But that being said the timing here is perfect. Right now the left is reeling from their silence over the Weinstein business, it will be a lot of fun asking those same people if they knew the Times was doing this kind of thing.
Final thought. Normally the MSM completely ignores these Project Veritas videos but once President Trump starting tweeting this out it will be impossible for the press to do so. And if he connects the silence in the newsrooms on Weinstein with the silence on this kind of bias, this could be the a permanent game changer.
I’ve interviewed James O’Keefe twice one in 2013 and again at CPAC 2017
One of the things about the MSM is they have professional editors with years of experience in the News Business. Because of this we are often told that this gives them the edge in promoting newsworthy stories that the public needs to know.
Now I’ll concede that I’m just a poor blogger with a few brilliant writes posting at our site and that our annual tip jar hits don’t’ compare with the expense account of a MSM reporter that sets the news agenda, but it seems to me this story just might be a tad more newsworthy than the attention it is being given:
ISIS Fighters, Having Pledged to Fight or Die, Surrender en Masse
That’s the headline at the NY Times (this and Weinstein this week? Amazing!) and the body of the story is even more encouraging:
More than a thousand Islamic State fighters passed through that room this past week after they fled their crumbling Iraqi stronghold of Hawija. Instead of the martyrdom they had boasted was their only acceptable fate, they had voluntarily ended up here in the interrogation center of the Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq.
For an extremist group that has made its reputation on its ferociousness, with fighters who would always choose suicide over surrender, the fall of Hawija has been a notable turning point. The group has suffered a string of humiliating defeats in Iraq and Syria, but the number of its shock troops who turned themselves in to Kurdish officials at the center in Dibis was unusually large, more than 1,000 since last Sunday.
Given the threat of ISIS and the spectacular attacks they had achieved in the past you would think this story would be leading everywhere, particularly since the source is the New York Times from which all other media tends to take a lead.
Let’s take a peek and see.
Here are the top stories at CNN.com as of 12:02 PM sunday when I am writing this
Trump trashes outgoing Republican Sen. Bob Corker Sen. Murphy: ‘Willing to move forward’ with GOP on bump stock ban Tapper to GOP senator: Will you vote against NRA? Zelizer: Tillerson should quit now Russian police arrest hundreds in protests on Putin’s birthday Charlottesville mayor slams white supremacists after another torch rally is held Senator: Renegotiatiing Iran nuclear deal is a ‘fantasy’ Analysis: Supreme Court rookie takes on the chief Spain’s PM considers dramatic measure for Catalonia Marijuana is going mainstream
In fact there is no mention of ISIS at all on cnn’s home page
Hmm you would have thought CNN would have covered this. How about NBC Here is the latest news there:
GOP Sen. Calls White House ‘an Adult Day Care Center’ After Trump Attack Dove on Clean-Up Duty After Racially Insensitive Ad Why Geography Stops Gun Control White Nationalist Richard Spencer Leads Torch-Carrying Crowd in Charlottesville Sanctuary Cities: Three States, Three Very Different Approaches Jason Aldean Pays Tribute to Las Vegas Victims, Sings Tom Petty Song on ‘SNL’ TV Deadly Ambush in Niger Highlights America’s Growing Mission in Africa
How about ABC? What makes their newsworthy list? at 12:15 PM on Sunday(which gives you an idea of how long this post takes)
Resignations, fallout grow for embattled producer Weinstein 4th US soldier killed in Niger ambush identified London crash that injured 11 was accident: Police Hundreds of thousands rally against Catalonia secession Kim’s murder trial to resume with lab visit Rapper Nelly arrested for alleged rape 3 arrested during protest at Virginia University Attack on Saudi palace in Jiddah kills 2 guards Trump administration rolls back birth control mandate Thousands demand Spanish-Catalan negotiations
Is there a mention of the story anywhere, let’s look at the search:
One story and that’s about migrant in Libya. Nothing about ISIS fighters surrendering there.
Well how about CBS surely they will find the NYT Isis story worth covering
NRA leader weighs in on bump stocks, tells ATF to “do its job” More than 100,000 are without power as storm surge pushes over beachfront highway and floods streets Details revealed about Las Vegas shooter’s note “First Ex” Ivana Trump on parenting and the president’s tweets How Facebook ads helped elect Trump Trump says Bob Corker “begged” for endorsement — and senator fires back
Finally let’s try NPR. They’re publicly funded so naturally they’re going to be right on top of news that matters there aren’t they?there:
Biloxi Faces Flooding As Nate Makes Second Landfall On Gulf Coast Pence In Las Vegas: ‘We Are United In Our Resolve To End Such Evil’ Lawyer Lisa Bloom Resigns as Harvey Weinstein Adviser Russia Investigations In Congressional Cliffhanger, Trump Jr. May Revisit The Hill
Come on! Isn’t there even a mention of the ISIS on the page?
So the question remains, Why isn’t the “Isis fighters surrender en masse” story the lead everywhere, or at least listed in the top stories anywhere in the MSM? The best answer comes from a fellow named Dodd
The MSM narrative is Trump is bad, Trump is childish and Trump is an incompetent failure and ISIS cutting and running 9 months after he vowed to destroy them just doesn’t serve advancing that message. I’l leave you with one last image Memeorandum at 12:45 PM Sunday Oct 8th the moment I finished this post.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
Thousands of Cuban doctors work abroad under contracts with the Cuban authorities. Countries like Brazil pay the island’s Communist government millions of dollars every month to provide the medical services, effectively making the doctors Cuba’s most valuable export.
But the doctors get a small cut of that money, and a growing number of them in Brazil have begun to rebel. In the last year, at least 150 Cuban doctors have filed lawsuits in Brazilian courts to challenge the arrangement, demanding to be treated as independent contractors who earn full salaries, not agents of the Cuban state.
“When you leave Cuba for the first time, you discover many things that you had been blind to,” said Yaili Jiménez Gutierrez, one of the doctors who filed suit. “There comes a time when you get tired of being a slave.”
Some of these doctors feel that they are victims of injustice? They signed contracts, no? I can’t understand how they’re even being being heard by Brazil’s legal system. If they’re unhappy with the deal they agreed to, these whiners can return to Cuba.
That’s Steve B from NYC, I wonder if he will complain if the plows don’t come on time this snow season?
I wonder if this small group of doctors will pay back the Cuban government for their free education? The program seems like our Peace Corps; or similar programs in the US where if the government pays your tuition to become a teacher you have to do a few years of work in poor communities. They seem like a small selfish group out of a large pool of doctors who served. Don’t look to these folks to join up with Doctors Without Borders.
The free medical education that a large number of Cubans receive has always been in stark contrast to U.S., where the cost to become an MD, to that med student, could probably cover medical care for a Brazilian village for a year, and maybe even food and shelter. Cuban doctors have been part of volunteer missions, in addition to the arrangements like that in the article. This humanitarian mission– to provide health care to the world when it is asked for– has always been an inspiration. I seriously doubt that Cuba was paid for the doctors who have gone to hurricane wasted islands or to HIV ravaged countries. I am a little disappointed in these doctors in Brazil, but they are just human beings, susceptible to the pull of the dollar, like athletes who have defected. But they are not exploited slaves, and as was pointed out in the article, knew what they signed up for. Can you blame Cuba for trying to be compensated when it had that opportunity? It is a poor country that especially needs help now, after Irma.
These doctors received a first-rate education totally free of charge, and call themselves slaves because they can`t profit from their training as much as they want? It sounds they were born in the wrong country.
These doctors have whatever rights they think they have to get more money, no argument from me ; however, lets not forget that their education was free.
Are they willing to reimburse the government of Cuba for their education? They should!. They would have to do it in here in the USA or any other country.
There are some lies on this article that they need to set straight and I will leave it at that. They can demand whatever they want without maligning the country that gave them what they have. Many of these doctors would never have made it to a university in the USA nor medical school as it is extremely expensive to go to medical school.
I know .. my daughter is a third year medical student and so far , her “bill” is close to 400K.
I do not feel sorry for them, $908.00 dollars a month is a fortune in Cuban pesos, about 22,700 pesos a month and readers, all is relative: many Cubans own their homes. there are no taxes to speak of; Cubans mostly need to worry about food ( not enough due to the embargo constraints) . And if they think that $3,620 a month per doctor is a lot, they are in for a surprise as that amount will not pay for a small surgical procedure in the USA.
That’s Lidice, New York City another top pick who apparently thinks her daughter should have gone to medical school in Cuba instead.
Remember these are all Americans, living in America most in big cities governed by Democrats, so remember that the next time Democrats ask you to vote for them because they are for the little guy.
Closing thought: I bet every single one of these people critiquing these doctors stand behind the take a knee protests by millionaire athletes.
Remember the series of wistful articles the New York Times ran in 2008 to mark the 75th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich?
Me neither — because, of course, it never happened. But that’s not as crazy as it sounds considering the Times is running a series of stories under the banner of “Red Century” to mark the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution.
In case you’ve forgotten, the advent of Soviet rule in Russia ushered in an age of Communist terror whose death tally makes Nazism’s toll almost inconsequential in comparison. But that hasn’t stopped the Times from publishing reverential pieces written by the progeny of Reds who were active at home and abroad.
I have limited toleration for sanctimonious crap, so I rarely click on a link to a Times story. Still, I’ve skimmed a couple of the Red Banner features just to see how much Commie propaganda the paper will allow.
Then I stumbled on one story that I had to read all the way through: Jacob Mikanowski‘s “My Grandfather, the Secret Policeman,” which was published July 31. www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/communism-policeman-jews-nazis.html Mikanowski, a journalist whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, L.A. Review of Books and online, recounts the adventures of his Polish grandfather, Jakub, during and after World War II.
Himself the son of a Communist, Jakub established a name for himself as an anti-Nazi partisan during the war before joining the Polish secret police in 1945. Jakub was clearly a brave and clever man, and Mikanowski recounts his tale dispassionately. But while he doesn’t come out and praise Jakub’s cause, neither does he condemn it.
At the story’s end, Mikanowski seems to grapple with the realization that he hasn’t come to terms with his grandfather’s role in the grand scheme of history — nor given a full account of it.
“What does it mean to fight on the right side of the war, but the wrong side of history?” he writes.
“Depending on whom you ask today, my grandfather’s story is that of a partisan, a traitor, a hero or a spy. The revolution asked a terrible amount of those who served it. Those who resisted paid a similarly awful price. It left in its wake countless lives, like my grandfather’s, that cannot be compassed by a single line.”
Such a statement doesn’t make up for the many facts omitted from his story, starting with the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact signed on Aug. 23, 1939, which directly led to Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1. A secret protocol of the treaty called for the partition of Poland, with Germany getting the western portion and the Soviets the east. The Soviets invaded on Sept. 17 to grab their half of the spoils.
Also left out is what happened to Poland in the roughly 21 months of Soviet rule. Hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported to Kazakhstan, Siberia and other points east during the occupation. Even worse, more than 22,000 military officers, politicians, professors, priests and other civic leaders were executed in what is collectively known as the Katyn Forest massacres.
Mikanowski writes that the Nazis in 1939 captured his grandfather, then a Polish soldier, but he escaped and made his way to Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Curiously, he doesn’t explain why Jakub didn’t halt his flight in Soviet-occupied Poland instead of going hundreds of miles to the east. Maybe Mikanowski didn’t want to bring up all that awkward partition business and Nazi-Soviet hanky panky.
So Mikanowski says it depends on your perspective whether Jakub, a Soviet pawn, was “a partisan, a traitor, a hero or a spy.” Let me tell you about a couple of Poles whom I consider nothing but heroes.
My Dziadzia (grandfather) was barely out of boyhood when he came to America shortly after the turn of the 20th century. After World War I broke out, he attended a rally in Toronto featuring General Józef Haller, who called on Polish emigres to return to Europe and free their homeland. Stirred by emotion, Dziadzia signed up to join the Polish Legions on the spot.
From 1916 to 1918, Dziadzia fought against the Germans in France. The Polish Legions’ efforts alone may not have restored Poland as an independent country, but they played a part. Having done his job, Dziadzia returned to the United States and raised a family. He sent four sons, including my dad, to fight against Germany and Japan in World War II.
Meanwhile, the family he had left behind in eastern Poland didn’t fare as well as my and Mikanowski’s grandfathers. One of Dziadzia‘s cousins, a major in the Polish army, was murdered in the Katyn massacre.
Another cousin, no doubt less wily than Jakub, was a thorn in the side of both occupiers. He was a bit too critical of his new Soviet “friends” in 1940, so a group of local Communists grabbed him one night and cut off his right arm. After Hitler broke off his affair with Stalin and attacked the Soviets, the cousin was equally disrespectful toward the Nazis, so they put out his eyes. That finally shut him up.
I wish I could offer as many details about my grandfather as Mikanowski provides about his, but Dziadziadied when I was 4. All I recall are his smiles and kindness. While he passed on some stories to my dad, he didn’t like talking much about his cousins because it was too painful.
You could take the stories of my family and multiply them by thousands to get an idea of what happened in Poland during World War II. It’s too bad the New York Times will never run that story.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
For the second part of this series, consider the uproar surrounding Dana Loesch’s NRA-produced video challenge to the New York Times, where she says this:
“We the people” have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism.
Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We are going to fisk the The New York Times and find out just what “deep and rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We’re going to laser-focus on your so-called “honest pursuit of truth.”
To criticize and refute (a published article or argument), especially in point-by-point or line-by-line fashion on a blog.
Many who are unaware of the coinage inserted their own word into the breach (no pun intended): fist, a word which has had its own recent redefinition, a sexual one from another insular subculture–gay men.
So it was that this particular Cat 5 storm was set in motion, where people are aghast that someone would want to “fist” the New York Times. CNN’s Mark Herling has even dropped a dime on Loesch — presumably to the FBI –for “threatening Americans and institutions.” I’ll leave off from any jokes about rebuttals.
As an effective spokeswoman for gun rights and for the NRA, Loesch is a perennial target for those who would see those rights infringed and is adept at pushing back. But the most telling parts of this latest storm need to be spelled out.
That some online critics pretend that they’ve never heard of the verb “to fisk,”
That other online critics actually have never heard of it, and
That members of both sets of critics are quick to jump to sexual innuendo-type conclusions, projecting their own deviant mindset onto others, notably in this case, a heterosexual, married woman. All weapons are fair in the destruction of an enemy’s reputation — except guns, of course.
The most important factor, however, is that MSM entities like the New York Time are being called out by Loesch and by many others … our host, for example.
The MSM goal is to drown out that message in all the fisk/fist outrage and that goal has been reached.
Or has it?
Part Three’s topic: Googlegate. Maybe. By Saturday — my next day to post — it’s a safe bet that there will be a more current Social Media Hurricane.
Not surprisingly, the media failed to report a recent analysis of the lies told ABOUT Trump as chronicled by snopes.com, which is considered one of the most reliable sources of fact checking news and information.
The article’s title says it all, “The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas.”
Snopes.com reports: “Broadly speaking, most of the falsehoods leveled against Trump fall into one or more of four categories, each of them drawing from and feeding into four public personas inhabited by the President.
They are: Donald Trump: International Embarrassment, Trump the Tyrant, Donald Trump: Bully baby, Trump the Buffoon….
“Generally speaking, we discovered that they are characterized and driven by four types of errors of thought:
A lack of historical context or awareness
Cherry-picking of evidence (especially visual evidence)
A failure to adhere to Occam’s Razor — the common-sense understanding that the simplest explanation for an event or behavior is the most likely.”
Snopes lists a variety of errors, including interpretations of Trump’s handshake, his lack of interest in meetings because he was not taking notes at the G-7, and the continuing focus on his incompetence to serve as president. See http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/12/trump-lies/
For example, snopes.com notes the example “…of how rushed and alarmist conclusions, a lack of context, and a pre-existing caricature of Trump as an incipient dictator have played a role in false claims made against him came early on in his presidency. In the days following Trump’s inauguration, claims emerged that his administration had literally rewritten the Bill of Rights, changing all mention of ‘people’ to ‘citizens.’
“The story horrified readers. ‘Not a joke,’ read one widely shared tweet, ‘not a drill.’ But also, not true. The administration had changed WhiteHouse.gov’s summary of the Constitution but not the Constitution itself. What’s more, the change from ‘people’ to ‘citizens’ in this summary had already been made during the tenure of President Barack Obama.”
In conclusion, snopes.com advises that “in some ways, these sorts of massive exaggerations and gross distortions are even more corrosive and destructive than fake news.”
Perhaps news organizations need to turn the mirror back on themselves to determine whether they are ones telling lies.
It’s difficult to determine which one of the columnists for DaTimes writes the most absurd claptrap. Charlie Blowhard? Paul, Nick, Frank?
Tommy Friedman just moved to the top of my list when he calls Donald Trump a “Chinese agent” in a recent column. Here’s Tommy’s “proof”:
No. 1: Trump ended U.S. support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP. That would be the same economic deal opposed by Hillary Clinton, the AFL-CIO, the Roosevelt Institute, and myriad groups from both the right and the left.
No. 2: Trump tossed out Obama’s plans to shrink the U.S. dependence on coal-fired power and changed mileage requirements on automobiles. Tommy cites China’s plan to build more clean-energy devices that will leave the United States behind.
Tommy lives in a mansion in Maryland of more than 11,000 square feet. That is quite a carbon footprint!
More important, China is a country that chokes its citizens nearly every day and doesn’t even recycle its trash.
No. 3: Trump wants to slash the State Department and foreign aid budgets and make it harder for people to immigrate to America, particularly Muslims.
China has one of the toughest immigration policies in the world and just issued new rules to tighten restrictions for foreign workers and banned wearing Islamic veils and long beards.
Tommy ends his silliness by writing: “So you tell me that Trump is not a Chinese agent. The only other explanation is that he’s ignorant and unread — that he’s never studied the issues or connected the dots between them.”
I have known Tommy since 1979 when we worked across the hall from one another in Beirut. He was at United Press International; I worked for Newsweek. Despite his Pulitzer Prizes and his books, I never thought much of his reporting. I have found out I am not alone.
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi, a longtime Tommy critic, writes: “This is Friedman’s life: He flies around the world, eats pricey lunches with other rich people and draws conclusions about the future of humanity by looking out his hotel window and counting the Applebee’s signs.”
The Huffington Post, not exactly a member of the alt-right, describes Friedman this way: “He’s not just a millionaire or a multimillionaire – he’s member of one of the wealthiest families in the world, and is one of the most influential media voices on the planet, who writes specifically about economic/class issues. If politicians are forced to disclose every last asset they own, you’d think at the very least, The New York Times – in the interest of basic disclosure – should have a tagline under Friedman’s economic columns that says “Tom Friedman is an heir to a multi-billion-dollar business empire.”
One of his many simplistic analyses is called the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention: No two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s.
He supported that observation, as a theory, by stating that when a country has reached an economic development where it has a middle class strong enough to support a McDonald’s network, it would become a “McDonald’s country,” and will not be interested in fighting wars anymore.
Not surprisingly, the theory has broken down repeatedly in Panama, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, India, Pakistan and many more places.
Here is how Taibbi ranks Tommy’s batting average on other issues: “To review quickly, the ‘Long Bomb’ Iraq war plan Friedman supported as a means of transforming the Middle East blew up in his and everyone else’s face; the ‘Electronic Herd’ of highly volatile international capital markets he once touted as an economic cure-all not only didn’t pan out, but led the world into a terrifying chasm of seemingly irreversible economic catastrophe; his beloved ‘Golden Straitjacket’ of American-style global development (forced on the world by the ‘hidden fist’ of American military power) turned out to be the vehicle for the very energy/ecological crisis Friedman himself warns about.”
Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump.
Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.
“We’re backed into a corner,” said Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’”
The story above appeared in The New York Times. Like a broken clock, the “newspaper of record” can be right twice a day. Well, twice a day may be a bit over the top.
But here is some more of the article:
Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right.
“The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist, 34, who works in sales for a tech start-up in Mountain View, Calif., a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Trump. “They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.”
Youngquist did not put a bumper sticker on his car, for fear it would be keyed. The only place he felt comfortable wearing his Make America Great Again hat was on vacation in China.
He came out a few days before the election. On election night, a friend posted on Facebook, “You are a disgusting human being.”
“They were making me want to support him more with how irrational they were being,” Youngquist said.
Like many Trump supporters, I have been shamed by some of the same people who display yard signs that say: “Hate Has No Home Here.”
In academia, I have to sit through meetings, which have nothing to do with politics, that include numerous jabs at Trump supporters. I have come up with a few responses to Trump bashers:
–Statement: Hillary won the popular vote!
–My response: Then start a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.
–Statement: The right wing is taking over!
–My response: It’s not about right or left; it’s about failed policies.
–Statement: It’s Bush’s fault!
–My response: He left office almost a decade ago. Move on!
–Statement: Trump supporters are stupid racists!
–My response: Trump beat Clinton in these demographics: white, college-educated and 65 and over. That’s me! Do you really think I’m a stupid racist?
Nevertheless, I would like to thank liberals and leftists for pushing people firmly into the Trump camp!
The New York Times asked me for my opinion about their news coverage, so I gave it to them with both barrels.
As a subscriber to the digital edition of The Times, I became one of the “lucky” candidates to spend more than an hour answering dozens of questions about the newspaper and myriad other issues.
Although the survey is not intended to serve as a scientifically based poll, the bias oozed from the questions.
For example, here’s one question: What three words best describe your initial reaction to Donald Trump winning the election? I doubt that elated sprung to others’ minds like it did for me!
Another one: Which of the following best describes Donald Trump when it comes to “sticking to the facts?”
–Sticks to the facts better than most politicians
–Sticks to the facts about as well as any politician
–Plays it more “fast and loose” when it comes to facts
–There has never been a major politician as devoid (or empty) of facts as him
When the survey asked for my opinion about The New York Times, I was asked to compare it with Fox News, the Drudge Report and Bloomberg News. That seemed like an extremely odd combination. I understand that the news organization thinks it competes with the world, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post seem like better comparable news organizations.
But then I got some red meat!
Question: How often do you come across news stories about politics and government online that you think are not fully accurate?
Question: And how often do you come across news stories about politics and government online that you think are almost completely made up? Check. Often.
Question: What three words best describes your feelings about the news media and news organizations right now?
My answer: unreliable, biased, partisan
Question: In general, what is your overall impression of the news media and news organizations?
—Very unfavorable [check].
–Neither unfavorable nor favorable
–Very favorable impression of the news media and news organizations
In general, how satisfied are you with the news coverage you are currently getting about President-Elect Donald Trump?
—Not at all satisfied
–Not very satisfied
Um, not at all satisfied seemed appropriate.
Here are some weird choices—many of which lean toward a favorable review of the media. I was supposed to pick the ones I agreed with.
–There are not enough positive/uplifting stories in the news
–Most news stories are generally accurate
— Most news stories get the facts straight
— In presenting news about social issues, most news deals fairly with all sides
— I’m taking a break from news for awhile
— It is easy for me to tell the difference between hard news and opinion
— I’m seeking more “soft news” these days
— I find sensational news headlines irresistible
— In presenting news about political issues, most news deals fairly with all sides
— News is no longer relevant to me
— I think the freedom of the press is part of a healthy democracy
–Most news is generally trustworthy
— These days it seems like news cannot be objectively reported
–All news is pretty much the same regardless of where you get it
–Most news is reported without bias
I really needed a selection here for “other.”
Here is an example of confirmation bias: Now thinking about news organizations in general, which of the following applies?
–Practice high journalistic standards [Seriously?].
–Objectively report the news [You betcha].
–Provide a service to the public [C’mon!]
–Has reporters with strong expertise in the topics they cover [Paul Krugman and Charles Blow?]
–Are trustworthy [About the same as car salesmen, with no offense meant to auto dealerships].
–Lie or mislead [Finally, I can agree with something!]
Here was one in my wheelhouse: Now, thinking about The New York Times, which of the following applies?
—Practice high journalistic standards [Nope].
–Objectively report the news [Nope]
–Provide a service to the public [Ditto]
–Has reporters with strong expertise in the topics they cover [Are you kidding?]
–Are trustworthy [Sorry, car salesmen].
–Lie or mislead [YES, YES and YES!]
Which, if any, of the following applies to The New York Times? I dispatched the complimentary ones and chose the following:
–Does not deal fairly with all sides on political issues
–Too focused on New York
–Makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between hard news and opinion
–It’s politically biased
–Does not get the facts straight
–Unreliable; I don’t trust their reporting
–Does not deal fairly with all sides on social issues
I will allow that I was a bit disingenuous on some questions. I said I voted for Hillary Clinton. I wanted to see what happened. Later, I was asked again if I really voted for her.
I said I was a moderate who supported equal rights for everyone. I was tempted to choose one of the many religious options, including Shinto, Muslim, Taoist, Hindu or Buddhist. I settled for Christian since Catholic was not an option.
I accurately described myself as an educator who lived in a large metropolitan area and had a good income. Alas, deplorable was not an option here.
I doubt that my answers will affect the way The Times operates, but it sure was fun to take the survey. In fact, it’s the most fun I’ve had since the day after the election!
A lot of people seem surprised at the sudden: Hillary Clinton for Mayor of NYC push.
Clinton for mayor talk makes perfect sense if you consider this:
Because of demise of the Clinton brand, the Clinton Foundation resorts to bottom feeding, at least by their former fundraising standards. These people would have scoffed at such a small fundraiser only a few weeks ago. The Clinton Foundation’s donor list represented the Who’s Who of corporate elites, politicos, and countries. Not anymore.
If the Clinton Crime Family™ is going to have any chance of shaking down big corporations they need a powerful position. NYC is perfect:
It has an overwhelming majority of Democrats voters who gave her an incredible margin of victory in 2016, furthermore it has a large minority population that can counteract any Bernie voters who want to make trouble.
It has a city council so radical it makes Massachusetts look conservative
It puts her in the media and cultural center of the nation giving the media a reason to obsessively cover her every move.
As NYC is Trump’s home base a Clinton Administration is perfectly positioned to make troubles for Trump’s holdings if she so chooses, or take credit if his policies improve things in the city and a national paper (the NYT) prepared to make either case for her as she chooses.
But most important of all not only does it, as the financial center of the nation offer great opportunities to shake down major corporations, as an international city it gives all the various nations a reason to keep the money flowing their way.
“But DaTechGuy” you might ask, “Why wouldn’t she go for Governor of NY or perhaps California instead?” Wouldn’t that be more powerful and be a natural jumping off point if she wishes to try again in 2020?”
That would be true but the Mayor’s position carries much less risk, No matter how badly she fails as mayor there is a zero possibility that the city council in NYC will flip to the GOP while there is the possibility that even if she wished to challenge the Cuomo dynasty a Clinton admin could be such a disaster that the GOP could make significant gains statewide.
Furthermore as the a Mayor she would be in a position to appeal to a Democrat Governor for state funds if a crisis ensues (and under Clinton such a crisis is bound to happen) while as a Governor she would have to turn to Trump, meanwhile NYC’s position as a cultural, financial and media hub makes it much less likely that a company, no matter how badly hit by Clinton’s policies, would choose to relocate.
Since day one the Clintons have been all about the money, put a Clinton in as mayor of NYC and the Clinton Foundation can feast on donor funds till the day they die.