Connect with us

Media

Today’s Red Pill: No, the Mainstream Media don’t care about you.

Published

on

Do you ever get the feeling that the Mainstream Media isn’t “reporting” any news for you? Well, according to one journalist, they’re not.

So, then, exactly who is the MSM reporting for, reporting to?

This is news?

Back in 2014, Katie Couric interviewed Chelsea Clinton who had, just six weeks prior, given birth to her first child. Couric fawned and gushed over Chelsea Clinton to a bizarre degree. Couric also lauded Clinton for being nominated as one of Glamour Magazine’s “Woman of the Year” candidates. Then Couric added, “and I think it’s safe to say, probably a Mom of the Year.”

Viewers scratched their heads, perplexed.

In May of 2017, CNN announced Trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream, others get 1. The headline drew on a small portion of an article in Time, entitled Donald Trump After Hours:

The waiters know well Trump’s personal preferences. As he settles down, they bring him a Diet Coke, while the rest of us are served water, with the Vice President sitting at one end of the table. With the salad course, Trump is served what appears to be Thousand Island dressing instead of the creamy vinaigrette for his guests. When the chicken arrives, he is the only one given an extra dish of sauce. At the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, instead of the single scoop for everyone else.

Other outlets ran with the story. Several used the President’s ice cream preferences as an opportunity to psychologize him, such as the New York Times with an article entitled Donald Trump à la Mode. Elite Daily declared, Trump’s White House Eating Habits Reveal A Lot About Him. Mother Jones suggested, If You Want to Understand Donald Trump, Pay Attention to What He Eats.

Meanwhile, those of us regular folk simply thought to ourselves, “Who cares?

The media’s obsession with the President’s dietary preferences continued with a December (2017) article in the New York Times, entitled INSIDe TRUMP’S HOUR-BY-HOUR BATTLE FOR SELF-PRESERVATION. The story claimed President Trump consumed 12 diet cokes each day.

Cable news outlets and MSM publications ran with the 12 Diet Cokes angle, most of them theorizing about the state of the President’s physical health.

Newsweek ran a story entitled TRUMP DRINKS 12 DIET COKES A DAY. WHAT CAN THAT DO TO A PERSON’S BODY?

Again, normal people simply thought to ourselves, “Who cares?” and continued with our daily lives.

Whose interests are being served?

Writing at The Hill back in August of 2017, David E. Weisberg insightfully posed two questions:

♦Who exactly is the media serving with these stories?

♦Whose interests are being served other than their own?

His astute inquiry was prompted by two articles which had been published in the midst of the human crisis and natural disaster following Hurricane Harvey: the New York Times’s Melania Trump, Off to Texas, Finds Herself on Thin Heels, and the Washington Post’s There was no pretense about Melania Trump’s heels. But sometimes, a little pretense helps.

Both articles were desperate attempts to politically frame Melania Trump’s choice of footwear, a pair of heels which she had worn as she and the President boarded Air Force One on their way to visit the hurricane victims.

So, WHO are these stories for, exactly?

Sharyl Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist. In Chapter 6 of her new book, The Smear, Attkisson gives us a glimpse into why the Mainstream Media puts out stories and runs with headline topics which the average person cares nothing about; stories like CNN’s Kim Jong Un’s sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.

According to Attkisson, journalists have forgotten all about you and me. Actually, we are simply ignored altogether.

On pages 151-152 of her book, Attkisson writes (emphasis mine):

We report on internal info fed to us by opposing interests to advance their agenda. We report on one another. We report on each other reporting on these interests. The resulting stories are aggregated, circulated, and regurgitated among the same relatively small circle of players. They’re retweeted on Twitter, shared and liked on Facebook, and distributed on Google News. They draw positive feedback from our managers, generate validation from peers, and capture the attention of important insiders. Instead of bringing meaningful news to viewers and readers, we copy, impress, or best one another with stories of interest to no one but each other.

We’re giving a command performance… And we’re leaving ordinary Americans out of the equation.

On a Venn diagram, there would be three circles: The news media and insiders we report on would be two circles that wholly overlap. Regular people would be in a third circle far away that doesn’t intersect the other two.

Hmm… The detachment of the elites from everyday Americans, coupled with the Mainstream Media’s caricature of Journalism is starting to make a lot more sense…

You and I simply aren’t part of their equation.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Foreign Affairs

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel

Published

on

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr to attack Israel

When a nation the size of New Jersey is surrounded by enemies and is the subject of incessant condemnation from the United Nations, it’s natural to assume thoughtful people will take a complete look at its circumstances before deciding which side of a contentious debate to support. This is why many Americans still choose to support the nation of Israel despite mainstream media’s efforts to frame it as evil.

Unfortunately, the debate is so complex, most Americans form their perspectives based on very limited data. Passions are so strong on both sides that it often comes down to which side’s message is loudest in the ears of those deciding who to support. The Israel-Palestine debate has been ongoing since the tiny nation was first formed and ramped up greatly following the attacks on Israel in 1967 that resulted in necessary expansion.

Today, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are all considered “occupied” territories by a majority around the world, at least among those who are paying attention. Despite clear evidence that the very existence of Israel would be threatened if these lands were “returned” to the Palestinians, most of the world calls for the two-state solution as the path to peace.

On top of the disputed lands, the way that Israel maintains peace within its own lands is labeled as oppression against Palestinians living there. The core of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s message is that the Palestinian people are being persecuted. To support this premise, an activist at the NY Times is invoking Martin Luther King Jr and his opposition to the Vietnam War as the roadmap by which BDS activists should muster their own courage and build more support to fight the nation of Israel.

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.htmlReading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

To be clear, King was opposed to a war that resulted in the deaths of 1,350,000 people, which is nearly the same amount of Arabs living in Israel currently. King was opposed to a war in which no Americans were attacked prior to us getting involved. Israel is attacked regularly from multiple groups in and out of the nation who support the Palestinian movement. King was opposed to a war that took focus and resources away from his cause.

As he said, “We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

To be fair, the author of the NY Times article, Michelle Alexander, was using his anti-war speech to demonstrate the courage King displayed as inspiration for the courage she feels BDS supporters need today. Had she left it there, then there wouldn’t be much of a need to respond. However, she continued in the article to speculate King may not have been happy with Israel back then. Worse, she implied that he could have been a supporter of the BDS movement today.

This opinion is beyond questionable. King’s motivations for not wanting to outwardly support Israel’s actions following the Six Day War were for the sake of his movement, not based on personal feelings on the matter. It made sense to not take a side in a debate in which many of his supporters of African or Middle Eastern descent may have objected.

It is becoming increasing common in the BDS movement to point solely towards the actions of the Israeli government while ignoring the reasons for these actions. They often talk about homes being bulldozed, but they ignore the fact that punitive demolitions are a result of terrorist attacks. I am not in favor of these demolitions, but I would never hide the facts to support my claims. The BDS movement realizes calling out Israel for bulldozing Palestinian homes is most effective if the reasons are never mentioned.

As pro-BDS articles go, this one was strikingly coherent. This is a bigger problem than the unhinged hate articles we often see from BDS supporters. It’s easy to see how this one-sided portrayal in a publication as strong as the NY Times that invokes an icon like Martin Luther King Jr can garner support for the movement from those who would otherwise never consider it. The article is very careful to cut off cries of antisemitism and is written for rational thinkers rather than emotional feelers.

But therein lies the problem. It invokes King and his famous speech knowing full well few will actually read it. If they take the time to read or hear it, they’ll wonder what any of that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NY Times is betting on the easy odds that nobody’s going to take the time.

None of the seven reasons King gives for opposing the Vietnam War could be applied to Israel. Invoking the speech and insinuating he would have been a BDS supporter is a disingenuous attempt to equate his righteous activism to the BDS movement itself.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”

Published

on

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report

Published

on

Muellers office debunks Buzzfeeds report

That didn’t take long.

After a flurry of reports surrounding a Buzzfeed article that claimed then-candidate Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, a statement from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has debunked it.

Spokesman Peter Carr says, “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

As we noted yesterday, Buzzfeed is not credible. Now, any remnant of credibility they had left is evaporating away. This is not a serious news outlet. They’re just a click-bait farm.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report