The whole point of Jacksonianism is “You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I’ll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I’ll kill you.”
Steven Den Bestie
The big story of the day is not as some are suggesting the Hunter Biden story at the NY Post which provides proof of the wrongdoing of the VP’s son and his knowledge of said wrongdoing, or even the fact that Democrat hack George (I’m an unbiased journalist, sure I am) Stephanopoulos didn’t even ask him about said story at the ABC town hall.
Anyone who has followed the career of Joe Biden or of Georgie the fixer would not be all that surprised by it.
The big story is and remains the decision of Twitter and Facebook to cross the Rubicon.
You see once you chosen sides publicly there is no going back. You can’t “uncensor” these people and have either conservative in general, who they have been picking on for years or the Trump administration in particular, who never trusted them believe that all is now well and once the election is over they will let bygones be bygones.
That’s not how President Trump works. He is a Jacksonian with a long memory.
I told you they’re all in on their censorship. Twitter is now deprecating links to official dot gov websites.
We’ve seen some backing off but I find that hilarious because they have apparently not figured out that the retribution they will get from the reelected Trump administration will not be any less then if they kept it up.
I’m not completely shocked at this move as I believe ans suspect that this was all authorized by people in middle management who presumed the support of their superiors because their tribal political opinions without realizing the line they crossed or the consequences thereof to the bottom line in the long run that the big boys understand
But like Robert E Lee being forced by Maj. Gen. Robert Rodes into battle on ground he did not choose at Gettysburg Jack, Zuck and company find themselves in a fight on ground that doesn’t favor them forcing them to either run or commit their entire resources to try and salvage a victory.
Neither option is going to end well. If they choose to stay and fight (which I think they still might despite trying to bluff their way out I believe their version of Picket’s Charge will fail with a lot less success than the original and then Trump, unlike Meade, will not fail to follow them up and finish them off.
Their attempts to equivocate and bluff are the equivalent of trying to run in the face of the enemy and again, Trump unlike Meade will not waste any time hitting them in motion and destroying them.
I’ll enjoy that sight: Remember Stacy McCain
Postscript. It’s worth noting that no matter what the result of the election, that any suits against these social media giants face (and they will invariably come over these actions) will ultimately be decided a Supreme Court that will include Amy Coney Barrett.
“Our democracy is in terrible danger — more than since the Civil War, more than after Pearl Harbor, more than during the Cuban missile crisis, and more danger than during Watergate.”
It’s rare to see a meltdown like the one DaTimes’ Tommy Friedman had in his column, which included the sentence above.
Just think about it. Tommy, who supported that great leader Mike Bloomberg in the Democrat primaries, thinks President Trump is leading the country into a civil war. He’s responsible for worse conditions than Pearl Harbor, and his leadership has led the country into a potential nuclear war? Trump is worse than Nixon?
Tommy compares the United States with Lebanon during its civil war. Tommy’s office at United Press International was just across from mine at Newsweek in Beirut. I was there, too, and I don’t see any comparisons between a war that left more than 100,000 dead with what’s happening in the United States.
Somehow Tommy transitions from the Lebanese civil war to social media and the problems they have created. I’m no fan of Facebook and Twitter and their leftist slant, but the hyperbole of comparing guerrillas with rocket-propelled grenades in Lebanon to trolls with hurtful words is a bit much.
The solution to all of America’s problems, Tommy opines, is Joe Biden. Seriously?
“The Democratic Party sorted through all the choices, and, led by older Black men and women in South Carolina, rejected the Democratic socialist candidate and said they wanted a moderate unifier named Joe Biden,” Tommy says.
What alternate universe is Tommy living in? South Carolina voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016, and Democrats have virtually no power throughout the state except to vote in a meaningless primary every four years.
What happened is that the Democrat power brokers knew that Bernie Sanders would lead to a massive election defeat. Hence, they backed a four-time loser in presidential primaries that they could control.
Tommy’s meltdown continues in his description of Trump as “the most dishonest, dangerous, mean-spirited, divisive, and corrupt person to ever occupy the Oval Office.”
Seriously? Maybe Tommy forgot fellow journalist Warren Harding, who engaged in the most scandal-ridden presidency in history.
Maybe Franklin Pierce, who set the stage for the Civil War, or James Buchanan, who followed through on Pierce’s pro-slavery campaign? Maybe Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached?
But Tommy chooses not to reflect on history; he’s on a ridiculous role.
Tommy concludes: “So help register someone to vote for Joe Biden. Phone bank for Joe Biden. Talk to your neighbor about Joe Biden. Volunteer for Joe Biden. Drive someone to the polls to vote for Joe Biden.
“Do it as if your country’s democracy depends on it, because it does.”
DaTimes needs to put Tommy out to pasture like Americans have to do with Joe.
The demands on whoever is president are brutal. If CNN believes that Biden can’t handle challenging queries then that in my opinion disqualifies him to be leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. And if CNN is just shilling for the Democrats, then no one should take them seriously as a news outlet. Based on their poor ratings, most people already do not.
Here are some questions that responsible reporters should be asking Biden. The wonderful thing about the questions I’ve devised is that most of them can be posed to President Trump. Yes, a few of these queries have been given to Biden, but generally only once and with dismissive answers from the Democratic nominee.
Here we go:
Will you be releasing the names of your potential Supreme Court nominees, as President Trump did as a candidate in 2016 and did earlier this month?
Do you support “packing the Supreme Court,” that is, nominating additional justices to the court to go beyond nine members?
Do you unconditionally oppose Antifa?
Will a Biden administration investigate plots by Antifa and other groups to incite riots in cities such as Portland?
You favor a nationwide mask mandate to fight COVID-19. What is your legal basis for instituting one?
Do you support statehood for the District of Columbia? And for Puerto Rico?
Many states, such as Illinois, Kentucky, and New Jersey, have public-sector worker pension plans that are essentially bankrupt. Do you support a federal bailout of these and other state worker pension plans?
Numerous cities also have similarly under-funded pension plans. Will you back a bailout of those plans?
What is your position on bailing out states whose tax revenues have plummeted because of COVID-19 lockdowns?
Do you favor allowing states to declare bankruptcy?
Speaking of Illinois, in 2008 the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, was in the midst of a corruption investigation of Rod Blagojevich, the governor of the state, and Tony Rezko, a member of Blago’s inner circle who donated large sums to the campaigns of Barack Obama. Your ticket mate kept Fitzgerald in his post after becoming president. This year John Lausch, the current US Attorney in Chicago, is in the thick of investigating more public corruption. The center of this scandal appears to be longtime Illinois state House speaker Michael Madigan who is also the chairman of the state Democratic Party. If elected will you keep Lausch in his post?
If elected you will be older than Ronald Reagan, the oldest person to serve as president, was when he left office after two terms. Are you physically and mentally up to the office? If you are now what will happen if you one day are not?
Do you support the Green New Deal?
Do you support fracking?
Do you support nuclear power?
Do you support coal power?
Do you back amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Do you utilize teleprompters during interviews and question-and-answer sessions?
I’m sure there are many more questions readers can come up with.
If Donald Trump is for the Peace Prize they’re agan it!
Can we now assume that the Nobel Peace prize for Barack Obama was an affirmative action award?
I think it’s been really something to see the left go on a full defense of what objectively is child porn in their defense of Netflix “Cuties”
If I was Donald Trump I’d direct the AG to investigate if the movies violates US child porn laws as written.
The whole: ” If Donald Trump is against Child Porn then I’m for it” reaction from will be something to see, of course in fairness they’re already all defending it. I wonder how fast they would condemn the movie Fatima about the miracles there if Trump came out for it?
Well at least the new peace deal between Barain and Israel is something that Democrats can celebrate. Right?
“After watching Thursday’s game and also watching the Dolphins players’ video, it shows that it is not about who is standing or who is kneeling for the anthem,” Mayfield said. “But instead, coming together and taking action to create real change. Also after reading many letters and messages over the past few weeks, I have been showed (sic) that a gesture such as kneeling will only create more division or discussion about the gesture, rather than be a solution towards our country’s problems at hand. With that being said, I am choosing to stand for both anthems to show respect, love, and unity to everybody involved.”
Trump will obviously be for this so as you might guess the left is agan it but I suspect those who have invested in him as an advertising spokesman are for it. The real question is this: Given that the Ravens are expected to be blitzing a lot will his offensive line be for it or agan it?
After repeated examples of lousy journalism under cover of anonymous sources, it’s time to remove them from the reporter’s toolbox.
Here are some examples of false stories that came to you, the reader or viewer, as a result of anonymous sources:
—The New York Times and Judith Miller’s allegations that Saddam Hussein had vast caches of weapons of mass destruction
–The Rolling Stone “investigation” of rape on college campuses
–A New York Times story claiming that federal prosecutors were seeking a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton for her private email accounts
–A CNN story that Congress was investigating a Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials
–A Washington Post story that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electrical grid
–An MSNBC report that Russian billionaires with ties to Vladimir Putin had co-signed a bank loan for President Trump
In these and many other cases, the prime motivation to use anonymous sources is because the reporter wanted the allegations to be true.
I worked in Washington, where I found the default is usually to promise anonymity because it usually serves the reporter and the source. At the end of the daily news cycle, it doesn’t matter whether the story was true. What counted was the number of eyeballs attracted to the story!
In a discussion on the recent Atlantic claims about Trump and the military, some of my former colleagues in journalism offered Watergate as the underlying justification for anonymous sources.
That was almost 50 years ago! For every good example of what has happened because of anonymous sources, how many bad examples have happened? It took me only a few minutes to recall the fake stories I listed at the top. Give me a few hours, and I’d come up with a basketful.
Oh, how about Dan Rather and Memogate? Maybe Little Jimmy and Janet Cook?
Moreover, news organizations rarely follow their guidelines on the use of anonymous sources. In most ethical codes, a reporter should ONLY use an unnamed source as a last resort. A senior editor usually has to approve the use, and a second source must corroborate the information.
I’ve served as an expert witness in half a dozen lawsuits where reporters and editors didn’t come close to following these guidelines and libeled innocent people.
I recommend that journalists watch Absence of Malice, the 1981 film that analyzes how the use of anonymous sources results in the death of one woman, the disgrace of local and federal prosecutors, and the end of a journalist’s career.
And I didn’t even have to mention the growing disbelief of the public toward journalists as a result of anonymous sources and other miscues.
The headline is a reference to the Sly and the Family Stone album from 1971, There’s a Riot Goin’ On. He’s largely forgotten now–although some his songs remain recognizable to the masses–but Sly Stone was the Prince of his day, a crossover artist, that is, he was very popular among blacks and whites. His band, unusual for the time, was multi-racial. Just like Prince and the Revolution.
The album title was a sarcastic reference to the riot that broke out when the band couldn’t, or Sly Stone wouldn’t, show up for a performance at Grant Park in downtown Chicago the prior year. Stone had a reputation for blowing off gigs, which added to the excitement, as well as the tension, of a Sly concert. Will the superstar show up?
Well on July 27, 1970 tension prevailed when Sly and the band were a no-show. Store windows were smashed, police cars were set on fire, rocks and bottles were thrown at cops, and three people were shot in what the contemporary media called a riot. Because it was one. The Chicago Sun-Times front page headline from the next day read “Rock fans in riot, 90 injured, 148 held.” Looking back to my own youth in the Chicago area I can now understand why my parents were horrified when I expressed my interest in going to rock concerts later that decade. The subhead of that Sun-Times article read, “Battle starts in Grant Park, spills over into Loop.” A look at the media images available on Google of the riot confirms the diverse spectrum of Sly Stone’s fan base.
Fifty years and a month later there was a riot goin’ on sixty miles north of Grant Park in a small Wisconsin city that has been devoured by Chicago and Milwaukee suburban sprawl, Kenosha.
Except Wisconsin’s largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, didn’t call it a riot, instead is chose such tame words as “unrest” and “disturbance.” Readers of the Journal Sentinel complained which led the paper to publish an article that explained the apologist tone (my words) of last month’s coverage of the Kenosha riots that broke out after Jacob Blake, a black man with an open warrant for his arrest, was shot seven times by a police officer in what is clearly a tragedy.
As we’ve seen in cities around the country this summer, protest participants and the activities surrounding them often change throughout the day and night. Peaceful protests can happen all day long and then fires can be set or violence occurs late at night by people not associated with the protesters. Would it be fair or accurate to label all that happened that day a “riot” — especially in a headline summing things up? We don’t think so.
And there are historical racial overtones in the use of that word in America.
As Dorothy Tucker, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, said on the PBS NewsHour in June, “There is concern that it is automatically labeled as a riot if it is African-Americans who are protesting, but it’s not labeled as a riot when you see the same kind of destruction after a concert or after a sporting event. So there are words that have that association.”
Of course the Journal Sentinel sent reporters down Interstate 41-94 to see Kenosha for themselves. There was vandalism, arson, and looting. In short, a riot. I visited Kenosha–after the riots were over–twice last week. My blog reports are here and here. Downtown every business was boarded up. So were the churches. Most horribly, an automobile dealership with about 100 cars in its inventory saw nearly every one of its cars set ablaze. Near that dealership Kyle Rittenhouse, an Illinois teen, allegedly shot two people and wounded a third during the, ahem, disturbance.
What occurred in Kenosha met the commonly accepted, unless you are woke, definition of a riot.
Yes there are peaceful protests and peaceful activists protesting the death of George Floyd and other outrages. But Antifa and the like, as I’ve remarked before, are using these protests as a Trojan horse to raise hell. See Portland. Even Chicago’s liberal mayor, Lori Lightfoot, admitted so, albeit in slightly more moderate language last month as I noted in this space before. “What we’ve seen is people who have embedded themselves in these seemingly peaceful protests,” she told Face the Nation, “and have come for a fight.”
With such reporting on “facts” it’s easy to comprehend why readership of daily newspapers such as the Journal Sentinel continues to plummet as these publications are more concerned about appearing woke and satisfying the left-wing echo chamber they choose to inhabit.
Last week the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web James Freeman said of such contorted reporting and the questions of why the Journal Sentinel purses such a strategy, “No doubt citizens nationwide have the same question for many politicians and members of the press corps who have lately been extremely creative in conjuring euphemisms for destruction and lawlessness.”
Thankfully one such mainstream media euphemism for riots, which dates back to the Occupy movement, “mostly peaceful,” has been for the most part placed into forced retirement, but only because of repeated ridicule on Twitter and other social media platforms. As Mark Levin quipped on his show a few months ago, “Mostly peaceful means mostly violent!” But as you’ll see “mostly peaceful” has not been completely eradicated.
As for Kenosha, as I mentioned before, every downtown business was hit by looters. Even on the edge of the city malls were struck by vandals and thieves. Those businesses of course employ people. Families are supported by them.
There was a riot in Kenosha last month. A three-day long one.
Even if Milwaukee Journal Sentinel refuses to say so.
There seems to be some confusion as to why the left media are reaching so far to promote the Biden Ticket as to appear crazy.
One might wonder how these places stay in the news / information business with reporting like this.
The answer is these people are not in the news business, they are in the religion business.
Now I don’t mean the religion business in the way that Christianity or Islam is a religion in the sense that they believe in a God whose message of forgiveness and repentance are delivered by his son (Christ and Christianity) or message of submission and obedience are proclaimed by his prophet (Mohammad).
No I mean religion in the sense that their audiences have a fixed set of beliefs from Orange Man Bad to straight white people are the source of all evil to police are murdering innocent people in the street the source of evil.
And because these things are articles of faith to those remaining viewers who tune in to affirm their beliefs all must be framed in the lens of said beliefs.
So when riots violence and looting were going on for months the reassured the faithful that nothing was happen but when it became impossible to ignore suddenly they were Trump riots.
So when Joe Biden had a lackluster convention and a generic speech it was the greatest speech in the history of history, but when Trump brought in people to provide a message of optomism it became a “dark” message.
So when Donald Trump announced his intention to go to Kenosha they reported that Joe Biden wouldn’t go, that he shouldn’t go there, that people didn’t want him there and it would cause violence and trouble.
Then after his visit was a success Joe Biden decided to go to Kenosha, but wouldn’t take questions there, it makes no difference to the faithful
None of it is about reality, it’s all about affirming the beliefs of the church of the liberals
That why we are seeing the “Trump will win in a landslide on election night but will lose a week later” meme from Axios. Part of it of course is the hope that enough votes can be stolen to win (particularly once they know how many they need to steal) but most of it is a Millerite attempt to postpone the day of reckoning where people say, “how can this be? We’ve been told this wasn’t happening for months?
When you think of it this way, it all makes sense.
President Trump probably wouldn’t rank in the top five opponents of the media among U.S. presidents.
That’s the verdict of The New York Times in a review of a recent book, “The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media — From the Founding Fathers to Fake News” by Harold Holzer.
Yes, that assessment appeared in DaTimes, albeit from Jack Shafer, the media analyst of Politico.
The book’s author is no fan of President Trump. Holzer worked for U.S. Rep. Bella Abzug and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.
John Adams signed sedition acts into law and used them against his critics in the media. George Washington even supported Adams’ anti-media tendencies. In his post-presidential years, Adams lamented that people read only Federalist or Republican newspapers—not both—leaving them with a one-sided view of the government in power. Sounds like a prelude to Fox and MSNBC.
Abraham Lincoln, arguably the best president in the nation’s history, imprisoned editors during the Civil War, banned newspapers from using the mail, and even confiscated printing presses. “Altogether, nearly 200 papers would face federally initiated subjugation during the Civil War,” Holzer writes.
The Roosevelts enjoyed some of the best press among the presidents. But even they took aim at recalcitrant reporters. Theodore Roosevelt rebuked investigative journalists as “muckrakers,” or those who could only look down into the muck. He also filed a libel suit against Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World, which finally was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt ordered massive censorship of news organizations, including a government Office of the Censor. His administration also penalized any news organization that reported about his paralysis or his ill health in his final years.
President Woodrow Wilson imposed censorship during World War I in a heavy-handed manner, and his Espionage Act still stands as a repressive law against whistleblowers.
The battle between President Richard Nixon and his press critics is well documented here—as it has been elsewhere.
Although Holzer batters Trump for his attacks on the press, the author doesn’t hold back on Barack Obama. Holzer recalls the analysis of former Washington Post managing editor Leonard Downie Jr. that Obama’s “war on leaks and other efforts to control information” were the worst Washington had seen since Nixon.
All told, the book analyzes the 18 of the 45 presidents, with many nuggets about the various administrations.
For example, one journalist confides that the press was as much responsible for the New Deal as was FDR because of the glowing media coverage. That sounds about right!
Moreover, the press ignored JFK’s extra-marital affairs because journalists didn’t think the private doings affected public business. That, of course, ignored at least one affair that straddled a mistress and the Mob. One reporter referred to the president as the “swashbuckler in chief.”
Despite JFK’s tryst with the media, he targeted some enemies, including Henry Luce of Time and David Halberstam of DaTimes.
Although I’ve never been a fan of Lyndon Johnson, the saddest tales come from his administration. LBJ had a massive mandate from the voters in 1964–more than 61 percent–and an excellent rapport with the press. He managed to lose both public and the media’s support by misleading them about the war in Vietnam in what became known as the government’s credibility gap.
One state over in Wisconsin, during the rioting and looting in Kenosha last week, a 17-year-old from nearby Antioch, Illinois, Kyle Rittenhouse, was charged with murdering three people. The media is focusing on how the riots started–anger over police shooting Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old with a criminal record, seven times. Fair enough.
Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, responded to the mayhem by sending a small force of National Guard trips, 125 of them, on Monday, which was doubled the next day. After Tuesday’s shootings Evers doubled the deployment again and he’s since accepted Guard assistance from other states and from the federal government.
But what if Evers dispatched 500 National Guard troops to Kenosha as soon as the rioting started Sunday night? Perhaps that militia would have stayed home and Rittenhouse, who appears to be a troubled cop-wannabe that got his hands on an AR-15 rifle despite being a minor, would have remained home in Illinois.
Details are still coming in on the shooting death of a man during Saturday’s round of rioting in Portland, Oregon. Last night a pro-Trump group confronted Black Lives Matter in downtown Portland. In what the local police are calling a homicide–a man wearing clothing with a Patriot Prayer logo was shot to death in the middle of a street. The Oregonian is calling Patriot Prayer a far-right group. Of course the mainstream media never calls Antifa far-left, but that’s a subject for another post, of course.
The rioting, mercifully no longer called “mostly peaceful” by the media, has been a nightly event for three months in Oregon’s largest city. Portland’s ineffective mayor, Ted Wheeler, is deaf to the concern of law-abiding citizens of the Rose City.
It’s a new week. Hopefully last week’s riot deaths will be the last ones. And perhaps these homicides will finally compel mayors like Wheeler to take back their cities in the names of the rank-and-file citizens they claim to represent.
Never forget: The most important responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens.
As for the mainstream media, I believe they are too far gone to save themselves.
Against the backdrop of the investigations into Russia and Ukraine, the New York Times failed to mention one of the most egregious failures about the region propagated by the news organization itself.
Fortunately, a recently released motion picture, Mr. Jones, provides the details of how DaTimes manipulated the American public about the Soviet Union and the Ukraine famine, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
The film, directed by Agnieszka Holland, recounts the story of Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty, a chief propagandist for Josef Stalin, and how Welsh journalist Gareth Jones tried to unmask the gross falsehoods created by the then-venerated Times scribe.
Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Soviet Union in 1931, dismissed Jones’ first-hand accounts of the famine, known as the Holomodor.
Here are some excerpts from Duranty’s reports:
–New York Times, November 15, 1931: “There is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be.”
–New York Times, August 23, 1933: “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”
–New York Times, December 9, 1932: “Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.”
–New York Times, May 14, 1933: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
At the time, Duranty was so influential that his reporting is credited for convincing FDR to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.
Although Jones and others provided extensive evidence to refute Duranty’s reporting, it wasn’t until 2003 that the Pulitzer Board and DaTimes itself finally sought outside analysis of the work.
The Pulitzer “Board determined that Mr. Duranty’s 1931 work, measured by today’s standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short…. However, the Board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case….The famine of 1932-1933 was horrific and has not received the international attention it deserves. By its decision, the Board in no way wishes to diminish the gravity of that loss. The Board extends its sympathy to Ukrainians and others in the United States and throughout the world who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin.”
Ironically, DaTimes’ review of Mr. Jones only references Duranty in passing. At least that’s more than what DaTimes said during the recent debate over Russia and Ukraine.