RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/20/dont-let-washington-post-get-away-with-memory-holing-its-anti-kavanaugh-campaign/

Ruth Marcus and others at the Washington Post who led the effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life based on unsubstantiated allegations know that what they did was evil.

The Washington Post has a problem. The newspaper led the massive effort against the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by publishing and relentlessly hyping a completely unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault against him.

Now, the paper is leading Democrats’ efforts to bury a similar, if stronger, allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. To accomplish this dramatic turnabout, the paper is collectively trying to rewrite history, pretending the allegation against Kavanaugh had more basis than it did while also pretending that the allegation against Biden has less basis than it does.

The Post’s anti-Kavanaugh operation had powerful divisions in both the news and opinion departments. It’s worth looking at both.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-media-stop-dancing-on-the-graves-of-trump-supporters-who-die-of-the-virus/

‘They had it coming’ is a shameful sentiment to broadcast. That doesn’t stop the New York Times.

The latest installment in the ghoulish ongoing effort to use coronavirus deaths as a tribal red-vs.-blue bludgeon can be found in a column by Ginia Bellafante of the New York Times, and in the reaction to that column on the left.

The column is framed around the death of Joe Joyce, a bar owner from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Joyce was a Trump supporter; his son, a friend of Bellafante’s, “was at odds with his father politically.” Bellafante admits that Joyce was not the pro-Trump monster of media caricature: “He was not going to make the Syrian immigrant who came in to play darts feel as if he belonged anywhere else. . . . In his bar Joe Joyce had set the tone for what evolved into an incongruously progressive place. From the beginning there had been a quiet gay presence.” But his death is too politically useful, it seems, to resist. And with Joyce gone, his Ivy League–educated kids get the last word. Bellafante writes:

On March 1, Joe Joyce and his wife, Jane, set sail for Spain on a cruise, flying first to Florida. His adult children — Kevin, Eddie and Kristen Mider — suggested that the impending doom of the coronavirus made this a bad idea. Joe Joyce was 74, a nonsmoker, healthy. . . . He didn’t see the problem. “He watched Fox, and believed it was under control,’’ Kristen told me. Early in March Sean Hannity went on air proclaiming that he didn’t like the way that the American people were getting scared “unnecessarily.’’ He saw it all, he said, “as like, let’s bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/20/a_tiny_virus_further_sickens_the_fevered_media_mob_142976.html

In his 1898 novel, “The War of the Worlds,” H.G. Wells imagined a world changed forever by something like our dread coronavirus. In that familiar story, Martian invaders were close to total domination of the Earth when they were unexpectedly vanquished by the “germs of disease,” famously called by Wells “the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, had put upon this earth.”

In the novel, mankind is saved by germs, but in modern Hollywood science fiction viruses are usually employed to devastate human society, or change it forever. The extent to which COVID-19 will leave a permanent mark on us is yet unknown, but it is safe to declare that generations of future doctoral students will study its impact on everything from handshakes to food supply chains.

Within the sphere of politics, we have already seen short-term impacts to elections and how legislative bodies do their work, but the question of how the psychology of crisis will translate into permanent changes in the relationship between the governed and the government can only be answered with informed guesses. Is the rebellion in Michigan against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stringent stay-at-home orders the first shot in a war against the nanny state or the last gasp of “consent of the governed”? Will the electorate become enamored of receiving “paychecks” from the government for not working, or will it chafe at adding untold trillions to the national debt and demand new austerity measures? Can the political media continue to play the role of a Greek chorus, pretending to speak for the general population and assuming a posture of omniscience despite being mainly aligned with one political party – and being so wrong so often?

It is that last question that consumes me today as I watch yet again the White House press corps savage President Trump. It’s become a daily ritual, and one that I enjoy not because the president is being attacked, but because he so deftly fends off the swarming journalistic pests like Gulliver shaking loose from a dozen Lilliputians who mistakenly thought they had the giant pinned.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/wapo_comes_to_the_defense_of_who.html

The Washington Post’s so-called “Fact-Checker” omitted critical facts from his article criticizing President Donald Trump’s condemnation of the World Health Organization. On April 17, 2020, Glenn Kessler’s “Analysis Trump’s false claim that the WHO said the coronavirus was ‘not communicable’” gave President Trump three out of four “Pinocchios” for the allegedly deceptive statement that the WHO “publicly endorsed the idea that there was not human-to-human transmission happening” and that the WHO said it was “not communicable.”       

Kessler quotes a January 13, 2020 WHO news release which states: “To date, there has been no suggestion of human to human transmission of this new coronavirus.”  Kessler does not make any comment specifically about this sentence. Moreover, Kessler cites a document that proves that there was such a “suggestion” before January 13, 2020 but does not quote from that part of the document.  Kessler states:

Dec. 31, 2019:  The WHO was alerted to a potentially new virus in China.

That same day, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control said it sent an email to the WHO regarding rumors of at least “seven cases of atypical pneumonia,” which it said is code in China for “a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-ventilators-trump-administration-handled-potential-shortage-deftly/

The administration handled the potential shortage deftly. 

At a coronavirus-task-force briefing at the beginning of April, White House adviser Jared Kushner explained the approach that would — as events proved — get the country through its ventilator crisis.

He was relentlessly pilloried, mocked, and distorted in the press for it.

After nearly four years of unrelieved Trump hysteria in the media, it’s hard to rank the worst journalistic outrages, but how Kushner’s remarks were misreported and misinterpreted belongs high on the list.

Much of the press coverage and subsequent commentary focused on one sentence at that April 2 briefing: “The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to states’ stockpiles that they then use.”

Cue the outrage. As CNBC put it, correctly, in a headline, “Jared Kushner slammed for saying the federal medical supply stockpile isn’t meant for states.”

The blue-checkmarks on Twitter descended in force. Representative Ted Lieu tweeted, “Dear Jared Kushner of the @realDonaldTrump: We are the UNITED STATES of America. The federal stockpile is reserved for all Americans living in our states not just federal employees. Get it?”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/propaganda_masquerading_as_fact_checking.html

Fact checking was devised to be a trusted way to separate fact from fiction. In reality, many journalists use the label “fact checking” as a cover for promoting their own biases. A case in point is an Associated Press (AP) piece headlined AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s inaccurate boasts on China travel ban, which was published on March 26, 2020, and carried by many news outlets.

So let us check this fact-checker.

The lead of the AP article reads as follows:

Defending early missteps in the U.S. response to the coronavirus, President Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted of travel restrictions on China that he suggests he decided on his own over the objections of health experts and saved “thousands” of lives.

The verdict of the AP piece:

His claims aren’t substantiated.

To support its verdict, the AP piece presents several arguments, all of which begin with the words “THE FACTS” (in all caps). Let us address these arguments. For the sake of clarity, THE FACTS presented by the AP piece are italicized. My responses begin with the words “THE REBUTTAL.”

THE FACTS: His [President Trump’s] decision was far from solo nor was it made over opposition from health experts, as the White House coronavirus task force makes clear. His decision followed a consensus by his public health advisers that the restrictions should take place.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-shoddy-hydroxychloroquine-journalism/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=first

Last week, I wrote about the stupidity of rooting against hydroxychloroquine simply because Donald Trump has mentioned that it holds some therapeutic promise in the fight against coronavirus. This NBC News piece by Heidi Przybyla is the kind of shoddy journalism to which I was referring:

A New York woman with coronavirus symptoms died last week after being prescribed a drug cocktail with known cardiac side effects, and family members say she was not tested for COVID-19 or for heart problems before receiving the medication.

The piece goes on to mention — twice — that Trump touted the drug, and notes that Media Matters says that Fox News touts the drug. But it offers no evidence that the woman’s death had anything to do with hydroxychloroquine.

Despite strongly suggesting that Trump had a hand in death of a defenseless 65-year-old woman, the reporter failed to speak to the physician who prescribed the drugs, or even to obtain additional confirmation about the cause of death.

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2020/04/14/can-we-talk-about-american-medias-connections-to-chinese-interests-n2566887?utm_campaign=inarticle

Several weeks ago, we detailed how American mainstream media outlets were intent on parroting communist propaganda talking points coming from disinformation ministers in Beijing.

At first glance, it would be easy to write this disturbing surrender of journalistic integrity to advanced stages of Trump Derangement System. It would be reasonable to suspect that reporters, producers, anchors and editors held such an intense zeal to oppose, resist and damage President Trump that they’d even stoop so low as to hand their bylines over to propagandists supporting the totalitarian murderers at the top of the Red China food chain.

However, something even more disconcerting may be at work here.

Over at National Review, Jim Geraghty has assembled a disturbing and thorough timeline of the communist Chinese government’s complicity in the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus.

The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of: “Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts.

It’s fantastic reporting and well worth your time when you’re finished reading this.

This is fantastic work by Jim, but why is he the one who put this together? Jim’s one of the best, don’t get me wrong, but he, like so many of us, works for a scrappy media outlet with limited resources. I mean, there are huge media companies in this country covering this story who have resources and reporters all around the world at their fingertips to assemble this data.

Why didn’t NBC News do this reporting? Or ABC News? Or CNN?

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/04/16/media-hope-in-covid-19-they-finally-the-event-that-will-unseat-trump/

A blatant bias against Republicans and conservatives and in favor of Democrats and the left has existed in the media for decades. But never have we seen its fevered as it is today.

The mainstream, or legacy, media was triggered by candidate Donald Trump months before he was elected in 2016. Its palpable hatred of the man was ratcheted up when he beat Hillary Clinton, and hasn’t let up since.

If anything, it’s even become more intense during the COVID-19 crisis. The media, playing well the role of propagandists for the Democratic Party, has only a single objective in its “coverage,” and it’s not reporting relevant information. It simply wants to: Get Trump.

This is not some misreading of events on our part — 43% of the country, and 65% of Republican voters, believe most in the media “are trying to hurt Trump politically” with their coronavirus coverage, says a Rasmussen poll. That 43% would move up well over 50%, and likely even higher, if open minds would read what we’re about to say.

Unable to chase Trump from office through Russia, Russia, Russia; impeachment; and incessant whining about the Electoral College, the media are now riding the coronavirus panic. If they could just convince the public the president is responsible for every COVID-19 death, that he acted too soon, and acted too slowly, that he’s wielded too much power, and not enough, that he hasn’t said enough, but now he’s said too much, they could get their man elected in November. It’s almost as if the press was working from a list of Get Trump bullet points.

https://spectator.org/trump-fights-back/

It was May 2014.

I was interviewing then-private citizen Donald Trump for The American Spectator in his Trump Tower office. The subject in general was his view on issues of the day, along with a possible presidential run in 2016. But I had one question in particular that I wanted to ask.

The question: There were a lot of Republicans who felt their presidential nominees, the perpetual targets of the media, never fought back when attacked. Were he to run, not to mention were he elected, would he fight back? And note: the mention of Donald Sterling, the then-owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA franchise, revolved around a just-released secret recording of racist remarks made by Sterling to his mistress, who had recorded him and released the tape to the media. It was, for a moment, the news story of the day, and as such Trump was asked to comment in an appearance on Fox and Friends. His response to me as follows, verbatim:

Well, I see firsthand the dishonesty of the press, because probably nobody gets more press than I do. As an example, last week I was on a Fox program, and I very much lambasted Donald Sterling. And then at the very end I said, “On top of which, he has the girlfriend from hell.” And the haters and the very dishonest reporters who have their own agenda, they didn’t cover what I said about Donald Sterling. They only took the girlfriend from hell and they said, “Oh he’s not blaming Donald Sterling. He’s defending Donald Sterling. He’s blaming the girlfriend.”

The press is extremely dishonest. Much of it. Some of it I have great respect for, and they’re great people and honorable people. But there’s a large segment of the press that’s more dishonest than anybody I’ve seen in business or anywhere else. And the one thing you have to do is you have to inform the public. The public has to know about the dishonesty of the press because they are really bad people and they don’t tell the truth and have no intention of telling the truth. And I know who they are and I would expose them 100 percent. And I will be doing that. I mean, as I go down the line, I enjoy exposing people for being frauds and, you know, I would be definitely doing that. I think it’s important to know. Because a lot of the public, they think, oh, they read it in the newspaper, and therefore it must be true. Well many of the things you read in the newspaper are absolutely false and really disgustingly false.