Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

Over a Dozen Current and Former Fox News Employees Shoot Down NBC’s Hit Piece Against Pete Hegseth–on the Record By Debra Heine

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/04/over-a-dozen-current-and-former-fox-news-employees-shoot-down-nbcs-hit-piece-against-pete-hegseth-on-the-record/

An NBC News hit piece accusing Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, of habitually coming to work at “Fox and Friends Weekend” hung over and smelling of alcohol has been refuted by over a dozen Fox News personalities and guests who have worked with him, including his two cohosts.

The NBC story, which is based on ten anonymous sources, claims that Hegseth’s drinking “concerned” his colleagues at Fox News.

“Two of those people said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth’s time as a co-host of ‘Fox & Friends Weekend,’ which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air,” the NBC story alleges. “Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there he appeared on television after they’d heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set.”

According to the story, “one of the sources said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as last month and heard him complain about being hungover this fall.”

NBC News reporters Chloe Melas, Courtney Kube and Sarah Fitzpatrick claim they spoke with ten current and former employees at Fox News. However, 12 of Hegseth’s colleagues at Fox have gone on the record to strongly dispute the story on social media.  And these employees say they weren’t even contacted by NBC News for comment.

Hegseth’s Fox and Friends Weekend cohost Will Cain fumed on X that NBC’s story is “Bullshit. 100 percent bullshit. Actually…horseshit.”

“Put my name on it. On the record. It’ll be your only on the record source,” Cain wrote. “Signed, The guy who sat next to him for 8 hours every week for five years starting at 6am.”

Election Be Damned, Google’s Anti-Trump Bias Is Alive And Well

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/11/29/election-be-damned-googles-anti-trump-bias-is-alive-and-well/

Donald Trump may have overwhelmingly won reelection, but according to Google’s content police, saying anything nice about him is “demonstrably false” and a threat to the “democratic process.”

Do you think we’re exaggerating?

We received notice the other day that our article “Unburdened By What Has Been, Trump Is Poised To Deliver Bigly” contained, according to Google, “unreliable and harmful claims.”

What falls into this category? Content that:

makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process.
promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.
contradicts authoritative scientific consensus on climate change.

Google didn’t, and never does, provide any specific information on what exactly violated these standards or what a “fix” would entail. But it did strip its ads from that page, costing us money.

So, we decided to try to figure out on our own what the violation was. There were no health claims or mention of “climate change,” so it has to be the first bullet above.

What was “demonstrably false”?

Is Pro-Kamala Harris Bias During 2024 Election Destroying The Big Media? I&I/TIPP Poll Terry Jones

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/11/27/is-pro-kamala-harris-bias-during-2024-election-destroying-the-big-media-ii-tipp-poll/

If you want to know why big media outlets are struggling so badly, you only need to look at the coverage of this month’s presidential election. Not only were the media perceived by voters as favoring Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris, but they continued to show an erosion in Americans’ overall trust in them as sources of information, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

The November national online poll includes 1,436 adults, with a +/-2.6 percentage point margin of error.

Each month, I&I/TIPP asks voters the following questions about the national media:

“Generally speaking, how much trust do you have in the traditional or established news media (Example: Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, CBS News, etc.) to report the news accurately and fairly?”

And, “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have in the alternative news media (Example: New York Post, Washington Times, NewsMax, The Daily Caller, etc.) to report the news accurately and fairly?”

Respondents are given a number of possible responses to both questions, including: “A lot of trust,” “Quite a bit of trust,” “Little trust,” “No trust at all,” and “Not sure.”

In keeping with the recent trend, the overall trust picture for the media is not a pretty one to behold.

Media Describes Muslim Terrorist as “Homeless Florida Man” The name of the “homeless Florida man”? Harun Abdul-Malik Yener. by Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/media-describes-muslim-terrorist-as-homeless-florida-man/

What is it with those homeless Florida men anyway?

Florida man arrested in alleged plot to bomb New York Stock Exchange – CBS News

Homeless man arrested for plotting to bomb New York Stock Exchange – UPI

US arrests homeless man in New York Stock Exchange Bomb Plot- Reuters

FBI arrests homeless Florida man in alleged plot to bomb New York Stock Exchange – NBC News

The name of the “homeless Florida man”? Harun Abdul-Malik Yener.

Harun Abdul-Malik Yener considered joining ISIS, had been looking into bombmaking since 2017 and boasted,
“I feel like Bin Laden.”

So clearly this is a Florida homeless man problem. And not another Muslim terrorist problem.

Fake News in the 21st Century: The egregious, unethical sin of omission – Diane Bederman-

https://dianebederman.com/fake-news-in-the-21st-century-the-egregious-unethical-sin-of-omission/

“The omission is the most powerful form of lie, and it is the duty of the historian to ensure that those lies do not creep into the history books.” —George Orwell,author of ‘1984’

We have heard a great deal about Fake News over the decades. But we have not discussed the fake news that is the result of the egregious unethical omission of facts.

I am old enough to remember Donald Rumsfeld when he wrote about the known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Many laughed. I didn’t. I realized that he could be talking about the failure of MSM – the failure to report ALL the facts:The unknown unknowns. Sadly, once Fake News is shared online, it is there forever. Far too few people fact check. They just blindly believe.

I am also old enough to remember journalists like Walter Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley. Days before cable news.

We have witnessed the most egregious sins of omission these past few years as the left-leaning legacy media tried desperately to prevent Donald Trump from being elected a second time, while having tried to destroy his first Presidency.

Always the same modus operandi – share half a quote – blow it up on social media and MSM. Take those half quotes and synthesize a false conclusion. Trump is hitler. Trump is a fascist.  Trump is a danger to America. Put all of this on social media where it lives forever.

The impotent rage of the flailing woke elites Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/15/the-impotent-rage-of-the-flailing-woke-elites/

So the Guardian has flounced off of X. With characteristic pomposity it announced this week that it will no longer post its articles on this ‘toxic media platform’. X has become a volcanic mess of noxious opinion since evil Elon Musk took over, say the crybabies of Kings Place. So they’re off, to Bluesky, whatever that is. Quite how X’s users will cope without such fine journalism as ‘My toddler is vegan. What’s the problem?’ and ‘What if the mega-rich just want rocket ships to escape the Earth they destroy?’ remains to be seen.

The Guardian charges Musk with letting X be overrun with ‘disturbing content’. This once nice joint now simmers with ‘far-right conspiracy theories and racism’, it says. Let’s leave to one side the industrial-strength gall it must require for a media group that wanged on for years about how Brexit was the handiwork of a ‘shadowy global operation’ spending oodles of ‘dark money’ to accuse anyone else of being a conspiratorial crackpot. The more striking thing is the Guardian’s fantastically haughty refusal to hang out anywhere there are people who have a different opinion.

Let’s be real: that’s what this hissy fit is about, this exodus of the entitled, this fleeing of the self-important from X. They just can’t abide being around people who like Trump and don’t like mass immigration and think lesbians don’t have cocks. Musk’s true crime, in their eyes, was to open X up to views that lie outside the fiercely policed parameters of correct think. Their ‘X-odus’ is an oik-avoidance strategy, a retreat from the madding crowd of lowly opinion-havers into the safety of the liberal echo chamber where everyone agrees Trump is Hitler, Brexit is ‘Brexshit’ and Eddie Izzard is a woman.

It was summed up in a column in the Guardian about the Guardian’s abandonment of X. (The Guardian’s favourite topic of discussion is itself.) ‘Hell is other people’, the writer cries. ‘Or, more specifically, other people on social media.’ Of late, she says, X has become ‘the digital equivalent of a pub notorious for glassing at chucking-out time’, whereas Bluesky hosts a ‘more measured, less emotive conversation’. The hints of class hatred are delicious. X is depicted as a shady pub in the chavvy bit of town while Bluesky is apparently akin to the hot-desking zone at Soho House. God bless the Guardian, they gave mingling with the masses their best shot but it’s just not for them.

One thing the Guardian really came to hate on X was the dreaded community note, which is when users can collaboratively correct a post they feel is misleading. Guardian posts on Brexit and Net Zero and other matters were often targeted by these organic swarms of sceptics. That’s the ‘glassing’ they feared – the shoving of the glass of public doubt into the face of elite ideology. Just imagine how painful it was for the posh and virtuous of the Guardian to have some sunburned bloke with the England flag in his social-media bio waging a war of community notes against their online blather. The horror!

The least convincing thing in the Guardian’s smug justification for its retreat from X is its cry that Musk is using the platform ‘to shape political discourse’. Now, this is true, of course. Musk is not shy about his conversion to the cause of Trump. He took every opportunity to push Trumpism on X in the run-up to the presidential election. Yet the idea that the Guardian has some classically liberal hatred for billionaires using their swag and clout to shape politics is bullshit. The Guardian was fine with Twitter, as it was then, when a ‘nicer’ breed of Silicon Valley fat cat was using it to big up the Dems, silence pesky feminists and gag anyone judged to be ‘far right’. What really horrifies the Guardian is that its class of anti-populist, post-truth graduate hysterics has lost control of X. It hates Musk not for stomping his political bootprint on X but for erasing its own.

Editor-in-Chief of ‘Scientific American’ Resigns After Anti-Trump Rant By Eric Lendrum

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/15/editor-in-chief-of-scientific-american-resigns-after-anti-trump-rant/

The editor-in-chief of Scientific American has resigned from her position following a vulgar rant against President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters.

As the New York Post reports, Laura Helmuth announced her resignation on Thursday, declaring that she was “going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching).”

As previously reported, Helmuth reacted to the results of the 2024 election in real-time, beginning her deranged rants once it became clear that former President Trump was going to win an historic second, non-consecutive term.

“Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist,” said Helmuth in a series of social media posts.

“Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back,” she continued. She also declared that “Gen X is so full of f***ing fascists.”

Helmuth wouldn’t issue an apology for her remarks until November 7th, affirming that her insults were “offensive and inappropriate,” while claiming that she would “respect and value people across the political spectrum.” She deleted the posts in question, but they were preserved through screenshots that have since been shared by her critics, including X owner Elon Musk, who agreed with another user who described Helmuth as “a political activist who has taken over a scientific institution.”

Heather Mac Donald Trumped The mainstream press is about to suffer its most definitive discrediting yet.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trumped

For months, the media have issued apocalyptic warnings about a second Donald Trump presidency. Arcane diagrams of nefarious political connections and multipage spreads of damning quotes have laid out how Trump will tear down democratic norms. He will unleash the National Guard on Democratic voters. He will wreak vengeance on his enemies. He will usher in fascism. He will have Liz Cheney shot. He will be a dictator on Day One. He will use the military to round up millions of migrants. He will seek a national abortion ban. He will outlaw in vitro fertilization. He will suppress free speech.

And now that Trump has been elected again, in a historic political comeback, the press continues to lay down a marker against which to measure its own ideological blinders. On Wednesday, November 6, the New York Times issued the same parade of horribles that it has been hawking since Trump declared his 2024 candidacy: Trump will “use military force against his political opponents . . . crush the independence of the Department of Justice, use government to push public health conspiracies and abandon America’s allies abroad.” He will “turn the government into a tool of his own grievances, a way to punish his critics and richly reward his supporters” and rule as a “dictator”—if only on Day One.

According to a Times headline, America has just hired a “strongman.” Its news reporting explains: “America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its 248-year history.”

Historian Ruth Ben-Chait tells the paper that Trump has prepared for authoritarian government by teaching the public to “see American democracy as a failed experiment.” His victory means the triumph of a style of government that uses “violence as a means of solving political problems.”

A national political correspondent for the Washington Post, Ashley Parker, said on MSNBC that Trump will “take revenge on his enemies” this time around.

None of these things will happen. Trump will not usher in authoritarian government or fascism. He will not shred the rule of law. His administration will not ask Internet platforms to censor information and opinion that opposes administration policies, as did the Biden administration. The press predictions are all on the record and can be consulted for accuracy from this moment onward.

Douglas Murray: What the British Government Wouldn’t Say Over the summer, UK police threatened people who dared to speculate about the background of a killer. Now, they’ve admitted that he possessed an al-Qaeda manual.

https://www.thefp.com/p/douglas-murray-british-police-taylor-swift-killer-terrorist-al-qaeda?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

There are certain rules in British public life that are worth noting. Such as this one: If someone is killed by a jihadist or someone who could plausibly be connected to immigration in any way, the British public will not be informed of the possible motive—or at least not until it becomes impossible to conceal it any longer.

Certain rules follow on from this. One is that “wise” heads will inform anyone who does mention a likely motive that they must be exceptionally careful not to prejudice any forthcoming trial. There then comes an insistence that there will be a time and a place to debate these things. Quite often, that time and place never arrives.

We have seen this enough times now, from the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby to the murder of Sir David Amess; from the Ariana Grande concert attack to the Taylor Swift dance-class massacre. This last has come back to the fore with a suggestive revelation this week. Readers may recall that back in July a maniac went into a children’s dance workshop in Southport, England, and started knifing the participants. Three young girls—Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar (ages 6, 7, and 9, respectively)—died of their injuries. Many others had life-changing wounds.

For the time being, it is safe to say that such horrors are relatively uncommon in the UK. We do not have such attacks on a daily basis, so it is inevitable that as well as being angry, the British public might be curious about how such a grotesque and unusual attack could occur. But the police seemed strangely unwilling to release any information. And this is when people can surmise something with considerable accuracy: If the attacker had been a far-right extremist of the kind we are told is so common in our country, and had shouted, “I’m doing this for Oswald Mosley,” then we would have heard about it. If the attacker had said, “All Taylor Swift fans must be killed,” we might also have heard of it. But there was silence.

Eventually there was a coy statement that Sky News and other media eunuchs were all too pleased to report—which was that the suspect was from Cardiff. “Ah,” we might all say, “a typical Welshman.” Except that nobody does think that. People knew that there must be more. Soon it was revealed that the attacker was of Rwandan heritage, at which point all the anti-speculation people said: “You see, nothing to see here.” After some furious googling, these same people pointed out that Rwanda is a majority-Christian country and that, in any case, the suspect was the child of immigrants, and not a recent arrival on an illegal boat. Meaning that the identity of the attacker didn’t matter, because one dogma of the multicultural state is that once you are in Britain, you become as British as roast beef, whether you originated here or not.

Heather Mac Donald Journalism Dies in Lockstep To the outrage of their readers and staff, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times withhold endorsement in the presidential race.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/journalism-dies-in-lockstep

The media world is in a fury: the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times recently announced that they would not endorse a presidential candidate. Editors and columnists at both papers have resigned in protest; readers have cancelled their subscriptions en masse. Why the outrage? Because everyone knew that those papers would have endorsed Kamala Harris. Why the certainty? Because the papers’ coverage of Donald Trump has been so unrelentingly negative. (The decision not to endorse was made by the papers’ owners: Jeff Bezos, in the case of the Post, and medical entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, in the case of the Times.) 

Acknowledgment of that one-sidedness has been unapologetically frank.

Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein argued that the non-endorsement decision “ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy.”

The editorials editor at the Los Angeles Times, Mariel Garza, was even more explicit. “How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country,” Garza wrote in her resignation letter, “and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?” (Garza proved her L.A. Times bona fides by playing the race and gender cards as well as the threat to democracy card: the decision not to endorse “makes us look . . . a bit sexist and racist.”)

It was “patently absurd,” L.A. Times columnist Robin Abcarian told L.A. Times reporter James Rainey, for the newspaper that had written dozens of news stories and opinion pieces about the dangers of Trump to pull back belatedly from endorsing Harris. (Abcarian and Rainey are off in their quantitative estimate of anti-Trump journalism by a factor of at least 1,000.)