Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

The Secret War of Agence France Presse against Israel by Yves Mamou

Biased information about Israel in the French press is not an episodic occurrence. It is a systematic one. The main engine of this biased information industry is blatantly the Agence France Presse.

It is so thoroughly a “pro-Palestinian news agency” that this French institution does not see anything unethical about hiring Palestinian activists as reporters: “Nasser Abu Baker, the chairman of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, the leading force for the boycott of Israeli journalists and media, also writes for the influential French news agency.”

The same bias appears in the media and news agencies all over the developed world, including Reuters, the BBC and the AP. Why, when it comes to Israel, is such a misinterpretation of reality so generalized in the press? The only answer is that a war is in progress: a war of delegitimization.

On July 15, 2016, after the truck ramming that killed 84 people in Nice, France, Agence France Presse (AFP) released a report entitled, “When Vehicles Become Weapons”. It is the duty of a large news agency such as AFP to list, for its customers, examples of countries that are suffering from vehicular terrorism.

Concerning Israel, we can read in the third paragraph: “In Israel and the Palestinian territories, car-ramming attacks have featured heavily in a wave of violence that has killed at least 215 Palestinians, 34 Israelis, two Americans, an Eritrean and a Sudanese since October last year”.

A naïve reader might understand that in Israel and Palestinian territories, Jews and Muslims — or Israelis and Palestinians — find it amusing to use their vehicles to kill innocent passersby. He might think also that Jews are far better players of this gamer than are Muslims, because they killed “215 Palestinians” against only “34 Israelis.”

As the website Honest Reporting noticed:

“In fact, the total number of Israelis who have committed car ramming attacks against Palestinians is exactly zero, but a reader would have no way of knowing that. To the contrary, the AFP’s language gives the incorrect appearance that more Palestinians are targeted by car ramming attacks than Israelis.”

Biased information about Israel in the French press is not an episodic occurrence. It is a systematic one. The main engine of this biased information industry is blatantly the Agence France Presse.

AFP — like Reuters, Associated Press or Bloomberg — is a news agency with offices all over the world (150 countries and 200 bureaus). But it is not a private company; it is supposed to be a cooperative owned by customers (newspapers, radios and TV channels), but it is actually a state-owned company, heavily subsidized due to the large number of subscriptions from different French government ministries — especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The managing director of AFP is appointed by the government. AFP is a tool of French diplomacy and is considered an arm of France’s cultural international influence.

AFP has a large “bureau” in Jerusalem and its journalists have an enormous influence on the European and Middle Eastern press. This influence is enormous because its reports are literally copied-and-pasted by newspapers and countless websites in France and Europe.

Worried About Climate Change and Income Disparity? For only $150K, you, too, can tour the globe by private jet with the New York Times’ finest thought leaders. By Heather Mac Donald

The New York Times has been editorializing on a nearly daily basis since the election about the danger posed by President-elect Donald Trump to the very future of the earth. Rallying its readers on Thursday for the coming “Trump Years,” it argued against “fear or despondency” because “there is too much to be done.” For starters, according to the Times: “There is a planet to save. The earth is in peril from a changing climate no matter how many deniers say otherwise.” The day before, the paper had lamented that Trump may “repudiate last December’s Paris agreement on climate change, thereby abandoning America’s leadership role in addressing the biggest long-term threat to humanity.”

In the short term, however, if you’re a Times executive, marketer, or columnist, it’s still time to party, with all the oomph that a gasoline-fueled, capitalist economy can provide. In October, the Times announced its first-ever “Around the World by Private Jet” tour, slated for early 2018. “An Exclusive Private Charter,” in the words of the “luxury travel” firm of Abercrombie & Kent, will transport a mere “50 guests” to exotic locales in luxury hand-made leather flat-bed seats with “relaxing massage and adjustable lumbar support,” as a “dedicated flight crew attends” to their needs. The “guests” will “Enjoy Exclusive Events & Privileged Access,” such as private dining in Bogota’s Salt Cathedral, camping in luxury in the Moroccan desert, and exclusive after-hours access to the Blue Lagoon in Iceland.

The tour’s “exclusively chartered Boeing 757” ordinarily seats up to 295 passengers, of the pathetically non-“high-luxury” variety. So the carbon footprint of the Times’ 50 guests will be close to six times that of a commercial-jet traveler. If any of the guests feels a twinge of guilt over his greenhouse-gas emissions, he can chase it away by “enjoying a champagne toast inside an Icelandic ice funnel,” before learning “how climate change is affecting the land of fire and ice.” That’s after having been whisked to Easter Island to “learn how climate change is affecting” that location.

NY Times Publisher Tells Readers the Paper Will ‘Rededicate’ Itself to Honest Reporting By Rick Moran

New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. sought to limit the damage done by the paper’s relentlessly biased reporting of the presidential election by penning a letter to readers that promised the Times would strive “to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

Does he really believe that load of crap?

I’m afraid he does. Sulzberger and the media in general live in a bubble where they may try to understand how the rest of the country thinks but have no clue because of a built-in bias against ideas that do not comport with their static and rigid ideology. I’m sure there are many reporters who believe they are being objective when they express disapproval for a worldview that is alien to their experience. The election exposed the media as acting — deliberately or not — as surrogates for the Democratic Party.

Will they learn anything? Sulzberger’s letter to readers was at least partly in response to a scathing analysis of the Times’ election coverage by public editor Liz Spayd:

Certainly, The Times isn’t the only news organization bewildered and perhaps a bit sheepish about its predictions coverage. The rest of media missed it too, as did the pollsters, the analysts, the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign itself.

But as The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers.

The red state America campaign coverage that rang the loudest in news coverage grew out of Trump rallies, and it often amplified the voices of the most hateful. One especially compelling video produced with footage collected over months on the campaign trail, captured the ugly vitriol like few others. That’s important coverage. But it and pieces like it drowned out the kind of agenda-free, deep narratives that could have taken Times readers deeper into the lives and values of the people who just elected the next president.

In other words, The Times would serve readers well with fewer brief interviews, fewer snatched slogans that inevitably render a narrow caricature of those who spoke them. If you want to further educate yourself on the newly empowered, check out the work of George Packer in The New Yorker. You’ll leave wiser about what just happened. Times journalists can be masters at doing these pieces, but they do them best when describing the lives of struggling immigrants, for example, or those living on the streets. CONTINUE AT SITE

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.