Connect with us

Everything

‘Wolf!’ the New York Times cried

Published

on

I’m no apologist for President Trump. But the New York Times has put itself, once again, in a horrible position in reporting an anonymously-sourced story about a meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and a Kremlin-connected lawyer.

This isn’t the first time they Gray Lady has cried “Wolf!”

Just last week, the NYT and AP corrected their previous and widely-reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to help Donald Trump’s candidacy.

In February, the NYT claimed that phone records and “intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

James Comey, under oath, directly refuted the NYT story. And the NYT reported on itself, without issuing a correction.

Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

Instead of engaging in self-examination, the very reporters who gathered the anonymously-sourced stories pressed to know exactly what was wrong with their initial report. Comey did not, and could not without violating the FBI’s security and his own disclosure agreements, answer that.

But “in the main, it was not true” doesn’t mean, “it’s true with some problems.” It means it’s false, with some elements of truth.

The NYT continues to report in this manner: That it’s got the story mostly true. Yet time after time, their reports end up as “nothing-burgers” or embarrassing falsehoods promulgated by people with a political agenda.

It would seem to emerge (as we all know) that the NYT itself has a political agenda. They want to take down President Trump. The main stream media’s echo chamber of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are hell-bent for leather to see Trump fall.

And the harder they try, the less credibility they have.

They keep crying “Wolf!” over and over when there’s no wolf there. In this latest report, what version of events should we believe? The hint may be in the small details. Today, the NYT, in a follow-up story to the original report, noted a correction.

Correction: July 9, 2017

An earlier version of this article misquoted a statement by Donald Trump Jr. about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. He said the meeting mostly focused on the topic of adoption, which “was not a campaign issue.” He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Trump, Jr. had a 20-minute meeting with a Russian lawyer, who, according to the person who set up the meeting and Trump, Jr. himself, offered to share “damaging information on Mrs. Clinton,” specifically information that Russians were helping to fund her campaign. Trump Jr. claims that was a pretext for the meeting to discuss issues dealing with adoption.

In fact, the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is well-known for her work opposing the Magnitsky Act, which Congress passed in late 2015 to punish the Russians for the death of a Russian journalist. Trump, Jr.’s recounting of the meeting lines up with that fact. The NYT put words in his mouth, which they had to correct.

That’s really the entire point of all the “Wolf!” crying. The NYT and other media have presented, and continue to present counterfactual conditional claims of what was not said, or what was not assumed to be true. These types of  “if she did discuss the Clinton campaign, it would be collusion” are nothing more than rank speculation, and the media builds upon these speculations in an ever-more-fragile logic tree of “if-thens.”

Any one of those “if-thens” tends to collapse their arguments, but instead of correcting course, they replace one tenuous argument for another. “If Comey lied, then…” when Comey became the media’s hero until he contradicted their story.

It’s fairly obvious to anyone that the NYT and its media comrades have a pre-determined narrative. They want us to believe that there was collusion. They want us to believe there is a wolf. The problem they’ve created is that if a wolf really does show up, nobody is going to believe them.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump, as expected

Published

on

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump as expected

It was one of the most replayed parts of President Trump’s announcement regarding his national emergency declaration last Friday – a sing-song moment as the President predicted the declaration would be made, Democrats would sue, they’d go through the 9th circuit, and their decision will hopefully be overturned by the Supreme Court. So far, he’s been absolutely correct as 16 states have filed against the declaration.

New York, California, 14 other states sue Trump in Ninth Circuit over emergency declaration

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-california-sue-trump-in-ninth-circuit-over-emergency-declarationThe attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

My Take

This is their right, and while it may annoy those who support building the border wall, it would be a mistake to condemn these states for trying to stop it. This is part of the way our nation is intended to operate. If one or more states feel the need to challenge the authority of Washington DC, they should be able to make their case before the courts. If the courts make decisions based on the Constitution, then the end result will be the accurate and righteous one.

That’s how this was all intended.

I’m not suggesting the 9th Circuit is going to treat this fairly, nor am I confident the Supreme Court will make its decision solely on the Constitution, but until things are changed, this is what we’ve got. Attempts to subvert any component of this system from the President’s right to declare the emergency to the states’ rights to challenge it to the courts’ responsibility to make a ruling about it all would be to denounce the foundation upon which this nation was built.

There was a way this could have been avoided. Had the President and the GOP decided to have the debate over the wall while they had power over the House, Senate, and White House, they would have been in better position to get the wall going by now. Unfortunately, they an improper political calculation to hold off on the wall debate until after the midterm elections, and now it’s costing the American citizens. It costs us money to sit here through the shutdown and the legal battle over the national emergency declaration. It’s costing us time; the wall should be much further along by now. It may end up costing us the wall altogether if they aren’t able to make a strong case before the Supreme Court.

We are in the midst of a crisis at the border, one that has been going on for decades. Let’s not exacerbate the crisis by adding a Constitutional crisis on top. This needs to play all the way out.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Media

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

Published

on

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

There are plenty of things about the Jussie Smollett scandal that should disgust us. The instant reaction by celebrities, politicians, and the media is right there at the top, especially when we consider how many are now saying, “let’s wait for the facts.” The notion that a successful gay black man thought it appropriate to make himself seem like a victim is also up there.

As One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler points out, we should also be disgusted that Smollett chose this victim status over being a strong leader and role model for less privileged black and gay people who could have looked up to him for his strength instead of now being scornful of his weakness.

What does that say about America when the left tries so hard to build the narrative that everything is wrong, they’re unwilling to recognize the real problems that are plaguing America. Why? Because they’re the biggest part of the problem.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report