RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/unedited-60-minutes-kamala-interview-proves-again-the-democrat-2024-campaign-was-a-media-driven-psyop/

Now that the full ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris is out, it’s more clear that the media were all in assisting her failed campaign.

It’s been three months since the election, and there are still so many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news media and the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was offered this week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, released the full nearly hour-long interview CBS “60 Minutes” aired with Harris several weeks before Election Day.

The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion. The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the short tease that CBS released in advance of the full “60 Minutes” episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a different answer to the same question.

What we know now is that CBS’s original explanation for the issue, that it merely used a separate portion of a longer answer in the production that went to air, is true. But that doesn’t clear the network of its questionable decision to clean up not only that newsworthy portion of the interview, in which Harris’s fuller answer is hysterically confused, but in other parts, too.

Another highly suspect omission from the final cut was an extended portion in which Harris wasn’t asked some convoluted question on geopolitical matters or macro economics, but on why she wants to be president.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/06/can-science-journalism-get-over-its-trump-derangement-syndrome/

Scientific American, the oldest continually published magazine in the US, once prided itself on explaining science to the public through scholarly reporting, knowledgeable research and carefully crafted articles. Since its founding in 1845, it has published articles by more than 200 Nobel laureates. Yet for some time now, it has been wandering from science to politics.

A recent op-ed, titled ‘How feminism can guide climate change by action’, demonstrates how completely off the rails this once prestigious magazine has gone. To say the article is simply ‘bad science’ would not be accurate. There is no science in it at all. Here is a small sample:

‘Feminism gives us the analysis, tools and movement to create a better climate future… Climate policymaking needs to take into account the expertise that women, including indigenous and rural women, bring to bear on issues like preserving ecosystems and environmentally sustainable agriculture… We must redistribute resources away from male-dominated, environmentally harmful economic activities towards those prioritising women’s employment, regeneration and care for both people and ecosystems.’

Fans of Scientific American might have hoped that this kind of activist journalism would leave the magazine along with former editor Laura Helmuth, who finished her nearly five-year tenure in November. Instead, it appears that little has changed. Other articles published since her departure include a defence of puberty blockers (which makes the striking claim that ‘the underlying principles of trans [healthcare] could make everyone healthier’) and a first-person perspective of a Just Stop Oil campaigner’s arrest.

Under Helmuth, the magazine broke with its 175-year-old tradition of impartiality when it endorsed the candidacy of Joe Biden in 2020, followed by Kamala Harris in 2024. Fittingly, Helmuth’s resignation followed one of the most severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome witnessed during November’s election, which she shared with the world on Bluesky. ‘I apologise to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of fucking fascists’, Helmuth wrote after Trump’s re-election. She then added, for good measure:

‘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. The moral arc of the universe is not going to bend itself… Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted classmates are celebrating early results because fuck them to the Moon and back.’

Helmuth’s intemperate remarks raise several questions. First, what was she thinking? Presumably, to avoid charges of bias, you’d think the editor of a major scientific magazine would at least try to maintain a modicum of discretion in their public comments. Did she not realise that her comments might put some people off Scientific American who didn’t happen to share her politics? One also wonders what the board of Springer Nature, who own Scientific American, saw in Helmuth that led her to become just the ninth editor in the magazine’s long and storied history. It can’t have been for an impartial, objective approach.

In truth, Helmuth’s social-media rants and political endorsements are merely a symptom of the broader demise of Scientific American. It is hard to imagine now but this is the same magazine that published Albert Einstein’s generalised theory of gravitation and Nikola Tesla on the possibility of electro-static generators.

A more recent sample of the Scientific American’s work under Helmuth would find headlines such as ‘Modern mathematics confronts its white, patriarchal past’, ‘Denial of evolution is a form of white supremacy’, and a landmark takedown of Star Wars titled ‘Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programmes that promote justice, equity, diversity and inclusion’.

Not content with publishing woke, unscientific nonsense, Scientific American has at times been little more than a mouthpiece for progressive and government orthodoxies. During the pandemic, it published multiple articles supposedly ‘debunking’ the lab-leak theory – now all but accepted by the majority of Western governments. It even trashed the Cass Review, which highlighted the lack of scientific evidence for the treatments given out to young people by Britain’s gender-identity services.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/shielding-biden-journalists-shed-light-medias-cover-up-weakened-president

The unprecedented cover-up of Joe Biden is finally seeing sunlight. 

Critics of the legacy media have long accused news organizations of shielding the 46th president from bad press, particularly when it came to revelations of his family’s shady financial dealings as well as his cognitive decline, which was put on full display at last year’s CNN debate resulting in his exit from the 2024 presidential race. 

Efforts to cover up for Biden began as early as May 2019 as the primary race for the 2020 Democratic nomination was underway. Last week, former Politico reporter Marc Caputo shed light on a report he had written at the time that stemmed from opposition research from the campaign by one of Biden’s Democratic rivals. The report involved a “tax lien” on Biden’s son Hunter pertaining to his work at Ukrainian energy company Burisma. At the time, the former vice president held a substantial lead over Democratic candidates in the polls. 

“And I wrote what would have been a classic story saying, you know, ‘The former vice president’s son was slapped with a big tax lien for the period of time that he worked for this controversial Ukrainian oil concern, or natural gas concern, which is haunting his father on the campaign trail.’ That story was killed by the editors. And they gave no explanation for that either,” Caputo said on the “Somebody’s Gotta Win” podcast.

Fast-forward to October 2020. Biden had secured the Democratic nomination and maintained a narrower lead in the polls against then-incumbent President Trump. The New York Post published its bombshell report on Hunter Biden’s laptop, offering unprecedented insight into his overseas finances and their potential ties to his father. 

“I was covering Biden at the time, and I remember coming to my editor and saying, ‘Hey, we need to write about the Hunter Biden laptop.’ And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop,” Caputo said. 

Caputo, now with Axios, called out Politico’s one and only story about the laptop, which he referred to as the “ill-fated headline” that read “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” The report cited an open letter signed by 51 intelligence officials declaring that the material from the laptop had “all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.”

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/01/27/john-fetterman-delivers-some-harsh-reality-to-the-never-trumpers-on-the-view-and-its-glorious-n2184889

I don’t watch ABC’s “The View,” the screechy, fact-free whine-fest aired weekday mornings on ABC for reasons unknown to me, but as someone who covers the media—because I think it’s important to call them out always and often—I do see the clips.

They were up to their usual anti-American, race-baiting, far-left diatribes again Monday, but a surprising voice wasn’t buying it.

That’s right, Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman, who is as confounding a figure on Capitol Hill as you could ever find. I was one of the many critics who blasted him during his 2022 campaign for Senate against Dr. Mehmet Oz, because he quite frankly seemed unfit for the job after suffering a massive stroke and appeared to be an adherent of far-left ideology.

But in one of the biggest political surprises you’ll ever see, he’s actually become a rare voice of reason in the Democrat party, and despite his “non-traditional” outfits—he shows up in gym clothes to official engagements (not a fan)—one could almost think he’s a Republican, based on his statements.

Of course, let me reiterate that he’s not a member of the GOP nor a friend to the party, and he still supports many of the bat-guano crazy progressive ideas that have diminished America in the Biden years. That being said, I nevertheless loved him torching the harridans of “The View.”

Gold:

Sunny Hostin’s head nearly explodes because she can’t believe what’s she hearing. 

Fetterman explains, “When the judicial system gets weaponized and targeted political enemies for political gain…that degrades our collective trust in this very important institution…The judicial system has to remain impartial.” 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/first-leftist-hysterical-fit-of-new-trump-era-musk-gives-nazi-salute/

The left has just suffered a series of staggering rebukes. Not only did their campaign to destroy Donald Trump and his movement fail spectacularly, but his second Inaugural Address was a forthright and comprehensive declaration of war against the policy agendas they have pursued for decades now. The establishment media, meanwhile, has likewise been rejected on a grand scale, with Elon Musk even proclaiming repeatedly that citizen journalists and news analysts on his X platform “are the media now.” That is likely why Musk became the target on Monday afternoon of the first leftist freakout of the new Trump administration: it seems that he gave a Nazi salute, and that reveals what this Make America Great Again business is all really about, now, doesn’t it?

A CNN talking head said: “It’s a salute. It was quick. I think our viewers are smart and they can take a look at that, but it certainly was, it’s not something that you typically see at American political rallies.” Rolling Stone was all over the big story, claiming that actual National Socialists were thrilled: “Right-Wing Extremists Are Abuzz Over Musk’s Straight-Arm Salute.”

The New Republic was in just-asking-questions mode: “Did Elon Musk Seriously Just Do a Nazi Salute at Trump’s Inauguration?” was their headline, but they were ready in the article itself to run with the insinuation: “During a speech at Capitol One Arena Monday following Donald Trump’s inauguration, Elon Musk appeared to deliver a Roman salute not once, but twice. The gesture is associated with Nazi Germany, and Musk was speaking triumphantly about Trump’s election victory when he made the salute.” The New York Times was a trifle more circumspect, going with “Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture: Speaking at a celebratory rally in Washington, Mr. Musk twice extended his arm out with his palm facing down, drawing comparisons to the Nazi salute.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/01/21/is-trump-ushering-in-an-era-of-responsible-journalism-too/

In his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump talked about ushering in a new golden age for America. Is he also ushering in a new era of responsible journalism?

Yes, that’s harder to believe than any of the other promises Trump made, such as the one about how he’d “keep our children … disease-free.” But we thought we saw a faint glimmer of what honest journalism could look like on Monday.

For years, journalists had decided to label anything Trump said with which they disagreed a lie. That was especially true when it came to any Trump claim about the integrity of the 2020 election.

For example, here’s a headline from the New York Times in October.

This wasn’t about correcting the record. It was about attacking Trump every which way they could. When Joe Biden told an outright lie, the press routinely dismissed it as a “gaffe,” or an “exaggeration,” or just Joe being Joe.

But anytime Trump made a boast, the press would scream “Liar!” If he exaggerated for effect. Liar! It got to the point where if Trump said the sky was blue, the press would call him a liar because, in fact, the sky isn’t blue, it only appears blue because of the way the light interacts with the atmosphere.

But look at the “fact check” the New York Times ran on the day of Trump’s second inauguration.

https://freebeacon.com/media/star-cnn-star-reporter-refuses-to-apologize-to-navy-vet-he-threatened-to-nail-as-bombshell-defamation-case-continues/

PANAMA CITY, Fla.—CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt refused to apologize Monday for falsely accusing a Navy veteran of operating in a “black market” to profiteer off Afghans fleeing their homes. Instead, Marquardt gave conflicting testimony, boasted about his Emmy awards, and defended messages insulting the veteran, Zachary Young.

Young slapped CNN with a $1 billion defamation suit over Marquardt’s report, arguing that The Lead with Jake Tapper segment irreparably harmed his reputation and destroyed his company, Nemex Enterprises. Marquardt’s November 2021 reporting singled out Young, portrayed him as an “illegal profiteer,” and accused him of charging exorbitant prices to help evacuate people during the Biden-Harris administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“I don’t feel the need to apologize to him,” Marquardt said repeatedly on the stand Monday. Shortly after, he touted his various honors. “I’ve won a few Emmy awards. That’s kind of the main award in television news.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper also hasn’t apologized, Young testified last week. Anchor Pamela Brown, however, issued an apology while filling in for Tapper, and the phrase “black market” was removed from the online version of the segment. CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan, who edited the written portion of the report, testified Friday that the text he approved didn’t include the term “black market” and blamed Tapper and producers for the portrayal.

The liberal network faced several setbacks leading up to the trial. Judge William Henry earlier this month ruled that Young could use at trial Tapper’s disparaging comments about Fox News after its $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems. Jurors during last week’s selection process appeared open to forcing CNN to cough up a 10-figure payout to Young.