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.”