What's your point M E M? Or is it just the usual obfuscation to deflect from the facts incriminating your party and their incestuous relationship with the liberal media?
The article talks about Trump seizing a reporter's phone logs and records. You've been trying to argue that Trump's lies and attacks on the media were different because Trump didn't do things like seize reporter's records.
The article talks about Trump seizing a reporter's phone logs and records. You've been trying to argue that Trump's lies and attacks on the media were different because Trump didn't do things like seize reporter's records.
Good God, you completely distort what that was about, to make it conform to your Democrat propaganda anti-Trump talking points.
The guy who was arrested was the Senate Intelligence Committee's security director who violated his trust, was involved in crimes and will be going to jail. I remember this story when it came out, there is no question of his guilt. And it wasn't just talking to a reporter, he was having a sexual affair with her, way beyond just news-gathering. The records legally subpoenaed were tangentially related to prosecuting the Senate security director, *not* jailing or prosecuting a reporter.
And it's ironic because:
Quote:
[Senate security director James A. Wolfe’s arrest] case led to the first known instance of the Justice Department going after a reporter’s data under President Trump. The seizure was disclosed in a letter to the Times reporter, Ali Watkins, who had been in a three-year relationship with Mr. Wolfe. The seizure suggested that prosecutors under the Trump administration will continue the aggressive tactics employed under President Barack Obama.
So in no uncertain terms (and I've heard of no other cases I can recall of Trump's DOJ going after a reporters's records) even this (liberal media) New York Times piece is saying if Trump went down this path repeatedly, he would approach the egregious suppression of freedom of the press that went on under Obama.
A hilarious reach on your part.
It is legal to go after the leaker, even though the reporter can legally report anything that is leaked. To my knowledge, the only exception to that is if the reporter is actively involved in helping steal top secret or government documents. Such as Julian Assange allegedly helping Bradley Manning hack the passwords to get secured government computer files. But if Manning had already hacked them and given the already unsecured documents to Assange/Wikileaks, then Assange could not be prosecuted.
In the case of the Senate intelligence security director, he was (by encrypted message) disclosing to multiple reporters secret information before it was unsecured, and therefore doing the exact opposite of what he was paid to do as security director.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
So basically, a reporter for the British Sun tabloid asks Trump about comments Meghan Markle made, that Trump was even aware Markle had said. So the reporter told Trump what Marle said about Trump, that she's move to Canada (in 2016) if he were elected, and after moved to the U.K. and became a princess. And Trump taking the reorter's word for it, said he didn't know she was nasty toward him like that.
The reporter, removing all context that she completely set up the context and then hid that context, asked a loaded question, then Trump had only responded on the reporter's account of what Markle said, reported it as: "Trump Calls the Princess Nasty.".
A small story, but reflective of how the media consistently distorts the facts to attack Trump.
In an update to the coverage totals posted by NewsBusters’s Nick Fondacaro here and here, the flagship major broadcast networks CBS and NBC still have yet to acknowledge the Antifa violence committed on Saturday in Portland, Oregon, which included the brutal beating and milkshaking of Quillette’s Andy Ngo, which left him badly injured with a brain bleed.
Along with CBS and NBC, MSNBC and The New York Times have joined them in the refusal to denounce this legitimate, actual attack (sorry not sorry, Jim Acosta) on a journalist for simply doing their job. And since Sunday’s Good Morning America, ABC had not offered an update.
In contrast to MSNBC, fellow liberal cable network CNN had at least offered a decent share of coverage considering their aversion to anything that goes against their preconceived narratives and endorsement of Antifa’s radical, violent actions and beliefs by some at the network.
Since 5:00 a.m. Sunday morning, CNN has spent five minutes and 26 seconds on the violence in Portland. Unfortunately, 47 seconds of that time (spread out over two hours of CNN Newsroom) didn’t note that one of those hurt was, in fact, a journalist (who also happens to be Asian and gay).
Monday’s CNN Right Now devoted a full report to what transpired, including Ngo’s injuries. However, the story was spun with Ngo being dubbed a “conservative blogger” and mentioned alongside “far-right,” white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys.
So, yes, folks, CNN played the “both sides” card.
When it came to describing Antifa, here was how Sidner described them :
Look, you had a couple of different groups that came into Portland to protest, to share their message, far-right groups, to spread their message to the masses, whoever would listen to them, and they often gather at different squares and that's exactly what happened here, but often, as is normal in Portland, there is always a huge reaction to that. Sometimes far bigger than the far-right groups and, in this case the same, who have gathered. The Antifa — anti-fascists, if you will, came out for sure and we should, you know, sort of be clear that there are a lot of different people that were out there who may not consider themselves a member of the anti-fascist group, but there are certainly a group called Rose City Antifa, who was out there[.]
Sidner showed pictures and video of Antifa attacking Ngo and pictures from his trip to the emergency room with some injuries sustained from being “getting hit with what looked like a milkshake, but police were very clear in saying, look, it appears that there was some sort of quick-drying cement that was mixed into that so-called milkshake.”
To Sidner’s credit, she then denounced Antifa and ruled that cities like Berkeley, California, and Portland, Oregon need to have “a serious conversation” because of “have groups like this who are there in — to be militant and to violently oppose people from the right.”
“[ B]ut then you see the violence unleashed on this conservative blogger and it's unacceptable behavior. Even if you don't like the ideals, the whole point is that you're allowed to have free speech in this country and I think that's a conversation that America needs to — needs to have, especially in cities like Portland, where this happens quite often,” she added, before spending the rest of the segment ruling harping on the Proud Boys and other far-right groups.
Going to the major newspapers, The Times was silent in the MRC’s Washington Edition copies (for Sunday and Monday). The Washington Post wasn’t much better, providing a partial Associated Press wire story on A3 in Sunday’s print edition. The total word count? A scant 239 words accompanied by the headline “Opposing groups clash in downtown Portland.”
USA Today’s first print edition since Ngo’s attack came on Monday and, like CNN, they did more than a few seconds on it. Reporter John Bacon had a 350-word dispatch on 2A that, also like CNN, had a similar spin with the print headline “Right- and left-wingers battle in Oregon” (altered slightly for the online one here).
Here’s an excerpt:
Oregon's largest city was calm and quiet Sunday after a day of chaotic, competing protests that clogged Portland streets, crippled public transit and left at least eight people injured.
Police in riot gear broke up the demonstrations as clashes developed among law enforcers, anti-fascist "antifa" protesters and right-wing groups. Three people were charged with crimes ranging from assault on a police officer to harassment, police said.
(....)
Andy Ngo, an editor with the conservative website "Quillette," tweeted photos of cuts and bruises on his face. He said on Twitter he was hit multiple times with fists and weapons.
"Attacked by antifa. Bleeding," he tweeted. "They stole my camera equipment. No police until after. waiting for ambulance. If you have evidence of attack please help."
Protesters also clashed with police, throwing water bottles and eggs at officers, and three were among those injured.
Police had reports of protesters throwing "milkshakes" – with a substance mixed in that was similar to a quick-drying cement.
I'd also point out the media similarly focused on "right wing racist violence" in Charlottesville 2 years ago, while ignoring the antifa who outnumbered the white supremacists more than tenfold (Antifa in the thousands, white supremacists maybe 200 to 300) and were (as I ctied at the time with youtube videos of Antifa) constantly attacking white supremacists and provoking violence, where otherwise the supremacists would have just peacefully marched. And that the majority of conservative demonstrators (about 2,000) were not white supremacists, just retired police and military protesting only for preservation of the Robert E. Lee statue, who actually aasked the 200-300 white supremacists to leave. But all were portrayed by the liberal media as "white supremacists".
Over and over, the liberal media are eager to over-report alleged incidents of "right wing violence". And even in the case of Tea Party protests that were 100% peaceful, portrayed them as "threatening". Despite that the attacks were by Leftists on Tea Party members! In one case, a white union thug beat up a black Tea Party member and it went unreported. Whereas if it were reversed and had been a white conservative attacking a black liberal, it would have been national news with maximum coverage of "dangerous right wing racists attack black protestor."
The same thing here. When a gay conservative is attacked, and even hospitalized with brain damage from the attack, the liberal media absolutely refuses to report it. Because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative they want to sell to the public of a "growing threat of dangerous right wing violence". Despite that the attacks are overwhelmingly by the LEFT wing.
Just a reminder which side the real violence is on:
Now that's the narrative the liberal media is trying to sell! And when you do a google search for Antifa violence, these are the only kind of articles you'll see. Liberal narrative,that carefully avoids facts they don't want to report. Such as attacks by Antifa. And by PETA and leftist environmentalist groups. And other Leftists on college campuses, at booksignings and lectures of conservative leaders and authors.
The centerpiece of this article is James Fields who was just convicted for the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, VA. Who was not part of any organized attempt at violence, and reading the link, you can easily see he had personal problems, not related to right wing violence.
This part in particular struck me:
Quote:
Fields backed up at a high speed for several blocks, and then turned left and sped off down Market Street.[20][26] A Virginia State Police Bell 407 helicopter, that crashed about three hours later, was following the car and relaying its route to ground units.[20][21] A deputy stopped and arrested Fields on Monticello Avenue, about a mile from the attack.[20][27] The deputy waited for the police to arrive, and detective Steven Young came from the police department. According to Young, Fields kept apologizing and asked if anyone was injured. When Young told him that a person had died, Fields appeared shocked and started to cry.[20][21][28] Young said that the Dodge had holes in the rear window—made by counter-protesters after the initial impact[27][29]—and heavy front-end damage; Young said that the car was "splattered" with blood and flesh. A pair of blue sunglasses was stuck in the spoiler on the car's trunk
That seems rather spontaneous, with a considerable remorse and regret for the act, to be labelled "right wing hate". Fields also has a family history of psychological problems and violence that date back to his parents and grandparents, as made clear in the above link.
Washington Post "analysis" of domestic terrorism argues that attacks from white supremacists and other "far-right attackers" have been on the rise since Barack Obama's presidency and "surged since President Trump took office." It's a familiar storyline meant to assure liberals that yes, Trump-motivated right-wing terrorists are running wild. There are, however, a few problems with this proposition.
For one thing, even if we accept the numbers the Post offers, the use of the word "surge" -- meaning a sudden, powerful forward or upward movement -- strains credibility. There's no evidence of a "surge," either in historical context or as a matter of ideological preference.
That is to say, we have good reason not to accept the numbers. According to The Washington Post, which relies on Global Terrorism Database data, there were zero acts of right-wing terrorism in the entire nation in 2002. Since then, we have seen a "surge," to 36 in a nation of 325-plus million people in 2017. Among those acts, there were 11 fatalities.
In other words, fewer homicides were committed by political terrorists of any stripe in the United States in 2017 than were committed by undocumented immigrants in the state of Texas alone -- which, I am assured, is an incredibly low number that shouldn't worry us very much. If one of these "surges" is scaremongering, why not the other?
Then again, even if we use the criteria offered by the GTD, we need to be exceptionally generous to even get to 36 incidents of right-wing violence in 2017. (I could find only 32.)
For example, although the Post acknowledges that the Las Vegas shooter's motivations are still unknown, the GTD had no problem categorizing the murderer of 58 people as an "anti-government extremist." And it takes these sorts of assumptions to get in the vicinity of a "surge" in right-wing terrorism.
Of the 32 incidents I was able to find, 12 featured perpetrators who were merely "suspected" of being right-wing terrorists. Some of these incidents could have been the work of one person, as in the pellet gun shootings of Muslims in New York. In other incidents, we are asked to treat patently insane people as if they had coherent political agendas.
Still other events are even more opaque. In San Juan, Puerto Rico -- apparently a hotbed of white supremacy -- an incendiary device was thrown into a gay nightclub. No one was injured, thank goodness. Also, no one was caught, and no one claimed responsibility for the act. Yet the episode doesn't even earn a "suspected" designation from GTD.
If the definition of domestic terrorism is muddy at best, the definition of right-wing terrorism is often arbitrary and self-serving.
To help bolster right-wing terrorist stats, for instance, we would have to perfunctorily include every anti-Semitic act. The Washington Post even mentions an Anti-Defamation League study showing "a 57 percent surge in anti-Semitic incidents in 2017."
If anything, the ADL study should be cautionary, as it demonstrates how difficult it is to not only quantify these incidents but also categorize them ideologically. The ADL's faulty data were self-reported, for instance, and most of the "surge" can be attributed to a single Jewish teen in Israel calling in a number of bomb threats to Jewish centers.
In the real world, a Jewish American is probably likelier to encounter anti-Semitism at a college campus than anywhere else.
Then there is the matter of inconsistently defining terrorism. If throwing a rock through the window of an Islamic center is an act of right-wing terrorism, why isn't it an act of left-wing terrorism for anti-capitalists to throw rocks through the window of a business in Oregon? Surely, both fall under the description of terror, which the GTD defines as "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor seeking to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation." As far as I can tell, only one of these genres actually makes the cut for the GTD.
This is what happens when reporters work backward from a predetermined premise.
You'll notice, as well, that these analyses typically begin in 2002, seeing as the 2,977 Americans murdered on 9/11 are inconvenient to the white-supremacy-is-more-dangerous-than-radical-Islam narrative. The reason we don't have a real-life "surge" of attacks by Islamic extremists since 2001, incidentally, is that the United States has spent billions yearly to stop it.
Of course, political violence isn't the monopoly of any one group. Although there have been flare-ups of leftist violence in the 1900s and the 1960s and '70s, for the most part, this kind of violence is still rare. That could change. And none of this is to say horrible events aren't happening. Nor is it to say that haters don't exist. But exaggerating the problem for political reasons doesn't help anyone. Covering your partisan work with a bogus veneer of scientific analysis doesn't make it any more useful.
Some perspective, from outside the bubble of liberal media narrative. That Washington Post article referred to seems to have been scrubbed from their site.
Tucker Carlson fried this guy like bacon into some nice crispy strips. Wemple targeting Fox News for exposure 21 times more than CNN and MSNBC for alleged misrepresentation, while simultaneously ignoring deceitful practices by the Washington Post's own editors and reporters, taking paid Russian propaganda and running it in their paper as if it were news instead of the paid advertising it truly is. While accusing the Trump administration, Fox and other news agencies of Russia collusion.
Since this interview, Tucker Carlson has a weekly media trivia quiz between two Fox contributors, and as a prize the winner gets a mug with Wemple's confused face-photo from this interview. An example of how guys like Wemple shave the news, and then indignantly act offended that they are exposed for how they shave the news. A perfect example of your 93% anti-Trump liberal media unashamedly on display.
Just a few weeks after Trump's election in 2016, Tucker Carlson discussed with the New York Times' public editor the bias of her paper on full display. On the factual evidence of her paper's malicious spin of Trump's election, as compared to that of the Wall Street Journal and other papers. And as evidenced by the ultra-partisan social media posts of New York Times reporters. Not New York Times columnists or opinion writers, but the blatantly skewed opinion of hard news reporters who write with a veil of neutral objectivity that their online posts clearly betray.
She feigns a level of embarassment, but still denies much of the obvious that is factually beyond dispute. I frankly think under the circumstances Carlson was kind, and let her off easy.
More recently, the New York Times' latest display of skewed bias was yesterday when its opinion page recommended both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar as their endorsements for the 2020 presidential election. Anyone but Trump, who has overseen the best economy and trade deals in over 50 years, right? But more than that, they just absolutely refused to endorse Joseph Biden or Bernie Sanders or any other male candidate, unwilling to endorse white males, despite they are the front runners. They just went for the most "woke" politically correct choices they could pick. Also noteworthy that the New York Times hasn't recommended a Republican candidate for president since Eisenhower. Approaching a century. No bias, none at all.
Or the weirdness that they recommended two candidates for president. Both Democrats, of course!
Similar to Washington Post reporter Erik Wemple above, this guy dodges and weaves and tries to change the subject, and in 9 minutes never answers a simple yest or no question. Because the answer is no, what he stated in his column isn't true about Trump, and he doesn't want to go on the record so it can be pinned down later that he lied.
The New York Times and the Washington Post, and less so than 20 years ago Newsweek, are the journalism standard by which the rest of the media basically copy and follow, in both style and content. Do any of these three hard-news writers give the impression of being fair, honest and unbiased arbiters of "truth" that any of us should have trust in for objective news?
In my last 3 posts, these are the jerks who are the polar opposite of "objective", and yet these three and the papers they represent are the standard the rest of the media follows. Orwellian "objective" news!
From Jan 19, 2017. These BBC and British media jerks would fit right in at CNN or MSNBC. They hated Reagan, they hate Trump. And the State Department Bureaucrats are pretty typical of the Democrat/Left leaning zealots we saw interviewed in the Ukraine-whistleblower hearings.
The first point is the complete lack of objectivity of Chuck Todd and NBC/MSNBC, and their far-from-neutral declaration of total war not only on Trump and Republicans, but total war on Fox News as well. I mostly watch MSNBC, NBC and CNN at this point for laughs these days, they've completely given up on journalism and objective news, and are proven wrong and to have jumped the gun and not checked their facts almost daily.
And Trump has proven himself a consistent expert on helping partisan Trump-deranged networks and anchors destroy themselves, making them jump at the bait, like cats manipulated to chase the red dot of a laser-pointer.
The latest example I can think of was Trump saying Mike Bloomberg asked for a box to stand on for the debates. Pundits at all the networks freaked out attacking Trump for belittling Bloomberg, while completely bypassing any attempt to be actual journalists and explore if the box-request by Bloomberg was even true!
Similarly, the liberal media in 2015-2016 gave maximum coverage to Trump in the primaries, helping to make Trump the primary winner. The media did this to help Hillary win, thinking Trump would be the most gaffe-prone and easiest for Hillary to beat, and thus helped Trump edge out the other Republican-primary candidates. That obviously blew up in the liberal media's faces, as by helping Trump win the primaries, they helped the only Republican win who could beat Hillary in the general election.
Thanks, liberal media!
The second great point is about what the liberal media and Democrats like to term "wedge issues", alleging Republicans deceive the public with in order to win elections. But as Igraham points out, Democrats use that term to describe legitimate issues like law enforcement, border security, illegal immigration, healthcare, deporting illegal immigrants, the economy and Jobs. These only are spun by the media to be "wedge issues" when public opinion supports the Republicans instead of the Democrats.
The Willie Horton ads are held up by the liberal media as one of the worst offending issue-ads-campaigns used by Republicans. But nothing in those ads can be identified as distorted or innacurate. Governor Michael Dukakis let a convicted violent criminal out on furlough, and during that release period, Horton murdered a girl, when he should never have been let out of jail. The ads with precise example perfectly outline Democrats' (and Dukakis' in particular) weakness on crime, and their callous disregard for law-abiding taxpayers' safety in the advancement of "compassionate" liberal approaches toward violent crime, law enforcement, and liberal social engineering. The Horton ad perfectly made that point.
Trump should do a dozen ads like that before November 2020, with specific examples of people killed by Democrat policy on illegal immigrants released, and the grief of their surviving families, precisely because of Democrat policies in sanctuary cities getting people killed. The ad campaaign could be organized to target region-specific examples from cities and regions all over the United States. And a second dozen region-specific ads of the thousands of nonviolent blacks Trump has released from jail and given a second chance at life. People Democrats let rot in prison for decades, while propagandizing they care more than Republicans about minorities, while doing nothing in all that time to help minorities.
These are not "wedge issues". As Ingraham rightly clarifies, they are viscerally felt issues that Americans care about. They are only dismissed as "wedge issues" when public opinion on them turns against the Democrats.
When Democrats wildly speculate that the economy is going to tank under Trump, based on nothing, THAT is a true wedge issue.
When the liberal media propagandizes for three years that Trump is definitely going to be impeached, when the facts (and Fox News) showed all along that was never going to happen, THAT is a true wedge issue.
When the liberal media propagandizes endlessly for weeks, months, years that Trump is a racist, despite that Trump quantifiably has created the best employment ratios, rise in wages, and in home ownership in over 50 years, and in many cases ever for blacks, hispanics, women, young people under 25, and even for released former inmates, THAT is another true wedge issue. Where the liberal media, as Democrat allies, try to create a false narrative to whip up visceral minority hatred of Trump, in complete misrepresentation of the actual above facts.
Tucker Carlson giving coverage to a story that Project Veritas broke, catching CNN president Jeff Zucker and others at CNN on-camera in their own words pre-determining the narrative at CNN regardless of the facts, and their clear disdain for Fox News.
A few at CNN express contempt for Zucker's obsession with building an impeachment narrative to the eclipsing of other, and true, stories. But ultimately they stay at CNN and choose to participate in that false narrative.
•A British group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate is behind the recent push to force tech giants to remove ads from conservative websites such as The Federalist and Breitbart News.
•The group solicited donations on Tuesday after Google said it would kick The Federalist off of its Google Ads platform. NBC News reported that Google demonetized The Federalist after the outlet contacted them about CCDH’s project.
•CCDH’s pressure campaign is part of a trend of activist groups pressuring social media giants and other advertisers to distance themselves from conservative media outlets.
by Chuck Ross, investigative reporter, The Daily Caller
The obscure British group that nearly forced Google to drop ads on The Federalist is continuing its efforts to demonetize American conservative media outlets it accuses of publishing inflammatory or racist content.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), founded in 2019 by Labour party organizers, put out a call for donations Tuesday after NBC News reported that Google was poised to ban The Federalist and Zero Hedge, a libertarian-leaning website, from making money off of Google Ads.
CCDH’s affiliate, Stop Funding Fake News, claimed on Wednesday that it had pressured Ford, the auto maker, to consider dropping ads on Breitbart News, another conservative website that the British non-profit has accused of publishing racist material.
Google ultimately backed off of its decision to kick The Federalist off of Google Ads, but CCDH appears emboldened nonetheless.
Imran Ahmed, the CEO of CCDH, called Google’s decision the “biggest win ever” for his organization.
CCDH and Stop Funding Fake News have also set their sights on conservative outlets like American Greatness, WND, and the American Thinker. (RELATED: In Scramble Amid Backlash, Google, NBC News Release Contradictory Statements)
CCDH’s efforts follow a trend of activist groups targeting media companies by hitting them at their main sources of revenue: advertising.
The targets of the pressure campaigns have largely been conservative media outlets. Groups similar to CCDH have gone after Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Fox News host Tucker Carlson (a co-founder of the Daily Caller) has also landed in the activist groups’ crosshairs.
CCDH landed its blow on Zero Hedge and The Federalist with minimal effort, thanks to assistance from NBC News.
On Tuesday, NBC News reported that Google had banned both sites from its Google Ads platform after the outlet presented with information from CCDH. According to NBC, Google took issue with content on both outlets regarding Black Lives Matter and the protests following the police-involved death of George Floyd.
The NBC News article was vague regarding the offensive material. Stop Funding Fake News pointed to a June 3 article at The Federalist entitled “The Media Are Lying To You About Everything, Including The Riots.”
The article, by Federalist political editor John Daniel Davidson, disputed a claim that white supremacist groups were behind much of the violence that occurred during the Floyd protests.
Google initially told NBC News that it had blocked both sites from receiving revenue from Google Ads. But the tech giant back-tracked later, issuing a statement that The Federalist had been given three days to remove its comments section, which the company claimed was the source of the inflammatory content.
Google has not responded to multiple follow-up inquires from The Daily Caller News Foundation. NBC News also did not respond to a request for comment.
The reporter who wrote the NBC piece, Adele-Momoko Fraser, thanked CCDH for their “hard work and collaboration” on the project targeting The Federalist. That prompted criticism from conservatives and some journalists who questioned why a reporter would be working with an organization with the goal of targeting a rival media outlet.
Fraser deleted her tweet and then reposted it. She responded to criticism on Twitter by saying that she obtained the research from CCDH but did not collaborate with the group on the research itself.
While Fraser denied collaborating with CCDH, her article initially said that Google took action against The Federalist “after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention.” An updated version of the story does not include that detail.
Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist, blasted NBC News in an interview on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Tuesday, accusing the network of partnering with “a foreign left-wing group in Europe.”
“It’s being done by people who claim to be journalists, who claim to believe in free speech and freedom of expression and it’s not just that somebody came after us and try to de-platform us, the whiny cry-bullies of the left to do this all the time to their enemies, they can’t win arguments so they try and shut them down,” Davis said.
Google’s decision, as vague as it may be, appears to have emboldened CCDH.
“Delighted that @SFFakeNews, working with @NBC_VC and @AMFraserNBC, has successfully persuaded @Google to stop ads appearing on Zero Hedge and The Federalist. @CCDHate’s biggest ever win. https://t.co/ur0E50DwWF”
“— Imran Ahmed (@Imi_Ahmed) June 16, 2020 ”
Stop Funding Fake News renewed its call for Google to take further action against eight other websites it has deemed unfit to run Google Ads.
“3/ There is still much more @Google needs to do.”
“They must #DefundRacism by ending their @GoogleAds funding of these 8 Fake News sites:https://t.co/9QkKUmUlS3”
“— Stop Funding Fake News (@SFFakeNews) June 16, 2020 ”
CCDH claimed success in pressuring Google and sought donations through PayPal.
“With your help we held Google to account on their promise to support #BlackLivesMatter.”
“Now Google Ads will no longer fund racist content on Zero Hedge or The Federalist.”
“We need help to continue this work. Please support us with a donation if you can: https://t.co/n7fUMhKuzC”
“— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate) June 16, 2020 ”
On Wednesday, the group claimed that its work has led Ford, the auto maker, to review whether it will continue running ads at Breitbart News.
CCDH targeted Breitbart over a June 5 article that offered tips to survive “the coming era of social justice mob rule.”
“???? CAMPAIGN UPDATE ????”
“Thanks to activists following up our thread, @Ford are looking into their ad placements on Breitbart.”
“Now is the time when activists can make a real difference: let @Ford @FordUK know that you’d like them to take action to #DefundRacism! https://t.co/NqYpVknXnu pic.twitter.com/QvCBTLlSCA”
“— Stop Funding Fake News (@SFFakeNews) June 17, 2020 ”
CCDH was virtually unknown in the U.S. until the NBC News story.
In the UK, the group has mounted pressure campaigns targeting David Icke, a British conspiracy theorist. CCDH has also sought to force social media companies to remove content they claim promoted misinformation regarding the coronavirus pandemic.
CCDH’s board of directors includes several Labour party organizers and staffers.
Stop Funding Fake News thanked another Labour parliamentarian, Kevin Brennan, for providing its research to Google that was part of the attempt to demonetize The Federalist and Zero Hedge.
“Zero Hedge has made millions pushing dangerous conspiracy theories about #coronavirus & Fake News about #BlackLivesMatter via @GoogleAds.”
“After @KevinBrennanMP put our research to @Google and @NBC_VC approached them, they finally took action. #LiesCostLives #DefundRacism https://t.co/CE9uHMUBGW”
“— Stop Funding Fake News (@SFFakeNews) June 16, 2020 ”
Stop Funding Fake News circulated a clip of Brennan questioning Google’s head of information policy, Derek Slater, on June 4 regarding Google Ads placed on websites that published stories on coronavirus.
It is not clear exactly what role Brennan played in targeting The Federalist and Zero Hedge.
Brennan did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment about his work with CCDH and Stop Funding Fake News. Slater did not respond to questions about his interactions with Brennan. CCDH also did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its interactions with Brennan and Google.
According to CCDH’s website, its de-platforming campaign is funded by Rachel Riley, the host of the British game show “Countdown.”
Riley commented in on the Google story with a tweet supporting the Stop Spreading Fake News campaign. “If you’re p*ssing off Donald Trump Jr, whilst defunding alt-right websites whose lies seek to cover up for white supremacists stoking violence, you’re probably on the right track,” Riley said in a retweet of Stop Funding Fake News.
“If you’re p*ssing off Donald Trump Jr, whilst defunding alt-right websites whose lies seek to cover up for white supremacists stoking violence, you’re probably on the right track.”
“— Rachel Riley ???? (@RachelRileyRR) June 16, 2020 ”
The unholy alliance between liberal media (NBC News), with rabidly liberal social media tech giants (Google and Facebook), in collaboration with the liberal British Labour Party's CCDH, to target and silence conservative media websites The Federalist and Breitbart, so liberals can silence their political opposition.
Any speech they disagree with is labelled "hate speech" and de-platformed.
But of course, Black Lives Matter and Antifa, that advocate violence, and in BLM's case openly call for racial genocide of whites, no problem, no criticism!
The Left will try to shut down the Federalist, just as it has tried to cancel Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh. We expect that National Review will be targeted in the same way in turn. We have been sounding the alarm about the authoritarianism and illiberalism of the Left for years, and the current nadir is surprising even to us.
Remember this: If they can do it to the Federalist, if they can do it to the New York Times, if they can do it to the University of Chicago, they can do it to you.
From what I’ve read Google is unwilling to run ads next to some really despicable content in Comments sections. I’ve made the mistake of sometimes reading some comments after an article and honestly see why that is an issue. I don’t see a right to force another company to supply revenue for that crap and that appears to be the issue. If the Federalist wants to continue to keep its comment section as it was they should ask their scummy commenters to pay for any loss of revenue.
From what I’ve read Google is unwilling to run ads next to some really despicable content in Comments sections. I’ve made the mistake of sometimes reading some comments after an article and honestly see why that is an issue. I don’t see a right to force another company to supply revenue for that crap and that appears to be the issue. If the Federalist wants to continue to keep its comment section as it was they should ask their scummy commenters to pay for any loss of revenue.
The issue is Google's (and other liberal social media's, such as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and so forth) who hold conservtive comments to a standard they don't hold liberal comments to. You either have one standard for both sides, or you are targeting the conservative side while giving equally if not more vile commentary by liberals a free pass.
Twitter blocked a post by Donald Trump where he linked video proof of liberal violence, and labelled Trump's comment as "inciting violence" when in truth Trump was just factually citing liberal violence, and certainly not endorsing it. At that exact same time, Twitter and Facebook left up the accounts of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who were using their social media accounts to ORGANIZE the violence! Gee, what's wrong with this picture?
And (myself included) many conservatives with less visibility and political clout are similarly targeted and banned by liberal social media, but don't have the media visibility to hold them accountable and force them to reverse their unfair treatment and give us back our accounts.
Actually I think forcing Google to run ads next to some really really racist stuff is an issue. Free speech shouldn’t include forcing another company to run ads next to material they find objectionable imho. That is what the Federalist is demanding in the post I responded too. Are you good with that?
Again, nothing I don't see on my occasional visits to DailyKos, New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN, or Youtube. Liberals say some really nasty stuff, but the ads don't get taken down or de-monetized. Only when Conservatives say something legitimate is it alleged to be over the line, so as to delete it and prevent it from being heard.
When I was deleted as a user on Youtube for crimes against humanity, I posted a link to Conservapedia's listing for homosexuality, to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a scientific fact, that homosexuality scientifically is not proven to be genetic. That according to a Supreme Court justice during a ruling on secular humanism, homosexuality and atheism are as much a faith-based belief system as Christianity, and that thousands have left homosexuality to lead heterosexual lives, marry, and have children. And that there are multiple scientific studies of homosexuals, mostly by homosexuals, that don't support the official party line that homosexuality is inborn and genetic, or that it is an immutable inborn condition that cannot be changed: https://www.conservapedia.com/Homos...2C_Culture.2C_Sexual_Abuse.2C_and_Choice
Some social justice warrior either banned me for that, or for my comments about the Arab/Israeli conflict. That billions of dollars have been given over the last 50 years to the Palestinians, with which they should have been able to build a state comparable to Israel. But instead have used all that money to train terrorists and wage war on Israel. That even when Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, those areas were immediately used to launch missiles into Israel, unrelentingly, for years. And that at some point Israel, despite its enormous patience, might be forced for its own protection to turn the West Bank and Gaza into twin smoking craters. Because there is absolutely no reasoning with the Palestinians. And to laay out the evidence of Israel's 70 years of concessions for peace, I linked (on Youtube!) a 30-minute Youtube video by Hal Lindsey titled "The Modern Lie" detailing 70 years of Israeli concessions for peace, and de-constructing the false Palestinian talking points. Here's a link to another download of the same video, that Youtube has not deleted:
Ironically, the muslim guy I was debating physically threatened me multiple times, but his comments are still there, but my user-name and posts were deleted. I suspect this was the post that got me deleted as a user by Youtube's social justice warrior content moderators, because the Hal Lindsey video I linked, that had been on Youtube for 11 years at that point, was also deleted at that time.
When you delete one entire political side from a debate, M E M, there is no debate anymore, there is only Bolshevik one-party rule. If you approve of this policy for social media, you would love living in mainland China.
And as your Bolshevik Democrat brethren know well, it's par for the course to label legitimate non-profane non-hateful speech as "hate speech" and "offensive", not because it is, but just so persuasive conservative arguments can be deleted and prevented from being heard and persuading others. Case in point with Trump's campaign ad just deleted by Twitter.
I think you give yourself away with the whole “Bolshevik” partisan crap. Likewise Trump having a summit on media platforms that excluded Google and others. Instead it was conservatives like Diamond & Silk. Or trying to change the rules because Twitter had the audacity to start labeling his lies correctly.
I think you give yourself away with the whole “Bolshevik” partisan crap. Likewise Trump having a summit on media platforms that excluded Google and others. Instead it was conservatives like Diamond & Silk. Or trying to change the rules because Twitter had the audacity to start labeling his lies correctly.
No, it's just accurate.
The tactics your party uses perfectly mirror the propaganda tactics of disinformation, slander, intimidation and violence used by Soviet Russia, Communist China, Castro's Cuba and other communist regimes, that by the oddest coincidence the Clintons, the Obamas and the people who served in their White Houses OPENLY QUOTED WHILE THEY SERVED IN THOSE DEMOCRAT WHITE HOUSES. They praise and quote marxist tyrants affectionately, and openly emulate their authoritarian tactics from their positions of power.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Ron Bloom... I've posted the videos of them quoting and praising Marxists many times.
And ask the New York Post about whether Twitter has started "labelling lies" correctly. NO ! Twitter was suppressing accurate information, just so their corrupt Democrat-Bolshevik candidate could win.
Twitter suppresses any conservative speech as "hate speech" or as potentially violent, takes down Trump's account for ridiculous partisan reasons. And then they leave up Iran's Ayatollah denying the existence of concentration camps and the Holocaust, and leading a genocidal call for Israel's annihilation.
Twitter takes down Trump's account for "possibly" inciting violence, while leaving up China's accounts where they openly boast about their policy of putting up to 3 million Uyghurs in Nazi-like concentration camps (i.e., "re-education centers", the same kind of re-education centers that Democrat leaders, New York Times reporters and columnists, Bernie Sanders supporters, and Twitter and Google executives --as recorded on videos by Project Veritas-- openly fantasize about putting Republicans in). Concentration camps where Uyghurs are beaten, used as forced labor, raped, killed and had their organs harvested, and the women are given forced sterilization. And on Twitter, Chinese officials openly boast that they are "liberating" these women, by freeing them from being baby machines. To do forced labor, no doubt. These Chinese accounts are left up, but Trump is "too dangerous" to be allowed to post.
Twitter takes down tens of thousands of conservative accounts, again for "extremist rhetoric" or less specific "violation of user agreement", but allows Antifa and Black Lives Matter to organize their riots and intimidation on their site.
If you cannot see what I'm saying is absolute fact, it is because you are willfully immune to the facts in front of you.
A conservative selling a book telling you what you want to hear. I actually listened to one of your clips so you got me to waste that time I could have been listening to music. She spent a chunk of time on Trump visiting the troops during the holidays (essentially a positive fluff story for Presidents) because a couple of reporters did a negative story about him golfing instead. She avoids anything contradictory to what Trumpers want to hear and avoids context when it messes up that message. When it came to the election she takes a “believe what you want to believe” mantra. She attacks fact checks as fake but there it doesn’t get the scrutiny that she gave a Newsweek reporter for doing a trump golfing story while he was visiting the troops. I wish she had been a capitol police officer on Jan 6th. That’s her and Trump’s special people.
A conservative selling a book telling you what you want to hear. I actually listened to one of your clips so you got me to waste that time I could have been listening to music. She spent a chunk of time on Trump visiting the troops during the holidays (essentially a positive fluff story for Presidents) because a couple of reporters did a negative story about him golfing instead. She avoids anything contradictory to what Trumpers want to hear and avoids context when it messes up that message. When it came to the election she takes a “believe what you want to believe” mantra. She attacks fact checks as fake but there it doesn’t get the scrutiny that she gave a Newsweek reporter for doing a trump golfing story while he was visiting the troops. I wish she had been a capitol police officer on Jan 6th. That’s her and Trump’s special people.
You're such a brainwashed liberal zealot, M E M.
Sharyl Attkisson self-identifies in the video as a left-of-center liberal, if you had even bothered to watch it. And she cites example after example from published articles of how the liberal media distort the news, get it wrong, then edit the story online to cover up that they were wrong, without ever doing a retraction to ADMIT that they were wrong.
And how these liberal media sources ALWAYS err in favor of the Democrats, very deliberately to serve a partisan agenda, rather than to simply objectively report the news.
She cites how in recent years liberal media don't just say Trump or some other Republican said something factually inaccurate, but instead leap at every turn to viciously personalize it and call Trump or whoever "a liar". She states that would have gotten a reporter fired 10 years ago.
You have NYU journalism professors and dishonest network anchors like Lester Holt who now say "the truth is overrated", and are unapologetic about their partisan Newspeak propaganda, where they KNOW they are reporting things that are absolutely false, AND GET CAUGHT REPORTING FALSE INFORMATION OVER AND OVER, but are so invested in destroying Republicans and propping up Democrats that they don't care. Under the guise of "reporting" consistently false information, anonymous and often nonexistent sources, whatever it takes to smear Trump and other Republicans, rather than neutral objectivity and just reporting the facts. As Attkisson says, the formerly clear line between investigative "news" and "editorial" is now non-existent in the mainstream liberal media.
Sharyl Attkisson is not a Republican or a conservative, she makes that clear. And in a dying journalistic standard, she is a reporter who consistently tries to hold truth to power for both sides with the same standard for both, even if it doesn't favor her own liberal views.
In other interviews I've seen of her, she says that she did the same kind of hard investigation of the George W. Bush administration for CBS, and the network loved her for what she dug up about the W. Bush administration. But then when she unpartisanly continued doing the exact same kind of investigation of the Obama administration, she found her stories edited and blunted, or delayed in being broadcast, or not broadcast at all. Until she finally broke her contract and left CBS in 2014. NOT to go to Fox News where she probably would have been welcomed and very well paid, but to less lucrative places where she could do neutral and unbiased reporting. Likewise John Stossel. Likewise Ron Kessler. Likewise Lara Logan. Likewise Bernard Goldberg. These are all award winning journalists who left some of the most prestigious positions in broadcast news, who despite that they are liberals (or in John Stossel's case libertarian) they wanted to do objective news that holds leaders of both parties accountable. Despite that they are liberals, they were scorned by network leadership because they revealed in their books and interviews how the sausage is made in network news editorial offices. These reporters were forced as a matter of integrity to leave, because they insisted on being neutral and accurate, and refused to just become a propaganda wing for the Democrats.
This is a highly accomplished, highly awarded journalist, who spent to bulk of her 40 year career at CNN and CBS news. You can't badmouth her as a hack or a conservative partisan. That shoe just doesn't fit. But typical of the Left, you would like to smear and destroy her just because she doesn't conform to your Bolshevik party's talking points. Her integrity is not useful to your party, therefore she has to be cancelled and destroyed.
Lol, like Coca-cola? She has a right to write her conservative stuff but I also get to judge it WB. It’s pretty apparent she writes opinion stuff that pleases trumpers. I saw a piece she did comparing Trump to Superman after downplaying the virus and having super spreader events. Yeah I get why you like her.
Lol, like Coca-cola? She has a right to write her conservative stuff but I also get to judge it WB. It’s pretty apparent she writes opinion stuff that pleases trumpers. I saw a piece she did comparing Trump to Superman after downplaying the virus and having super spreader events. Yeah I get why you like her.
You seem to lack reading comprehension skills, M E M.
Attkisson said very clearly that she is a liberal. She was writing the same type of investigative journalism exposing the W.Bush administration that she was of the Obama administration, but CBS News only liked it when she was making a Republican administration look bad. For an entire hour in the above video, she exposed example after example of blatant deception by the liberal media, for which they never even had the decency to give a retraction. Things that EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA would not have done 12 years ago. She's not a Republican, she's an old-school reporter who believes in reporting and exposing the facts, separating opinion from news reporting, and maintaining a standard of objectivity and neutrality, even when it goes against her own liberal views.
In pretty much a one-liner, she mocked the media calling Trump a "super-spreader", and talked about the science of Trump and millions of other Covid-19 survivors developing an enduring super-immunity, where for months or perhaps far longer they are not subject to re-infection or infecting others, despite the "super-spreader" vitriol narrative aimed at Trump.
She can call herself whatever she wants. It’s pretty clear she’s a darling among folks like yourself. Looking at her reporting from the Obama years compared to Trump’s says it all. Trump downplayed the pandemic, had super spreader events, got sick and she managed to find the most pro-trump take on it. On the other hand with Obama if she couldn’t find a photo of Obama the night of the Benghazi attacks, that was suspicious. She didn’t see anything suspicious during Trump’s 4 years? And as foreign countries used social media to attack our democracy she questions why now there is fact checks on these platforms.
And I don’t see where she has anything resembling liberalism in her opinion pieces. Attkinson calls herself independent and the pro-trump broadcaster Sinclair touts her as that but her stuff is all pro conservative and pro Trump that I’ve seen. Is there anything approaching a tough question or scrutiny when it comes to Trump that you can cite by her? All I’ve seen is stuff that follows the conservative media’s narrative. At one point in one of the clips she uses Eric Whimple to back up an assertion about trump visiting the troops during the holidays. He did a piece that pleased conservatives but he’s a liberal. So she uses Whimple to attack the media but also attacks him for the crime of being liberal. The irony here is I see nothing in the last decade of hers that might offend a trumper?
She can call herself whatever she wants. It’s pretty clear she’s a darling among folks like yourself. Looking at her reporting from the Obama years compared to Trump’s says it all. Trump downplayed the pandemic, had super spreader events, got sick and she managed to find the most pro-trump take on it. On the other hand with Obama if she couldn’t find a photo of Obama the night of the Benghazi attacks, that was suspicious. She didn’t see anything suspicious during Trump’s 4 years? And as foreign countries used social media to attack our democracy she questions why now there is fact checks on these platforms.
I don't see any facts you cite.
She's an objective journalist, she cited objective examples of media bias. I don't see the slightest evidence to back your slander that she's a right-wing partisan.
Attkisson talked about maintaining objectivity and journalistic ethics, regardless of the reporters' own politics. That it is the ONLY way news reporting can be trusted. And she cited, by those objective standards, how blatantly unhinged media reporters in the Trump era have become. How they openly advocate partisan activism over reporting, how an NYU journalism professor in a published editorial openly advocated partisanship and a lack of objectivity by reporters. How can Attkisson be labelled as having conservative bias, for simply QUOTING liberal media reporters OPENLY STATING their bias ?!?
It's crystal clear here who has a bias, and it's not Sharyl Attkisson.
Similarly over the last 20 years, liberal media reporters like Bernard Goldbeg, Lara Logan and Ron Kessler have said if they did 10 years ago what these liberal reporters now do every day, they would have been fired instantly, by these same liberal media sources, such as the New York Times, Politico, CNN, or Washington Post. Saying in the recent past these sources previously had journalistic ethics, but now no longer do. QUOTED IN THEIR OWN SELF-INCRIMINATING WORDS. For Attkisson to simply quote them saying these things is not bias, and does not make her "right wing".
And I don’t see where she has anything resembling liberalism in her opinion pieces. Attkinson calls herself independent and the pro-trump broadcaster Sinclair touts her as that but her stuff is all pro conservative and pro Trump that I’ve seen. Is there anything approaching a tough question or scrutiny when it comes to Trump that you can cite by her? All I’ve seen is stuff that follows the conservative media’s narrative. At one point in one of the clips she uses Eric Whimple to back up an assertion about trump visiting the troops during the holidays. He did a piece that pleased conservatives but he’s a liberal. So she uses Whimple to attack the media but also attacks him for the crime of being liberal. The irony here is I see nothing in the last decade of hers that might offend a trumper?
Eric Wemple is an unhinged liberal who writes for the Washington Post. And was thoroughly mocked and humiliated by Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson used to have a trivia section on his show, where the winner got an "Eric Whimple mug" with a photo of Whimple with an unhinged facial expression, from a segment of Carlson's show where he interviewed (and humiliated) Wemple, exposing Wemple's bias. There's absolutely nothing Wemple would say that would be favorable about Trump. It was probably a case of Republicans citing that even the unhinged liberal media acknowledged what Trump did visiting the troops.
And Attkisson was able to use Erik Wemple as an example because the media really isn’t what she alleges. However looking at her body of work in the last 4 years I see her as following a conservative narrative. Attkisson had built a reputation for being able to ask tough questions of whatever administration was in the WH. That isn’t the case anymore from what I’ve seen. She wrote a piece last fall about Trump was going to surely win the election. I don’t see any semi current work that deviates from a narrative that even comes close to upsetting a trump voter.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2021-04-1811:43 AM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/i7D6DY9.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/wpnpaFu.gif)
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]