Media Corruption
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
STUDY: ‘Divested’ From Reality! PBS Cheers on Hamas-Supporting Campus Protests
How did taxpayer-funded media cover the anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protests that dominated college campuses this spring? A new Media Research Center study analyzed the words used by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reporters, guests, and talking heads over 36 days of protest coverage and found PBS’s flagship news program NewsHour/News Weekend to be overwhelmingly on the side of the protesters, downplaying their pro-Hamas, anti-Jewish rhetoric, not challenging the protesters on their sympathy for the eliminationist goals of Hamas, and even rediscovering the merits of “free speech.”
Key Findings:
- “Pro-Palestinian” labels vs. “Pro-Hamas” labels: 29 to 0. PBS reporters were comfortable describing the radicals with the evasive and flattering term “pro-Palestinian,” while more accurate labels were non-existent. Four students used the inaccurate word "genocide" against Israel.
- “Free Speech” labels vs. “Hate Speech” labels: 17 to 3. All it took was leftist students saying offensive things for PBS reporters to decide free speech was worth defending again.
- Bias by Omission: Only two of the 28 total campus protest reports mentioned the October 7 massacres, only one mentioned the "From The River to the Sea" chant threatening ethnic cleansing, and none mentioned the call for "intifada" against the Jewish state.
■ “Pro-Palestinian” labels vs. “Pro-Hamas” labels: 29 to 0. PBS reporters were comfortable describing the radicals with the evasive and flattering term “pro-Palestinian.” Anchor Amna Nawaz did so on April 26: “…we continue to report on the spread of these campus protests, pro-Palestinian protests, by and large, and protesting Israel's war conduct in Gaza.”
A somewhat more accurate label, “anti-Israeli,” was used by substitute anchor William Brangham in a May 3 segment, but in that case Brangham was actually disparaging critics of the protests, lamenting how the protesters unfairly risked “being branded as antisemites” by them: “I mean, Jonathan [Capehart], a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all antisemitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't -- can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as antisemites?” Those “caring” protesters wore Palestinian-associated kaffiyeh scarves and brandished threatening signs while chanting anti-Israel eliminationist rhetoric.
No PBS journalist used the phrase “anti-Jewish” (its only appearance came in a quote from a student) and no one described the protesters as “pro-Hamas,” although that phrase would more accurately capture the truth. By contrast, PBS ran quotes from four students falsely using the term “genocide” to refer to Israel’s war on Hamas where the terrorists are using the Palestinian people as human shields.
■ “Free Speech” labels vs. “Hate Speech” labels: 17 to 3. All it took was some leftist students saying offensive things for PBS reporters to decide free speech was worth defending again, after years of lectures about alleged “hate speech” committed by conservatives online.
Journalists mentioned “free speech,” “free expression,” or similar wording 17 times, while the previously popular concept of “hate speech” was almost ignored, even as it became a valid concern on campus. There were only three mentions of “hate speech” by journalists, two coming in a May 7 segment prodded by, of all things, a speech by President Joe Biden, who spoke about antisemitism at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Nawaz conducted a combative April 25 interview with Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier after he ended a ridiculous sit-in by students in his office by calling in police assistance: “You said in your op-ed that free speech is alive and well at Vanderbilt. But there was an open letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. They say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. They say the rules seem arbitrary. And they say the criterion that protests must not disrupt university operations, as you say, is perniciously vague and expansive. What do you say to that?”
Reporter Lisa Desjardins conducted a surprisingly hostile interview May 7 with New York Times columnist David French, who insisted the often-vile protests were depriving other students of their own civil rights. She didn’t see the problem: “But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library.”
Biden should REPLACE Kamala Harris on the ballot with Hillary Clinton, Washington Post columnist claims
- Biden has left Democrats wondering how to jump start his floundering campaign
- Doubts have also existed over the ability of Harris as second-in-command
- Columnist Kathleen Parker wrote that Dems should look to their recent past
Joe Biden is being encouraged to replace Kamala Harris with a blast from the past to aid his floundering chances at re-election.
Biden, who has struggled in the polls nationally and in key swing states, has left Democrats wondering if major change is needed to beat Donald Trump in November.
Questions and doubts exist over the health and ability to perform the job of Biden, at 81, the oldest president in American history.
Harris - the first female and first black vice president in American history - has also struggled, with poll numbers saying a majority of Americans don't think she would be a good president.
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Kathleen Parker wrote Tuesday that Democrats should look to their recent past for a new VP.
New Yorker: Book on Hitler Reminds Us of a Conservative Chaotic Clown With a Violent Following
The New Yorker is reposting this story from March, so the desperation must be setting in. There's a new book about Adolf Hitler, “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power,” and guess whom it's eerily reminiscent of. The fear here seems not to be of Donald Trump but of his enablers.
Adam Gopnik wrote back in March:
First, no one regards the possession of power more than the Democrats — just see how hard they're working to undermine the "rogue" Supreme Court. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked of Congress, "What power are we going to exercise to rein in a fundamentally unaccountable and rogue court." None, because you have no power.
Anyway, a democratic election did hand over (not "absolute") power to someone who could never claim a majority in an actual election. That happened despite the Hillary Clinton campaign's exhaustive efforts to connect the Trump campaign to the Russians. If anyone, the political class regards President Joe Biden as a "chaotic clown" (but only because of all those deep-fake videos).
On Tuesday, PBS’s credulous editors ran this unintentionally hilarious headline: “‘I had that DNA of caring for people': Fauci discusses new book and life in public health.”
Corporate media’s rehabilitation tour for the world’s most hated human cockroach continues chugging along, full steam ahead. As if they knew they didn’t want to get into pesky, inconvenient details like whether Fauci was telling the truth or not, PBS’s story just published Fauci’s words as-is, without criticism or cavil, letting the bad doctor speak for himself.
The ‘interview story’ revealed that, in Fauci’s mind, he is not a grasping, self-aggrandizing buffoon. No, he is a paragon of humanitarianism.
Fauci claimed his humanitarian credentials not because of anything he’s done, but because his father was a popular neighborhood pharmacist in Brooklyn. In Fauci’s logic, he inherited his father’s DNA of caring. At the same time, of course, he was also simultaneously hawking his book, because his caring DNA has been genetically modified by experimental mRNA injections of cash-grabbing shots and multiple boosters of greed:
In a long series of grotesque, scripted softball questions that were probably pre-written by Fauci, the butt-kissing PBS reporter asked Fauci what he’d learned from his experience tangling with AIDS activists back in the 1980’s. “I didn't realize,” the PBS reporter fawningly and unbelievably explained, “until you wrote about it so extensively here, about the ways in which you were heavily criticized.”
Poor Dr. Fauci! There’s simply no justice for hardworking, caring, lifetime bureaucrats compensated by taxpayers more richly than any other government employee including the President of the United States.
Despite the reporter’s feigned surprise at the well-deserved criticism — who dare criticize the top covid doc? — unmentioned in the interview were any reasons the activists hated Fauci (and still do). Fauci hilariously answered that AIDS activists taught him to approach pandemics by heroically breaking from the official narrative and patiently listening to the community:
One can only imagine the soaring rhetoric of carefully scripted questions PBS would ask had they interviewed Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or Jeffrey Dahlmer. What have you learned from managing such a large, complicated country by yourself? What have you learned from your experiences with the criminal justice system?
Pravda wants its reputation back. Corporate media’s disgusting defense of the world’s biggest serial killer will never work, and they know it, too. Exhibit A: the article’s comment section was turned off. Also, notably absent from the article were any quotes from anyone brave enough to agree with the doctor’s generous self-diagnosis.
Let me know in the comments whether you agree Fauci’s DNA is based on his caring and listening to the community. I can’t wait to hear what you all think.
☕️ DROPPING THE BONE ☙ Thursday, June 20, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Mini-roundup of the fruits growing from Biden's disastrous foreign policy; Fauci PBS interview delivers guffaws; encouraging counter-revolutionary news from Louisiana, and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Newly named Washington Post editor decides not to take job after backlash, will stay in Britain
The Post’s CEO and publisher, Will Lewis, announced Winnett’s decision to withdraw in a note to staff on Friday morning, and said a recruitment firm would be hired to launch a search for a replacement immediately.
The financially struggling Post had announced Winnett would take over as editor of the core newsroom functions after November’s presidential election, while it was also setting up a “third newsroom” devoted to finding new ways for its journalism to make money.
Three weeks ago, then-executive editor Sally Buzbee said that she would quit rather than take a demotion to head this revenue-enhancement effort. Former Wall Street Journal editor Matt Murray was brought on as her interim replacement and future leader of the “third newsroom.”
Washington Post’s editor drama only exposes its lack of ‘ethics’ after debasing Trump for years
Morale is plummeting in the viper’s nest that passes for the Washington Post newsroom.
Not because readers are deserting the paper in droves. Not because the newspaper lost $77 million last year. The oh-so-ethical journalists of the WaPo couldn’t care less about such trivialities. They’re too busy finding ways to cover up Joe Biden’s corruption or swallowing new Deep State lies about Donald Trump’s “existential threat to democracy.”
They’re just upset that the paper’s owner, Amazon mogul Jeff Bezos, wants to stem the bleeding and has installed new management to carry out his wishes.
The new CEO is an energetic Brit named Will Lewis, with impressive runs on the journalistic leadership board on both sides of the Atlantic. He was previously publisher at The Wall Street Journal, on the board of The Associated Press, editor of London’s Telegraph and an investigative reporter for the Financial Times. Not good enough for WaPo’s paragons of elite journalism.
NBC’s Peter Alexander Frets Biden Achievements Still Unknown To Voters
In Alexander’s blinkered view, the Great Unwashed don’t know how great they have it. Alexander comes across as a modern-day version of Diogenes the Cynic, lamp in hand, searching for the voter that has entered into the knowledge of all of Biden’s wins.
Alexander’s expression of dismay came during the portion of the panel discussion concerning the effectiveness (for Biden’s campaign) of continuing to emphasize former President Donald Trump’s conviction in the New York business records case. If there are indeed voters unaware of Trump’s “baggage”, it isn’t due to lack of media effort, given their outsized coverage of the trial.
It may be the case that voters are keenly aware of what Biden has “accomplished” on the economy, despite Regime Media efforts to obfuscate with Trump’s legal troubles (in and of themselves the result of weaponized government) and firefight the damage wrought by Bidenomics. It’s not that they don’t know, but that they know better.
Ice Skating Uphill: Media Guru David Clinch Denounces the Very Existence of 'Citizen Journalism'
Here is a little information about Clinch. He does have a strong background in journalism. He worked as a reporter for 30 years, starting at CNN's international desk. If you do the math, that includes years when CNN was not a complete joke and hadn't become simply the official PR firm for the Democrat Party. So, he's not just some fly-by-night pundit. However, Clinch is not a reporter anymore. He founded his consulting firm Media Growth Partners in 2023, specifically designed to help traditional media outlets grow audience and revenue.
In other words, Clinch -- outside of any ideology -- has a financial interest in denouncing citizen journalism.
Always follow the money.
Clinch's problem, of course, is the same problem the legacy media itself faces. People have eyes, ears, and the ability to think critically. Over the past several years, everyone has been able to see how wrong the legacy media and the journalists with 'skills and tools' (as Clinch put it) have been on nearly every subject of importance, from COVID to international wars to ... well pretty much every narrative they have pushed about the Biden administration, including the most recent narrative that videos showing Joe Biden's mental decline are 'cheap fakes.'
On the other hand, citizen journalists have been RIGHT about so many of these issues:
- Alex Berenson is a seasoned New York Times reporter, but right now, he is a citizen journalist, working for himself. He was so 'right' about the misinformation that the government and their media lapdogs were pushing regarding COVID that the Biden administration tried to have him deplatformed and silenced.
- No one has exposed more about the fraud of DEI than Christopher Rufo, who never went to journalism school and never worked for a major newspaper or network. He is changing the corrupt landscape of American education.
- The popular Twitter user Billboard Chris has exposed the fraud of 'gender-affirming care' simply by going and standing with a billboard in public places and filming his interactions with people. Sorry, Mr. Clinch, but that IS journalism.
- Chaya Raichik, who famously created Libs of TikTok, and Matt Walsh, who doesn't even have a college degree, have exposed the destructive nature of 'family-friendly drag shows' and the illegal surgeries on minors at hospitals across the country.
- James O'Keefe and his army of citizen journalists have used undercover video to expose corruption at companies ranging from IBM to Disney, as well as within the government.
- Corey DeAngelis did not go to J-School, but he has exposed more fraud in teachers' unions than anyone else in the country.
I could go on and on with so many more accounts, including Twitchy favorites like End Wokeness, James Lindsay, Drew Holden, Wokal Distance, Ian McKelvey, and others, most of whom probably would not even refer to themselves as journalists. But they are citizens and they are providing more honest reporting than you will ever see on CNN or MSNBC, or read in the pages of The Washington Post or New York Times or ... Rolling Stone (sorry, I included that last one just for a laugh).
New York Magazine Celebrates Aaron Bushnell as 'Antiwar Martyr'
If you're like us, you've probably already cast the name Aaron Bushnell onto the ash heap of history. Bushnell, you will remember, is the mentally ill Air Force reservist of immolated himself in some kind of deranged show of solidarity with the 'Free Palestine' movement. Hamas even congratulated him for it, which is a pretty great sign that you are on the wrong side.
For the insane left, however, Bushnell was -- and remains -- a hero. And the legacy media, being not only committed leftists but also amoral ghouls, jumped on that bandwagon hard. But that was way back in February and we thought even the media vultures had moved on from a story that had clearly flamed out (pun intended).
Not so fast, though, said New York Magazine. In a truly grotesque attempt to resurrect Bushnell's 'legacy,' the publication published a lengthy 'think piece' late last week, examining the life of Bushnell in the most sympathetic terms.
If this sparks memories of Rolling Stone putting the Boston Marathon bomber on its cover, it should. Just like that cover story which was highly sympathetic toward Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, New York magazine's article relishes in how Bushnell was a religious scholar (thankfully, they did not include the adjective 'austere'), how he loved Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, how he was shy and awkward, all characterizations designed to elicit sympathy, not condemnation.
Case Closed: USC Dismisses Complaints Against Professor Who Condemned Hamas
That context didn’t matter to the campus mob that coalesced to cancel Strauss the same day. What mattered is that he dared to challenge the protesters’ attack on the Jewish State. Within hours of the rally, students reportedly filed multiple complaints against him for discrimination and hate speech. And the next day, a student group filed a petition to terminate him.
USC then banned Strauss from campus for the rest of the semester, relegating him to teaching on Zoom. Though the school allowed him to return to school in December, he remained under investigation for discrimination and harassment over his remarks, an investigation that finally concluded last week, as reported in the LA Times:
But while Strauss’s ordeal is officially over, his lawyer, Samantha Harris, told the paper she was “’frustrated that it took seven months to reach an obvious conclusion’ that Strauss did not engage in harassment or discrimination”: