I just got done watching this presentation of Mark Levin's BlazeTV show, and I'm hoping the link to it will allow visitors to this blog to watch it. The reason for my attempt is the comparison Levin makes between the Australian version of 60 Minutes to the typical American press as regards the reporting on COVID-19. Levin plays quite a bit of this particular episode of the Aussie version and it's absolutely remarkable and a fantastic example of what objective, probing investigative reporting looks like...or should. Afterwards, he presents a Jake Tapper interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the difference in tone, intention and journalistic professionalism is as blatant as a slap in the face. Levin is so impressed with the Aussie show...and with excellent reason...that while insisting our news media should take notes, his Sunday night FoxNews show, "Life, Liberty & Levin" would be in trouble if the American 60 Minutes was a good as the Aussie show (same time slot? I don't know...I'm at work and recorded it on the DVR).
Some people I won't name...such as Dan Trabue...wet themselves at the thought that Trump regards the press as enemies of the people. While FoxNews in general is not quite what it once was and what it ought to be, normal, rational and honest people know he's basically referring to the likes of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, WaPO, etc. and the disparity between his two examples is but one more example of the truth of that charge. Dan's defense of the press is absurd, though not as absurd as his pearl clutching over Trump's righteous frustration with it. Trump was never the only one in America aware of their failure to do their job as they're supposed to.
So here it is. If it doesn't play, one can get some free views of the BlazeTV lineup and find this episode of Levin's show, as it is only about a week old. Hopefully it will play here:
https://www.blazetv.com/watch/channel/series/series/bZ55M0eK8zTh-levintv-latest-episodes/episode/43-oormvpuje52i-the-american-unfree-press-infects-the-pandemic-story-ep-713
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Great example from Australia! And here's yet another example of the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Democrat-owned media. This is a highly credible and important piece of evidence about Biden's accuser that was on CNN's *own* show! Will they dare address it?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-slammed-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-larry-king
"The resurfaced CNN clip from 1993 appeared to show Reade’s mother alluding to “problems” her daughter faced while working as a staffer for the then-Delaware senator. Reade later told Fox News it was indeed the voice of her mother on the clip. Biden's presidential campaign has adamantly denied Reade's allegations but the video could be cited as evidence supporting Reade’s allegation – even though her late mother, in the clip, does not specifically refer to a sexual assault claim.
CNN did not immediately respond to a series of questions, including whether the network knew the footage existed.
“Larry King may have had the biggest scoop of his CNN career this evening ... And it’s an open question whether his former employer will say a word about it,” New York Post reporter Jon Levine tweeted."
I opened my laptop at the start of my day to see a New York Times story featured on Yahoo:
"Trump’s performance that evening, when he suggested that injections of disinfectants into the human body could help combat the coronavirus, did not sound like the work of a doctor, a genius, or a person with a good you-know-what."
The headline stated he suggested injecting disinfectant and this quote from the article makes the same implications. He was not only referring to what science already does, but was constantly engaged with his experts off camera who are heard affirming what he was saying they are doing with regard to disinfecting agents used internally.
We see world-class idiots like feo pretending he was talking about Lysol and such, but the actual video of his words clearly indicate something far more rational, logical and science-based, and it takes a lying, enemy of the people leftist media to continue pretending Trump is saying what he's clearly not saying. These are the people that accuse Trump of being a liar and a conman. These bastards are constantly lying to the public about what he's says and the actions he takes and thus are trying to con the American public into believing he's the satanic force they need him to be in order to oust his effective ass out of office only to replace him with one of their card-carrying clowns. They have no ideas, no plans, no policies that are worth a damn and they know it. Thus, they're only option is to try to make people believe Trump's evil or stupid. Dan and feo are our personal examples of such deceit and evil.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/26/dr-birx-bothered-by-media-focus-on-trumps-disinfectant-comments/
Seems even Dr. Birx is frustrated with the low class media and their version of events surrounding the "disinfectant" press conference.
And no, Trump should not take any responsibility for any idiots that ingest or inject household cleaning products...because he bears none. Not the slightest. Morons are responsible for their moronic reaction to that which they clearly don't understand.
In other enemy of the people news, Chris Wallace made mention...and another woman "reporter" at a recent press conference jumped on it as if it's compelling...of the alleged total of COVID-19 deaths ("alleged" because they're attributing all deaths to COVID-19, even if someone merely died while holding a newspaper where COVID-19 was referenced on the front page) in a two month span and comparing it to the total of Americans killed in the Viet Nam war in 19 years, as if Trump is somehow responsible for that total. There are about 60,000 people dying every day from one thing or another. Who is to take blame for that? Trump also? Then what about his predecessors? This reference to men killed in battle compared to this disease, and then mentioning it to Trump as if it wasn't intended to assign blame to him is unconscionable and reprehensible. Does anybody really care about such comparisons? Was anybody asking to have the scale of this tragedy illustrated in such a manner?
Trump haters in the media are indeed enemies of the people when they so transparently attack him in these ways. Wallace wasn't reporting and letting us decide. He was encouraging an opinion with which he hopes viewers will agree. Shameful and NOT what journalism is supposed to be and certainly not what most people expect from it.
I think it's not unreasonable to point out that "enemy of the people" might not be the most accurate term. Clearly, the majority of the mainstream media is not the enemy of the political left. To the contrary, they are supporters of the positions, candidates, and policies of the political left.
Craig,
We've discussed this in a prior post responding to Dan's panties being in a twist over Trump's use of the expression, as well as the more recent "whore/slut" discussion. Whereas I initially tempered my position by suggesting the expression is "over the top", I really can't hold with that any longer. I was trying to be nice, but nice is too often exploited by those for whom truth is inconvenient.
In the case of the media, the term is far more appropriate the more deeply I consider it. It is because the media is NOT an enemy of the political left that they ARE the enemy of the people as a whole...INCLUDING the political left, most of whom are not truly astute and only superficially political at all. These people do not truly look to the truth, but allow the lies, distortions and biases of the leftist media to inform them, thereby being led astray or having their false notions falsely validated.
The press is supposed to inform us of the truth. Nothing else. And for a reporter to ask stupid questions intended to make someone look bad rather than to uncover relevant and important facts as yet unknown to the general public...so that the PUBLIC can decide based on nothing BUT fact...is to distort what the public SHOULD know. This is every bit the same as communist disinformation programs. If they're not providing the public with useful facts and info, they're doing just the opposite or doing nothing of value at all. Regardless, they're looked to by the people to be reliable in uncovering the truth, so the result is the same if they don't.
It's easy enough to thwart the use of the expression by being a champion of the people by doing their jobs as they are supposed to be doing them. Until then, the expression is entirely appropriate. If they can't be trusted to get the facts right, to make corrections of mistakes as prominent as the mistakes were, they should get out of the business. We deserve better. We NEED better.
The false priest said:
"And to point out that more Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump."
This is a false statement worthy of the mainstream media and unsurprising coming from him. A more accurate statement would be "Trump won the popular vote". But the question of how many of those votes for Hillary were from actual Americans is another story. Trump's claim that he would have won the popular vote were it not for illegals voting may not be true and we'll never know if it is or not. But the fact that illegals vote is not debatable. The only question is how many, for whom do they vote and whether or not eliminating their ability would make much difference in the outcomes of presidential elections. At some point, there can be no doubt that Electoral College votes can be corrupted by too many illegals in a given state having cast votes. California, for example, could very easily have the will of the Americans in that state denied by the vast numbers of illegals, not only living in the state, but protected by the very people who benefit from their votes.
I mean...DUH!
By the way, the failure of the media to truly investigate the problem of voter fraud is another reason they're enemies of the people.
Dan,
I get that sarcasm doesn’t always translate well, but dude...
Feo,
As usual, you simply ignore and dodge the question. Instead throwing out a response that is completely unrelated and in this case, false.
Perhaps if you spent more time considering your pride, arrogance and hubris, and less time worrying about others, it would be valuable.
Whatever you say. It must be such a burden to carry such vast knowledge about others and their motivations. With all of that burden it's a surprise that you feel it necessary to lie so frequently, and then lie about your lies. I guess your pride is so fragile that it must be protected with lies.
My refusal to reinstate your privilege of commenting on my blog, has remained consistent and has nothing to do with diversion, denial, or dodging. Since I literally don't even read 90% of your comments, I clearly am not dodge or deny things I don't read. I'm truly sorry that your fragile ego and your pride prevent you from seeing the role that you have played in the suspension of your privileges. It's just too bad that perfection is such a burden.
Perhaps if you were more invested in cramming your prideful "wisdom" down the throats of those of us who aren't impressed with your hubris, you'd get the validation that your ego so desperately craves.
Your obsession with some unrelated "conversation" about Galatians 5 as some sort of excuse for every complain you have, is bizarre.
My not reading 90% plus of your comments isn't a pretense, it's just reality.
I'm not sure what "response" you imagine I affirmed, but your tendency toward obsession is showing through loud and clear.
No dodge. Simply pointing out your hubris and lies here. For someone (along with Dan) who lives for ad hominem attacks, it's amusing to see you embrace the double standard as Dan does.
I feel bad for you to be burdened with such pride and hubris, as well as to be able to ignore whatever reality you find to be inconvenient.
I've said everything that needs to be said.
Although, I have to note the irony that someone who's only outlet to be acknowledged is to take up space at the blogs of other people, is criticizing me for a few comments.
You and Dan sure love your double standards.
Reality 1
Feo 0
Feo, lies about what I said.
Also Feo, falsely claims I lied.
Craig,
Feel free to remove your comments which now stand without benefit of the tripe to which they were in response. I leave them because that tripe can be assumed rather easily because of your comments, but I'm good either way.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/29/multiple-credible-witnesses-corroborate-rape-charge-against-joe-biden/
The above link provides more evidence that the press is not such a "friend to the people". How can they report so differently about an issue they were so keen on reporting when the accused was Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump or Roy Moore? If it isn't partisan bias, then how can any defender of the press (Danny-boy, for example) hope to explain it?
The fact is that this goes beyond mere political bias. It is truly the press choosing sides and by doing so hoping to influence the public into accepting the preferred ideology of their partisan members...95% or so of which is strongly Democrat. This is not objective journalism in the least. This is not a "mistake".
What amazes me most is how even a biased journalist would ignore this story. One would think that to a journalist, a story is a story. Is this not sensational enough? How is that so? No. It's partisan hackery, plainly and simply. Tell me again how "enemy of the people" is not an appropriate moniker for a press who behaves in this way so routinely.
https://www.blazetv.com/watch/channel/series/series/oVm9sv9vDA3z-wilkow/episode/43-ghbkryh0ziuk-governors-do-your-jobs-and-stop-blaming-trump-ep-200?t=0
Here is yet another example of the press malfeasance. The difference is that it begins with a rating of prominent governors with regard to how the pandemic is being handled. Is it biased? Yes, because the host is decidedly right-wing.
But unlike the lefties, he's providing info that supports his ratings. Could he be more detailed with regard to each governor highlighted? Certainly, but one would be hard-pressed to suppose that his facts are not sufficient to grade each as he has.
Wilkow, the host, is rating extremes here. Clearly these aren't the all 50 governors. But he could have added Pritzker to the left side and DeSantis to the right and the ratings would have been the same. The lefty governors aren't rated badly because they're lefties, but because their policies have been horrible and clearly unconstitutional.
What about the press? Well, he speaks of them as if they are connected to the Democrat governors of which he speaks. That's reasonable since the press is largely the mouthpiece for and defenders of all things Democrat. And here, we see they are acting in concert with how they respond to the governors they like and the protesters they like as well. With regard to the latter, we saw this very disparity in how the press covered Tea Party gatherings versus "Occupy" gatherings.
These kinds of proofs are plentiful...too plentiful...and beyond defending or rebutting no matter how badly Dan gets his panties in a bunch over the use of the expression "enemy of the people". When the numbers of conservative sources become as plentiful and as prominent as are the lefty brands that have existed so long and dominated the airwaves, then we can pump the brakes with regard to using the term and being justified and accurate in doing so. May that day come soon. We need truth and honest, objective reporting. Instead we get crap.
Hey feo!
I love how you think I care how what I say or do looks to you or how you desperately need to believe how it might look to others. All that matters is that all comments you post that run afoul of the special rules made for your specialness will continue to be deleted. All others have different considerations, such as choosing if THEY wish that their comments remain or not. When you no longer consider yourself special, as proven by your behavior here, you will no longer be treated in such a special way.
Art,
I think a problem with those who reflexively defend the media (other than ideological agreement), is that they define fake news very narrowly .
They seem to be saying that it’s only fake news if the reporter intentionally lies about something and that lie is proven beyond the threshold to excuse it as a mistake.
I’d argue that the following are also fake news.
Headlines that don’t accurately reflect the content of the article or that imply facts not proven.
Pictures or video taken to misrepresent the actual events being covered. Shooting a small crowd close, to make it appear larger for example .
Including opinion in a news story.
Formatting online stories in such a way to bury parts of the story deep enough, and behind enough pop up ads and page jumps, that people aren’t likely to read that far into the story.
I’m sure there are more, but this makes my point.
Where does ABC news 13 in Houston identifying a shotgun as a bazooka in a headline fall on the fake news spectrum?
Or, is someone who’s too stupid to know the difference qualified to work for a news organization?
Craig,
Most defense of the media is mere excuse making, not a legitimate defense of the sloppy practices and intentional misrepresentations. Sure, defenders might believe one needs to prove intent, but that's certainly not the standard of the press with regard politicians of the opposing party. In any case, we can make the case for intent by virtue of the many examples such as those you've listed and their inability to account for the amazing totality of such examples. Those practices are also what we see in the defenders themselves by their repetition of the falsehoods, corruptions and distortions of the press as if they are facts.
As to your list, here's another: The constant double-standard as illustrated in the current disregard for the claims of Tara Reade vs any allegation against a right-wing figure, such as Kavanaugh, Trump or Moore, regardless of the veracity of the claim. If sexual assault charges against any politician is newsworthy, than it holds that sexual assault charges against EVERY politician is newsworthy. Yet, not so much of the accused is favored by the leftist press.
As to your Houston story, certainly most employers hired idiots now and then believing them to be better, so how the reporter got hired is one thing. Whether or not this is the first sign of the reporter's idiocy is another. If so, I could excuse ABC's excusing the mistake. But then again, don't they use editors anymore to check out stories before running them? What happened there? At best, this goes to sloppiness and neglect, which in my mind makes them qualified for the label, "enemy of the people" because the results are the same as if it was all intentional.
But to that, "fake news", "enemy of the people"...it's the same issue as using certain words to describe certain immoral women. The name used should give as much info in terms of implication. These two mean the same thing to me because of why they are used.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/cspan_posting_inaccurate_transcripts_of_trump_briefings.html
The above link is yet another example of "fake news" justifying the label of "enemy of the people". I just never considered C-SPAN as a combatant. If they archive entire videos of important speeches, interviews, etc., why would transcripts of those videos not also be complete? That's the charge being made in the above linked article. Is it always the case that transcripts are abridged versions? If so, is there any malicious intention behind how they're shortened? That's something the article doesn't mention.
I would also wonder about how common this knowledge is to the average reporter. One would think someone at each news organization would know such a thing. I don't know what would tip anyone off about it if it wasn't indicated when transcripts are requested except that a reporter stumbled upon it or it was leaked to someone and then passed along.
BUT...and this is a big one...why wouldn't a reporter allegedly concerned with truth and facts not go to the video in the first place except as suggested in the article because of laziness? Certainly the actual video will become public knowledge at some point and the truth revealed, as well as the failure of the reporter who publicized the truncated and thus less accurate transcript version.
In any case, the consequence is the point...a misled public. Even a sincere reporter who is crappy at his job is no friend of the people given his essential purpose being unfulfilled. A free press is essential, but not as essential as a responsible press dedicated to the truth and to facts delivered without bias. Gathering facts and seeking truth might be hard, but being dedicated to doing it isn't. When it comes to politics/ideology, I'm not seeing it and we're not getting it.
Art,
I tend to agree that most defense of the media is about making excuses. But, when leftists make excuses for the media when the media support their agenda, it's simply self interest at work. As long as "the media" gives it's seal of approval to an agenda, that agenda achieves a level of credibility that it wouldn't have otherwise.
There is clearly a distinction between news that is unintentionally inaccurate, and news that is presented in a manner intended to lead the consumers to a particular conclusion. What we see more and more often is that people are so willing to believe the media, when it confirms their biases or positions, that they will ignore anything that contradicts what they heard on "the news", even when what they ignore proves them wrong.
Case in point. The story about the AZ couple that ingested fish tank cleaner. The media was quick to ignore the facts, and run lemminglike with the narrative. Now we don't see the same level of coverage of the fact that the wife is now being investigated for murder. Why? Because a wife who uses false reporting as a cover to murder her husband doesn't help get Trump out of office in 2020.
This is just one of many stories where the initial narrative becomes overtaken by new information, yet people cling to the narrative, and ignore the follow up.
Craig,
By paragraph:
1. Absolutely. Media can support any agenda in an editorial, but not a news presentation where only facts reported objectively with an aim to inform about truth should be their only legitimate intention. I read and listen to opinion pieces all the time, the best ones backing their opinions with facts. This makes the piece also news reporting, but the distinction still exists by virtue of the fact that it is not part of an actual news report. Also, the fact that it is an opinion piece is also indicated in the vast majority of cases. However, as you'll agree, there should never be editorializing in a news report.
2. The distinction you mention is real, but it's effect on the public is the same as if intent to deceive exists: a misinformed public. News outlets that are guilty of the unintentional where it is frequent may as well be intending to deceive and their unwillingness to police themselves, to insure accuracy and worse, to highly publicize the corrections as they did the erroneous report must be regarded the same as the intentionally deceptive because of the harm they cause by misinforming.
It is better that people ignore the news when the facts are accurately reported for such people who choose to cling to falsehood. For such people there is no hope. It is just the reality that for some the truth is inconvenient. We see that on the blogs with far too much frequency.
Post a Comment