The Nation: The Real Costs of Russiagate

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-real-costs-of-russiagate/

The Real Costs of Russiagate

Its perpetrators, not Putin or Trump, “attacked American democracy.”

By Stephen F. Cohen

March 27, 2019

The very few of us who publicly challenged and deplored Russiagate allegations against candidate and then President Donald Trump from the time they first began to appear in mid-2016 should not gloat or rejoice over the US attorney general’s summary of Robert S. Mueller’s key finding: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” (On the other hand, those of us repeatedly slurred as Trump and/or Putin “apologists” might feel some vindication.)

But what about the legions of high-ranking intelligence officials, politicians, editorial writers, television producers, and other opinion-makers, and their eager media outlets that perpetuated, inflated, and prolonged this unprecedented political scandal in American history—those who did not stop short of accusing the president of the United States of being a Kremlin “agent,” “asset,” “puppet,” “Manchurian candidate,” and who characterized his conduct and policies as “treasonous”? (These and other examples are cited in my book War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate, and in a recent piece by Paul Starobin in City Journal.) Will they now apologize, as decency requires, or, more importantly, explain their motives so that we might understand and avoid another such national trauma?

Shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union, in 1985, he released a banned film, Repentance, that explored the underlying institutional, ideological, and personal dynamics of Stalinism. The film set off a nationwide media trial and condemnation of that murderous era. Though Russiagate has generated in America some Soviet-like practices and ruined a number of lives and reputations, it is, of course, nothing even remotely comparable to the Soviet Stalinist experience. By comparison, therefore, some introspective repentance on the part of Russiagate perpetuators should not be too much to ask. But as I foresaw well before the summary of Mueller’s “Russia investigation” appeared, there is unlikely to be much, if any. Too many personal and organizational interests are too deeply invested in Russiagate. Not surprisingly, leading perpetrators instead immediately met the summary with a torrent of denials, goal-post shifts, obfuscations, and calls for more Russiagate “investigations.” Joy Reid of MSNBC, which has been a citadel of Russiagate allegations along with CNN, even suggested that Mueller and Attorney General William Barr were themselves engaged in “a cover-up.”

Contrary to a number of major media outlets, from Bloomberg News to The Wall Street Journal, nor does Mueller’s exculpatory finding actually mean that “Russiagate…is dead” and indeed that “it expired in an instant.” Such conclusions reveal a lack of historical and political understanding. Nearly three years of Russiagate’s toxic allegations have entered the American political-media elite bloodstream, and they almost certainly will reappear again and again in one form or another.

This is an exceedingly grave danger, because the real costs of Russiagate are not the estimated $25–40 million spent on the Mueller investigation but the corrosive damage it has already done to the institutions of American democracy—damage done not by an alleged “Trump-Putin axis” but by Russsigate’s perpetrators themselves. Having examined this collateral damage in my recently published book War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate, I will only note them here.

§ Clamorous allegations that the Kremlin “attacked our elections” and thereby put Trump in the White House, despite the lack of any evidence, cast doubt on the legitimacy of American elections everywhere—national, state, and local. If true, or even suspected, how can voters have confidence in the electoral foundations of American democracy? Persistent demands to “secure our elections from hostile powers”— a politically and financially profitable mania, it seems—can only further abet and perpetuate declining confidence in the entire electoral process. Still more, if some crude Russian social-media outputs could so dupe voters, what does this tell us about what US elites, which originated these allegations, really think of those voters, of the American people?

§ Defamatory Russsiagate allegations that Trump was a “Kremlin puppet” and thus “illegitimate” were aimed at the president but hit the presidency itself, degrading the institution, bringing it under suspicion, casting doubt on its legitimacy. And if an “agent of a hostile foreign power” could occupy the White House once, a “Manchurian candidate,” why not again? Will Republicans be able to resist making such allegations against a future Democratic president? In any event, Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign manager, Robby Mook, has already told us that there will be a “next time.”

§ Mainstream media are, of course, a foundational institution of American democracy, especially national ones, newspapers and television, with immense influence inside the Beltway and, in ramifying synergic ways, throughout the country. Their Russiagate media malpractice, as I have termed it, may have been the worst such episode in modern American history. No mainstream media did anything to expose, for example, two crucial and fraudulent Russiagate documents—the so-called Steele Dossier and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment—but instead relied heavily on them for their own narratives. Little more need be said here about this institutional self-degradation. Glenn Greenwald and a few others followed and exposed it throughout, and now Matt Taibbi has given us a meticulously documented account of that systematic malpractice, concluding that Mueller’s failure to confirm the media’s Russiagate allegations “is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.”

Nor, it must be added, was this entirely inadvertent or accidental. On August 8, 2016, the trend-setting New York Times published on its front page an astonishing editorial manifesto by its media critic. Asking whether “normal standards” should apply to candidate Trump, he explained that they should not: “You have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” Let others decide whether this Times proclamation unleashed the highly selective, unbalanced, questionably factual “journalism” that has so degraded Russiagate media or instead the publication sought to justify what was already underway. In either case, this remarkable—and ramifying—Times rejection of its own professed standards should not be forgotten. Almost equally remarkable and lamentable, we learn that even now, after Mueller’s finding is known, top executives of the Times and other leading Russiagate media outlets, including The Washington Post and CNN, “have no regrets.”

§ For better or worse, America has a two-party political system, which means that the Democratic Party is also a foundational institution. Little more also need be pointed out regarding its self-degrading role in the Russiagate fraud. Leading members of the party initiated, inflated, and prolonged it. They did nothing to prevent inquisitors like Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from becoming the cable-news face of the party. Or to rein in or disassociate the party from the outlandish excesses of “The Resistance.” With very few exceptions, elected and other leading Democrats did nothing to stop—and therefore further abetted—the institutional damage being done by Russiagate allegations. As for Mueller’s finding,the party’s virtual network, MSNBC, remains undeterred. Rachael Maddow continues to hype “the underlying reality that Russia did in fact attack us.” By any reasonable definition of “attack,” no, it did not, and scarcely any allegation could be more recklessly warmongering, a perception the Democratic Party will for this and other Russiagate commissions have to endure, or not. (When Mueller’s full report is published, we will see if he too indulged in this dangerous absurdity. A few passages in the summary suggest he might have done so.)

§ Finally, but potentially not least, the new Cold War with Russia has itself become an institution pervading American political, economic, media, and cultural life. Russiagate has made it more dangerous, more fraught with actual war, than the Cold War we survived, as I explain in War with Russia? Recall only that Russiagate allegations further demonized “Putin’s Russia,” thwarted Trump’s necessary attempts to “cooperate with Russia” as somehow “treasonous,” criminalized détente thinking and “inappropriate contacts with Russia”—in short, policies and practices that previously helped to avert nuclear war. Meanwhile, the Russiagate spectacle has caused many ordinary Russians who once admired America to now be “derisive and scornful” toward our political life.

The scarce good news it is that some Russian officials hope Mueller’s Russiagate exoneration of Trump will enable the president to resume his attempts to cooperate with Moscow. The bad institutional news is that Congress has invited, on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s initiative, NATO’s secretary general to address it on April 3. That figurehead has announced a renewed attempt to bring the former Soviet republic of Georgia into the military alliance. The last such attempt led to the US-Russian proxy war in Georgia in 2008. When it was tried in Ukraine in 2013, it produced the still ongoing Ukrainian civil and proxy war.

The editor of The New Yorker, itself an ardent Russiagate publication, asks whether “the moral and material corruption [Trump] has inflicted will be with us for a long while.” Perhaps. But the institutional costs of Russiagate are likely to be with us for even longer.

March 29, 2019. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it.

By Matt Taibbi

March 23, 2019

Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.

As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia.

With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times:

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.

The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.

The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”

The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller’s reputation, noting Trump’s Attorney General William Barr’s reaction was an “endorsement” of the fineness of Mueller’s work:

In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.

Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?

For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:

It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole…

This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?”

The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like itself made galactic errors by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.

Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”
(more…)

March 24, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

Steve Cortes

March 21, 2019

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”

Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all.  No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.”

My colleagues seem prepared to dispute our own network’s correct contemporaneous reporting and the very clear transcripts of the now-infamous Trump Tower presser on the tragic events of Charlottesville.  Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

As a man charged with publicly explaining Donald Trump’s often meandering and colloquial vernacular in highly adversarial TV settings, I appreciate more than most the sometimes-murky nature of his off-script commentaries.  But these Charlottesville statements leave little room for interpretation.  For any honest person, therefore, to conclude that the president somehow praised the very people he actually derided, reveals a blatant and blinding level of bias.

Nonetheless, countless so-called journalists have furthered this damnable lie.  For example, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace responded that Trump had “given safe harbor to Nazis, to white supremacists.”  Her NBC colleague Chuck Todd claimed Trump “gave me the wrong kind of chills. Honestly, I’m a bit shaken from what I just heard.” Not to be outdone, print also got in on the act, with the New York Times spewing the blatantly propagandist headline: “Trump Gives White Supremacists Unequivocal Boost.” How could the Times possibly reconcile that Trump, who admonished that the supremacists should be “condemned totally” somehow also delivered an “unequivocal boost” to those very same miscreants?

But like many fake news narratives, repetition has helped cement this one into a reasonably plausible storyline for all but the most skeptical consumers of news.  In fact, over the weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on why Trump has not given a speech “condemning … white supremacist bigotry.”  Well, Chris, he has, and more than once.  The most powerful version was from the White House following Charlottesville and the heartbreaking death of Heather Heyer.  President Trump’s succinct and direct words:

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people.”  The only explanation for such a repeated falsehood is abject laziness or willful deception.  Either way, the duplicity on this topic perhaps encapsulates the depressingly low trust most Americans place in major media, with 77 percent stating in a Monmouth University 2018 poll that traditional TV and newspapers report fake news.  In addition, such lies as the Charlottesville Hoax needlessly further divide our already-polarized society.

Instead of hyper-partisan, distorted narratives, as American citizens we should demand adherence to truth — and adherence to the common values that bind us regardless of politics. In the words of our president: “No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.”

March 24, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Nick Sandmann: The Truth in 15 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s

February 6, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Daily Beast reporter Kevin Fallon falsely said that Jussie Smollett’s attackers were wearing MAGA hats

Daily Beast reporter Kevin Fallon falsely said that Jussie Smollett’s attackers were wearing MAGA hats.

His exact words were:

People in MAGA hats recognized and then beat and poured bleach on Jussie Smollett, calling him that “faggot” from Empire.

Anyone who thinks supporting You Know Who isn’t tantamount to providing artillery for weaponized bigotry needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

Here’s a screenshot:

Here is a link to his tweet.

And here is a link to an archive of his tweet.

February 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

I’m curious to hear CNN’s explanation for why they falsely labeled Ralph Northam, Virginia’s racist governor, as a Republican

Ralph Northam is the governor of Virginia.

He is a Democrat.

In 1984, in his yearbook from Eastern Virginia Medical School, Northam appeared in this photo, which shows one person in blackface, and another person in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. Northam hasn’t said which of the two is him, and no one else seems to be able to tell which of the two is him. But both of them are racist. (Image sourced from here.)

Even though Northam is a Democrat, CNN reported that he is a Republican.

Here’s the video. Skip to 0:13

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


And in case the censors at YouTube ever remove the video, here’s a screenshot:

I’m curious to hear CNN’s explanation for why they falsely labeled him as a Republican.

February 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. 1 comment.

CNN analyst Bakari Sellers wants teen to be “punched in the face”

Bakari Sellers is a CNN analyst.

He recently deleted one of his tweets, but archived versions of it can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Here’s a screenshot taken from this archive:




The text of the tweet states:

He is a deplorable. Some ppl can also be punched in the face.

Sellers has been a lawyer with a prestigious South Carolina law firm since 2007.

I’m not a lawyer, but even I know that it’s illegal to threaten or incite violence.

I’m curious to see if CNN gives any kind of official response to this.

January 22, 2019. Tags: , , , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

Here’s proof that Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann is innocent

Below is the complete video of what happened on January 18, 2019, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

But first, the video’s description states:

Full video of what transpired regarding Catholic High students

First 45 minutes are african americans being incredibly racist and threatening violence against the students directly. Kept that in the upload in case someone accuses me of deceptive editing. Nothing here was edited, at all. This is the whole video of the entire event.

Starts getting interesting around @1:10:00

Native Americans invade the student rally at 1:11:24. You can see them come across directly, and instigate the confrontation with the kids. The kids were minding their own business.

At NO point in the entire video do they chant “build the wall.”

Now here’s the complete video of what happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQyBHTTqb38

In this next video, Scott Adams apologizes for an earlier video that he had made (and which he has since deleted) where he was very critical of the teens in MAGA hats. He says the reason that he changed his mind is because he watched the complete video that I posted above.

In this video, Adams says:

The teens were completely innocent.

The black Israelites were using racist and anti-gay slurs.

The teens in MAGA hats criticized the black Israelites for using racist and anti-gay slurs.

The native American man walked up to the teen and started banging his drum very close to the teen’s face.

The teen stood his ground and refused to move.

The teens stood and smiled.

The teens did not do anything wrong.

Here is Scott Adams’s video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DrAeUNPU0

The Washington Post reported (the boldng is mine):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/it-was-getting-ugly-native-american-drummer-speaks-maga-hat-wearing-teens-who-surrounded-him/

Phillips said a few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant, “Build that wall, build that wall,” though such chants are not audible on video.

Here is the statement from Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-student-video-issues-statement-his-side-story/2634008002/

Covington Catholic student from incident at the Indigenous Peoples March issues statement with his side of the story

January 20, 2019

The Covington Catholic student seen facing off with a Native American protestor in viral videos spread across the Internet issued a statement to The Enquirer through a lawyer and spokesman on Sunday night. The family, through the spokesman, declined any further interviews

Statement of Nick Sandmann, Covington Catholic High School Junior, Regarding Incident at the Lincoln Memorial

I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me

I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our busses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.

When we arrived, we noticed four African American protestors who were also on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I am not sure what they were protesting, and I did not interact with them. I did hear them direct derogatory insults at our school group.

The protestors said hateful things. They called us “racists,” “bigots,” “white crackers,” “faggots,” and “incest kids.” They also taunted an African American student from my school by telling him that we would “harvest his organs.” I have no idea what that insult means, but it was startling to hear.

Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. The chants are commonly used at sporting events.

They are all positive in nature and sound like what you would hear at any high school. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants. We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.

At no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants. I did not witness or hear any students chant “build that wall” or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false. Our chants were loud because we wanted to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protestors.

After a few minutes of chanting, the Native American protestors, who I hadn’t previously noticed, approached our group. The Native American protestors had drums and were accompanied by at least one person with a camera.

The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.

I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.

I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.

During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor’s entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we “stole our land” and that we should “go back to Europe.” I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.

I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.

The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the busses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the busses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.

I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I’ve ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.

I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me – to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.

I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person’s right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.

I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family’s name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.

I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.

I love my school, my teachers and my classmates. I work hard to achieve good grades and to participate in several extracurricular activities. I am mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen – that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart, and did not witness any of my classmates doing that.

I cannot speak for everyone, only for myself. But I can tell you my experience with Covington Catholic is that students are respectful of all races and cultures. We also support everyone’s right to free speech.

I am not going to comment on the words or account of Mr. Phillips, as I don’t know him and would not presume to know what is in his heart or mind. Nor am I going to comment further on the other protestors, as I don’t know their hearts or minds, either.

I have read that Mr. Phillips is a veteran of the United States Marines. I thank him for his service and am grateful to anyone who puts on the uniform to defend our nation. If anyone has earned the right to speak freely, it is a U.S. Marine veteran.

I can only speak for myself and what I observed and felt at the time. But I would caution everyone passing judgement based on a few seconds of video to watch the longer video clips that are on the internet, as they show a much different story than is being portrayed by people with agendas.

I provided this account of events to the Diocese of Covington so they may know exactly what happened, and I stand ready and willing to cooperate with any investigation they are conducting.

This is the only statement that has been made by the Sandmann family. Any comments attributed to any member of the family that is not contained in this document are fabricated. The family will not be answering individual media inquiries.

 

January 20, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. 9 comments.

Scott Adams: My Apology for Believing @CNN About the Covington Catholic Boys Fake News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DrAeUNPU0

January 20, 2019. Tags: , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

Poll: Which one of these two Gillette ads do you like better?

Here are two ads from Gillette.

Which one do you like better?

Here’s the first ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

And here’s the second ad:



January 19, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Political correctness, Polls, Sexism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

For liking hamburgers, the Washington Post praised Obama, but mocked Trump

In 2014, the Washington Post published this article, which is called, “President Obama and cheeseburgers: A love story.”

In 2019, the Washington Post published this article, which is called, “‘Trump has turned the White House into a White Castle’: President roasted for serving Clemson fast food.”

Media bias at its finest.

January 18, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accuses Sirius XM radio host David Webb of having “white privilege,” despite the fact that Webb is black!

The below image of two people is taken from this link:




The person on the left is Sirius XM radio host David Webb.

The person on the right is CNN Legal Analyst Areva Martin.

Here’s a transcript from a recent conversation between the two of them:

David Webb: “Shouldn’t their requirement, their primary requirement, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of network, be that they are capable of covering politics? For instance, if you’re going to cover political campaigns, sports may not be the most qualified background. And that brings to the point of if people want to get into these fields regardless of color, I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.”

Areva Martin: “Well David, you know that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege and things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

David Webb: “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Areva Martin: “David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege, which is a whole long conversation I don’t have time to get into.”

I’d be curious to hear Martin’s explanation for why she thinks it’s not possible for a black person to achieve the things that Webb has achieved.

Martin has just unintentionally presented us with what is – I think – the best argument against the concept of “white privilege” that I have ever heard.

This video contains the audio of their conversation:

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

January 15, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. 1 comment.

France3, a French media outlet, has altered a photograph of a protest to change an anti-Macron sign into a pro-Macron sign

France3, a French media outlet, has altered a photograph of a political protest sign to make the message on the sign the exact opposite of what is actually on the sign.

The original sign (if translated to English) says, “Macron Resign.”

But France3 removed the word “resign,” thus changing the meaning of the sign from anti-Macron to pro-Macron.

A spokesperson from France3 said this alteration was due to “human error.”

I’m not buying that. How do you “accidentally” use Photoshop (or whatever they were using) to cover up part of a sign?

Here’s the original, unaltered photograph of the sign (all photos are from this link):




And here’s the altered photograph of the sign:




And here are the two versions side by side



December 19, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

Huffington Post falsely says the reason blacks murder other blacks is because of “systemic racism”

Huffington Post just published this article, which is called “The Quiet Crisis Killing Black Women.”

The article talks about a black woman who was murdered by her boyfriend.

Instead of blaming the boyfriend for the murder, Huffington Post blames it on “systemic racism.”

Here’s an excerpt from the article. The bolding is mine:

In the U.S., black women face higher rates of domestic violence than do women of all other races, except Native women. In Dallas County, the most likely type of person to be killed by a romantic partner is a black woman, age 20 to 29, just like Delashon. Black women are four times more likely than their white peers to be murdered by a boyfriend or girlfriend, and twice as likely to be killed by a spouse. And they are seven times more likely to be slain while pregnant than white women.

Experts say this is not because black men are more violent. Rather, black women are more vulnerable to domestic violence due to a constellation of factors, including high rates of poverty, lack of access to resources and systemic racism within systems designed to help victims of abuse.

And there you have it.

According to Huffington Post, it’s not the murderer’s fault that this woman was murdered.

Instead, the blame gets placed on “systemic racism.”

Also, this is not the first time the boyfriend violently abused the girlfriend. The article cites multiples examples of previous abuse. There were multiple witnesses. But they, as well as the victim, didn’t want to testify due to a strong belief in “Stop Snitchin’.”

They actually sell this t-shirt. (Image from this link.)



What a horrible fashion choice!

Anyway, the article’s subtitle is:

“Dallas police say Delashon Jefferson, 20, was fatally shot by her boyfriend after years of abuse. Could her death have been prevented?”

Could her death have been prevented?

What a ridiculous question to ask.

Of course her death could have been prevented.

If the witnesses and the victim had been willing to testify against the violent boyfriend, then he would have been in jail, instead of being out of jail and murdering the victim.

I guess the witnesses and the victim didn’t want the violent boyfriend to be in jail because that, too, would have been an example of “systemic racism.”

December 17, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Scott Adams: How Google is Ruining my Life for Political Reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qMXDGFzLzo

December 14, 2018. Tags: , , , . Media bias. 1 comment.

Did the Washington Post publish a staged photo of the caravan and not tell readers that the photo was staged?

Here’s a screenshot from a recent article that was published by the Washington Post, along with the link to the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-closes-major-crossing-as-caravan-migrants-mass-at-border-in-mexico/2018/11/25/f94aabe0-f0ea-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html




Soon afterward, the Gateway Pundit published this version of the image, with multiple notations which suggest that the photo was staged:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/hoaxed-the-illegal-alien-mom-with-barefoot-kids-photo-was-a-setup-another-staged-fakenews-production/




I hope that other news organizations will investigate this to find out whether or not the photo was staged.

November 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Media bias. 1 comment.

Media bias: New York Times falsely implies that Nikki Haley spent $52,701 of taxpayers’ money on curtains for her official residence, when in reality it was the Obama administration that had authorized the spending, and Haley herself had no say in the matter

The New York Times just published this article, which is titled

“Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.”

The first paragraph states

“The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.”

This implies that it was the Trump administration that authorized this spending.

It’s not until the sixth paragraph that the Times informs us that

“… plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase…”

Why did the New York Times use the articles’s heading and first paragraph to falsely imply that this was Haley’s fault?

And why did the New York Times wait until the sixth paragraph to mention that the spending was authorized by the Obama administration, and that Haley herself had no say in the matter?

And finally, why didn’t the New York Times report this when Obama was president?

September 14, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Government waste, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Wikipedia violates its own “Neutral point of view” policy by censoring information about Michael Moore’s liberal hypocrisy

Wikipedia has a policy called “Neutral point of view,” which states the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

I agree with this policy.

This is the current version of Wikipedia’s article on Michael Moore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Here is some content that was censored from the article. The diff can be seen here.

Michael Moore has been accused by Peter Schweizer in his book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy of being a “Corporate Criminal, Environmental Menace, and Racist Union-Buster”, making the following claims:

* Moore portraying himself as working class is deceptive, and that he actually grew up in an well-to-do home.

* While Moore criticizes racial disparity in Hollywood, Fahrenheit 9/11’s crew was all white.

 * While Moore claims to not own any stock, he and his wife’s foundation owns stock in many large companies, including Halliburton.

 * While praising unions, Moore tried to dissuade his workers from joining them.[Citation]

Here’s is something else that was censored. The diff can be seen here.

Moore was criticized by Sean Hannity for criticizing capitalism while benefiting from it himself.[Citation]

In this, diff, someone censored a link to a YouTube video of the Sean Hannity interview with Moore that is referenced above. The link to the video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YOIUpLpLI

The following was also censored. The diff can be seen here.

In October 2009, ABC News reported that Moore had used non-union labor to create his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story.[Citation]

This next content was also censored. The diff can be seen here.

Moore’s net worth has been estimated at “eight figures.”[Citation]

Wikipedia has censored each and every example of Moore’s liberal hypocrisy.

This censorship is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy.

September 12, 2018. Tags: , , , . Media bias, Wikipedia. Leave a comment.

Wikipedia continues to violate its own “Neutral point of view” policy by censoring the “Transparency” section in its article “Presidency of Barack Obama”

Wikipedia has a policy called “Neutral point of view,” which states the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

I agree with this policy.

Wikipedia has an article called “Presidency of Barack Obama.” The most recent version of the article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama

That article has a section called “Transparency.”

The section includes Obama’s claim that he had the “most transparent” administration in U.S. history. I’m glad the article includes that claim.

Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy requires that section to include all points of view, as reported by reliable sources.

However, Wikipedia violates its own policy by repeatedly censoring criticism of Obama’s so-called “transparency” in that section.

A crazy person who lives in my apartment building recently added the following content to that section:

In February 2013, ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who covered Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama, said “The president’s day-to-day policy development… is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.”[Citation] In October 2013, Compton said that Obama was the “least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.”[Citation]

In May 2013, the New York Times wrote, “With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.”[Citation] In May 2013, the Washington Post wrote “To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based.”[Citation]

In October 2013, New York Times reporter David Sanger said, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”[Citation]

In August 2013, the Obama administration illegally seized documents from the home of Audrey Hudson, a reporter who lived in Shady Side, Maryland.[Citation] Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at Associated Press, said, “the Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention.”[Citation]

In February 2014, the Obama administration announced that it planned to put government employees inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities.[Citation][Citation]

In March 2014, New York Times reporter James Risen said Obama was, “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”[Citation]

During one year of Obama’s presidency, from 2013 to 2014, the U.S. ranking on the World Press Freedom Index fell by 14 places, dropping from #32 to #46.[Citation]

In November 2013, 38 major news organizations sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency. The letter was singed by all the major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the McClatchy Co., which owns 30 daily newspapers across the country.[Citation] In July 2014, 38 media organizations (not necessarily the same ones) sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency.[Citation] That letter can be read here.

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas said, “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and have controlled… Nixon didn’t try to do that… They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”[Citation]

All of that content was deleted from the article just 13 minutes after it was added. Here is the diff showing the deletion.

This is not nearly the first time that that content was censored from that article.

Other instances of that content (or similar content that criticized Obama’s lack of transparency) being censored from that article can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

September 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Barack Obama, Media bias, Wikipedia. 1 comment.

Conservatives Paul Joseph Watson and Candace Owens post mugshots of Antifa members to prove that liberal CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is wrong about their skin color

After President Trump recently warned about possible violence from Antifa members, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said:

“Let’s be clear also about what’s going on here. The theme here is, ‘I’m Donald Trump and I’ll protect you from the scary black people.'”

“Antifa is widely perceived as an African-American organization, and this is just part of the same story of LeBron James and Don Lemon and Maxine Waters and the NFL players and the UCLA basketball players.”

“This is about black versus white. This is about Donald Trump’s appeal to racism and it just happens all the time. And we never say it. We don’t say it enough for what it is, but that’s what’s going on here.”

You can hear him saying it in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLbBbCgiJ9E

In response, Paul Joseph Watson and Candace Owens tweeted these mugshots of Antifa members to prove that Toobin is wrong about their skin color:

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1034771550094802944



https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1034803503020105732



August 29, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

CBS producer Shanica Johnson still has her job seven years after making racist, anti-white tweets

Shanica Johnson is a producer at CBS News.

On January 6, 2011, she tweeted:

“Aint never did shit for us! RT @troyisthename: Fuck White America!”

Johnson has since deleted the tweet.

The original link for the tweet was https://twitter.com/ShanicaJohnson/status/23268563343118336

The tweet is archived at http://archive.is/TXVZl

Here is a screenshot of the tweet, taken from that archive:



On April 22, 2010, Johnson tweeted:

“Now the white women can’t keep their hands off our men, so as they continue 2 make mixed babies the white man wil cease 2 exist. POW!!! Lol”

Johnson has since deleted that tweet too.

The original link for that tweet was https://twitter.com/ShanicaJohnson/status/23268563343118336

That tweet is archived at http://archive.is/0QqzB

Here is a screenshot of that tweet, taken from that archive:



Johnson still has her job.

Imagine if a white person who worked as a CBS producer had said the same thing about blacks. There’s no way they’d still have their job.

August 28, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Media bias: Wikipedia has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information about how hunting endangered animals, when done properly, makes their populations get bigger

Wikipedia has repeatedly removed the following reliably sourced information from its Trophy hunting article. (The deletion history can be seen here, here, here, and here.)

In 2015, a Texas hunter who had won an auction paid $350,000 for legal permission to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. The Washington Post wrote the following about the particular animal that was chosen for this kill: “The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.” The money was used to fund conservation efforts. Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism had approved of the kill. The meat was eaten by residents of a nearby village.

In 2017, a hunter paid $35,000 for permission to kill one bongo at a ranch in Texas. The ranch’s manager said this was enough money to feed the ranch’s approximately 30 remaining bongos for an entire year.

In 2017, wildlife experts said the ranches in Texas had more blackbuck antelope than their native country of India.

In 2018, a hunter from Kentucky legally killed an adult male giraffe in South Africa. Because this particular male was too old to breed, and because it had previously killed three younger adult males who were capable of breeding, this particular kill caused the population to get bigger, not smaller.

The above content is notable, relevant, and reliably sourced. There is no legitimate reason to not include it in the article.

July 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Animals, Economics, Environmentalism, Media bias, Wikipedia. Leave a comment.

Media bias on the cover of Time magazine: Obama covers vs Trump covers

I found this image at this link and thought I’d post it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeAnarchy/comments/8u280m/left_wing_bias_101/


June 27, 2018. Tags: , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

Media bias and Hollywood’s double standard: Roseanne Barr vs. Peter Fonda

Peter Fonda recently said:

“We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”

Fonda’s statement is worse than Roseanne Barr’s earlier statement, because:

1) Fonda involves an innocent child who never chose to put himself in the public eye.

and

2) Fonda tries to incite violence against an innocent person.

When I first found out about this, I said to myself, “Let’s see if the media pays less, as much as, or more attention to Fonda’s quote than to Roseanne’s quote.”

But then I soon realized that it had already been five days since Fonda had made his statement. So I already know the media isn’t giving it anywhere nearly as much attention as it gave the Roseanne’s statement.

I’m against canceling any of Fonda’s upcoming movies, just like I’m against cancelling Roseann’s show. (I now see the show is coming back, but under a new name, and without her. How can they kick someone off their own show? That’s just so wrong. “We hate Roseanne”s comment enough that we fired her from her own show, but we’ll still collect our paychecks for being on new episodes of the show.”)

It took less than 24 hours for them to fire Roseanne. Fonda hasn’t been fired from anything even after five days, as far as I can tell.

 

June 26, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Media bias. 1 comment.

These photographs show how the Obama administration treated illegal aliens

These photographs show how the Obama administration treated illegal aliens.

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities/
























June 19, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Immigration, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Next Page »