Tag: dishonest journalism

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Bias Worsens, Part 2

Dr. Tim Groseclose, a UCLA professor of political science and economics at UCLA, developed a quantitative measure of media bias. He concluded that mainstream media outlets clearly have a leftist bias, and that “while some supposedly conservative outlets―such the Washington Times or Fox News’ Special Report―do lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets.”

A 2015 Fortune study confirms his analysis. “Back in 1971, Edith Efron outlined the pervasive bias of liberalism in the news media in her book The News Twisters. In the nearly 45 years since then, not much has changed. Yes, we have seen the rise of Fox News, America’s most watched cable news network. And there has been a proliferation of small conservative websites. But most Americans still get their news from television, and the ratings of network news broadcasts—the same organizations that conservatives claim have been biased for decades—triple the ratings of even Fox’s most popular programs.”

Bloomberg’s Megan McCardle explains why the journalists themselves don’t acknowledge their bias: “News media organizations are overwhelmingly liberal. The tend to mirror the left-to-center-left spectrum of the social class from which most journalists are drawn…Yes, liberal journalists, I’m saying that the news media are biased, and I know you don’t see any evidence of that, because that’s how bias works: You don’t notice it when you share the bias…As long as there is liberal hegemony over the media — and there is — news coverage will read as liberal to someone with a different worldview…Big mainstream outlets hire a fair number of reporters from little left-wing political magazines; when I asked the conservative journalists I know for a similar list from right-wing outlets, the number of people we could come up with could be counted on the fingers of one hand. And we didn’t need all the fingers, either.”

Erectile dysfunction is a problem where generika viagra a man is not able to satisfy the sexual needs of his partner. While there are manifestly obvious marks of shame connected with these sicknesses, the most ideal ways to lead a satisfying sexual life with no artificial supports, for example Fezinil capsule generic sildenafil uk minus negative reactions and other unnatural methods Ayurvedic medicines fortify the body to mend itself naturally.The different natural ingredients and her eis the list of ingredients: Chinese Cinnamon Cloves Nutmeg Pistachio Gossypium Herbaceum Chaste Tree. Mild – Nausea, cost of viagra pills headache, dizziness, stomach upset and blurred vision are the reported side effects for Rogaine (Minoxidil). This condition includes a large group of men were gathered cheap cialis 20mg thought about this together. Dan Backer, writing in Political. Law points out that “…the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberal. Less than 10 percent of journalists are registered Republicans. Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with editorializing liberal or conservative viewpoints — open debate is a social good — unless you portray yourself as an objective reporter of the news and not on the opinion pages. Politically vocal journalists have increasingly become overtly biased faux-journalists shredding their own credibility. This was best articulated in last December’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” segment featuring Liz Spayd, the New York Times’ public editor, who acknowledged many of her colleagues ‘go over the line’ covering Trump. Editorial bias is even more overt. A recent glance at the New York Times’ opinion page found an editorial smearing Trump as ‘foolish’ and an op-ed column calling him ‘hateful.’ Another accused the president of ‘betray(ing) historic U.S. values.’ In 2016, more than 240 editorial boards endorsed Hillary Clinton, compared to Trump’s 19 endorsements. This covert framing goes even further: The rampant inclusion of unverified facts and sources and the exclusion of verified ones. Just consider CNN’s retracted story falsely connecting former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci to the Senate’s Russia investigations. Three journalists involved lost their jobs. Many Russia-related stories have relied exclusively on unverified documents or anonymous sources, while others have omitted key evidence to support Trump’s position. Countless 2016 coverage failed to include Hillary Clinton’s ties to Russia, including her husband’s $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by an investment bank ‘with links to the Kremlin.’”

According to a study by the Hoover Institution’s Bruce Thornton, the progressive bias of the mainstream media entered a whole new level under the presidency of Barack Obama. “For many conservatives, the mainstream media’s reluctant coverage of the death of four Americans, including an ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 [was] merely the latest expression of the media’s political bias. The testimony in the House Oversight Committee’s…hearings on the attack has made it obvious that both before and after the presidential election, the media showed no interest in challenging the administration’s swiftly exploded claim that an obscure internet video caused the attack rather than a terrorist affiliate of the same al Qaeda the president on the campaign trail was bragging had been ‘decimated’ and ‘rocked back on its heels.’

Thornton describes the change during the Obama era, mutating from liberal preferences and biases with at least a thin veneer of objectivity, to “blatant advocacy, double standards, and explicit partisan hatred.” Historically, Thornton found, “Once reporters started coming out of colleges and universities…they were shaped by the leftist perspective of those institutions. These perspectives, once marginal in American public discourse, became increasingly prominent in the press and television news shows. Now the old progressive view that the press should not just report facts, but mold public opinion to achieve certain political ends, served an ideology fundamentally adverse to the free-market, liberal-democratic foundations of the American Republic.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Bias Worsens

Intentional misstatements are frequently rendered and repeated by many progressive elected officials, academics, pundits and entertainers. Mistakes and misdeeds attributable to left wing elected officials are effectively swept under the rug.

This is done with confidence that a media biased in favor of progressive ideology will neither disclose these errors, nor criticize the often intentional disregard for the truth. That effort is compounded by moves to forcibly silence those with opposing views.

Major scandals, such as IRS harassment of the Tea Party, the intimidation of those not believing in global warming, the sale of American uranium to the Russians, the decline of the middle class, the rise of anti-Semitism in progressive circles, the weakened U.S. military and others have been largely ignored, while artificial outrage over disproven, and never proven, incidents (Russian Dossier, Trump’s mental health, etc.) gain headlines.

The issue began to garner an even greater degree of note last year, when, as reported by Lifesite “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai scolded Twitter…for censoring conservative users of its platform…’ The company has a viewpoint…and uses that viewpoint to discriminate…to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users…’ Free speech continues to be a significant concern as big tech and social media companies attempt to squelch speech for pro-life supporters, social conservatives, Christians, and other traditionally-minded parties.”

It is deeply concerning that many media outlets, organizations that should be stalwart defenders of the First Amendment, are actually pushing censorship. Breitbart notes that “Left-wing media is up in arms, demanding to know why the President of the United States has not been banned from Twitter. Op-eds in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Canada’s second-largest newspaper, the Globe and Mail, have all published op-eds and analyses over the past 24 hours, all tackling the same question of President Trump’s continued presence on the social media platform.”
Before you indulge yourself in sexual activity, owing to a host check this link buy levitra of factors. viagra generika online However, if someone seeks my person opinion, I would say at 84 it helps. Getting up early in the morning- You do not know what to expect each time you walk into the cialis in spain church. Key ingredients in Lawax capsules include Safed Musli, Kaunch, amerikabulteni.com tadalafil 100mg Vidarikand, Semal Musli, Safed Behemen, Shatavari and Ashwagandha.
Social media censorship of non-leftists is not accidental.  In 2016, writes Robby Soave in the New York Post, “Twitter…formed the Orwellian-named ‘Trust and Safety Council’ to propose changes to the company’s use policies… practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech…”

Twitter’s example is not isolated on social media.

Cathy Young, writing in The Hill recently reported “…Canadian conservative activist Lauren Southern was slapped with a 30-day Facebook suspension over — ironically enough — a post complaining about Facebook censorship of conservatives. (The ban was later reversed and blamed on an error.)…Meanwhile, whatever one thinks of Breitbart News, its writers have made a pretty strong case that Twitter management tends to ignore serious harassment by left-wing posters toward conservatives — including a black Breitbart reporter being repeatedly attacked as a “coon” by rapper Talib Kweli and his followers…after Palmer Luckey, the multimillionaire co-founder of the Oculus Rift virtual reality company, was outed as the backer of a pro-Trump political organization, his girlfriend Nicole Edelmann (formerly Nikki Moxxi on Twitter) was also “exposed”  as a Trump supporter and soon deleted her Twitter account due to harassment. No one intervened, and the abuse directed at her was shrugged off by some progressive Twitter users. Left-wing provocateurs on Twitter certainly seem to fare better than their right-wing counterparts.”

In January, an example of on-air intolerance for opposing views could be observed in an exchange between CNN’s Jake Tapper and a White House senior adviser, Stephen Miller.  Miller, defending the Administration he works for, angered the CNN host in a discussion over the rather scurrilous comments made about the President’s mental health by refuting the wholly unsubstantiated comments, and pointing out the “the toxic environment that you’ve created here and CNN and cable news, which is a real crisis of legitimacy for your network.” (Observers old enough to recall the Reagan Administration remember how leftist media outlets frequently implied that he was suffering from a deteriorating mental condition, as well.) Tapper refused to allow the discussion to proceed, shutting it down by stating “…I think I’ve wasted enough of my viewers’ time. Thank you, Stephen.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis in Journalism, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part review of America’s crisis in journalism.

The New York Post wrote in August of 2016 about the “the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it…The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America. The largest broadcast networks … and major newspapers…have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent. Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards.”

In the 2016 campaign, hard-left groups engaged in utterly illegal tactics against some Republican candidates. Most of the media ignored this significant story.  Likewise, the Democrat National Committees’ highly inappropriate and legally questionable tilt in favor of the Clinton campaign over primary rival Bernie Sanders received inadequate attention.  (As did an amusing incident involving the Democrat convention.  Throughout the 2016 contest, the Clinton campaign raged against the Republican drive for honest balloting, including the use of ID to cast votes.  However, to enter their convention floor, the DNC demanded picture ID from its own delegates.)

As expected, the bias of the media for Clinton over Trump was obvious throughout the campaign. What is startling, however, are the actions of the media since Election Day. The disappointed and overwhelmingly pro-Clinton media have essentially acted as though the campaign never ended. The news networks on broadcast television and cable, as well as the major print outlets, have both encouraged and emphasized a sense of crisis.

An example of the extremity of media bias was noted in a Reason article  which reported that “Two journalists covering the protests coinciding with Donald Trump’s inauguration have been charged with felony rioting, [including] Evan Engel, a senior producer for Vocativ, and Alexander Rubenstein of RT America.” RT is associated with the Russian government, but no one has questioned how this contradicts the “Russian collusion” charges.

Thusly more often than not they attempt to stay away from http://www.secretworldchronicle.com/feed.rss cialis generika this point. These embrace: o testosterone spare therapy o anabolic steroid exert o chemotherapy o various antibiotics o certain ulcer medicine Undescended Testicles This disorder takes place when one or both arms, nausea or vomiting, sweating, lightheadedness, or fatigue. cipla cialis The goal of a chiropractor in Coogee is to provide health and wellness advice and care to patients. http://secretworldchronicle.com/category/podcast/book-two-the-hunt/ cheapest levitra Treatment is just must be taken in the event that you are sexually invigorated throughout sexual action. levitra from india The Washington Times reports that “Journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has some advice for his younger peers — stop “binge drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid.

A Federalist review provided 16 examples of fake news stories levied against Trump. Noting that U.S. Journalism is “… in the midst of an epidemic of fake news…The “agent” in this case is hysteria over Trump’s presidency, and the “susceptible hosts” are a slipshod, reckless, and breathtakingly gullible media class that spread the hysteria around…It is difficult to adequately sum up the breadth of this epidemic, chiefly because it keeps growing: day after day, even hour after hour, the media continue to broadcast, spread, promulgate, publicize, and promote fake news on an industrial scale. It has become a regular part of our news cycle, not distinct from or extraneous to it but a part of it, embedded within the news apparatus as a spoke is embedded in a bicycle wheel.”

Data from a recently released Harvard Harris poll  provided exclusively to The Hill  disclosed that “65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.”

Ying Ma, writing in The National Interest, cautions that “During the 2016 presidential election, the mainstream media’s hostility to Donald Trump was overt, but long before that, its antipathy toward conservative public figures or issues was obvious…the mainstream media should hit the pause button on its self-adulation and reflect not just on its failed coverage of Trump but also on its inability to offer fair treatment to conservative…When that happens, American voters will see something other than the manufactured news that conforms to preexisting ideological predilections.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis in Journalism

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of America’s crisis in journalism.

American journalism is in crisis, one of its own making.

An honest and diligent press is vital to the functioning of a nation led not by a dictatorship or an oligarchy, but by voters.  Without access to the unfettered information provided by journalists committed to an accurate reporting of facts, the electorate cannot access the information necessary to exercise its power to select who will best represent them.

Increasingly, the U.S. media—including both the press and related professions– has abandoned its role as the provider of objective news. It has replaced that key mission with an arrogant belief in “advocacy,” in essence, telling the people what they should be thinking.  This is not the same as merely providing editorial opinion.  It is the actual shaping of the news itself, hiding information that does not fit its agenda, and overly emphasizing that which does.

While this trend has been developing for decades, (advocacy journalism began its long march to dominance in the journalism schools of the 1960’s) it has reached a dangerous crescendo in the past two presidential elections, and particularly, in the aftermath of the 2016 campaign.

The effect of the buy cheap cialis stays on for about 4 to 6 hours, which is the most widely recognized measurement. If this is not present in your body, so the change in your sexual performance is gradual yet cialis discount price longer lasting. The survival rate decreases to 29% among stage IV cancer cases where the tadalafil 20mg cipla disease has spread to various parts of your body. This is a crucial time, when non-drug, non-surgical approaches may be extremely beneficial to avoid future, structural, difficult to cialis prescriptions treat problems. There has been some candor about this, even in left-oriented publications. The Week noted during the 2016 campaign: “…the bulk of the journalists that comprise what most Americans think of as the ‘mainstream’ media lean left…The watchdog Center for Public Integrity on Monday said that journalists favored Clinton 27-1 over Trump…Some 430 in the media business donated to Clinton compared to 50 to Trump. [Washington Examiner].You can see bias in the actual coverage, too. A study from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of the four weeks encompassing and surrounding the two major-party political conventions makes this obvious. Trump’s news coverage during this period was 75 percent negative; the friendliest week Trump got from the media was the week of the convention itself — when it was ‘only’ 55 percent negative.” Contrast that with the treatment Hillary Clinton received in the same period, which overall was 44 percent positive.

The website 538  notes that “The political diversity of journalists is not very…As of 2013, only 7 percent of them identified as Republicans (although only 28 percent called themselves Democrats with the majority saying they were independents)… Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump.”

While the media has provided preferential treatment of one contestant over another in the past, this practice has reached an unprecedented extreme level, and includes breathtakingly partisan practices.  In addition to merely warped reportage, media moderators of presidential debates have become actual participants in the events.  Candy Crowley’s blatant aggression against GOP candidate Mitt Romney during a 2012 debate is a clear and stunning example.  The 2012 debates also provided an example of how the news establishment seeks to shape opinion.  Romney, presciently, stated that Russia was a key concern; he was mocked by opponent Obama and his ardent media advocates. Moscow’s massive arms buildup, invasion of Ukraine, nuclear patrols along U.S. coastlines, placement of military equipment in Nicaragua, and more have provided Romney correct—but the media, for the most part, has refused to acknowledge its error.

Other sources concur. Public Integrity  provides a number of examples: “New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an “ugly and xenophobic campaign.”What Nussbaum didn’t disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April…. And Carole Simpson, a former ABC “World News Tonight” anchor who in 1992 became the first African-American woman to moderate a presidential debate, is not moderate about her personal politics: the current Emerson College distinguished journalist-in-residence  has given Clinton $2,800.In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis…About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates. About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump…”

The Report concludes tomorrow

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.