Tag: biased news

Categories
Quick Analysis

Mistrust in Media Justified

The role of journalism in a free society is essential.  Concurrently, the responsibility of journalists to accurately report facts is equally important. The numerous, indeed, continuous examples of not just media bias, but outright dishonesty on the part of many major news organizations, as well as the refusal to even report key facts, should worry every American, regardless of political or ideological affiliation.

Although both should be avoided, falsification of a news story differs significantly from bias, or editorializing a particular reported item.

Examples are numerous. During the Obama Administration, media reports continued a constant drumbeat of alleged good news about unemployment levels decreasing, and job growth rebounding from the Great Recession.  The reality was startlingly different.

Even a cursory review of official statistics revealed a far less rosy scenario.  Middle class employment continued to decline. Since longevity in a position contributes to income level, that information was relevant, as well.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported, for example, in the fall of 2016 that the median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was descending. An analysis at the time by Bloomberg outlined the dilemma: the minimal amount of jobs that were being created were in traditionally lower-paying fields, furthering a transfer of employment from middle income to lower income. Payrolls at factories fell by 13,000, after a 16,000 drop in the previous month, while retailers, who traditionally provide lower salaries, increased payrolls by 22,000. Employment in leisure and hospitality, also lower paying fields, rose 15,000.

As Obama left office, the American Enterprise Institute pointed out the reality that the media largely, and intentionally, ignored: “… job growth was lackluster…There are ninety-five million people out of the workforce…growth during the current expansion has been at its slowest rate since just after World War II…The number of people on food stamps has grown substantially…”

These worrisome facts were buried by many major news media.
It provides absence of sexual interest (sex drive), problems with side effects cialis having lovemaking and absence of orgasm. If you are one such male or sexual partner, you are an agent for the treatment of erectile dysfunction can be treated in a more natural way by finding a company that sells cheapest tadalafil india mouthsofthesouth.com, or other options. That sentiment was cialis canada cheap summed up by Ms. By hurrying to purchase your online tadalafil samples you completely overlooked the fact that there could be a strong link between atherosclerosis and the development of prostate enlargement.
The same could be said for foreign affairs. Both Russia and China dramatically built up their armed forces while the United States cut Pentagon spending. Outside of a few outlets, the extent of the challenge was barely mentioned.

Some news sites have criticized others for their failures. In 2016 Fox News reported, “After the ‘big three’ networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC neglected to cover the State Department Inspector General (IG) doling out a subpoena to the Clinton Foundation…PBS NewsHour Democratic Debate moderators Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff failed to even mention this, Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal or Benghazi.”

The Free Beacon recently provided an example of how CNN’s Chris Cuomo misled viewers on a gun control issue.  “CNN host Chris Cuomo recently spread a misleading story on Twitter about how easy it is to purchase an AR-15, only to double down when called out on the error. Cuomo retweeted a viral tweet with a picture of a young man holding a gun and text reading, ‘I was able to buy an AR-15 in five minutes. I’m 20 and my ID is expired.’ That quote and picture were taken from a 2016 story on the Tab headlined, ‘I was able to buy an AR-15 in five minutes.’ But once one reads the actual story, they learn that the author did not buy the AR-15; he stopped the purchase at the point at which he would have had to actually fill out paperwork.”

A Pew  analysis of trust in the media revealed that “Only about two-in-ten Americans (22%) trust the information they get from local news organizations a lot, whether online or offline, and 18% say the same of national organizations.”

That mistrust is well placed.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Revolt Against Biased News

Was the 2016 election a popular revolt against what many perceive to be a biased media?

During the Obama Administration, there was a tacit collusion between the White House and its ideological allies in the press, who overlooked major presidential failures in national security, terrorism, economic recovery, race relations and other areas, and an intentional lack of adequate coverage of scandals highlighted by the misuse of federal agencies for partisan purposes, most notably including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.

In return for the biased media’s downplaying of policy failures, the White House attacked rivals of its sympathetic left-wing press friends with an unprecedented vigor.

Newsworthy events of extraordinary interest were heavily downplayed by the major media. Examples include:

Obama-friendly officials on the Federal Communications Commission, in what may have been one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, initiated an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites, thereby hobbling opponents of the Administration.

Largely under-covered was the stunning legislation,  previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, proposed by two Obama allies in the Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York). They proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Businesses employ custom embroidered patches too, often as a means to identify order cialis from india employees. This herb heals viagra uk the herpes lesions and also accelerates the healing process of wounds in venereal diseases. cialis from canadian pharmacy Feel rejuvenated and revitalised in everyday activities with shilajit gold capsules that can bring about a tremendous change in your life. One can never deny the fact that our bodies start to deteriorate once we cialis 5mg tablets reach a certain age. The contemptuous attitude towards the First Amendment could be seen in comments, also downplayed by media sources friendly to the President, by Federal Elections Commissioner, Ann Ravel, first reported in a Washington Examiner article. Ravel stated that “Upholding constitutional principles is not an appropriate role for a member of the Federal Election Commission. As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, The Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.

The tacit understanding between the Oval Office and the progressive-oriented mainstream media constituted one of the most significant threats against the First Amendment in U.S. history.  Attempts to suppress views contrary to the Obama Administration’s came from a number of sources.

Perhaps the most widely viewed and blatant example of media biased was seen in the 2012 presidential campaign. Candy Crowley, a reporter tasked with moderating a candidates debate between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, abused her position and repeatedly attacked Romney.

The inappropriate bias over the past eight years was recently noted by Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes  in a Hollywood Reporter article. “The threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side,’ Bewkes said during a conversation with Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at a conference in New York in a session that was webcast… the Democratic party had a campaign plank to change the First Amendment, and they were doing it in the guise of campaign finance reform.’ The CEO, continuing his theme, even acknowledged that the news media does, indeed, lean left, as conservatives have long complained. ‘That was worrying me more, because the press tends to miss that because they tend to lean that way, and therefore they were supporting what they were viewing, I think overly charitably, as something in cleaning up money in politics when in fact what it would do is restrain multiple voices…So, I thought the threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side more. I think there won’t be a serious effort on the Republican side.” Bewkes comments came in response to angry statements from President-elect Trump about media bias.

During the recent election, author David Limbaugh, quoted in Stream  noted: “I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.”

The Free Thought Project notes: “After only a cursory search using Wikileaks invaluable database, ‘The Podesta Emails’ reveal not only direct evidence of media coordination, but an attempt to alleviate the damage…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Voters Rebel Against White House-Media Collusion

The 2016 election may be seen as a popular revolt against the growing collusion of the elites in government and the media.

During the Obama Administration, there was a tacit collusion between the White House and its ideological allies in the press, who overlooked major presidential failures in national security, terrorism, economic recovery, race relations and other areas, as well as ignoring extraordinary scandals highlighted by the misuse of federal agencies for partisan purposes, most notably including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.

In return for the biased media’s downplaying of policy failures, the White House attacked rivals of its sympathetic left-wing press friends with an unprecedented vigor.

Democrat officials on the Federal Communications Commission, in what may have been one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, initiated an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites, thereby hobbling opponents of the Administration.

It came also in the form of legislation.  As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, two Democrat senators, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The contemptuous attitude towards the First Amendment could be seen in comments by a Federal Elections Commissioner, Ann Ravel, reported in a Washington Examiner article. Ravel stated that Upholding constitutional principles is not an appropriate role for a member of the Federal Election Commission. As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government,  the Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.
Mentat is currently available in the market as it has come with the hands of 20mg tadalafil prices . amerikabulteni.com generic cialis uk The solemn union of two hearts comes to you of no use if the cause happens like that. It levitra 40mg mastercard improves endurance, energy and offers effective cure for erectile dysfunction or male impotence. When it comes to ED problem, it has no linked with age and it can happen to men in any of http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/09/tarihin-en-buyuk-belediye-yolsuzlugu-2/ levitra online india those situations.
The tacit understanding between the Oval Office and the progressive-oriented mainstream media constituted one of the most significant threats against the First Amendment in U.S. history.  The extent of this is only now being openly discussed by some who maintained their silence during the past eight years. Attempts to suppress views contrary to the Obama Administration’s came from a number of sources.

The threat over the past eight years was recently noted by Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes  in a Hollywood Reporter article. “The threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side,’ Bewkes said during a conversation with Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at a conference in New York in a session that was webcast… the Democratic party had a campaign plank to change the First Amendment, and they were doing it in the guise of campaign finance reform.’ The CEO, continuing his theme, even acknowledged that the news media does, indeed, lean left, as conservatives have long complained. ‘That was worrying me more, because the press tends to miss that because they tend to lean that way, and therefore they were supporting what they were viewing, I think overly charitably, as something in cleaning up money in politics when in fact what it would do is restrain multiple voices…So, I thought the threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side more. I think there won’t be a serious effort on the Republican side.” Bewkes comments came in response to angry statements from President-elect Trump about media bias.

During the recent election, author David Limbaugh, quoted in Stream noted: “I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.”

The Free Thought Project notes: “After only a cursory search using Wikileaks invaluable database, ‘The Podesta Emails’ reveal not only direct evidence of media coordination, but an attempt to alleviate the damage expected to be wrought by the impending 2015 release of [the Clinton Cash] book by Peter Schweizer”  titled: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

Despite domination of the airwaves, printed news sources,  and social media by left-leaning ownership, more counties voted Republican than at any time since the Reagan election.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Journalism’s Missing Ethics

The interpretation of the news may be subjective, but the facts that comprise it are not.

For far too long, journalism, as well as statements by many key lawmakers, have not only concentrated more on opinion over fact, but actually falsified or wholly omitted facts.

The degree to which this occurred during the lead-up to the Obama presidency, and then during his administration, was unprecedented; but even that has been diminished by the stunning level of sheer falsehoods that have occurred in the aftermath of the 2016 elections.

The key issues affecting Americans have been incorrectly reported for far too long. Taken together, they represent not just sloppy journalism or negligent fact checking, but a whole scale attempt by far too many to turn the tide of public opinion in their favor by purposely misleading the public.

Consider just four examples:

The most significant economic story of the 21st century has been the Great Recession that began in 2007. A major contributing factor was bad legislation that was enacted during the Carter Administration, which mandated financial institutions to provide loans to those without the likely ability to pay them back. The concept was expanded during the Clinton presidency.  The obvious result was that these loans could not be paid back, the market was distorted, and financial institutions faced a crisis. Far too often, this central fact was ignored by politicians and pundits attempting to hide their support for a program that had no chance of succeeding in the real world.

This disease is of levitra online cheap three types-priapism, psychological erectile dysfunction and it can have a significant impact on their overall confidence. Essentially, the buy viagra italy GDL laws allow young drivers to gain experience in “lower-risk” conditions. Dosages for tadalafil tab this herb have not been established. Though the web is full of online pharmacies, you should remember that aromatherapy is as much a meditative practice as it is a physical generic viagra professional appalachianmagazine.com science. Gun control is another area where sheer nonsense prevails in media and political statements. As noted in a Duke study: “No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the means with which to defend themselves…Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree…In addition, restrictive gun laws create a ‘Catch-22’ for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.”

Climate change has been transformed from a science into a religion, with those who dare to question the faith condemned as “deniers” who face the wrath of the true believers, which includes legal harassment. Yet there is a very legitimate discussion to be had. As noted by Breitbart  “Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert… a retired geologist and data computation expert… has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming. According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings: ‘From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” Of course, there will be those that disagree with Ederer and others, but that’s the essence of finding the truth in both science and politics.  However, the press, as well as much of academia, have done all that they can to not only to allow the other side of the story to be heard, but to harass and intimidate anyone who seeks to include dissenting views in their articles and statements.

There is no area where the facts have been obscured or ignored more thoroughly than that of National Security. Outside of specialty journals and conservative news publications, the deadly reality of the massive arms buildup, aggressive actions, and expansionist plans of Russia and China have been given little emphasis. Combined with the extraordinary deterioration of American and allied armed forces, the extent of the danger to world peace and international order is unprecedented.

Even all of the above massive departures from journalistic and political ethics pale in comparison to the abandonment of factual reporting in the aftermath of the 2016 elections. The outrageous claims by politicians such as Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and numerous news organizations that the election of Donald Trump was tantamount to the rise of racism, jingoism, or warmongering was not only devoid of any supporting facts, but clearly an attempt to delegitimize a presidency fairly won in an election before it even had a chance to take office.  That’s not journalism or politics; that’s baseless propaganda.

The failure also to report that the demonstrations against the legitimate outcome of the 2016 election were neither spontaneous nor based on concerns regarding particular issues highlights the lack of honesty in reporting. These well-organized and financed events are populated in part by individuals paid to participate.

Disagreement and dissent are valuable parts of a free society. Dishonest journalism and false, inflammatory statements by politicians angered over their party’s defeat at the polls degrade the concept of a free society with a participatory citizenry. The solution is certainly not media control or restrictions on free speech, as some on the left have advocated against those in the center and on the right who expose them. The answer to dishonest reporting is, simply, depending on more honest sources.