese firm,
we love it — try building your cars in the United States instead
of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude.
Is that rude? I don't think so. (Laughter.) If you could build
them. But I must say, Toyota and Mazda — where are you? Are you
here, anybody? Toyota? Mazda? I thought so. Oh, I thought that
was you. That's big stuff. Congratulations. Come on, let me
shake your hand. (Applause.) They're going to invest $1.6 billion
in building a new manufacturing plant, which will create as many
as 4,000 new jobs in the United States.

We're only one day into Trump's Asia trip, and the major media's already
embarrassed itself twice. It's shaping up to be a long trip.

FPP

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 9:24:41 PM11/7/17
to
On 11/7/17 8:34 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
> President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
> commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

trotsky

unread,
Nov 8, 2017, 5:44:37 AM11/8/17
to
On 11/7/17 8:24 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 11/7/17 8:34 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
>> President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
>> commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.
>
> Any what?


Is there any time where koi aren't Japanese in origin?

A Friend

unread,
Nov 8, 2017, 8:05:25 AM11/8/17
to
In article <oeBMB.588$wT4...@fx09.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:
Yes. We've raised koi. Many U.S. koi come from Israel. Their colors
aren't as vibrant as the Japanese variety, but they're a lot cheaper.

trotsky

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 5:47:37 AM11/9/17
to
Yes, but they originated in Japan. If there have been many generations
raised in Israel it's possible their traits could change.

A Friend

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 8:01:34 AM11/9/17
to
In article <cnWMB.15062$nx2....@fx17.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
Something about the way they're raised in Israel, or the conditions --
maybe even the water -- has affected the coloring, and the Israeli koi
people don't seem to be able to do anything about it. This is a good
export for them, but I suppose the color thing is driving them a little
nuts.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 1:02:07 PM11/10/17
to
Talk about not letting go. While some liberals are gathering to “scream
helplessly at the sky” for the one year anniversary of the 2016
presidential election, the journalists at the Washington Post are busy
writing the equivalent of fan fiction, an “alternate timeline” imagining
"what if Hillary had won." Amazingly, the Post published TWO "alternate
histories" in 24 hours.

Writers Ben Terris, Dan Zak, Monica Hesse and Amy Argetsinger (it took
four people to write this?) on Thursday began by rewriting, “What if
Election Day 2016 had gone a little differently? What if a freak snowstorm
across the Rust Belt had kept rural Trump voters from the polls? What if
Russia had read its psyops data wrong and pivoted its resources to
Snapchat? What if James Comey had taken a closer look at those emails in
late October and decided, eh, it’s probably nothing.”

They fantasized, “What if all of these things happened? What if Clinton
had won? Let’s pretend." The entry included bizarre attempts at humor (?)
such as “Carrie Fisher is still alive.” The four journalists speculated:

On Inauguration Day, President Hillary Rodham Clinton took the
oath in a headband and a pantsuit. Hey, it was rainy, and what
does she care what you think anymore? That night, Lin-Manuel
Miranda brought the house down with a freestyle rap at her first
inaugural ball, while new White House co-chief strategists/toasts
of the town Robby Mook and Donna Brazile set Twitter afire with
their exuberant choreographed dance.

The following day, dozens descended on the Mall for the “Men’s
March.” Three fistfights broke out over who forgot to secure a
rally permit.

It all coincided with a major shake-up at Fox News. The New York
Times had taken advantage of the post-election news lull to ramp
up its investigation of Bill O’Reilly, who was forced out by
early December. Fox then rebuilt its lineup around its new
highest-paid star; Megyn Kelly’s two-hour show, which debuted
Jan. 23, fillets the new president every night for a record-
breaking viewership. Tagline: “Hey, she’s a woman, so you can’t
say it’s sexist.”

Some of it is meant to “funny." Other entries dripped with typical liberal
journalist disdain:

In June, CNN reported that Chelsea Clinton requested permission
to stow her double stroller in a West Wing broom closet while
bringing the kids in to see Grandma. Outraged, Rep. Jason Chaffetz
(R-Utah) — already seeing in the chaos of his party a shot at the
House speakership — postponed his 12th Benghazi inquiry to probe
this potential violation of the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute.

It’s hard to imagine the journalistic “alternate timeline” for John McCain
or Mitt Romney defeating Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.

On Wednesday, the Post’s website posted a SECOND alternate timeline with
typically snarky condescension from writer Rachel Sklar

Nov. 22, 2016: In an exclusive interview with the New York Times,
Clinton touches on a wide variety of issues. The transcript is
widely read, and widely understood.

Dec. 4, 2016: Clinton begins speaking with foreign leaders
through State Department channels. She declines to speak to
the leader of Taiwan. She doesn’t cite decades of diplomatic
tradition because it’s obvious.

The Post isn’t the first media outlet to imagine this “Hillary wins”
fantasy. In August, a Showtime program fantasized about “President
Clinton” bringing “world peace.”

FPP

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 3:50:16 PM11/10/17
to
On 11/10/17 12:56 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Talk about not letting go. While some liberals are gathering to “scream
> helplessly at the sky” for the one year anniversary of the 2016
> presidential election...

So THAT'S why the Dems cleaned the Republican's clocks last Tuesday!
Call it whatever you like... so long as it continues to run those
ignorant fucks out of office, I'm good with it.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 17, 2017, 7:38:10 AM11/17/17
to
Following bombshell allegations on Thursday where two women have
come forward and accused Democrat Minnesota Sen. Al Franken of
harassment, the media’s double-standard is on full display.

On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward
and detailed her own experience with Franken before he became a
member of the Congress.

Morgan said Franken stalked her and wouldn’t leave her alone after
they had a disagreement in August 2000 during a segment on ABC’s
Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

Prior to Morgan’s revelations, KABC on-air personality Leeann
Tweeden accused Franken of kissing and groping her without her
consent while she was asleep.

Tweeden also tweeted out a photo as evidence, which clearly shows
Franken with his hands on her breasts while he smiles for the
camera.

KABC anchor: Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me
Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny About It
https://t.co/lG4A1ZTUhC pic.twitter.com/EYIzr9ok2s

— Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) November 16, 2017

While left-leaning media have largely admitted the allegations
against Franken are serious, they haven’t called on Franken to
resign from his senate seat.

This is a man. Al Franken blames himself. Roy Moore and
Donald Trump blame the women. That is a huge difference.
https://t.co/AwNaDXKEE2

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) November 16, 2017

If u think Franken should resign then you should also call
for Trump to resign. Amazing amt of outrage over Franken
from Trump supporters.

— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) November 16, 2017

It seems too trite to say that presidents help us reveal
who we are, but they do define the age. Electing Obama
revealed some hard truths about race in America. Trump is
doing so around gender and misogyny.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 16, 2017

If you’re a Republican who supports Trump & you condemn Al
Franken, I would like to hear your thoughts on Donald Trump
as well. And if you agree that Franken shouldn’t be in the
Senate anymore, tell me why you believe Trump should still
be in the White House. #TrumpSexPredator

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) November 16, 2017

Democrats are peddling a much different message with it comes to
Franken, where many have opted to shift the blame to anyone and
anything else rather than calling on Franken to resign.

Conversely, many of these liberals have have been calling on
Republican Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore to step
aside amid a report accusing him of sexual misconduct from four
decades ago.

Last week, The Washington Post published a piece accusing Moore of
sexual misconduct from nearly 40 years ago. Other accusers have
since come forward in recent weeks.

Moore has vehemently denied the allegations.

Many of these same liberals in the media immediately called for
Moore to resign when the The Post report was published.

Amazingly enough, it's not a foregone conclusion that
this ends Moore's campaign. Still, it's disturbing and
suggestive of a behavior pattern that in any sane world
would be immediately disqualifying: https://t.co/kYC2gN17xt

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 9, 2017

Horrifying. Roy Moore should resign as Alabama Republican
nominee for US Senate pending a full investigation
https://t.co/FhLJ3PrwdE

— David Leopold (@DavidLeopold) November 9, 2017

So great that Senate Republicans are calling for Roy Moore
to step down over sexual assault allegations. What about to
call for Donald Trump to step down?

— Luisa Haynes (@wokeluisa) November 9, 2017

Here are the Senators so far who don't think that
accusations from multiple women & 30+ sources of Roy
Moore's sexual abuse of minors are enough for him to step

down:@JeffFlake@SenateMajLdr@SenMikeLee@SenShelby@SenToomey@SenatorT
imScott@SenatorCollins

— Nicole Silverberg (@nsilverberg) November 9, 2017

Moore also spoke about the allegations levied against Franken, where
he said there was a clear double standard in the media.

Al Franken admits guilt after photographic evidence of his
abuse surfaces.

Mitch: "Let's investigate."

In Alabama, ZERO evidence, allegations 100% rejected.

Mitch: "Moore must quit immediately or be expelled."

— Judge Roy Moore (@MooreSenate) November 16, 2017

When it’s a Republican, liberals demanded Moore step aside from his
senate seat.

When it’s a Democrat, they point to others who have been accused of
sexual assault, rather than admitting the severity of the charges
against Franken.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called
on the Senate Ethics Committee to review allegations made against
Franken.

“As with all credible allegations of sexual harassment or assault, I
believe the Ethics Committee should review the matter. I hope the
Democratic Leader will join me on this. Regardless of party,
harassment and assault are completely unacceptable — in the
workplace or anywhere else,” McConnell said, according to The Hill.

FPP

unread,
Nov 17, 2017, 7:55:45 AM11/17/17
to
On 11/16/17 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-equalizer/

Notes: Media Equalizer is a news and opinion blog with a strong right
wing bias in reporting. All articles favor the right and discredit the
left. Like most sources that lack credibility, Media Equalizer does not
have an About Page, nor any information about ownership or the authors.
There is moderate use of loaded emotional language in articles and
sourcing is typically to other right biased sources such as Fox News,
who has a poor track record with fact checkers. Overall, we rate Media
Equalizer Right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting based on poor
sourcing. (D. Van Zandt 9/13/2017)
--
Hours after Trump says something dumb during a nuclear standoff, his
last living staffer will send a clarification to the last living
reporter. - Daniel Powell

FPP

unread,
Nov 17, 2017, 8:06:19 AM11/17/17
to
On 11/16/17 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward
> and detailed her own experience with Franken before he became a
> member of the Congress.

Here is a sample of Media Equalizer, commenting on Roy Moore.
Tell me... do you find them credible?

> Rush to judgment, more on Moore
>
> How much fact-checking actually took place before the Washington Post rushed to print in the Judge Roy Moore story? It appears that there were a few important biographical items left out of the narrative since the Thursday salacious details of “inappropriate sexual conduct” became public.
>
> The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple reported that the former Alabama Supreme Court justice was accused of sexual impropriety 38 years ago. But the story becomes something different when you add in the latest information from Fox News Friday evening.
>
> It appears that one of the women accusing Moore reportedly worked as a sign language interpreter for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
>
> https://mediaequalizer.com/kyleeidson/2017/11/rush-to-judgment-more-on-moore

See? Roy Moore is just an innocent victim of... wait for it... Hillary
Clinton!

Ubiquitous

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 4:16:29 AM11/20/17
to
What happened to believing women when they speak out against powerful
male accusers? On Thursday, evidence broke of a 2006 incident in which
Democrat Al Franken groped and forcibly kissed TV and radio personality
Leeaan Tweeden. Photographic proof backs up her claim.

Yet, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt described the now-Senator's predatory behavior
this way: _“[Franken] took a picture, which his office now says was of a
joke, that showed him potentially — not actually groping — but mock-
groping her while she was asleep.”_

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/not-believing-victim-kasie-hunt-frankens-
action-not-actually-groping

In the noon hour, Hunt repeated her mild description. This time, she
didn't cite the Franken staff and made it her own: “Then she also
published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with Senator
Franken mock-groping her.” This isn’t how Tweeden described the unwanted
attention. She didn’t offer qualifiers such as “mock-groping” or “not
actually groping”:

It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through
the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I
saw this one:

I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent,
while I was asleep.

I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled.
Humiliated.

How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?

Doesn’t Tweeden have a right to be believed on her own terms and not
have a journalist downgrade her claims against a liberal, Democratic
senator?

Later on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell described what Franken did as
“groping” and didn’t qualify it.

A transcript of the two comments is below.

MSNBC Live
11/16/17
11:53 p.m. Eastern

KASIE HUNT: We are starting to see some immediate reaction
to this on Capitol Hill to those allegations and you covered
what she had to say pretty well. In a nutshell, she said she
was on this USO tour that Al Franken wrote — he was a comedian
then, not a Senator — wrote into the script that he should
kiss her. Tried to get her to rehearse it. It was
uncomfortable. She avoided him after that. Then he took a
picture, which his office now says was of a joke, that showed
him potentially — not actually groping, but mock-groping her
while she was asleep.

(....)

12:17 p.m. Eastern

HUNT: She says he wrote a part into their skit that required
him to kiss her and that he tried to rehearse the kiss
backstage that made her uncomfortable. And then she also
published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with
Senator Franken mock-groping her.


--
Al Franken admits guilt after photographic evidence of his abuse
surfaces.
Mitch: "Let's investigate."

In Alabama, ZERO evidence, allegations 100% rejected.
Mitch: "Moore must quit immediately or be expelled."

-- Judge Roy Moore (@MooreSenate) November 16, 2017



Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 4, 2017, 7:42:59 AM12/4/17
to
http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/03/694940094001_5666251347001_5666251102001.mp4

While most networks offered mixed coverage to the trial of an
illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle, one network
ignored the case's verdict altogether, Pete Hegseth reported.

Hegseth said MSNBC did not cover the verdict of Jose Ines Garcia
Zarate at all.

Number of minutes MSNBC covered Kate Steinle verdict
(Friday - Saturday): 0. pic.twitter.com/Yj65cLX092

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 3, 2017

Zarate was found guilty on a weapons charge, but acquitted of more
serious manslaughter and murder charges.

"They ignored it all together because to them it wasn't news," The
Federalist's Bre Payton said.

Payton said Zarate didn't deny shooting Steinle, but the fact that
the 45-year-old is a five-time deported illegal immigrant felon
didn't fit the network's narrative.

Hegseth said CNN moderately covered the verdict, but dropped
coverage in favor of reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn [Ret.]
pleaded guilty to lying to federal authorities when that story
broke.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 11, 2017, 7:13:27 AM12/11/17
to
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski lamented the resignation of Sen. Al Franken on
Morning Joe Friday, after the Democratic lawmaker announced he would be
stepping down from the Senate in the wake of a number of sexual misconduct
allegations leveled against him.

“I have an incredibly uneasy feeling about this entire story,” Brzezinski
started.

Joe Scarborough then made sure to point out that his co-host and fiancée
Brzezinski has consistently criticized Democrats as “hypocrites” on Bill
Clinton’s alleged sexual transgressions.

“I’m concerned about women, who are legitimately sexually harassed in the
workplace across America, and where this is taking us,” Brzezinski said,
before reading an excerpt from a Washington Post column asking “Was Al
Franken’s punishment fair?”

Brzezinski then seemed to call into question the legitimacy of Leeann
Tweeden’s allegations (the radio news anchor first accused Franken of
forcible kissing and groping her while she slept, which prompted the other
women to come out and accuse the senator of misconduct.)

“We’ve never really talked about the woman who first came out against Al
Franken,” she said, before questioning the “Playboy model who goes on
Hannity, voted for Trump.”

“I see some politics there, but I haven’t brought that up every step of the
way because of course, in this ‘Me Too’ environment, you must always believe
the women.”

Brzezinski went on to note that she has spoken to the accusers of ex-Morning
Joe analyst Mark Halperin.

“I spoke to them, I believe them. I’m just wondering if all the women need to
be believed. I’m concerned that we are being the judge the jury and the cops
here and so did Senate Democrats getting ahead of their skis,” Brzezinski
said.

Brzezinski also read an excerpt from Masha Gessen’s latest column for the New
Yorker, which criticized the “selective force” of the #MeToo movement.

A number of op-eds have trickled out since Franken’s resignation — including
one from Mediaite’s John Ziegler — that have sought to call into question his
accusers, as well as the heavy-handed way in which his punishment, in the
form of a quasi-forced resignation, was carried out.

FPP

unread,
Dec 11, 2017, 7:19:25 AM12/11/17
to
On 12/8/17 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> “I spoke to them, I believe them. I’m just wondering if all the women need to
> be believed. I’m concerned that we are being the judge the jury and the cops
> here and so did Senate Democrats getting ahead of their skis,” Brzezinski
> said.

So, you find believing Franken's accusers is just peachy, but believing
President Poly Grip and Judge GropATeen should be suspect.

--
"I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and
everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!"
-2017
"WAR IS PEACE." "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" -1984
Eric Arthur Blair

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 12, 2017, 8:00:20 AM12/12/17
to
On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS.

But beyond that, CNN had some really pressing news to report:
President Donald Trump sure does drink a whole lot of Diet Cokes,
eh?

CNN is on it this morning pic.twitter.com/nzy0KbaFwY
— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) December 11, 2017

Apparently, a New York Times report suggests that Trump drinks a
dozen cans of Diet Coke a day. Which, while this probably makes
Trump's dentist wince a little bit, doesn't seem to be a matter of
national security. Nor does this seem like it would be more
important than reporting on an attempted terrorist attack in a major
American city, but then again, I'm not the one making programming
decisions over at CNN.

CNN was criticized for covering this bizarre "story" when there were
clearly other pressing events happening.

Remember when everyone criticized Fox News for talking
about the hamburger emoji? I would love people to give the
same scrutiny to @CNN and @MSNBC, who cut away from a
terror attack to talk about Trump watching TV and drinking
diet coke. https://t.co/zyVItvY2ul
— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) December 11, 2017

Hey @cnn I normally would not support Trump .... but that
last segment on his TV and Diet Coke habbits was horrible...
move on to real news not gossip and complete speculation...
esp when a pipe bomb just went off in NYC
— Alex (@Sparticus_V2) December 11, 2017

8:45, more than an hour after the pipe-bomb story broke,
CNN was busy with Trump’s diet Coke. Note the ticker at the
bottom right of “NYPD responding” pic.twitter.com/x2miM3LnLm
— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) December 11, 2017

Been bouncing back and forth between CNN and Fox to compare
coverage of the NYC attack this morning. CNN took a break to
update us on Trump’s Diet Coke intake.
pic.twitter.com/1MYAyte57q
— Phil Woodall (@phil_woodall) December 11, 2017

At 8:46 am today, just more than an hour after an attempted
suicide bomb attack in Manhattan, NY, CNN were reporting
about Trump drinking 8 Diet Coke’s a day. Let that sink in.
— BNL NEWS (@BreakingNLive) December 11, 2017

Full disclosure: I'm not a soda drinker (carbonated beverages aren't
my thing), and I've probably had fewer than 12 cans of soda total in
my entire life. The concept of drinking that many a day is something
that my brain can't really comprehend. Regardless, if Trump wants to
do this he totally can as he's a free American who can do what he
wants, including (reportedly) drinking over a gallon of Diet Coke a
day.

But for the love of Pete, it'd be best for everyone if our news
channels stuck to covering actual news.

FPP

unread,
Dec 12, 2017, 8:48:28 AM12/12/17
to
On 12/12/17 7:55 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
> in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
> attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
> out by someone inspired by ISIS

Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Thanks Obama!

NoBody

unread,
Dec 13, 2017, 7:38:34 AM12/13/17
to
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:48:27 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/12/17 7:55 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
>> in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
>> attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
>> out by someone inspired by ISIS
>
>Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.
>

Leave it to FPP to try to justify a terrorist attack.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 13, 2017, 5:57:11 PM12/13/17
to
fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 12/12/17 7:55 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
>> in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
>> attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
>> out by someone inspired by ISIS
>
>Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Well, there you go blaming Obama's failures on others again!
BTW, no matter how much you wish it, Crooked Hilalry is not the
president.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 13, 2017, 5:59:09 PM12/13/17
to
Or blame others for Obama's failures, but someone needs to remind FPP
that Crooked Hillary _lost_ the election by a landlside.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 9:52:24 AM12/14/17
to
An all-female CNN segment on Wednesday laughed, gloated, and even
screamed in mockery at the news that a female African-American
member of the Trump administration lost her job.

CNN political commentator Angela Rye gloated and screamed at the
news that Omarosa Manigault-Newman, director of communications for
the White House Office of Public Liaison, was let go from her
position.

CNN host Brooke Baldwin, CNN political analyst April Ryan, and
regular CNN guest Symone Sanders all joined in what was a public
display of complete classlessness as the group all laughed.

“Brooke, I'm going to do what you can't do, and what April and
Symone are too good of people to do and that's just be petty for a
minute,” Rye said, as reported by the WFB. Rye then proceeded to
scream, and said, “Bye girl. Bye. We did it already on the podcast,
April. Bye, honey, you have never represented the community. You are
skin folk. We don't own you like Zora. Goodbye. Good riddance.
Goodbye. Deuces.”

After a few moments, Ryan said she did not “delight in anyone's
demise.”

This is CNN.
https://twitter.com/_/status/941037232806383616

FPP

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 6:41:20 PM12/14/17
to
On 12/14/17 4:46 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> An all-female CNN segment on Wednesday laughed, gloated, and even
> screamed in mockery at the news that a female African-American
> member of the Trump administration lost her job.
>
> CNN political commentator Angela Rye gloated and screamed at the
> news that Omarosa Manigault-Newman, director of communications for
> the White House Office of Public Liaison, was let go from her
> position.
>
> CNN host Brooke Baldwin, CNN political analyst April Ryan, and
> regular CNN guest Symone Sanders all joined in what was a public
> display of complete classlessness as the group all laughed.

Fuck off and die.

They were celebrating the fact that a classless asshole who didn't do
anything except leach off the taxpayer's teat was dumped, like the
garbage fire she was.

She reportedly tried to intimidate April Ryan some months earlier.

This has nothing to do with her gender, her political affiliation or her
race... She was just another useless asshole.
Good riddance!

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 3:24:25 AM12/17/17
to
Covering the Trump presidency has not always been the media’s finest
hour, but even grading on that curve, the month of December has brought
astonishing screwups. Professor and venerable political observer Walter
Russell Mead tweeted on December 8, “I remember Watergate pretty well,
and I don’t remember anything like this level of journalistic
carelessness back then. The constant stream of ‘bombshells’ that turn
into duds is doing much more to damage the media than anything Trump
could manage.”

On December 1, ABC News correspondent Brian Ross went on air and made a
remarkable claim. For months, the media have been furiously trying to
prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Ross reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who
had just pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was prepared to testify
that President Trump had instructed him to contact Russian officials
before the 2016 election, while Trump was still a candidate. If true,
it would have been a gamechanger. But Ross’s claim was inaccurate.
Flynn’s documented attempts to contact the Russians came after Trump
was president-elect, allegedly trying to lay diplomatic groundwork for
the new administration. Ross was suspended by ABC for four weeks
without pay for the error.

Later that same weekend, the New York Times ran a story about Trump
transition official K.?T. McFarland, charging that she had lied to
congressional investigators about knowledge of the Trump transition
team’s contacts with Russia. The article went through four headline
changes and extensive edits after it was first published, substantially
softening and backing away from claims made in the original version.
The first headline made a definitive claim: “McFarland Contradicted
Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows.” The
headline now reads “Former Aide’s Testimony on Russia Is Questioned.”
The website Newsdiffs, which tracks edits of articles after
publication, shows nearly the entire body of the article was rewritten.
(The Times website makes no mention of the changes.)




Still in that first weekend of December, Senator Orrin Hatch criticized
the excesses of federal welfare programs, saying, “I have a rough time
wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help
people who won’t help themselves.” The quote was taken wildly out of
context. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough as well as journalists from Mic,
Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatch was directly
criticizing the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with some
suggesting Hatch thought children should be put to work to pay for
subsidized health care. Not only was Hatch not criticizing the CHIP
program, he cowrote the recent bill to extend its funding.

On December 5, Reuters and Bloomberg reported that special counsel
Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank account records of
President Trump and family members, possibly related to business done
in Russia. The report was later corrected to say Mueller was
subpoenaing “people or entities close to Mr. Trump.”

Then on December 8, another Russia bombshell turned into a dud. CNN’s
Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an
email on September 4, 2016, with a decryption key to a WikiLeaks trove
of hacked emails from Clinton confidant and Democratic operative John
Podesta—that is, before the hacked emails were made public. (WikiLeaks
is widely surmised to act as a front for Russian intelligence.) MSNBC
and CBS quickly claimed to have confirmed CNN’s scoop. Within hours,
though, CNN’s report was discredited. The email was sent on September
14, after the hacked Podesta emails had been made publicly available.
CNN later admitted it never saw the email it was reporting the contents
of.

This is just eight days’ worth of blundering. Since October of last
year, when Franklin Foer at Slate filed an erroneous report on a
computer server in Trump Tower communicating with a Russian bank, there
have been an unprecedented number of media faceplants, most of them
directly related to the Russia-collusion theory. The errors always run
in the same direction—they report or imply that the Trump campaign was
in league with Moscow. For a politicized and overwhelmingly liberal
press corps, the wish that this story be true is obviously the father
to the errors. Just as obviously, there are precedents for such high-
profile embarrassments in the past. (Remember Dan Rather’s “scoop” on
George W. Bush’s National Guard service?) But flawed reporting in the
Trump era is becoming more the norm than the exception, suggesting the
media have become far too willing to abandon some pretty basic
journalistic standards.

Editors at top news organizations once treated anonymous sourcing as a
necessary evil, a tool to be used sparingly. Now anonymous sources
dominate Trump coverage. It’s not just a problem for readers, who
should rightly be skeptical of information someone isn’t willing to
vouch for by name. It’s a problem for reporters, too, because anonymous
sources are less likely to be cautious and diligent in providing
information. According to CNN, the sources behind the busted report on
Trump Jr.’s contact with WikiLeaks didn’t intend to deceive and had
been reliable in the past. Maybe so, but given the network’s repeated
errors it’s difficult to just take CNN’s word for it.

But it’s one thing to use anonymous sources; it’s quite another to be
entirely trusting of them. CNN decided to report the contents of an
email to Donald Trump Jr. based only on the say-so of two anonymous
sources and without seeing the emails. “I remember when I was [a
staffer] on the Ways and Means committee and I would try and give
reporters stories, and I remember the Wall Street Journal demanded to
see a document,” former Bush administration press secretary Ari
Fleischer tells The Weekly Standard. “They wouldn’t take it from me if
I didn’t give them the document, and I thought, ‘Good for them!’?”

What makes the botched story of the WikiLeaks email more troubling is
how quickly MSNBC and CBS ran with CNN’s scoop. “It’s hard to imagine
how independent people could repeatedly misread a date on an email and
do so for three different networks,” says Fleischer. “Whose eyesight is
that bad?”

This points to an additional problem with the sourcing on these
unfounded reports. The only way three networks could claim to have
verified the same specious story is if they were all relying on the
very same sources. Many of the flawed Trump reports appear to be
sourced from a very narrow circle of people, who no doubt share
partisan motivations or personal animus.

Certainly, it appears a number of recent spurious stories have
originated as leaks from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
In Raju and Herb’s report, they revealed that Trump Jr. had been asked
about the WikiLeaks email in closed-door testimony before the
committee. After CNN’s scoop imploded, a spokesman for Adam Schiff, the
ranking Democrat on the committee, issued a classic non-denial denial,
telling Politico “that neither he nor his staff leaked any ‘non-public
information’?” about Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony.

Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has been very good for raising
Schiff’s profile. A December 13 press release from the Republican
National Committee notes the congressman has at that point spent 20
hours, 44 minutes, and 49 seconds on television since Trump took
office, talking mostly about the investigation (pity the low-level
staffer who must have had to do the research for that release). During
that time, Schiff has always declined to discuss the particulars of the
intel committee’s work. Nonetheless, consideration of his sensitive
position hasn’t stopped him from offering all manner of innuendo to
national TV audiences about evidence suggesting Russia collusion.

For their part, the media don’t seem to be coming to grips with the
damage they’re doing to their own credibility. CNN, which calls itself
“the most trusted name in news,” didn’t retract their WikiLeaks report
but rewrote it in such a way as to render the story meaningless. They
also came to the defense of Raju and Herb, saying the reporters acted
in accordance with the network’s editorial policies. And of course they
didn’t out their sources—the ultimate punishment news organizations can
mete out to anonymous tipsters who steer them wrong.

It understandably infuriates the media that President Trump remains
unwilling to own up to his own glaring errors and untruths, while news
organizations run correction after correction. And it also
understandably upsets the media to watch the president actively attack
and seek to undermine their work, which remains vital to ensuring
accountability in American governance. What they haven’t grasped is how
perversely helpful to him they are being: On a very basic level,
President Trump’s repeated salvos against “fake news” have resonance
because, well, there does indeed appear to be a lot of fake news.

“There is nothing wrong with holding powerful people accountable.
There’s nothing wrong with investigating whether or not collusion took
place. But there’s a lot wrong when because you want to believe in the
story so much you suspend skepticism,” says Fleischer. “You let your
guard down. You abandon the normal filters that protect journalistic
integrity. And you fail to also hold to account powerful leakers, or
powerful members of Congress who themselves have an anti-Trump agenda.
It’s called putting your thumb on the scale.”

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 7:16:42 AM12/28/17
to
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png

“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.

The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

FPP

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 8:24:24 AM12/28/17
to
You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?


--
Lack of robots from the future to stop Trump nomination suggests Time
Travel will never be developed. - Tom Tomorrow

NoBody

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 9:32:53 AM12/28/17
to
Leave it to FPP to pull out the Hitler card...

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 3:49:53 PM12/29/17
to
CNN's quest to uncover an explanation for why a truck blocked its
view of President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., on
Wednesday stretched into a second day and once again bore no
concrete answers.

Noah Gray, a producer for CNN who tweeted a picture of a white box
truck in front of hedges adjacent to the golf course on Wednesday,
tracked down what looked to be an identical, if not the same, truck
parked Thursday in a parking lot at the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s
Department.

When asked about the truck Wednesday, the sheriff's department told
CNN it did not order the truck to obstruct the media's view of the
president.

Gray noted that a spokesperson for the department, Teri Barbera,
reiterated that denial on Thursday, saying the management team
didn't order the truck.

CNN's John Berman, who sat in for Anderson Cooper on his "360"
evening program on Thursday, said that the truck, which was in a lot
behind a fence, was parked in such a way that they could not compare
license plates.

Berman also said that where the truck was parked on Wednesday
outside of Trump's golf course, Trump International Golf Club, only
sheriff's department vehicles had parked there previously.

The truck blocked CNN's view of the golf course one day after the
network touted "exclusive" footage of the president hitting the
links.

The president had been golfing with Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.,
professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau, and former PGA player Dana
Quigley at Trump International Golf Club.

CNN also reached out to the Secret Service on Wednesday for comment
on whether it had anything to do with the truck — the driver of
which in the video could be seen blocking a view of his or her face.

https://youtu.be/4H2OXVY0yTM

"The USSS is in the business of protection and investigations not in
commissioning vehicles to block the media's view of the President's
golf swing," the Secret Service said in a statement.

Trump's golfing habits have come under intense scrutiny as he long
complained about former President Barack Obama playing the sport
while serving as commander-in-chief.

Trump's 10-day stay at the Mar-a-Lago for the Christmas holiday is
also drawing scrutiny as a Wall Street Journal report Monday noted
that the president has visited one of his company’s properties on
nearly one-third of the days he has been in in the White House.

Trump's habit to visit and stay at his properties has long raised
conflict of interest concerns.

FPP

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 4:31:23 PM12/29/17
to
On 12/29/17 2:06 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> CNN's quest to uncover an explanation for why a truck blocked its
> view of President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., on
> Wednesday stretched into a second day and once again bore no
> concrete ans

It's so we can't see his lies on tape.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 30, 2017, 4:02:13 PM12/30/17
to
In article <p22ra6$jkh$1...@dont-email.me>, fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 12/27/17 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
>> negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
>> coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
>> Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
>>
>> The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
>> percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
>> percent negative.
>>
>> http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
>>
>> “About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
>> negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
>> for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
>> Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
>> policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
>>
>> The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
>> year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
>>
>> The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
>> days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
>>
>> By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.
>
>You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.

Goodwin's Law violation noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 30, 2017, 4:06:19 PM12/30/17
to
Just another way of knowing FPP lost the debate!
Again.

FPP

unread,
Dec 30, 2017, 6:57:13 PM12/30/17
to
Leave it to NoIrishUbi to pull out the Obama card.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Dec 31, 2017, 8:46:28 PM12/31/17
to
Thanks for making my point again!
QED.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Jan 1, 2018, 9:01:58 AM1/1/18
to

CNN and The New York Times have had an exceptionally difficult time covering
a wave of anti-government, anti-Islamic fundamentalist unrest taking place in
Iran. As the Iranian people have taken to the streets to speak out against an
oppressive regime, CNN and The New York Times have swiftly moved to rebrand
the protests as inconsequential and, at times, anti-American.

According to CNN's latest, the protests — which have seen women throw off
their hijabs, defying years of fundamentalist restrictions telling them what
they can and cannot wear in public — are, in fact, a reaction to the Trump
Administration's refusal to honor an Obama-era deal giving the ruling mullahs
a controlled path to nuclear weapons.

"Iranians are angry, experts say, because they expected life to get better
when severe sanctions were lifted after a deal was reached in 2015 between
the P5+1 and Iran over its nuclear program," CNN claims, as though the United
States is responsible for repressive policies within the formerly Westernized
nation.

Obama's team, of course, assumed the nuclear deal would moderate Iran's
restrictive and oppressive religious government. That simply didn't happen.

Further down, the article downplays the protests as small and taking place in
less consequential places outside Tehran. Only in passing does the article
mention that the protests have taken place in some of the country's most
religiously repressive cities.

CNN, of course, opposes President Donald Trump's intervention, preferring
that the president take a less active role similar to that of President
Barack Obama in 2009. The New York Times, in a seemingly coordinated piece,
also suggested that Donald Trump "do nothing," and work to preserve the
Obama-era deal with the mullahs rather than pursue any American interest in a
free-er Iran.

But if the stories out of two of America's most "respected" media outlets
have been strange, the headlines have been downright bizarre. As anti-
government protests raged in Iran over the weekend, CNN and the NYT focused
on . . . pro-government protests, almost certainly organized by Iran's ruling
party.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/947189471874899968/photo/1

And that's when CNN focused on the protests at all.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/947316350694969344/photo/1

Most of Saturday, CNN's front page focused on "more important news" — that
President Trump had hired security to keep nosy reporters out of Mar-a-Lago.

https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/947356614838898688/photo/1

Sunday morning, at least, the Iran story lead.

FPP

unread,
Jan 1, 2018, 9:10:31 AM1/1/18
to
On 12/31/17 12:50 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> CNN and The New York Times have had an exceptionally difficult time covering
> a wave of anti-government, anti-Islamic fundamentalist unrest taking place in
> Iran.

No, they haven't. Not at all.

--
Trump: If I win, you go to jail, if I lose, I will not accept the
results of the election.
Make America Great Again? -Warren Leight

Ubiquitous

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 9:15:23 AM1/2/18
to
On Monday, The New York Times ran the latest in a series of
despicable pieces dedicated to making excuses for the tyrannical
Islamist Iranian despotism. Here’s their tweet on the regime’s
killing of dissidents:

https://t.co/M9G7x8lvAT

Yes, it’s the fault of the demonstrators, who have somehow merely
refused to heed the decent calls for calm from the Iranian mullahs.
Oddly, The New York Times never has such words for Palestinian
rioters who throw rocks at Israeli troops at the behest of the
Palestinian Authority and Hamas. When that happens, it’s Trump’s
fault or the Jews’ fault. Somebody else’s fault, anyway.

But when it’s democracy-seeking Iranians, then they’re the problem.

The piece itself, by Thomas Erdbrink, is a disaster area. It
contains lines like this one:

Despite Mr. Rouhani’s diplomatic language, it was clear
the demonstrators would be given no leeway…Mr. Rouhani has
_urged demonstrators to avoid violence_ but defended their
right to protest. He did so again on Monday on Twitter.

Rouhani is a tool of the regime, of course, and a radical Islamist
to boot, as well as a Holocaust denier. But according to the Times,
he’s a moderate:

This time, it is the failure of President Rouhani, a
moderate, to deliver greater political changes and economic
opportunity, despite the lifting of some of the sanctions
against Iran as part of the nuclear deal. Young people are
especially angry. The average age of those arrested is under
25, one official said.

And the protests are about economics, not about the repressive
regime. Of course, the regime has spent billions of dollars on
terrorism abroad, including the maximization of its bloodshed in
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. But it’s just that the Iranian
government hasn’t redistributed the oil wealth enough. The Iranians
probably just need Bernie Sanders or something.

Erdbrink’s love for Rouhani isn’t well-hidden in his coverage – he
thinks that Rouhani is trying his best, but the dastardly Americans
are the problem:

Many youths in larger cities enthusiastically voted for Mr.
Rouhani when he was re-elected in May, raising expectations
among many in the reform camp. But since then even many of
the president’s supporters say he has failed to fulfill his
promises for improving an economy sorely hobbled by years
of sanctions, corruption and mismanagement… Beyond that,
the United States has continued other sanctions, making it
still harder for Mr. Rouhani to make gains. The economic
frustrations do not appear to have been offset by the
greater social freedoms that the president has granted
young people.

Those “greater social freedoms” do not include converting to
Christianity; in June and July 2017, the Iranian courts have issued
lengthy prison sentences to 11 Christian converts.

But at least we know the real bad guys: those protesters. And Trump,
of course.

FPP

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 6:49:47 PM1/2/18
to
On 1/2/18 5:10 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On Monday, The New York Times ran the latest in a series of
> despicable pieces dedicated to making excuses for the tyrannical
> Islamist Iranian despotism.

No. They didn't.

Ubiquitous

unread,
Jan 16, 2018, 5:21:50 PM1/16/18
to
The first year of the Trump administration was as turbulent for the
news media as it was for politics, with many journalists dropping any
pretense of professionalism to become strident opponents of the
President. As a proxy for the larger establishment media, the Media
Research Center analyzed every moment of coverage of President Trump
last year on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, usually seen by
more than 25 million people each night. The major findings:

• The Trump presidency was the biggest story of the year,
accounting for one out of every three minutes of evening
news airtime — nearly 100 hours in total.

• The tone of coverage has been incessantly hostile, especially
for a new President in his honeymoon year: 90% negative, vs.
just 10% positive (These percentages do not include neutral
statements).

• More than two-fifths of evening news coverage of the
President (43%) focused on controversies, not policies, with
the Russia investigation alone accounting for one-fifth of
all Trump coverage (1,234 minutes).

• Despite their massive coverage of Russia, the networks had
almost no airtime for questions about how the investigation
began, or whether special counsel Robert Mueller’s current
investigation is biased.

Now the details of our year-long study:

• The Trump Presidency Was by Far the Biggest Story of 2017: From
Inauguration Day (January 20) through the end of 2017 (December 31),
the three evening newscasts aired 3,430 stories that talked about
either President Trump or his administration, totaling 99 hours, 3
minutes of airtime. This amounts to approximately 34 percent of all
evening news airtime (excluding commercials), meaning that one out of
every three minutes of broadcast evening news coverage was devoted to
the Trump story last year.

In contrast, MRC analysis of these same newscasts in 2015 and 2016
found that airtime devoted to President Obama and his administration
amounted to approximately ten percent of overall evening news coverage
in those years, or less than one-third the level of Trump’s coverage.

• Coverage of Trump Has Been Incessantly Negative: Reviewing all of
this coverage, our analysts catalogued 5,883 evaluative statements
about the President or his administration from either reporters,
anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Only about
10 percent of those comments (617) were positive, compared with 5,266
(90%) which were negative — an unparalleled level of media hostility
for a President in his first year in office.

There were only three months in 2017 when Trump’s level of good press
rose above 10 percent on the evening news: January, when TV coverage of
his inauguration included a few stories about the positive reaction
among Trump voters; April, when the network coverage mentioned
supportive reaction to the cruise missile strikes against Syria; and in
December, when Congress finally passed a major tax reform package, a
Trump legislative success. Even in those months, however, the balance
of TV’s coverage of Trump was still hugely negative — 85 percent
negative in January, 82 percent in April, and 85 percent in December.

The media’s negative approach has been essentially consistent
regardless of which issues or controversies were prevalent in the news.
For example, network TV coverage was no more hostile in August (91%
negative), when Trump came under intense criticism for his reaction to
the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, related to a white
supremacist march, than it was in most other months.

Rather, the evening newscasts have provided extremely heavy coverage of
some stories (Russia, the travel ban, and myriad personal
controversies) where they evidently believed heavy criticism is
justified, while they barely mention other topics where the
administration has a positive story to tell. (Tomorrow, we will report
on six of Trump’s accomplishments that were essentially ignored by the
networks.)

• A Huge Percentage of Network News Coverage Focused on Controversies,
Not Policy: More than two-fifths of evening news coverage of the Trump
administration (43%, or 42 hours, 37 minutes) centered on various
controversies associated with the President and his top aides. The
Russia investigation was the networks’ favorite topic, with an
astonishing 20 hours, 34 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fifth of
all Trump coverage last year.

Discussion of all public policy issues combined amounted to 46 hours,
58 minutes of coverage, or roughly 47 percent of all Trump coverage.
The five most-frequently covered policy issues: the effort to repeal
and replace ObamaCare (475 minutes); the nuclear showdown with North
Korea (364 minutes); immigration policy, including ramped-up
deportations and a potential border wall (258 minutes); the temporary
travel ban and the ensuing court fight (251 minutes); and the
ultimately successful push for comprehensive tax reform (222 minutes).

Besides Russia, the networks spent more than 100 minutes on two other
controversies: the President’s reaction to the white supremacist
violence in Charlottesville, and the furor over his allegation in a
tweet that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. No other
controversy achieved that much airtime; our analysts found that the
networks typically obsessed about one controversy at a time, and then
dropped it when a new one became available.

And, for those who might wonder, the remaining airtime not spent
discussing controversies or policy issues (about 9 hours, 17 minutes)
consisted of other administration news (various nominations and
appointments, presidential travel, ceremonial functions, etc.).

• Lots of “Collusion” Coverage, Little Scrutiny of Mueller: Throughout
2017 — even before the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel
— the networks were obsessed with the investigation into whether the
Trump campaign colluded with Russia’s efforts to affect the 2016
presidential election. As noted above, one-fifth of all Trump coverage
on the evening newscasts last year was about the Russia probe, making
it more prominent than the effort to repeal ObamaCare, tax reform,
immigration, or any of the other Trump controversies that TV found so
worthy of coverage.


Yet very little of the airtime devoted to the Russia investigation was
spent looking into how the inquiry into Team Trump first began, or
whether Mueller’s current investigation is biased. Suggestions that
Obama administration officials had improperly “unmasked” Trump
officials caught up in foreign surveillance garnered just 20 minutes of
evening news coverage, or less than two percent of the Russia total.
Evening news coverage of the uncorroborated anti-Trump dossier, which
we eventually learned was financed by the Clinton campaign’s lawyer,
amounted to a mere 15 minutes of airtime.


While the media subjected Clinton-era independent counsel Ken Starr to
harsh scrutiny, any doubts raised about Mueller and his team have been
given little airtime. The three evening newscasts spent a combined 11
minutes (less than 1% of their Russia coverage) on the biased anti-
Trump text messages exchanged between an FBI agent and an FBI lawyer,
both of whom had worked on the investigation. Criticism that the
Mueller team had improperly obtained e-mails written by Trump officials
during the transition period was given barely five minutes of airtime,
(or less than 0.5% of the total Russia coverage).

+++++


The media reaction to Trump’s first year has been so extreme, the
public itself has become polarized over the coverage. In September,
Gallup discovered that record numbers of Democrats are reporting “trust
and confidence in the mass media to report the news ‘fully, accurately
and fairly,’” with 72 percent of Democrats saying they trusted the
press in 2017, compared to just 51 percent who said that a year ago.



A month later, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that “more than
three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media
invent stories about Trump and his administration.” That number swells
to 85 percent when just Trump supporters are asked the question.


What seems to be happening is that many in the media, including the
broadcast networks, have chosen to morph into anti-Trump activists. As
a result, they provide massive attention to stories that they think
make him look bad, give little airtime to more positive aspects of his
administration, and punish him with massively negative spin.


The polls suggest anti-Trump Democrats love that kind of news, pro-
Trump Republicans hate it — while the national media are cementing
their reputation as biased partisans. Their hostility against the White
House is now so obvious, nobody could possibly take them seriously if
they ever again claim to be fair and non-partisan professionals.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages