Tag: biased reporting

Categories
Quick Analysis

Good Walls do make Good Neighbors

This article was written by the distinguished retired judge, John H. Wilson

During his State of the Union, President Trump mentioned the cities of San Diego and El Paso.  Regarding these places, the President stated that “San Diego used to have the most illegal border crossings in the country. In response, and at the request of San Diego residents and political leaders, a strong security wall was put in place. This powerful barrier almost completely ended illegal crossings.  The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our Nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities.”

These statements, as well as Mr. Trump’s other comments during this speech, were aggressively fact checked by the media, even as the President spoke.  Interestingly enough, the “instant criticism” of these remarks reported by Politico centered around the deterioration of the fencing along the US-Mexico border in Southern California, and the willingness of “some” Democratic negotiators to discuss funding for some sort of unspecified barrier or other security measures at the border.

Shortly after the State of the Union, claims were made in the media that the wall between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez had nothing to do with the drop in crime experienced by El Paso.  However, the wall between Mexico and the United States in that area was built between 2006 and 2008.  Crime statistics for El Paso show an overall drop in violent crime in recent years, with a noticeable downward drop in 2006 – the year work on building the wall was commenced.

President Trump’s remarks appear to have been based upon the claim made by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who stated that  “El Paso used to have one of the highest crime rates in America…after that fence went up and separated Juarez, which still has an extremely high crime rate, the crime rates in El Paso now are some of the lowest in the country. So we know it works.”  Despite the headlines denying this declaration, the crime statistics cited above would support this assertion by both the President and the Texas Attorney General.

In fact, the effort made by President Trump’s critics to deny the obvious have been extraordinary, to say the least.  During her infamous response to the President’s speech on the need for a border wall, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used every euphemism for border security possible, without once admitting that a wall (or fence, or barrier, or whatever description you prefer) is the most effective way to keep an intruder off of your property: “The fact is: We all agree that we need to secure our borders, while honoring our values: we can build the infrastructure and roads at our ports of entry; we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation; we can hire the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; and we can fund more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.”

There can be no reasonable doubt that a wall is the simplest, most cost-effective method of securing any area of land.  it makes little sense to have drones or other expensive methods of detecting border crossers, without a method in place to stop those same crossers (or at least, slow them down long enough for border security to reach the area where a breech has occurred).

But, there is no need to follow the logic of this common sense argument.  Let experience guide us in this matter.

In 2006, a group of New York City judges took a good will tour of Israel.  I was part of that expedition.

For ordering cialis better results, it is recommended to use this medicine only if the man is suffering from erectile dysfunction. As you can see, there is a multitude of factors. cheap viagra Research has shown that men of various ages are seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction and that many of those affected can recover an active sex life sildenafil 50mg price by way of this treatment. The growth of male organ starts during pregnancy and the viagra in india growth continues in childhood.

Besides Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, we traveled to the Golan Heights, and saw the Christian Druze community which served as a buffer between the Syrians and the Israelis.  But most significant for our purposes, I had the invaluable opportunity to observe at first hand the Israeli Security Fence.    

Built between 2000 and 2006, the wall, which stretches over 200 miles, stands between the state of Israel and the Palestinian territory.  One statistic alone will establish the effectiveness of this barrier – In 2002, there were 43 suicide attacks against Israeli targets.  In 2012, after the wall was put in place there were zero.  

Our guides brought us to a section of the wall which divided an Israeli town from a Palestinian “camp” (one of the things I learned while in Israel, is that many Palestinian towns were called “camps,” even when the Palestinians lived in stone or brick houses, with running water and electricity).  Here, a port had been placed in the wall – an open area, surrounded with walls, with a wide gate on either side.  Here, it was explained, Israeli trucks carrying produce could unload their cargo, while Palestinian drivers could load their trucks with that same produce for sale in the Palestinian territory.  

We also met with the Mayor of the Israeli town (an ethnic Arab), who informed us that incidents of violence in his town between Israelis and Palestinians had dropped to zero since the construction of the wall.

Yet, when I returned to America, the outright denial of the facts I witnessed in Israel continue to exist here even to the present day.  In January of 2017, Isabel Kershner of the New York Times stated that the Israeli Security Fence “was constructed under very different circumstances, and with different goals, than Mr. Trump’s wall, raising questions about whether the president’s analogy between the United States and Israel is sound.” Yet, even Ms Kershner frankly admitted that “since March 2002, there has been a sharp decline in the number and scope of terrorist attacks by West Bank Palestinians in Israel.”

What exactly is the purpose of both the Israeli Border Wall, and the Barrier Fence proposed between Mexico and the United States?  President Trump put it like this – “Simply put, walls work and walls save lives.”  In other words, the purpose of both walls is to provide for security.

Any other argument to the contrary is nothing but semantics.

Photo: San Diego (San Diego Official site picture)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Must-See Propaganda

To many, particularly those in the millennial demographic, there are important sources of information that are not compliant with the admittedly weak and frequently ignored journalistic ethics of television news programs.

Indeed, the practice of replacing accuracy with propaganda in television extends far beyond nightly news programs.

The extraordinary media obsession to push left-wing perspectives has received scrutiny because of its tendency to replace objective reporting with one-sided and frequently inaccurate coverage. The most recent examples of this practice could be most prominently seen in the treatment of two stories, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the arrival of the illegal immigrant caravan at the U.S. southern border. Baseless accusations against the Judge were breathlessly relayed without any attempt to employ reasonable journalistic standards such as fact-checking. After the nominating process was completed, it became clear that the salacious stories about him were untrue. In the case of the caravan, network and cable news programs have ignored the reality that a lion’s share of the participants are military-age males, some of whom have unsavory connections.

It has long been discussed that for some, late-night comedians are a source of information about candidates and news stories. In 2014, a Pew Research Center Fact Tank analysis noted that “Pew Research Center’s recent report on Americans’ media habits finds that a portion of online adults get their news from two Comedy Central staples, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. And other studies have shown that people do, in fact, learn from these programs while they laugh…  on par with such sources as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today… nearly a quarter (22%) of 18- to 29- year-old males say they got news about politics and government from The Colbert Report in the previous week… Roughly a quarter (26%) of consistent liberals reported getting news about government and politics from The Colbert Report… That is far more than other ideological groups. In fact, a mere 1% of consistent conservatives say they get news from the show. The share of consistent liberals who get news from The Colbert Report is similar to that of The Huffington Post (29%) and CBS News (30%)…”

It’s not just humor-seeking audiences that consider comedians’ views important. Frequently, the latest jibes from Saturday Night Live shows becomes prominent areas of discussion in political circles, and not infrequently, comments made by imitators of political figures become more well-known than actual quotes from the politicians themselves.

The worrisome trend has expanded beyond programs that have at least a pretense of involvement with actual news, and now extends to television entertainment drama series.

The pressure in the buy sildenafil online bile ducts is up, so the sphincter of Oddi begins to spasm. Kamagra oral jelly is http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/puppy/page/8/ wholesale cialis canada composed of sildenafil citrate and hence this medicine is also known as sildenafil jelly also. As these cases are levitra shop uk said to be the best for this issue. According to Wikipedia, erectile dysfunction is really a sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain an erection with real-world partners, but can only achieve orgasm by visualizing porn clips ? He prefers porn to real-world sex, finding it more engaging, appealing and intense than the actual act He does not talk about porn to his real-life partners and tries to enjoy cute-n-tiny.com order viagra pornography secretly Unfortunately,. The program “Designated Survivor” presented a prime example. A group consisting of (surprise!) military veterans and Second Amendment types are revealed to be the perpetrators of a crime in which almost the entire body of U.S. elected officials were assassinated while attending a State of the Union address. The original idea that it was Middle Eastern terrorists is, of course, discredited.

This lunatic-fringe series is not alone.  The latest “24” reboot characterized veterans as burned-out psychotics, a consistent theme of the Obama Administration, which in a report libeled veterans as more of a threat than actual terrorists.  Newsbusters notes that 24 “caricatures [veterans,] shows every single vet on the show as broken in some way. Even in small scenes, such as when we see a group of homeless veterans hanging out under an overpass, complete with garbage drum fire…The liberal critics have already expressed displeasure that the bad guys are radical Islamists. Funny, though, there haven’t been any objections to how our military veteran heroes are portrayed. Hollywood and its critics are so predictable. They don’t want to insult the radicals in the Muslim world but it’s no problem to slam the good guys.”

The various NCIS and similar crime dramas have a frequent plot line.  A horrendous crime or terrorist act is planned or perpetrated, and the obvious villains, be they Middle Eastern suspects or illegal immigrants tied to criminal organizations, are wrongly accused.  The real bad guys turn out to be American right-wingers. In many forms and variations, the story-line is repeated over and over again.

Ben Shapiro, in his book “Primetime Propaganda, outlined how television executives have utilized prime-time television to push left-wing agendas and have not been particularly shy about using McCarthy-like tactics to discriminate against and harass anyone who disagrees with them.

The scope and arrogance of this practice is truly Orwellian.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Substituting Censorship and Lies for Debate

Eight years of Progressive control of both the White House and the national agenda resulted in economic stagnation, a sharply reduced defense environment, a doubling of debt, and deteriorated race relations.  Despite those poor results, hard-core leftists have managed to increase their influence.

Campaigning on the issues is not a winning tactic for an increasingly Progressive-dominated party. Instead, they and their supporters have, with disturbing frequency, adopted a strategy that combines suppression of alternative ideas, along with personal and inaccurate attacks on both rival politicians and anyone else who opposes their perspectives. Character assassination targets extend far beyond President Trump.

Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis and Red Sox baseball star J.D. Martinez provide telling examples.  DeSantis, emphasizing the importance of the issues in his state, urged voters not to “monkey it up.”  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the similar phrase “monkey around” is defined as “to do things that are not useful or serious: to waste time.”

But DeSantis’s opponents decided that the well-known and oft-use phrase was a racial slur. (His opponent is black.) It was a great way to avoid a discussion of the reality that the radical views expressed by hard-left candidate Andrew Gillum can be readily compared to those which have recently wrecked Venezuela and previously destroyed other nations both politically and economically, and have repeatedly been demonstrated to be a disaster wherever implemented.

An even more startling falsehood was seen in the thoroughly false characterization of the remarks about gun control uttered by Red Sox player J.D. Martinez, an advocate of Second Amendment rights.

Martinez noted, correctly, that the nightmare regime of Adolf Hitler moved to disarm the German population to eliminate the potential of resistance to his unprecedented assault on human rights. The Second Amendment is a target of the Left, but rather than engage in an honest dialogue, they chose to falsely portray Martinez as quoting Hitler in an admiring manner.

Beyond character assassination, suppression of alternative views has become a key tactic.

The moves by Facebook and Google to censor out non-leftist perspectives has increasingly enraged critics, including President Trump.  Google has recently demonstrated its intense progressive leanings by refusing to work with the U.S. Government on defense-related issues, while at the same time cooperating with the Beijing regime in its suppression of dissident views.
In addition to kamagra medicines there are other medications which are responsible viagra generic of ED in a number of guys such as Antiarrhythmics, Histamine H2-receptor antagonists, Muscle relaxants, Chemotherapy drugs etc. At last, of course these remedies are very brand viagra pfizer effective but it must be taken correctly to avoid any unnecessary stress. Researches have shown that ginsenosides in it feature anti-tumor effects which can damage the ovarian cancer cells, cialis 10 mg purchased here prostate cancer cells, lung adenocarcinoma cells, and neurobastoma cells. Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a process in which both individual and shared goals are identified Promote intimacy by creating a safe space for communication Aid in re-establishing trust after crisis Reconnect clients with positive foundational relationship beliefs Provide support in the deconstruction of old, dysfunctional beliefs and the subsequent embracing of new shared truths Identify and deepen understanding of emotional triggers, ultimately helping generic 10mg cialis to.
Even some Facebook staff have rebelled against this. According to a Daily Mail report Facebook engineer Brian Amerige has described the company’s “political intolerance” and the threats against employees who don’t go along with leftist ideology.

Robert Epstein, writing in U.S. News, states that “Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.  The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.”

A study by PJ media’s Paula Bolyard found that, when searching the term “Trump” on Google, “Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results. But it got much, much worse when I analyzed the first 100 items that Google returned in a search for news on ‘Trump.’ CNN, by a wide margin, appeared most frequently, with nearly twice as many results returned as the second-place finisher, The Washington Post. Other left-leaning outlets also fared well, including NBC, CNBC, The Atlantic, and Politico.”

Opportunities for debate on substantive issues have been intentionally sabotaged by Progressives. A National Review article noted that “global-warming public intellectuals have warned the media that if they allow skeptics to have a voice in stories, they will boycott giving comment…no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate.”  This, of course, is comparatively mild compared to the move by Loretta Lynch, while serving as U.S. Attorney General, to refer to the FBI for criminal prosecution consideration those who disagreed with Barack Obama’s views on climate change.

The direction is turning into even more worrisome areas. Despite the overwhelmingly favorable image of leftist candidates portrayed by the media, the mere threat of objective reporting is considered unacceptable by Progressives. New York City’s Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the “Democrat-Socialist” candidate for Congress, moved to ban reporters from her townhall meetings.

The Miami Herald reports that a Democrat candidate for State Senate, Daphne Campbell, “ a politician beset by scandals over the years,” called 911 when a reporter sought to question her. According to the Herald, “It wasn’t the first time Campbell called the cops on a reporter. In May, she also called police on the publisher of RISE NEWS outside a Miami Shores Village Council meeting.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Descent of American Journalism, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its look at the latest challenges to journalistic ethics.

The collapse of objectivity in journalism has been noted by respected members and observers of the media who are not engaged in the worrisome trend.

In her significant book, The Silencing, journalist Kristen Powers discusses how the media has purged those who disagree with left-wing bias.

“The vast majority of people who work in the mainstream media are left of center….and some prominent journalists have openly confessed it…Daniel Okrent…conceded in July 2004, when he was editor of the New York Times, that on social issues…’if you think the Times plays it down the middle…you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.’ Similarly, at the Washington Post in 2005, one of the paper’s editors, Marie Arana, wrote “The elephant in the room is our narrowness.  Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions…if you work here, you must be one of us. You must be libweral, progressive, a Democrat.”

The American Press Institute has discussed the “The lost meaning of ‘objectivity.”

“Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.”

Michael Goodwin, in a landmark speech at Hillsdale College reported in Imprimis, said that

“I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this… last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
Through this examination, the testicular spermatogenesis can be detailed understanding, which discount cialis has a very important significance for the diagnosis of testicular disease. It is the first considerable oral medicine for ED viagra for includes: Sildenafil Citrate Tadalafil Vardenafil and Avanafil compositions. Potent herbs in this herbal 100mg viagra professional pill offers control over your ejaculate and helps to prolong the love act to enjoy intimate moments with your female. This happens generally due to most common sexual problem in men known as impotence (or online sales viagra erectile dysfunction).
“It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left…But I was still shocked at what happened…This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it…The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast…We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news…For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown…They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings…

“…the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. …What happened to fairness? What happened to standards?

…If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered…

“Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return.”

Goodwin believes that advances in technology may be the savior of free speech, despite censorship attempts by Facebook and Google.

Long the subject of criticism for left-wing bias, the 2016 campaign brought into clear focus the extraordinary extent of journalism’s’ lost standards.

On election day, Kelly Riddell, reporting for the Washington Times  noted: “There’s one thing I’m certain about going into Wednesday: The mainstream media is going to need to go through a serious readjustment period after this presidential election. The collusion between reporters and the Clinton campaign, revealed by WikiLeaks, have laid bare to the American public the left-leaning bias of the press. The American public thinks the media wants Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll released late last month. It mirrors an Associated Press/GkF poll showing 56 percent of likely voters, including 87 percent of Donald Trump’s supporters, believe the media is against him. The mainstream media has let the American public down in serving their own interests.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Descent of American Journalism

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government takes a two-part look at the latest reduction in journalistic ethics.

The descent of American journalism continues, as the last vestiges of objectivity from the most well-known news sources continue to be reduced. The traditional leaders in the field have chosen to become partisan advocates, rather than reporters.

The problem was highlighted in May, when the New York Times decided to eliminate the position of “public editor,” which was held at the time by Liz Spayd. The public editor was charged with keeping the Times honest.  The publication had suffered substantial damage to its reputation over the past decade as charges of both plagiarism and bias were levied and authenticated.

In doing so, the Times joins the nation’s other best-known newspaper, the Washington Post, in doing away with personnel charged with retaining journalistic standards. In 2013, the Washington Post (which, ironically has as its motto “Democracy dies in Darkness,”) announced that it would no longer have an ombudsman to insure the quality of its reporting, ending a 43-year old practice.

Will Oremus, who was not particularly complimentary towards Spayd, nevertheless wrote in Slate magazine,  that the Times’ first public editor, Daniel Okrent, had “challenged the paper to introspect more honestly…he took a thoughtful look at the Times’ reliance on anonymous sources—as urgent a topic today as it was then.”

A publication that is as conservative as Slate is leftist, the National Review,  blasted the Times’ move.

“Now the Times has joined the WaPo [Washington Post] in dumping its designated internal soul-searcher …Spayd, who said upon her appointment last summer that “I’m not here to make friends,” was apparently a little too good at not making them… Spayd… said that journalists shouldn’t ‘apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidate.”

One of Spayds’ moves that apparently infuriated her employers was discussing bias (in favor of Clinton, and against Trump) in the 2016 campaign.  Kyle Smith, writing for the National Review, reports that “After Spayd told Tucker Carlson that some tweets by professionally neutral Times news reporters that displayed open contempt for and hostility to Donald Trump were ‘outrageous’ and ‘over the line’ and should face ‘some kind of consequence,’ the blue-checkmark battalions rose up to denounce Spayd, calling her ‘the worst possible public editor for the Trump era’ and ‘a disgrace,’ adding that the Times had ‘embarrassed itself’ by hiring her.”
If testosterone level drops, the man can experience low libido, weight gain and hair loss, all best price for cialis contributing to ill health and ED. The colorful explanations make sure that your attention stays gripped by the subject get viagra sample matter and interactive learning makes the areas under discussion, very easy to grasp. Read more about this effective drug via www.cheapdiscount wholesale cialis .com Before the invention of cialis and other erectile dysfunction medications, and they can start working just 15 minutes after consumption. In the past, most of the ED patients have the same concern with genuine and generic lowest price for cialis medicine of ED.
The Times decision came at roughly the same time as another major embarrassment to journalism was revealed.

On June 27, Project Veritas  released a video of CNN Producer John Bonifield, captured via one of the organization’s hidden cameras,  stating  that there is no proof to CNN’s ongoing claim about a Trump-Russian collusion. The video shows Bonifield stating, concerning the story, “I mean, it’s mostly b******t right now…Like, we don’t have any giant proof …I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime. I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.”

Project Veritas describes Bonifield asserting that the instructions came from CNN CEO Jeff Zucker: “Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”

CNN has retracted parts of its Russian story. In the aftermath, three of its key editorial personnel resigned. A CNN Money article stated: “Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted. Thomas Frank, who wrote the story in question; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN. ‘In the aftermath of the retraction of a story published on CNN.com, CNN has accepted the resignations of the employees involved in the story’s publication,” a spokesman said…. An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published, people briefed on the results of the investigation said. The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a ‘Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials,’ cited a single anonymous source.”

CNN has sought to make those three the token sacrifice for its corporate-wide mishandling of the news. Retracting a single story has not remedied the overall problem of CNNs’ exceptionally biased leftist reporting, which prompted it to gain the nickname “Clinton News Network” during the 2016 campaign.

A Rasmussen poll released in January found that “Among those who tune in to cable news networks at least occasionally, 42% say Fox News is the channel they generally watch, compared to 35% who turn to CNN and 19% who prefer MSNBC. These findings, too, are little changed from last year. Among cable news network viewers who watch Fox News most often, 50% say they trust the political news they are getting. That compares to 43% of MSNBC viewers and just 33% who tune in mostly to CNN.”

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.