When it comes to “news” which might discredit Donald Trump or a member of his family, the modus operandi for too many in the press is, “Tweet and report first, ask questions later (if at all).”
President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitorfor refusing to investigate Trump’s Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
From Rick Moran at PJ Media:
I mean, I get plenty of emails from right-wing nuts with conspiracy theories and “Exclusive” news flashes that are equally ridiculous. But if this is an example of liberal fake news, they are in deep trouble if millions of their followers believe it.
A few notes of sanity: The Judiciary Committee would have to conduct an inquiry before articles of impeachment could be written. So the idea that the committee is “considering” articles that haven’t even been written yet is a pretty good trick.
The attempt to “intimidate” Michael Flynn is laughable. Even if the text is true, the notion that “stay strong” is anything but presidential encouragement is outrageously stupid.
But it’s the “news” about the Supreme Court where Mensch and Taylor enter the Twilight Zone of idiocy. SCOTUS would never “notify” President Trump about any impeachment proceedings, given a little something we Americans call the “separation of powers.” And most laughable of all, the “Marshal” of the Supreme Court would never have any cause whatsoever to have contact with President Trump—especially to inform him that his pardoning powers had been revoked. Or something. In fact, even if Trump was impeached and convicted in the Senate, he would have the power to pardon anyone (including himself) up until one second before he left office.
Reality check: I asked our American friend John Gilmore about the flaming weirdness coursing through so much media on this subject and he just said,
They’re losing their minds because they’re realizing a relentless negative onslaught against Trump designed to cleave him from his base is failing utterly. Self-immolation it’s called, I believe. Leading democrats are already walking back from impeachment talk, realizing they’re too far over their skis.
A consequential Middle East trip disrupts the domestic media narrative of hate and it won’t get back on track to what it was when he returns. Hence the last bit of their rage.
Well, following the news all week, that was my impression too.
As I told him, a friend and I were discussing it recently:
[we’ve both worked in national-level businesses]:
We figured Trump fired Flynn because Flynn might have been well-meaning but was unreliable. But Trump wasn’t trying to throw Flynn to sharks so hoped he wouldn’t end up down slam. Comey sounds like a rogue cop. Sooner or later, he’d have to be powered down. Sooner is better. But so? What’s the basis for impeachment claims?
So Gilmore writes back to say
There are none, as in zero. Hence democrats have stopped talking about it for the most part.
BUT, I told him,
So it survives as an insinuation point, not a talking point. Yes, I see, Crafty, aren’t they, considering how little they have to work with.
Surely, readers,we are looking at something new: A moment in social life when no one at all believes the media of record because their very survival as institutions is at stake. They have become mere players in the game. The real news is elsewhere, maybe at the kitchen table.
See also: Part I: What is fake news? Do we believe it?
Part II: Does fake news make a difference in politics?
Part III: What can we do about fake news that would not diminish real news? Critics of ‘fake news’ should go to China — only the government has the right to post fake news.
Even allowing for the astonishing pyrotechnics of current American politics, the Canadian journalistic reaction has been rather disappointing. Canadians have a unique ring-side seat on American personalities and events, and flatter themselves that they know that country better than any other foreigners do. Perhaps because of the garishness of American politics, the immense amounts of money involved in American elections and the lobbying process, and the practical absence of laws of civil defamation, Canadians are almost perpetually appalled yet fascinated by the American political spectacle. The intense controversies of the Trump presidency have generated a dreary branch-plant, copy-cat, me-too replication of the Trumpophobia of the national U.S. media.
The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.
See also… Fake News Factory — Another Disastrous Week For ‘The Washington Post’
Also see…Camille Paglia: Trump Will Be Re-elected Because People Will Vote Against Media
This isn’t journalism. It’s a joke.
From Brent Bozell at Townhall:
It’s based on a loopy 1985 novel by the radical feminist Canadian author Margaret Atwood, which imagines the United States quickly falling under a theocratic dictatorship based on its Puritan roots. America becomes a patriarchy called the Republic of Gilead. All women are deprived of their rights and forbidden to read. Due to environmental degradation, very few women can conceive a child, so a slave class of handmaids are created, whose entire purpose is giving birth. The handmaids wear dowdy red gowns (to represent menstrual blood) with large white bonnets that obscure their faces.
Liberals called this story “very timely” in 1985 and never stopped declaring it timely. On CBS, the TV series’ star Elizabeth Moss proclaimed: “When everyone signed on, it felt incredibly relevant. It was written in 1985, and it’s been relevant every decade since. I think it’s just in this country, there’s a relevance now that is striking everybody.”
When Hillary Clinton accepted the Champion of the Century award from Planned Parenthood, she referred to the book and show as a warning for feminist vigilance. Moss gushed on CBS that this was a “huge honor,” saying, “we all respect her so much.” For her part, Atwood said that after the 2016 presidential election, “the cast woke up in the morning and thought, we’re no longer making fiction — we’re making a documentary.” More.
Reality check: File the “documentary” under Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact that not enough Americans were willing to buy into a Hillary Clinton presidency (because they had nothing to gain from it) is not the Republic of Gilead. Only a progressive seeking government funding and a crackdown on alternative media would think so.
The twist: None of Atwood’s dystopian crap happened. But sharia law, if permitted in Canada, will strip women of rights – and Cool people voted for the Liberals who outdid themselves making it possible. They and the Handmaids fans deserve it, but the rest of us maybe don’t.
See also: Will abortion branding help or hurt Handmaid’s Tale?
The Department of Justice is denying a New York Times report that James Comey requested additional money for the investigation into Russian election meddling just days before he was fired by President Trump.
“The story is totally false,” DOJ spokeswoman Isgur Flores told The Daily Caller.
After accusing the Front National (FN) candidate of ‘defamation’ on live television on Wednesday night, Mr Macron, 39, filed a complaint with the state prosecutor about the rumours, claiming that an online ‘fake news’ campaign had been mounted to influence voting.
What a great way to start the morning.
From Alex Hern at the Guardian:
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, is launching a new online publication which will aim to fight fake news by pairing professional journalists with an army of volunteer community contributors.
Wikitribune plans to pay for the reporters by raising money from a crowdfunding campaign.
Wales intends to cover general issues, such as US and UK politics, through to specialist science and technology.
Those who donate will become supporters, who in turn will have a say in which subjects and story threads the site focuses on. And Wales intends that the community of readers will fact-check and subedit published articles.More.
The process described is elsewhere called propaganda. Translation:
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, is launching a new online publication which will aim to [put out information that we want people to accept and believe] by pairing [paid oppo research writers] with an army of [people who support the cause and thus have an influence on its direction].
Wikitribune plans to pay for the [cause’s oppo research writers] by raising money from [the faithful].
Possible new wrinkle:
And Wales intends that the [faithful, best known for zeal rather than expertise] will fact-check and subedit published articles.
What could possibly go wrong with that last bit? Well, at least it will sound like Wikipedia …
(For a small snippet of list of reasons not to trust Wikipedia, go here, also appended below).
This recent obsession with “fake news” seems part of a long-term trend toward reputation management for censorship. Media streams have always been full of fake news. It gets noticed when establishments are losing control because their beliefs and interests diverge widely from those of the readers.
Google announced its first attempt to combat the circulation of “fake news” on its search engine with new tools allowing users to report misleading or offensive content, and a pledge to improve results generated by its algorithm.
The technology company said it would allow people to complain about misleading, inaccurate or hateful content in its autocomplete function, which pops up to suggest searches based on the first few characters typed.
More… Google Rewrites Its Powerful Search Rankings to Bury Fake News
On March 26, CBS aired a “60 Minutes” story on “Fake News.” Within that story was a two minute plus segment with Mike Cernovich ofwww.DangerandPlay.com. Scott Pelley declared that Cernovich had published “stories with no basis in fact” that were “categorically false.” Prominently featured was a story “by a retired anesthesiologist in Florida who never examined Hillary Clinton” that said “she has Parkinson’s Disease.” I am that anesthesiologist. And it’s true that I have not examined Mrs. Clinton. But the diagnosis of Parkinson’s is based in observation, not examination, and “60 Minutes” wasn’t interested in that fact.
Politico’s Twitter account spread a misleading video Monday that supposedly showed President Donald Trump tossing a teenager’s hat away after he had signed it.
“A kid asks Trump to sign his hat at the White House Easter Egg Roll. The president signs … and then tosses the hat into the crowd,” Politico tweeted.