Media Corruption
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
E. Jean Carroll’s Original Claims About Trump Were Absurd, But That Didn’t Stop The Media From Amplifying Them
It’s pretty stunning to accuse a sitting president of rape but then not want to call it rape, which is exactly what Carroll did at the time. In an interview with The New York Times, “It was an episode. It was an action. It was a fight. It was not a crime. It was, I had a struggle with a guy.” She added in the same interview, “I am not — I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That’s the thing.”
If it were just some kind of coping mechanism, a self-empowerment move to omit the word from her vocabulary, it might make sense. But when asked in a separate interview on MSNBC whether she would consider attempting to press criminal charges against Trump, her answer was even more bizarre. She flatly said no, and when asked why, she said, “I would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection … It would just be really disrespectful.”
If you’re not following, that’s okay. Carroll was simply saying that she wouldn’t seek charges against the man who allegedly raped her because she had too much compassion for illegal immigrants. Understand?
[clip]
And now for the borderline comical details of the non-rape that she says took place at the New York Bergdorf Goodman sometime in the mid-90s. By Carroll’s telling, she happened upon Trump at the store, and the two proceeded to flirt and giggle throughout the entire business before eventually heading toward the fitting rooms with a piece of lingerie. She alleged in an essay for New York magazine that inside the fitting room, Trump pressed her against the wall and forced his mouth onto hers, though she continued to laugh. At some point, she said he was able to force himself upon her before she could break away and exit the store.
No fellow shopper saw it. No fitting room attendant. No sales clerk. It was by every indication a ghost town in that Manhattan department store. Even Carroll acknowledged the peculiarity of such unexpected desolation, writing, “99 percent of the time, you will have an attendant in Bergdorf’s. All I can say is I did not, in this fleeting episode, see an attendant.” As for how the pair ended up in a fitting room without assistance: “And the other odd thing is that a dressing-room door was open. In Bergdorf’s dressing rooms, doors are usually locked until a client wants to try something on.”
I suppose stranger things have happened than finding yourself with a celebrity businessman who gets the rare opportunity to commit a sex crime in public completely unnoticed within an unusually empty high-end department store.
It’s weird out there!
Although Cheney narrates the ad, she does not appear in it. Rather, the ad focuses on footage from January 6, 2021. "Donald Trump is a risk America can never take again," she warns, also claiming "Donald Trump is the only president in American history who has refused to guarantee the peaceful transfer of power" and even that "there has never been a greater dereliction of duty by any president."
In covering the ad, Twitchy's Sam Janney highlighted a very telling point about Cheney, in that she should be spending this much energy on defeating Democrats. "Now, imagine if Liz cared this much about stopping Biden. Wouldn’t that be AMAZING? And I get it, it’s basically primary season (I’m not sure we’re ever really out of primary season anymore) and Republicans will make digs at one another because they want the nod, BUT this is dangerous because Liz cares more about 'getting' Trump than she does stopping Biden," she wrote.
“Twitter was already under fire for misinformation, disinformation, all-out lies, anti-Semitism, racism before Elon Musk took over and now it’s gotten kind of crazy, right? Seemingly unmoored, if you will,” Costello began.
Pivoting to the direct question, Costello asked, “Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says? Or is this the point? It’s just a free-for-all?”
Stelter quickly agreed that having no rules appeared to be the point, saying, “It is a free-for-all, it’s what Elon Musk wants to provide. This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Twitter as a Right-wing website, and we see some users trying to go off to other sites instead.”
NBC Correspondent Worries That Twitter Won’t ‘Police’ Tucker: ‘It’s Just A Free-For-All’
NBC News correspondent Tom Costello worried on Tuesday that no one would be able to “police” former Fox News host Tucker Carlson if his show aired on Twitter. Costello brought in ousted CNN anchor — and regular Fox News critic — Brian Stelter to discuss the situation, responding to Carlson’s...
WaPo Accidentally Admits ‘Zuckbucks’ Were Used To Turn Out Likely-Democrat Voters In 2020
On Tuesday, the Twitter CEO linked to an October 2021 article, written by Federalist contributor William Doyle, that examines how Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave hundreds of millions of dollars to nonprofits such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) leading up to the 2020 presidential contest. CTCL and CEIR then poured these “Zuckbucks” into local election offices in battleground states around the country to change how elections were administered, such as by expanding unsupervised election protocols like mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes.
Notably, Doyle’s article examines how these grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive, privately funded Democrat get-out-the-vote operation. Organizations such as the Capital Research Center have also released detailed analyses on the partisan distribution of these funds.
While Musk simply referred to the article as “interesting,” that was apparently too much for Washington Post columnist Philip Bump to handle. In response, Bump penned an article titled, “Musk shares baseless election claim with millions of Twitter users,” in which he attempted to smear the Twitter CEO and discredit The Federalist’s article.
On Tuesday, the Twitter CEO linked to an October 2021 article, written by Federalist contributor William Doyle, that examines how Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave hundreds of millions of dollars to nonprofits such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) leading up to the 2020 presidential contest. CTCL and CEIR then poured these “Zuckbucks” into local election offices in battleground states around the country to change how elections were administered, such as by expanding unsupervised election protocols like mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes.
Notably, Doyle’s article examines how these grants were heavily skewed toward Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive, privately funded Democrat get-out-the-vote operation. Organizations such as the Capital Research Center have also released detailed analyses on the partisan distribution of these funds.
While Musk simply referred to the article as “interesting,” that was apparently too much for Washington Post columnist Philip Bump to handle. In response, Bump penned an article titled, “Musk shares baseless election claim with millions of Twitter users,” in which he attempted to smear the Twitter CEO and discredit The Federalist’s article.
Anti-Gunner Organization Files Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Blaming Them for Buffalo Mass Shooting
The plaintiffs argue that social media platforms contributed to the spread of violent images, extremist ideologies, and ideas of white supremacy. They claim that monetary motivations prevail over social media companies’ responsibility for public safety. The attorneys representing the families acknowledged the anticipated resistance from social media giants but emphasized their commitment to making the community and the country safer, with the ultimate goal of preventing future mass shootings.
The lawsuit also targets the manufacturer of the body armor worn by the shooter and the gun shop that sold him firearms. The families also named the parents of the shooter, claiming they knew of their son’s dangerous tendencies.
Attributing direct causation between the content on these platforms and real-world violence is a difficult task. Social media companies employ algorithms to personalize users’ experiences, but this does not necessarily mean they actively endorse or promote hate-filled ideologies. Algorithms are designed to cater to users’ preferences and interests, which, unfortunately, can inadvertently result in an echo chamber effect.
Indeed, if Gendron was influenced by content on social media, which many like him have been, it was his choice to consume this material. Holding social media responsible would be akin to holding Verizon responsible if someone used their service to call Gendron and convince him to commit this crime.
One of the core tenets of a democratic society is individual responsibility. While it is convenient to place the blame on social media companies, the uncomfortable reality is that individuals ultimately choose how they engage with online content. People have agency over their actions and the ability to critically evaluate the information they consume.
Blaming social media platforms for radicalization overlooks the complex interplay of factors that contribute to an individual’s mindset, including personal experiences, upbringing, and societal influences. By focusing on social media, we neglect the other crucial factors that may have played a role in the individual’s radicalization process.
Holding social media companies accountable for individual actions would have a chilling effect on free speech, which has already been attacked on social media platforms. This lawsuit would only be another tool the authoritarian left would use to stifle opinions of which they do not approve. Imposing excessive regulations will only lead to more censorship, hindering legitimate discussions on controversial topics and potentially impinging on citizens’ fundamental rights.
The Giffords Law Center, which has been at the forefront of the gun control effort appears to be using this legal action to not only curtail gun rights, but also to crack down on speech. It is another avenue that authoritarians on the left would exploit to ensure their political opposition is not able to express their views.
As is typical, they are claiming to only target racist white supremacist speech that might radicalize people like Gendron. But too many of us have seen that these people believe anything they don’t agree with falls under this category, meaning that even mainstream right-leaning opinions are most likely to be the target than anything else. As much as I feel for the families of the victims of that terrible shooting, using government force to silence people is not the answer.
The congressional baseball shooter comes to mind
Chuck Todd Says You Shouldn't Worry About Biden's IRS If You Pay Taxes
Doubling down on his false narrative, Todd shot back "So if you're paying what you are supposed to pay, then you should have nothing to fear."
"You would make the assumption that IRS audits are up that they’re putting out more liens on the American people. That's not true. That data is not there," Donalds responded.
Todd claiming "should have nothing to fear" from the IRS isn't just being tolerant of potential government tyranny, it's complete ignorance of recent history. The IRS has a long track record of abusing its power for political ends. Giving that agency more agents to audit more American taxpayers isn't something people should tolerate.
EXCLUSIVE: Jordan Neely's uncle who called for no plea deal for Daniel Penny over subway chokehold death is ARRESTED in NYC 'after being caught with knife and several stolen credit cards'
- Jordan Neely's uncle Christopher Neely, 44, was arrested Monday after being caught with several allegedly stolen credit cards and a gravity knife
- Police charged Neely with criminal possession of stolen property, resisting arrest, bail jumping and unlawful possession of a weapon
- This came a day after he spoke out to say if Daniel Penny gets a plea deal, the former Marine may kill another young man on the subway
Melted Our Brains? Here's One of Vice News' Final Reports and It Predictably Targets Fox News
Welcome to Shasta County, California, a deep red enclave of an otherwise heavily progressive state. It was the focus of what could be one of Vice News’ final reports as the media company filed for bankruptcy in early May. Vice leans Left, but most of the content containing this type of bias is delivered in a non-didactic way. It’s unlike MSNBC, whose hosts and contributors scream, preach, and have loaded commentaries soaked in condescension. Granted, I’m not a hardcore follower of Vice, though if I were to read something that contained differing opinions, I’d instead read them than, say, Daily Kos. It’s a polished and professional left-wing bias, put it that way. We may disagree, but their reports aren’t fraught with malice.
Where the roots are exposed are inherent in this report about the county terminating their contract with Dominion Voting Systems, which they say could be traced to Fox News peddling reports alleging the company was part of the scheme to rig the 2020 election for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
You know where this segment is going, but what’s the ground report? This county is Trump country, and it was filed in April, long before Fox News settled with Dominion for $787 million to avoid a court battle. That aspect was brought up, with the more liberal voters of the county, with one hoping the legal action destroys Fox News. Vice pressed the county’s elected leadership to find more evidence that Dominion couldn’t be trusted, but that didn’t go over too well.