Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

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.”

ROGER FRANKLIN : THE WORST OF TIMES

Sherlock Holmes knew the significance of dogs that don’t bark — a skill that would have seen him spot in an instant what is so wrong with the New York Times “fact check” of the candidates’ claims, counterclaims and tossed-off assertions during yesterday’s third presidential debate. As an example of an event viewed through the distorting prism of partisanship it is hard to beat. Consider the very first entry:

Mr. Trump said that health insurance premiums were “going up 60, 70, 80 percent,” and “next year, they’re going to go up over 100 percent.”

This was rated “overstated”, yet the Times’ explanation actually agrees with Trump’s appraisal (emphasis added):

“Increases of 25 percent to 45 percent or more have been approved in some states. But increases of 80 percent or more are rare.”

Rare they may be, but evidently they do happen. So Trump was correct. More than that, the Times’ “fact check” supports his contention that Obamacare is a disaster, yet makes no comment on increased premiums of between “25 percent to 45 percent”. Should Times reporters be afflicted with salary reductions of that size, one can imagine annoyance in the newsroom being widespread.

How could this be? How is it that a news organisation which purports to be America’s journal of record gets it so wrong?

Well, part of the explanation resides in the Times’ opinion of itself, best summed up by a former editor who arrogantly quipped that “it hasn’t happened until the Times reports it.” So, if Hillary lies and the Times looks the other way, she’s blameless. If an upstart news organisation gets the wood on dirty tricks, as Steve Kates notes, those revelations won’t count for a hill of beans when the Times ignores them.

And there is one other factor to explain such selective blindness — a factor the Times itself touched upon in a recent profile of Ben Rhodes, US deputy national security adviser and a lead architect of much of Obama’s foreign policy. Here it is:

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

For what it is worth, the Times’ fact-checking can be read via the link below. Oh, and do notice the biggest dog that didn’t bark: no examination of Trump’s assertion that Mrs Clinton’s operatives and Democrat associates are in the business of voter fraud, ballot-stuffing and making sure the dead vote early and often. It didn’t bark because the Times declined to let that matter out of its kennel in the first place.

New York Times: Trump triggering mass hysteria among rape victims By Ed Straker

The New York Times is reporting that many victims of rape are running to therapists because of the mere possibility that Donald Trump could get elected president.

For women, particularly those who have been victims of sexual assault, the election has triggered painful memories. Ms. Elias [a therapist] said that after the second debate, “many of my female patients came in and wanted to talk about Trump.” She said patients felt that Mr. Trump seemed to stalk Mrs. Clinton and invade her space. Some patients needed to process incidents in which they had felt belittled or harassed by men in their lives.

“Women said their hearts were racing during the debate, they were that triggered,” Ms. Elias said. “Some came in complaining of having had nightmares.”

First there were trigger words, words that liberals simply could not endure. Now we have trigger people, people whose mere existence causes panic! And Donald Trump is one of them.

Thankfully, this triggering experience is limited to the thought of Donald Trump and no one else.

Women do not report being triggered by the thought of accused rapist Bill Clinton returning to the White House. Nor are they triggered by Mrs. Clinton’s legal representation of a child rapist, or her seeming indifference to the Disney ride length line of women whom Mr. Clinton allegedly abused or raped during his long politica and sexual career. Nor are they apparently triggered by Mrs. Clinton’s receipt of large sums of money from Muslim countries who literally, and I do mean literally, enslave their women.

Women seemed more concerned that Mr. Trump “invaded” Mrs. Clinton’s space during the debate, but Mr. Clinton invaded a lot more intimate spaces of women than Mr. Trump did that night.

There’s plenty to criticize about what Donald Trump has said about women (and perhaps done), but this asymmetical hysteria shows how liberal women conveniently ignore the excesses of their own candidate and focus, to the extreme, on the other. If only there were a treatment for politica brainwashing, perhaps some of these women could be cured.

Warning: This Article Is Educational YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.

Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. This week a conservative radio host and author is wondering why YouTube classifies his educational web clips as “potentially objectionable” material.

Dennis Prager’s “PragerU” puts out free short videos on subjects “important to understanding American values”—ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State. The channel has more than 130 million views, and the spots tend to include an expert guest and background animation. As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content.

But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube, a development PragerU announced this month. This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering—say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” Yet it’s easy to imagine a flood of users reporting a political video—microagressed college students have a lot of free time—and limiting a viewpoint’s audience.

Here are some of the topics that are apparently too sensitive to learn about and discuss freely: Did Bush Lie About Iraq?; Israel’s Legal Founding; Why Did America Fight the Korean War?; Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women? PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed.

YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for “free expression.” If anyone there would like to brush up on the concept, Mr. Prager has a video about it.