RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/12/01/new-york-times-faulted-for-irredeemable-and-indefensible-coverage-of-british-chief-rabbi/

The New York Times is drawing criticism for its handling of a warning by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis about antisemitism in the British Labour Party.

The Times news article reported that “Rabbi Mirvis leads a body of Orthodox congregations not only in Britain but across the Commonwealth; in Britain, those synagogues account for just over half of total synagogue membership, according to a 2010 report.” The Times went on, “Not all British Jews recognize the chief rabbi as the leader of their communities.”

The Times also reported, “some people warned that Rabbi Mirvis had sidestepped a greater threat posed to Jews and other British minority groups by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has himself been accused of making racist and Islamophobic remarks and energizing parts of the far right similar to those responsible for recent attacks on Jews in the United States.” It attributed this view to “an organization called Jews Against Boris.” The Times didn’t say how many members Jews Against Boris has, or what proportion of British Jews it represents.

It’s a classic Times double standard. When an Orthodox rabbi warns against antisemitism on the left, the Times bends over backwards to undercut his authority. Contrast it to how the Times, in three recent news articles, handled a Reform rabbi’s criticism of decisions by the Israeli and American governments or politicians.

Here is the Times reporting in December 2017 about reaction to President Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: “‘Jerusalem has always been the most delicate issue in every discussion about peace,’ said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism. ‘So we’re very concerned that the announcement will either delay or undermine the very, very important resuming of a serious peace process.’” Nothing from the Times in that article about how many American Jews Rabbi Jacobs does or doesn’t represent or about how not all American Jews recognize his authority.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/newsweek-fires-anti-trump-reporters-who-wrote-inaccurate-story-on-the-presidents-thanksgiving-plans/

Until today, Jessica Kwong was a political reporter for Newsweek. More specifically, it was her job to keep an eye on the Trump administration, the Trump family, and the 2020 race for president. This week, however, she was fired. The reason? On Thanksgiving Day, she published an article in which she claimed that the president and first lady planned to spend the holiday golfing, tweeting, “and more” some such. Sadly for her, President Trump secretly flew to Afghanistan, where he met the troops (and served them turkey).

After President Trump had landed, pro-Trump Twitter users rightfully went after her. One of her fiercest critics was First Son Donald Trump Jr. “The President spends his Thanksgiving with American troops deployed in Afghanistan, including serving them lunch,” he wrote on Twitter. “Meanwhile, over at the Fake News…”…..

That tweet was retweeted over 8,000 times, which was a sure sign that the story about the Newsweek hoax had gone viral.Afterward — and when even Kwong and her Newsweek friends couldn’t deny President Trump’s presence in Afghanistan any longer — the story was updated, as was Kwong’s tweet in which she shared the original article.

It was, she wrote, “an honest mistake.” It wasn’t nice, no, but it could happen to anyone. Or something.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/impeachment-shows-limit-media-power-daniel-greenfield/

After the media went all out to televise the impeachment committee hearings, a majority of independent voters switched from supporting impeachment to opposing impeachment.

In October, 48% of independents supported impeachment while 39% opposed it. Now 49% of independents oppose impeachment while only 39% still support it. The neat, almost perfect reversal, can be credited to the media’s fateful decision to televise the committee hearings across the networks.

The media’s error was entirely predictable.

The Russia investigation looked good in the media frame until the Mueller report came out and then Mueller was dragged in to testify about it. The impeachment bid looked good in the media lens until people actually watched committee hearings and didn’t see any of what the media had been touting.

Live by the lie, die by the lie.

The paradox of impeachment is that the media’s con artists invented it, but stories alone, the commanding heights of communications, can’t actually close the deal. Like every con job, at some point the mark actually wants to see the million dollars that Nigerian prince is offering, the brand-new Tesla for only five grand, and the papers for the Brooklyn Bridge. Individual marks can be strung along indefinitely, but there are limits to how much an entire nation can be conned. Even by the media.

Abe Lincoln had something to say about that. But, then again, he was a Republican.

The media has excelled at creating investigation narratives. Its take on the Russia investigation or the Ukraine investigation convinced a lot of people that President Trump really was guilty. But you can’t impeach someone in the media. Nor can you actually try them on MSNBC. And that’s the problem.

Elections are where the media’s power lies because all it has to do is convince voters to cast a ballot, without ever having to show its work or prove its claims. With impeachment, it has to do both.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/27/british-media-tackles-leftist-anti-semitism-while-american-media-stands-idly-by/

In what can only be deemed a train wreck of an interview, British politician Jeremy Corbyn was grilled by BBC’s Andrew Neil Tuesday night over a variety of topics, including his party’s failure to address anti-Semitism within its ranks.

Despite a mild start, Neil’s interview with the Prime Minister candidate quickly descended into chaos. Nevertheless, Neil should be wholly applauded for calling out the British left for anti-Semitism in a way U.S. mainstream media has never been able to do, despite being given ample incidents by the American Left upon which to comment.

Neil introduced the topic of anti-Semitism by offering Corbyn the opportunity to respond to the Times piece published by the UK’s Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mervis, in which Mervis claims that “a new poison – sanctioned from the top – has taken root in the Labour Party.”

Corbyn responds by stating, “I’m looking forward to having a conversation with [Rabbi Mervis] because I want to hear why he would say such a thing. So far as I’m concerned, anti-Semitism is not acceptable in any form anywhere in our society and obviously certainly not in my party, the Labour Party.” Corbyn then goes on to explain how the party has developed a “much stronger process” for addressing incidents of anti-Semitism committed by Labour members, including the sanctioning and even removal of certain members and candidates.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/27/katie-hill

Katie Hill’s saga encapsulated the establishment media’s descent from news to narrative.  What could have, and should have, been covered for any number of reasons, was ignored for one: It did not fit the establishment media’s prevailing narrative for its issue.  The episode definitively shows that in a conflict between traditional news and prevailing narrative the establishment media will choose the latter.

Not since Fats Domino found his thrill there, has a Hill made more salacious news.  In short order, the former Democrat Representative went from rising star to fallen one.  The crux of the story was clear: Accusations of a sexual relationship with a subordinate.  The story was bolstered by incriminating texts and photos, quickly leading the House Ethics Committee to initiate an investigation.

In the aftermath of the young Democrat’s denouement, “double standard” was bandied about.  Conservatives saw it with the #MeToo Movement, which had nothing to say about the allegations, despite basic elements fitting squarely within its professed purview.  Liberals saw it with Hill’s treatment versus that of men — one Hill herself cited in her final floor speech: “I’m leaving now because of a double standard…” 

If a double standard existed here, it is assuredly one more than the standard that the establishment media had in their coverage.  The establishment media, as evidenced by their lack of coverage of what by any definition used to considered news, is no longer in the news business, but in the narrative one.