Media Corruption

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is a disaster… You want Trump gone, beat him… Is it possible it could be perceived that you are going after Trump using lawfare because you can’t beat him. Because you know the issues don’t favor you?” Smith said, noting things like Iran, Ukraine, trouble at the border, and rising crime.

“Y’all remember Bill Clinton? …Lying under oath. Remember that? No sexual relations?” he added, pointing out other Democrats like former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards who had an illicit affair with a campaign aide.

The host asked if the Democrats were “really, really” planning to “push this where a state like New York has a former President in a courtroom because he paid $130,000 in hush money…to keep a porn star’s mouth shut about the fact that they got loose with each other because he didn’t want that to taint his campaign.”

Smith then talked about the “sexual encounter” Clinton had with the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky during his presidency and slammed the trial as “much ado about nothing.”

“To my liberal friends out there, all you’re doing is showing that you’re scared you can’t beat him on the issues and the merits,” the host said. “That’s why he [Trump] keeps saying they can’t beat me at the election, at the polls. This is the only way they can do it.”





www.dailywire.com

‘Remember Bill Clinton’: Stephen A. Smith Pleads With Democrats Stop ‘Disaster’ Trump Hush Money Trial | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com www.dailywire.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member



And since the federal government doesn't seem interested in doing anything about it, it's good to know where we stand. Although some states are trying to pass legislation to address this issue, something that is long overdue.

More from Mother Jones:

Lawmakers in Alaska, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia have introduced new legislation designed to increase penalties for blocking traffic. The majority of the bills have been introduced by Republicans, except in New York, where a Democrat, Assemblywoman Stacey Pheffer Amato, is leading the charge.
If passed, these laws would take a variety of forms. In Arizona, blocking a highway or public road would become a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, punishable by up to more than 5 years in prison. In Massachusetts, it’s 10 years. New York officials want to expand their domestic terrorism law to include deliberately blocking public roads, bridges, or tunnels. West Virginia officials want to do the same, while carving out immunity for people who hit protesters with their cars.
For all of their distinctions, advocates say these bills have one important thing in common. “Most of the proposals are unnecessary,” says Vera Eidelman, staff attorney at the ACLU. Blocking traffic without a permit is already illegal in all 50 states and typically classified as a minor offense.
Click to expand...


This is more than blocking traffic and a minor offense -- and Mother Jones admits it in their own post. It's about disruption, the willful and planned intent to commit a crime and hurt commerce and travel.









twitchy.com

Mother Jones Says the Quiet Part Out Loud: When Blocking Traffic, Disruption Is the Point

twitchy.com twitchy.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Mid 40's BLACK Males are MAGA Incels on 4chan, mad at women NOT getting enough energy from their online hate comments so they attack women in public


🤣







Jessica Burbank Blames MAGA Incels For NYC Crime









Men punching random women in NYC: A desperate last gasp of the male rage fueling MAGA​



Women report being assaulted by men of different races and ages. Still, across the different stories, a couple of similarities pop out: The alleged victims are mostly young and pretty, and most of them say they were minding their own business when they were attacked. Some were on their phones or reading on tablets. Others were speaking to friends or daydreaming. Whatever they were doing, they were just living their lives, and that, it seems, is what enraged their assailants.

Whatever the scale of this problem eventually turns out to be, it's not surprising that these stories have gone viral and captured the public's imagination. While it rarely turns to violence, most women who spend much time walking around in public have experience with men who berate them for paying attention to something other than the man who is now, often out of nowhere, spewing invectives. In our modern era, that often manifests with men who are infuriated at women for looking at their phones. But I'm old enough to remember when I would get yelled at for reading books in public.

Whatever the excuse the angry man concocts, the impetus is always the same: The eyes of a woman are directed at someone or something that is not him, and he is indignant over it. So he will make sure she has no choice but to look at him, either by getting in her face or — in these alarming New York cases — punching her. If he cannot capture her adoring gaze, well, he will make her stare at him in fear.
 
Last edited:
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

WHAT? Threats Against Jews Disappear From Pro-Hamas Protest Coverage​



The evening network newscasts are barely into their second weeknight covering the violent, pro-Hamas protests outside Columbia University and throughout college campuses across the nation, and there is already a discernible shift in their coverage. Direct threats against Jewish students have all but disappeared from coverage.

In place of the threats and violence, we get a lot more militancy across the dial. Case in point and most emblematic is this snippet to close out CBS’s coverage of the protests:
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Joy Reid And Liberal Media RAGE Over SCOTUS Stopping Jack Smith From Rigging Election Against Trump!​




 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Biden Campaign's Warning to Media About WH Correspondents' Dinner Should Be in a Trump Ad​









Here's part of that DNC post:

Ahead of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, DNC Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd released the following statement:
“We hope everyone has a good time this weekend, because if Donald Trump wins in November, this Saturday could also be known as the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner. To state the obvious: Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist who – despite spending seemingly every waking moment glued to his seat consuming cable news – is constantly attacking the free press and unable to handle a little good-natured ribbing. He skipped the White House Correspondents’ Dinner every single year he was in office because of his deep-seated insecurities and pathetic desperation to be liked by the same people he rails against – and that was before he outright banned members of his administration from attending at all. Fun and jokes aside this weekend, Saturday is also a reminder of what’s at stake with an angry, vengeful Trump on the ballot. He may be a punchline, but he is also a sad, vindictive wannabe authoritarian who shows no respect for the First Amendment – or the Fourth Estate.”
Click to expand...
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Corporate Press Says HAVING BABIES IS FAR RIGHT, Leftism Is A Death Cult, The Future Is Conservative​




 
Kyle

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
The Onion hasn't been funny for a long time.

No paywall or TikTok distribution is going to solve that.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
NEW YORK (AP) — Even as many Americans say they learn about the 2024 election campaign from national news outlets, a disquieting poll reveals some serious trust issues.

About half of Americans, 53%, say they are extremely or very concerned that news organizations will report inaccuracies or misinformation during the election. Some 42% express worry that news outlets will use generative artificial intelligence to create stories, according to a poll from the American Press Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The poll found 47% of Americans also expressing serious concern that news outlets would report information that has not been confirmed or verified, and 44% worry that accurate information will be presented in a way that favors one side or another.

Half of Americans say they get election news always or frequently from national news outlets, a percentage that is higher among older respondents, the poll found.

“The level of engagement is good,” said Michael Bolden, CEO of the American Press Institute. “The thing that’s most concerning is that they’re not sure they can actually trust the information.”

Years of suspicion about journalists, much of it sown by politicians, is partly responsible, he said. People are also less familiar with how journalism works. The poll found about half of respondents say they have at least a moderate amount of confidence in the information they receive from either national or local news outlets when it comes to the 2024 elections, though only about 1 in 10 say they have a great deal of confidence.



www.breitbart.com

Poll: News Organizations Have Trust Issues as They Gear up to Cover Another Election - Breitbart

NEW YORK (AP) — Even as many Americans say they learn about the 2024 election campaign from national news outlets, a disquieting poll reveals some serious trust issues.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

A Man Killed Four Cops And Broke ‘Gun Control’ Laws, But Media Aren’t Invested In The Story For Some Reason​



It’s interesting how that works. Just shy of four years ago, our national news media and Democrats in general declared it time for a “racial reckoning” because one erratic fentanyl addict died of a heart attack in custody after a cop attempted to wrestle him under control. We haven’t stopped hearing about it since. But on Monday, Terry Clark Hughes Jr., 39, under warrant for illegal firearm possession and evading arrest, allegedly greeted police arriving to take him into custody by raining rounds of bullets on them using his rifle from the second story of a nondescript suburban home.

Hughes was killed in the shootout, but so were officers Sam Poloche, Alden Elliot, Joshua Eyer, and Thomas Weeks. Did I mention they were simply trying to arrest Hughes for illegally owning a gun, a breach of laws I’m promised by the media are vital to the safety of every man, woman, and child in America?

Without being too blunt here: It’s because Hughes is BLACK.

Not even a month ago, the media had us on the verge of Floyd 2.0 after a 26-year-old man allegedly initiated gunfire on police from his SUV. Authorities were pulling Dexter Reed over for a traffic violation and commanding that he open his window when he allegedly pulled the trigger, only to receive a barrage of bullets from police in return, striking him 13 times total.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Case in point: The now infamous interview of Trump by Eric Cortellessa that recently appeared in Time magazine. The corporate media and Trump’s political opponents have seized on this interview to declare conclusively that Trump is a clear and present danger to the nation if he were elected to a second term. The headlines are downright hysterical:

  • “Trump doesn’t rule out political violence if he loses, and other takeaways from his Time interview” (CNN)
  • “Trump threatens to prosecute Bidens if he’s re-elected unless he gets immunity” (The Guardian)
  • “Trump reveals terrifying plan for potential second term in Time magazine interview” (MSNBC)
  • “Trump Hints Another January 6 Could Happen If He Loses the Election” (The New Republic)
  • “Trump says it's up to states whether to punish, monitor women for abortions” (Washington Post)
If those headlines were accurate, you could certainly make the case that all Americans should vote against Donald Trump, no matter how much they despise Joe Biden. And, truth be told, if you were to read just the interpretation of Trump’s words by Cortellessa in his Time magazine news story, you would be inclined to agree with that assessment. But what if Cortellessa is looking at Trump through a prism that automatically distorts his words to fit a confirmation bias that anything Trump says must be dangerous?





Fortunately, we don’t have to guess whether that happened. Time magazine very generously provided the evidence of the distortion by publishing not just Cortellessa’s very damaging news story, but also the raw transcript of his two interviews with Trump where we can see what the former president actually said.

Side by side, the story and the transcripts are raw material for a master class on media manipulation and how a reporter with a point of view can manufacture damaging fake news out of even the most benign responses of an overly trusting interviewee.

What is clear from the transcripts is that Cortellessa is an expert interviewer, someone who can make his subject comfortable and who stubbornly pursues answers to his questions until he gets the response he wants. But when you read the story he created out of the interview responses, you realize that Cortellessa’s real talent is magic: He can pull a dangerous autocrat out of Trump’s benign responses that show he intends to apply the power of the presidency in a thoughtful and well-reasoned manner to achieve the policy objectives he has outlined in his campaign.

A few examples will have to suffice in this format, but surely a conscientious journalism student could form an entire thesis around such a comparison. Early in his story, Cortellessa goes through a long laundry list of offenses that he categorizes as “the outlines of an imperial presidency.” The first thing you notice when reading the list is that it is in large measure the exact same list of policy goals that Trump recites proudly at every rally. It is therefore not only “the terrifying plan” that has MSNBC worried about a second term; it is also the platform that has convinced voters to favor Trump over Biden by 1.5 points in the RealClearPolitics Average of polls. In fact, despite Trump’s legal woes, as of last week he was ahead of or tied with Biden in nine of the last 10 polls.

The second and more important thing you notice about Cortellessa’s laundry list of Trump’s offending statements is that they are the least sympathetic interpretation by the author of well-reasoned positions taken by the former president in lengthy responses.

Consider Cortellessa’s dismissal of Trump’s rejection of FBI crime statistics:

“On the campaign trail, Trump uses crime as a cudgel, painting urban America as a savage hell-scape even though violent crime has declined in recent years, with homicides sinking 6% in 2022 and 13% in 2023, according to the FBI. When I point this out, Trump tells me he thinks the data, which is collected by state and local police departments, is rigged. ‘It’s a lie,’ he says.”

Well, Trump is right and Cortellessa is wrong. In an Oct. 27, 2023, report at Stateline.org, Amanda Hernández reported that “Across the country, law enforcement agencies’ inability — or refusal — to send their annual crime data to the FBI has resulted in a distorted picture of the United States’ crime trends, according to a new Stateline analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program participation data. … Prior to 2021, 23% of U.S. law enforcement agencies on average did not report any crime data to the FBI. In 2020, 24% of agencies did not report, and in 2021, it surged to 40%.”

Call it a lie, or call it a damned statistic, but Trump is closer to the truth than the author.

On another topic – abortion – Cortellessa tells his readers that Trump is contemplating invasive monitoring of pregnancies.

“More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans,” Cortellessa declares, “and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies.”

Not quite. When you read the transcript, you discover that it was the reporter who brought up the concept of states “monitoring women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban.” It is a nonsensical concept because there is nothing preventing a woman from traveling to a state where abortion is legal and receiving the procedure there.

But Trump never took the bait. When asked if he thought states should do it, he answered that they might do it, but he made it very clear that those decisions would be made at the state level and he would have no input on them. This is consistent with his policy on post-Roe legislation.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top