No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘MSM bias

Die MSM, Die – Rewriting history

with 8 comments

In the famous novel Nineteen Eighty Four, the job of the main protagonist, Winston Smith, is to rewrite history in the Ministry of Truth, in order to bring it in line with current political thinking.

One of the aspects of the book that may have been missed by critics is that it would be quite possible to have aspects of the dystopian future appear in real life without all the rest of the totalitarian nightmare.

So far.

Another miss of the book is that it never foresaw the possibility of the private sector effectively becoming a arm of the government, something I would have thought Orwell would have lept upon, but then the book was more designed at taking a shot at Lenin and Stalin’s USSR by imagining the same thing happening in Britain, rather than trying to predict where our capitalist social democracies would go in the future.

In any case, we’ve arrived at full WInston Smith mode, courtesy of the Washington Post:

That’s right kids, in the wake of the Wuhan Lab Leak theory suddenly going from a Conspiracy Theory to damned near certain, the WaPo did not just suddenly do a backflip on reporting that – along with the rest of the howling MSM banshees – they determined to change their own past.

In this case by changing the headline and parts of a fifteen month-old story where they gleefully slammed a Republican Senator named Tom Cotton when he raised the theory by saying that it had been “debunked”. That word, together with “conspiracy theory” have also been wiped from the body of the headline.

New Washington Post motto: Democracy dies in stealth edits of old headlines.

There’s plenty more on this story that has broken in the last week which deserves a post of its own, but for now I’ll leave you with the Anti-Trump right-wing magazine, The National Review and former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy:

Of course, it’s only circumstantial evidence. We may never know the truth.”

If I’ve heard this once, over more decades than I care to admit, I’ve heard it a thousand times. It is the rote dismissal of circumstantially based cases, and it is almost always wrong.

I was a prosecutor for a long time, and prosecutors are in the business of proving stuff. Every good one will tell you that the best case is a strong circumstantial case. It is the most airtight and least problematic kind of proof.

Circumstantial cases are a tapestry of objectively provable facts. No one of those facts, by itself, establishes the ultimate conclusion for which all the interconnected facts collectively stand. Instead, each single fact supports a subordinate proposition that must be true in order for the ultimate conclusion to be valid. Stitch enough of those subordinate propositions together and the ultimate conclusion is inexorable.

In this case the conclusion that China is culpable for this disaster.

But the point of this post is that none of this is new knowledge or evidence. There have been places reporting on the known facts for a year now, and stringing them together in reasonable ways. Arguments could be made and were made in opposition, but there was never any intelligent, rational, reason to be so dismissive as were the Intellectual Giants of Probity like the WaPo, who never shifted off their backsides to actually ask tough questions of the likes of Peter Daszak, the poster boy behind the Lancet article that laid the groundwork for the MSM’s approach to this.

The sort of questions real investigative MSM journalists would have asked in the dim, distant past: like what Daszak’s motives were and how real and pure they were, what his connections to the Chinese Lung Rot virus were, scientifically, politically and financially.

But they didn’t. They just acted as stenographers of “The Experts”. It also helped immensely that such reporting might have helped Trump, and in 2020 that was not going to happen.

Aside from the virus there has also been a slow, steady – and for me anyway – an entirely predictable MSM turn in the reporting on the Burn Loot Murder and Antifia movements now that the Democrats are back in the saddle.

Congratulations on finally finding those “anarchists” Mr Kristof. Only a year behind non-MSM sources.

But even now the Post’s write-up tries to cover for “Black Lives Matter” as if they haven’t been absolutely complicit with Antifa in Portland. Antifa did not hijack a “social justice movement.” They started one hundred nights of rioting designed to smash the Portland police and all existing state authorities, and what we’re seeing is a direct result of that. BLM has rioted, looted, burned, and committed acts of violence in Portland just like those who claim the banner of Antifa. None of these groups get a pass. In fact, there’s essentially no daylight between them, which should never have been a surprise given the Far Left motivations of both groups.

No, the MSM doesn’t get to once again ride in years late on a story and get plaudits when they were the ones who did everything they could to suppress this issue. Only now that things are so thoroughly out of control are the bastards willing to even admit this stuff is happening.

And to think that there are adults, including politicians, who still rely on the MSM.

Written by Tom Hunter

June 8, 2021 at 3:10 pm

Die MSM, Die – Systemic Corruption

I’ve always been fascinated by the way that corruption can appear in different forms: spiritual, ethical, moral, political, financial.

It seems to me that the MSM are corrupted in all those ways now, and while I focus mainly on that of the US MSM’s, it’s likely that the NZ MSM are worse. Certainly there’s nothing even like Fox News here in NZ, or Australia’s Sky News.

It’s also getting worse, as shown by the following letter sent to Don Brash and quoted in his article, We Need Another News Channel:

I’ve spent three weeks trying to get either the Waikato Times (Stuff) or Waikato News (Herald) to take an opinion piece from me around the Maori wards issue – as there is a lot of information and background most people are unaware of.

I have been a local journalist in Hamilton for 30 years and I’ve done plenty of work for both outfits. I know the Waikato News editor well. He spent some time trying to talk me out of it (providing an opinion piece). Pertinent comment from him being ”I don’t want to make myself a target.”

He put the idea to NZME management and their come-back was ‘we will take nothing on this subject.’

I offered to buy a page as advertorial. Same roadblock.

Went to the Waikato Times (Stuff media), which also would not take an opinion piece. Again offered to buy a page as advertising. I provided the copy. They wanted me to reference every point I made in my copy like an academic paper and said it would have to go through the Advertising Standards Authority. I did this – referenced everything – as far as you can with opinion – declined in half an hour.

I asked if I could run a notice around a public rally in Civic Square before the Hamilton City Council’s Extraordinary Council meeting May 19 – where they will make a decision about Maori Wards – as a Display Advertisement – Yes! it seemed. The advertising staff were very helpful. The ‘Ad’ was laid out, and paid for ($3000) – a quarter page in this (15/5/21) Saturday’s paper, all go.

…4.30pm Friday I got a call from one of the ‘Times’ advertising people, whom I have known for 25 years, apologetic, she’d been instructed to ‘pull the ad’, as it ‘didn’t fit with our values’. Apparently it was passed by the local team, but had been stopped at executive level.

So, yes, something, or someone is gagging the media and is very determined that the co-governist roll-out will continue. We have a coup d’etat going on here.

I knew things were bad with the NZ MSM, but I didn’t know it was that bad. Also, the NZ ON Air funding guidelines reveal that obeying the dictates of the government in the area of Maori partnership is a key to getting the money:

Page 4, Section 6: “actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

Page 8: Appropriate people attached to the project in leadership roles who can manage and advise on these cultural and spiritual aspects of the production at critical stages (e.g. research, language advisors)

“Appropriate people”, eh? Yes, one cannot publish before it has been seen and approved by the Political Officer – if you want the government money that is the only thing keeping you alive. Of course we also have the other key element here:

‘I don’t want to make myself a target.”’

Despite this situation I don’t agree with Brash’s suggestion that what is needed is another TV/Radio channel to somehow correct this gross imbalance.

I know rather a lot of people under the age of 30 and not one of them watch broadcast TV or radio news. Their “channels” are on YouTube, Rumble, and the like. Their stars are people you’ve never heard of.

Talk to any schoolteacher of what used to be known as “Social Studies” in Y9 and Y10. They tear their hair out in trying to get their students to pay attention to “newspapers” and “TV” and “radio”, and that’s been the case for at least a decade now.

Basically broadcast media is dying across the West, and cable or satellite TV is only a few years behind: the NZ $55 million dumped into our local MSM is just another supporting fact. Look at the huge drops in viewers for CNN, MSNBC and the rest in the wake of Trump’s departure. It’s amusing to consider that he was their lifeblood for the last five years and that he knows it and they don’t.

What are the odds the NZ MSM will survive after the end of this government’s largesse? I do get the fact that a lot of people – mainly older people – still know nothing else, and given that they were the most likely victims of Chinese Lung Rot, and vote, explains a chunk of the media atmosphere here in NZ. That, plus the inertia of decades of Mass Media.

What Brash – with his usual cluelessness in moaning about the future rise of an NZ Fox News – does not realise is that the NZ MSM regard he and his ilk as their enemies, to be destroyed, which they’ve gone a long way towards doing. To them, he and Basset are just like Trump. But they’re aiming their weapons not just at people like them and National-ACT but any opposition on key issues, like that presented by the former journalist quoted. There is no point appealing to some ancient past of such, or “fairness” or “balance” with these people: they’ll laugh in your face.

Any future National-ACT government should therefore shut down TVNZ and RNZ. To keep them alive is simply to feed your enemies. Ignore the screaming and the crying. Their broad-spectrum support for the bulk of Labour-Green-Maori Party policies and the fact that, irrespective of what any government does, they’ll be dead anyway, means they should be cut off at the knees at the earliest possible moment.

It should be noted that they’re worth a lot less than when I suggested this on Kiwiblog in 2008:

They’re doomed and the probably know it now. They will increasingly be dependent on government revenue for their survival and know that at some stage they might simply be shut down by a future right-wing government as yet another useless government department. After all – how many right-wingers can honestly say that they see much of their values reflected in what is shown.

Forget privatisation, that train left the station a long time ago even if National had the appetite for it. TV1 and TV2 just really are not worth selling. At some future stage their ‘market’ value might drop to the point that somebody would risk picking them up – but that will be someway down the line and by the time any future government realises, probably no price will reflect how useless they are.

The government’s subsidy in 2021 tells us that we may be at that point, and on a far wider scale than the already taxpayer supported TVNZ and RNZ.

Another reason for not setting up an alternative network is the second rule of Politics coined by the great historian of the USSR, Robert Conquest:

Any organisation not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

The surviving private networks will still be on board the Labour-Green-Maori Party train, but at least National-ACT voters will have the satisfaction of knowing their tax dollars are not supporting their enemies.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 24, 2021 at 12:01 am

Posted in MSM, New Zealand, NZ Politics

Tagged with ,

Random Fun III

Another collection of things that don’t justify a post in themselves.

First up, what is it with Senators from Arizona? In this case Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, who has loud clothing choices and is wearing a ring labeled “Fuck Off”.

It’s not entirely a joke either considering that is exactly what’s she’s said (in more polite terms of course) to various Big Ideas from her own party, like a $15/hour minimum wage, votes for some Trump cabinet members, and ending the Senate filibuster on all legislation.

I know there’s stuff she supports that I don’t but I’m beginning to warm to Maverick II.

Second is one of those Big Ideas. There’s a Democrat party activist group that has decided to learn from history and try and avoid another Supreme Court pothole such as the one that happened with Justice Ginsburg hanging on grimly, only to die while a Republican was President.

The “Demand Justice” group has therefore decided to focus on the next oldest Democrat Justice – Stephen Breyer – and as you can see from the van driving around D.C. they’re very blunt about what they want.

Third is an interesting screen capture of some chatroom involving folk from the Middle East discussing the best ways to escape from where they are to head for Germany. You can see the recommended routes marked out, but what amused me was the nations the group thought should be avoided on the trip North, although I’m a little surprised that they think Greece is one path, since none other than the EU Commission President called it “our European shield”.

Fourth is a juicy item for all those folk who can’t argue a point and use links to “Fact Check” sites, like that of Politico’s “Truth-O-Meter”.

On its website, PolitiFact splits its Biden verdicts into “Facts Checks Of Biden” and “Fact Checks About Biden.” Our review of the first 100 days shows 13 fact checks “of Biden,” and 106 fact checks “about Biden.” That’s an eight-to-one disparity.

In other words, they’re much more sensitive about someone “lying” about Biden than they are about Biden lying. 

That’s hardly a surprise. As people’s trust in journalism has declined over the last twenty years, the same journalists started to form “Fact Check” groups where they could write the same stuff and exhibit the same bias that had caused the loss of trust in the first place.

It’s a scam that should have ended long ago, especially when you dig into their “Fact Checks” and find that most are simply arguing a different opinion, not a fact. The reason it has not ended is that Lefty politicians, activists and supporters love the sort of cheap, one-URL-link, argumentum ad verecundiam, gaslighting they get from the likes of Politico.

Following on from the post about New Zealand’s woeful productivity the other day I was reminded of this classic Dilbert question.

Of course there is the situation known as No Money – and irony too.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 19, 2021 at 9:27 am

Die MSM, Die – A blast from their lying past

Anybody who has followed US politics over the last few decades will remember a minor kerfuffle that occurred during the 1992 Presidential election.

Earlier that year the GOP primaries were happening and while not as exciting as the Democrat ones, because the incumbent President usually has no real challengers, people did pay some attention.

While conducting one of the usual election campaign photo opportunities President Bush dropped by a National Grocers Association convention in Orlando. One of the exhibits Bush visited was a demonstration of NCR’s checkout scanning technology, and he’s seen here at that point.

Following the triumph of Desert Storm, Bush was still riding reasonably high in the polls, even if they had declined a bit as a shallow recession appeared in late 1991 and pushed on into early 1992. But like most incumbent Presidents he was expected to win, so much so that several Democrat heavy hitters decided not to run that year, leaving the field to unknowns like some guy from Arkansas called Bill Clinton.

Still, the recession was seen as Bush’s weak spot and the Democrats began to chew away on this, along with their faithful lackey, The New York Times. The chosen narrative was that Bush didn’t really care about ordinary people, which was why he wasn’t doing anything to end the recession, so the idea was to produce endless articles showing how he was “out of touch” with the average American after decades in Washington D.C.

As you can see from the MSM coverage today of the current POTUS, an even more long-term incumbent of Washington D.C., narratives can be turned 180 degrees when the political and ideological need arises.

So when this photo and story appeared it was a gift to the NYT, and one of their lead reporters jumped all over it:

Today, for instance, [Bush] emerged from 11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions to confront the modern supermarket.Visiting the exhibition hall of the National Grocers Association convention here, Mr. Bush lingered at the mock-up of a checkout lane. He signed his name on an electronic pad used to detect check forgeries.

“If some guy came in and spelled George Bush differently, could you catch it?” the President asked. “Yes,” he was told, and he shook his head in wonder.

Some grocery stores began using electronic scanners as early as 1976, and the devices have been in general use in American supermarkets for a decade.

Because the NYT was regarded as the lead on any story, this one gave other editorial writers the chance to pile on and amplify the narrative (always an essential part of a propaganda campaign), like the Boston Globe

President Bush, according to reporters who followed him around Tuesday at the National Grocers Association convention in Orlando, Fla., had never before seen a supermarket cash register on which the name of the item and its price flashed on a screen when the item was dragged across an electronic scanner.

The scanner was introduced at supermarket checkouts in 1980, the year Bush was elected vice president, and is just one of the many aspects of everyday life from which a president (or vice president) is shielded in the private life of public office.

As opposed to this cool guy and his trumpet saxophone.

Then a small piece of truth emerged:

Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times hadn’t even been present at the grocers’ convention. He based his article on a two-paragraph report filed by the lone pool newspaperman allowed to cover the event, Gregg McDonald of the Houston Chronicle, who merely wrote that Bush had a “look of wonder” on his face and didn’t find the event significant enough to mention in his own story.

Moreover, Bush had good reason to express wonder: He wasn’t being shown then-standard scanner technology, but a new type of scanner that could weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes.


Bob Graham of NCR, who demonstrated the scanner technology for President Bush, said, “It’s foolish to think the president doesn’t know anything about grocery stores. He knew exactly what I was talking about.”

But by the time this truth leaked out it didn’t matter because it was buried on the back pages with one-time printing and then forgotten. To be fair there were some other MSM sources in the day that were more honest and less partisan than the Globe, NYT and others:

Newsweek screened the same tape and reported: “Bush acts curious and polite, but hardly amazed.” Michael Duffy of Time magazine called the whole thing “completely insignificant as a news event. It was prosaic, polite talk, and Bush is expert at that. If anything, he was bored.” 

Those semi-balanced days seem even longer ago than 1992.

But despite the likes of Time and Newsweek, The Narrative had multiple front-pages and therefore stuck – which was the intention of the NYT and other Democrat-supporting MSM sources. In fact it stuck so well that it’s still repeated, as it was with an ordinary 2009 NYT story about the history of the bar code scanner:

They even played a role in the 1992 presidential race, when then-PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush, at a campaign stop, seemed surprised by what had already become a technological staple of everyday life.

Also with a scathing NYT attack on John McCain about his supposed ludditism in 2008:

She even does my boarding passes – people can do that now,” Mr. McCain marveled. “When we go to the movies, she gets the tickets ahead of time. It’s incredible.”

Mr. McCain’s sense of wonder evoked the episode in the early 1990s when George H.W. Bush became overly impressed upon seeing a price scanner at a supermarket check-out counter.

As opposed to this cool guy and his Blackberry.

Yes, you’re seeing yet another standard pattern in the MSM, all the way to Cool Britannia and our own “Youth Adjacent” PM.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 18, 2021 at 12:47 pm

How to write like a Journolist

I’ve made reference before to one of my favourite US blogs, Althouse, produced by a now retired law professor living in Madison, Wisconsin. She’s been running the blog for fifteen years and is highly productive, usually punching out half-a-dozen posts per day while also apparently having a life.

One of the reasons I like her blog is that it’s quirky in the subjects it covers, though often deadly serious, and although a US Liberal she absolutely cannot stand bullshit from her own side of the fence, one example being her “civility bullshit” series of posts over the years.

Thus this post the other day on the MSM’s coverage of the Biden Administration’s new plan for “housing” illegal immigrants, starting with the WaPo’s article about one of these new “facilities”:

At the 66-acre site, groups of beige trailers encircle a giant white dining tent, a soccer field and a basketball court. There is a bright blue hospital tent with white bunk beds inside. A legal services trailer has the Spanish word ‘Bienvenidos,’ or welcome, on a banner on its roof. There are trailers for classrooms, a barber shop, a hair salon. The facility has its own ambulances and firetrucks, as well as its own water supply…. the most colorful trailer is at the entryway, where flowers, butterflies and handmade posters still hang on its walls….”

Ann, who voted for Biden, wonders how this article would have been written had it been a Trump “facility”, starting with replacing words such as “butterflies, encircle, bienvenidos, flowers, handmade, colorful, welcome, bright, salon, basketball, soccer,  blue, beige, firetrucks, facility, classrooms, barber shop, white, banner….”

One of her commentators rises to the challenge of how it would have been written for Trump:

Crowded into less than 70 acres, dusty trailers huddle around a military style mess tent, a few basketball hoops and what we were told is a soccer field. There is an ominous, blue medical tent crammed with narrow, sterile bunk beds of the type one associates with mental wards of the last century. A legal services trailer with a banner on its roof reads ‘Bienvenidos,’ or welcome, an irony that could hardly be lost on those kept here away from family, friends and the promise of America. In a half-hearted gesture towards the basic needs of its young inmates, trailers never designed for the job have been pressed into service as makeshift classrooms, a barber shop and a hair salon. A grim-looking ambulance and firetrucks stand ready in recognition of the inevitable. The camp’s water trickles reluctantly from hurriedly drilled, shallow wells. Standing out in this largely beige world, one trailer near the entryway has been ham-handedly decorated with cheap posters featuring butterflies and flowers, their once bright colors fading rapidly under the glaring sun.

You see? Anybody can be a Journolist nowadays. All it requires is knowing how to write around the Narrative you’ve already decided upon in advance. Give that man a job at the MSM! But there are literally hundreds, probably thousands of examples of such double standards:

For satirical site The Babylon Bee, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel:

It staggers me that there are people who still believe the MSM and the shite that they serve up.

Written by Tom Hunter

February 24, 2021 at 7:56 pm

Die MSM, Die – More NYT and WaPo fail

Why on earth do blog commentators and authors keep linking to the New York Times and the Washington Post?

There was a time, many moons ago, when their motto of “All The News That’s Fit To Print” was a pretty accurate description of them.

Sure, they were “Liberal” (in the American sense) and had not supported a Republican Presidential candidate in many decades, but they deserved to be taken seriously, especially by other MSM sources. If you were a journalist and the NYT was covering a story than you should too.

But they’ve fallen a long way from that peak, as former NYT reporter Michael Goodwin explains:

The separation of news from opinion was an ingrained part of the culture at The New York Times when I started there in the 1970s.

As a young reporter, I knew the rule without understanding its significance. I only knew I was not permitted to express my opinions in my stories.

Those were the days when copy was edited by hand and if you veered into editorializing, editors simply crossed out the offending words. You learned of your mistake when you read the paper the next day and realized your opinion was on the cutting-room floor.

This was a painful way to learn, but learn we did.

The top editor then was the late Abe Rosenthal. He said he knew reporters tended to lean left politically, so he steered the editing process to the right. That way, he said, the paper would end up in the ­middle.

He often declared that his epitaph would be, “he kept the paper straight.”

Combined with this has been the increasing reference to “unnamed sources”, which increasingly appear to have been several layers removed from the event being reported on, and perhaps just made up out of whole cloth.

In addition, anonymous sources were not permitted to make derogatory statements about someone. Because the target would have no way to respond when the source was shielded, reporters were not permitted to use derogatory quotations from anonymous sources.

As Goodwin goes on to detail, none of the above is the case any more, which is why the NYT has fallen so far, so fast. There’s also this article, which tells the story of former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie and his book All About The Story, where he became yet another casualty of the need for all MSM “reporting” and “journalism” to be about The Narrative:

The reason for Downie’s sacking was the changing nature of journalism. By 2008 the digital revolution had drained advertising dollars, and the Post wanted younger, sharper staffers to handle the change…

Although Downie’s tenure was fairly recent, All About the Story reads like an artifact from a different and distant epoch, when journalists were liberal but not corrupt, duplicitous social-justice zealots. Downie led the Post from 1991 to 2008, taking over after the retirement of legend Ben Bradlee. Under Downie’s leadership, the Post won 25 Pulitzer Prizes, including three Pulitzer Gold Medals for Public Service.

By the time of Trump’s rise it was no longer a question of declining standards but of dumping them altogether, as explained by New York University professor Jay Rosen in the WaPo in July 2016:

Trump isn’t behaving like a normal candidate; he’s acting like an unbound one. In response, journalists have to become less predictable themselves. They have to come up with novel responses. They have to do things they have never done. They may even have to shock us…they may have to call Trump out with a forcefulness never seen before…they will have to explain to the public that Trump is a special case, and the normal rules do not apply.

Except that the result of this SJW “reporting” were stories that turned out badly for the paper:

Part of the Mueller probe into Russia involved a story that ran in the Washington Post in July 2016. The headline: “Trump Campaign Guts GOP’s Anti-Russian Stance in Ukraine.” As Byron York points out (and elaborates on in his book Obsession), the story was completely false—“not only wrong, but 180 degrees wrong.” The Post then reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. power system through an electrical grid in Vermont, a preposterous story that was completely bogus.

That’s what happens when you write The Narrative first and dismiss or ignore the facts.

And here’s a specific example of the NYT’s awful reporting standards, where a NYT report on a shooting in 2019 is fisked. The shooting itself involved a 17-year-old boy, Antwon Rose II, shot by an East Pittsburgh police officer in June 2018 after he bolted from a car that had been stopped by the officer. The Times published about a half-dozen stories on Antwon Rose. After the officer was acquitted on all charges in March 2019, the Times ran an article by Adeel Hassan on the verdict. If you read the NYT articles, especially the last one, all you would know is that an honours student who loved his mom was killed by a cop for the crime of riding in a car similar to one that had just been used in a crime. The following facts of the case appear nowhere in those NYT stories – which is likely why its readers would have been astounded that the officer was acquitted on all charges by a jury of nine whites and three blacks.

  • The gold Chevy Cruze Antwon fled did not merely “match the description of” a car used in a drive-by shooting: It was the car used in the drive-by shooting, as proved by surveillance video posted online days after the shooting and shown to the jury.
  • The video shows 13 shots being fired from the back seat of that exact car, with — according to the prosecutor — Antwon riding in the front seat.
  • The backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, later pleaded guilty to the drive-by shooting.
  • One of the victims of the drive-by shooting told police it was Antwon who shot him. “The beef was between me and him,” William Ross told a Pennsylvania State Police officer. “That car came by, he shot me, I ran to the store.”
  • The driver told police that, right before the shooting started, he heard the backseat passenger ask, “Is that him?”
  • The gun used in the drive-by was recovered in the back seat of the car.
  • A stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat, an empty magazine in Antwon’s pants pocket, and there was gunpowder residue on Antwon’s hands.
  • The car stopped by the officer was riddled with bullet holes.
  • The jury that unanimously acquitted the officer was led by an African American foreman, who stoutly defended the verdict.

And just look at a typical example of the sort of people hired by the NYT to do all this “reporting”.

He’s not an outlier in being more of a political activist than a journalist, fitting right in with Hannah-1619-Jones, Sarah #CancelWhitePeople Jeong, Greg “White Woman not moving out of my way” Howard, Paul Krugman, Jayson Blair, the ISIS podcast that turned out to be fake, and so forth.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 18, 2021 at 6:00 am

Posted in Ideologues, MSM, US Politics, USA

Tagged with ,

An Awful Milestone has been passed

I go bush for a few days, thinking that 2021 can’t be as crazy as 2020, and a riot breaks out in the Capitol building in Washington D.C.

If you called out the Antifa/Burn Loot Murder riots that occurred in numerous American cities over their 2020 summer then I’m more than willing to listen to you condemn what happened in the Capital building in Washington D.C a couple of days ago.

But if you kept silent about those riots or even supported them as “understandable” and “justified” by “systemic racism” and other imaginary hobgoblins then I’m not interested in listening to you.

The couple of hundred Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol Building should be arrested and tried in court for rioting and trespassing. Given the standards of modern-day sentencing in general and espicially how rioters have been treated I doubt they’ll get much punishment, but anybody who knowingly breaks the law, especially if they think it’s a civil rights issue, should be prepared to face the consequences and not run away from them.

They’ll likely have no choice, given that these were Right-Wing rioters who will be facing Left-Wing prosecutors in the D.C district and soon the Biden DOJ. I doubt their charges will be dismissed as were those for the Antifa/BLM rioters.

And then there’s Trump. He’s always been careless in what he says and how he says it. It was one of the reasons I was convinced he’d lose against Hillary in 2016, shooting himself in the foot regularly. As it turns out he was crazy like a fox, knowing that it kept the media oxygen turned on him full blast 24/7.

Even with the rallies he loves so much there was never any danger of a riot breaking out in the places he went to around America just because of what he said in speeches. As many commentators noted, they were more like big parties.

But in Washington D.C., just up the road from the Capitol building where the crucial vote was to be held, if you tell a huge crowd to march on the Capitol Building and supply a spine to weak Republicans then you should not be surprised when an element of the crowd decide to provide the spines in person. There’s also no point in making a speech like that and then following it up the next day with Tweets about being peaceful. That needed to be said up front and it wasn’t. As a result Trump has had members of his Cabinet resign and will spend the last two weeks of his Presidency doing nothing more than sitting at his desk, which is now a good thing.

Trump’s experience as a New Yorker and a tycoon has always meant that he has pushed the boundaries and in business and the law that’s acceptable. I recall someone once asking him why he respected the Japanese even as he complained about them dealing unfairly (he felt) with America: “You can respect someone even if they’re beating the hell out of you”. But in politics you’re playing with fire with such an attitude because it’s not just you in the fight and the boundaries can change fast. In endlessly claiming a stolen election and other things, Trump pushed beyond the boundary of trashing the civil institutions of the USA. That is not something you can just walk away from, win or lose.

But he’s hardly alone. I’ve been told countless times, usually by the Left, that US institutions like the cops, military, justice system and government are all corrupt, systemically racist and so forth. I’ve been hearing and seeing it increasingly for the last twenty years, from the Iraq WMD to the GFC bank bailouts to claims about Diebold voting machines in Ohio (2004) or Russian Collusion (2016) and the FBI. Keep doing that and you should not be surprised when people start to take you at your word that they’re not to be trusted.

You can also spare me any repeating of Left/Democrat talking points about the “horror” of the the day and “sedition” or an “insurrection” (it seems that former President Bush will never get over Baby Brother Jeb being rejected in favour of Trump by GOP voters) carried out by “domestic terrorists” and “insurgents”.

Do these clowns look like domestic terrorists to you?

… especially when they’re following the velvet rope lines used by guided tours. If that was Antifa/BLM they’d have swept them aside, smashed those statues in the background, sprayed graffiti everywhere and done some arson, rock throwing and lasers in the eyes of the cops.

When rioting, always stay within the velvet ropes.

Remember how after Bush was elected, the Left screamed that dissent was patriotic? And then when Obama was elected, dissent was suddenly racist? And when Trump won, resistance was not just patriotic, but compulsory? Well, dissent is racist again and resistance is now treason.

The media were all like “something like this has NEVER happened EVER BEFORE”, conveniently forgetting the 1954 U.S. Capitol terrorist attack by a group of Puerto Rican separatists who shot up the House of Representatives. Or, even more recently, when dozens of anti-Kavanaugh protestors “invaded” (what a great word that is) one of the Senate office buildings with nary a peep of alarm by the Democrat-media complex.

Or this in Washington D.C.just last June.

But such things were described as follows:

The key phrase was “mostly peaceful”, although I did like a description of one of these riots by an MSM source as having been peaceful until it just magically “intensified”. Kamala also got her wish: the protests did not stop after the election – except they were the wrong sort of people protesting/rioting for the wrong, non-Left-Wing-approved reason.

I guarantee you that none of the following Democrat politicians are ashamed of what they said or supported with the Antifa/BLM riots, and there is no evidence that their political careers have been or will be harmed, or that they will be banned from Facebook, Twitter and so forth – which is another way of insuring more of this, and worse, in the future.

Yes, Nancy. Maybe there will be.

Especially as the “cleansing” shit spins up to full power, aided and abetted by the Never-Trump side of the GOP no less. Rick Klein is the Political Director of ABC news: he deleted this Tweet soon after posting it, but others are not hiding their desires any more…

“Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel,” Hawley tweeted Monday night. “They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.”

That was because Senator Hawley was leading the way on objecting to the certification of votes in the Senate, perfectly legal if ill-advised, but Antifa decided to apply some personal pressure to his family. Incidently a few days ago a rather prominent New Zealand Right-Winger went down a similar, if somewhat more legal path of revenge:

Have the new Attorney-General announce that the Department of Justice will commence an inquiry against Donald J Trump, 12 Republican Senators and 140 members of the US House for seditious conspiracy (section 2384 of Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the US code), namely conspiring to overthrow the Government of the United States

The same treatment given to Hawley will soon be given to other supporters of Donald Trump, including ordinary people who might have a MAGA bumper sticker on their car or a Donald Trump coffee mug at the office. How many will lose their jobs, be shunned by neighbors, or kicked out of organizations? This is not the way to protect democracy or defend the integrity of elections.

I think we are about to enter a very dark period in American history. It won’t be the “Reign of Terror.” Guillotines won’t be set up on the mall or gallows erected in Central Park. But there will be terror nonetheless. And it won’t be the Josh Hawley’s or political big shots who will be terrorized. It will be people with everything to lose who will fear being purged.

Whether that can succeed against 74 million Trump voters is yet to be seen. As one commentator noted:

And I’m usually the optimist. I’m seeing people I would consider boring vanilla normies, not gun culture people, not Trumpkins, not preppers, not even that political, now talking about violence and revolution like those are perfectly normal topics. Twenty years ago that was reserved for us internet gun nuts and taboo crazy talk for everyone else. 

Yeah… we are basically fucked.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 9, 2021 at 1:22 pm

Posted in US Politics, USA

Tagged with , , ,

Double Standards, Part 1 billion

You do wonder when the use of double standards in the MSM is ever going to end as it seems to get worse with each passing year.

We expect double standards in politics and politicians. That’s been the nature of the business going back to at least Roman times where even the Republican period was filled with Senators who’d pulled the most outrageous switches on support of policy and other politicians. In studying this I thoroughly recommend Tom Holland’s history of the move from Republic to Empire in his book Rubicon.

In those days the only people who would call out double standards were other politicians, who were usually guilty of the same thing. There was no real media. Nowadays there is and even as recently as twenty years ago you could usually trust the MSM to do this job at a minimum because it’s so easy and obvious.

But the age of Trump has revealed that the US MSM simply refuse to do so for members of the Democrat Party, or themselves. The global MSM is a little different since they’re not so wedded to the US Democrat Party. Herewith a few of the many examples, which I expect to multiply in the next four years as the MSM cover for the Harris-Biden administration. In every example here it’s the non-MSM world that has caught these.

Objecting to “Stolen” Elections:

Pardons and Commutations:

As such it will be interesting to see how many MSM sources publish the following graph compiled by the Pew Research Center.

Treatment of murders:

This used to be straight forward reporting, but not when politics and ideology are to the fore.


Senior US politicians involved with foreign spies:

Come on Man. After the Russian Collusion insanity of the last four years you’d expect this to be a gimme, but no.

Budget Proposals:

And although it’s a waste of time pointing to politicians and their double standards these ones stick out:

2004

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois):
“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”

Senator Chris Von Hollen (D-Maryland)
“I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country,” Van Hollen, at the time a House member, said in a press release. “I have been particularly concerned about the lack of a verifiable paper record in connection with electronic voting systems. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of legislation to solve that problem.”

2020

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois):
“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”

Senator Chris Von Hollen (D-Maryland)
Sen. Hawley’s actions are grossly irresponsible. He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process, fuel Trump’s lies about voter fraud, and delay the certification of Biden’s win. In the end, this reckless stunt will fail, and Joe Biden will become President on Jan. 20, 2021.

And now teachers

Written by Tom Hunter

January 2, 2021 at 9:50 am

Die MSM, Die – No Trump and the 1619 Project should kill the NYT.

While “The Narrative” has been a journalism school subject for some time now, it’s unusual to see the phrase coming out of the mouths of the MSM themselves.

Such was the case a few months ago when the New York Times held an emergency “town hall” meeting to discuss recent problems inside the paper. Unfortunately, much like similar Google meetings, some person leaked a transcript of the entire thing to Slate.com and Jesus, is it an eye-opener into the cesspit that is the NYT nowadays. Read the whole transcript and you will see a clear illustration of why the reporting of the New York Times cannot be trusted. Aside from everything else they’re juiced to follow the lead of their Twitter readers, to the extent that I’m amazed that anybody in good faith still links to the thing for any news:

“[It] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,…Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

And those words come from none other than the Executive Editor Dean Baquet, none of which were intended for public consumption. Baquet was already on the backfoot over the NYT’s failure to produce an aggressive headline against Trump over his post-El Paso/Ohio shootings speech. It confirms what was long suspected: namely that the paper was dedicating its coverage and all its credibility to the Trump-Russia narrative. Seriously? They “built” their entire newsroom around ONE story – Russian Collusion? I don’t think even Watergate got that sort of treatment. There were, and are, other stories to cover, but the NYT failed; witness their hopeless reporting over the years about Jeffrey Epstein:

The New York Times should be deeply embarrassed by its failure to adequately cover the Epstein scandal, which was largely happening in its back yard.

Vanity Fair’s Vicky Ward covered Epstein (to the extent Graydon Carter let her). Phil Weiss covered Epstein. Conchita Sarnoff covered Epstein. And finally the story was propelled out of the undernews by Julie Brown of the Miami Herald, who found a Trump Angle the MSM couldn’t resist. Meanwhile, what did the Times produce? There was a thorough, skeptical 2006 report by Abby Goodnough when Epstein was first investigated — a report the paper buried on page A-19 under the most boring headline imaginable (“Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex Case”).

And of course despite the resources applied to the Russia-Collusion story they were apparently insufficient to investigate the strength of the original Steele dossier claims that kicked off the whole mess, let alone all the other facets of the other half of the Russia-Collusion story involving the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration’s DOJ and FBI. The Narrative was that it was not a story worth investigating. Well of course not: that might have helped Trump. Journalism for them means going after Trump, no holds barred. Facts? To hell with facts. What will these clowns do when a Democrat is President? The answer is that they’ll cover for that person more than they did for Obama, and watch their subscriber base fall away as it did in the days before Trump.

It also meant that the vaunted NYT found itself humiliated by the reports from the FBI Inspector General, who has investigated many of these things. After all, as Baquet went on to say:

“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

MUHAHAHAHAHA. Sure! Right? In fact the story only looked that way for two years to obsessed, one-eyed Democrat activists – which includes the entire staff of the NYT apparently. Anybody with an ounce of traditional investigative reporting ability and the aid of an experienced prosecutor would have done a better job. In other words someone like National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy, who as a State DA worked with the DOJ, FBI and undercover operatives to convict the Blind Sheik. McCarthy knows this stuff inside out and was tearing the Mueller team a new asshole every month through 2017-18: but he’s the sort of journalist the NYT would never work with. As The Spectator put it:

In fact, after about six months at maximum anybody interested in the truth could have screamed from rooftops that the Steele dossier was the crux of the Trump-Russia story and that the whole thing was a put-up job designed to serve as a slow-motion wrecking ball to the Trump administration. The fact that Baquet and the Times were fully invested in swinging that wrecking ball is now unmistakable by his own admission.
Mind you, the transcript makes it quite clear that an IG report that gets tough with the DOJ and FBI won’t matter to the NYT staff anyway: they have no shame and will just memory-hole it and get on with getting Trump.

Even the denizens of The Nation (whom Baquet praised) understand what’s really going on here, even as they focus only on the likes of Fox News and BreitBart:

The old business model of commercial television, radio, and newspapers called for appealing to the largest audience, which dictated offering news and commentary that spoke to as broad a spectrum as possible. Thus, mainstream news outlets developed a habit of hewing close to the ideological center—or, more precisely, what they perceived as the ideological center. Like Goldilocks’s porridge, their coverage would be not too liberal, not too conservative, but just right.

As an example of missing the point (as they do often did about the Cold War), The Nation whinges that, “Donald Trump would not be president today were it not for the help of Fox and Friends”, while completely ignoring the estimated $2.5 billion worth of free advertising provided through 2015-16 by the likes of Fox’s Democrat-supporting competitors who fell all over themselves to cover his every appearance and utterance.

But of course as long as the Left think there are enough moderate Democrats and Right Wing rubes out there who still accord the NYT some respect, they’ll simply ignore failures like the Great Russia Collusion Plot, and crash on through to the next effort, which was exactly what they did as they pivoted to “racism” (of course), with their “1619 Project” (“All Slavery, All the Time”), the lead writer being one Nikole Hannah-Jones.

The whole thrust of this “project” was that it would be spread across the USA to be used as resource for school kids learning the history of the USA, and the intellectual (if such a word can be applied to this excrement) thrust of the argument was that the USA was not founded in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence but with the arrival of the first African slaves in 1619. The project consisted of a series of articles of historical analysis that all pivoted off that key claim, as all good narratives do:

Essays in the series so far have attempted to demonstrate that America’s prisons, dietary habits, music, traffic jams, medical practices, healthcare systems, wealth gap and entire political economy, are all bones bound to one body: slavery, ‘the country’s true origin’.

The Spectator ultimately laid the blame at the foot of Post-Modernist tosser Michel Foucault, but the key “historian” who was ultimately the source of much of this stuff was one Ed Baptist at Cornell University (Incidentally that article also shows the depths to which the profession of historians has sunk with their use of Twitter to hurl abuse at professional colleagues, little different from journalists):

[The] 1619 Project relied upon the work of the controversial “New History of Capitalism” genre of historical scholarship to advance a sweeping indictment of free markets over the historical evils of slavery. The problems with this literature are many, and prominent among them is its use of shoddy statistical work by Cornell University historian Ed Baptist to grossly exaggerate the historical effect of slave-produced cotton on American economic development. Baptist’s unusual rehabilitation of the old Confederacy-linked “King Cotton” thesis is unsupported by evidence and widely rejected by economic historians…

Were they aware that Baptist’s statistics, including his estimate of slavery’s share of the antebellum economy, arose from a documented mathematical error? Did they know his thesis had been scrutinized by leading economic historians, who found problems of misrepresented evidence and citations to documents that did not support what Baptist claimed?

Northwestern University historian Leslie Harris (a historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally) had pointed out that the NYT had come to her for advice and understanding, only to repeat the theory that she had argued against:

More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition. Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies.

Other well-known and respected historians also tore it apart:

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote in a detailed piece for the Atlantic earlier this year. Wilentz wrote that Nikole Hannah-Jones assertions about the motives for the Revolutionary War were “as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.”

Gordon Wood and James McPherson, wrote a letter to the NYT explaining that what the paper has published under its 1619 Project has included major factual errors and demanded that the paper print corrections. The professors specifically noted that if the paper left the material unchanged, it might be responsible for convincing a generation of school children to believe things about the nation’s history that were demonstrably untrue...

That last article also pointed out the usual ironies that come from such agit-prop polemics:

In trying to write the history of slavery, the NYT takes the same ideological position as white supremacists, which is that the founding documents of this nation never spoke to racial equality. It is nearly impossible to separate the race-baiting narrative the NYT is publishing from the arguments made by secessionists ahead of and during the Civil War, which is the notion that “all men are created equal” was always intended to apply only to white folk.

The NYT’s attitude to all this was basically the same as their response in the Russia Collusion case: who cares, we’ve got a story to sell (there were also ideological and political objectives to achieve). And the cherry on top was that Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for this racially inflammatory trash.

As the National Association of Scholars pointed out in their analysis of the Pultizer Committee’s decision and the project itself, in their article, The Collapse of The Fourth Estate:

Hannah-Jones’ essay eccentrically titled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written,” is mainly remarkable in how much she manages to be wrong in a mere 7,700 or so words.

The difference between figures such as Parrington and DeVoto, and Hannah-Jones, is that, regardless of their political views, Parrington and DeVoto wrote outstanding works of historical interpretation, faithful to the facts. Hannah-Jones is just a fantasist with a grim vision and the backing of a now “woke” newspaper with the resources to propel almost any story to national prominence.

But perhaps the harshest assessment came from City-Journal:

The 1619 Project is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery…

The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory. And like all conspiracy theories, the 1619 Project announces with a eureka! that it has acquired the explanation to everything…

The 1619 Project is not history; it is ignorance. It claims that the American Revolution was staged to protect slavery, though it never once occurs to the Project to ask, in that case, why the British West Indies (which had a far larger and infinitely more malignant slave system than the 13 American colonies) never joined us in that revolution…

Finally: the 1619 Project is not history; it is evangelism, but evangelism for a gospel of disenchantment whose ultimate purpose is the hollowing out of the meaning of freedom, so that every defense of freedom drops nervously from the hands of people who have been made too ashamed to defend it…

All of these counter-attacks must have had some impact however, because the self-described “Beyonce of Journalism” was soon admitting that:

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history, …. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory.” 

However, she and the NYT are still pushing hard for The 1619 Project to be a resource for America’s school kids, and attacking anybody who objects to that. She was also soon back to touting conspiracy theories under her Twitter moniker of Ida Bea Wells…

… which has not affected her employment or Pulitzer status in the slightest.

The people at the New York Times are not reporters and editors but simply liars and ideologues. Sadly, it will likely not be journalistic atrocities like this that will kill it, otherwise it would already be dead, but the simple absence of Trump from the Presidency.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 29, 2020 at 6:00 am

Posted in MSM, US Politics, USA

Tagged with , ,

It’s good to have a (D) after your name

As recently as twenty years ago that was not true. Ask Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis how they were treated by the US MSM, or Bill Clinton.

But it’s certainly true now, as the following comparisons show.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 15, 2020 at 10:00 pm

Posted in US Politics, USA

Tagged with , ,