RUTHFULLY YOURS

Free speech has come under attack on two fronts since Donald Trump was elected president. Many unhappy with his victory charge that Russia interfered in our election on his behalf by using social media like Facebook and Twitter, which should be held responsible for the content on their sites. Meanwhile, some political activists and politicians are calling for a revision of our free speech laws to prevent “hate” speech and “fake news” from polluting the public square. Everybody is complaining about false or biased reporting that is distracting and confusing voters with disinformation and appeals to unsavory emotions. One of the pillars of American exceptionalism, the right of citizens to speak freely, no matter how rough or hateful their words, seems to be tottering.

The revelations that Russian propaganda exploited social media to affect the outcome of the election has resulted in Twitter, Facebook, and Google executives getting hauled before Congress to answer questions about the parts their businesses may have played in supposed Russian electoral interference. According to the testimony of these executives, Russian-sponsored Facebook ads reached 135 million American voters over 32 months, and the New York Times reports “more than 126 million users potentially saw inflammatory political ads bought by a Kremlin-linked company, the Internet Research Agency.” Many Congressmen from both parties demanded to know what social media companies will do to control the dissemination of questionable or hostile information.

Similarly, even before the violent demonstrations by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia last summer, critics were demanding a revision of our First Amendment in order to make it resemble the laws in Europe that prohibit “hate speech” and speech that attempts to “spread, incite, promote, or justify hatred based on intolerance.” The “free marketplace of ideas,” critics argue, in the age of the internet is no longer adequate for sorting out “legitimate” speech from hateful propaganda that, if left unchecked, could lead to political tyranny, as happened in Germany under Nazism in the in the 1920s and ’30s. The safety of the larger political community should take precedence over the right of individual citizens to speak their minds.

The libertarian Koch brothers are providing critical financing allowing Meredith Corp. to buy publisher Time Inc. Everyone involved seems to be taking pains to emphasize that billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch will have no editorial influence over Time magazine or any of the group’s other titles, which is too bad for readers. This is an outfit that could use a few dissenting voices.

The Journal notes that Meredith is paying $1.85 billion in cash, and that $650 million of it is coming from a private-equity unit of Koch Industries.

Both Meredith Chairman and CEO Stephen Lacy and its Chief Operating Officer Tom Harty have clarified that they will not be relying on their new partners for news judgment. According to the Journal:

Mr. Harty described the Koch investment as “passive” and said the firm “won’t have any influence on Meredith’s operations, including editorial.” Koch Industries, he added, has expressed no interest in acquiring any individual Time Inc. titles.

Mr. Lacy said he has never met with the Koch brothers. “They won’t have a seat on the board of which I chair,” he added.

The same message is coming from Koch Industries. According to the New York Times:

Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank.

Mr. Lombardo said the company is constantly evaluating investment opportunities.

“We’re looking at deals across all sectors, all industries,” he said. “This just happened to be one that made sense.”

Readers would be unlikely to welcome any publication that simply parrots the opinions of its owner. They also may take issue with the views of entrenched editors. This deal is happening precisely because so many readers have rejected the once-popular titles in the Time stable, which include People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, along with the eponymous magazine.

This is largely a story about the difficulty of traditional print publications navigating the new world of digital media. But as the new owners ponder ways to stem the decline, they might consider having these titles express a broader point of view. History suggests that Charles Koch would make a compelling columnist for Time magazine.

Time was one of the world’s great media empires and publisher of perhaps the world’s most influential publications when it was run by its co-founder Harry Luce, a passionate defender of free enterprise. He offered a new and engaging way for busy consumers to learn about their world—through a patriotic lens. Luce proclaimed an “American century” and did his best to promote the American ideal of constitutional democracy and economic liberty around the world.

The now-struggling Time magazine, no longer among the country’s most influential publications, flogs a somewhat different agenda. Whereas Luce was a passionate anti-communist, the magazine he built has in recent years published a series of largely flattering profiles of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A 2015 report called Mr. Sanders an “overachieving underdog” and a “breakout star” who “leads with his heart.” Last year, when Time designated Mr. Sanders one of the world’s 100 most influential people, it invited Berkeley professor Robert Reich to sum up the socialist senator. Mr. Reich offered an appraisal that was not exactly journalistic:

The intensity and steadfastness of his message that widening inequalities of income, wealth and political power in America are undermining our democracy and economy have inspired record numbers of young voters, independents and heartland Democrats to join his “political revolution.”

Sanders has shown it is possible to achieve all this with small contributions and a platform calling for single-payer health care, free tuition at public universities and a breakup of the biggest banks. His campaign has invigorated a new populist movement in America to restore democracy and create an economy responsive to the needs of ordinary people.

It’s fair to say that Luce would never have published such nonsense. And he didn’t have the advantage of seeing the full picture of all the misery that Marxism would impose on ordinary people over the past century. In 2016, Time published Reich’s howler while Venezuela’s experiment in socialism was already imploding in real time. CONTINUE AT SITE

“Not every horny narcissist with bad judgment is named Donald Trump.”

That was the actual “reportage” of New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush last year, in an article referring to the online sexual exploits of former congressman Anthony Weiner.

It appears, in retrospect, that Thrush might well have been describing himself.

Now, as long-silent accusations of sexual harassment surface like so many whack-a-moles, Thrush is one of the latest casualties.

News reports about his behavior, allegedly inflicting unwanted advances on a series of young women, describe the fedora-wearing Thrush as a successful and influential reporter who once worked for Politico and was then plucked away by the New York Times — once, perhaps, the most prestigious news publication in the world.

Some of his accusers say they feared his industry connections and felt smeared by him after they rebuffed his advances — all of which Thrush has denied.

But there’s a question as to how he was allowed to become an influential force in newsrooms and in political journalism, as described by offended female colleagues.

“Thrush, just by his stature, put women in a position of feeling they had to suck up and move on from an uncomfortable encounter,” wrote his former Politico colleague Laura McGann on Vox.com. She added, “Thrush is a talker — or, as many put it, ‘a bullshi–er.’ He likes to hear gossip, and he likes to spread it.”

McGann goes on to claim that Thrush manufactured gossip about female colleagues to deflect from his misbehavior, and that it was sometimes damaging to their careers.

As far as his professional work, we know from emails published by WikiLeaks that Thrush engaged in ethically questionable behavior there, too. As I wrote in my article Newsgate 2016:

Chief Politico political correspondent Glenn Thrush sent part of an article to [Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta for approval before it was published. ‘Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this,’ Thrush writes in the April 2015 exchange. ‘Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u … Tell me if I f—-d up anything.’ Podesta signs off and the article is published. An email on April 17, 2015 shows Thrush also sent eight paragraphs from a pre-published article to Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri with the title ‘please read asap…don’t share.’ Palmieri writes colleagues, ‘Glenn Thrush is doing a story about how well launch went and some part of it will be about me — which I hate. He did me the courtesy of sending what he is going to say about me. Seems fine.’

Let me be clear: This sort of behavior violates basic journalism tenets — at least as far as I was taught. Double-checking facts is always a good idea; but the idea of sending, pre-publication, sections of articles to the subjects of the articles is verboten. Can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein sending their Watergate articles to Nixon for pre-approval? Do you think Thrush offered the same benefit to Donald Trump campaign officials?

Here is the unofficial, malign preamble to the globalist takeover of the world. It could just as well suffice as a warning of Islamic conquest, as well. Parodying the Outer Limits intro from 1995, the preamble would go:

There is nothing wrong with your television.

Do not attempt to adjust the picture.

We are controlling the transmission.

We control the horizontal and the vertical.

We can confuse you with a thousand channels.

Or expand one single image to crystal clarity….and beyond.

Or we can blur a single image.

We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive.

We control all that you see, and hear.

We will control everything, and especially your mind.

We will obliterate individual and independent thought.

We will determine the content of your mind.

We will determine what is permissible to speak, write, and express.

We will define what is and is not truth.

All that with the assistance of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Tom Blumer wrote in his November 19th article, “Twitter to Begin Using ‘Blue Check’ Status As a ‘Big Brother’ Weapon?”:

The growth in online censorship by tech titans Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s search and YouTube platform is one of the most under-reported stories of the past two years.

The media feeds anti-Trump bias disguised as news which is taken up by Facebook and social media and then taken as absolute truth…..and Fox, while more nuanced is part of the problem…..Note Tucker Carlson’s obsequious interview of rabid leftist Max Blumenthal….rsk
Chris Wallace is anchor of “Fox News Sunday.” This op-ed is adapted from a speech he gave Nov. 9 to the International Center for Journalists.

Whatever side you’re on in the debate over journalism these days, you’re not going to like some of what I have to say. Let’s start with a basic fact. President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on the free press in our history. Since early in the campaign, he has done everything he could to delegitimize the media — attacking us institutionally and individually. And I think his purpose is clear: a concerted campaign to raise doubts over whether we can be trusted when we report critically about his administration.

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, between Jan. 10 and the end of October, Trump tweeted about “fake news” 141 times. One stands out. On Feb. 17, the president tweeted this: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American People!” And that was precisely his point. If we report negatively about something he’s doing, we are hurting the country.

Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, was my guest on “Fox News Sunday” two days later. When I asked him about the president’s tweet, he complained that, yes, we covered what Trump did, but that “as soon as it’s over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies.” I answered: “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama. He whined about Fox News all the time. But he never said we were the enemy of the people.”

But don’t take it from me. Listen to William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL for 37 years, the man in charge of the missions that captured Saddam Hussein and killed Osama bin Laden. McRaven graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in journalism. He’s now the chancellor of the University of Texas system. And after the president’s tweet, he told students: “This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”

Remember, this is a man who fought the Soviet Union, who fought Islamist terrorism. But when I asked him about his comments, he said, “Those threats brought us together. Both the president and I swore an oath to the Constitution. And the First Amendment of that Constitution is freedom of the press. When the president says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy.”

It turns out McRaven may have understated the threat. A Politico poll a couple of weeks ago found that 46 percent of voters believe that major news organizations make up stories about Trump. A Newseum Institute poll in May found that 23 percent think the First Amendment “goes too far.” And 74 percent don’t think “fake news” should be protected by the First Amendment.

But there is another side to this debate, as there usually is. There’s an old saying: “Even hypochondriacs sometimes get sick.” And even if Trump is trying to undermine the press for his own calculated reasons, when he talks about bias in the media — unfairness — I think he has a point.

Strange ideological changes are afoot over at the Fox News Channel. The latest sign came Tuesday, with a Max Blumenthal appearance during prime time. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/leftist-crank-fox-news/

The anti-Israel author and agitator–whose virulent hatred of the Jewish state has long made him a darling of neo-Nazis and Iranianstate television–looked delighted to be on the network, courtesy of Tucker Carlson. And with good reason. Here was a fine opportunity to hawk his conspiratorial vision of Israel and U.S. foreign policy to a conservative audience that is normally well-disposed toward Jews. (Full disclosure: I used to work for the Wall Street Journal, whose parent company and Fox News share common ownership.)

The topic was the Justice Department’s decision on Monday requiring the Kremlin propaganda outlet Russia Today (RT) to register as a foreign agent. “It’s no defense of the content of RT,” Carlson said, “to wonder why journalists who are rightly concerned about any government attempt to regulate their product are applauding the regulation of this cable channel. Why is that?”

Blumenthal framed the DOJ move as an attempt to silence brave dissidents such as, well, Max Blumenthal: “I go on RT fairly regularly, and the reason I do so is because, while the three major cable networks are promoting bombing and sanctioning half the world, at least the non-compliant nations, RT is questioning that.” Yes, and when RT’s “questioning” comes up short on facts, the network resorts to using video-game footage to claim that Washington is supporting Islamic State.

There was no pushback from Carlson, usually known for his spunky, combative style. Nor did he bother to present a charitable version of the opposing argument. In the Washington Post, Brookings fellow and COMMENTARY contributor James Kirchick has written a strong brief for why the U.S. should make it harder for RT to access American airwaves. Yet I’m not quite persuaded of the wisdom of such restrictions. I worry about opening the door, even an inch, to government regulation of broadcast speech, even if that speech comes from an adversarial, autocratic regime. Perhaps such moves make sense in small, fragile, Kremlin-endangered states that lack a robust indigenous media. But in the U.S., with its large and diverse media market, the best antidote to Moscow’s lies is truthful reporting.

But never mind all that. What Blumenthal wanted to talk about were the real sources of malign foreign influence in Washington: the Jews. Or as Blumenthal put it to Carlson, “the Israel lobby and organizations like [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which have been promoting a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, war on Lebanon, war on Iran, which is [sic] not required for some reason to register as a foreign agent, and I don’t why that is.”

CNN has had some really dumb stories about President Trump. There was CNN’s claim that he was afraid of stairs.And that he had two scoops of ice cream.But CNN has really outdone itself.

CNN, like the rest of the media, spends a lot of time complaining about being under attack by the White House. And then making lots of noises about the First Amendment. No one doubts that CNN has a First Amendment right to run “Trump’s face found in a dog’s ear “.

But maybe at this point shutting down CNN would be doing it a favor. Not in a punitive sort of way, but just as an intervention.

CNN, like the rest of the media, can’t quit Trump. Its Trump Derangement Syndrome just leads it to humiliate itself with utterly insane broadcasts like this.

Trump doesn’t have to convince anyone that CNN is fake news. CNN does that all on its own.

Forget the fake part. I’m not too sure CNN can even convince anyone it does any kind of news.

Contrary to numerous media reports, 53 pastors didn’t just endorse Roy Moore after the sexual assault allegations against him. Conservative Christians are very divided over whether or not to continue their support. That did not stop quite a few outlets from portraying Christian leaders as utter hypocrites, however.

“A group of 53 Alabama pastors signed onto a letter pledging their support for alleged child molester and Senate candidate Roy Moore,” Newsweek’s Carlos Ballesteros began his report. “The letter, first posted on Moore’s wife’s personal Facebook page, describes the embattled candidate as a friend to religious conservatives and a staunch opponent of the ‘Washington establishment.'”

The Newsmax report also said the letter came out Monday. “Fifty-three Alabama pastors on Monday released a letter of support for Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore despite multiple accusations of sexual misconduct on his part,” that story read.

Even conservative outlets like The Washington Examiner and RedState reported this fake news. AL.com, HuffPost, and the The Daily Caller also originally reported this lie.

What actually happened? Moore’s wife Kayla reposted an old letter … from August 15! Here’s the letter she posted:

Pastor’s Letter

Dear friends and fellow Alabamians,

For decades, Roy Moore has been an immovable rock in the culture wars – a bold defender of the “little guy,” a just judge to those who came before his court, a warrior for the unborn child, defender of the sanctity of marriage, and a champion for religious liberty. Judge Moore has stood in the gap for us, taken the brunt of the attack, and has done so with a rare, unconquerable resolve.

As a consequence of his unwavering faith in God and his immovable convictions for Biblical principles, he was ousted as Chief Justice in 2003. As a result, he continued his life pursuit by starting the Foundation for Moral Law, which litigates religious liberty cases around our Nation. After being re-elected again to Chief Justice in 2012, by an overwhelming majority, he took another round of persecution for our faith as he stood up for the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.