Media Corruption
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Behold, right on cue, the latest example of media inversion. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story transformed record-breaking good stock market news into financial doom with a headline Eeyore would have loved: “Stock Market Today: Trump Vows Tariffs on Movies Made Abroad; Dow Futures Slip.” But the sub-headline flipped the script, revealing the truth that, “The S&P 500 rose for nine straight sessions through Friday, the longest winning streak in more than two decades.” That stunning admission was immediately capped by a depressing “futures” chart:
“Stock futures” are just bets on what the market will do next. So, they mainly reflect media mood manipulation rather than anything tangible. It must have been the only thing the reporter could find going the wrong direction that would provide a sufficiently depressing cover image.
The good news in the sub-headline, that the market just set a 20-year record for daily increases, was completely absent from the story. Not only should that singular fact have made up most of the story’s contents, but the article’s headline should have been, “Markets on Historic Run as Trump Expands Tariff Strategy.”
The Journal hates tariffs and the president who made them.
Appropos, here is a clip of President Trump on Air Force One this weekend, scolding the WSJ’s reporter that he works for a “rotten newspaper.” The President said it twice, slower the second time, to make sure the reporter got the message.
CLIP: Trump unfavorably reviews the Wall Street Journal (0:17).
The President asked, “Who are you with?” When the reporter answered, Trump sorrowfully said, “the Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell. It is a rotten newspaper. Did you hear what I said? It's a rotten newspaper.”
Well? He’s not wrong.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
“Stock futures” are just bets on what the market will do next. So, they mainly reflect media mood manipulation rather than anything tangible. It must have been the only thing the reporter could find going the wrong direction that would provide a sufficiently depressing cover image.
The good news in the sub-headline, that the market just set a 20-year record for daily increases, was completely absent from the story. Not only should that singular fact have made up most of the story’s contents, but the article’s headline should have been, “Markets on Historic Run as Trump Expands Tariff Strategy.”
The Journal hates tariffs and the president who made them.
Appropos, here is a clip of President Trump on Air Force One this weekend, scolding the WSJ’s reporter that he works for a “rotten newspaper.” The President said it twice, slower the second time, to make sure the reporter got the message.
CLIP: Trump unfavorably reviews the Wall Street Journal (0:17).
The President asked, “Who are you with?” When the reporter answered, Trump sorrowfully said, “the Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell. It is a rotten newspaper. Did you hear what I said? It's a rotten newspaper.”
Well? He’s not wrong.
☕️ THE ACCOUNTANT ☙ Monday, May 5, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
CIA fires military vax architect; NYT spins financial doom; Trump team cuts deeper; media cries over stock surge; DOJ targets pandemic profiteers; Florida AG defies federal judge in looming showdown.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
AP, CNN Expose Their Derangement With Coverage of Border Successes Adversely Affecting Human Traffickers
There have been a couple of aphorisms the press loves to trot out to the public as a means of describing – or more accurately deflecting away from - their actions and practices. The first is “We are not the enemy of the people.” Another is that they do not need to give equal airtime to issues because if they give Republicans a fair shot at coverage they are platforming what the press deems to be misinformation. Giving both sides of a story will legitimize the “wrong” side, in their elevated thinking.
Now keep these chestnuts in mind as we look at a pair of stories from different outlets concerning the success President Trump has seen at the border. In recent weeks the data has come in showing that illegal border crossings have slowed to a trickle, with some stats from March showing that entries have dropped by at least 95 percent, and possibly higher than that. Then roll in the growing tide of self-deportations, and we end up in a net-positive arena with illegals.
But the press cannot tolerate any news that would be regarded as positive for the president, so they need to recalibrate what is happening at the southern border. One tactic is to simply overlook the progress made, in similar fashion to how they insisted there was not a border crisis for four years; now it is the case that there is no border success. Another is coming to light this weekend, as we saw not one but two reports straining to claim how this successful effort at the border has negative effects.
What is it with these people who enjoy the smell of their own farts going after Portnoy? Whether it's an attempt to bring down a popular right-leaning personality or boost their virtue points with their crowd, it stinks.
Recall that a minor food writer with the Washington Post tried to sabotage Portnoy's benevolent One Bite Pizza Festival in support of small restauranteurs. We could turn this into 2,000 word rant on the amoral and narcissistic journalists who make up the press, but we covered that with the White House Correspondents Dinner. Instead, let's focus on this particular attempted hit.
You can't blame Portnoy for having no love and taking no crap from journalists. Also, he's smart to record as many of these interactions as possible. They have the microphones and often wield it irresponsibly.
Someone said on WMAL yesterday that WSJ has become way too China-centric with regard to tariffs and the US economy.Behold, right on cue, the latest example of media inversion. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story transformed record-breaking good stock market news into financial doom with a headline Eeyore would have loved: “Stock Market Today: Trump Vows Tariffs on Movies Made Abroad; Dow Futures Slip.” But the sub-headline flipped the script, revealing the truth that, “The S&P 500 rose for nine straight sessions through Friday, the longest winning streak in more than two decades.” That stunning admission was immediately capped by a depressing “futures” chart:
“Stock futures” are just bets on what the market will do next. So, they mainly reflect media mood manipulation rather than anything tangible. It must have been the only thing the reporter could find going the wrong direction that would provide a sufficiently depressing cover image.
The good news in the sub-headline, that the market just set a 20-year record for daily increases, was completely absent from the story. Not only should that singular fact have made up most of the story’s contents, but the article’s headline should have been, “Markets on Historic Run as Trump Expands Tariff Strategy.”
The Journal hates tariffs and the president who made them.
Appropos, here is a clip of President Trump on Air Force One this weekend, scolding the WSJ’s reporter that he works for a “rotten newspaper.” The President said it twice, slower the second time, to make sure the reporter got the message.
CLIP: Trump unfavorably reviews the Wall Street Journal (0:17).
The President asked, “Who are you with?” When the reporter answered, Trump sorrowfully said, “the Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell. It is a rotten newspaper. Did you hear what I said? It's a rotten newspaper.”
Well? He’s not wrong.
☕️ THE ACCOUNTANT ☙ Monday, May 5, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
CIA fires military vax architect; NYT spins financial doom; Trump team cuts deeper; media cries over stock surge; DOJ targets pandemic profiteers; Florida AG defies federal judge in looming showdown.
60 Minutes lionizes Trump-hating attorney Marc Elias, mastermind of the Russia hoax
By Monica ShowalterAfter an unprecedented on-air hissy fit last week over the forced exit of a longtime editor, 60 Minutes's Scott Pelley decided to go all in on the Trump-hate, using his on-air time to praise and promote Marc Elias, the architect of the Russia hoax scandal and probably the world's sleaziest lawyer.
According to Breitbart News's Joel Pollak:
He isn't even trying to hide his partisanship. He's calling Elias a hero, courageous, a victim and all the other nonsense that can't be attributed to the sneaky acts of the Russia collusion hoaxers, let alone a Clinton lawyer. Pelley's pious intonations about "rule of law" are, to paraphrase an English writer, "like hearing the word 'love' from the mouth of a whore."
What's more, he's doing what a lot of Democrats do, accusing others what they themselves are doing, which in this case, taking revenge for personal purposes.
The premise of Pelley's piece was that Trump was striking out at Elias, a former attorney of Hillary Clinton's, for personal revenge, as if this hit piece, targeting President Trump by lionizing a man who should be hiding under a rock in disgrace after his Russia collusion hoax, weren't just that -- a personal revenge piece.
60 Minutes is full of CBS people that were aged out by the network from doing the evening or important reporting. They are still likely receiving hefty salaries. Hopefully Trump's lawsuit forces them out.
For the last three days now, the Wall Street Journal has included an op-ed on its main page titled, “Have We Dodged the Tariff Disaster?” The subheadline grudgingly allowed that, “Brexit’s results were less dire than opponents had warned. Something similar may be happening here.” Incoming narrative pivot!
Corporate media’s op-ed sections serve various political purposes and exclude the quaint, archaic notions of balance or fairness. Timely deployed op-eds can manufacture an illusion of fairness, whitewashing an especially biased news cycle, sort of like cramming a lego under one corner of a thumping, unbalanced dryer.
But other times, the op-eds are where the media surfaces it limited hangouts, safe places where corporate media’s failed narratives can be carefully euthanized without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Sometimes op-eds become ladders, helping media climb down from their most extreme positions. For instance, they trotted out TV doctor Leana Wen in the opinion section to begin unwinding their experts’ advice to wear masks while jogging outdoors. Eventually, that became “common sense,” and the media’s credibility was preserved.
By all appearances, this op-ed suggests we can plant our farewell kisses on the media’s forecasts of Trump-tariff doom. “Armageddon,” author Gerard Baker parsimoniously conceded, “has been deferred.” The market-crashing Great Depression 2.0 that was predicted by “almost all economists and by even more non-economists, has so far failed to materialize.”
Imagine that.
Mr. Baker knows how the op-ed game works better than anyone. He was the Journal’s chief executive editor from 2013-2018, during the first half of Trump 1.0. His role now is “balance.” While editor, he once took flak for instructing WSJ staff to stop calling things Trump said “lies” unless they had evidence of his intent to deceive. But he has also been intensely critical of the President. Two weeks ago, he called Trump’s second Administration “strikingly incompetent.”
And he’s a British-American dual citizen. So, Mr. Baker offers a fine illusion of balance.
Whatever he is, Mr. Baker is no particular Trump fan, a fact amply evidenced by his essay’s absence of any credit to the President for outthinking “almost all the experts.” Rather, like the rest of us, Mr. Baker seems oddly perturbed about experts, and he castigated them in a very un-British fashion. “We live in an age when experts are so little trusted that everyone has become one,” Baker explained. Haha! We told you that would happen.
Generously including himself, and coining an awkward climate-change reference, he rhetorically asked, “Have we misjudged the impact of the Trumpian disruption? Could the effect be less that of a devastating weather event and more a change in the climate?”
In other words, it’s becoming undeniable that all the anguished experts’ economic predictions are about to be proven categorically wrong.
Then Baker offered the Journal’s tariff-apocalypse off-ramp. You see, it’s not that Trump outfoxed the so-called experts who nobody trusts for some mysterious reason. It’s just a coincidence! Experts weren’t wrong, not exactly. Trump just got lucky. “Perhaps all this is better understood,” Mr. Baker suggested, firing off the replacement narrative, “in the context of the wider process of deglobalization underway for a decade or more, and perhaps we are better off managing it rather than fearing it.”
Baker sees things the other way around. Trump didn’t cause deglobalization (and tariffs). Deglobalization caused Trump. “Deglobalization is a reality born of long-simmering popular discontent and rising economic insecurity. Among its political fruits were Brexit and Mr. Trump,” the former chief editor gamely explained.
In other words, discontented non-elites (that’s us) demanded populist change, ignored our experts, and so we got Trump tariffs. What the experts somehow missed, according to Baker, was the public’s ravenous appetite for eating globalism alive and spitting it out in bloody chunks. “If we see deglobalization not as a catastrophic act of self-harm but as a choice—even a rational one,” Baker suggested in a moment of rare generosity, “we can position ourselves better to deal with its consequences.”
“We,” apparently, referring to globalists like himself and the rest of the editorial staff and its squadrons of cherry-picked experts. They need to re-position themselves to avoid getting run over on the populist freeway, like cute little reptiles in the game Frogger.
In sum, this op-ed stands as a weathervane, signaling a changing narrative climate, the rapidly failing expert guidance that Trump’s tariffs were the most backwards, destructive, and strikingly incompetent economic plan since North Korea issued guidelines for approved hairstyles. In face-saving desperation, they’ve decided to throw globalism under the Trump bus.
And that, dear readers, is progress.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Corporate media’s op-ed sections serve various political purposes and exclude the quaint, archaic notions of balance or fairness. Timely deployed op-eds can manufacture an illusion of fairness, whitewashing an especially biased news cycle, sort of like cramming a lego under one corner of a thumping, unbalanced dryer.
But other times, the op-eds are where the media surfaces it limited hangouts, safe places where corporate media’s failed narratives can be carefully euthanized without creating too much cognitive dissonance. Sometimes op-eds become ladders, helping media climb down from their most extreme positions. For instance, they trotted out TV doctor Leana Wen in the opinion section to begin unwinding their experts’ advice to wear masks while jogging outdoors. Eventually, that became “common sense,” and the media’s credibility was preserved.
By all appearances, this op-ed suggests we can plant our farewell kisses on the media’s forecasts of Trump-tariff doom. “Armageddon,” author Gerard Baker parsimoniously conceded, “has been deferred.” The market-crashing Great Depression 2.0 that was predicted by “almost all economists and by even more non-economists, has so far failed to materialize.”
Imagine that.
Mr. Baker knows how the op-ed game works better than anyone. He was the Journal’s chief executive editor from 2013-2018, during the first half of Trump 1.0. His role now is “balance.” While editor, he once took flak for instructing WSJ staff to stop calling things Trump said “lies” unless they had evidence of his intent to deceive. But he has also been intensely critical of the President. Two weeks ago, he called Trump’s second Administration “strikingly incompetent.”
And he’s a British-American dual citizen. So, Mr. Baker offers a fine illusion of balance.
Whatever he is, Mr. Baker is no particular Trump fan, a fact amply evidenced by his essay’s absence of any credit to the President for outthinking “almost all the experts.” Rather, like the rest of us, Mr. Baker seems oddly perturbed about experts, and he castigated them in a very un-British fashion. “We live in an age when experts are so little trusted that everyone has become one,” Baker explained. Haha! We told you that would happen.
Generously including himself, and coining an awkward climate-change reference, he rhetorically asked, “Have we misjudged the impact of the Trumpian disruption? Could the effect be less that of a devastating weather event and more a change in the climate?”
In other words, it’s becoming undeniable that all the anguished experts’ economic predictions are about to be proven categorically wrong.
Then Baker offered the Journal’s tariff-apocalypse off-ramp. You see, it’s not that Trump outfoxed the so-called experts who nobody trusts for some mysterious reason. It’s just a coincidence! Experts weren’t wrong, not exactly. Trump just got lucky. “Perhaps all this is better understood,” Mr. Baker suggested, firing off the replacement narrative, “in the context of the wider process of deglobalization underway for a decade or more, and perhaps we are better off managing it rather than fearing it.”
Baker sees things the other way around. Trump didn’t cause deglobalization (and tariffs). Deglobalization caused Trump. “Deglobalization is a reality born of long-simmering popular discontent and rising economic insecurity. Among its political fruits were Brexit and Mr. Trump,” the former chief editor gamely explained.
In other words, discontented non-elites (that’s us) demanded populist change, ignored our experts, and so we got Trump tariffs. What the experts somehow missed, according to Baker, was the public’s ravenous appetite for eating globalism alive and spitting it out in bloody chunks. “If we see deglobalization not as a catastrophic act of self-harm but as a choice—even a rational one,” Baker suggested in a moment of rare generosity, “we can position ourselves better to deal with its consequences.”
“We,” apparently, referring to globalists like himself and the rest of the editorial staff and its squadrons of cherry-picked experts. They need to re-position themselves to avoid getting run over on the populist freeway, like cute little reptiles in the game Frogger.
In sum, this op-ed stands as a weathervane, signaling a changing narrative climate, the rapidly failing expert guidance that Trump’s tariffs were the most backwards, destructive, and strikingly incompetent economic plan since North Korea issued guidelines for approved hairstyles. In face-saving desperation, they’ve decided to throw globalism under the Trump bus.
And that, dear readers, is progress.
☕️ DEFERRED ARMAGEDDON ☙ Thursday, May 8, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Corporate media slyly admits Trump’s tariffs are working; first trade deal announcement imminent; MAHA cheers new Surgeon General; FBI nabs pedos nationwide; media mocks Trump’s Epstein probe.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Chalk up another expert failure, if you can find room on the board to mark another tally. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined, “Exclusive — China Sends Xi’s Security Czar to Trade Talks With U.S.” Defying expert predictions that China would easily outwait Trump’s crippling tariffs, the two countries began meeting yesterday in Switzerland to begin negotiations.
It was another narrative sea-change. Corporate media has packed its columns and airwaves with experts laughing like braying donkeys at the idea that China would ever cave on its public promises that it would never ever negotiate with Orange People unless the tariffs were first reversed. That, of course, was their second argument, after chortling experts explained (drawing with crayons so we deplorables could understand) that tariffs only hurt American consumers, a moronic claim that was instantly belied by the wails of anguish from foreign trade partners and by plummeting egg prices.
While they never mention it, reporters also never argue with the fact that China has been a poor economic partner for a very long time. The Chinese manipulate their currency to squeeze profits out of U.S. customers, brazenly steal and knock off U.S. inventions and ignore international intellectual property laws, fuel fentanyl forces, conduct corporate espionage, inject marxist nonsense into our colleges and universities, and generally swank around like they own the United States’ government and can do whatever they want.
Anyway, once again corporate media was wrong. Trump was right. The Chinese are, in fact, negotiating. And those negotiations follow the announcement of a UK-US deal that contained a massive hidden disclosure that should have been yesterday’s top headline.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
It was another narrative sea-change. Corporate media has packed its columns and airwaves with experts laughing like braying donkeys at the idea that China would ever cave on its public promises that it would never ever negotiate with Orange People unless the tariffs were first reversed. That, of course, was their second argument, after chortling experts explained (drawing with crayons so we deplorables could understand) that tariffs only hurt American consumers, a moronic claim that was instantly belied by the wails of anguish from foreign trade partners and by plummeting egg prices.
While they never mention it, reporters also never argue with the fact that China has been a poor economic partner for a very long time. The Chinese manipulate their currency to squeeze profits out of U.S. customers, brazenly steal and knock off U.S. inventions and ignore international intellectual property laws, fuel fentanyl forces, conduct corporate espionage, inject marxist nonsense into our colleges and universities, and generally swank around like they own the United States’ government and can do whatever they want.
Anyway, once again corporate media was wrong. Trump was right. The Chinese are, in fact, negotiating. And those negotiations follow the announcement of a UK-US deal that contained a massive hidden disclosure that should have been yesterday’s top headline.
☕️ MRNA MAYHEM ☙ Saturday, May 10, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
C&C correctly predicts major Trump moves; UK trade win; radical immigration shift; stunning tariff policy; China talks progress; Newark mayor arrest; and jab study links mRNA to falling fertility.
www.coffeeandcovid.com