Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

Soviet-Style Media Propaganda in America Jeffrey Lord

www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2020/12/26/soviet-style-media-propaganda-america

Over there in The Wall Street Journal as we travel through the Christmas holiday season, was this very perceptive piece by one David Satter. Mr. Satter is identified as the “author of Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union and a member of the academic advisory board of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.”

At one stage in his earlier life he was the Moscow correspondent for The Financial Times of London, arriving in the Soviet capital in 1976. He went on to work for The Wall Street Journal as a special correspondent covering Soviet affairs. Suffice to say, he knows well how a state-run media runs.

Among other things in his WSJ article Satter says this: 

“One of the pillars of the Soviet Union was a controlled press in which all coverage was organized to confirm a mendacious ideology.

…Soviet practices would have once been unthinkable in the U.S. media. But in August 2016, Jim Rutenberg, media columnist for the New York Times, wrote that if journalists believed that Mr. Trump was a “demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies,” it was necessary to “throw out the textbook of American journalism.” The Times started to characterize Mr. Trump’s statements as “lies” in news stories and suppress news that worked to Mr. Trump’s advantage, such as the Hunter Biden story this fall.”

Satter’s reference to the 2016 story by The Times’ Jim Rutenberg is indeed worth recalling. Here is an excerpt from that column: 

“If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

A Year’s Worth of Media Malfeasance It was a dirty job, but someone had to sort through the year’s worst examples of media bias. Douglas Andrews

https://patriotpost.us/articles/76709-a-years-worth-of-media-malfeasance-2020-12-23

Putting one’s finger on the five biggest media failures in any one year is a daunting task. It’s like trying to list the five worst plays during a Detroit Lions football season or Hollywood’s five worst movies of the year — there’s just too much terrible material to sift through.

The Daily Wire’s Hank Berrien, though, has given it a thoughtful effort, while The Federalist’s Tristan Justice took the “easy” way out and built a list of 20 journalistic failures.

As an aside, if there’s a first prize for Photojournalistic Failure of the Year, it has to go to CNN, whose “mostly peaceful” footage of the Kenosha riots was mostly accurate in the same way that Baghdad Bob was mostly credible:

It’s hard to quibble with Berrien’s top five, though one might move them around a bit in order of importance and impact. There can be no argument, though, with his choice as worst of the worst: the media’s utter refusal to cover the Hunter Biden story in the weeks just prior to the election. In doing so, the media didn’t just put its finger on the scale; it put its shoulder on the scale.

Why Is Media Stoking Disinformation Campaigns By Yuri Vanetik

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/22/why-is-media-stoking-disinformation-campaigns/

Americans need to insist that legacy media be held to account as a treacherous culprit in the mass deception campaigns attributed to politicians, shady public relations operatives, and foreign powers.

Disinformation media campaigns operated by the Russians and the Chinese may also have a domestic origin. It is not what one would think. They don’t come from sleeper cells. Instead, the American legacy media, by way of its greed and lack of accountability, is responsible for the deception. 

Stealth public relations operatives drive conspiracy theories and smear campaigns using the complicit media of record as their echo chamber. Whether you are a supporter of President Trump or you consider him to be a lawless authoritarian is irrelevant because all Americans should be concerned that what is presented as news may actually be part of a paid public relations campaign or a sensation-oriented spin that is not newsworthy at all. 

Often the media is doing the dirty bidding of fringe groups and paid reputation assassins solely to maximize profits, knowing that their malfeasance is relegated to that of a protected class of free speech and free press. Media today is like the clergy in the middle ages—their profession considered sacred and their actions above the law.

Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Law professor, led a team of researchers that dissected the way information is amplified. Benkler’s team just published its study, which examines President Trump’s alleged “disinformation” campaign against mail-in voting and details the techniques the Trump world used to share Trump’s opinions on the election. Benkler and his team began from the biased position that a difference of opinion on policy questions qualifies as disinformation, nevertheless, the findings inadvertently run contrary to the popular idea on the Left that it is the Russian and Chinese foreign troll factories that are interfering with our elections with “disinformation.”

If media weren’t scared of vote fraud claims, they wouldn’t censor them By John Dietrich

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/if_media_werent_scared_of_vote_fraud_claims_they_wouldnt_censor_them.html

President Trump’s attorney Jesse Binnall complained that his opening statement before a Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud was banned on YouTube.  Binnall tweeted, “YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it.  To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’  Why is Google so afraid of the truth?”  The following message appeared when his testimony was searched: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”  These “Community Guidelines are designed to ensure our community stays protected.”

On December 9, YouTube updated its policy on “election-related misinformation.”  “Our policies disallow content alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election.  Starting today, we will remove new content uploaded on or after December 9, 2020, alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”

YouTube employees are fairly intelligent people.  YouTube’s CEO has a degree from Harvard University.  If they sincerely wanted to protect the community from false information, they should have allowed Binnall’s video to remain on YouTube.  By banning it, they activated the “Streisand Effect.”  The Streisand effect occurs when an attempt to censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing the information.  It’s named after Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress a photograph of her residence in Malibu, California drew further attention to it.  The censored video was immediately posted on BitChute.

The censorship accomplished two things.  It increased to number of viewers and further popularized a YouTube competitor.  The video briefly appeared on YouTube again on Monday morning.  At 1:23 A.M., it had 52,349 views with 2.3K positive and 15 negative ratings.  The ratio of positive to negative response must have shocked YouTube execs.  One of the comments read, “The Fact that YouTube deleted it is why I wanted to see this…”

Congratulations, National Review! You Got Your Wish! It was all worth it, these principled conservatives will tell you, because conservatism had to be destroyed in order to save it from Trump. By George S. Bardmesser

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/19/congratulations-national-review-you-got-your-wish/

“The incoming “president” is a caricature, his running mate has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders, his staff is determined to turn America into a Venezuela-of-the-North, but, you know, character. It was all worth it, these principled conservatives will tell you, because conservatism had to be destroyed in order to save it from Trump.”

The biological entity known as Joseph R. Biden will be inaugurated on January 20. Success has a thousand fathers—and one of them is a conservative publication where many principled conservatives spend their days tearing down the most conservative president in generations.

I therefore would like to congratulate National Review and its principled conservers of conservatism on a job well done. At long last, your efforts to undermine Donald Trump and make yourselves irrelevant have borne fruit. For National Review this has always been less about policy and more about “personal and moral character.” With Joe Biden, National Review can finally have a man of real character in the Oval Office. Mission accomplished, guys.

In the run-up to November 3, the leading lights who conserve conservatism at that magazine thundered against Trump. The theme was always the same: character. Trump’s—unlike his opponent’s—was so lacking, so threadbare, so inadequate to the task, that nothing Trump ever did or would do could make up for the deficit.

Take Kevin Williamson. Williamson, who was booted from the Atlantic a few years ago because his pro-life views were said to be incompatible with “journalism,” reserves special contempt for President Trump. In case anyone doubted where Williamson stands, he wrote a piece shortly before the election, dripping with sarcasm and denigrating Trump’s accomplishments. That Trump was able to achieve anything at all in the face of four years of non-stop sabotage of his presidency is itself remarkable—but Trump’s lack of character trumped all.

So I want to congratulate Kevin Williamson on the election of Joe Biden. There are many reasons for the hardcore Left and the harder-core Left to celebrate, but for those National Review conservatives conserving conservatism, certainly character is first and foremost. Take abortion—Biden has been lying about his “opposition” to abortion for decades. For that matter, he’s been lying about his religion for decades—he is no more a Catholic than I am a Rastafarian.

Jeffrey Toobin and the Media’s Curious Code of Decency By Mark Heimingway

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/19/jeffrey_toobin_and_the_medias_curious_code_of_decency_144888.html

Some 3,000 Americans a day are dying of COVID-19, a significant chunk of the country won’t accept November’s election results, and Russian hackers appear to have compromised much of the federal government. Amid this mayhem, the mainstream media found time to address an issue that most Americans haven’t given a second thought: Will Jeffrey Toobin’s career survive?

In case you haven’t heard – or have mercifully forgotten – during an Oct. 15 New Yorker magazine staff meeting held on Zoom, the 60 year-old Toobin “was seen lowering and raising his computer camera, exposing and touching his penis, and motioning an air kiss to someone other than his colleagues,” according to a New York Times report. Dozens of staff members from the venerable magazine were assembled online for an election simulation exercise, which in retrospect sounds like an unfortunate euphemism.

On Nov. 11, Condé Nast, which owns The New Yorker, fired Toobin from a job he’d held for 27 years. Although he’s on self-imposed leave at CNN, he is still employed as its chief legal analyst. “Three CNN employees say that network president, Jeff Zucker, is a big fan of Mr. Toobin’s and a believer in second chances,” reports the Times.

Society’s blithe acceptance of ubiquitous Internet pornography might make an inadvertent indiscretion in front of your home computer seem understandable to many. However, for Toobin this isn’t a first transgression – it’s déjà vu all over again. His smarmy behavior has been public knowledge for a very long time. The Times recounts how in 2003 the married Toobin asked out a colleague. Before they could even go out, he left her an answering machine message explicitly describing in vulgar detail the sex acts he wanted to perform with her.

In 2008, Toobin had an affair with Casey Greenfield, the much-younger daughter of veteran political journalist Jeff Greenfield. When Casey Greenfield became pregnant, Toobin reportedly offered her money to have an abortion. When she refused, he told her he would make her regret the decision. After the child was born, Toobin had to be dragged into court and forced to pay child support.

News Reporting On Crime Isn’t Racist, It’s Essential By John Daniel Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/18/news-reporting-on-crime-isnt-racist-its-essenti

The smart people at Harvard’s Nieman Lab want you to know that reporting on crime is really just another way of perpetuating white supremacy.

Among the many things 2020 has helped clarify is that journalism, particularly the journalism practiced by the corporate media, is in bad shape. From the media’s coverage of impeachment (remember that?), to the presidential election, to the pandemic and the riots and everything else, it has become painfully obvious that the establishment press isn’t interested in journalism as such, but in woke political activism and race hustling.

So no wonder the very smart journalists at Harvard’s Nieman Lab want to “defund the crime beat” because reporting on crime is apparently now racist.

That’s the gist of a recent piece published as part of Nieman’s series on “predictions for journalism 2021.” It’s not so much a prediction as a shoddy argument, though, and it opens with the blanket claim that “Crime coverage is terrible.”

It’s racist, classist, fear-based clickbait masking as journalism. It creates lasting harm for the communities that newsrooms are supposed to serve. And because it so rarely meets the public’s needs, it’s almost never newsworthy, despite what Grizzled Gary in his coffee-stained shirt says from his perch at the copy desk.

A Second Zionist Jew’s Exit from New York Times Opinion Page Is Called ‘Disgrace’ By Ira Stoll

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/12/18/a-second-zionist-jews-exit-from-new-york-times-opinion-page-is-called-disgrace/

A second openly Zionist staffer has exited the New York Times editorial page as the newspaper’s publisher interviews candidates for the editorial-page editor job.

In June, a Republican senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, wrote a Times op-ed headlined “Send in the Troops,” calling for the deployment of the US military to quell what the article called an “orgy of violence” and “rioters and looters” in American cities following the death in police custody of George Floyd. More than 800 Times staff members signed a letter protesting the article’s publication, and more than two dozen New York Times employees called in sick to protest the op-ed.

New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigned after the publication of the Cotton article, but others sought to blame its appearance on two Jewish opinion-page staffers, Bari Weiss and Adam Rubenstein. I covered the episode at the time under the headline “Republican Senator Writes New York Times Op-Ed. Zionist Jews Get Blamed.”

“‘Blame Weiss and Rubenstein’ is the NYT’s new motto, and unlike its previous one, actually accurately describes what the paper aims to do every day of the week and twice on Shabbos,” quipped Seth Mandel, executive editor of the Washington Examiner magazine.

Weiss left the Times in July, complaining of “unlawful discrimination” and “constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views.” Now Rubenstein has also departed. He did not reply to a message asking why, but Weiss, on Twitter, wrote that he “was hung out to dry by his own colleagues.”

Ivanka, Hunter and Vanity Unfair Tim Graham

https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2020/12/18/ivanka-hunter-and-vanity-unfair-n2581779

No media analyst believes Vanity Fair is a “news” magazine. It’s a glossy liberal rag. But on Dec. 16, it displayed some amazing partisan gymnastics on the offspring of Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

This headline by writer Bess Levin was certainly clickbait for the haters: “Ivanka Trump Faces Off With Father to See How Many People They Can Kill With COVID-19.” We can guess no “independent fact-checkers” will get involved to insist that, in reality, the Trumps aren’t plotting to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Just a month ago, Vanity Fair ran a story by a purported ex-best friend of Ivanka Trump’s in which she claimed that Trump once asked, “Why would you tell me to read a book about f—ing poor people?”

Levin’s Ivanka screed carried a subhead reading, “The first daughter, a noted epidemiologist, doesn’t think lockdowns are ‘grounded in science.'” That’s not exactly what Ivanka tweeted in response to a video of a businessman frustrated with the lockdowns. “These blanket lockdowns are not grounded in science,” she said. “These arbitrary rules imposed by callous politicians are destroying lives. It is just wrong for small business owners to have fight so hard to keep their American dream alive.”

For NY Times, no news is fit to print about Rep. Swalwell and a spy By Joe Concha,

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/530640-for-ny-times-no-news-is-fit-to-print-about-rep-swalwell-and-a-spy

If you’re a New York Times subscriber who also watches the broadcast network evening news and considers that your news diet, there’s a very good chance you haven’t heard about Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and his ties to an accused Chinese spy a few years ago. 

To review why this is absolutely worthy of coverage, Swalwell’s interaction with the alleged spy known as Fang Fang included, according to Axios, Fang placing an intern in Swalwell’s office and helping to fundraise for his 2014 reelection campaign. In 2015, the FBI provided Swalwell a “defensive briefing” to warn him of the threat she appeared to pose. 

So, the first obvious question is this: Given how easily Swalwell was duped, why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shortly thereafter place him on the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA and therefore has access to the highest level of sensitive, classified information? 

The New York Times doesn’t seem to care about getting an answer to that question. 

Of the biases we see in major media, the sin of omission is one that seems to occur only when the protagonist of a major story has a (D) next to his or her name. So, when the New York Times, which has a whopping 7 million subscribers and is considered the country’s most influential publication, doesn’t see the Swalwell story as a story at all, it tells you just as much about its moral compass as it does its editorial decisions.