Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

New York Times Promises to Lie No More ……except when it involves “hard data”. By Henry Percy

On Friday, Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times, wrote a letter to his newsroom apologizing for their coverage of the Clinton/Trump campaign while simultaneously asserting they were completely unbiased. As non-apologies go, his is a classic. It took him 279 words to say the equivalent of “We told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about both candidates — and we promise to stop lying about Trump in the future.” He sounds like a kid caught shoplifting: “I didn’t’ steal nothin’, and I’ll give back anything that wound up in my pockets, honest I will!”

And then the very next day Pinch’s “newspaper of record” published a story wherein Hillary blames her loss on James Comey:

Mrs. Clinton’s contention appears to be more rooted in reality — and hard data. An internal campaign memo with polling data said that “there is no question that a week from Election Day, Secretary Clinton was poised for a historic win,” but that, in the end, “late-breaking developments in the race proved one hurdle too many for us to overcome.”

So an “internal campaign memo” from Hillary’s campaign is now “hard data”? And this just 24 hours after your letter to the newsroom? Your “journalists” just can’t help themselves, Pinch.

When the Left-media Becomes a Crying Cult By James Lewis

In July of 2011, when North Korea’s butcher-dictator Dear Leader Kim Jung-Il died, all the NK Communist Party members in the land were ordered to cry hysterically, to ululate in grief at the death of Dear Leader, in public, altogether, on command. You can see it in this video, the Party cadres lined up on the hard snow in military platoon formation, men and women, bursting into tears when the command was given.

The BBC wondered at the time whether all that public crying was real or not, since Dear Leader controlled every human being in that country, by sending any wrong ‘uns to his vast concentration camps to be starved and worked to death. Every tear-stained face in those black-clad platoons knew with absolutely certainty that they would be arrested and sent to death if they failed to show enough dramatic grief. Some unconvincing mourners were undoubtedly grabbed and taken away to the camps.

North Korea’s national cry-in for the loss of Dear Leader is an important lesson about human politics: the power of closed cult indoctrination. Turns out you don’t even need death camps. The famous Stanford Prison Experiment showed how it could be done with legally free Stanford students in the prime of life, able to walk away from the experiment any time they liked, without murderous guards armed with guns. All you needed was a Stanford grad student wearing a white lab coat. A whole series of experiments showed the same kind of thing.

The iron key to mind control is having one source of “real” information, and shutting off any competing ones. It’s all Scientology has to deliver for its faithful followers to stay in that imaginary world. Most of the more fanciful religious and non-religious cults on the web have followers who indoctrinate themselves. The Five Star Movement in Italy started as an internet cult in the ‘90s telling teenage kids about airplanes spreading out chemtrails to control the minds of Italians; today the Five Star Cults controls a plurality of votes in the Parliament in Rome. Today “brain hackers” are no doubt using the same dark arts on the more gullible of their webizens. It’s one reason why teenage kids a decade ago started to put metal objects through their ears, lips and noses. To them those were magical symbols as surely as a reversed swastika was an object of power to the Hitlerjugend.

Cults are human universals. A lot of tribal groups are nothing but cults: The key is always restricting information, and crushing dissent. That’s why U.S. cults often block communication between members and their families.

Media Disgraces Itself Once Again By Jay Michaels

I tuned in at 7 EST and flipped channels til 2 a.m.

The imbecilities flew thick and fast from the get-go. For the first hour and a half, the talking heads were all on the same page: Trump had awoken a “sleeping giant” in the Hispanic vote. Hispanics were more than compensating for African-American no-shows, and they would teach the Republicans a lesson they would not soon forget. Unless the party pandered to minorities, it was doomed. Where have I heard this before?

When it became clear what was happening, we were instructed ad nauseum about “uneducated white males,” “white men without a college education,” and “angry white men.” (It had never been “angry Hispanics” earlier.) Then, for a while, we were lectured about the betrayal of the “suburban women” who had apparently voted en masse for Trump, inexplicably. The men lived in mill towns and on farms, but their wives lived in the suburbs.

Then came a slew of dark references to Putin.

The mea culpas were exclusively about the polls underestimating the angry whites. But they had been less than candid with interviewers.

I was switching between the 4 MSM sleeping giants (skipping the Clinton News Network and MSNBC), so it’s possible I missed something, but I heard literally no references to the following:

A corrupt and dishonest media

The Clinton Foundation

Hillary’s deleted emails and her successive lies about the private server

Benghazi

The long trail of Clinton scandals, from Cattlegate and Whitewater in the Disco Age, through Bimbogate, Travelgate, and Pardongate, and on to the glory years of pay for play after 2000. Apparently none of the heads watched or read—even in the comic book version (which is quite good)—Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash.

WikiLeaks: CNN Asked DNC for Interview Questions for Trump, Cruz By Debra Heine

WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails Sunday night that shows a disgusting amount of collusion between the Democratic National Committee and CNN, aka “the most trusted name in news” — otherwise known as the “Clinton News Network.” The emails suggest that CNN is in the habit of soliciting the DNC for questions to ask Republican candidates appearing on the network.

And DNC staffers are more than happy to help out by brainstorming lists of questions for CNN to ask the candidates. It’s a very convenient arrangement for both parties.

On April 25, 2016, DNC research director Lauren Dillon emailed her colleagues asking for “Trump questions for CNN” ahead of his appearance on the network. She said Wolf Blitzer would be interviewing the candidate before his foreign policy address on April 27.

cnn-questions-for-trump

Again on April 28, 2016, Dillon emailed DNC staffers to let them know that CNN was “looking for questions” for Senator Ted Cruz’s upcoming appearance. She asked them to send some “topical/interesting ones.” She also suggested that they include questions for Carly Fiorina.

cnn-questions-for-cruz

The Factless Fact-Checkers How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is? Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.

But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.

The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.

Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.

Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.

“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable,” Trump had said.

Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.

BEST HEADLINE TODAY

NEW YORK POST:

DICKILEAKS-FBI REOPENS E-MAIL CASE

STROKING GUN- WEINER SEXT PROBE FOUND HILL EVIDENCE

Term Limits for the Media? They’re not “hacks.” They’re “flacks.” By Roger L Simon

Now that Donald Trump has reopened the subject of term limits for Congress in his Gettysburg speech, it’s time to turn to the subject of term limits for a group that may need them even more — the media.

The moment couldn’t be more auspicious since WikiLeaks has just exposed 65 “journalists”–coming from such august names in the field as The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC– who were at some level in cahoots with the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign.

Does anyone doubt this number will grow? Of course not, although it already encompasses almost all the prominent brands in the mainstream media.

But, you might ask, just because many of the reporters, broadcasters and pundits involved have worked, in many instances, for the same organizations for decades, far longer than most politicians have been in office and certainly longer than even two-term presidents, how can we “term limit” them? They are not, after all, government workers employed by the taxpayer and this is a capitalist country, at least for the moment.

Well, it’s quite simple, really. We simply call them what they are. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are public relations people — sometimes known, pejoratively, as flacks.

Now having spent a fair number of years writing books and movies, I am quite familiar with how PR people work, having had more than a few of them, some quite good and some not.

Thus reading through the WikiLeaks emails, the behavior of these PR folks (formerly known as journalists) was quite familiar to me. For example, when Glenn Thrush of Politico sent his article about Clinton to her campaign manager John Podesta in advance of publication, he was acting in the grand tradition of the public relations man, submitting his copy to his client for approval. In one of his emails to Podesta, Thrush goes so far as to call himself “a hack.” But he is not. He is a flack.

Megyn Kelly Deserved Newt Gingrich’s Smackdown By Daniel John Sobieski

Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, among the many victims of sexual predator William Jefferson Clinton and his serial enabler, Hillary Rodham Clinton, welcomed Newt Gingrich’s smackdown of the star of Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday night. As Gingrich pointed out, Kelly, along with other mainstream media talking heads, was beating the Trump “Access Hollywood” tape into the ground while reciting the Clinton mantra that Bill’s sexual assaults while holding public office were “old news” and no longer relevant.

Gingrich rightly felt Bill’s escapades were relevant, as well as Hillary’s handling of his “bimbo eruptions” as she looked the other way and rode his coattails to power. Hillary, along with Kelly, has attacked Trump’s attitudes toward women, even as Hillary, apart from being Bill’s serial enabler, once laughed about getting the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl off, and as the Clinton Foundation accepted money from governments and private donors that support Sharia law and its serial abuse of women. As far as we know, Trump has accepted not a single drachma from those who endorse marital rape, the stoning of women for adultery, and other barbarities. Trump versus Bill Clinton? Close, but no cigar.

The exchange, as reported by the New York Times, went as follows, with Kelly arguing that Trump’s dirty talk in a trailer was worse than Bill Clinton’s turning of the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the Oval Office into a personal Playboy penthouse:

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” he told Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly: “Me? Really?”

Mr. Gingrich: “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.”

Ms. Kelly: “You know what Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know …”

Mr. Gingrich then began to talk about how Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, would return to the White House “because you, after all, are worried about sexual predators,” an apparent allusion to Mr. Clinton’s affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“Listen, it’s not about me. It’s about the women and men of America,” Ms. Kelly replied. She said polls showed that voters were concerned about the allegations against Mr. Trump and believed they were an issue.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Gingrich turned to baiting Ms. Kelly.

“Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Mr. Gingrich said, adding: “I just want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’”

THE DOMINATRIX IN THE FOX HOUSE

Megyn Kelly Seeks Salary North of $20 Million in Contract Talks With Fox News ‘The Kelly File’ host is in active negotiations; keeping her at the network is a priority for management, including Rupert Murdoch. ‘It’s up to her’ and others ‘would give their right arm for her spot,’ he says. Joe Flint

Fox News star Megyn Kelly has changed agents and publicity teams since last year. Now the question is if she will change TV networks.

Host of “The Kelly File,” one of the cable-news channel’s most popular shows, Ms. Kelly is in active talks over her contract, which expires next July. Her profile has been rising during the presidential election cycle, in part thanks to a dust-up with Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Keeping Ms. Kelly is a priority for senior management, including Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of Fox News and co-executive chairman of its parent company, 21st Century Fox.

Asked if Ms. Kelly would stay at the channel, Mr. Murdoch said in an interview that she is important to the network and he hopes to get a contract signed “very soon,” but noted, “it’s up to her.”

Mr. Murdoch said he is kept abreast of the talks “every minute of the day.” While he doesn’t want to lose her, he said, “we have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot.”

Report: Clinton Took Over 96 Percent of Journalist Contributions By Tyler O’Neil

The Center for Public Integrity analyzed the political contributions of journalists in the 2016 cycle, and discovered that more than 96 percent of those gifts went to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump,” the Center reported Monday. “Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton.”

“About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee,” the report explained. Only about 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give roughly $14,000 to Donald Trump.

The report excluded talk radio personalities, paid TV pundits, and the like, such as former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

This skew in Clinton’s favor might help explain the disproportionate negative coverage Trump has received in the mainstream media. Granted, the Republican nominee’s comments about women were genuinely offensive, but so are many of the bombshells revealed by WikiLeaks from inside the Clinton campaign (especially offensive to Catholics).

Furthermore, the Project Veritas videos have already pushed key Democratic operatives out of the Clinton campaign. While major media outlets have largely ignored the story (Democrats confessing to long-term voter fraud and to orchestrating violence at Trump rallies), the videos are trending on YouTube.

Naturally, the WikiLeaks emails have revealed journalists working in tandem with the Clinton campaign, running stories past campaign officials, giving Clinton advice, rooting for her, and attending campaign dinner parties. This led Townhall’s Derek Hunter to say that the campaign is “rigged” — not by voter fraud, but by selective media bias.

“If there’s one thing this election cycle has exposed it’s just how symbiotic the relationship between the Democratic Party and the media is,” Hunter argued. “Newspapers might as well run Democratic press releases with reporters’ bylines at this point.”