Members of The View don’t understand why most voters voted based on policy positions instead of identity politics. I voted for Chase Oliver because he’s a libertarian, not because he’s LGBTQ.

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1855176570056376358

November 9, 2024. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, LGBT, Media bias, Racism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

Legacy media is dead. Long live citizen journalism!

https://x.com/ElonFactsX/status/1854162202472726756

https://twitter.com/ElonFactsX/status/1854162202472726756

November 7, 2024. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

I am the media now.

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1854522022497325485

November 7, 2024. Tags: , , . blogging, Media bias. Leave a comment.

CNN commentator Brian Stelter: “Trump’s return to power raises serious questions about the media’s credibility… Do major networks and publications have enough columnists and commentators who reflect the Trump majority’s views?”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/media/trump-reelection-media-credibility-trust/index.html

Trump’s return to power raises serious questions about the media’s credibility

By Brian Stelter

November 6, 2024

Donald Trump’s return to power is a hinge point for the American media – in ways big, small, and to be determined. His defeat of Kamala Harris is raising questions about the media’s credibility, influence, and audience. Some of the questions might not be answerable for years.

But journalists are asking each other: What does this “red wave” election say about the information environment in the United States?

In the hours after Trump won reelection Tuesday, some of his loyalists asserted that his victory is a complete repudiation of the news media. For a time on Wednesday morning, The Federalist’s lead headline was not about Trump, it was about the “corporate media industrial complex” being “2024’s biggest loser.”

Legacy media “is officially dead,” The Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh wrote on X overnight. “Their ability to set the narrative has been destroyed. Trump declared war on the media in 2016. Tonight he vanquished them completely. They will never be relevant again.”

That’s wishful thinking on Walsh’s part — Tuesday’s marathon election coverage was a testament to the media’s relevance — but the point is that many Trump voters share his wish. They believe the national news media is a big part of what ails America. Not only do they distrust what they read, they often don’t read it in the first place. Can anything be done to change that?

A quote in a recent New York magazine column channeled that question. The quote, from an anonymous TV executive, was recirculated on social media Wednesday morning. “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely,” the executive said. “A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form. And the question is what does it look like after.”

“Dead” is gross hyperbole, of course, but the comment reflected real concerns that many members of the media have. A severe trust deficit exists between the Trump base and big institutional media outlets. In a text message, a Trump campaign aide suggested that the press should show more humility.

That raises another question: Do major networks and publications have enough columnists and commentators who reflect the Trump majority’s views?

“Maybe we have a point,” the aide remarked. “Maybe ‘misinformation’ is a lazy word that was never applied to press coverage of Biden’s health or the border. Maybe ‘offensive’ things aren’t offensive to most.”

The mainstream media “has held less clout every four years,” Semafor’s Dave Weigel wrote Wednesday morning. “On Harris-friendly cable news, ex-Republicans broadcast their horror at who Trump was and what he’d done; in the new social media and podcasts favored by Republicans, all of that was whining disconnected from what voters really cared about.”

CNN political commentator Scott Jennings hit that point hard during the 3 a.m. hour of CNN’s election coverage. He said Trump’s win was “something of an indictment of the political information complex.”

“We have been sitting around for the last couple weeks and the story that was portrayed was not true,” Jennings said. “We were told Puerto Rico was going to change the election. Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley voters, women lying to their husbands. Before that it was Tim Walz and the camo hats. Night after night after night we were told all these things and gimmicks were going to somehow push Harris over the line. And we were just ignoring the fundamentals. Inflation; people feeling like they are barely able to tread water at best; those were the fundamentals of the election.”

Jennings added: “I think for all of us who cover elections and talk about elections and do this on a day-to-day basis, we have to figure out how to understand talk to and listen to the half of the country that rose up tonight and said, ‘We have had enough.’”

Liberal commentator Ashley Allison responded: “I think we have to listen to everybody, actually.” She said, “the people who voted for Kamala Harris are struggling too. They are feeling ignored too. A Republican’s pain is no greater or less than a Democrat’s pain.”

What lies ahead for the press

If history is any guide, Trump is never, ever satisfied with news coverage. He always wants a more pliant, propagandistic media. He even complains about Fox News on a regular basis, despite the network’s overwhelming support for him. Last month, he complained to Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch about the network airing Democratic ads.

Thus, Trump’s reelection portends a new period of hostility with major media outlets that strive for impartiality as well as partisan outlets that oppose him. This raises another set of questions.

Will the Trump administration turn his words against the press into actions? Will he move to revoke licenses for TV stations, as he has suggested more than a dozen times this year? Will he limit press access to the White House, barring reporters he doesn’t like?

Further, will media outlets engage in self-censoring to appease Trump, and if so, how will readers and viewers who oppose Trump react?

On Wednesday morning, newsroom leaders and owners are reassuring employees that they will have their backs in the uncertain months to come. “Now, more than ever, we are steadfast in our mission to uphold the principles of independent journalism,” Conde Nast chief Roger Lynch wrote in a memo to staffers. “A thriving, independent press, as protected by the First Amendment, is vital to democracy and the future we all share.”

November 7, 2024. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

When you use AI to replace every mention of “our democracy” with “our bureaucracy,” everything starts making a lot more sense.

https://x.com/Banned_Bill/status/1853842945767592429

https://twitter.com/Banned_Bill/status/1853842945767592429

November 5, 2024. Tags: , , , . Humor, Media bias. Leave a comment.

MSNBC commentator Jonathan Capehart claims that NPR and Huffington Post were lying when they said Kamala Harris put Cheree Peoples in jail because her daughter missed school when she was in the hospital.

Here’s the MSNBC video where Jonathan Capehart claims that NPR and Huffington Post were both lying when they said Kamala Harris put Cheree Peoples in jail because her daughter missed school when she was in the hospital:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=towOnvRcLxs

And here are the links to the original claim by both NPR and Huffington Post:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-truancy-arrests-2020-progressive-prosecutor_n_5c995789e4b0f7bfa1b57d2e

November 4, 2024. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Police state. Leave a comment.

According to Democrats, this is what a Nazi rally looks like.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1850663938381254927

October 28, 2024. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Holocaust, Media bias. Leave a comment.

FBI quietly changed violent crime data to show increase, not decrease, from 2021 to 2022

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/fbi-quietly-changed-violent-crime-data-to-show-increase-not-decrease-from-2021-to-2022-donald-trump-kamala-harris-election-november-president-white-house-washington-joe-biden

FBI quietly changed violent crime data to show increase, not decrease, from 2021 to 2022

By Julian Baron

October 16, 2024

The FBI quietly adjusted its annual crime data to show an increase in violent crime from 2021 to 2022.

The agency previously claimed violent crime decreased from 2021 to 2022, touting “an estimated 1.7%” decrease in violent crime between the two calendar years. The revised data, which was first identified by RealClearInvestigations, shows violent crime actually increased during that timeframe.

FBI data summaries reviewed by The National News Desk show the agency originally reported1,253,716 violent crimes in 2021 and 1,232,428 violent crimes in 2022, representing the 1.7% decrease it originally advertised. The updated data summary reported 1,197,930 violent crimes in 2021 and1,256,671 in 2022, showing a starkly different 4.9% jump.

The originally reported decrease in violent crime had been a political talking point for Democrats looking to praise the Biden-Harris administration for its handling of public safety. The revision has also called into question the accuracy of 2023 violent crime data released by the FBI earlier this year, which became a hot topic at the debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump sparred with ABC News anchor DavidMuir during the debate over what the former president called “defrauding statements” by the FBI regarding violent crime trends. He claimed the latest FBI data did not include “the worst cities,” painting the figures as an incomplete picture of a public safety crisis impacting the U.S.

Muir, who pushed back on Trump’s claims, cited FBI data that shows “overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”

Harris used the 2023 data as an opportunity to reassure Americans that the Biden-Harris administration has made the U.S. safer.

“Today’s new data submitted to the FBI confirms that our dedicated efforts and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement are working,” Harris said on social media last month. “Americans are safer now than when we took office.”

The FBI wrote in a statement late Wednesday that the adjustment was due to a change in the way crime data is reported to the agency.

“As part of this movement, the FBI has moved towards automation, allowing for past years’ estimates to be updated as data are submitted,” the statement said. “Therefore, 2021 counts now showing in the 20-year estimation tables reflect only estimates based on the data directly reported to the FBI.”

October 26, 2024. Tags: , , , , , . Media bias, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

The Revised FBI Crime Data Reveals that it Originally Missed 1,699 Murders in 2022. Given that Almost all Murders are Reported, How Does the FBI Miss that Many Murders?

https://crimeresearch.org/2024/10/the-revised-fbi-crime-data-reveals-that-it-originally-missed-1699-murders-in-2022-given-that-almost-all-murders-are-reported-how-does-the-fbi-miss-that-many-murders/

The Revised FBI Crime Data Reveals that it Originally Missed 1,699 Murders in 2022. Given that Almost all Murders are Reported, How Does the FBI Miss that Many Murders?

October 10, 2024

USA Today’s headline on the FBI’s reported crime data released in September 2023 claims “Violent crime dropped for second straight year in 2023, including murder and rape.” There are two errors in their headline. First, that it is the FBI’s measure of reported crime that fell, but that is not the same as all crime nor is it the only measure of reported crime. So they could have written, the FBI’s measure of reported violent crime fell in 2023. The second error is that they are wrong claiming that this was the second straight year, where an adjustment in the data showed a 4.5% increase in 2022. Originally, the FBI said that violent crime had fallen by 2.1% and now they say it increased by 4.5%. Just like the Bureau of Labor Statistics overestimated the number of jobs created.

Presumably the media was just reading the FBI’s press release and not looking at the actual data, and that may be why the media has ignored these statistics. Shockingly, the FBI’s September press release with the 2023 data doesn’t mention the changes to earlier data and that the original drop in violent crime for 2022 was now an increase. Nor did they mention that the new reported increase in 2022 was larger than the claimed decrease in 2023.

With the adjustments, compared to the new adjusted data for 2021, there is a net increase of 80.029 more violent crimes, 1,699 more murders, 7,780 more rapes, 33,459 more robberies, and 37,091 more aggravated assaults.

A major weakness for reported crime data is that most crimes aren’t reported to the police. Murder has the advantage because the vast majority of murders are reported. But the revised data for 2021 and 2022 shows a net increase of 1,699 more murders. How do you miss 1,699 murders? Another crime category that is well reported is motor vehicle theft because the thefts have to be reported for insurance to cover the theft. But the revised data shows a net increase of 54,216 more motor vehicle thefts.

The newly released FBI data is available here. The original 2022 FBI data is available here for comparison.

Another way of looking at these numbers is that the FBI overcounted the number of murders in 2021 by 1,074 and undercounted the number in 2022 by 625, again a gap of 1,699. Similarly, the FBI overcounted the number of violent reported violent crimes in 2021 by 55,786 and undercounted the number in 2022 by 24,243, again a gap of 80,029.

The percent changes in the various crime rates are dramatic.

October 26, 2024. Tags: , , , . Media bias, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Guess who Amazon’s Alexa is voting for?

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1831002228716437538

GUESS WHO AMAZON’S ALEXA IS VOTING FOR?

“Alexa, why should I vote for Donald Trump?”

Alexa:

“I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.”

“Alexa, why should I vote for Kamala Harris?”

Alexa:

“While there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris, the most significant may be that she is a strong candidate with a proven track record of accomplishment.

As the first female vice president, Harris has already broken down a major gender barrier, and her career in politics has been characterized by a commitment to progressive ideals and a focus on helping disenfranchised communities.”

Source: @ChuckCallesto

September 5, 2024. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Sky News abruptly cuts its live feed as a mob of migrants surround its reporter

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1820500865385701708

August 5, 2024. Tags: , , , . Immigration, Media bias. Leave a comment.

I just carried out these two searches at google. Google’s “predictions” prove that they have deliberately programmed their website to be biased against Trump.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

July 29, 2024

I just carried out these two searches at google. Google’s “predictions” prove that they have deliberately programmed their website to be biased against Trump.

When Google was brand new, it was praised for being the most accurate and unbiased search engine that had ever exited. This proves that that is no longer the case.

AttemptedPresident

July 29, 2024. Tags: , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Forbes deleted this article by Shaun Harper, but it is preserved in the Internet Archive: “Will Surviving Gunfire Be Donald Trump’s Next Appeal To Black Voters?… I am a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) expert.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20240714134334/https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2024/07/13/will-surviving-gunfire-be-donald-trumps-next-appeal-to-black-voters/

Will Surviving Gunfire Be Donald Trump’s Next Appeal To Black Voters?

By Shaun Harper

I am a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) expert

July 14, 2024

Shots were fired at a Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The former president narrowly escaped. He emerged bloody, but fortunately not critically injured. “President Trump thanks law enforcement and first responders for their quick action during this heinous act,” spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “He is fine and is being checked out at a local medical facility.” Tragically, one attendee is dead and at this time another is in serious condition. The suspected shooter also is dead.

Will Trump seize the apparent assassination attempt against him as an opportunity to meaningfully address the epidemic of gun violence in America? Will he deem unacceptable the dangers to which citizens are exposed as they go to schools, places of religious worship, concerts, movie theaters, supermarkets, shopping malls, sporting events, and now, presidential campaign rallies? It’s possible, but unlikely.

Butler is less than an hour north of Pittsburgh. It isn’t an urban center. But many big cities in which large numbers of Black Americans reside have long been plagued with inexcusably high levels of gun violence. Everytown Research and Policy’s analysis of 2018-2022 FBI data shows that Black people in Pittsburgh are 14 times more likely to die by gun homicide than are whites in the place affectionately known as “the Steel City.”

On the other side of the commonwealth, Philadelphia’s gun homicide rate was 30.8 fatalities per 100,000 residents in 2022. Blacks comprise the city’s single-largest racial group. They’re five times more likely to die by gunfire than are whites. Milwaukee, where this year’s Republican National Convention is being held, has the sixth-highest homicide by firearm rate in the nation. There, Blacks are 6.7 times more likely to be shot and killed than are white residents.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly contended that the August 2023 release of his criminal mugshot deeply resonated with Black voters because they know firsthand the unfairness of our nation’s criminal justice system. He has since relied on that narrative to persuade more Black Americans to cast votes for him this November. More Black men now than four years ago say they’re voting for Trump this time, but not many of them say they’re planning to do so because of any notion of shared kinship with judicial injustice.

Hopefully, being shot doesn’t become a similarly problematic strategy to link Trump with an experience that far too many (not all) Black people have. Instead, using his powerful platform to advocate fixing this through public policy and significant financial investments into urban Black communities is the opportunity that awaits Trump once he recovers from the tragedy that occurred at his rally. Another racially problematic kinship narrative is unlikely to make Black voters see Trump as one of them. And it most certainly won’t fix the gun violence crisis in rural, suburban, and urban places in which too many Americans are unnecessarily placed at risk of being shot.

Immediately after shots were fired, Trump fell and then secret service agents rushed to his side. He was down just over one minute. As the agents lifted him and he stood again, Trump looked into the crowd and raised his fist.

After winning gold and bronze medals for their spectacular performances in the men’s 200-meter race at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, American track athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised gloved fists as they stood on the podium. The two Black men were protesting racial injustice in their home country as “The Star-Spangled Banner” began to play. The photograph of what has since become known as the “Black Power Salute” remains one of the most iconic images in global sports history. Hopefully Trump doesn’t claim that his raised fist was an homage to Smith and Carlos, two powerful Black Americans.

In June 2020, many Black Americans and supporters from other racial groups marched in cities all across the nation with their fists raised. They were protesting Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man. Many outraged citizens peacefully marched outside the White House. Then-President Trump weaponized the National Guard and law enforcement against them. But now, just over four years later, there’s a chance that his raised fist at the Pennsylvania rally becomes erroneously connected to the Black people who were marching with fists raised in rallies in summer 2020 and at other moments in American history. Let’s hope not.

July 14, 2024. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Equity, Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Biden’s mental state is perfectly fine. The entire debate was a “cheap fake” created by “right wing conspiracy theorists.” The claim that he is not 100% mentally sound is nothing but “fake news.”

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1808254863920529832

July 2, 2024. Tags: , . Joe Biden, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Mainstream media: “The Hunter Biden laptop story is fake news.” “Biden’s mind is perfectly healthy.” “Democrats did not steal the 2020 election.”

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1807556348785152453

June 30, 2024. Tags: , , , , , . Joe Biden, Media bias, Stop the steal, Voter fraud. Leave a comment.

MSNBC on Biden’s cognitive abilities: “Biden is far beyond cogent. He is better than he has EVER been intellectually, analytically. He is the best ever.” This was just 3 months ago.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1806652543084220731

 

June 30, 2024. Tags: , , , . Joe Biden, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Every mainstream news source, every Democrat who spent time with Biden, and every commentator on MSNBC and CNN said Biden was perfectly fine. So why are all of them now trying to replace him in the election?

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1807158694355804237

June 29, 2024. Tags: , , , . Joe Biden, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Squad member Pramila Jayapal and MSNBC host Joy Reid think it’s funny, a “problem,” and “fearmongering” that Fox News reported on a violent crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUX0YNaufPI

June 21, 2024. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias, Soft on crime, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

NPR CEO and President Katherine Maher is a fascist and a communist.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay

NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism

By David Folkenflik

April 16, 2024

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had “lost America’s trust” by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner’s five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner’s essay for the online news site The Free Press. It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network’s coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization.

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR’s journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

“In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen,” she said. “What matters is NPR’s work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests.”

The network noted that “the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions.”

In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.

“We’re looking for a leader right now who’s going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about,” Berliner said. “And this seems to be the opposite of that.”

He said that he tried repeatedly to make his concerns over NPR’s coverage known to news leaders and to Maher’s predecessor as chief executive before publishing his essay.

Berliner has singled out coverage of several issues dominating the 2020s for criticism, including trans rights, the Israel-Hamas war and COVID. Berliner says he sees the same problems at other news organizations, but argues NPR, as a mission-driven institution, has a greater obligation to fairness.

“I love NPR and feel it’s a national trust,” Berliner says. “We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they’re capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners.”

A “final warning”

The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.

Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.

In presenting Berliner’s suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a “final warning,” saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR’s policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR’s newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.

In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner’s appearance on Chris Cuomo’s NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR’s chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times, which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times.

Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: “Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think.”

Berliner is a member of NPR’s business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.

In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures “were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world.”

Feelings of anger and betrayal inside the newsroom

His essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts. They also note he did not seek comment from the journalists involved in the work he cited.

Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner’s concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.

“The way to address that is through training and mentorship,” says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. “It’s not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don’t really care about it anyway.”

Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage.

“Newsrooms run on trust,” NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. “If you violate everyone’s trust by going to another outlet and sh–ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don’t know how you do your job now.”

Berliner rejected that critique, saying nothing in his essay or subsequent remarks betrayed private observations or arguments about coverage.

Other newsrooms are also grappling with questions over news judgment and confidentiality. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn announced to his staff that the newspaper’s inquiry into who leaked internal dissent over a planned episode of its podcast The Daily to another news outlet proved inconclusive. The episode was to focus on a December report on the use of sexual assault as part of the Hamas attack on Israel in October. Audio staffers aired doubts over how well the reporting stood up to scrutiny.

“We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule,” Kahn wrote to Times staffers.

At NPR, some of Berliner’s colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR’s workforce as its “North Star,” a moral imperative and chief business strategy.

In his essay, Berliner tagged the strategy as a failure, citing the drop in NPR’s broadcast audiences and its struggle to attract more Black and Latino listeners in particular.

“During most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding,” Berliner writes. “In recent years, however, that has changed.”

Berliner writes, “For NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model.”

NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: “Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It’s embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024.”

Some colleagues drafted a letter to Maher and NPR’s chief news executive, Edith Chapin, seeking greater clarity on NPR’s standards for its coverage and the behavior of its journalists — clearly pointed at Berliner.

A plan for “healthy discussion”

On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network’s mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner’s critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner’s essay offered “a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are.”

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR’s workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

Late Monday afternoon, Chapin announced to the newsroom that Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez would lead monthly meetings to review coverage.

“Among the questions we’ll ask of ourselves each month: Did we capture the diversity of this country — racial, ethnic, religious, economic, political geographic, etc — in all of its complexity and in a way that helped listeners and readers recognize themselves and their communities?” Chapin wrote in the memo. “Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?”

Berliner said he welcomed the announcement but would withhold judgment until those meetings played out.

In a text for this story, Chapin said such sessions had been discussed since Lansing unified the news and programming divisions under her acting leadership last year.

“Now seemed [the] time to deliver if we were going to do it,” Chapin said. “Healthy discussion is something we need more of.”

April 16, 2024. Tags: , , , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

I applaud Uri Berliner for admitting NPR’s bias.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.

By Uri Berliner

April 9, 2024

By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.

It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.

What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media.

Russiagate was not NPR’s only miscue.

In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling and its possible implications for his father.

The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.

When the essential facts of the Post’s reporting were confirmed and the emails verified independently about a year and a half later, we could have fessed up to our misjudgment. But, like Russia collusion, we didn’t make the hard choice of transparency.

Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic. One of the most dismal aspects of Covid journalism is how quickly it defaulted to ideological story lines. For example, there was Team Natural Origin—supporting the hypothesis that the virus came from a wild animal market in Wuhan, China. And on the other side, Team Lab Leak, leaning into the idea that the virus escaped from a Wuhan lab.

The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists.

But that wasn’t the case.

When word first broke of a mysterious virus in Wuhan, a number of leading virologists immediately suspected it could have leaked from a lab there conducting experiments on bat coronaviruses. This was in January 2020, during calmer moments before a global pandemic had been declared, and before fear spread and politics intruded.

Reporting on a possible lab leak soon became radioactive. Fauci and Collins apparently encouraged the March publication of an influential scientific paper known as “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Its authors wrote they didn’t believe “any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

But the lab leak hypothesis wouldn’t die. And understandably so. In private, even some of the scientists who penned the article dismissing it sounded a different tune. One of the authors, Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist from Edinburgh University, wrote to his colleagues, “I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural.”

Over the course of the pandemic, a number of investigative journalists made compelling, if not conclusive, cases for the lab leak. But at NPR, we weren’t about to swivel or even tiptoe away from the insistence with which we backed the natural origin story. We didn’t budge when the Energy Department—the federal agency with the most expertise about laboratories and biological research—concluded, albeit with low confidence, that a lab leak was the most likely explanation for the emergence of the virus.

Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”

April 12, 2024. Tags: , , , , , , , . COVID-19, Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

“So for violent crime, property crime and homicides, the number of crimes could have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. We really don’t know.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/05/1127047811/the-fbis-new-crime-report-is-in-but-its-incomplete

The FBI’s new crime report is in, but it’s incomplete

By Jason Fuller and Patrick Jarenwattananon

October 5, 2022

NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Weihua Li, a data reporter for The Marshall Project, on the FBI’s new and incomplete crime report and consequences for the public.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

Crime is a huge topic in elections this November, and the FBI has now entered the chat. It has just released the Crime in the Nation report for 2021. But the bureau switched the way it collects crime data this year, and many police departments did not get on board. Los Angeles and New York City did not report to the FBI. In fact, only 63% of the country’s police departments submitted anything, and some of the data that was submitted was incomplete. Weihua Li of The Marshall Project has been poring over the FBI’s findings. Hey there.

WEIHUA LI: Hey there, Mary Louise. Thank you for having me.

KELLY: Glad to have you with us. OK. So it seems like some places were very good at submitting data under this new system. Others were very not good. Where are the big blind spots?

LI: Yeah, for sure. So we have some states like California and Florida, where almost no agency in that state submitted any data to the FBI. And there are also a lot of larger cities. You know, the largest police department, New York Police Department, didn’t submit anything to the FBI. So a lot of blind spots.

KELLY: A lot of blind spots. I mean, I’m wondering how accurate the numbers can possibly be if – just to take the two biggest cities in the country, New York and LA, they didn’t report at all.

LI: Yeah. Yeah, that’s a really good question. And it’s something that criminologists and people who work in criminal justice have been very worried about for a while now. So the FBI is used to receiving data from more than 90% of police departments across the country. But like you said earlier, in 2021, because they changed their data collection method, the number have dropped to roughly 60%. So instead of saying a finite number, you know, X number of crimes took place, they’re saying we think the range of crime that took place in 2021 is somewhere between Y and Z. So for violent crime, property crime and homicides, the number of crimes could have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. We really don’t know.

KELLY: Why did the FBI switch systems?

LI: In 1988, the FBI released a newer crime collection system, the National Incident-Based Reporting Program, NIBRS. And using that, a lot of agencies have been switching over the past couple of decades. Around 2015, 2016, the FBI decided that by 2021 they would retire the old system entirely and only accept data through the new system. So they will be provide the nation with data with a lot more granularity and detail and allow us to see what is happening. But unfortunately, what happened as a result is about 40% of agencies didn’t make that switch, so they couldn’t report their data to the FBI anymore.

KELLY: I see. I mean, having accurate numbers on crime feels important for all kinds of reasons. Are there any reliable takeaways from this report that might give us a sense of the scope of crime, trends in crime in the country?

LI: The top line finding the FBI found is number of violent crime, property crime and homicide didn’t really change from 2020. And we have other reports from the Justice Department, namely the National Victimization Survey, that backs that finding.

KELLY: What does the FBI have to say about this? Are they defending the report?

LI: They are. The FBI sees this as a success story. The number of agencies that has switched to this newer system have been increasing. So they’re really playing the long game in saying, sure, there may be a lot of uncertainty for a couple of years, but in the long run, we will know a lot more about crimes that were reported to the police. So they’re holding onto hope.

KELLY: Weihua Li is a data reporter for The Marshall Project. Thank you for sharing your reporting with us.

LI: Thank you so much.

April 1, 2024. Tags: , , , , , . Media bias, Soft on crime, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Why did Twitter (pre-Elon Musk) delete this January 6th video where Trump said, “You have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order.”

Why did Twitter (pre-Elon Musk) delete this January 6th video where Trump said:

“You have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order.”

Why did they delete it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210106211739/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058

January 6, 2024. Tags: , , . Donald Trump, January 6 2021, Media bias. 1 comment.

Michael P Senger @michaelpsenger, October 18, 2023: Yesterday, when @NYTimes published a fictitious story from Hamas about Israel bombing a hospital, NYT used a picture from a completely different location to make it look like a picture of the hospital that was “destroyed.” Astonishing disinformation and journalistic malpractice.

https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1714790758832898282

nyt wrong building

October 23, 2023. Tags: , , , , , , . Islamic terrorism, Media bias. Leave a comment.

The BBC and Black Lives Matter have exposed the virtue-signalling class’s moral depravity

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-and-blm-exposed-virtue-signalling-class-moral-depravity/

The BBC and Black Lives Matter have exposed the virtue-signalling class’s moral depravity

Anyone who cannot see that Hamas committed an act of genocide has lost all sense of right and wrong

By Allister Heath

October 11, 2023

For once, I’m not blaming the politicians. Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Suella Braverman, even Emmanuel Macron and Joe Biden: all have behaved impeccably these past few days. It’s the footballers, the pop stars, the middle-class virtue-signallers, the knee-takers and emoji posters, the HR activists, the academics, charity workers and “human rights” advocates who are missing in action, days after the worst anti-Semitic massacre in 78 years.

Silence does not ordinarily imply complicity. But what if you are one of those people who jumps on every bandwagon and keeps adding flags, logos and messages of support to your Facebook or TikTok page, but had nothing to say about a genocidal attack on Jews, no unequivocal support to proffer to Israel, no interest in properly condemning Hamas? What if you posted Slava Ukraini on your profile, put up a poster for BLM in your front window, and keep spamming your WhatsApp neighbourhood group with political messaging, but cannot conceive of tweeting Am Yisrael Chai?

Are you scared of retribution, and if so what does that tell us about extremism in Britain, the failure of integration and the police’s lack of commitment to upholding the same law for all? Or do you think that Israel got what it deserved, and does that not make you an anti-Semite? Or is it because you believe the world’s only Jewish state to be so powerful as to not need support, and you have therefore, inadvertently, internalised another anti-Semitic trope? Do you think that 7.2 million Jews, far fewer than London’s population, surrounded by fanatics armed with 150,000 missiles, threatened by a quasi-nuclear Iran that swears to destroy them, don’t deserve sympathy?

Genocide is the act of deliberately killing large numbers of people from a nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying it. Hamas has committed an act of genocide, a crime against humanity, against the Jewish people and Israel: anybody who cannot see this has lost all sense of right and wrong.

If anything, describing Hamas as “terrorist” is too soft: they are war criminals, more akin to Islamic State and the Khmer Rouge than al-Qaeda or the IRA. They massacred over 1,000 men, women, children and babies, shooting them and burning them alive, injuring thousands of others, raping dozens and kidnapping scores. They would have killed far more had they not belatedly been neutralised.

Almost uniquely, comparisons with the Nazis are the most appropriate historic parallel. Hamas are Nazis, with the same aim: they want to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea. Hamas’s 1988 Charter calls for the total eradication of Israel, its replacement by an Islamist state and cites approvingly The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a gross anti-Semitic forgery also endorsed in Mein Kampf.

The Third Reich’s Einsatzgruppen were SS death squads that inflicted mass murder. They played a central role in the implementation of the Final Solution, and some of their leaders were condemned to death at Nuremberg. The Hamas barbarians who entered Israel from Gaza, an independent territory from which Israel had entirely withdrawn in 2005, were jihadi Einsatzgruppen, a depraved Islamist take on the original Nazi monstrosity.

The SS rode cars and motorbikes; Hamas also operated paragliders and bulldozers. Hitler’s men often hid what they did. The Hamas war criminals live-streamed their inhumanity, and some supporters across the West were openly celebrating within hours of the attacks (I witnessed a firework display and a flag-waving crowd dancing with joy in Edgware Road, London, late on Saturday night).

One of the premises of the state of Israel, reconstituted in 1948 on a tiny slither of land, was “never again.” No more Holocaust, no more pogroms, no more ethnic cleansing, no more expulsions, forced conversions, mass rapes or wholesale slavery. Yet it has happened again: 7/10 was the greatest one-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, the deadliest bestial atrocity conducted in land controlled and defended by a Jewish army since the genocide that followed the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132. It was far deadlier than the 1905 Odessa pogrom, or Iraq’s Farhud in 1941, or the annihilation of York’s Jewish population in 1190. Throughout history, Jews have been persecuted by every dominant group – Egyptians or Romans, Christians or Muslims, Communists or Nazis – but 7/10 will go down in infamy.

So why is it being said, increasingly loudly already, that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the deaths caused by genocidal murderers, and those caused in the act of seeking to prevent further attacks and to remove an evil regime? Countries must minimise civilian casualties, all of which are deplorable, but, as Israel marches into Gaza, some will be just as inevitable as they were when the Allies fought the Nazis all the way to the heart of Germany. Hamas caused this war, and places its army in civilian locations: it is a criminal regime and bears ultimate responsibility for every life lost.

The BBC’s moral void is heartbreaking. It is our country’s supposed conscience, and yet it won’t even describe Hamas as terrorists, despite it being their official designation by the British state. Would today’s BBC have described the original Nazis as “militants”? Would it have described the Waffen SS as “fighters”? Did the BBC remain “impartial” after the horrible murder of George Floyd?

Why, but why, is a massacre of Israeli Jews at the hands of anti-Semitic jihadists so different? By disgracefully refusing to describe Hamas as terrorists, the BBC’s pseudo-“impartiality” makes it in fact scandalously biased against Israel: it downplays Hamas’s crimes, creates a fake equivalence between the two sides, and taints the Israeli response.

We also now know what many proponents of woke Critical Race Theory truly believe. UK Black Lives Matter retweeted approvingly a picture of the terrorist bulldozer smashing down the Israeli fence, an attack on the Balfour declaration and messages blaming Israel. It rejected David Lammy’s condemnation of Hamas, and retweeted “‘Black lives matter’ and ‘I stand with Israel’ are two things that can’t coexist.” Chicago BLM tweeted an image of the terrorists entering Israel on a paraglider.

History repeats itself. Nobody ever learns. Optimism is cowardice. Brace for long, dark weeks ahead.

October 11, 2023. Tags: , , , , , , . Black lives matter, Islamic terrorism, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Here is MSNBC in 2017 reporting on Hillary voters seeking to “overturn” the results of Trump’s election

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1691479572842233856

August 16, 2023. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias, Stop the steal, Voter fraud. Leave a comment.

Next Page »