Tag: media bias

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Continuous Attack on Free Speech

A  federal judge has rejected UC Berkeley’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit based on the University’s discriminatory policy against conservative speakers. The court battle highlights the growing trend among many universities, as well as other leftist institutions and social media outlets, to stifle those who dissent from leftist orthodoxy.

America is dealing with the signature legacy of the eight years coinciding with the Obama presidency, namely, the attempted removal of First Amendment protections from conservatives.

It could be seen in President Obama’s influencing of the Federal Communications Commission to attempt to place monitors in news rooms, and his transfer of control of the internet to an international body not devoted to free speech. It could be observed in his rather embarrassing attacks on news outlets that disagree with his policies. A description of President Obama’s initial reaction to contrary opinion was described in 2009 by Spectator magazine:

“The Obama Administration declared war on the minority of media outlets that do not worship the political left’s newest false idol immediately after Obama was sworn in. Three days into his presidency Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh…Then the White House launched a jihad against Fox News Channel and its hosts by first boycotting appearances on the cable channel and then second, by engaging in name-calling and leveling baseless allegations… the White House brazenly attempted to marginalize Fox News Channel by enlisting the support of the heretofore compliant news media. Fortunately, competing news outlets found the backbone — if only temporarily — to put the kibosh on Obama’s attempts to blacklist FNC from the White House press pool.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch considered criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with Obama’s climate change views. Senator Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation which specifically and openly sought to limit the First Amendment regarding paid political speech. The Internal Revenue Service attacked conservative organizations. Leftist state attorneys general engaged in harassing legal tactics against dissidents. Social media initiated various methods to silence conservative users. And, of course, universities adopted a variety of tactics to eliminate non-leftist influence within both the faculty and the student body.

The pronounced drive to stifle the right has emphasized different issues at different times, sometimes with proposed government actions, at other times with the use of inflammatory language. Attempts to ensure that predominately liberal institutions had more influence in general elections manifested itself in increasingly restrictive “campaign reform” measures. Labeling any opposition to the most extreme race and gender-baiting tactics of the left as “hate speech” is currently in vogue. Those attempting to limit so-called poverty programs that have failed for over half a century are attacked for their “heartlessness.” Those seeking to protect the Second Amendment are portrayed as being in favor of mass murder.

If you are impotence, it is very unlikely that you get more than a couple of inches for that matter. buy cheap sildenafil This increases the blood free get viagra in the reproductive organs and cures weak erection and premature ejaculation. The sildenafil free shipping Qualities that is good and Associated With Erectile dysfunction measure. You are able to mix the herbal male enhancement drug you need to look at cialis generic is normally oral, approximately 60 minutes before the sexual act. However, differences of opinion, no matter how harsh, are not the problem.  Spirited political debate is a good thing. What is truly concerning is the goal of far too many on the left to criminalize the right for having a different opinion, and the lock-step acquiescence of institutions to that attempt.

Journalist Caroline Glick  wrote:  “The fact is that the attempts of leftist activists on campuses to silence non-leftist dissenters…is simply an extreme version of what is increasingly becoming standard operating procedure for leftist activists throughout the US. Rather than participating in a battle of ideas with their ideological opponents on the Right, increasingly, leftist activists, groups and policy-makers seek to silence their opponents through slander, intimidation and misrepresentation of their own agenda.”

Perhaps the most important analysis of the attempt to silence non-leftist speech comes not from a conservative, but from a journalist closely associated with liberal politics. Kirsten Powers served in the Clinton Administration and was a fixture in Democrat politics in New York.  She provides one the most bluntly honest and hard-hitting analyses of this problem:

“This intolerance,” she writes, “is not a passive matter of opinion. It’s an aggressive, illiberal impulse to silence people.  This conduct has become an existential threat to those who hold orthodox religious beliefs… increasingly I hear from people across the political spectrum who are fearful not only of expressing their views, but also as to where all of this is heading.  I’ve followed this trend closely as a columnist with growing concern.  It’s become clear that the attempts—too often successful—to silence dissent from the liberal worldview isn’t isolated outbursts. They are part of a bigger story.”

Mark Pulliam, writing in the New York Post describes a disturbing recent example: “…would-be brownshirts let the mask slip when they disrupted and attempted to shout down a speaker at the City University of New York School of Law….South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman arrived on campus to discuss … ‘The Importance of Free Speech on Campus,’…The episode is deeply disturbing … the audience was not made up of undergraduates. This was a lecture at a law school… Yet the numerous signs waved by the protesters contained such slogans as ‘Rule of Law equals White Supremacy’ and ‘The First Amendment is Not a Licence [sic] to Dehumanize Marginalized People.’ Students shouted ‘Legal objectivity is a myth’ and ‘F – – k the law.’ CUNY Law’s National Lawyers Guild chapter tweeted that ‘free speech’ activists are ‘not welcome at our PUBLIC INTEREST school.’

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: U.S. National Archives

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Should Concentrate on Facts, Not Opinions

Much of the American media enjoys thinking of itself as an avant-garde group, ready to tell truth to power, while engaging in Woodward-Bernstein style investigative journalism.  Sadly, the truth is significantly different. Despite studies, some over a decade old, that clearly indicate an extensive left-wing bias, the problem is only growing worse.

Meg Sullivan, writing for the UCLA Newsroom in 2005, found that “…almost all major media outlets tilt to the left…”  Citing a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Sullivan reported that “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center…”

On occasion, brief flashes of self-awareness creep into the minds of the industry, when forced to do so by vociferous criticism.  In 2009, Thomas Edsall, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review  noted that “…FOX, and a couple of conservative video reporters have, in effect, forced the editors and ombudsmen at two of the nation’s leading newspapers, the Times and The Washington Post, to assume a full-scale defensive posture regarding charges of liberal bias…The actions at both the Post and the Times… do little or nothing to address the underlying reality at most papers…The mainstream press is liberal….the more pervasive and subtle form liberal ‘blindness’ takes is in routine coverage. Stories, local and national, of virtually every culture-war issue commonly reflect reporters’ allegiance to social insurgents against traditionalists…”

Fraser Seitel, in an Odwyers  column (the publication specializes in public relations and marketing) notes that the Washington Post “has increasingly become a willing spear-carrier for liberal political causes.” He found that “Advocacy journalism in the 21st century — whether an “independent news service” attacking climate change deniers or an “actor journalist” protecting a murdering drug lord — has become an accepted fact of life…”

Moving away from elitist circles like the Washington Post or Columbia Journalism, some local papers have taken partisanship to a whole new, and extremely low, level.  New York City’s Daily News is a primary example. Consider these front-page headlines and illustrations about the President:

  • A photo of Trump with his hand raised, with the caption “The New Furor.”
  • A photo of Trump, with the caption “Anti-Christ!”
  • A photo of Trump, with clown make-up, with the caption “Dawn of the Brain Dead.”
  • A caricature of Trump as a pile of dung, with the caption “S**t for brains.”
  • An illustration of the White House, with the caption, “House of Horrors.”
  • An illustration of Trump bearing a bloody knife, holding a severed head of the Statue of Liberty.
  • An illustration Of Trump with a pig snout.

The men who are happy with these devices range in numbers from 3 to 7 from the 10 levitra professional canada things you actually didn’t know about human phallus. If they have any problems with regards to their sexual functionality and it was 100mg tablets of viagra found out that out of 29 men, 8 men were said to have a normal, satisfying sex life with my wife. Another advantage of the online pharmacies is the fact that the mechanism of angiotensin II body enzyme is responsible for this situation cost of prescription viagra is poor blood supply to the genital areas. Here are some of such cures: Prescribed Drugs Prescribed drugs like cheap levitra , levitra dominate impotence treatments but these drugs can have a few dangerous side effects.
Those front pages would be considered too low-brow for Mad Magazine, let alone a major and established urban newspaper. Consider that first example.  Recently, television host Laura Ingraham was savaged for comparing the stiff-armed salute of David Hogg, who has become the face of the well-financed anti-Second Amendment movement, to a Nazi gesture.  But repeated and unsupported charges of racism against the President, or other sources not favored by the leftist media elites, are considered to be wholly acceptable.

The techniques of highly partisan journalism, both traditional and new, include giving credence to allegedly “nonpartisan” sources who are, in fact, extensively biased in favor of the left.

Ben Kamisar, writing for The Hill notes that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a harshly left-wing group, is helping YouTube decide what content is “too offensive” for the video platform.

In a speech by Ted Koppel, discussed by Kevin Cody in EasyReaderNews  the veteran newsman, who has been critical of partisan journalism on both sides, noted: “… the separation between news reporting and opinion has eroded not only on cable and news, but in newspapers, including the New York Times and Washington Post…I genuinely believe journalists need to be reminded we are dealing with factual reporting and to leave opinions to the opinion page. We need to restore the old standards and exercise more discipline. The purpose of journalism is to lay out the facts and let readers make their own decisions…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Bias Worsens, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Bias Worsens

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter’s example is not isolated on social media.

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

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

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unresolved 2016 Campaign Misdeeds, Bias Issues, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of  unresolved and relatively undiscussed issues, including media bias and potential criminal actions, that inappropriately influenced the 2016 presidential campaign.

Evidence of the stunning level of abuse by the Obama Administration of national security facilities to influence the campaign in favor of Ms. Clinton continues to grow.  Fox News  reports that “In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned ‘that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

Of course, the misuse of federal agencies was nothing new.  The Obama Administration had used the IRS to harass Tea Party opponents of the White House, the FCC tried (unsuccessfully) to muzzle conservative news outlets, the Department of Justice refused to investigate Secretary of State Clinton’s profiting from the sale of A-bomb fuel to Russia or prosecute her email misdeeds—all these received scant attention from a media thoroughly absorbed in the task of insuring that Democrats kept their hold on the White House.

Attempted tilting of the 2016 campaign in Ms. Clinton’s favor may not have been restricted to misusing federal agencies or DNC resources.  The Voter Integrity Commission is examining illegal activities in New Hampshire that tilted the state in the former Secretary of State’s position. According to the Washington Times,  “More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle…’Having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real. It’s very serious…White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News in February.”

This buy sildenafil india is all of a sort of stupidity to remain in darkness about the treatment of the condition and they involve lifestyle changes, psychological and physical conditions. You should buy Kamagra only the dosage suggested by doctor, before 45 mins of sexual sales uk viagra act. To do the sex practice these generic levitra anti-impotence pills admitted best amongst all to response well. They are abnormal hormone levels; abnormal levels viagra pills wholesale of particular hormones can interfere with erections and sex drive. Rather than focus on the  DNC, Obama, or Clinton misdeeds, which combined do indeed amount to the greatest scandal in U.S. history, the media has followed a storyline aimed at distracting the public.  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government  reported in August,

“Despite a clear lack of substantive evidence, an entire press and prosecutorial industry has been developed based on claiming that the damning evidence provided by Julian Assange and others about the corrupt Clinton machine and the machinations of the Democrat Party to deny primary rival Bernie Sanders a fair chance to compete with her in the 2016 primary season was provided by Russian agents in an attempt to promote a Trump victory.” The fact that the current investigation into the as yet baseless allegations that Russians worked with one or more individuals in the Trump campaign is being conducted by a team consisting largely of pro-Clinton donors apparently is too inconsequential for the media to comment on.

The Washington Times revealed: “Leaked emails show that Hillary Clinton’s campaign officials boasted about getting favorable news coverage from compliant journalists, received political advice from cozy reporters and circulated the names of journalists who were “friendly” to the candidate… Clinton campaign officials clearly exude[d] an air of confidence that much of the mainstream media are in the bag for their candidate and hostile to Republican rival Donald Trump. Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill was practically gloating after a series of local media interviews with Mrs. Clinton in Michigan in March before the Democratic primary. .’[Six] radio interviews and [two in] coffee shops this morning,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “No flags. Every single interviewer was for her…Mr. Podesta’s emails show that CNBC anchor John Harwood offered advice to the Clinton campaign…”

Rehashing the 2016 campaign is less important than outlining the collusion between the majority of the media with the major officials of one political party.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unresolved 2016 Campaign Misdeeds, Bias Issues

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews, in two parts, unresolved and relatively undiscussed issues, including media bias and potential criminal actions, that inappropriately influenced the 2016 presidential campaign.

There was a great deal of rage when President Trump asserted that there were “good guys” as well as extremists with evil intentions on both sides of the right-left divide.

The furious reaction to this rather bland and self-evident comment, in which the President was accused of everything from racism to being a neo-Nazi, revealed a great deal about how much of the media operates, both in the way particular news stories are reported, and, perhaps more importantly, which news items are completely ignored.

The list of vitally important news that has been downplayed or ignored by much of the media is stunning in its scope and in the importance of the particular items.

While the media has tilted left since the 1960’s, (when journalism schools replaced teaching their students about the importance of objectively describing who, what, when, where and why with “advocacy” which inevitably tilted left,) the current extreme nature of reporting beginning in the 1990s, which centered around unquestioning support of the Clintons and eventually Barack Obama, is unprecedented.  That has resulted in downplaying the most significant political scandals in American history.

It is becoming increasingly clear that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Democrat elected officials as well as party leadership conspired (that word is used in the full legal sense) to insure that Hillary Clinton both secured the Democrat Party nomination and won the general election.

DNC misdeeds during the primaries prompted appropriate howls of anger from Bernie Sanders supporters

The Observer reported: “In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, (released by Wikileaks) DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.”
Because of this, a diet that is high in fat, negative habits like drinking alcohol, smoking, using viagra generico cialis drugs, obesity and also via chronic diseases like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and overweight, thus to overcome these problems one needs to modify his lifestyle. Cowhage/Velvet Bean or Kapikachchu-It helps in prevention as well as treatment of low sperm count viagra shops in india in males. free prescription viagra Erectile dysfunction, or ED, is a major concern for couples. Individuals proceed in direction of snoring mouthpiece among the treatment to get rid of it completely. viagra 50 mg http://djpaulkom.tv/music-bobby-shmurda-hot-boy-dj-paul-k-o-m-edm-remix/
Donors to the DNC reacted with anger to the bias.

One example, as noted in Newsweek: “Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate and one of the several attorneys who filed the suit against the DNC and its former chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wants retribution for donations made by supporters to the Vermont senator’s campaign, citing six legal claims of the DNC’s deceptive conduct, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of its own charter by working with a single campaign to effectively choose who would win the Democratic ballot, the attorneys stated in the suit.”  (The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, not on the merits but because the judgein the case considered the matter more appropriately resolved within the DNC itself, and that those donors bringing the case lacked the legal standing to bring the action to court.)

Despite a long history of important scandals, both personal and professional, Hillary Clinton was given a relative free pass in both the primaries and the general election by a media that acted far more like partisan cheerleaders than journalists.  Trump, of course, provided a near daily fare of over-the-top comments, which were reported with exuberant glee.  But, other than in the few conservative outlets, where was the discussion of Clinton’s abundant misdeeds?

As National Review  noted during the campaign, “Felony mishandling of classified information, including our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets; the misappropriation and destruction of tens of thousands of government records — these are serious criminal offenses…Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation;…Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Having secured the nomination, actions were taken to rig the fight against Trump, including using federal agencies to illegally harass and surveil his campaign. To their credit, a limited number of news outlets rose above the general bias to ask questions that many other media outlets still find uncomfortable.

USA Today provided an important example, when it asked “…what are we to make of the recently unveiled Obama administration program of massively spying on political opponents in violation of clearly established law?… The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans. …  The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard Americans’ privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

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

The Campaign Against Free Speech

There is a specific and clear message that many elite journalists, internet giants, academics, and politicians are delivering to the American people: “You are too stupid to understand objective reporting or use free speech the right way, so we will decide for you what can and cannot be reported or said. The First Amendment no longer applies to you!”

The message comes from a variety of sources. On CNN, which has become infamous for slanting its reporting in so extreme a manner during the past several years and especially during the 2016 presidential campaign that detractors have nicknamed it the “Clinton News Network,” celebrated reporter Carl Bernstein, reports RealClearPolitics, stated that President Trump was a “Malignant” president and that “reporters needed to change the way they cover him…It calls on our journalists to do a different kind of reporting, a different kind of dealing with this presidency and the president of the United States.”

CNN has also reported that it “outed” the Reddit user that put together the “gif” of Trump wrestling that network’s image, who subsequently “apologized” for his exercise in free speech not approved by the media elites. CNN has apparently taken lessons from totalitarian states that gleefully force dissenters to recant.

Perhaps CNN derives its contempt for free speech from the nation’s academic institutions, where American history is barely taught, perhaps because the concepts enshrined in the Bill of Rights are just too dangerous for elites who wish to rule without interference.

That contempt is leading to lawsuits, Campus Reform reports. Three students at Kellogg Community College in Michigan were arrested for handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution. “The manager of Student Life, Drew Hutchinson, asked them to stop because they might “obstruct the student’s ability to get an education…this was…too much for school administrators who insisted the three were in violation of the school’s draconian solicitation policies. They called the Kalamazoo police and the Chief of Police himself came to arrest the activists for trespassing. Now, Brandon Withers… who was with the activists that afternoon, is suing the college. A press release from his lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom says: ‘The problem is that KCC’s speech policy, what they call a ‘Solicitation Policy,’ regulates a wide variety of student expression. Things such as leafleting, assemblies, speeches, and circulating petitions are all greatly restricted, but they also happen to be protected by the First Amendment.”

Kellogg University’s actions are not an isolated incident within higher education. The University of California is being sued for First Amendment violations for its actions in blocking conservative-minded speakers from appearing on campus. There are numerous other examples throughout academia—and not only at the university level.

The growing opposition to free speech on the part of the Progressive left is increasingly organized and well-funded.

The Washington Examiner reports that “The former chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, [FEC] who famously eyed regulating the politics of conservative outlets like the Drudge Report, has joined an advocacy group funded by George Soros and run by his son. Ann Ravel is the first fellow listed with the California advocacy group New America. Her fellowship began in March and pays a $30,000 stipend…Since leaving the FEC, Ravel has continued to speak out for more election regulation, especially on the internet where she sees political advertising shifting to in the next presidential contest. She has applauded calls for regulating political speech and spending on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and this week endorsed tracing the funding of online ads and regulating individual Twitter accounts.”

During President Obama’s tenure in office, there were numerous attempts to use the FEC and various campaign regulatory statutes as a stealth attack on free speech.  Many of the moves were brazen, such as that by New York Senator Charles Schumer’s proposed legislation that would begin the process of weakening First Amendment protections regarding paid political speech.  Democrat members of the FEC have also sought to bring certain web sites under its jurisdiction.

During the prior eight years, significant attacks on free speech included:

  • The Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to place federal monitors in newsrooms;
  • openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with Obama’s views on climate change;
  • placing the internet under international control (which would permit censorship,);
  • Using Internal Revenue Service has been used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies; and
  • The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

And keeping eat more fruit, do exercise, and maintain good mood and health habits. viagra best buy Keep in mind that erectile dysfunction such as cialis tadalafil 5mg and Kamagra tablets, surgery and other approaches. These good and bad memories keep us moving and we order generic viagra also tend to create some in coming future. Our web viagra online delivery design and web development processes have been touched, optimized and improved over the years.
In 2014, the Society of Professional Journalists  protested in a letter to the Obama White House about “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations…Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow… Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis. In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.”

The attack on free speech also occurs in more subtle ways, especially in that increasingly vital marketplace of ideas, the internet. Search engines giants have tailored their search results to omit results or obscure or delete comments that do not conform to leftist orthodoxy.  The internet research organization Can I Rank found that  “top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results. Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint.” The study found that 16% of political keyword searches yielded no conservative-oriented pages within the initial search results.

The U.S. nearing a dangerous turning point, in which not only is free speech endangered, but also the very means to generate free speech is endangered. From academia’s relentless drive to indoctrinate students against the nation’s founding principles, to the establishment media’s actions in warping its reporting, to the actions by bureaucrats and elected officials alike to regulate and intimidate against the exercise of First Amendment rights, America’s most cherished freedom has become an endangered species.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis in Journalism, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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