Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Media Bias category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

It’s frightening to think that someone as stupid as Jeffrey Toobin could be paid to be an analyst. Then again, we’re talking about CNN, which seems to set new lows each week. The question is whether they’ll ever stop digging. According to this article, when told of President Trump’s idea to arm teachers, Toobin said “That is insane. That’s an insane idea. Seriously? Did anybody go to school here? Does anybody remember their teachers? Do you think we should give all of them guns? Do you think they want guns?”

First, let’s look at what Toobin said. He said “Personally, I am pro-rancor. I am pro-vitriol. I am pro somebody doing something about this rather than being polite when you hear the president of the United States say the answer is to give every teacher in America a gun. That is insane. That is an insane idea.”

Next, let’s admit that Jeffrey Toobin is lying through his teeth. That isn’t close to what President Trump said. In fact, I just read through the transcript from Wednesday afternoon’s meeting with students, parents and teacher from Parkland HS. The first time that arming teachers was brought up was when Fred Abt spoke:

And one possible solution, which we’ve discussed with Secretary DeVos over lunch, was, if a tragedy strikes, can we wait for the first responders to get to the campus four, or five, or six, or seven minutes later? And one possible solution, which may not be very popular, would be to have people in the school, teachers, administrators, who have volunteered to have a firearm safely locked in the classroom, who are given training throughout the year.

There are plenty of teachers that are already licensed to carry firearms. Have them raise their hands to volunteer for the training. And when something like this starts, the first responders are already on campus. And if it’s not the teachers, you could have people that work on the campus. A custodian could be an undercover policeman. Someone who works in the library or the lunchroom could be an undercover policeman. He serves lunch every day, but he also has a firearm at the ready. A guidance counselor.

If you can’t stop it from happening, and with hundreds of millions of guns out there, I don’t know if it will ever be fully stopped. But the challenge becomes, once it starts, to end it as quickly as possible.

It wasn’t even brought up by President Trump. That didn’t matter to Jeffrey Toobin. His goal wasn’t to further the conversation. It’s apparent that his goal is to put words that advance his agenda into President Trump’s mouth. I know he isn’t a reporter but can’t he at least get this right?

Toobin’s mission wasn’t to enlighten or inform. Toobin’s mission was to throw white gas on the situation. Toobin’s mission was to misinform.

It’s impossible to take CNN seriously as serious journalists. It’s relatively easy to think of them as competitors with National Enquirer or other tabloids.

Apparently, CNN gave Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab a scripted question they wanted him to ask during last night’s televised townhall. According to the article, “‘CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,’ Haab told WPLG-TV.”

“Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC who shielded classmates in the midst of terror says he did not get to share his experience,” WPLG’s Janine Stanwood explained. “Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead so he decided not to go,” Stanwood reported.

First, Colton Haab is a legitimate hero for saving his classmates’ lives. If everyone put others’ lives first like Colton, this nation would be infinitely better than it’s currently in. This is Colton’s indictment of CNN:

“CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,” Haab said. “I don’t think that it’s going get anything accomplished. It’s not gonna ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have.”

What’s required to make substantive changes that improve students’ lives is to listen first. Let the people who just experienced something horrific talk. The panelists should first listen to the students and teachers before responding. Next, it’s essential to answer on point rather than reverting to pre-scripted talking points.

This isn’t about winning political points. It’s about changing things so students and teachers are safe. Period. That’s what Dana Loesch did in this CNN townhall meeting:

CNN’s ratings as a serious news outlet have been questioned. This will just add fuel to that fire.

When I read articles like this one, I want to punch the author for being this dishonest or this ill-informed. Ill-informed diatribes like this don’t get us to a solution on stopping school shootings. In his ill-informed rant, Scarborough wrote “More than 90 percent of Americans agree that Congress should pass tougher background checks. More than 80 percent of Americans at least somewhat favor a ban on “bump stocks” that make rifles fire much like automatic weapons. And nearly 80 percent believe that assault-style weapons should be banned.”

Guess what, Joe? You’ve been pumping out this BS about tougher background checks for years. It’s a myth. Whether a person buys a gun at a gun show or at a gun shop, the dealer must perform a background check. The so-called ‘gun show loophole’ is a myth. As for banning bump stocks, I’m totally fine with that. Nobody needs an automatic weapon. Finally, Scarborough’s elitism and ignorance is showing when he talks about “assault-style weapons.” The difference between “assault-style weapons” and regular semi-automatic weapons are entirely cosmetic.

Banning assault-style weapons is a feel-good thing that won’t affect a solution. The old liberal saw that ‘Well, if it would save one innocent life, it’s worth it’ is hogwash. That change won’t save a single life. Period. Earlier in the article, Scarborough wrote this:

And once again, I and many other reasonable conservatives find ourselves at odds with GOP — read: National Rifle Association — orthodoxy.

Apparently, Joe isn’t bright enough to understand that the NRA isn’t an evil boogeyman. The NRA is a potent political force because it’s made up of people who feel passionately about guns and gun safety. The NRA is We The People, not some bunch of right-wing lunatics.

Rants like Scarborough’s do more harm than good. It’s what makes conservatives distrust liberals like him. He should step out of his liberal echochamber and watch thoughtful shows like this:

One of Gutfeld’s panelists was Tyrus. Elitists will roll their eyes when they hear that he’s a professional wrestler. These elitists will ignore the fact that he used to be a licensed body guard. Here’s his thoughts on how to prevent these shootings:

This is coming from being an executive of security and, for a short stint, I was a teacher. When I was listening to this, first of all, if we outlawed guns tomorrow, no more guns in this country, all you would do would be opening the business market to the black market. That’s just not who we are. We have freedom of speech and we’re allowed to have guns. When 9/11 happened and the planes crashed into the Towers, airports were changed forever. Our children are getting hit. It’s time to change the schools forever. There’s a population out there, and I’ve checked — they didn’t have the new stats out but they had last year’s stats — 4.3% unemployment rate of returning veterans. That’s 435,000 trained men who have eyes and ears. We need to have them in schools.

Hardening soft targets makes sense. This notion that we don’t want the nation’s children exposed to guns is dangerous. It’s time we admitted that gun-free zones are where these killers feast. They know they don’t have to worry about getting shot.

Another thing that isn’t talked about is how many of these mass shooters were on the FBI’s radar with very specific information, only to not get kept under scrutiny. That’s leading to people on social media starting a new hashtag: #SeeSomethingSaySomethingDoSomething. That’s because the government failed us. According to this article, “police responded to his home 39 times over a seven-year period.”

Scarborough didn’t mention that in his anti-gun diatribe. Isn’t it time we held the FBI accountable for their failures? That likely wouldn’t sit well with Scarborough’s pro-government tendencies. He’d probably join with other liberals in singing the ‘Republicans hate law enforcement’ anthem. When government makes a deadly mistake, should we pretend that everything is fine? I don’t think so.

While elitists like Scarborough predictably retreat to their ‘let’s ban guns’ corner, people living in the real world attempt to find a solution. It’s a shame that elitists don’t think things through and pursue a solution.

Todd Purdum’s article has a dishonest title. It’s called “How conservatives learned to hate the FBI.” That’s dishonest and then some.

The honest headline would be “Why conservatives hate corruption.” Democrats, starting with Adam Schiff and Leader Pelosi and other Democrat spinmeisters, have insisted that Republicans hate the FBI and the DOJ. Without question, Republicans hate the things the FBI and DOJ did in obtaining authorization to surveil Carter Page. Without question, Republicans are disgusted with the things that Andrew McCabe did in hiding from the FISA Court the things that should’ve been revealed to the FISA Court.

Since there isn’t an advocate for the ‘defendant’ at a FISA hearing, what’s required is for people representing the government to paint an honest, full and comprehensive picture of their materials that inform them that a person needs further investigation, aka probable cause. Democrats at the FBI painted a dishonest portrait to the FISA Court. Specifically, they didn’t tell the FISA Court judge that they wouldn’t have filed for a surveillance warrant without relying on the salacious details enshrined in the infamous Trump Dossier.

It’s difficult to picture the FISA Court granting a surveillance warrant on the Trump campaign had the Court known that the FBI relied on trash compiled by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. In light of this information, it’s difficult to read the opening paragraph of Purdum’s article:

The aggressive Republican attacks on the FBI are the latest sign, if one were needed, that President Donald Trump has upended the longstanding norms of Washington, as he and his allies in Congress seek to undermine the one institution of government that conservatives have typically seen as a bastion of integrity and law-and-order.

Republicans are rightly upset that the FBI isn’t the impartial organization it once was. Alan Dershowitz exposes the problems in this interview:

Thus far, what has the public seen that suggests that the FBI upper management is honest? They didn’t tell the FISA Court who paid for the compiling of the Trump Dossier. At minimum, that’s disturbing. At maximum, that’s disqualifying.

Finally, I’d challenge Democrats to cite examples of Republicans criticizing rank-and-file FBI agents. Democrats can’t do that because it hasn’t happened. Republicans have criticized the suits running the FBI. Most importantly, they’ve criticized the suits because they’re bitter partisans who didn’t tell FISA judges the whole truth. That can’t happen.

In Stephanie Dickrell’s article, an organization called Cultural Bridges will ask the St. Joseph City Council to consider a resolution. The resolution would “declare the city a welcoming place for all.”

According to the article, the “move comes after posters declaring white-nationalist views were hung around St. Joseph in mid-January.” The posters carried messages that said “unapologetically white,” that “hate speech is free speech” and “there are two genders.”

The citizens of the city of St. Joseph definitely aren’t interested in political correctness but they know their Constitution. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment as long as the speech doesn’t advocate specific acts of violence. Speech that everyone agrees with doesn’t need protection.

What we don’t know from this article is whether the posters represent the thoughts of the people living in St. Joe. What’s certain, however, is that the people sponsoring the resolution definitely have a pro-refugee resettlement agenda:

This poster was found stapled to a power line pole:

The article seems less than professional. Early in the article, Stephanie Dickrell wrote “We are trying to speak up in a united effort to let people who are not of our culture who live in our community know that we support them and that we welcome them,” said Dianne DeVargas, a member of the group. Cultural Bridges started in response to the arrival of Somali families to the area a few years ago, and has been helping them settle and integrate into the community, said Dianne’s husband Vincent DeVargas, another member of Cultural Bridges.”

Later, Dickrell wrote “They all felt very strongly that if we did not say anything, that that was as much as admitting that the signs were correct,” Dianne said. “So without giving them any more press time, which we didn’t want to happen, we want to spin this into a positive event.” Still later, Dickrell wrote “There’s a number of single mothers who have chosen the area because they feel it’s a safe, quiet place to raise their children, Dianne said.”

If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Ms. Dickrell had a distinct pro-resettlement bias. Mrs. DeVargas certainly isn’t unbiased. She’s staunchly pro-resettlement. This is worthy of closer inspection:

Dianne credited the idea for the welcoming resolution to the people in St. Cloud who stood up against the refugee moratorium.

The ostriches that voted for the ‘welcoming’ resolution voted against knowing how much refugee resettlement was costing taxpayers. Notice that I didn’t ask how much it cost the city or the county or the school district. How much money was spent at the hospitals or in schools on translators? How much money was spent on taxpayer-funded health care or taxpayer-funded EBT cards?

These are hidden costs that aren’t line items in the city budget or the school district operating budget. Let’s be clear about this. The people who voted for the welcoming resolution aren’t fiscally responsible.

I don’t know how Monday night’s vote will turn out. I wouldn’t bet against it passing.

Saying that Jeff Flake is a legislative lightweight is to demean lightweights. It’s insulting that Sen. Flake compared President Trump with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. What’s worse is that he made the comparison on the Senate floor.

Sen. Flake is a wimp and an airhead. Anyone that thinks that a combative president should be compared with a brutal dictator who killed millions of people isn’t intellectually qualified to be a U.S. senator. Further, Sen. Flake essentially capitulated to the Democrats on border enforcement. Thankfully, that’ll make it easier for Arizonans who worry about border security and preventing cartel-related human trafficking to elect a serious senator who won’t cave like Sen. Flake just did.

Sen. McCain wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post (naturally) that criticized President Trump. In that op-ed, “Mr. McCain joined his fellow Arizonan in calling for the president to stop attacking the news media.” In the op-ed, Sen. McCain said “We cannot afford to abdicate America’s longstanding role as the defender of human rights and democratic principles throughout the world. Without strong leadership in the White House, Congress must commit to protecting independent journalism, preserving an open and free media environment, and defending the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

Coming from the man who wanted to gut the First Amendment, that’s rich. Further, Sen. McCain should know that the U.S. form of government isn’t a democracy. The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic that said our rights come from “Nature’s God”, not from government. The difference between the 2 types of government is gigantic.

As President Reagan said in his farewell address, “‘We the People’ tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the People’ are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the People’ tell the government what it is allowed to do.”

When Sen. McCain collaborated with Russ Feingold to write their campaign finance law, they wrote a law that told citizens involved in the political process when they could criticize politicians and what times were off-limits. Anyone who didn’t hesitate in telling ‘We The People’ how they can react is someone who isn’t morally fit to instruct presidents about right and wrong.

This MPR article tells a worrisome tale. It starts by talking about “only a minority of Minnesotans trust their state government to usually do the right thing. Far more say they trust the government only sometimes or never.” According to MPR’s polling, “5 percent say they always or almost always trust state government to do what’s right, while 8 percent say they never trust it. The vast majority say they’re in the middle, but more of them lean toward skepticism.”

That’s the least terrible news of the article. The terrible news of the article is that “an average of 18 percent of Americans say the same about the federal government in surveys tracked by the Pew Research Center.” This graphic is horrifying:

Notice that the lowest points in public trust happened during the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations. President Clinton was able to rebuild his rating but President Obama’s trustworthy ratings hit rock bottom as a result of Obamacare and never recovered.

The sample size for President Trump is obviously small. Still, it’s difficult to raise trust levels when the media dishonestly covers your actions to the extent that they have. The DC media has underemphasized positive stories like the economy, the stock market and deregulation while overemphasizing the Trump-Russia collusion story. Further, the MSM hasn’t done an honest job with the tax cuts legislation. Steve Daines’ explanation of the impact the tax cuts will have on Montana will help restore trust in the federal government:

Republicans said that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will positively impact the middle class. According to the Montana Department of Revenue, individuals will receive $700,000,000 of tax relief per year as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

It’s impossible to rebuild trust when the dominant media culture repeatedly lies about what politicians are doing.

Juan Williams’ latest column is proof that GIGO- Garbage in, garbage out. Williams’ opinion is that “GOP will suffer for tax giveaway”, to quote the title of his article. Williams then cites “a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll” that shows “voters favoring Democrats by 33 percent to 29 percent on taxes, and by 35 percent to 30 percent on the economy.”

He then writes that “Voters can see that he has handed tax cuts to the very rich, the top 1 percent, and shareholders of large corporations — not the middle class or the poor.” Actually, Juan, they’ll find out that President Trump and the Republicans cut taxes for the middle class and to corporations. Apparently, Democrats haven’t figured it out that it’s possible to do both simultaneously. Further, people have already started seeing the benefits of the tax cuts. They’ve seen big corporations paying out $1,000 end-of-year bonuses, increasing wages to $15/hr., promises of additional investments in the companies and contributing to philanthropic causes.

Next, Williams said “‘By the end, the #GOPTaxScam will… raise taxes on 86 million middle class households, hand 83% of the benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. This will go down as one of the most scandalous, obscene acts of plutocracy ever,’ Pelosi tweeted.” Williams then wrote “Pelosi was citing data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center which found that under the law, the wealthiest one percent of Americans will get 83 percent of the tax cuts and the wealthiest zero point one (0.1) percent will get almost 60 percent of the tax cuts, both by 2027.”

Williams apparently hasn’t read any of Guy Benson’s outstanding articles. Williams certainly didn’t read this Tipsheet article. That article cites “Well, TPC is out with their fresh analysis of the finalized tax bill, and guess what? As we’ve been saying for weeks, it will slash taxes for the vast, vast majority of American taxpayers:

Joseph Lawler ? @josephlawler

Tax Policy Center: 80% of taxpayers are going to get a tax cut next year under the GOP bill.

5% will see a tax hike of more than $10

Finally, Williams adds this apocalyptic message:

Look for those numbers to sink even lower when Trump voters realize they’ve been had. They were sold a bill of goods by his party when they voted for Trump-style economic populism in 2016.

What’s most likely to happen is that voters will get upset with Democrats for lying to them. It won’t take long before middle class workers start seeing more money in their paychecks. That will likely start in February. At that point, they’ll know that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and their minions have lied to them. To top things off, perhaps I should instruct Williams to watch this video:

So much for the Democrats’ myths of higher taxes for the middle class. In fact, it isn’t a myth. It’s an outright lie. I don’t think that Juan Williams is a liar. I think he’s stupid, though, for trusting figures spewed by dishonest people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

James Freeman’s article does something that MSNBC and CNN haven’t done. Specifically, Mr. Freeman questioned the integrity of Mr. Schiff’s alleged information. I use the word alleged advisedly. Frequently, Mr. Schiff has hinted that he’s seen information that proves that there’s been collusion between President Trump’s team and Russia. Never has he provided that proof.

Appearing on Meet the Press Daily, Schiff “was asked by Chuck Todd” “whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.” Schiff replied “Actually no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

Freeman later notes that “nearly nine months later, he’s still going on talk shows and making accusations. He’s still declining to back them up. And he’s still finding friendly news organizations to broadcast his claims, even though by this time a fact-free Schiff accusation of collusion with Russians can hardly be considered news.” When Jake Tapper asked for evidence, Schiff dodged until Tapper asked him point blank:

TAPPER: Do you know of any instance where the Russians said, we’re going to do it this way, we’re going to do it through WikiLeaks, we’re going to do it through DCLeaks, this is how we’re going to get this information out there?
SCHIFF: I can’t comment. That’s an issue that we have been investigating. And I don’t want to comment at this point or not what the state of that evidence is.

That’s tough. Schiff’s credibility is sinking fast. We should nickname him ‘The Gossip Guy’ because he’s more full of gossip than actual verifiable information. Honestly, I don’t trust Schiff. It’s put-up-or-shut-up time as far as I’m concerned. This article explains why I don’t trust him.

CNN’s Jim Acosta took a verbal beating from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders during this afternoon’s daily press briefing. It started when Acosta said that “journalists make honest mistakes That doesn’t make them fake news.” Ns. Huckabee-Sanders jumped in at that point, saying “When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.” Later, Ms. Huckabee-Sanders said that sometimes, journalists own up to their mistakes but that they haven’t done that recently.

One of the mistakes that they haven’t owned up to is CNN’s WikiLeaks story. In that instance, CNN Capitol Hill Correspondent Manu Raju reported that “Donald Trump Jr. had turned over to investigators with the House Intelligence Committee an email from a man named Mike Erickson which provided a link to a batch of DNC documents along with a decryption key.” In that instance, Raju said that the email was dated Sept. 4, 2016. It turned out that the email was dated Sept. 14, 2016.

CNN’s Raju said that, because it was dated Sept. 4, 2016, that proved that the Trump campaign had gotten the email well in advance of WikiLeaks’ public release of those emails on Sept. 13, 2016. Brian Stelter, the host of CNN’s Reliable Sources program, stated that Raju wouldn’t be suspended because he’d followed CNN’s proper vetting procedure:

Stelter said that despite the fact that the “Washington Post first reported that the email from Erickson was dated Sept. 14, 2016 and not Sept. 4, 2016. The Daily Caller obtained and published a copy of the email soon after.” CNN breathlessly pushed this as a monumental break in the Trump-Russia collusion story. It died a slow, painful death.

That brings us to today. Frankly, I thought Sarah let Acosta off easy in this exchange:

By the time the briefing was finished, Acosta looked like a whipped puppy. That’s because Acosta tried portraying CNN as an honest news organization. That’s a fight he’ll lose every time.