Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

The Media wing of the Democrat Party, aka the MSM, aka the Hate Trump Media, can’t make up their minds. When President Trump shut down daily press briefings, the MSM insisted that they reopen the daily briefings. Instead, President Trump invited the MSM into cabinet meetings and meetings with heads of state.

Another popular option was taking questions on his way to Marine One. During these press availabilities, President Trump frequently would take 30-45 minutes of questions. People loved these availabilities because they’d get real information. President Trump wouldn’t just explain what he did but he’d explain why he made a decision. When reporters tried playing gotcha with him, things didn’t turn out well for the journalist:

The average American doesn’t buy that calling a virus that started in China is racist. The woman who asked the question isn’t really a reporter. She’s more of a grandstander.

Mollie Hemingway’s recent article highlights the dilemma that Democrats are in:

When polls showed that President Donald Trump was receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, the first stage of grief the media went through was denial:

The MSM’s problem isn’t whether they should televise the daily coronavirus briefings. The MSM’s biggest problem is that the American people appreciate getting such a comprehensive briefing on this crisis.

The MSM is supposed to be in the information dissemination industry. The truth is that the MSM is often in the pundit/opinion-giving industry. That would explain this:

Things got worse when additional polls showed Trump receiving high ratings at the same time that the media received poor ratings. A brand new Gallup study — “Coronavirus Response: Hospitals Rated Best, News Media Worst” — was particularly bad news. When Americans were asked about nine different institutions and political leaders, they gave majority approval to all but the media. President Trump has a 22-point net approval rating while the media’s net approval rating was negative 11 points. The RealClearPolitics approval average for Trump was its highest during his entire presidency.

The Democrats’ biggest crisis isn’t that they’re televising the briefings. It’s that people don’t trust the media. That’s because the MSM is in the pundit/opinion-giving industry when they’re supposed to be in the information dispensing industry. Getting rid of jackasses like Jim Acosta and replacing them with them with people like Catherine Herridge, Sharyl Attkisson or Lara Logan would go a long ways towards repairing the damage done by the grandstanders.

Dr. Deborah Birx is a natural treasure. She’s the voice of calm expertise in a time of panic. Yesterday, Dr. Birx addressed the media on the point of computer models that the media is citing.

In her presentation, Dr. Birx said “I’m sure you have seen the recent report out of the U.K. about them adjusting completely their needs. This is really quite important. If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They’ve adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000.”

A few days ago, this report was used to frighten people. The implication at the time was that President Trump wasn’t doing a good job of eliminating the virus. Dr. Birx continued, saying:

Models are models. We are — there is enough data of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it’s very scary, but we don’t have data that matches that based on our experience.

And the situation about ventilators. We are reassured in meeting with our colleagues in New York that there are still I.C.U. Beds remaining and still significant, over 1,000 or 2,000 ventilators that have not been utilized.

The media should devote infinitely more time on reporting actual statistics than on these frightening and misleading computer models. As Dr. Birx just showed, the model wasn’t accurate. Finally, Dr. Birx finished by saying this:

Please for the reassurance of people around the world, to wake up this morning and look at people talking about creating DNR situations, Do Not Resuscitate situations for patients, there is no situation in the United States right now that warrants that kind of discussion. You can be thinking about it in the hospital. Certainly, hospitals talk about this on a daily basis, but to say that to the American people and make the implication that when they need a hospital bed it’s not going to be there or a ventilator, it’s not going to be there, we don’t have evidence of that.

Almost 3:30 into this video, Dr. Birx gets into that presentation:

It’s time for the media to stop frightening people. It’s time for them to start reporting.

If you’re reading articles predicting the Apocalypse, put the computer down, stop reading what you’re reading, then start trusting Dr. Anthony Fauci. That’s Dr. Drew Pinsky’s RX to the nation. Pinsky calls Dr. Fauci the nation’s “North Star” on these things. Pinsky then said that he’s got faith in Dr. Fauci and in the research doctors at the CDC and NIH.

Dr. Pinsky said that he’s intrigued by the hydroxychloroquine and the azithromycin. In fact, he said “I see a lot of good news in a lot of domains. I was on television with Dr. Oz last night. We both agreed that we both need 2 pieces of information to really change the course of this thing. I want a little more peer review data on the use of the malaria medicine, the Hydroxychloroquine showing significant benefit of treatment and, perhaps, prophylactic activity of the same medication.”

The point is that there’s tons of reasons to be optimistic. As Dr. Drew points out, there are a number of treatments that wouldn’t need to go through the entire approval process because they’ve already been through that process for a different use. In his interview with Greg Gutfeld, Dr. Drew said that he’s upset with the reporting, saying that the media seems intent on pushing the most extreme stories in their attempt to panic people.

The media’s goal is to increase readership. What actually happens, though, is that people panic. The media have done a fine job of increasing the panic

It’s stunning when you come face-to-face with CNN’s blatant bias. The sloppy reporting and the assumptions are offensive. If you think that I’m talking about Jim Acosta, that’s understandable. That isn’t who I’m talking about, though. I’m referring to Peter Bergen, CNN’s National Security Analyst. I’m talking about today’s article from Monday.

First, let’s hear what Mr. Bergen thinks of President Trump. We needn’t be Sherlock Holmes to find that out. Bergen supplies the words when he said “First, Trump doesn’t do any homework. As reported in my book, ‘Trump and his Generals,’ in early 2017 Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, told Trump’s former national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, that Trump never studied an issue: ‘Trump is a guy who never went to class. Never got the syllabus. Never bought a book. Never took a note. He basically comes in the night before the final exams after partying all night, puts on a pot of coffee, takes your notes, memorizes what he’s got to memorize. Walks in at eight o’clock in the morning and gets whatever grade he needs. That’s the reason he doesn’t like professors. He doesn’t like being lectured to.'”

Clearly, Bergen isn’t an analyst like Brit Hume is a political analyst at Fox News. Hume is a professional; Bergen isn’t. Bergen’s implication is that President Trump is either stupid or lazy in addition to being egotistical. That doesn’t match with the results. While he was investigated and impeached in the House and being tried in the Senate, President Trump put together a task force to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Going against the advice of his advisors, President Trump put in place a two-way travel ban with China. At the time, VP Biden wrote this:

Trump’s demonstrated failures of judgment and his repeated rejection of science make him the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health challenge. So far, Trump has blithely tweeted that ‘it will all work out well.’ Yet the steps he has taken as president have only weakened our capacity to respond.

Sean Hannity put together a timeline that included this statement from Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security:

The US scored 83.5 and ranked first in 5 of 6 categories: prevention, early detection and reporting, rapid response and mitigation, sufficient and robust health system, and compliance with international norms.

On Jan. 7, 2020, “a new coronavirus (SARS CoV-02) was identified from these patients.” On “January 31, 2020, the Trump administration declared a ‘public health emergency.'” That meant that people returning from “areas most impacted were subjected to mandatory quarantine” on military bases.

By comparison, the Obama/Biden administration waited 6 months before declaring the H1N1 virus a public health emergency. In that 6 months, 1,000 people died of H1N1. Let’s compare: 6 months, 1,000 deaths with H1N1, 3 weeks, 6 deaths with COVID-19. Media judgment: Trump is incompetent, Obama walks on water. Next, let’s examine the medical personnel that’s on Team Trump:

Here’s the timeline video:

Trump should spend less time campaigning in places where he isn’t even on the ballot (South Carolina) and bone up on some briefing books, start listening to some experts, including those who challenge his preconceptions, and start acting like the president of all Americans.

Does Bergen sound like a national security analyst? Or does he sound like another third-rate political hack hired by CNN? I’m voting for the latter.

It used to be said that the contents of the information in the NYTimes was “all the news that’s fit to print.” Those days are history and then some. After reading this article, it isn’t a stretch to suggest that a slogan change is appropriate. The new slogan, based on the major stories that the NYTimes hasn’t paid attention to should be ‘all the news that’s fit to ignore.”

The article says “In the hours and days after Gregory Timm reportedly plowed his vehicle into a tent of Republican Party volunteers registering voters in the Kernan Village Shopping Center parking lot in Jacksonville, Florida, national coverage of the event has been alarmingly lacking.” The article starts by saying “Just imagine the national news coverage if a Trump supporter had plowed his van through a Democratic voter registration tent in Florida.”

I can’t imagine it because it hasn’t happened. We know, though, that a vehicle plowed into a tent where GOP volunteers were registering voters. We know that thanks to this:

Local news channel WJXT reported days later on the arrest report, which showed Timm telling the sheriff’s office his “disapproval of Trump” was the motivating factor for the attack. He showed the officer a self-recorded video of him driving straight at the volunteers, expressing frustration that the video cut out before “the good part.” Even then, as I write this, the best the New York Times could muster was wire coverage.

Let’s be blunt about this. If you eliminated the people who are part of the Democrats’ Resist Movement, you’d eliminate 98% of the people who call themselves journalists. Resist Movement journalists are like Journolist on steroids.

It isn’t that there’s no such thing as fake news. It’s that there’s much more legitimate news that’s ignored than outright fake news. The story about last week’s IC briefing on upcoming Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election is more sloppy journalism than outright fake news.

This video highlights a local reporter interviewing Timm:

The vast majority of the coverage on this story is from local reporters. That’s fine because it is a local story. Still, it’s disappointing that it hasn’t gotten the national coverage it deserves because it’s also a national story.

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

Sunday on At Issue, Ember Reichgott-Junge had a meltdown moment when discussing President Trump’s impeachment acquittal. In a mini-rant, Reichgott-Junge said “My biggest concern about what is happening now after the State of the Union is that we have Trump unleashed and now, he is emboldened to do whatever he wants to do for the next 9 months — start investigations that have no basis, hold aid back in the districts of the legislators that worked to impeach him. I mean this man has no mores and no sense of justice at all. So my concern is what we’re going to see in the future.”

Wow. That’s as paranoid of a rant as I’ve seen in years. Let’s put what she said under the microscope, starting with “start investigations that have no basis.” That’s what the Obama administration, through Jim Comey’s FBI and the FISC, did against Carter Page. That’s what Lois Lerner did against TEA Party organizations when the IRS delayed tax-exempt status applications.

Next, where did Reichgott-Junge come up with the thought of withholding aid to districts represented by impeachment managers? Is this another paranoid fantasy of Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s?

Finally, Ms. Reichgott-Junge admits that these are her concerns. She didn’t say where her concerns came from. Were they the product of an over-active imagination? I can’t eliminate that as a possibility? Perhaps, it’s something that Democrats have done in the past? That’s definitely possible.

What’s worst about Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s rant was that Tom Hauser didn’t interrupt her. He sat there like a potted plant. He didn’t say a thing. Mr. Truth Test sat there like he didn’t disagree with her. That’s a worse performance than Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s paranoid rantings.

I expect delusional rantings from DFL politicians. Prior to this winter, I’d expected more from Hauser. This winter, though, Hauser’s bias-proofing has slipped.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

Saturday night, CNN’s elitist attitude was on full display. It was a disgusting thing. Unfortunately, it isn’t a surprising thing. What Don Lemon’s guests said is comparable to Hillary’s basket of deplorables statement. Let’s remember that oldie-but-goodie:

Notice how loud the laughter got when she said that. That isn’t the sound of approval. That’s the sound of derision. While I refuse to think that that’s typical of all Democrats, I’m totally confident that significant portions of Democrats think that way about Republicans. Here’s what many CNN viewers think of Trump’s supporters:


If Republicans and thoughtful independents need motivation to vote, play that video to those would-be voters. Ask yourself this question; would you want these people in charge of anything? I don’t.