5331 private links
Slate magazine founders and editors including Jacob Weisberg – whose podcast company produces shows including Ibram Kendi’s “Be Antiracist” show – have participated in trips to China sponsored by the China-United States Exchange Foundation: a Chinese Communist Pary-linked group courting journalists for “favorable coverage,” The National Pulse can reveal. //
CUSEF functions as part of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front: an effort determined “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority” of the Chinese government. ” “The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence foreign governments to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies,” the U.S. government’s report on the operation continues.
RedState reported on Rowe’s original Facebook post some days ago. That led to this a hit piece over at The Bulwark, which RedState also wrote on. //
Charlie Sykes
@SykesCharlie
“Mike Rowe—the famous real man, dirty-jobbing, tough guy—is trying to pioneer a new lane in political discourse: anti-anti-anti-vaxx.”
Mike Rowe's Dirty Lies - The Bulwark
thebulwark.com //
AG
@AGHamilton29
Mike Rowe went line by line responding to the recent hit piece from JVL: https://facebook.com/116999698310182/posts/4564421360234638/?d=n
When you write out of anger and try to caricature everyone who disagrees with you, you end up with some very weak and easily refutable arguments. (Ht @Bmac0507)
10:37 PM · Aug 8, 2021 //
https://m.facebook.com/116999698310182/posts/4564421360234638/?d=n
Health officials have lied to us. They have failed us. They have blown up their own credibility over and over. They have constantly moved the goalposts. It is not unreasonable to point out that their behavior has driven skepticism of the vaccine. In fact, it’s an extremely important thing to point out when talking about combating vaccine hesitancy to the extent one believes it must be combated. //
John R
28 minutes ago
There's no need for confusion about why the powers that be do what they do in response to this pandemic. There are two rules. (1) policies must promote solutions from drug companies (explains suppression of cheap, safe, effective early treatment so that there could be an Emergency Use Authorization >> $ billions to drug companies, who then spread the wealth to politicians, lobbyists, medical journals, supposedly public agencies, etc. Explains also why now the Fauci pivot to early treatment with patentable drugs from Merck and Pfizer now that the vaccination campaign is winding down/ failing to deliver on its promise; again, ignoring cheap generics). (2) consolidation of power to government, international corporations (crushing small business), quasi government organizations etc. //
Avatar
cafeblue32
3 hours ago edited
The real issue is that the left cannot stomach anyone who speaks up for the working class and they must be slapped down. Trump, DeSantis, Cruz, Rand Paul, and other conservatives and now sensible apolitical guys like Rowe.
They simply shut us down, ratcheted up the fear, and told us to trust the science.
This is what is amazing to watch. Science is a process and a method to arrive at a conclusion, and is not the conclusion itself. True science is never settled and is always met with skepticism. When they accuse you of being "anti-science" for not blindly accepting their premises, what they mean is that you are anti-political science.
There is no "the" science. There is just science. The Science™ is a term used by people demanding control using the Expertise Fallacy
Acosta: “So take the bike to work, huh?”
Brooks: “Sometimes.”
Acosta: “Congressman, is there any way we can get you to talk about January 6th?”
Brooks: “I do not do interviews with CNN because I do not trust CNN to be honorable or truthful.”
Acosta: “Well, can I ask you do you still believe Antifa was behind January 6th?”
Brooks: “I’ve already said what I’m going to say. I don’t trust y’all to be truthful or honest.”
Acosta: “Well, can you tell us if you if you regret what you said on January 6th?”
Brooks: “I do not trust CNN to be truthful or honest, so I do no interviews with CNN.”
Acosta: “I’m just asking you questions. I’m asking you fair questions here, sir. Why can’t you answer the question?”
Brooks: “I do not trust y’all to be truthful or honest with anything CNN does.”
It lacks any facts because it's a pressure piece, pure and simple, designed to intimidate America's bishops into doing what The New York Times thinks they should do.
Taking aim at CNN, in particular, the anchor compared the network reporting on Biden in 2021 vs. Trump in 2018. The difference was absolutely striking, with CNN saying that Trump was in opposition to every world leader around him, while everything about Biden seemed perfect and without trouble.
“They drive to give the illusion that he doesn’t have any disputes with any of these international leaders,” said the lead anchor.
The Australian writer Sophie Elsworth said that Biden was extremely lucky to have such loyal media on his side, and it would definitely result in higher popularity thanks to his fans in the journalist sector.
“It’s really quite appalling to watch,” said Elsworth. “And what happened to straight news reporting which doesn’t seem to be existent there?
“Trump can do no right,” added Nick Cater of the Menzies Research Center.
“There are considerable question marks over Biden’s foreign affairs policies, they’re not proven yet,” continued Cater.
Cater mentioned Trump’s strength in foreign affairs in comparison, including his show of strength against China and the Abraham accords in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Cater adds, Biden has yet to demonstrate whether or not he’ll be able to utilize America’s strength in order to make the country a leader on the global stage.
“I would be much happier to see Donald Trump at the G7, I think,” he concluded.
Why didn’t four reporters from the NYT run this down before impugning Benevenuto’s professional integrity? They couldn’t risk it.
Impugning Benevenuto’s professional integrity was part of the narrative that Bill Barr was doing something corrupt right up to the end.
Bill Barr is working on a book. The first effort from the Democrats will be to prevent any publisher from agreeing to print the book. But that won’t work.
So the fallback position is to continue to hammer away on Barr in advance of his recounting of events.
It’s all about the narrative for the NYT — fact or fiction doesn’t factor into it.
On June 1, 2020 and afterward, corporate media didn't simply get it wrong, they flagrantly and shamelessly lied to Americans in order to hurt the president //
We were treated to what at first appeared to be rare mea culpa this week as reporters read the Department of the Interior inspector general’s report on the riots and police response in Lafayette Park last summer and appeared shocked to find that the Park Police and Attorney General Bill Barr and even President Donald Trump were telling the truth when they said the crowd was going to be dispersed before police knew the president was thinking of coming down there.
There must be something about to break that is going to make Joe Biden and the Democrats look worse than they already do.
Ratings from Neilsen Media Research reported Tuesday indicated that CNN lost 67% of its total viewers since January, when Donald Trump left the White House.
During the primetime hours of 8:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. (EST), CNN lost around 65% of its total viewers since January. In the critical 25-54 age demographic, the network lost 71% of its viewers for both the day and primetime. //
All networks had a drop in viewership since January (Fox had a 12% drop overall) so there is some burnout naturally. Yet the massive loss over at CNN is something to behold and amazing to watch. Well, actually not watch, being a lot of you aren’t.
So if I’m reading all of that correctly, it looks like the mainstream media approached the entire issue with deep skepticism from the start, not necessarily because they didn’t believe it was possible, but because they didn’t like the guy making the claims. And every bit of their reporting and fact-checking on the claim from that point forward was framed around that belief and was clouded by their hostile, mistrustful feelings towards Trump.
While a healthy dose of media skepticism towards claims made by politicians is always warranted, it’s not an excuse to slack off of doing exhaustive due diligence when it comes to investigative reporting and fact-checking, especially on a topic as important as this one. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened here. Also unfortunate is that this visceral anti-Trump mindset was pervasive in other reporting on the administration as well on issues that had nothing to do with the coronavirus.
Unhappy at inheriting a quiescent Middle East where Israel and the Arab world are developing economic, security, and diplomatic ties and Iran is so cash-strapped that it is finding it difficult to fund its terrorist operations, the Biden bunch is, in a flashback from the Obama administration, attempting to bolster Iran as the regional superpower while limiting assistance and cooperation with our Arab allies and with Israel. The same sort of big-brain thinking that gave us the Arab Spring, a terrorist state in Libya, ethnic cleansing and genocide in Syria, and made Iraq into a de facto Iranian satrapy is now trying to encourage the Palestinians to engage in a new intifada. //
The success of Iron Dome and the astonishing lack of casualties on both sides should be a cause for hope and celebration among sane people but such folk are in short supply on the pages of the Washington Post. For instance, there is this from the Washington Post’s aptly named “Monkey Cage” section that purports to provide “Analysis:” Israel’s Iron Dome defense system protects Israeli lives. It also perpetuates the Israel-Gaza conflict. //
Consider this for a moment. You have a defensive system that protects Israelis from Hamas terrorism and because it is damned effective, there is no political pressure on the Israeli government to conduct a punitive expedition into the terrorist stronghold of Gaza. This saves the lives of Israeli soldiers and Gazan civilians. Yet, the system is bad because it saves lives, renders Hamas terrorism ineffective, and Israel is not bludgeoned into accepting a victory by the terrorists. This is an incredible admission that the Washington Post stands foursquare with Hamas terrorists and their methods and endorses the idea that the more people killed the better. //
In 2014, the WaPo ran another op-ed, with the same message headlined _The missiles keeping Israel safe may do more long-term harm than good-. //
First off, saving lives is a good thing. I think there is one of those “commandment” thingies about it in some religious book or the other, I’m pretty sure. Saving lives from terrorist attacks is something that civilized people celebrate. Second, as someone who knew something about armed conflict, that would be Carl von Clausewitz, observed a while back, war is just a continuation of political intercourse by other means. Negotiations and rocket attacks are just different points on the conflict continuum with the same objective. The conflict ends when both sides agree that there is nothing to gain from pursuing said conflict. Third, there is no evidence, anywhere, that negotiating with a terrorist state that preaches literal genocide produces a better or more permanent outcome than just killing them. Killing terrorists without losing your own soldiers or killing innocent civilians in large numbers is a good thing. Trust me. It really is.
Megyn Kelly
@megynkelly
Thoughts and prayers for her during this difficult time.
David Rutz
@DavidRutz
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on new CDC guidelines: Need to 'rewire' myself to not see unmasked people as 'a threat' https://foxnews.com/media/rachel-maddow-cdc-unmasked-people-threat #FoxNews
The Jerusalem Post also wasn’t quite buying that whole AP statement, based on past history.
After Operation Protective Edge in 2014, former AP reporter Matti Friedman wrote in The Atlantic: “Hamas understood that reporters could be intimidated when necessary and that they would not report the intimidation… The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby – and the AP wouldn’t report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas.”
So, either they’re incredibly ignorant or they knew and they’re not being truthful. Either way, not a good look there, AP.
Jerry Dunleavy
@JerryDunleavy
AP CEO: "AP’s bureau has been in this building for 15 years. We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building. This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We'd never knowingly put our journalists at risk."
https://blog.ap.org/announcements/
Andy Ngô
@MrAndyNgo
Israel says your building also housed Hamas military assets. All of you were given warning to evacuate, which you did, before the place was destroyed. And AP last year released guidelines saying journalists shouldn’t focus on property destruction.
The Associated Press
@AP
AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt says he's "shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza." Pruitt says AP is seeking information from the Israeli government. http://apne.ws/Li8Hj4Q //
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
AP stated we must not focus on property destruction it is only the underlying grievance that matters!
APStylebook
@APStylebook
Replying to @APStylebook
Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s. (2/5)
3:40 PM · May 15, 2021
Suddenly they realized that property destruction does matter — when it’s their own. But the destruction of the property of Americans apparently didn’t matter, when the AP had no problem with the ideology of those doing the destruction.
Julie Pace
@jpaceDC
So stunned. Our @AP bureau in Gaza has been destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. //
LIVE footage of the moment an Israeli air raid bombed the offices of Al Jazeera and The Associated Press in Gaza City ⬇️
🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/RvtP1lEX1x pic.twitter.com/RBO1ZiDAl0
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) May 15, 2021 //
This was decision by the AP to place their bureau offices within a known Hamas safehouse; the reason they did it was for journalistic access, never imagining that something like this might happen. Hamas, of course, WANTED either defense or for it to happen for propaganda. https://t.co/8c7vH9T5zU
— Jeff B. tried to do his best, but he could not (@EsotericCD) May 15, 2021 //Pro tip:
Make sure your landlord isn’t Hamas.
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 15, 2021 //
Israel Defense Forces
@IDF
Here's some important context to the headlines you’re seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip
1/ Hamas has turned residential areas in the Gaza Strip into military strongholds.
It uses tall buildings in Gaza for multiple military purposes such as intelligence gathering, planning attacks, command and control, and communications.
2/ When Hamas uses a tall building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target.
3/ The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings in recent days, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed.
4/ We called the building's residents and warned them to leave. We sent SMS messages. We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. We provided sufficient time to evacuate.
5/ We'll say it again: When Hamas places military assets inside such a building, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law.
This is the thread the world needs to see. //
Ben McDonald
@Bmac0507
The irony of mainstream media being headquartered in a Hamas building is too much for one Saturday
the activist organization People for the American Way has filed an information request in order to obtain all of the communications which might be behind the decision to allow only Fox News to broadcast the signing.
“We filed this FOIA request because the people of Florida deserve to know the rationale behind DeSantis’s actions, including the reasons why other press were excluded from the event,” PFAW President Ben Jealous added. “We, and they, could make a pretty good guess, but we’d rather just know the facts.”. //
To further the implied, but never detailed, illegalities we get this quote from a division of the PFAW: “The people of Florida have a right to know if their governor is deliberately using his office for a self-serving publicity stunt at the same time he is signing away his constituents’ constitutional rights,” said Stan Adele, the director of the group’s Right Wing Watch project.
It is revealing to note that the PFAW — a group started by Hollywood hyper-leftist Norman Lear — does not have a Left Wing Watch project.
Notable in all the venomous coverage of the law is that the intentions of the voters are never mentioned. While we hear “opponents” call this voter suppression, we do not get notification from these same minds that numerous polls have shown there is wide support for voter ID laws among the citizens. Almost appears that most of those opposing are either Democrat politicians or members of the media.
The best thing you can do with biased media outlets is to laugh in their face and let them go whine. It makes them look small and petty. Most of all, it ensures that you are driving the ship and not the other way around. If they are reacting, they are losing. Every Republican should take notes on how DeSantis is handling himself because it’s the way forward.
Steve Bousquet
@stevebousquet
NEW: News media is barred from entry at Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signing of controversial elections bill, SB 90. DeSantis spokeswoman Taryn Fenske says bill signing is a “Fox exclusive”
Even more hilarious? DeSantis conducted an interview with “Fox and Friends” hosts as he was signing the bill. I laughed so hard when I watched this that tears were coming out of my eyes. Watch the segment below, via MRC-TV:
“From The Desk Of Donald J. Trump” is a new webpage on www.DonaldJTrump.com, the website of the former President.
As noted in this Fox News story, the Facebook “Oversight Board” is supposed to rule as early as tomorrow on whether Pres. Trump will be allowed to return to using Facebook and Instagram. His accounts were suspended based on his social media and other commentaries on January 6 (allegedly). //
It may, in fact, turn out to be the case that the social media bans imposed on Pres. Trump end up being a boon both economically and influence-wise. Trump had millions of followers on social media and received more than 75 million votes in the November election; I suspect it won’t take too much time at all for him to reach a number of followers in the tens of millions for any new venture once it is built out.
Had Facebook and Twitter allowed him to remain on their platforms, they could have manipulated their technology to limit his reach by creating bottlenecks for his information and messaging.
By kicking him off their sites, they incentivized him to work with others to seek to build a new platform beyond their control.
Of 943 viewers surveyed: 54% were Democrats, 25% were Independents, and only 18% were Republicans. They also seem to have had 3% go missing, without any explanation as to what those folks were, which makes me question all their other numbers.Many then extrapolated that out to “85% of Americans” approved of the speech, which is not the same thing as 85% of CBS viewers who responded to the survey, who are heavily weighted towards Democrats. It’s not even 85% of CBS viewers. //
Additionally what was funny was they initially reached out to 10,420 U.S. adults. Only 4,211 of that 10,420 planned on watching. But it ended up that only 943 watched and responded to the survey. So, it doesn’t sound like too many people of the folks they reached out to were even interested in watching and/or responding to the survey. People are not exactly enthralled with the idea of watching Joe Biden for any length of time and commenting. //
USMC69
4 hours ago
They reached out to over 10,000 and only 942 responded. Seems to me that means only about 8.5% of Americans approve. I think they got the decimal wrong, but that isn't surprising, they do like to use common core math.