What really powers the media’s fake news scandal machine.
Fake news is profitable.
The New York Times hit piece on the Comey memo earned the paper its most concurrent readers per second. Pretty good for a piece about a piece of paper that the leftist paper had never even seen and which was, supposedly, described to it by one of Comey’s associates.
But that didn’t stop it from racking up over 6 million views.
He’s tackled quantum physics, photobombed a beach wedding, posed shirtless for selfies with a family hiking in the woods and, most recently, jogged past a group of Canadian teenagers heading to prom.
And each time, Justin Trudeau’s actions have earned lavish attention from media outlets in Canada and around the world.
But after it was pointed out that the shot of Trudeau breezing past the prom-bound teens was snapped by his official photographer, some Canadians have been asking why the media continues to fall for what seems to be a constant stream of PR stunts.
In politics, even the most spontaneous run-ins are carefully set up, noted Robyn Urback, a columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “And public photobombs by politicians in their Sunday sweats usually involve some sort of prior coordination,” she said.
This is the 3rd such article by the MSM in a week and they’re all Shocked! Shocked! to have found they’ve been had.
The latest Muslim terrorist attack ripped apart little girls at a concert in Manchester, England, on Monday, killing 22. The death and body-part count is still rising.
This is not a game. When young British girls are the targets of a suicide bombing, can we take a short break from the posturing, political correctness and Russia conspiracy theorizing? Won’t the hatred of Trump keep for a few weeks?
Beginning in the 1980s, Washington and New York City newsrooms began to be dominated by people who had the same backgrounds; for the most part they went to the same Ivy League journalism schools, where they made the right contacts and connections to get their jobs.
Yes, elite networks are a thing not just in law schools, as “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance so aptly described of his experiences in law school. They also exist in Ivy League or elite journalism schools.
And the journalists who came from working-class roots found it in their best interest to adopt the conventional, left-of-center views that were filling the halls of newsrooms.
In short, after a while you adopt the culture you exist in either out of survival or acceptance or a little of both.
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?
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.
Advocates have a rule when making a case: Don’t pile on. But the columns against President Trump for firing FBI Director James Comey are piling on and spilling over the top — and are losing their punch.
The national media and the Democratic Party have gone stark raving mad over President Trump’s election victory; they refuse to accept it. Their paroxysms of fury are evident all day long on every network and cable news outlet and every mainstream newspaper. Since Nov. 8, they have leapt like a swarm of remoras onto a whale proclaiming every little thing that they think might take the man down. Hillary’s team concocted the “Russia collusion” hoax within twenty-four hours of her defeat. Everyone knows this! Hillary is the one with all the Russia connections; lots of them, all financially benefitting her personal foundation. They, the media, have come up with numerous other schemes with which to attack Trump: taxes, emoluments, tweets, family, even his ice cream servings.
New York Times publisher sends personal appeal to those who canceled over Bret Stephens
Stephens, who left The Wall Street Journal to join the Times, is also well known as a Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative writer who has written strongly against President Donald Trump, often engaging in public battles during the campaign with the likes of Fox News anchor Sean Hannity. His first column for the Times last month argued that climate data create the misleading impression that we know what global warming’s impact will be, leading to reader complaints, some canceled subscriptions and a public editor column.
In the letter to former subscribers, Sulzberger says it’s important to underscore that the newsroom functions separately from the opinion department, and that New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet “has sharply expanded the team of reporters and editors who cover climate change.”
Sulzberger then lists several articles about climate change, including a photo essay about rising waters threatening China’s cities; environmental rules, regulations and other policies rolled back during Trump’s first 100 days in office; and a recent issue of the Sunday magazine dedicated to the climate’s future.More.
Reality check: The thing is, remaining Times reader are probably mostly progressive ideologues who do not want or need viewpoint diversity and have made quite clear that they see it as a threat. Most of us just don’t care, so long as the Times is not threatening our right to read something else. But then, if they get desperate enough, they might.
See also: As traditional print media seek government funding to survive, demands arise for “diversity” There is no reason to believe that print news media will ever be profitable again, irrespective of what they do. Whether the copy is written by humans, diverse or non-diverse, by algorithms, or by smart crows, the medium is as dead as the trees it kills.
Some publishers are asking the Canadian government to assist the industry with its struggles and others are suggesting Ottawa step up its print advertising budget.
This is an opportunity. The carrot-and-stick approach might work for more than one industry lacking diversity. Canada’s print media could stand to feel some pressure.
Unlike print media, the nation’s broadcasters are bound by the Employment Equity Act. With varying degrees of transparency and consistency, they report their diversity efforts.
Print media has been hesitant to tackle diversity despite there being ample evidence of its benefits. It would not infringe the free speech of the press to join the rest of the nation’s media in both making a profit and reflecting the nation it serves.
Reality check: There is no reason to believe that print news media will ever be profitable again, irrespective of what they do. Whether the copy is written by humans, diverse or non-diverse, by algorithms, or by smart crows, the medium is as dead as the trees it kills. For the writers, government subsidy is less humiliating than welfare and there is no reason the government should not comply with whatever rules seem fair for handing out specialized welfare.
A more serious issue will arise if, starved for anyone who really cares to pay attention to them, they start demanding crackdowns on media people really need to find out what is going on – media not nearly likely to be in danger.
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.
AP releases in-depth review of its coverage of Nazi Germany
NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press has conducted an in-depth review of its operations in Nazi Germany, concluding that the news agency acted as “forthrightly and independently as possible.” But the review also found AP handled some situations inadequately.
The review was undertaken after an article published last year contended that the AP allowed Nazi propagandists to exert some influence over its news photo report in the 1930s by maintaining a photo subsidiary in Germany, registered under a restrictive Nazi press law.
The author, historian Harriet Scharnberg, also identified AP German photographers who were drafted into or joined Nazi military propaganda units during World War II, some while still being paid by AP.
If you want a simple test to determine if a news source is in the fake news business, examine what they write about Venezuela. If they write about the mass starvation, riots, and shortages with no mention of socialism’s role in the disaster, then you know they are fake news providers.