Americans outside the narrow confines of the media aristocracy find the Stalinist show trial neither urgent nor important.

 

Dickerson is a thoughtful broadcaster. His words are certainly more reasonable than what some of his peers were pushing. Matthew Dowd, who until recently was ABC News’ chief political analyst, repeatedly compared people concerned about inflation to Nazis. But on this day, Dickerson’s analysis suffered from myriad problems.

...

The only reason the establishment is pretending to view the Democrat-appointed January 6 committee as legitimate, much less important, is to cover up what a mess the 2020 election was and to get their nemesis out of politics. That’s why Americans outside the narrow confines of the media aristocracy find the Stalinist show trial neither urgent nor important. And they wish that leaders of the country would truly get working on things that are both.

Mainstream media's silence on the horrific murder of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant sparks Twitter hashtag #SayHisName

 

Nearly a full week has gone by since convicted felon Darius Sessoms fatally shot 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant while the young boy was riding his bike and major news networks have remained silent on the atrocity.

The blackout of coverage from the mainstream media has induced outrage on social media and by Wednesday evening, the hashtag #SayHisName was trending on Twitter.

THE SUNDAY NIGHT JOKE

Jeff Zucker of CNN, Dean Baquet of the New York Times, and Martin Baron of the Washington Post are all killed in a tragic accident at a gathering of leading news executives.

They find themselves standing together before shining heavenly gates and a pleasant young man at a desk greets them. “Hello, I am the senior assistant to the admissions committee, and I am here to guide you through the process. Here is your life record which will be the basis upon which you will be evaluated. Please look it over carefully.” He hands each of them an enormous bound stack of hundreds of pages.

Baron reacts angrily: “The first pages are nothing but false horrible accusations!”


Baquet and Zucker also complain that their records also open with terrible falsehoods.

The young man smiles and says, “No problem.” He takes a fresh stack of paper and an ornate feathered quill pen and writes “Retraction” in large letters on the top of each page, copies and edits each offensive item to a retraction page and then carefully adds the pages to the bottom of each man’s record and rebinds each record with an enormous heavenly stapler.

“You can go in and present your life résumés to the committee now.”

Dean Baquet objects. “But the false horrible stuff is still on the top pages. No one is going to read down to the bottom where you put the retractions.”

“Exactly,” said the assistant. “Best of luck in there.”

Stolen from Ace of Spades.

Maureen Dowd forced to admit the Mueller Report is not Mueller's Report

First, she attempts to burnish her "poor but honest" background, like Lincoln, portrayed as "honest Abe, the rail-splitter" after being ridiculed on Twitter for throwing a fancy party with all the Democrat movers and shakers in Washington in attendance.

I, the daughter of a D.C. cop, and Carl, the son of an Illinois plumber, were hilariously painted as decadent aristocrats reveling like Marie Antoinette when we should have been knitting like Madame Defarge.

And then:

[The hearing} was many underwhelming hours of members of Congress reading to Mueller and Mueller saying, Yes, that’s what I wrote. Or at least what somebody wrote.

Don’t Say Arson! Media Focuses on Right-Wing in Notre Dame Inferno

Ruch Limbaugh ...

Yeah, it’s as fascinating a case study as almost everything is these days with the Drive-By Media, the media left, the media-Democrat complex. The Notre Dame Cathedral fire. It is simply unacceptable. It is not tolerable. You must not even breathe the possibility of arson because if it’s arson then fingers will point in one direction, and we’re not gonna point in that direction. We’re not gonna permit fingers to point. We’re not gonna even allow thoughts in that direction. No, no, no, no, my friends.

But let’s play the game just to start for just a second here. Even if the Notre Dame fire was not arson, there is no denying that attacks on churches, churches throughout France, throughout Europe, are on the upswing. I’m gonna tell you something, folks. This is just me. But watching those pictures yesterday as that cathedral was burning throughout the afternoon into the evening, watching all that I thought I was looking at what may well be a symbolism for all of Europe going up in flames.

From Germany: "When should the media report on murders by refugees?"

Do newspapers focus too much on crimes committed by refugees, thus creating an exaggerated public fear of the danger they pose? Or do they too often ignore them out of a misplaced concern that they would be fuelling racism?

Depending on who you talk to in Germany, you will get very different opinions. Left-wingers believe the press over-report, cynically exploiting the fact that refugee crime sells newspapers. The right meanwhile harangue the “politically correct” media for failing to inform the public of a growing crime wave.

...

On August 16th, its Tagesschau evening news bulletin chose not to mention a grim murder in the central German town of Offenbach. A doctor had been stabbed to death in his practise that morning with no obvious explanation for why. Hours later police arrested his suspected murderer - an asylum seeker from Somalia who arrived in the country in late 2015.

After receiving complaints from the public for its decision not to cover the crime, Tagesschau’s editor-in-chief Kai Gniffke publicly justified the decision.

He explained that Tagesschau only reports on news that has “a societal, national or international relevance - things that are meaningful to the majority of the 83 million Germans.”

...

In summary: refugees are more likely to be suspected of murder. The most significant reason for this is because they are young and male. Choosing not to cover these murders means one accepts the argument that the government could not have done things differently in 2015; choosing to cover them is to give a nod to the argument that they had different policy options.

Kai Gniffle, what a name for a liar.

Coulter: remember when the media and the Democrats criticized the intelligence agencies. That ws SOP until Trump did it.

They [the media and Democrats] also spent decades defending Russian dictators.

Abandoning every position they've ever held to attack Trump is standard operating procedure these days.

In addition to Trump's not challenging Putin to a fistfight in Helsinki, the media have gone bananas over the fact that he cited the findings of our intelligence agencies -- but then added that Putin denied the charges.

HE'S BELIEVING PUTIN OVER OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES? Moral equivalence! Treason! High crimes and misdemeanors! Kristallnacht! Trump might as well have trampled on a portrait of George Washington. (Or, since we're talking about liberals, Stalin.)

But the way I remember it, elected Democrats -- even Democratic candidates for president -- have criticized our intelligence agencies pretty ferociously, particularly regarding the Iraq War.

The media turned that clown Joe Wilson into a national hero for ridiculing the findings of our intelligence agencies.

At the inception of the war, U.S. intelligence, British intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam Hussein had been seeking massive quantities of uranium from Niger.

But Joe Wilson was sent by his wife, a non-covert, paper-pushing CIA agent, on a trip to Niger, where he looked government officials directly in the eye and asked them: Did Saddam send envoys to this godforsaken country that has nothing to sell but uranium in order to buy uranium? Be honest! I have absolutely no way of knowing if you are lying, and powerful, nuclear-armed nations will be really mad at you if you say "yes."

It was on the basis of this conversation that Wilson concluded, as he wrote in The New York Times: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Far from condemning this unpatriotic lout for crapping on our intelligence agencies, the media made him a star! Only a fool like George W. Bush would believe our inept intelligence agencies over the word of a government official from Niger.

So doing an about-face on a previous, long-held position is no problem for liberals, provided it serves the larger purpose of getting Trump.

This is a good time to remind us of the Ace of Spades comment on the Ruling Class:

This kind of blatant double-standard on the part of the left is a feature, I think, not a bug.

The inconsistency may reveal that the left inflicts "rules" on its enemies that it feels free to ignore itself. But that itself is a demonstration of the left's power-- I think they get off on openly announcing that they are free to make up rules to impose on others and completely violate those same rules with impunity.

It's a demonstration of how much power they have, and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

They want you to know who's in charge, and who you must bow to, and this sort of blatant, not-even-hiding-it demonstration of their power to unilaterally print up entire tomes of new rules and also unilaterally suspend operation of those rules when they choose is nothing if not a reminder of who is the ruler, and who is the ruled.

Ace on the Media's double standard. "Gay jokes were officially made a Crime Against the State sometime around 2009. But not if you're part of the State Media."

NYT Opinion

✔@nytopinion

Ace as talking about this kind of gay-baiting.  Gay jokes were officially made a Crime Against the State sometime around 2009.  But not if you're part of the State Media.

This kind of blatant double-standard on the part of the left is a feature, I think, not a bug.

The inconsistency may reveal that the left inflicts "rules" on its enemies that it feels free to ignore itself. But that itself is a demonstration of the left's power-- I think they get off on openly announcing that they are free to make up rules to impose on others and completely violate those same rules with impunity.

It's a demonstration of how much power they have, and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

They want you to know who's in charge, and who you must bow to, and this sort of blatant, not-even-hiding-it demonstration of their power to unilaterally print up entire tomes of new rules and also unilaterally suspend operation of those rules when they choose is nothing if not a reminder of who is the ruler, and who is the ruled.

It's a feature designed to demonstrate the power of the Ruling Class.

It's one of the main reasons they hate Trump: he's not afraid to push back ... twice as hard.  They're not used to that and they hate it.

The amusing thing is that the dim bulbs that run the Virginian Pilot lost the plot a long time ago.

Ignoring Democrats’ Farrakhan Ties Is The Epitome Of Media Bias

A congressman reaffirmed his ties to an avowed anti-Semite this week, but you wouldn’t know about it if you get your news from the establishment media.

The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Peter Hasson broke the story of Democratic Rep. Danny Davis doubling down on claiming Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is an “outstanding human being.”...

In January, a photo emerged of then-Senator Barack Obama shaking hands with Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting in 2005. Little attention was paid to the photograph outside of conservative media.

In February, Hasson broke the news that Democratic National Committee deputy chairman Keith Ellison had met with Farrakhan multiple times since he supposedly disavowed the NOI leader in 2006. Ellison has faced very little scrutiny for these continuing ties to a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group.

When 21 members of the Congressional Black Caucus were asked by Hasson to disavow Farrakhan, all declined. But that shouldn’t be too surprising when Ellison himself says his fellow Democrats aren’t bothered by his Farrakhan connection. 

Multiple leaders of Women’s March — one of the biggest left-wing organizations at the moment — have strong ties to Farrakhan and aren’t ashamed about it. “Thank God this man is still alive and doing well. He is definitely the GOAT [Greatest Of All Time],” Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory once said of Farrakhan. She has refused to disavow the NOI leader and praised the group’s work as recently as Wednesday. (It would seem like all of these prominent Democrats and progressives having ties to a hate figure would be a huge news story. But the only establishment media figure to cover it is CNN’s Jake Tapper, who devoted a brief segment of his show to the story on Monday.

Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls

I fondly recall the ditzy Liberal woman who adored Charlie Rose.

And then there's this:

Media fear Trump will inspire violence against reporters

Many in the national media are worried that President Trump's continued broadsides against the press will inspire violence against reporters, even as vocal opponents of the White House on the Left have encouraged assault or directly attacked some journalists.

Named among those  quoted who fear violence from Trump supporters are NY Times Jim Rutenberg, Jim VandeHei, founder of the news website Axios, Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for the New Yorker and a CNN commentator, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff.

To date, more than two years after he launched his campaign and seven months after his inauguration, there is no clear evidence linking Trump's rhetoric to any violence against reporters.

But a Bernie Sanders supporter and ardent Democrat attacked a group of Republican congressmen, nearly killing one.  This attempt at real political assassination has disappeared from the press coverage as if it never happened.  

Reporters have much more to fear from Leftist rioters like the Antifa gangs. Yet they never voice those real concerns. They would not dare; they would be crucified by their peers.

There has been some violence against reporters. In March, people who work for a local California news agency said they were assaulted at a Trump rally by his supporters, according to the Los Angeles Times. But the report said that among the four people arrested at the incident, all were counter-protesters, and made no mention of them being inspired by Trump.

..

After the riot in Charlottesville, nearly two weeks ago, some reporters on the scene said on social media that they had been attacked by people counter protesting the white supremacy rally.

Among those in the media who said they had been assaulted were Taylor Lorenz of The Hill, who posted a video on Facebook that cuts off after she is heard screaming and a man's voice yells at her to "Stop fucking recording." She claimed she had been punched in the face and that her phone was kicked away.

The photographer for a CBS affiliate in Richmond was also allegedly attacked by the Left and had to get stitches while recording one of the counter protests, according to the station.

It's always the same with the Left: blame the Republicans for things that your side does regularly. 

The fact is that the violence is mainly on the Left.  

The kind of people that go to Trump rallies, ordinary people, would no more think of attacking a reporter than killing their children.  They may despise reporters for their bias and open bigotry.  They know that the press hates normal people and sees Trump supporters are racist Nazis.  They accept that and go on.  They just ignore reporters.  But the Left has to have the press working for them.  It's the way they appear to be the majority when they are a minority.  The press is their megaphone, their crazy fun-house mirror to appear to be ten feet tall.  And if by mistake a reporters actually records their violence and shows the reality, they attack the reporter.

Our Corrupt Media Is Now Haunted By All The Precedents They Set While Colluding With Obama

Barack Obama trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, secretly delivered pallets filled with billions in cash to Iran's America/Jew-hating mullahs, left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it, allowed his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to exchange government favors for hundreds of millions of dollars slushed into the Clinton Foundation, sic'd his IRS on everyday, law-abiding Americans, and used a trillion dollars in "stimulus" funds to pay off his cronies, like those behind a boondoggle called Solyndra.

And all along, over eight terrible years, our media did a whole lot more than just let Obama get away with it. They wholeheartedly colluded. They allowed Obama to persecute them through the Department of Justice and to lie to our face (remember: I just now read about it in the newspaper, the IRS did nothing wrong, you can keep your insurance). And when that wasn't enough, the media mercilessly attacked as racist anyone who criticized the Precious and ginned up nothingburgers like Todd Akin to distract from those four dead Americans. And when even that wasn't enough, they themselves lied and obfuscated, covered up and dissembled, and most of all they set all kinds of precedents that, in a delicious form of irony, are now driving this utterly failed institution to the edge of insanity.

The very same media that shrugged when Hillary Clinton set up a secret server, deleted 33,000 government emails, BleachBit'd whatever remained and then literally took a hammer to the devices — the media that set that precedent now wants us to get all worked up over Trump's tweets?

The very same media that buried Bill Clinton's perjury and his numerous victims of sexual abuse — the media that set those precedents now wants us to consider an Access Hollywood video a disqualifier for the presidency? Now wants us to freak out over an awkward handshake?

The very same media that gushed over Barack Obama's magical ability to "slow-walk the truth" — the media that set that precedent now wants us to impeach Trump over how the details of his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer have been released?

The very same media that joined Obama in pointing and laughing at Mitt Romney's concern over Russia, the very same media that told us Obama's serial-appeasement of Russia (refusing Poland missile defense, "more flexibility after the election") was in reality an extraordinary form of statesmanship — the media that set those precedents now wants us to toss Trump out on his ear because he's hoping to work with Putin?

Read the whole thing.

Why the MSM is so far out of touch.

Fred on Everything.

Do you wonder why the legacy media are such puzzled otherworldly twits? Why, for example, they had no idea what was happening in the recent election? Why they seem to know so very little about America or much of anything else?

Some thoughts from a guy who spent a career in the racket:

Ask journalists when they were last in a truck stop on an Interstate, last in Boone, North Carolina or Barstow, California or any of thousands of such towns across the country. Ask whether they were in the military, whether they have ever talked to a cop or an ambulance crewman or a fireman. Ask whether they have a Mexican friend, when they last ate in a restaurant where a majority of the customers were black. Whether they know an enlisted man, or anyone in the armed services. Whether they have hitchhiked overnight, baited a hook, hunted, or fired a rifle. Whether they have ever worked washing dishes, harvesting crops, driving a delivery truck. Whether they have a blue-collar friend. Know what the Texas Two-Step is, have been in a biker bar.

Now do you see why Trump surprised them?

Next, ask how many went to fancy schools like Oberlin, Swarthmore, Amherst, the Ivies, Bard. Ask how many even know someone who graduated from a land-grant school. Ask whether they know an engineer.

Now look at how much they write about each other for each other. Look at the endless coverage of what Maddow said about what Hannity thought about O’Reilly’s harassment of soft-porn star Megyn and how much she might make at CNN. Ask how much time they spend comparing ratings. They are fascinated by themselves.

...

In a curious process of self-delusion, they imagine a world that doesn’t exist and then try to live in it. For example, they don’t know what cops face in the ghetto because they have never been in the ghetto and don’t know any cops. They dismiss anyone who tells them that things are not as they think. Their confidence is invincible, for do not all their friends say the same things?

Their ideological attachment to political correctness is–obviously–strong. This is particularly stark with respect to race. Week after week, year after year, we read on the internet of whites beaten, burned, punched, of stores looted by flash mobs and wrecked in brawls. The perpetrators are always “teens” or “troubled youths.” If you ask reporters why they never mention race, they say things like “race is irrelevant. A crime is a crime.” But let a white cop shoot a black attacker, and nothing matters except race–not truth, guilt or innocence.

They see no hypocrisy in this....

That’s why the mainstream media are largely vapid and predictable. It is why the internet, not bound by political correctness or controlled by corporations, able to specialize, to serve intelligent readers, is now primary.

What Yasmin Seweid’s Pretty Little Lies Reveal About ‘Fake News’ Media Hypocrisy

Since Donald Trump’s election night victory and at the direction of Hillary Clinton campaign operatives, social media users have been scolded and warned over the scourge of “fake news” from supposedly respected journalistic outlets, on the web and on network television. Clinton herself, just last week, even blamed her election loss partly on the dangerous spread of fake news.

So enter the curious case of Yasmin Seweid, the 18 year old New York City college student whose story of being harassed and assaulted by three Donald Trump supporters on a subway train went viral. This came on the heels of reports — many exaggerated — a so-called “surge” in Trump-fueled, hate-filled activity.

Protests were held at Grand Central station, where Seweid reported her assault to police shortly after saying she exited the train to get away from her attackers. Several mainstream news outlets, including CBS, NBC, Buzzfeed, Yahoo and Slate among others, picked up on the story and ran with it gleefully.

“Drunk Men Yelling ‘Donald Trump’ Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway” declared the headline at Buzzfeed. “NY Subway Riders Stand By as Three Men Verbally Assault Muslim Teenager” was Slate’s headline, which Yahoo echoed with “Three Drunks on Train Harass Woman in Hijab, Commuters Do Nothing.” CBS News stated “Muslim teen verbally attacked on NYC subway”. Gothamist, a local NYC news site and one of the first outlets to pick up on the alleged incident, stated “Men Screaming ‘Donald Trump’ Attacked Woman Wearing Hijab On The Subway”. The New York Daily News featured the incident on its front page, professing “Attacked Because I’m Muslim” and she was interviewed by CBSNY local that night.

Seweid then posted a statement on her Facebook page (which has since been deleted) saying, “Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless.” Seweid went on to blame other passengers on her subway: “It breaks my heart that so many individuals choose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night!”

To reputable news outlets, Yasmin Seweid, an attractive young Muslim girl, was a prime example of how hate in Donald Trump’s America has spread and manifested itself (even into progressively liberal enclaves such as New York City!)

The only problem is that the incident Seweid reported, and that these outlets ran with, didn’t happen. As reported by DNA Info, Seweid eventually confessed to fabricating the incident and lying to New York police investigating. There were troubles with her account from the start. NYC subway surveillance footage only showed one person matching a description Seweid gave following her off a train and she could not outright describe the suspects when pressed. Furthermore, Seweid went missing for two days last week and was finally found with a bag of clothes. The family’s only comment was that it was a personal matter they were handling.

Shortly after her return home, Seweid’s Facebook page, along with the post recalling the incident was deleted. Her Youtube and Twitter accounts remain live but dormant.

The larger issue at work here is not Seweid. She’s a teenager who, for reasons yet unknown, fabricated a hate crime and will now face real legal consequences for doing so. She may be confused, she may have trouble at home or socially. Nobody knows and that information will likely reveal itself in time as she is forced to face charges in court and opprobrium in her community, which she’s no doubt damaged and hurt by making real accounts of targeted religious hate and assaults harder to report.

But since Donald Trump’s election, social media users have been bombarded by a finger wagging media about a flood of fake news and misinformation spreading online which, the media claims. But the media isn’t taking a long hard look at themselves and asking how and why “fake news” has gained the audience it has. With little to no discretion and all too eager to push anti-Trump narratives, these news organizations hit the publish button on Seweid’s story with little to no hedging that, at that point, all they had was her account. And its faith in the story dies hard. When Buzzfeed published the story of Seweid’s arrest on Wednesday, the headline read “Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story of NY Subway Attack by Trump Supporters”, carrying more skepticism in the fact that she was arrested for fabricating the story, than Buzzfeed gave to its original report.

These editors, apparently not convinced that Donald Trump provides enough real life clickbait content, rushed off to prove their desired narrative of rampant Islamophobia and hate crimes. If newsroom editors want to lament the spread of fake news, perhaps they can start with how they and their journalists handled the Yasmin Seweid case. Likewise with rape victims in the viral media cases of Emma Sulkowicz, the University of Virginia Greek system or Duke Lacrosse, all this does is undermine their own narratives and most importantly real victims.

Maybe mainstream news outlets and networks will figure this out sometime into President Donald Trump’s second term.