The thing to remember, when reading of the medias “reporting” about Trump – in this case, about his budget – is that so much of it is completely made up.
Jimmy Breslin died over the weekend. He was 88.
We’ll come back to that.
The media today – or at least, people of a certain age (i.e. older than me) who are still in the media – remind me of circus performers telling inside jokes about what the ringmaster did after that one show in Lincoln, or of mailmen amongst themselves about the worst breeds of dog to encounter, or city bus drivers reminiscing about the foibles of that old model of bus that got retired a couple of decades ago, unlamented by anyone but, well, them. They remind me of any group of clubby, beleaguered insiders who turn the foibles, peccadillos and petty miseries of their callings into legends in their own minds. Not like World War II veterans telling niche anecdotes from a little tiny window of the fight to save freedom. Just guys who did something most people don’t care about all that much, building it in their minds into something worthy of the life they built around it.
Unlike arthritic old circus hands, mailmen and bus drivers, journalists buy newsprint by the rail car and ink by the barrel – so they can inflict their particular tales, traditions and argot onto the rest us. And lest anyone accuse me of ridiculing other people, I am one of them, at least as regards the radio industry.
I remember hearing some longtime Twin Cities journalists talk about Nick Coleman leaving the Star/Tribune. “He was a great, old-time newspaperman”, one of them said. “One of the best”.
Why, I asked.
What followed was an explanation I can’t possibly reproduce here – but it boiled down to Coleman epitomizing what an old-school “ink-stained wretch” was supposed to look, act and write like.
And I thought “this is the Nick Coleman who made an outsized contribution to the decline and fall of journalism. If he didn’t like you, he’d just make s**t up; he’d conjure up community groups from his imagination, or make up facts when he didn’t know enough to dig, ask or wait for the real ones. And he played a bigger-than-average role in the financial ruination of the field he, and the journos who reminisce about him, try to earn a living in.
But no matter. Journalists are like those hold each other to a standard that only they understand, and really only makes sense, or matters, really, to them.
And so Nick Coleman is a hero, while journalists who actually do what journalists are supposed to do but don’t know the secret handshake get mocked and derided by the bus drivers. Er, circus geeks.
Damn. I mean journos.
Along those lines, Journos like to tells themselves their mission nis to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”.
It’s pretty inevitably b******t. Most reporters spend their careers covering city council meetings and one-car crashes and writing obits and, today, probably selling ads to help their outlet get by. Their biases are irrelevant, because their beats are all about the mundanities of civic and public life that are just too boring for partisanship.
But Jimmy Breslin, like Studs Terkel and Jim Klobuchar and, heaven help us, Nick Coleman, was on a different plane. A columnist as well as a reporter, or maybe a reporter who got to have opinions, a pioneer in what they used to call “New Journalism” – subjective, advocacy-oriented, opinionated, journalism that put white and black hats on its subjects…
…rather than letting the reader do it for themselves.
To journos – and consumers of a certain outlook – it was brilliant, pioneering stuff. And it certainly did pioneer the idea of the journalist as the crusader rather than the crier, the seeker of goals rather than the reporter of facts – as the ones who could comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. As being able to fight, as one of Breslin’s obituary writers said, for the little guy.
I found out Breslin’s regard for the little guy, straight from the horse’s mouth. I met Breslin once, back in 1986. He was doing a book tour, back when book tours meant traveling the country and doing radio live in the studio; I booked him on the Don Vogel show.
This was in the wake of one of Bernard Goetz’s trials. Vogel asked him a question about Goetz – an electrician who’d been mugged, over and over, and reacted famously by shooting a group of muggers in the subway with an unregistered gun (only celebrities and politicians could get handgun license in New York – and that’s still pretty much true).
Breslin oozed contempt for Goetz. It was sneering, visceral, hateful – as if the thought that a mere hoi polloi’s life was worth defending itself violated the public order.
But Goetz wasn’t “the little guy” to Breslin or the “journalism” establishment who aped him. The criminals – with whom the purveyors of the myth of New York in the sixties and seventies had long since made fitful peace – were the little guys; not predators, not even pests; part of a zen-like symbiosis that one had to tolerate to “be a New Yorker”.
To the likes of Breslin and his many many imitators.
He was there for the right little guys.
Like most journos.
But never let it be said I speak ill of the dead. Breslin did write one thing in his long career that rocked me back on my heels; the piece he wrote about the surgery he underwent a few decades back for an aneurysm. Positively brilliant. I can’t find it, but I will keep looking.
On “Morning Edition”.
NPR Reporter: “…if it weren’t for the “Alternative Minimum Tax”, Trump would have paid a net tax rate of 3%”.
NPR Anchor: “Right – but there was an alternative minimum tax, and he paid a net rate of about 25% – considerably higher than Barack Obama and double what Bernie Sanders paid. So why the pointless “what if?” You’re “reporting” a complete nothingburger, here.”
(UPDATE: The anchor never said any of that. It was just a dream. The “reporter’s” line is pretty accurate, though).
Politifact says President Trump is right…
They don’t “check facts”. They ensure congruency with the narrative. No more.
Over at the WashEx, a catalog of the ongoing reportorial flubs, context-manglings, bobbled facts, unreliable anonymous sources with the wrong story, and just plain made-up BS…
It’s not only helpful to view the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines; it’s pretty much the only intellectdually honest approach.
You’d never know it from watching/reading the WaPo, the NYTimes, NPR and the big three – but the American public trusts used car salesmen more than journalists.
Nope – not making it up: According to an Emerson College, poll, the public trusts the Trump about a quarter more than the mainstream media:
The Trump administration is more trusted than the news media among voters, according to a new Emerson College poll.
The administration is considered truthful by 49 percent of registered voters and untruthful by 48 percent.
But the news media is less trusted than the administration, with 53 percent calling it untruthful and just 39 percent finding it honest.
Question: what are the other 39% thinking of?
The Daily Caller notes that the “database” used by the liberal media to try to create hysteria about mass shootings, overstates the number of such incidents by at least an order of magnitude:
The website “Mass Shooting Tracker” (MST) has been regularly used by news outlets, like The Washington Post and PBS, to claim “mass shootings” occur much more frequently than they actually do. MST uses an alternative definition of “mass shooting” that greatly overstates their frequency relative to the commonly-accepted definition used by law enforcement and academics.
MST openly acknowledges it uses the alternate definition to “punch a hole in the NRA argument.”…MST’s defines a mass shooting as any shooting where four or more people are injured or killed, not counting the shooter. This isn’t an official definition taken from law enforcement or academia, but appears to be originally created by anti-gun activists on Reddit.
Of course, it’s something that Shot In The Dark readers knew well over a year ago.
Congress’s Democrat brain trust jumped on the news that former National Security Advisor Flynn had tweeted he was a scapegoat.
They were obliging enough to do it on video:
And who can blame ’em? It was in the NYTimes and the WaPo.
Of course, it was fake news. When it’s political and it’s in the Times or the WaPo, one should assume it’s fake, and verify.
It didn’t pass the stink test, of course. When it comes to this administration, it almost never will.
Chris “The Ken Doll Of News” Cuomo doesn’t like being called a “fake newsman“:
“I see being called ‘fake news’ as the equivalent of the N-word for journalists, the equivalent of calling an Italian any of the ugly words that people have for that ethnicity,” Cuomo said on SiriusXM.
“That’s what ‘fake news’ is to a journalist,” the CNN host continued. “It’s an ugly insult, and you better be right if you’re going to charge a journalist with lying on purpose.”
For startes, Mr. Como – no. It’s not the same as the N-word. The N-word is bestowed for no more reason than someone’s skin color.
“Fake News” is earned. It’s earned by putting agenda before fact. As the mainstream media has been making a habit of doing, and justifying doing, for decades, but more lately than ever.
You’re soaking in it.
Charlie Martin on the mainstream fake-news media’s ongoing narrative campaign.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
“Note to the New York Times: ‘trouncing’ and ‘blown past’ are phrases appropriate to sports reporting, not science reporting. Except that no sports reporter would dare write an article in which he never bothers to give you the score of the big game. . . . It’s almost like they’re hiding something. And that is indeed what we find.”
Summary: Increase is one-hundredth of a degree but the Margin of Error is a tenth of a degree. So it’s all bullshit. No, worry, these are “alternative facts” but since it’s the Left doing it, that makes it alright.
Narrative Uber Alles.
All you identity-politicians? We tried to warn you; if your worldview is built around building up your own identity segment by punching down – which, in this day and age, inevitably ends up punching down on blue-collar white guys, a constituency that has only Larry the Cable Guy to speak for it – eventually those blue collar white guys are going to play identity politics right back.
Protesters? Yeah, we kinda hinted that walking around dressed like lady parts was gonna backfire on you. And it did.
And news media? Your serial dishonesty – not every one of you, but the dominant social current in your trade?
For example – your crushing silence about the scope and sweep of Barack Obama’s executive orders?
John Podhoretz’s admonition is particularly relevant because so many of these Obama-era precedents did not get the left’s “creeping fascism” sense tingling at the time. To rend garments over these actions now only because the Trump White House is undertaking them is not just unwise; it’s insulting.
The whole thing – by Noah Rothman – is worth a read.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
New York Times writes about Milo Yiannopoulos’ new book. First line of the story says Milo is “infamous” and a “Donald J. Trump” supporter.
Infamous – as in “a day that will live in infamy?” He’s that bad? Care to give us any examples, show us any bodies? Guess not.
And who the Hell is Donald J. Trump? Is that the new President’s son? Nephew? Look, if you’re talking about the guy who just got elected President, why not call him that? Identity would be certain and you could skip the middle initial, because there’d be no possibility any reader would confuse him with any other ‘President-elect Donald Trump.’
Setting the tone of disapproval in the very first sentence is letting readers know we’re talking about a Bad Person that some publisher has unaccountably decided to publish. Horrifying! Other publishers didn’t want the book – might offend older and religious conservatives. No wonder there’s controversy, as well there should be, from all right-thinking persons. Oh, and one little detail that didn’t make the story . . . . it’s the #1 New Release on Amazon, presently ranking up there with Fahrenheit 451 in Censorship and Politics.
Hasn’t even been released yet, doesn’t come out until March, and it’s selling like hotcakes. Astonishing that a publisher might be willing to print a best seller. What were they thinking?
I’ve read some of Milo’s stuff. He’s a gay British guy with a Greek last name so you might assume he’s a typical Liberal twit but no, he’s funny and completely unafraid to say what ordinary Joes like me are thinking. I’ve never paid $13.99 for a Kindle book before. This just might be the start, if for no other reason than to poke a stick in the eye of the New York Times.
Remember when dissent was a virtue…
…well, some of it is, again.
Milo, and most of you, and me? We’re not the right kind of dissent.
Well, the title is a little misleading. Where I wrote “without limits”, I guess I what I meant was “no bottom to the barrel”.
Because in the arc of downfall for the City Pages, from its heady days in the eighties publishing James Lileks, and its journalistic peak in the nineties, where they ran a lot of excellent reporting, the CP just keeps falling.
And every time I think “they can’t possibly get any worse as reporters?” They somehow pull it off.
I didn’t think they could get any worse than Dan Haugen’s factual malaprops – but sure enough, Kevin Hoffman was right there with the onanistic panty-sniffing disguised as high-school-caliber schadefreud. From thence, we’ve had a couple years of the ongoing gift of hilarity that is Corey Zurowski’s writing, which has been its own reward.
So given that the City Pages seems to have no lower limit, I’ll refrain from saying Pete Kotz’s piece about the GOP’s pushback on cities trying to jam down $15 minimum wage laws bespeaks any descent below any journalistic or factual pale.
Because there’s always more ground below the barrel.
But oh, lord – it’s getting worse.
SCENE: Mitch BERG is leaving a downtown Saint Paul bar after happy hour with friends.
As he fumbles for his keys by his car, MyLyssa SILBERMAN, reporter for National Public Radio’s Saint Paul bureau, steps out of an organic tax accountant office. Dressed in a hemp power skirt, her brunette-but-slightly-prematurely-gray hair cut into the style known as “ELCA Hair”, she wrinkles her nose on encountering BERG.
SILBERMAN: Er, hello, Merg.
BERG: MyLyssa. A pleasure (He finds his car key)
SILBERMAN: You and your show and blog are “fake news”
BERG: Huh. You don’t say. Why’s that?
SILBERMAN: You don’t have a staff of fact-checkers.
BERG: .Like the Washington Post.
SILBERMAN: Exactly. The Washington Post has layers and layers of gatekeepers and factcheckers, all trained at Ivy League journalism schools to the highest standard of the journalistic craft.
BERG: The WaPo ran a story last week about Russian hackers trying to bring down the Vermont power grid. Until it turned out it wasn’t; just some malware on a laptop that wasn’t connected to any grid other than an AC plug. Then they revised the story, and tried to re-focus it under the radar while going “um, nothing to see here” about their earlier claim that Russians were trying to bring down the US power supply.
SILBERMAN: Right. The fact-checking worked.
BERG: The “fact-checking” was entirely external to the Washington Post. They were “fact-checked” by their audience and the rest of the media. No different than my blog.
SILBERMAN: No, Merg. That’s false. And I’ll tell you why.
BERG: OK. You do that.
SILBERMAN: The person who pushed “publish” on the online revision?
SILBERMAN: And the person who started the printing presses?
BERG: Right? Yes?
SILBERMAN: They were Washington Post employees. Without them, the correction would have never gotten out.
BERG: Huh .
SILBERMAN: Also, you are a white male. (Looks at bare wrist) Oh, look at the time. (Steps back into accountants office).
BERG: (Rolls eyes, climbs into car)
I’ll say it here and now: “right wing terrorism” is a boogeyman that the left has been floating out there for decades to try to create a sense of urgency and alarm among their base.
There certainly has been some terror associated with the…well, not “the right”, per se; more like “the non-left”. The “Klan” has nothing to do with mainstream American conservatism, much less the GOP, and never has. Tim McVeigh was neither conservative nor Christian. And by the time of the Murragh building bombing, even that wave of activity, whatever it was, was on the wane.
But with Donald Trump, a GOP Congress, 2/3 of America’s state legislative chambers in GOP hands, and a solid conservative Cabinet waiting to take office in less than three weeks, the left has been stepping up its efforts to create hysteria about “right wing” boogeymen under everyone’s couches – whatever the cost.
Cut to the “A and E Network’s recently-aborted documentary about The Klan.
Well, no. Not about “the Klan”. About a Venice, California-based documentary maker’s narrative about what “The Klan” was supposed to be like, whatever it took (emphasis added by me):
The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied.
The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sources including Richard Nichols, who is one of the featured subjects of the documentary series as the Grand Dragon of a KKK cell known as the Tennessee White Knights of the Invisible Empire. He also said he was encouraged by a producer to use the epithet “nigger” in interviews.
“We were betrayed by the producers and A&E,” said Nichols. “It was all made up—pretty much everything we said and did was fake and because that is what the film people told us to do and say.”
Rest assured, it’s not just a couple of hack producers for a hack cable network. “Journo-list 2.0”, wherever and whatever and whoever it is, and the leadership of the American left itself are layout out this narrative from the top, and pushing it through the entire media.
In the TV series MASH, there was an episode featuring a statistician – an Army officer who predicted how many men would be killed or wounded given the parameters of an upcoming battle. To the statistician character, it was all about numbers – “just business, nothing personal”, to invoke a line from a different seventies production. To surgeon Hawkeye Pierce, the character who had to try to patch together the actual men behind the numbers, is was in fact personal.
At the end of the episode, losing his temper at the statistician, after showing the geek through the operating room, Pierce yells “the thing I hate about you isn’t that you’re good at your job. I hate you for liking it so much”.
I have a similar reaction to people who try to boil all human behavior down into numbers, statistics and analytical models.
Now, before you launch into some misguided jape about conservatives hating science, remember – part of my day job is, well, boiling down human behavior into numbers, stats and patterns. A bigger part, at least for me, is finding the qualitative answer behind the numbers.
But I digress. Among the many joys of this past election – the potential for a safe SCOTUS, a solid cabinet, no Hillary, no leasing of US foreign policy to the Saudis and Qataris – was the complete collapse of analytics in predicting (and, via our media, shaping) this past election.
The analytical models for both sides pointed to a Clinton victory, albeit not a runaway. The Clinton campaign and super PACs had several of the most highly regarded polling firms in the Democratic Party, yet in the places that ended up mattering, very little if any polling was done. So while 2016 wasn’t a victory for traditional polling, it certainly took a lot of the luster from analytics. In the end, big data mattered very little.
While tinkering with stats can be fun, I’ve long loathed notion that all of human behavior can be boiled down into numbers. And I’ll admit, the schadenfreud when the geeks fail to do so is glorious.
Allison Sherry added this opinion column – essentially, a piece of delated-PR for the Angie Craig campaign – in Monday’s Strib:
Incoming Republican U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis made his career as a provocative talk-radio personality who seemed to relish holding court on the fringes of the political mainstream.
On any given day, he could offer up inflammatory comments about slavery or assert that unmarried women just want government to pay for their birth control.
Now Lewis faces the biggest test of his political career as he must rapidly transition from radio provocateur into a full-time member of Congress.
Sherry is a new member of the Strib’s ignominious “columnist’s row”, so it’s to be expected she’ll start her beat by reprising Angie Craig’s campaign chanting points – which the Strib considers “sources”, by the way.
Lewis seems to get it, though:
“I’m not an expert, though I played one on the radio for 20 years,” Lewis said in the basement of the Capitol complex, fidgeting with a bottle of water. “It is humbling and sobering when all of [a] sudden you see Rep. Jason Lewis on things.”
Ms. Sherry seems well fitted to follow in Nick Coleman’s steps.
In a more serious vein: why would the Strib be running what is basically a hit piece on the new Congressman, before he’s even sworn in?
Easy. Angie Craig is already fundraising for a rematch. To the DFL and Strib, the 2018 race is already underway.
CORRECTION: It seems Ms. Sherry is actually not a columnist, but one of the Strib’s reporters.
I regret the error.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
It might be funny to write a letter to the editor.
I’ll claim to be a left-handed Black Transgender Lesbian. The story will be about my struggle, how I was oppressed by Conservative teachers in college, passed over in employment so they could hire Whites, afraid to speak my mind at work because everyone there was a Republican and they’re notorious for being petty and vindictive, how traumatized I felt when Trump won and I realized my life was in danger.
I bet I could get it published to rave reviews. “So Brave.”
Then I’ll use the “find and replace” function to change “Black” to “White” and “Republican” to “Democrat,” change the whole thing mirror image, send it to the people who raved about the first column to see what they think. My guess is they’ll hate it. “Racist.”
Can one person be both brave and racist? Apparently so, if the analyst relies on the most superficial sorting.
To paraphrase PT Barnum, nobody every got their Letter to the Editor scuppered for not playing to the media’s prejudices.
The left-leaning mainstream media – which has in the life of this blog:
- embraced (and still embraces) a “fake” but “accurate” story about George Bush’s Air Guard service that sported faked documents and references to officers who had retired from the service by the time they signed the purported document
- Actively colluded with the Hillary Clinton campaign and is actively and quite publicly looking for ways to sandbag the incoming Administration
- Faked “research” about firearm defense, and done is so badly lil’ ol’ me was able to shred it by my lonesome…
Perhaps because of paragraphs like this (emphasis added by me):
“What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy,” said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. “Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable.”
Media Matters is a Soros-funded propaganda mill. It is a “media watchdog” only to the extent that an attack-PR firm is a watchdog of anything; relentlessly scouring media for congruence with liberal chanting points with all the grace of a German funk band.
Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.
Neither is non-partisan.
While I think good reporting is essential to a representative Republic, I think our current mainstream media will not be the ones to perform any kind of “good reporting”. The sooner it goes out of business, the better for democracy.
SCENE: Mitch BERG is leaving Alary’s after a Bears game, when he runs into MyLyssa SILBERMAN, reporter for National Public Radio’s Saint Paul bureau. Dressed in a hemp power skirt, her brunette-but-slightly-prematurely-gray hair cut into the style known as “ELCA Hair”, she is on her way from her Lowertown condo to the MPR building.
SILBERMAN: (In her “NPR” voice – a nasal brogue that bespeaks an Ivy League education, and sounds like it may have ironic clarinet music in the background) Mr. Berg.
BERG: Oh, hello, MyLyssa.
SILBERMAN: So you’re still a Second Amendment activist?
BERG: I am.
SILBERMAN: And you oppose closing the “Gun Show Loophole” with mandatory registration?
SILBERMAN: Why? It’s clearly commonsense.
BERG: I’m going to refute you with an NPR story. Yesterday, NPR reported that the Obama Administration has done away with a 9/11-era program that allowed the creation of a registry of people from several countries linked to terrorist activities. (BERG draws iPhone from pocket, shuffles through to find a recording). I believe this the report, from NPR’s Tom Gjelten:
GJELTEN: Among those who would speak out – the American Civil Liberties Union. Hina Shamsi is the national security director there.
HINA SHAMSI: We would absolutely oppose this program. And as we have said, if this form of discriminatory registry is put in place, we stand ready to sue and to challenge it.
(BERG stops the recording)
SILBERMAN: Right. So?
BERG: Listen to this next bit. I’ll crank up the volume for a few parts”
GJELTEN: A new registry could bring out law-abiding Muslims. But human rights lawyer Banafsheh Akhlaghi says it would probably not reveal the would-be terrorists the government should be worried about.
AKHLAGHI: They aren’t going to voluntarily come into a federal building, give you their fingerprints, give you their name and their identity and allow you to take photographs of them. The good guys do that.
(BERG stops the recording again)
BERG: So terrorists aren’t going to come in and register themselves…
SILBERMAN: Right. That’s absurd.
BERG: Exactly. But criminals – people who commit violence with guns? They will come in and, in effect, register with a background check when they buy guns?
SILBERMAN: You are clearly “fake news”.
Thirty years ago, white supremacy groups were a real, legitimate, dangerous thing.
Various groups – “Christian Identity”, “Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord” , the “Posse Comitatus” and of course the Klan – had, if not “power”, at least an effect on the world around them. I’ve run into it twice in my life; my interaction with the Gordon Kahl incident back in North Dakota in ’83, and the smattering of anti-semitic death threats I got when I was on the air at KSTP – simultaneously funny (I’m a Christian who is ethnically northern-european, with no Jewish ancestry whatsoever) and not so funny (it was about the time when neo-Nazis killed Denver talk show host Alan, er, Berg).
At the time, “skinheads” – remember them? – roamed the streets of the Twin Cities openly, attacking gays and people of color (I witnessed an attack by 3-4 skins on a rather dapper black man walking with a white woman in Uptown back in 1987, and briefly accelerated and swerved my car to try to run one of them down as he fled the scene before thinking better of it).
Remember when Geraldo Rivera came to Janesville Wisconsin to meet (and, eventually, “fight”) with Klansmen? Ask yourself – do you think the Klan is openly having meetings in Janesville today? (Actually, given that it was Geraldo Rivera, you might ask if it was even accurate back then – Rivera was doing “fake news” before it was cool).
Even twenty years ago, there was an active Neo-Nazi cell in Saint Cloud (where else?) and even a not-even-all-that-neo Nazi record label, Panzerfaust Records, operating openly in the Twin Cities.
When was the last time you saw an actual skinhead? Heard of the Posse Comitatus? Heard of anyone getting blown up or shot by neo-Nazis? It’s been decades, right?
“White Supremacy” has become a tinier, more lunatic fringe than it was; a shadow of itse former self. Which isn’t to say that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center aren’t going to say so – the more boogeymen in pointy sheets they claim they find, the more money they get (which is one of the reasons they go around declaring utterly civil thinks tanks like the Taxpayers League of Minnesota are “hate groups”) There are bowling leagues with more members and clout than the Klan has these days.
One gets the impression that the mainstream, left-leaning media is dying to fix that. They’re giving whatever’s left of the Klan a whoooole lot of free advertising:
To say that the series’ arrival is timely would be an understatement. The racial divide and white nationalism emerged among the bigger themes of the recent election. David Duke, a former Klan leader and perhaps one of the most outspoken racists in America, was a vocal Donald Trump supporter and has called his presidential victory a win for “his people.”
I suspect and suggest that all the free advertising is happening precisely to create more white supremacists. Because narratives don’t further themselves.
On “Morning Edition” this morning, in re Donald Trump cancelling the press conference he’d scheduled for today:
HOST: “So, is this important, or is this just something that makes a difference to journalists?”
NPR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: “It’s important. This is when journalists get to ask the tough questions of the president, and maybe tease out the details of some of the hard stories, as part of our mission to keep the public informed”
The last “tough question” asked in a White House press conference was eight years ago. All of the “journalists” working at the White House then have moved on to other jobs. The ones there now will have to ask the old-timers how it was done.
During the 2010 Minnesota gubernatorial race, the “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” spread a story – Target was “anti-gay”.
They weren’t, of course; Target has always been socially progressive to a fault; by 2010, they spun themselves into a fair tizzy over every PC fad that came along. They still do.
But they’d donated money to the Tom Emmer campaign. And Tom Emmer opposed same sex marriage – exactly as the majority of the DFL did, on the record, at that point.
And so the “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” created a wave of “fake news” (and even more mangled advocacy reporting) to attack Target and Emmer. Waves of paid and DFL-affiliated “protesters” descended on Target; after that, the media breathlessly proclaimed their campaign was having an effect on Target’s share price (it wasn’t) based on a report from a “progressive” fund that owned pennies on pennies on the Target dollar. The media, played enthusiastically along, for the same reasons they did with Hillary. In one cast, CBS news collaborated, willingly or not, with a local left-wing advocacy group to create an entirely fake news story.
The goal, of course, was to simultaneously attack Emmer and try to intimidate Minnesota businesses into not donating to Republicans; if they could cause problems for the mighty Target, what could they do to a machine shop in Owatonna?
So when Democrats whinge about “fake news” – they sowed the wind,
But did they reap the whirlwind?
Hillary is blaming “fake news” for her loss:
“The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” Clinton said during a speech on Capitol Hill.
Some Democrats have argued the spread of anti-Clinton fake news online contributed to her electoral loss to Donald Trump.
Several problems with this theory:
- There was at least as much “fake news” supporting Hillary. My social media feed was clogged with photomemes and phony stories from groups like “Occupy Democrats”.
- Beyond the purportedly fake news and “propaganda” epidemic, the mainstream media wallowed in a Pauline Kael-like echo chamber of pro-HIllary bias, to the point of publishing, well, “fake news” against Trump, to the point where the publisher of the NYTimes felt the need to publicly rededicate his paper to not doing the things that the media’s apologists say it never did.
- Not so much a “problem” but an observation; this is just another symptom of the cranky arrogance that helped Clinton lose the election in the first place; “If you deplorables weren’t so stupid, believing the wrong fake news, ‘d be in the White House again!”.
The mainstream media is less fake than “Occupy Democrats” – but it’s a matter of degree.
Berg’s Seventh Law is getting an epic workout this cycle.
There are a few things in the American media for which I have more contempt than the WNYC program “On The Media”. I’ve written about it in the past – it’s an NPR show, hosted by Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone, that seems to be based around the premise the journalist is a noble order of high priest of information, having a salonic conversation about the rarefied heights of American journalism.
In point of fact, it’s a Democrat party propaganda mill, no different than “Occupy Democrats” or any of the left’s other “fake news” mills.
Prosecutors exhibit A? This past weekend’s broadcast, which focused on “not normalizing Trump”.
And as a Tfump non-supporter and someone who was taught journalism by old-school practitioners who actually valued telling the story, rather than achieving a political goal,, I get it.
Of course, when OTM talks about “not normalizing” someone like Donald Trump, not a word will be mentioned about the media having normalized bald-faced support for Hillary Clinton, at a level that we have once been considered a crime against journalism.
Bonus visit bit of nausea induction: as a guest, Bob Garfield interviewed George Lakoff, a noted linguist who pointed out the techniques that Trump has mastered in turning peoples opinions on their heads, and the need to not normalize that sort of thing…
Of course, Garfield didn’t mention that Lakoff has been working, and as I recall been paid for quite some time now, to try to do exactly what the program complains about Trump doing; trying to turn language to the service of Democrats.
Apparently they didn’t think we needed to know that.