Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Back on March 27, 2006, I wrote this post. That’s when I coined the phrase Agenda Media. By definition, the Agenda Media is interested in furthering the Democrats’ leftist agenda. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in spreading the truth. If the Agenda Media had a mission statement, I’m betting that it would say that acquiring, then maintaining, power for Democrats is their mission. That’s a shameful mission.

Kim Strassel’s new book, titled Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America is essentially about the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Resist movement couldn’t exist without the Agenda Media’s help. Ms. Strassel writes:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.”

This year, House Minority Leader McCarthy coined a phrase that said “Democrats hate President Trump more than they love America. That’d sound extreme if you haven’t paid attention to the Democrats’ actions. If you’ve paid attention to the Democrats’ actions, Leader McCarthy’s cliché is legitimate.

It’d be wrong to call Pelosi’s Democrats a domestic terrorist organization but I wouldn’t be that far off. Since President Trump’s election, Democrats have voted virtually unanimously against prosperity and against giving President Trump some political victories. Let’s not forget that every Democrat in DC voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s been the heart of this incredible economic performance.

Let’s remember that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh. In fact, those Democrats did everything imaginable to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Justice Kavanaugh’s family. It isn’t surprising that every Democrat voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Resist Movement is spearheaded by the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Agenda Media is significantly to the left of traditional Democrats. That doesn’t mean that today’s Democrats are moderates. They definitely aren’t. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is the biggest wing of the Party. They’re also the craziest part of the Party. Check out this interview:

Notice that Leslie Marshall cites polls favoring impeachment rather than defending the secrecy with which House Democrats are conducting their sham impeachment proceedings. Marshall didn’t attempt to defend Pelosi’s or Schiff’s indefensible actions.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

It’s time for truth-loving Republicans and independents to shove the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post off a non-literal cliff. They’re propagandists. They aren’t real journalists.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi will need a different point person for impeachment. that’s because Chairman Schiff just got caught lying about the whistleblower:

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

That’s entirely different than what he told the crew of Morning Joe:

Early in the interview, Chairman Schiff told Sam Stein that “We have not spoken directly with the whistle-blower. We would like to but I’m sure that the whistle-blower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence.”

Mr. Schiff, this is the second time in the past 2 weeks where you’ve gotten caught lying. You first said that you haven’t spoken with the whistleblower. Now the NYTimes reports that you “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer” filed an official complaint. I’m inclined to believe that you knew about this before the whistleblower went public because you said some things that mirrored things that the whistleblower said in his/her complaint.

It’s important to remember that this isn’t the first time that Schiff lived up to his nickname of Shiffty Schiff. At last week’s hearing with Acting Director of the DNI Joseph Maguire, Schiff made up an entire portion of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy:

Considering how frequently Chairman Schiff has gotten caught lying, shouldn’t he be dismissed by Speaker Pelosi as the person in charge of impeachment? With an issue as important and sensitive as impeachment, we need someone trustworthy steering the ship. That description doesn’t fit Chairman ‘Shiffty’ Schiff. It’s important to remember that Schiff also is famous for saying early in the Trump administration that he had evidence that was stronger than circumstantial evidence but that wasn’t direct evidence. We’re still waiting to see that.

It’s time to call out the St. Cloud Times for protecting their leftist cronies. This Our View Editorial is disgusting. It’s about the postponed Dismantling Hate Crimes event from this past Wednesday. Here’s the opening of the SCTimes’ article:

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda. Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

Shame on the Times for publishing this trash. This isn’t worthy of a college newspaper, much less worthy of a once-respectable newspaper. This editorial is cringeworthy for its sloppiness and fact gathering.

First, the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission published a postponement notice on their Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. The timestamp for the post is 1:16 pm on Sept. 18th:

Next, 2 groups were there at the Library that might’ve been considered protest groups. One was a group who prayed for the Persecuted Church. The other organization is called the “Freedom Speaks Coalition.”

One of the groups applied for and received a permit to use a room in the Public Library from 2:00 pm-4:00 pm September 18. The Dismantling Hate Crimes event didn’t start until 6:00 pm. The Times’ hit piece continues:

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible, by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Why would a sane person give the Times their name considering the Times Editorial Board’s penchant for smearing its political opponents? The Times is a media organization. Do they think we don’t know that they’re aware of Antifa protests on college campuses against conservatives and Christians? Am I supposed to believe that they aren’t aware of the violence that #BlackLivesMatters has perpetrated? Democrat-affiliated thugs like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and CAIR shouldn’t be trusted.

Notice that the Times trusted MDHR’s and CAIR’s narrative that the event was cancelled because some peaceful protesters showed up at the event. What the Times didn’t mention is that the event was postponed before the protesters arrived at the Library. Notice that the Times omitted the fact that Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton told Times reporter Jenny Berg that they hadn’t received any threats regarding the event.

Does the Times actually think that this postponement is legitimate? The SC Chief of Police was scheduled to participate in the discussion, as was an FBI supervisor. Also, 2 St. Cloud police officers were there. To think that CAIR and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights would get frightened by these protesters is foolish.

I’m tired of the Times Editorial Board either watering down their editorials to protect their political favorites or ignoring major facts. (Think Jeff Oxton’s statement.) The Times is supposed to be a news-gathering organization. It’d be nice if their work product reflected that. This video by Marni Hockenberg lays out pretty much the same facts that I laid out in this post:

In the stranger-than-fiction category, it’s apparent that the official statement issued by Commissioner Rebecca Lucero are spreading nationwide. These media outlets accept as Gospel Commissioner Lucero’s non-truths. For instance, this article quotes Lucero when she said “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state.” The article continues, saying “Lucero says she is ‘heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes.'”

No attempt was made to stifle free speech. Commissioner Lucero shouldn’t spread lies about people exercising their right to speak freely about matters of religion and government. I don’t know what’s worse — Commissioner Lucero spreading propaganda or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights attempting to criticize people exercising their right to free speech.

The right to free speech doesn’t just apply to Democrats. A wise man once said that ‘the law protects everyone or it doesn’t protect anyone.’ How can the Human Rights Commissioner in Minnesota dispute that.

The sad part is that Commissioner Lucero’s propaganda is spreading like wildfire. The AP article stripped out things like the fact that Jeff Oxton, the St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief, said that they were monitoring things but that they hadn’t received any threats concerning the event. Why didn’t the AP keep that part of the SCTimes article in the AP article? It’s like the AP intentionally did that just like the NYTimes’ editors omitted the part about the supposed victim doesn’t recall the incident and isn’t talking to anyone.

The more articles I see with Commissioner Lucero’s highly inaccurate quote, the more certain I am that the Dismantling Hate Crimes event was nothing more than a Democrat publicity stunt. Our commissioners don’t just serve the governor. They’re supposed to serve We The People, too. I don’t know how they can do that when they turn a blind eye on a special interest’s propaganda. That’s what CAIR did with Jaylani Hussein’s rhetoric.

Hussein said that CAIR is a civil rights organization in one breath, then insists that groups like “Freedom Speaks Coalition is a hate group.” This is the USA, where that type of organization can criticize organizations like CAIR or politicians like Commissioner Lucero. Apparently, CAIR didn’t learn that in Civil Rights 101 when it was in law school. Perhaps they were attending a Farrakhan rally the day they taught that.

Then again, they might not have learned that because CAIR is really just Hamas DBA as CAIR in the USA:

It’s one thing for CAIR to spread their propaganda. It’s quite another when a commissioner that works for us puts out a statement that accuses her bosses, aka We The People, of committing hate crimes. That’s quite a prejudice for a human rights department.

Yesterday, I watched Harris Faulkner’s interview of former NYTimes’ Executive Editor Jill Abramson. This article shows that Ms. Faulkner is a great interviewer because she’s a quick thinker who relies on logic.

Here’s a partial transcript of the key exchange:

“It’s true that material fact was left out and The Times ran an editor’s note explaining that, which is what you do when you leave something out, but it was no conspiracy to leave out that fact. It was, you know, unfortunately, cut from the piece — as I understand it,” Abramson said.

Faulkner responded by asking how the accuracy could be challenged when the alleged victim, and an alleged witness, didn’t cooperate.

“It’s hard to take on something that even the victims doesn’t say happened,” Faulkner said.

“Well, it’s friends of the victim… she has chosen not to talk to the press,” Abramson said, before adding that alleged witness Max Stier went to the FBI over the alleged incident.

Faulkner quickly added that Stier is a “former Democratic operative for the Clintons,” but the ex-Times honcho downplayed his liberal agenda.

“He works for a nonpartisan political group now,” Abramson said. “I don’t know that you can characterize him as a partisan. If he was such a partisan, why didn’t he go public with this right during the confirmation hearing when he could have really dealt a blow?”

Faulkner reminded Abramson that Stier did go to the FBI at the time. Abramson said that proved the investigation into Kavanaugh was a “sham,” to which Faulkner asked, “Then why did it end up in your paper?” Abramson responded that the incident is a “third example of sexual impropriety” by Justice Kavanaugh, to which Faulkner quickly added, “allegation.” “It’s important,” Abramson said.

That’s when Faulkner’s jaw dropped:

“Wow, you really think that, without the evidence from the victim’s own mouth,” a stunned Faulkner said.

There isn’t a court in this nation that would convict a person who was accused of any crime by a witness who didn’t see the alleged crime but who heard about it third-hand. Further, the ‘witness’ (Max Stier) would get demolished on cross-examination because he was part of Bill Clinton’s legal team while Justice Kavanaugh was part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Star’s team. There isn’t an ounce of corroboration in the article. Victims who don’t talk and lawyers who won’t consent to interviews with law enforcement don’t strengthen a case.

When people accuse a high-profile person of a heinous crime, they’d better have everything nailed down 9 ways to Sunday. If they’re only sort of prepared, they’ll get annihilated in court. A legal system that routinely allows hearsay testimony and that lets people get convicted on allegations alone isn’t a nation. It’s a third world dictatorship.

God help us if we’ve descended that far.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.

This weekend, the NYTimes ‘reported’ that “a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at [Deborah Ramirez], prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.” Here’s how the NYTimes article opens:

Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn’t prepared for what she’d find there. A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little. She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing. In the summers, she worked at Carvel dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she’d bought with babysitting earnings.

At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds. Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools. They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior that Ms. Ramirez, who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night, lacked.

During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

After that article ran this weekend, virtually all of the Democrats’ presidential candidates called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Sen. Hirono, one of the Democrats who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee start an impeachment investigation into the matter. This was a big story this weekend.

This morning, “The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.” According to this article, “The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.”

Suffice it to say that the NYTimes and the Democrat presidential candidates have egg on their face this morning. Ditto with Sen. Hirono. They were so willing to pounce on this story because they saw it as the perfect opportunity to take down Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump with a single story. Now the NYTimes is apologizing:


It said “Also, a tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive. We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved.”

Here’s Elizabeth Warren’s tweet:


The nomination wasn’t rammed through by any stretch of the imagination. What happened was that Democrats brought forth tons of unsubstantiated allegations once they knew Justice Kavanaugh would be confirmed. These allegations weren’t substantiated. Democrats panicked because they were certain that Kavanaugh would be part of the 5-4 ‘Republican majority’ that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, “Let us never forget what courage looks like.”

Let’s never forget what dishonesty looks like:

It’s time to get rid of the Biden-gaffe storyline. It’s fiction. It isn’t reality. What’s worse is that it’s MSM-created fiction designed to protect the Democrats’ weak frontrunner. I believe that Biden is the Democrats’ frontrunner, albeit the weakest frontrunner in years.

It’s fiction that VP Biden is gaffe-prone. That’s the polite way of saying that he isn’t that bright. Biden isn’t that disciplined either. The story about Biden talking about going to a FOB to give a Navy captain a medal isn’t just fiction. It’s an intentional attempt to make himself look patriotic. It’s a disgusting attempt to sound heroic. Instead of sounding heroic, Biden sounds like Brian Williams in Iraq or Hillary Clinton’s story running from a helicopter under gunfire in Bosnia as First Lady.

Here’s an abbreviated version of Biden’s story:

Let’s get serious here. Biden apparently doesn’t understand what he did wrong:

Later on Thursday, Biden said in an interview with The Washington Post‘s Jonathan Capehart on his “Cape Up” podcast: “I was making the point how courageous these people are, how incredible they are, this generation of warriors, these fallen angels we’ve lost. I don’t know what the problem is. What is it that I said wrong?”

Here’s what the Washington Post wrote about Biden’s story:

But in last week’s retelling in particular, the Post report found, Biden flubbed a number of details, including the location of the encounter, the period of time during which it took place, the act of heroism, the kind of medal awarded, his own role in the ceremony, and the recipient’s military branch and rank.

If VP Biden wants to call me and ask me what the problem is, here’s what I’ll tell him:

It’s wrong to put yourself in a position of prominence that you weren’t in. Further, it’s wrong to get virtually every important detail wrong about the ceremony you witnessed. Finally, it’s entirely possible to speak of these heroic soldiers’ incredible acts without making it sound like you were placing yourself in harm’s way. Other than that, you did nothing wrong.

Let’s be clear about this. VP Biden attempted to sound like he was putting his life on the line as vice president to add drama to the story. Let’s also be clear about this. There’s no questioning whether this soldier was heroic. That’s indisputable. What’s disputable is whether Sen. Biden (his rank at the time) was heroic. Finally, Biden has been telling this fiction for years. Why did the MSM just pick up on it now? Is it because one of Biden’s opponents decide they wanted to eliminate the frontrunner?

Joe Biden isn’t gaffe-prone. Here’s the definition of a gaffe:

a social blunder; faux pas.

Biden lied repeatedly about this incident. This isn’t the first time he’s told this story. It’s the most recent. When Biden said “I don’t know what the problem is”, I believe him. I think he’s thinking ‘What’s going on here? I’ve told that story a dozen times before and nobody questioned me.’

This is a situation where multiple parties did wrong. The MSM didn’t say anything until questioned by Biden’s opponents. Biden was wrong for telling this story, too. Both the MSM and Biden should be pilloried for this stunt. Thirdly, if one of Biden’s opponents for the Democrat nomination is the one that tipped off the MSM, then they should be criticized, too. That’s because they’re cowards.

My blood boils whenever I watch this video of Esme Murphy’s interview of Ilhan Omar:

How dare Omar say that she didn’t want to discuss her “personal life” with Murphy. The only thing that’s worse is that Murphy essentially stopped that line of questioning of Rep. Omar immediately. Does Murphy think she’s a DFL operative? Or does she think of herself as a journalist/reporter? If she considers herself the latter, then she’s kidding herself. When Bret Baier interviews a controversial figure, it’s considered standard operating procedure for him to ask multiple questions to get the whole truth. If that makes the interviewee uncomfortable or squirm, then that’s how it is. The same is true of Harris Faulkner and David Asman.

That isn’t standard operating procedure with Murphy, at least when she’s interviewing DFL politicians. DFL politicians enjoy being interviewed by Murphy because they know they’ll get the kid glove treatment.

Rachel Maddow’s TV ratings took another hit in July. While Maddow’s show was the top rated show on MSNBC, it was still just 5th in the ratings, behind (in order) Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle and The Five.

That’s right. MSNBC’s top show (Rachel Maddow) finished behind FNC’s late afternoon show. The only thing more embarrassing is the fact that CNN’s top primetime show finished behind MSNBC’s best primetime show. This isn’t good either:

Maddow’s show averaged 2,327,000 total viewers in the month of August, with 361,00 coming in the crucial 25-54 age demographics, according to Nielsen Media Research. Those numbers are down from July when Maddow averaged 2,487,000 per night, and 384,000 in the 25-54 demographic.

It was the second straight month that Maddow failed to finish in the top three, something she had previously accomplished every month dating back to October 2018. Hannity led cable news, averaging 3,269,000 viewers a night, with 519,000 in the 25-54 demographic, while Carlson placed second, averaging 3,107,000 total viewers, including 500,000 in the 25-54 demographic.

What’s interesting is the fact that Maddow’s ratings have dropped pretty much ever since the Trump-Russia Collusion thing went bust. They haven’t recovered since the narrative switched from Russia to Racism to Recession. Thad McCotter noted the R that’s missing from the Democrats’ Rs is Reality.

I’d add that the other R that’s missing for the Democrats is Ratings. If they keep putting these losers on TV night-after-night, they’ll be missing 2 W’s: winning and the White House.