Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Why doesn’t the public trust the media?
Because the public keeps trusting its lying eyes?
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Trump claims John Podesta barred the FBI from looking at the DNC computer.
You remember that computer – not the one in Hillary’s bathroom that she wiped with a cloth, this is the DNC server that supposedly got “hacked” by the Russians to steal the Democrats’ emails, which the Russians then released to the public through their shill, Wikileaks, in an effort to make Hillary look bad so voters wouldn’t like her, all the while colluding with the Trump campaign to steal the election from Hillary. Trump claims the FBI never saw it.
Naturally, the Liberal media is covering for the Democrats. Politifact rated Trump’s claim a LIE: John Podesta did NOT bar the FBI from looking at the DNC computer. Somebody else did that.
Missing the point, people! The essence of the claim remains true: the feds never saw the computer.
The only evidence the Russians had anything to do with the massive leak of embarrassing emails comes from the private IT firm hired by the Democrats. The leak could just as easily have come from a disgruntled DNC employee, perhaps an IT specialist who downloaded the emails and offered them to Wikileaks right before he was murdered in a ‘robbery gone bad’ in which nothing was stolen, that the D.C. cops refuse to investigate.
Since when does the FBI out-source criminal investigations or national security breaches? But the Democrats assured James Comey the Russians did it, and that’s good enough for old Jimbo. And the rest of the nation blindly follows the false trail down the rabbit hole.
If Democrats defended this nation like they defend their narrative, ISIS would be hiding under a rock in the Hejdaz.
To: Minnesota Public Radio News
From: Mitch Berg, irascible peasant
Re: Your Teaser This Morning
Heard on MPR’s morning edition: Cathy Wurzer blurbs to tease an upcoming story: “Will an Embridge pipeline in Northern Minnesota become the next Standing Rock?”
Given MPR’s connections to the Twin Cities’ Big Environmentalist Left, you’ll pardon me if it sounds like:
Of course it’s going to be “like Standing Rock”. And I’m pretty sure everyone that matters at MPR already knows it, is planning for it, and started booking hotel rooms up amid the jackpines long before Wurzer’s teaser was written.
I mean, am I wrong?
That is all.
Jeremy Joseph Christian kills two in an anti-Muslim rampage on a train in Portland, Oregon.
Word gets out that Christian was a “white supremacist”. Media assume that means “Right Wing Pro-Trump Hate Criminal” – and brows are furrowed as our high priests of knowledge obsess over What It All Means.
Writing for Willamette Week, Corey Pein said he interviewed Christian during [a “Free Speech” march in Portland], and the alleged killer chanted the n-word and threw Nazi salutes. Pein writes that amid Christian’s rants about Jews on Facebook, he expressed support for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein for president. The Willamette Week writer describes that as a “distraction” others will seize upon as they contradict the narrative of Christian as a real white supremacist.
Simple fact – and Berg’s 19th Law has controlling legal authority, here – is that Christian was a nihilist, if you want to credit it as an actual train of thought, and apparently deeply mentally ill if you don’t.
Either way? The mainstream media promptly lost interest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someday, when there is a post-cold-war style reckoning with the past crimes of the American media – and I realize this may be more an “afterlife” kind of thing – the ongoing effort by the American media to slander people not like them, politically speaking, will be an entire wing in the museum.
Let’s allow up front that in a nation of 320 million people there will be loonies of every description afoot, and that not everyone deals with frustration, bigotry or hatred well or constructively.
With that out of the way?
There is no wave of Trump-inspired hatred in this country. The media is, er, trumping up a series of:
…into a “story”, and spinning it into a largely fictional narrative.
To wag the dog. To try to create the movement that they’re reporting on. To try to do for hate what they did for Armenian valley girls and Flava Flav.
Will it work?
Well, their efforts didn’t give us an
Empress President HIllary. But that may have been a lucky break.
And “luck” isn’t a plan.
I’m not a member of the “White Working Class”. I worked pretty hard to not be part of it, earlier in my life. For better or worse, I’m a service-economy guy.
Paul Krugman new yhork times.
Democrats have to figure out why the white working class just voted overwhelmingly against its own economic interests, not pretend that a bit more populism would solve the problem.
Here’s a word to the wise, Paul Krugman – but since it’s you, I’ll have to explain it.
Being told what “one’s best interests” are is a good enough reason by itself.
Would Paul Krugman tell black people, or Native Americans, or women, what’s “in their best interests?” That would be racist, sexist and mansplaining.
It’s no different when you Bluesplain to people you don’t know, have never met, will never meet, and whose lives would kill you dead in half an hour what “their best interests” are. There’s no cutesy PC social-justice-academy term for it – but it’s the same thing.
And that’s when the Bluesplaining comes from someone who’s actually got a point – which Paul Krugman does not. How do we know this?
Because he wrote this…:
Any claim that changed policy positions will win elections assumes that the public will hear about those positions. How is that supposed to happen, when most of the news media simply refuse to cover policy substance? Remember, over the course of the 2016 campaign, the three network news shows devoted a total of 35 minutes combined to policy issues — all policy issues. Meanwhile, they devoted 125 minutes to Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Right. The press was hard on Hillary.
Oh, yeah. And…:
Beyond this, the fact is that Democrats have already been pursuing policies that are much better for the white working class than anything the other party has to offer. Yet this has brought no political reward.
No, they do not – and yes, the reward has been bestowed.
Krugman is just too much of a clown to know it.
At least one professor got the message and got some useful takeaways from the complete failure of the “academic-industrial complex” for which Krugman is a poster child:
First, we must stop being insufferable know-it-alls. As scribes and scholars, we have expertise in a particular beat or field, but that doesn’t make us qualified to determine which candidate is best to lead 320 million Americans, each of whom has many and varied needs. Nor is it our job.
God knows it’ll never be Krugman.
Speaking for myself, I’m not going to participate in the left’s jabbering about “the Alt-Right” – which is to this cycle what “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy” was to 1996, and “War on Women” was to 2012; a mass smear attempting to tie the entire American “right” to the most noxious people who can possibly be linked to it.
In this case, some “Klan” leaders who nobody has heard of (there are bowling leagues with more members and political clout than the KKK has these days) who were thrust into instant, utterly temporary, undeserved prominence by dint of “endorsing” or “heiling” Trump.
However, Trump has refudiated his ‘supporters’ on the “alt-right”.
Suppose that’ll get any headlines?
The Strib “reported”, after a fashion, about attitudes about Obamacare after an election where it was primarily responsible for ejecting the DFL from power in the Minnesota Senate.
And it’s either a masterpiece of selective fact, or some fairly incurious reporting:
Anxiety is greatest among Minnesotans with preexisting medical conditions. Before the ACA, insurance companies could simply deny them coverage.
Which is technically true.
After which, in Minnesota at least, they would get insurance from one of the state-subsizied high risk plans.
Before MNSure, 92% of Minnesotans were insured, via the private market, a public plan, or some combination. It was the highest share in the nation. Of the 8% who didn’t have insurance, the vast majority were people who didn’t want insurance – mostly young, mostly healthy. There were exceptions – but they were few, rare, and mostly the product of poor information and a pre-Obama media who were actively pitching the “47 million uninsured Americans…” narrative.
Today, the state says half as many Minnesotans are uninsured – but networks have shrunk (in vast swathes of Minnesota, only one plan is available), premiums have skyrocketed for individual members (like me!), people could not keep their doctor (The Lightworker’s promises notwithstanding…)
So why is the Strib story – a “Team Report” by Jeremy Olson, Christopher Snowbeck and Glenn Howatt, no less – either so slanted or uninformed?
To borrow a Glenn Reynolds phrase – if you treat them as DFL operatives with bylines, it all makes sense.
Major papers mimeograph Hillary Clinton press release, call it “reporting“.
Glenn Reynolds refers to today’s media as stenographers for the Democrats.
He’s too charitable. Stenographers have some professional standards.
This blog has always been dedicated to the idea that the mainstream media is a PR firm for the Democrat party nationally, and the DFL in Minnesota.
While there are capable, honest reporters in the Twin Cities and nationally who do make a level effort to cover the news rather than paint Democrat toenails and safeguard their dinner reservations at Brothers, it’s this blog’s considered opinion that the American media has long since ceased being a “check and balance” on anyone but conservatives and the GOP.
It’s been much in the news this past week.
Michael Goodwin at the NYPost notes the extent to which the mainstream media has become, without no hyperbole whatsoever, an arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign:
A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “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?”
Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is noteworthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other “abnormal.”
Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”
Also, you don’t need to be a detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.
But that’s a bit of bias that has long, deep roots; most of the American media seemed eager to finish for Bill Clinton the job Monica Lewinski started.
Meanwhile, locally, at a Donald Trump rally last week, “protesters” – pro-Democrat agitators – repeatedly attacked, hit and spat on people attending a Donald Trump meeting in Minneapolis. You‘d never know if from most of the media, as John Gilmore reports:
But not even I was prepared for what followed: a sustained assault on citizens attempting to leave that venue while Minneapolis police stood by, for the most part. Some performed admirably and to them much credit should be given. Yet it wasn’t nearly enough.
There were first hand reports of people being spat upon, physically assaulted and some who had their property stolen. There were even reports of people themselves being spray painted. Many of those committing the assaults on white people were identified as black, but certainly not exclusively.
Minneapolis has become a lawless city, on the verge of becoming yet another Third World City, and last Friday night proved it beyond doubt. Those who have a different political view from the reigning majority were persecuted for simply exercising their constitutional right of assembly.
Twin Cities media reporting of the night’s events proved a mixed bag. There is no doubt that had the political polarities been reversed the coverage would have been far more extensive, breathless and condemnatory. But because the victims were republicans, much was glossed over. Which is to say, the violence.
Minnesota media should be ashamed of itself but it doesn’t really possess the capacity.
Read the whole thing.
For the sake of the city’s good, conscientious reporters, I do hope there’s some sort of future out there in writing actual news.
That future is not with the current legacy news media.
Do you remember when the left and mainstream media tried to tie Sarah Palin to Jared Loughner’s spree killing in Tuscon, which wounded Gabby Gifford (and killed a bunch of people the media don’t care about) because she’d completely innocently used “crosshairs” on a map?
Of course you do.
Do you remember when Al Sharpton told people to kill cops in as many words?
Speaking of memory holes: it’s been five days since the slaughter in Dallas. By this point in most recent mass-killings, we has a lot of detail about the killers; Holmes, Mateen, Loughner, Lanza, Harris and Klebold, Cho, even Hassan. And we’d had detailed dissections of the firearms they’d used – because those were the real enemies, natch.
And yet a cursory examination shows very little interest, it seems, in Micah Jackson’s past, and very little scrutiny about his SKS rifle.
We don’t know the details, and that means you or me. But if someone wanted to bet me $100 that the silence was because Jackson was a known “progressive” activist, and the SKS was an utterly unmodified, thoroughly plain-jane rifle, I wouldn’t take the bet.
To: Katie Couric and the entire American news media
From: Mitch Berg, peasant
Re: Starting a Conversation
Ms Couric et al,
As we discussed last week, you got busted doing something that, in my day (and yours) would have gotten any young reporter unceremoniously fired; you edited a story specifically to invert the history, record and fact in an interview with a group of Virginia gun rights activists, expressly to mislead the public and drive your chosen narrative.
As Jonah Goldberg notes (in a piece on the left’s new conceit, that any kind of fabulism is OK as long as you’re “starting a conversation”):
“I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it,” Couric said. (The “it” here is the deliberate falsifying of the truth). “Having said that, I think we have to focus on the big issue of gun violence. It was my hope that, when I approached this topic, that this would be a conversation-starter.”
Here is the “conversation” about guns – the entire conversation: as law enforcement targets gun criminals, gun crime is dropping, even as the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding skyrockets. The only exception is in inner cities, where it’s not the law-abiding citizens doing the shooting. Discuss.
There. There’s your conversation.
But I have a better conversation. Let’s talk about when the media became the PR wing of the America left. And that’s fine, to a point – most of us have come to except that, to one point or another, at least considering it part of America’s intellectual background noise.
And that’s fine, to a point – most of us have come to accept that, to one degree or another; it’s part of America’s intellectual background noise.
So let’s “converse” about this:
When Bernie Maddoff sells phony investments, and bilks people of their life’s savings, it’s a huge scandal – justifiably so – and righteous outrage ensues. The entire faith in the investment industry – a vitally important one – took a hit.
When Enron falsifies its records, people like you, the media, jump up-and-down and hoot and holler – and very justifiably so. The lying utterly guts the credibility that was the foundation of that industry. So far so good?
When Wall Street misleads the public, and itself, about what it’s actually investing in, causing a collapse of the entire housing market, that’s a breach of “trust” (or market discipline) that caused huge problems. Ja?
When the police cover up wrongdoing to protect one of their own from the consequences of their wrongdoing, it’s a big story – one that cuts to the foundation of our trust in government, especially law enforcement. Right?
So how is what Katie Couric did any different?
And more importantly, how is the entire news media’s failure (along with their cheerleaders) to rise up and condemn Couric’s perfidy as the blot on whatever trust for the media might still exist any different?
Other than saying you really don’t care anymore?
That is all.
To: The Media
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re: Journalistic “Standards”
Katie Couric lied to the viewing public by maliciously editing her piece on “Gun Violence” to show a group of human rights activists as speechless when asked a fairly elementary question about gun control (when, in fact, they had several minutes of on-point, articulate response).
Kevin Williamson – a long-time newspaperman (who presumably knows the secret handshake you journalists have that determines whether you’ll take their criticism seriously or not) notes that…:
This kind of thing is the stock-in-trade of faux journalists such as Jon Stewart and crude propagandists such as Michael Moore, but Katie Couric is, in theory, something else: an actual journalist. There are things we permit among comedians that we do not permit among journalists: I doubt very much that every anecdote Richard Pryor ever shared actually happened.
I believe I’ve heard a journo or two whimpering about “Censorship”. (“On The Media”, NPR’s
media criticism program Media Über Alles-fest, hasn’t yet, but I’m sure they will – if they deign to address the story at all)
The usual idiots are rallying to Couric’s defense for the usual reason, which has absolutely nothing to do with principle and everything to do with a deep disinclination to allow anything to happen that might be considered a victory for conservative critics of the mainstream media. This is not a First Amendment question: No one is arguing that this film should be censored, the way films critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton were subject to government censorship before Citizens United; rather, this is a straightforward question about journalistic standards and Yahoo’s adherence to or wanton abandonment of them. Journalists are not supposed to tell lies to their audiences.
Fearless prediction: “Serious” journalists will throw their hands up in the air, declare “it’s the new media, what are you gonna do?” and let it aaaaaaaall slide.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Star Tribune playing the race card for Somali terrorists. The reporter asks why there are no Blacks on the jury. The reporter is stuck in a mental rut, asking the wrong question.
Americans are entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers, but what does that mean? “Black” in the context of American racial relations means “descendant of African slaves.” Those Blacks are supposedly entitled to special privileges as compensation for centuries of slavery and Jim Crow which included all-white juries convicting Blacks solely on the basis of race. The courts have elaborate procedures to protect Black defendants’ right to a fair trial.
“Black” in this context does not mean “anybody whose skin color is darker than mine.” Somali immigrants were never slaves in America, they never suffered under Jim Crow, they’re not entitled to special privileges as redress. American Blacks might look upon Somali refugees as brothers-in-arms because they’re all struggling against The White Man; I sincerely doubt that Somali refugees look upon American Blacks as their peers.
This trial is not about race, it’s about religion. It’s not about Black, it’s about Islam. Scott Johnson nails it. But the Star Tribune reporter – terrified of mentioning Islam in an unfavorable light and stuck with Approved Victim categories established in the 1960’s – misses the point.
The Strib editorial board cut its teeth in the sixties and seventies.
The world needs some eighties people running things.
Because I don’t think the 2000s and 2010s people are going to be much of an improvement.
Baltimore Sun “reporter” Tricia Bishop, on her way to admitting she worries less about criminals than law-abiding gun owners (in Baltimore. I’ll let that bit of knot-headedness sink in), says:
And so, as President Barack Obama announced plans this week to tighten background checks for gun buyers and increase gun tracking and research, I thought, that’s all well and good, but how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.
Ms. Bishop: First, how about we have a database of people who don’t like guns. I mean, you’re the ones trying to shave away at the edges of a constitutional right – isn’t the burden of, well, being burdened, on you?
Why not let’s try this: we put in in a public database that says:
I, TRICIA BISHOP, AM UNARMED AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!
And maybe post one of these in your yard:
You do that for a couple years, we can talk.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
A buddy had an insight why Hillary won’t be indicted, won’t even be seriously questioned, about her ever-shifting lies:
The standard has shifted. Washington’s “I cannot tell a lie” was replaced by Hitler’s The Big Lie which was replaced by Bill Clinton’s The Great Lie.
The Great Lie does not mean the person is a convincing liar. That went out the window with Slick Willie. We all knew he was lying, but the media decided that as long as his lies were told in furtherance of the Progressive Agenda, the media would let them ride. This is the mindset of reporters like Nina Burleigh, who graphically described how she would reward President Clinton for keeping abortion legal. That attitude brought us the era of The Great Lie, the lie that is, in modern parlance, “too big to fail.”
The frustration of Democrats and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, is the GOP hasn’t accepted the new standard. The GOP still thinks it’s fair to indict Hillary for lying about her crimes. Hillary’s lies are, of course, brazen and transparent. But the objective that the lies are protecting – electing her President – is too important for the media to call out the lies, as that might jeopardize attainment of the objective.
The stakes are too high to hold Hillary to the truth because the truth would derail the process of crowning her to lead us into the abyss.
The Great Lie has become the accepted method for every Progressive issue. Universal free medicine is too important to allow truth to interfere with the dream, so The Great Lie that Obama-care is working must be accepted without question. Climate change is too important to be clouded with truth so The Great Lie must prevail even if we have to silence scientists and distort the data to fit the theory. Gun control, Muslim terror, campus rape, the methodology is always the same.
There is an added incentive for the mainstream media to endear themselves of The Great Lie: it frees them from the shackles of ethics, truth, due diligence, etc. If the issue is sufficiently important in the Progressive Agenda, then no outdated journalistic ethos need slow down the machinery of printing garbage for the masses. It’s a much more efficient than the old methods of sourcing facts, confirming identities and access of the informants or suppliers of facts, editorial oversight to check for balance and fairness. The only people who suffer are those who care about the truth.
The idea of “journalistic ethos” is to news consumers (and journo students) what Santa Claus is for children.
The Star/Tribune’s editorial board is a group of people, apparently in their sixties and seventies, who seem to spend their days pining away for a time when the media could say anything they want without fear of being caught out in public by people who know better.
Those days are long gone. Only the editorial board doesn’t seem to know it, or recognize it, as shown in last week’s editorial calling for, at the least, hearings on a “universal background check” bill.
And like everyone on the institutional left, they participate – with all the grace of a German jazz band – in the left’s only real tactic on the issue of gun control; Lie First, Lie Always.
Why, it’s almost as if Heather Martens, in addition to being a State Representative, is a Strib editor…