Media Corruption

[GURPS]

ProPublica’s lame hit on Alito: a ‘dark money’ assault on high court


Since the Supreme Court shifted right, media coverage has, well, flip-flopped from hagiography to hit pieces fast enough to make your head spin.

When the court was reliably liberal, things like Justice Hugo Black’s fomer Klan membership, or William O. Douglas’ history of sexual misbehavior and shady connections to Vegas “businessmen” didn’t matter.

Now that it’s leaning the other way, the press has stopped swallowing camels and started straining at gnats.

Last month we were told that it was somehow an ethics violation that George Mason Law School (one of the few conservative law schools in America) had Supreme Court justices as adjunct professors, even as its clinic filed friend-of-the-court briefs.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Fantasy part on steroids: “having [CNNLOL’s] live programming appear on Max could provide a significant boost to the network’s audience.”

“Significant,” y’all…

Shall we do the math to debunk this nonsense…? We shall…

According to Wikipedia, CNN is currently available in 80 million U.S. households. And yet, although 80 million households can watch CNN anytime they choose, only about 500,000 tune in.

CNN cannot even attract one percent of its available audience, so…

On what planet will this abject failure and national joke boost HBOMax subscriptions?

Oh, and how will CNN’s availability on HBOMax boost viewership for a CNN that is already ignored by more than 99 percent of its available audience?

Allow me to tell you what’s really happening here, and I promise the news is all good.

CNN is doomed.

CNN cannot survive without the affirmative action of pay TV, where a portion of your cable bill goes directly to CNN. That’s how CNN stays afloat–the carriage fees that force you to subsidize a Hate Outlet you don’t watch. If CNN is part of your pay TV package, you are subsidizing CNN’s hate, racism, violence, lies, and overall Nazism.

Nolte: Embattled, Left-Wing CNN Surrenders and Will Stream on Max

CNN, a far-left propaganda outlet spreading conspiracy theories and political violence, will soon be available on the streaming service Max.

www.breitbart.com

 

[GURPS]

‘Tyranny of a Minority’: The Left Freaks Out After Affirmative Action Ruled Unconstitutional​

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Election Interference! MRC Poll Finds Most CNN & MSNBC Viewers Don’t Know About Biden Scandals and Bad News​

On every issue we examined, a majority of those who reported mainly watching Fox News or Newsmax said they recalled hearing about the various news stories we polled, while never more than 50 percent of those who watched CNN and MSNBC had the same information. Depending on the issue, the gap between the two groups averaged 23.5 percent, a huge deficit in the factual information of viewers of liberal cable news.

MRC President L. Brent Bozell III reacted: “This poll is just more evidence of the leftist media’s corrupt election interference. It’s no surprise that voters who rely on these leftist cable networks for their news are vastly less aware of Joe Biden’s multiple scandals and policy disasters. CNN and MSNBC know exactly what they’re doing, which is to bury the truth of Biden’s failures in order to save Joe Biden from himself.”

The poll was conducted for the Media Research Center by McLaughlin & Associates between June 15 and June 19. The survey consisted of 1,000 general election voters, who were asked about where they typically received their news, as well as their knowledge of eleven important news stories.

Overall, nearly half of those we surveyed said they received most of their news from television (49%), followed by online sources (39%), newspapers (6%) and radio (3%). Regardless of their primary news source, we asked all respondents if they had a cable news station they watched “most often.” A slight plurality (34.2%) cited a conservative/right-leaning cable network — Fox News (29.6%) and Newsmax (4.6%). Slightly fewer (30.5%) cited a liberal/left-leaning network — CNN (20.5%) and MSNBC (9.9%). Another three percent cited another network, while nearly 29 percent said they didn’t watch cable news at all.

As Tim Pool has repeatedly said;

Progressives get their news from left wing outlets, Right Leaning People get their news from Left and Right leaning Sources

 

[GURPS]

ESPN’s Ultra-Woke Jalen Rose Among More Than 20 On-Air Layoffs​

His attack on Mt. Rushmore brought South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem to say that the name wouldn’t be canceled on her watch.

“The four men on Mount Rushmore were amazing, flawed American leaders who helped make America what it is today — the greatest country the world has ever known,” Noem wrote in response to Rose’s comments. “To the woke leftists obsessed with attacking these leaders, I’ve got news for you: not on my watch.”

In 2018 he called the slogans “Make America Great Again” and “America’s pastime” a “dog whistle” for racists.

“When I see the trend, and I understand certain terms have been used as dog whistles in our society: ‘Make America Great Again,’ ‘America’s pastime.’ And a lot of times, that gets overblown, that gets overlooked. And I don’t care that somebody is only quote-unquote 17 years old,” he said.

Rose also used his ESPN platform to engage in anti-cop rhetoric.

Other notable layoffs include other woke ESPN broadcasters such as Max Kellerman. Kellerman, a boxing expert whose most notable ESPN experience was a failed run as Stephen A. Smith’s co-host, once blasted Tiger Woods for daring to say that people “needed to respect the presidency” when athletes were boycotting White House visits.

 

[SamSpade]

As Tim Pool has repeatedly said;

Progressives get their news from left wing outlets, Right Leaning People get their news from Left and Right leaning Sources

They HAVE to hear it from both, and not by choice. Most regular TV and movie content is imbued with left-leaning politics. Local news broadcasts - ditto. It is impossible for a conservative to be unaware of left-wing views.

I do have to say, though, that even though this survey does not surprise me - I don't trust content from a survey conducted by a clearly right-leaning source. It's one thing to dismiss Rasmussen, whose results tend to favor the right, but at least Rasmussen doesn't proceed to "prove" points and have been shown to be accurate when predicting election outcomes. It's another to load a survey with issues of high importance to right-leaning news watchers.

That SAID - the results do square with my conversations with people who lean left. They usually don't know much on these issues at all.

 

[GURPS]

That SAID - the results do square with my conversations with people who lean left. They usually don't know much on these issues at all.

and progressives violently dismiss ANY attempt to expose them to an alternative versions - aka the facts - from anything but their vaunted Media Sources - LAT, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC ... and so on

 

[GURPS]

ProPublica’s Smearing Of Conservative Justices Is Part Of The Left’s Ploy To Destroy The Court​

In its story, ProPublica also cited officials from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the American Constitution Society (ACS) for their supposedly nonpartisan “judicial ethics” opinions. But ACS has received millions from the Sandler Foundation, and CREW receives millions in funding from the Soros-funded Foundation to Promote an Open Society, among other left-wing donors. This is not fair and impartial; it’s downright partisan and dishonest. The “reporter” and the “ethics officials” are all funded by the same left-wing organizations with an agenda to radically reshape the court.

ProPublica smeared Alito with a similar story. ProPublica alleged Alito broke ethics laws by not disclosing a fishing trip to Alaska, again citing left-wing “judicial ethics experts,” including a CREW lawyer. To make the story even more misleading, ProPublica waits until nearly the end of its very long story (the 73rd paragraph!) to disclose that a Judicial Conference financial disclosure staffer had advised another federal judge who had been on a similar fishing trip to Alaska two years earlier in 2005, that he did not have to disclose the trip on his disclosure form. The judge even provided ProPublica with contemporaneous notes.

It does not matter at all what CREW, ACS, or CLC left-wing partisan activists say or what false narrative ProPublica wants to manufacture for its donors. The Judicial Conference is the governing body, and its actions have made it clear that the justices previously did not have to report these trips. In March 2023, the Judicial Conference amended its guidance to require disclosing private plane rides on similar future trips. By making this change, the Judicial Conference clearly acknowledged that such trips were previously exempt. News coverage reported as much.

ProPublica is hellbent on destroying this court because it is now a court faithful to the Constitution. It’s not about ethics. No one had a problem when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a trip with Israeli billionaire Morris Kahn in 2018 to three countries in the Middle East. She listed this trip as a reimbursement and did not disclose its value. And this trip came shortly after the Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling for Kahn’s company. No one claimed Ginsburg was being rewarded for the court’s action. Similarly, no one had a problem when Justice Breyer flew on billionaire David Rubenstein’s plane in 2013 to attend a wedding in Nantucket. Breyer also listed this flight as a reimbursement and did not disclose its value.

 

[Hijinx]

Explain to me please how Affirmative Action levels the playing field.
Does giving an advantage people who have lower test scores level that field.

IMO only if you are trying to get an even number of people of different races into college.
It has nothing to do with trying to give an education to those with a higher intellect.
That is one playing field that cannot be leveled.

 

[herb749]

‘Tyranny of a Minority’: The Left Freaks Out After Affirmative Action Ruled Unconstitutional​

There are segregated colleges. Don't they love them historic black universities .

 

[GURPS]

ESPN cuts major personalities in seismic layoffs​

"Given the current environment, ESPN has determined it necessary to identify some additional cost savings in the area of public-facing commentator salaries, and that process has begun," ESPN announced. "This exercise will include a small group of job cuts in the short-term and an ongoing focus on managing costs when we negotiate individual contract renewals in the months ahead."

"This is an extremely challenging process, involving individuals who have had tremendous impact on our company. These difficult decisions, based more on overall efficiency than merit, will help us meet our financial targets and ensure future growth," it continued.

Among those personalities affected are Jeff Van Gundy, Max Kellerman, Keyshawn Johnson, Suzy Kolber, and Jalen Rose, the New York Post reported. A source within the network told the Post that the layoffs would spare no "sacred cows."

ESPN does not plan to release a complete list of the names of affected employees.

 

[GURPS]

Did Justice Jackson Sneak a Loophole into the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ban?​

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority banned race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities on Thursday, ruling that using race as an admissions factor violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The decision invalidates the University of North Carolina and Harvard’s systems for making up their student body, and will, more broadly, make higher education whiter and society less equal.

While the decision pushes back the country’s ability to remedy the affects of slavery



Almost 160 years later and the left is still trying to ' undo ' the affects of Slavery ... Seven generations have passed since the War of Northern Aggression

 

[GURPS]

How the Liberal Media Tried to Spin the Asian American Community on Affirmative Action​

Here’s the Pew Research poll that both outlets cite, and you can see why liberal media writers got so wrapped up in everything that wasn’t germane to the issue at hand. The study dissected attitudes regarding party affiliation, who heard of the phrase “affirmative action,” and this and that but the buried part that strikes at the core of how this community feels about this policy and it brutally rips the heart out of the Left’s manufactured narrative about it [emphasis mine]:

Overall, majorities of Asian adults across gender, age, education and origin groups say race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions. Similar shares of Indian (77%), Chinese (76%), Filipino (76%), Vietnamese (76%), Korean (72%) and Japanese (70%) American adults express this view.
While Asian Republicans and Asian Democrats differ in their views of whether affirmative action is a good or bad thing, majorities of both groups notably say race or ethnicity should not play a role in college admissions. Among Asian Republicans, 90% say race or ethnicity should not be considered, and 69% of Asian Democrats say the same.
Meanwhile, more Asian immigrants (80%) than those who are U.S. born (64%) say race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions.

So, when you read headlines or see some talking head try to sell the narrative that there is a nuanced view about this topic within the Asian community, they’re lying. This is what you would call a super consensus position: Asian Americans don’t think race or ethnicity should be considered. Period.

But “many Asians support affirmative action,” except for the 80 percent of Asian immigrants, 77 percent of Indians, 76 percent of Chinese, 76 percent of Filipinos, 76 percent of Vietnamese, 72 percent of Koreans, and 70 percent of Japanese Americans who feel racial backgrounds shouldn't be a factor in the college admission process, so take that fake news somewhere else. And overall, this policy isn’t even popular. A 2022 Washington Post/Schar School Poll showed that 63 percent of all Americans want it tossed.

 

[GURPS]

Journalists Outraged That a Judge Would Dare Limit Biden's Censorship Powers​

Doughty's ruling is a preliminary injunction that bars federal agencies from engaging in many—though not all—of these behaviors. The outcome has alarmed mainstream outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times, whose reports included quotations from internet security "experts" fretting about the federal government's diminished ability to police speech online. Guests on CNN and MSNBC took an even more apocalyptic tone: CNN legal analyst Elie Hoenig assailed the "aggressive, far-reaching" ruling, while NBC News reporter Ryan Reilly described a world free of federal pressure on social media platforms as one that "we wouldn't want to live in." Reilly also fundamentally under-appreciated the scope of the pressure campaign, telling MSNBC viewers that "It's not as though the FBI has been going in & saying, 'Hey, take down this post.'"














Contrary to Reilly's claim, the FBI has done precisely that. For instance, the FBI frequently flagged joke tweets about the 2020 election and asked moderators at Twitter to take them down. The White House itself did the very same thing. As Doughty pointed out in his ruling, White House Digital Strategy Director Rob Flaherty personally appealed to Twitter to remove an account that parodied Biden's granddaughter. "Please remove this account immediately," wrote Flaherty. Forty-five minutes later, Twitter complied.

If Doughty's decision prevents the federal employees from engaging in such heavy-handed muzzling, it would be a welcome relief. Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt that the decision will meaningfully constrain the feds. That's because Doughty drew up a list of actions that are "NOT prohibited by this preliminary injunction," and this list could reasonably be read to permit the very sort of behavior—jawboning—that has produced the censorship.

Doughty's terms, for instance, allow the federal government to notify social media companies about threats to national security, criminal efforts to suppress voting, foreign attempts to influence elections, and communications that intend "to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity." It's worth recalling that prior to COVID-19, many of the communications between the feds and the platforms concerned precisely these subjects: purported foreign influence, malicious activity, etc.

When national intelligence officials cautioned social media companies about New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, for instance, they cited the threat of foreign election interference. Efforts to purge social media of so-called Russian bots—which was, in actuality, a crackdown on legitimate speech, expressed by Americans—were conducted under the auspices of malicious activity prevention.

 

[GURPS]

‘If It Was A Different Administration You Might Have A Different Take’: CNBC Hosts Spar Over Biden Censorship Ruling​

Kernen noted the administration had at one point created a disinformation governance board to dispel alleged “disinformation” and “misinformation,” calling it “Orwellian.”

“I think it was bad that if you said [COVID] was lab generated that that had to be banned, that was bad,” Kernen said.

Sorkin argued that social media companies are part of the free market space and “should be able to receive emails and text messages from anybody, including people at the White House, whether it’s the Trump administration sending those emails or whether it’s the Biden administration or whomever it is.”

Kernen then noted that prior to Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Twitter was highlighting more left-leaning items, noting that the satirical site, The Babylon Bee, was being suppressed.

 

[GURPS]

In a similar vein, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed yesterday headlined, “Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly.” The sub-headline explained “Government and social-media companies colluded to stifle dissenters who turned out to be right.”

Being a stifled dissenter myself, I was glad to see it in print, even if just in the editorial section.

The author sensibly pointed out that forbidding doctors from recommending effective alternative treatments and hiding the fact of recovered immunity is not only unethical and droolingly moronic but led to countless preventable deaths:

Legions of doctors stayed quiet after witnessing the demonization of their peers who challenged the Covid orthodoxy. A little censorship leads people to watch what they say. Millions of patients and citizens were deprived of important insights as a result… Excess mortality in most high-income nations was worse in 2021 and 2022 than in 2020, the initial pandemic year. Many poorer nations with less government control seemed to fare better. Sweden, which didn’t have a lockdown, performed better than nearly every other advanced nation.

The article quoted Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, who in 1969 famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Truer words were never spoken. So I guess all us of contrarians were doing science all along. Who knew.

Gosh. How many times over the last three years have I written about the dangers of ceding decision-making to experts? Historically, “experts” as a class were only supposed to INFORM our decision making, not MAKE decisions for us. That key historical distinction seems utterly lost on our friends from the left, and our present woeful circumstances constitute the best evidence of why we’ve never before put “experts” in charge of anything.

One editorial is not enough, not by a long shot, but it’s a start. Even though corporate media is still valiantly trying to defend official “disinformation censorship,” the truth, like water, keeps relentlessly finding ways to seep out. And — we aren’t seeing too many full-throated defenses of pandemic policy, are we?

Tick, tock, experts.

☕️ FLYING ☙ Saturday, July 8, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Article shows how substantial anti-lockdown scholarship is getting; WSJ links covid censorship to dead Americans; startling SADS stories; cluster bombs for Ukraine's kids; and lots more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]