by Patrick ➕follow (49) 💰tip ($1.87 in tips) ignore
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 729 Next » Last »
The realization that the US mainstream media is corrupt was not a pleasant one.
Still I’m concerned I’ll just be viewed as the crazy conspiratorial old guy. I’m still in my 40’s so maybe not that old. Maybe.
Most of our major "news" stories have the coincidental effect of making at least one industry richer.
Floyd trial: News business
China/Iran: Military/industrial complex
Climate: Green businesses
NBC News deceptively edited police bodycam footage so their viewers wouldn’t see the knife in 15-year-old Ma’Kiyah Bryant’s hand moments before a Columbus officer shot her dead.
NBC also deceptively edited the 911 call to omit the part where the caller says a girl was “trying to stab us.”
Advertisement - story continues below
NBC anchor Lester Holt began the segment by showing a picture of a smiling Ma’Kiyah Bryant to make her look innocent.
Omitting the fact that the teen was wielding a large knife and attempting to stab someone is willful deception.
Hero cop saves African-American teen from knife attack
We are living through not the end, but the beginning of the end. The end will see our grandchildren or great-grandchildren suffer the full consequences.
It kills me. I had so much respect for my great aunts and uncles. I loved talking to them and hearing what they had to say. I only know one millennial that has the same level of curiousity.
Replying to @TomBevanRCP
In all fairness though, they were all white, so nobody cares.
Replying to @TomBevanRCP
In all fairness though, they were all white, so nobody cares.
CNN's New "Reporter," Natasha Bertrand, is a Deranged Conspiracy Theorist and Scandal-Plagued CIA Propagandist
In the U.S. corporate media, the surest way to advance is to loyally spread lies and deceit from the U.S. security state. Bertrand is just the latest example.
The most important axiom for understanding how the U.S. corporate media functions is that there is never accountability for those who serve as propagandists for the U.S. security state. The opposite is true: the more aggressively and recklessly you spread CIA narratives or pro-war manipulation, the more rewarded you will be in that world.
The classic case is Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote one of the most deceitful and destructive articles of his generation: a lengthy New Yorker article in May, 2002 — right as the propagandistic groundwork for the invasion of Iraq was being laid — that claimed Saddam Hussein had formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In February, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, NPR host Robert Siegel devoted a long segment to this claim. When he asked Goldberg “a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” Goldberg replied: “He is one of several men who might personify a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.”
Needless to say, nothing could generate hatred for someone among the American population — just nine months away from the 9/11 attack — more than associating them with bin Laden. Five months after Goldberg's New Yorker article, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of military force to impose regime change on Iraq; ten months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq; and by September, 2003, close to 70% of Americans believed the lie that Saddam had personally participated in the 9/11 attack. ...
Another illustrative mascot for this lucrative career path is NBC's national security correspondent Ken Dilanian. In 2014, his own former paper, The Los Angeles Times, acknowledged his "collaborative” relationship with the CIA. During his stint there, he mimicked false claims from John Brennan's CIA that no innocent people were killed from a 2012 Obama drone strike, only for human rights groups and leaked documents to prove many were.
A FOIA request produced documents published by The Intercept in 2015 that showed Dilanian submitting his "reporting” to the CIA for approval in violation of The LA Times’ own ethical guidelines and then repeating what he was told to say. But again, serving the CIA even with false "reporting” and unethical behavior is a career benefit in corporate media, not an impediment, and Dilanian rapidly fell upward after these embarrassing revelations. ...
On Monday, CNN made clear that this dynamic still drives the corporate media world. The network proudly announced that it had hired Natasha Bertrand away from Politico. In doing so, they added to their stable of former CIA operatives, NSA spies, Pentagon Generals and FBI agents a reporter who has done as much as anyone, if not more so, to advance the scripts of those agencies.
Stormy Daniels, Russian collusion, Impeachment Part I, two scoops of ice cream, Russia bounties, Impeachment Part II: news consumption was sky-high. But when Trump moved back to Mar-a-Lago, he took his ratings with him. ...
The mainstream media built their entire industry around despising Donald Trump. When covering Orange Man Bad’s administration, White House correspondents transformed from formerly serious journalists into unhinged hecklers. But it is their latest transformation back to docile cheerleaders that is even more revealing. ...
This is a team effort after all! Politico actually sent out a memo to its staffers about the border specifically instructing them to ‘avoid referring to the present situation as a crisis, although we may quote others using that language while providing context’. It is stunning to think that these are the same truth-seekers and democracy defenders who just a few years ago were melting down on social media about kids in cages.
The media’s flagrant hypocrisy when covering everything from Joe’s wind-induced stair spills to his radical (and green!) policies is breathtaking. Trump called the press the enemy of the people. They didn’t have to prove him right.
However, there is a silver lining to the decline of giants like the Washington Post and the New York Times. These famed institutions, unwilling to print anything but Biden agitprop, have left a real opening in the market for actual journalism. Enter Substack. The online platform describes itself as ‘a place for independent writing. We make it simple for a writer to start a paid newsletter’.
Bari Weiss is a great example of the type of journalist who thrives on this unconfined platform. Weiss, far too free a thinker for the Gray Lady, resigned because of the Times’s hostile woke culture. Her newsletter on Substack, covering a variety of topics from anti-Semitism to Critical Race Theory, has been incredibly successful. It turns out people are willing to pay for content that isn’t constrained and controlled by ideology. ...
When Peter Alexander or Kaitlan Collins get the rare opportunity to ask Biden a question, they never say anything useful. Even when Joe Biden repeatedly tells reporters he can’t take any more questions or he will ‘get in trouble’, our once cut-throat White House press corps can’t even drum up the courage to ask the obvious follow-up — in trouble with whom?
However, there is a silver lining to the decline of giants like the Washington Post and the New York Times. These famed institutions, unwilling to print anything but Biden agitprop, have left a real opening in the market for actual journalism
I am an equal opportunity problem child whatever site I am on
In modern newsrooms, especially in the last four or five years, the intellectual diversity that I think was normal in a newsroom once upon a time is vanishing, and there is an expectation, especially among younger reporters, that everybody is going to be a team player, that they're going to be devoted to pursuing the same ideological framework.
We've had a lot of controversies within news organizations where one or two reporters will try to report something, and the rest of the newsroom will revolt. We've had episodes in organizations like The Nation where somebody has done a story and the rest of the newsroom will write a letter to the editor. There have been similar episodes at The Intercept and other places.
Reporters feel: if I don't write something that the rest of the newsroom agrees with, I'm going to end up with a problem. That's resulted in a lot of conformity, and an unwillingness to go anywhere near where the perceived line of debate might be. It's also made people unwilling to go near an unpopular opinion. ...
I think in many cases, political correctness has run amok at some of the bigger papers. Notably, there was the Tom Cotton affair, when the senator from Arkansas wrote an op-ed at The New York Times, which caused an internal uprising and got the op-ed editor fired. That's too much. We can't have the thought police intervening to that extent. ...
If you go on the plane on the campaign trail, most of the people on the plane now are graduates of Ivy League universities. They live in rarefied areas of expensive, cosmopolitan neighborhoods. Socially, they see themselves as being the same people as the politicians they're reporting on. That's a terrible situation. I think that it's an underrated problem within modern news media.
Take this parking lot exchange as but one example of the public's complete mistrust in its information gatekeepers, and then try to tell me we haven't arrived at that very point of no return.
TranscriptReporter: I have no political agenda, sir. I really don't. No of the people I know does either. We're purely objective journalists.
Citizen: Uh, yeah you are.
Reporter: Truly, truly, sir, from the bottom of my heart. I don't have a political dog in…
Citizen: Ok, ok, what about all the compilation videos where they show thousands of newscasts in every city all reporting and saying the exact same thing?
Reporter: Nobody tells me what to say, sir.
Citizen: But what are those compilation videos on YouTube and Twitter? They got millions and millions of views where every reporter in every city at every station, they say the exact same thing, word for word. How do you explain that?
Reporter: I don't know what you're referring to so I can't really speak to that.
Citizen: Of course you don't.
Reporter: Ok, have a good one. Thank you so much for your time. It was great talking to you.
Citizen: It was great talking to you.
Reporter: Have a good one (pulls mask out and places it over his face and turns to camera)
Citizen: Put your mask on. Look out, the virus is gonna get you. And why do you – you didn't have your mask on the whole time, now you're putting your mask on. Here's a guy, he's been standing here the whole time without his mask, here's his camera dude with no mask on, but here he is, now he's still trying to scare everyone, now he's gonna put his mask on while he reports. Keep spreading that fear, buddy. Keep spreading that fear. Why didn't you have your mask on before? Now he's not talking to me. Why didn't you have your mask on the last 10 minutes?
Reporter: They're asking us to wear it per guidelines for television.
Citizen: Oh! Oh! So you're told what to do?
Reporter looks away and nods dismissively.
Citizen: Exactly, you just told me you weren't told what to do. You told me you could do whatever you want.
Reporter: I said I wasn't told what to say.
Citizen: Oh, so you're just told what to wear.
Reporter: We're trying to set a good example.
Right or wrong, I feel a bit of sympathy for this newsman who had been sent on location to file a report. He's right – company policy requires him, as it requires virtually every other reporter on American soil, to wear a mask, outdoors, completely isolated from anyone else, likely despite already being vaccinated. He's just doing his job.
But that doesn't change the fact that the citizen in this exchange could not have managed to expose the phoniness of modern "objective journalism" any more effectively than he did.
The journalist says they are being told to "set a good example." But of course, that is the last thing they are doing by maintaining a panic-fueling, misinformation-spreading, vaccine-discouraging mask policy outdoors, in flagrant contradiction of CDC guidelines.
It's the same offense that took place at President Biden's recent address to the absurdly sparse gathering of fully-masked, fully-vaccinated lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
It's virtue-signaling, meaningless, patently false propaganda being spread through imagery rather than words. Our news-makers and news-givers are both complicit, and consequently have obliterated any trust the American people once had in them.
That doesn't end well.
Why do journalists keep repeating the same mistake?
The folly of single-source reporting and quiet retractions
A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on
They know that once the lie is out there, they can quietly retract and no one will pay attention to that. They will all just believe the lie
they said that everything 'reported' about PV was 100% opinion
I used to think American media was wonderful. As an aspiring young journalist in the UK, and a liberal, I regarded the US press as the platinum standard. ...
That was then. Now I read Tomasky, the recently appointed editor of the new-old New Republic, and chuckle at his slavish parroting of received Democratic party wisdom. I watch Amanpour compare the Trump presidency to Kristallnacht and wonder what happened to that gutsy reporter I used to gawp at. Did I change or did they? ...
But it’s also apparent that the shattering of the media’s economic foundations, the rise of narrative journalism, the attention economy, and the fundamental absurdity of our age has corroded a once great edifice.
The decline really struck me the other day while watching a segment on CNN, in which a grave young Irish chap called Donie O’Sullivan visited an event at the Trump Doral hotel in Miami, where attendees told him lots of silly things about January 6. Donie’s become a big player on the zeitgeisty misinformation beat, which in his case seems primarily to consist of finding the dumbest and most deluded Trump supporters he can and getting them to say dumb and deluded things, thus allowing CNN viewers to feast yet further on the diet of disdain, fear and self-affirmation that nourished them so healthily through the Trump era.
... But those who believe the solution is getting smug young men to draw a red line of truth around our public sphere and shout ‘Misinformation!’ at anyone who crosses it are more interested in partisan gain than healthy debate. The latter has too often become a cloak for the former. The Aspen Institute has recently and apparently with a straight face appointed Prince Harry, the troubled British royal, to its ‘Commission on Information Disorder’.That pretty much sums up the problem. ...
People at the New York Times have told me they’re looking into jobs in political risk, because they no longer want to work at an institution where their editorial direction is dependent on the whims of Twitter. Over time, I realized this shift does give us foreign correspondents a surprising competitive advantage: you and your institution are not attached to any American tribe. Even a very simple piece of reporting, such as taking some phone snaps in the smoldering ruins of downtown Kenosha, as I did during the protests last year, can bring something new to the table. So few others are bothering to do anything that contravenes ‘the narrative’.
Now I’m leaving the big show, canceling my print subscriptions, packing up my DC apartment and chucking away all those unread back issues of the Atlantic. Who knows when I’ll skip over Chris Cuomo to channel flick between Chris Hayes and Tucker Carlson again? I’ll miss so much about this splendid country: its bars, its wide-open spaces, its fried pickles (genius idea, that). But I won’t miss its media.
A review by UK’s state-funded media house BBC flagged several accounts posting President Trump’s statements on Twitter. Some would say it is rather weird for a supposedly politically neutral global media house to take it upon itself to flag Twitter accounts for merely sharing what Trump said instead of just reporting the news.
In a recent report, covering the removal of the @DJTDesk account, which claimed to have been posting Trump’s statement “on behalf” of his office, the BBC said that a spokesperson for Twitter said that the account was banned for posting content “affiliated with a banned account.”
It’s 2021, and as your new Spectator media columnist I’m here to tell you that the American media is a disaster. It’s not that there aren’t still many exceptionally talented reporters and editors doing good work, against all odds — there are. It’s that the overall scene is being destroyed. Newspapers are on the verge of extinction. Newer, supposedly more agile online-only outlets are shedding staff or shuttering as well. No one has come close to developing a replacement for the funding model that kept journalism humming along nicely until the internet came along and broke everything.
But the vast majority of mainstream outlets are left-leaning, and I’m worried that that side — my side, if I’m being honest — is starting to exhibit certain tendencies I’ve long associated with right-wing media. There is what feels like a heightened sense among many mainstream journalists (particularly younger ones) that they are not only observers but active participants in vital social-justice battles. Knowing this doesn’t require any dramatic leaks of internal chats, or anything like that — they’ll simply tell you. And this attitude leads directly to unjournalistic editorial decisions which degrade public trust in our institution.
The fight over where the line between journalism and activism should lie — or if there should be one at all — has sparked a series of high-profile internal meltdowns at elite journalistic institutions, garnering a massive amount of media coverage (and delighting the right, of course). At the New York Times alone, there was former opinion staffer Bari Weiss’s fiery resignation note, precipitated by what she said was widespread internal bullying and revulsion at any sort of dissent from progressive orthodoxy; the internal revolt that led to the ouster of the highly decorated science reporter Donald McNeil Jr for mentioning the ‘n-word’ on a student trip to Peru; and the resignation of former editorial page editor James Bennet after dozens of staffers claimed a Tom Cotton column calling for the military to be deployed against violent protesters put the lives of black staffers ‘in danger’.
Many of my fellow progressives argue that there’s really nothing to see here. These convulsions within media organizations are simply the result of historically underrepresented people asking to be respected, of a long overdue reckoning after a seeming eternity of white men dominating newsrooms. There’s a kernel of truth here — of course it is the case that until fairly recently, many groups were effectively shut out of media, and that any shift toward sensitivity and inclusivity will bring with it certain tensions — but that also misses the bigger picture. The meltdowns which have occurred in many major media outlets are mostly the result not of ‘traditional’ battles over equitable treatment, but reflect the rise of a very particular set of political, moral and causal claims that are draped in this language but go well beyond it.
It’s one thing to ask that journalists from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds be allowed to do their jobs in peace, free of harassment or innuendo that they are too ‘biased’ to cover their beats, and there’s certainly work to be done on that front. It’s another to argue, apparently in earnest, that merely printing a column expressing a commonly held belief causes danger to one’s colleagues. Yet this attitude is endemic in top-level mainstream outlets. At Vox, for example, a staffer publicly complained to her bosses after Matt Yglesias signed the milquetoast pro-free-speech Harper’s letter (which I signed as well), on the grounds that his doing so made her ‘feel less safe’ at work. This eventually contributed to Yglesias’s own departure for the sunnier, more independent skies of Substack.
These sorts of beliefs are not even particularly popular within mainstream newsrooms, at least if the quiet messages I get are any indication: a Times staffer pointed out to me that the 150 names on a strident letter demanding Times management re-investigate McNeil’s trip to Peru represent a tiny fraction of the paper’s total employees. Rather, they are held mostly by a very passionate vanguard. But that vanguard has managed to exert a surprising amount of influence via its messaging, which repeats, ad nauseam, that if you are against their very specific claims, argot and actions, you are an enemy of justice itself. You don’t get it.
And think about where we are now—that certainly was not in evidence in the last administration,” she continued, referring to the administration of former President Donald Trump.
“It was truly shocking to me during the 2016 [presidential] campaign to hear and see journalists and newspapers of record… you know, even any attempt or pretense or trying to be objective, and rally behind these political operatives and political organizations, to ensure that this person doesn’t get into office,” Logan added.
Many journalists in their reporting now blur the lines between fact and opinion, Logan said, criticizing reporters who rely on anonymous sources in their pieces—something she argues can be exploited to conceal motivation.
“Sourcing is so important, and today that’s just been completely obliterated for the worst possible reasons to give cover to political operatives and people with political motives, to spread disinformation that harms the profession of journalism,” said Logan. “That is a disgrace to every one of us who call ourselves journalists. Most importantly, it is really harmful to the ability of the American people to understand and know the truth so they can try to make the best possible decisions.”
“They’re not journalists. They’re political assassins, working on behalf of political operatives and propagandists, who do not care one bit about real journalism or honesty or anything like that,” Logan argued.
Logan also suggested that media entities are working hand in hand with Big Tech companies to shape narratives and public discourse.
Companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google have drawn intense scrutiny for perceived political bias and alleged unbalanced moderation of users’ content. Critics say much of the companies’ moderation in the past year has unfairly targeted conservative speech and speech from individuals deemed to be supporters of Trump.
Meanwhile, groups on the other side of the aisle have been taking issue with how social media companies are operating, claiming that the Silicon Valley companies have failed to adequately address misinformation that is being proliferated online.
“What it’s all about is absolute control,” said Logan. “If they control the narratives, they control this flow of information, they control what we report, what we don’t report, how we report it, what we do with it, what people say about it—they manage perception, they distort perception.”
Here, check out this video of our amazing president test-driving the new electric F-150 and joking with a reporter about running her over if she asks any questions about Israel (so funny):
Oh man! You gotta love the crowd's reaction to that KILLER joke!
Our press is definitely top-tier, aren't they?!?
And my goodness, now that I've seen Joe Biden test-drive the new electric F-150, I think I've completely forgotten about the inflation crisis, the crisis in Israel, the unemployment crisis, the gas crisis, and the crisis at the border.
Wow, what a guy! Driving that electric truck. Such a man. And so funny!
It's also so appropriate when President Biden jokes about murdering members of the press in such a whimsical fashion! No harm no foul!
Everyone knows it was just a harmless joke! Just like how everyone always gave the benefit of the doubt to our last president who also liked to crack jokes! HAHA!
In 2018, I compiled many of those personality-driven and mental health smears that had been weaponized back then against Chomsky because, at the time, other liberal outlets — such as The New Yorker and New York Magazine — were already using the same mental health and personality-based themes to expel me from the precincts of liberal decency due to my rejection of their Russiagate conspiracy theories, which had turned into a virtual religion, including at The Intercept. Both of those long profiles were devoted to a central theme: I refused to accept what everyone who is sane and mentally healthy could see — that Trump had colluded with Russia and Putin exercised some sort of clandestine control over Trump — because I had rage-based trauma from childhood that I never resolved.
In 2012 and in the years after I frequently described how the same mental health themes were weaponized by liberal establishmentarians against Julian Assange: an incessant focus on the WikiLeaks founder's personality and alleged mental health pathologies to discredit his pioneering work. I've often noted that the reason the Nixon administration ordered a break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst as a response to his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers was because depicting someone as psychologically unwell is the preferred method of power centers to distract attention away from valid critiques and to expel dissidents from their salons. The script which The Intercept and their liberal allies are using against me is an old, stale, and trite one.
All of this, quite obviously, is an attempt to distract attention away from The Intercept’s serious journalistic sins. It is also designed to personalize the anger which their behavior validly provoked onto me, to conceal the fact that numerous journalists across the political spectrum — not just me — reacted with disgust at what they did and what they are still doing.
Columbia Journalism Review Abandons Neutrality – Adopts Gun-Control Advocacy
Trust in traditional media has declined to an all-time low, and many news professionals are determined to do something about it.
Why it matters: Faith in society's central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together. That glue was visibly dissolving a decade ago, and has now, for many millions of Americans, disappeared entirely.
By the numbers: For the first time ever, fewer than half of all Americans have trust in traditional media, according to data from Edelman's annual trust barometer shared exclusively with Axios. Trust in social media has hit an all-time low of 27%.
56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.
As vaccine rumor hunter Heidi Larson puts it, "we don’t have a misinformation problem, we have a trust problem.”
News organizations have historically relied mainly on advertising income, and as those dollars flow increasingly to Google and Facebook, that has created institutional weakness that shows up in trust data.
Reversing the decline is a monster task — and one that some journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves. They're going to need help — perhaps from America's CEOs.
The catch: Mistrust of media is now a central part of many Americans' personal identity — an article of faith that they weren't argued into and can't be argued out of.
USA Today scrubs 'male' from teen's op-ed on competing against transgender athletes
Chelsea Mitchell wrote about competing against biologically male athletes
Former high school track athlete Chelsea Mitchell was the "fastest girl in Connecticut" at one point in time until the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) began allowing transgender girls to compete in women's sports.
Last week, USA Today published an op-ed from Mitchell about competing against transgender athletes and her decision to push forward with an appeal of the case. On May 25, editors at USA Today, without notice to Chelsea, changed the word "male" to "transgender" throughout her piece and condemned her use of "hurtful language."
In an editor’s note, the outlet explained that the op-ed was updated to "reflect USA Today’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used."
In a series of tweets, Mitchell's attorney, Christiana Holcomb, accused the media organization of "unilaterally" changing Mitchell’s words after acquiescing to "backlash from the woke mob."
"USA Today violated its principles to appease the mob. This blatant censorship violates the trust we place in media to be honest brokers of public debate," Holcomb wrote. The original op-ed has been published in full by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the nonprofit legal group that represents Mitchell.
Mitchell is one of three Connecticut female high school track stars who filed a lawsuit to overturn the state athletic conference's transgender policy at the beginning of 2020.
"I've lost four women's state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and countless other opportunities and spots on the podium to biologically male runners," Mitchell said in an interview with Fox News.
"Title IX is really clear that the reason we have women's sports as a separate category is to protect equal athletic opportunities for female athletes like Chelsea," Holcomb, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing the girls, told Fox News. "And that is just not what's happening in the state of Connecticut right now with biological males having dominated the girls category."
Last month a federal district court dismissed the case, but according to Holcomb the fight isn’t over yet. "Just today Alliance Defending Freedom filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd Circuit," she said.
"The district court still refused to engage with the merits of the argument and recognize that the girls have had significant losses," she said. "The court utterly dismissed their lost opportunities and achievements and so we want to see that remedied."
Having graduated high school last year and now running at the collegiate level, Mitchell says she is doing this not just for herself but for all women athletes in her state.
"It is a big issue," Mitchell said. "Personally, I lost a lot, but there were countless other girls that also lost state championships. I believe there were 15 state championships that the two biological males took from biological females. And there were more than 85 girls that missed out on opportunities to advance in medal and make finals. And so it's not just me, girls across the state were being impacted by this policy."
"We hope that the girls' records will be fixed," Holcomb said and claimed the girls should be recognized for the achievements they would have made had it not been for the unfair advantage of the trans athletes they competed against.
They are also pushing to have the policy changed so trans athletes can no longer participate in women’s athletics. "We want to see the policy fixed so that no other young women in the state of Connecticut have to experience that unfairness," Holcomb said.
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 729 Next » Last »
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,087,107 comments by 12,516 users - CBOEtrader, motgus60, WookieMan online now