Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 31, 2016, 09:12:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94990 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Media Issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print
Author Topic: Media Issues  (Read 376651 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7926


« Reply #1650 on: April 18, 2016, 01:50:54 PM »

Soon the corrections section will be bigger than the news section.  This one is a doozy...

Correction: April 10, 2016

An article on March 20 about wave piloting in the Marshall Islands misstated the number of possible paths that could be navigated without instruments among the 34 islands and atolls of the Marshall Islands. It is 561, not a trillion trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-secrets-of-the-wave-pilots.html
Hat tip, John Hinderaker, President of Center for the Amerian Experiment, co-founder of Powerline
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1651 on: May 01, 2016, 11:20:38 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-correspondents-dinner-photos_us_57226b39e4b01a5ebde50b2d?slideshow=true#gallery/5725556de4b0b49df6ab8255/0
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1652 on: May 03, 2016, 09:43:40 AM »

Did anyone see O'Reilly ask Krauthammer last night if he was offended but Wilmore's comments (who I never heard of before all this) at the end of his WCD diatribe.  Krauthammer, of course said, "no"  and then he asked O'Reilly what 'he' thought and of course he said "no" ( I don't believe it)
Personally I was offended by it.  It was classless IMHO and racist.  As was half his dialogue( racist).  I didn't mind the part about him growing up and not being able to see a black quarterback in the NFL lead a football team and now we have had a black who has lead the free world.  I thought that was actually touching, but the other racial stuff offended me with it being persistent and purposely in our faces. 

Just my one man's opinion.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7926


« Reply #1653 on: May 03, 2016, 12:10:30 PM »


The President is better at Republican-deprecating humor than he is at the self deprecating kind.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1654 on: May 04, 2016, 09:05:11 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/04/levin-unloads-on-fox-for-trump-coverage-they-will-be-rubbing-their-own-faces-in-their-own-feces/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202016-05-04&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test

The business about Cruz's dad and Lee Harvey Oswald with the National Enquirer as a source was particularly egregious.

I often wake early and for me "Fox & Friends" starts at 0600.  I can't stand watching it any more and often wind up on CNN  shocked rolleyes shocked where Chris Cuomo leads the team.  He's better than F&F.  (BTW as a reporter for "Fox Files" he once did a 7 minute piece on the Dog Brothers).

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1655 on: May 04, 2016, 10:16:48 AM »

"I often wake early and for me "Fox & Friends" starts at 0600.  I can't stand watching it any more and often wind up on CNN  shocked rolleyes shocked where Chris Cuomo leads the team.  He's better than F&F.  (BTW as a reporter for "Fox Files" he once did a 7 minute piece on the Dog Brothers)."

My cable impressions of late:

I have been watching Fox less and less.  Sometimes OReilly.  I like Judge Napalitano.  Judge Judy I like because I agree with her.  Otherwise there is not much to see there anymore.  The 'five' is a waste of time.  Hannity who I usually agree with is just too partisan on our side.  Kelly no longer attracts me to her show.  etc.

I do actually like Chris Cuomo.  The only Cuomo I can stand to listen to. He is reasonable and doesn't make sarcastic faces like the CNN babes every time they are interviewing anyone from the right.   Morning Joe isn't too bad if one can put up with the parade of Democrats. 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1656 on: May 04, 2016, 11:12:55 AM »

On FOX I continue to have high regard for Special Report w Bret Baier; I watch it every day.  Because we have Satellite TV other than that I record and surf my way through the litter for the things I find worthy.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1657 on: May 05, 2016, 12:33:49 PM »

http://news.groopspeak.com/anti-hillary-fox-news-host-in-hot-water-mistress-comes-forward-with-career-ending-texts/

PS:  She's A LOT hotter than Monica.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1658 on: May 05, 2016, 12:44:45 PM »


I would bet on it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1659 on: May 05, 2016, 02:37:34 PM »

While humiliating and embarrassing and marriage threatening and sad for the 2 young children I don't see why this effects his Fox career.

I mean Geraldo Rivera makes 2 million a year with Fox.  He was never monogamous.  Didn't he write a tell all book about his hundreds of dalliances?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1660 on: May 06, 2016, 11:58:37 AM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363286.php

I think we share the same level of shock, reading this.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1661 on: May 06, 2016, 12:58:31 PM »

This article was discussed in some detail last night on the panel on Special Report with Brett Baier.  It IS important.  Can we get the URL of the original Samuels article?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1662 on: May 06, 2016, 06:12:52 PM »

This article was discussed in some detail last night on the panel on Special Report with Brett Baier.  It IS important.  Can we get the URL of the original Samuels article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=1
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 07:15:38 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1663 on: May 07, 2016, 07:21:22 AM »

Look at how stupid this is.  "The Illinois way is failing Democrats".  The title should be "the Democrat way is failing Illinois".  It is so frustrating how the Dem party gets off easy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-madigan-rauner-emanuel-democrats-illinois-lucas-edit-0508-jm-20160506-story.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1664 on: May 07, 2016, 08:35:35 AM »

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/7-takeaways-ny-times-ben-rhodes/

Seven Takeaways from the NY Times Profile of Failed Novelist Ben Rhodes

     
BY: David Rutz    
May 5, 2016 12:51 pm

White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes is profiled in a New York Times Magazine feature about how Rhodes, who holds a master’s degree in creative writing, became President Obama’s “foreign policy guru.” Here are seven takeaways:

1) Rhodes was frustrated the day of Obama’s 2016 State of the Union because the story about Iran kidnapping 10 American sailors couldn’t be hidden longer from the public.

Rhodes was annoyed that he couldn’t successfully suppress the ugly story from breaking before Obama gave his final State of the Union speech:

For much of the past five weeks, Rhodes has been channeling the president’s consciousness into what was imagined as an optimistic, forward-looking final State of the Union. Now, from the flat screens, a challenge to that narrative arises: Iran has seized two small boats containing 10 American sailors. Rhodes found out about the Iranian action earlier that morning but was trying to keep it out of the news until after the president’s speech. “They can’t keep a secret for two hours,” Rhodes says, with a tone of mild exasperation at the break in message discipline.

Author David Samuels relates in real time how Rhodes intends to fix the situation, which he predicts the press, or “they,” will report by playing to Middle East stereotypes:

Standing in his front office before the State of the Union, Rhodes quickly does the political math on the breaking Iran story. “Now they’ll show scary pictures of people praying to the supreme leader,” he predicts, looking at the screen. Three beats more, and his brain has spun a story line to stanch the bleeding. He turns to Price. “We’re resolving this, because we have relationships,” he says.

The sailors were set free the next day, unharmed. Secretary of State John Kerry later praised Iran for making sure the U.S. sailors were “well taken care of” and thanked its authorities for their “cooperation and quick response.” Iran state television released embarrassing photos of the sailors with their hands on their heads for propaganda purposes, and the navy commanders responsible for the capture were later awarded medals by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

2) Apparently, Rhodes’ name rarely appears in news articles because he is “invisible” and “not an egotist.”

It has been rare to find Ben Rhodes’s name in news stories about the large events of the past seven years, unless you are looking for the quotation from an unnamed senior official in Paragraph 9. He is invisible because he is not an egotist, and because he is devoted to the president. But once you are attuned to the distinctive qualities of Rhodes’s voice—which is often laced with aggressive contempt for anyone or anything that stands in the president’s way—you can hear him everywhere.

Rhodes constantly appears with on-the-record quotes in news reports, actually. A Nexis search reveals his name has appeared 2,489 times in major publications since the beginning of the Obama administration, and he also appears on cable and network television shows as a spokesman for the White House. The idea that he is not an egotist also seems belied by the multiple comparisons in the article of him to Holden Caulfield, the angsty, judgmental teenage protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye.

3) Rhodes, who is not an egotist, is so tight with the president that he says he doesn’t know where he begins and Obama ends.

Staffers spoke in awe of Rhodes’ ability to know what Obama is thinking, “a source of tremendous power,” and Rhodes feels like he’s not sure who he is anymore:

Part of what accounts for Rhodes’s influence is his “mind meld” with the president. Nearly everyone I spoke to about Rhodes used the phrase “mind meld” verbatim, some with casual assurance and others in the hushed tones that are usually reserved for special insights. He doesn’t think for the president, but he knows what the president is thinking, which is a source of tremendous power. One day, when Rhodes and I were sitting in his boiler-room office, he confessed, with a touch of bafflement, “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”

4) Like his boss, Rhodes smoked a lot of pot in high school.

Rhodes’s mother and father are not interested in talking about Rhodes. Neither is his older brother, David, who is president of CBS News, an organization that recently revived the effort to declassify the contents of the redacted 28 pages of the Sept. 11 report on the eve of Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia, on which Rhodes, as usual, accompanied the president. The brothers are close, but they often go months without seeing each other. “He was like the kid who carried the briefcase to school,” Ben says of his brother, who worked at Fox News and Bloomberg before moving to CBS. “I actually didn’t do that great in high school because I was drinking and smoking pot and hanging out in Central Park.”

5) Rhodes pushed a fictional narrative that Obama saw an opportunity to make a nuclear deal with Iran beginning in 2013, when elections brought “moderates” into power.

Samuels writes that this idea was “largely manufactured” by Rhodes for the purpose of selling the deal the public. In fact, Obama insiders knew the president had desired to make an agreement with Iran since he first took office. Such ideas are “often misleading or false.” Rather, Rhodes says, the grand Obama foreign policy narratives of nonproliferation and peace with adversaries neatly “converged on Iran” and the nuclear agreement:

The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency.

“It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”

Obama was “actively misleading” with the idea that this negotiation began because of this so-called “moderate” faction’s rise in Iran:

In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.”

While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the JCPOA — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration.

6) Rhodes doesn’t care for Hillary Clinton, grouping her in with “The Blob” of “morons” and American foreign policy “establishment” figures. He also doesn’t like people who “whine” about security lapses abroad.

Samuels writes Rhodes “arguably knew more about the Iraq War” than even then-Sen. Obama when he joined his campaign in 2007, and he has contempt for “Iraq-war promoters” like Hillary Clinton and people who “whine” about security lapses abroad:

He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. If anything, that anger has grown fiercer during Rhodes’s time in the White House.

He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.

7) Leon Panetta would “probably not” say that Obama is still serious about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

The former secretary of defense was not confident that Obama could promise to do all in his power to stop Iran from getting an atomic bomb:

As secretary of defense, he tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ” Panetta recalls. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”

Panetta stops.

“But would you make that same assessment now?” I ask him.

“Would I make that same assessment now?” he asks. “Probably not.”

Panetta also didn’t sound fond of Rhodes, referring to him opaquely as one of a group of “staff people” who assumed they knew where Obama wanted to go with a decision and effectively forced him down that path:

“There were staff people who put themselves in a position where they kind of assumed where the president’s head was on a particular issue, and they thought their job was not to go through this open process of having people present all these different options, but to try to force the process to where they thought the president wanted to be,” he says. “They’d say, ‘Well, this is where we want you to come out.’ And I’d say ‘[expletive], that’s not the way it works. We’ll present a plan, and then the president can make a decision.’ I mean, Jesus Christ, it is the president of the United States, you’re making some big decisions here, he ought to be entitled to hear all of those viewpoints and not to be driven down a certain path.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7926


« Reply #1665 on: May 07, 2016, 03:21:33 PM »

More on this Obama genius here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/the-runt-of-rhodes.php

"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. ..."     Uuuugh.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1666 on: May 08, 2016, 06:15:12 AM »

"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. ..."

Sure .  As long as the administrations are Democrat.  No one believes the press will not go after the truth in Republican administrations.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1667 on: May 08, 2016, 06:30:26 AM »

"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. ..."

Sure .  As long as the administrations are Democrat.  No one believes the press will not go after the truth in Republican administrations.



That is a compelling reason to vote for Republicans. Because that's the only way to be sure there will be press oversight.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1668 on: May 09, 2016, 08:58:46 AM »

This is on Yahoo news today.  That support for the Republican stance blocking Garland is "collapsing".  First look a the author of the article.  A far left lawyer.  Second look at the poll infromation. Nearly all the people polled are black or single women.  Third even the poll admits 42% don't even know who Garland is.  So what is written in this article is worthless.  Total propaganda.  Yet it is right at the top of Yahoo news.  I can only imagine how the questions were worded.  Ok ask a single young mother and a Black if they think the Republicans should confirm Obama's SCOTUS nominee.  Gee I wonder how they would respond. 

No biggie.  Add up the numbers and publish in the news with title trumpeting the results as fact.

Republican ought not to cave :

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/09/3776434/support-republican-partys-plans-supreme-court-collapsed/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1669 on: May 09, 2016, 11:41:59 AM »

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7926


« Reply #1670 on: May 09, 2016, 08:13:45 PM »


Know anyone who has passed along liberal stories from FB?     )

Another link on that:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/former-facebook-employees-confirm-fb-regularly-suppresses-trending-conserva
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1671 on: May 10, 2016, 03:40:49 PM »

https://www.hotgas.net/2016/04/megyn-donalds-illicit-rendezvous/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1672 on: May 10, 2016, 05:52:53 PM »

Wow.  What a hit on Megyn!

She went after Trump.  Big mistake for the Trumpists.

I thought her question in the debate was valid in view of Trump's history.  But the way she asked it, and the way she persisted (not totally unlike her usual style though) was clearly meant as a hit job.  Little did she, or me or us know, that getting Trump to say vulgar or outlandish things would not detract but would instead strengthen his support among his disciples.

As for Megyn she has turned me off a while ago with her Turmp like narcissism.  In that regard they are exactly alike.  Besides she is not a real blonde and she certainly has had some plastic or other work done.   She is no longer a newscaster and is now of a self promoting celebrity.  She will try to get into movies probably now at least on the side. 

The must have blond hair dye in the elevators at Fox just down the hall from the shop that sizes the blue the pink the green the red miniskirts
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1673 on: May 11, 2016, 10:52:24 AM »

Dana is now as vulgar as Donald and is even now guilty of the very same name calling she authored a critical letter of Donald from a group of conservative women.  She must not have known the commentator is a BRC carrier and has to have very severe surgery.  The surgery can be life saving but having to go through with it is horrendous:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/11/dana-loesch-lashes-out-at-flat-chested-trump-supporter-undergoing-mastectomy-surgery/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1674 on: May 11, 2016, 12:11:14 PM »

Things certainly have gotten ugly. I think there ismuchmore ugliness ahead though.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1675 on: May 12, 2016, 11:07:38 PM »

Facebook selecting what news stories to "trend" is not surprising.  For a long time I felt Yahoo either gets bribed to trend certain headlines or people or / and the people, usually celebrities are trending as a result of phony computer generated clicks.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/12/leaked-documents-confirm-facebook-deciding-which-news-stories-users-see/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1676 on: May 17, 2016, 09:18:55 PM »

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/02/sharyl-attkisson-got-a-show-after-years-of-push/205931

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1677 on: May 19, 2016, 12:08:30 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153641109924205/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1678 on: May 20, 2016, 05:42:56 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363603.php

Group ID'd as One of Ben Rhodes' "Force Multipliers" In Selling Iran Deal Also Gave $100,000 to NPR to "Help" It "Report" on the Deal
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1679 on: May 20, 2016, 07:19:15 PM »

Whoa.  Worth noting and remembering.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1680 on: May 22, 2016, 10:23:28 AM »

Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous “deal” in American history — Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.
“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.
 
AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” .

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

— Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

— Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

— Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
 
On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other .

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

— In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network :

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.
A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

[a] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
[c] http://freebeacon.com/issues/public-radio-pay-to-play/
[d] http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427
[e] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-officials-plot-ways-to-pressure-lawmakers-into-supporting-iran-deal/
[f] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-instructs-allies-to-lean-on-jewish-community-to-force-iran-deal/
[g] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/money-behind-iran-nuclear-deal-ploughshares/
[h] http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/M+A_Ploughshares_culture%20report.pdf
http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/how-we-won
[j] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/20/ben-rhodes-echo-chamber-on-iran-had-many-supporters
[k] http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/obamas-iran-echo-chamber-just-cant-stop/
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/05/obama-admin-funded-journalists.html/#sthash.bsP71mGq.dpuf
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1681 on: May 22, 2016, 11:52:08 AM »




Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous “deal” in American history — Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.
“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.
 
AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” .

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

— Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

— Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

— Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
 
On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other .

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

— In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network :

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.
A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

[a] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
[c] http://freebeacon.com/issues/public-radio-pay-to-play/
[d] http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427
[e] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-officials-plot-ways-to-pressure-lawmakers-into-supporting-iran-deal/
[f] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-instructs-allies-to-lean-on-jewish-community-to-force-iran-deal/
[g] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/money-behind-iran-nuclear-deal-ploughshares/
[h] http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/M+A_Ploughshares_culture%20report.pdf
http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/how-we-won
[j] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/20/ben-rhodes-echo-chamber-on-iran-had-many-supporters
[k] http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/obamas-iran-echo-chamber-just-cant-stop/
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/05/obama-admin-funded-journalists.html/#sthash.bsP71mGq.dpuf

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1682 on: May 23, 2016, 12:51:23 PM »

While I was not happy Trump and more precisely Lowandowski didn't simply apologize this 28 yo is getting unbelievable coverage from the event.  Like Megyn kelly who is a bigger celebrity thanks to Trump.
 http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/22/media/michelle-fields-huffington-post-donald-trump/
« Last Edit: May 23, 2016, 02:51:49 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1683 on: May 24, 2016, 03:20:07 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/24/oops-npr-admits-it-did-cancel-interviews-with-iran-deal-critic/

Oops! NPR admits it did cancel interview with Iran-deal critic
POSTED AT 3:21 PM ON MAY 24, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON

Share on Facebook 14 14 SHARES
National Public Radio admitted Monday that it did cancel an interview with Rep. Mike Pompeo, a congressional critic of the Iran deal, despite having told the Associated Press last week that it had no record of contact with him.

Last week the AP revealed that National Public Radio had taken $100,000 in 2015 from the Ploughshares Fund, a group that White House adviser Ben Rhodes said was helpful in setting up a media “echo chamber” to pass the deal. NPR flatly denied that the donation had any impact on their coverage of the deal. From the AP report:

“It’s a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation,” NPR said in an emailed statement. “As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests.”
There was just one problem with this blanket denial from NPR. According to Rep. Mike Pompeo, a critic of the deal, NPR had canceled an interview with him even as it gave air time to Rep. Adam Schiff, a supporter of the deal. Once again, NPR denied it. A spokesperson told the AP it had no record of Pompeo’s requests to be featured on the air discussing the deal. That was it, cut and dry.

Only it wasn’t true. The Washington Free Beacon reports NPR has now reversed itself:

An NPR producer contacted Pompeo’s office on Aug. 4, 2015, to schedule an interview with the lawmaker, according to an email viewed by the Free Beacon.

“We’d like to do this but not live tomorrow morning. Can we schedule a tape time for tomorrow morning or Thursday to air in Friday’s show? This will give us more time to figure out better audio options as well,” NPR producer Kenya Young wrote to Pompeo’s office, according to a copy of the email.

“Let’s aim for Thursday morning at 10am Eastern,” Young wrote later in the day. “I’ll assign a producer in the morning who will get in touch with you, confirm a time, and set up an engineer to tape sync the interview in Kansas. Thanks for reaching out. You’ll hear from someone on my team in the morning.”

NPR decided to nix the interview the following morning…
An NPR spokesman told the Free Beacon, “Rep. Pompeo was booked to discuss the Iran deal in August 2015, but the interview did not take place.” NPR also issued another anodyne statement about editorial firewalls that supposedly prevent their stories from being influenced by big donations to cover specific issues. But when asked by the Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo to explain the initial statement to the Associated Press, denying it had been in contact with Rep. Pompeo, NPR stopped responding. That doesn’t look suspicious at all.

Let’s just state the obvious here. NPR took money ($700,000 over a period of several years) from a group that the White House has identified as part of the Iran deal echo-chamber. NPR says that money didn’t influence coverage, and yet one of the outspoken critics of the deal had his interview canceled and, a month later, had his 2nd approach to the network rebuffed. It has all the appearance of bias. For that matter, NPR’s decision to host Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione on two occasions to offer positive (and partisan) political spin for the deal looks a lot like pay-for-play.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1684 on: May 27, 2016, 08:23:21 AM »

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/


Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview
When the Planned Parenthood videos broke, Katie Couric jumped on the campaign to discredit them as 'edited.' Her new gun control documentary is inexcusable.
 Mollie Hemingway
By Mollie Hemingway
MAY 26, 2016


A new Katie Couric documentary advocating gun control was deceptively edited to make Second Amendment supporters look foolish, audio released by the supporters shows.

In “Under the Gun,” Couric asks a group of gun rights supporters, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” The documentary filmmakers spliced in footage of the activists sitting silently for nine seconds. One man looks down, seemingly uncomfortable, during the awkward silence. The documentary then moves on to the next scene of a cylinder on a revolver being closed.


Couric documentarians fabricated this moment, using footage from a session that was unrelated to the question asked. In fact, according to audio of Couric’s interview provided by the gun rights activists, they all rushed to respond to to Couric, providing answers based on principle and practical concerns. “Well, one — if you’re not in jail, you should still have your basic rights,” said one of the gun owners. Others responded as well.

You can watch the offending section — and hear the actual audio that was spliced out — here. It’s a stunning betrayal of journalistic ethics.

This willful and malicious doctoring of evidence to support an agenda is so unconscionable that even CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other media outlets made note of it.

Couric should have disclaimed the documentary and publicly acknowledge her error. Instead, the film’s director Stephanie Soechtig indirectly admitted she spliced in false footage when she issued the following statement:


My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.
This mealy mouthed mush was described as an apology at CNN while The Washington Post openly mocked the “apologize if” construction of the response. Erik Wemple of the Post added that he’d never seen a “thinner, more weaselly excuse” than the one proffered by Soechtig. For her part, Couric said “I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of the film.”

Wemple says that’s nowhere near good enough and concludes, “An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here.”

Of course, this type of cut-and-splice “journalism” is common these days. Journalists have been praising “The Daily Show’s” use of deceptively edited interviews for as long as “The Daily Show” has deceptively edited them. Pretty much every time we hear that some cable comedian has “destroyed” some outgroup or the views the outgroup holds, that’s thanks to deceptive editing.


A few other things are worth noting here. One is how media outlets praised this faux-documentary prior to this particularly egregious example of manipulation. The AP’s story by Lynn Elber was headlined, “Gun violence gets more nuanced, probing coverage.” I’d hate to see something non-nuanced or non-probing! The article goes on to say the documentary “examines why those on opposite sides of stricter gun laws can’t find common ground.”

On Media Treatment of ‘Edited’ Videos
You know where this is going. Beginning last July, the Center for Medical Progress began releasing videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the trafficking of human body parts obtained from abortions performed in clinics. The videos were shocking. Planned Parenthood began robotically issuing talking points calling the videos “edited” or “deceptively edited,” in an attempt to protect its organization from a public relations nightmare.

That Planned Parenthood would respond to these videos in such a way is not surprising. But our entire media industrial complex attempted to circumvent the findings of the Center for Medical Progress’ videos by calling them “edited” or “deceptively edited” as well. If they said it once, they said it eleventy billion times.

It is true that all video journalism is edited. One hundred-freaking-percent of it. Every single video package you watch on the nightly news is edited. None of these videos are called “edited,” of course, but they are. In the same way that all other video journalism is edited, yes, the Center for Medical Progress’ was, too.


But unlike every other documentary team, the Center for Medical Progress did something telling. They released, along with their mini-documentaries, the full unedited footage they obtained in their undercover journalistic efforts.

Planned Parenthood paid for an audit of the videos from a left-wing Democratic opposition research firm called Fusion — an audit that the media were happy to accept and spread — to support the talking point that the videos were edited. Even so, that audit admitted “no widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

An independent audit and forensic analysis of the videos likewise said that they were “authentic and show no evidence of manipulation.” As I wrote on Twitter:

 Follow

*nothing* like this was done in @ppact videos, yet “journalists” can’t refer to them without calling them “edited." https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/735489139236298752
9:19 AM - 25 May 2016
  148 148 Retweets  105 105 likes
Indeed, when Katie Couric ran interference for Cecile Richards, doing a lengthy sit-down puffball interview and a tour of an abortion clinic where she didn’t once mention, uh, abortion, she twice decried the videos as “edited.” Couric is a long-time pro-abortion activist, not just using the mainstream media to advocate it, but having marched in support of the right to end unborn human lives. Last week on David Axelrod’s podcast, she said that her parents were major influences on her, specifically citing her mother’s volunteer work for Planned Parenthood and the fact that her mother invested in Trojan condoms when she learned about the AIDS crisis. Classy!

An accompanying write-up of the Cecile Richards interview falsely stated:

The videos, some of which were edited together in a way to depict Planned Parenthood employees talking about selling fetal tissue, which is illegal, rocked the organization.
The media have straight-up adopted Planned Parenthood’s false “deceptively edited” talking points and carried the water for Planned Parenthood’s campaign against the Center for Medical Progress. Here, one of their perky own in the mainstream media is caught red-handed actually deceptively editing in the service of gun control, and the most outrage The New York Times can muster is the headline, “Audio of Katie Couric interview shows editing slant in documentary, site claims.” What a joke our mainstream media are.

Photo Helga Esteb / Shutterstock.com
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1685 on: May 27, 2016, 11:17:43 AM »

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/05/26/english-spanish-networks-refuse-cover-katie-couric-gun-control

Silence.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1686 on: May 27, 2016, 11:49:34 AM »

Another hollywood liberal with a political agenda at a commencement speech.

Oh how special .  We are just a world of hate.  Just love one another people now.....with pepsi music in background.  Oh what a great message.  Go out in the world and fight for Muslims, for gays, fight for Democrat Party blah blah blah:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/05/27/steven-spielberg-harvard-grads-nation-immigrants-least/

sorry i can not always control my contempt for these people.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7926


« Reply #1687 on: May 27, 2016, 12:08:16 PM »

Excellent coverage of this!  (Here in this Federalist / G M post I mean, not in the press.)

"It’s a stunning betrayal of journalistic ethics.  This willful and malicious doctoring of evidence to support an agenda..."


The AGENDA is the point.  Subtle bias in every story in every outlet is worse.  This just blows the whole thing into daylight for everyone - who doesn't care anyway - to see.  This is not just bad journalism, like sloppy or lazy or made a mistake.  This isn't journalism at all.  An infiltration of leftist activists into our institutions has been discovered and exposed.  It was a total and complete, hostile takeover. Like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather before her, she was the face of the CBS evening news and they all did it in their own way, night after night.  Leftists took over our most trusted institutions, from the face of our news, to our k-12 teaching and college professors, to our DOJ and our IRS.  There was a war and we lost by not showing up.  It isn't that that favor one side or the other; they are acting to undermine the foundation on which the country was formed, the Second Amendment in this case, life, national security, war and our other freedoms in other cases..  It isn't that this one incident was blatant; it is that the sum total of this is treasonous.  My humble opinion.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 12:10:02 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5467


« Reply #1688 on: May 27, 2016, 12:25:17 PM »

Couric who likes to hobnob with the celebrities has done this kind of stuff before.

No biggie.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13614


« Reply #1689 on: May 29, 2016, 01:24:08 PM »

#Invalid YouTube Link#

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&ebc=ANyPxKpxhwXOPpg5XczIDKUIMl5tw3FtCn84rROn-Eny4QfumizpK3FJtsxNXwNep4Rrj9h3UBHrb2awF3jCUg4nvzZAm6u1Mw&v=si-LsQxz5y8

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36863


« Reply #1690 on: May 29, 2016, 02:55:56 PM »

Can't say that his doing so in this case did not serve the cause of Truth. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!