Connect with us

Media

Militant mainstream media really is more divisive than President Trump

Published

on

Militant mainstream media really is more divisive than President Trump

It took me two years to come to grips with a harsh reality about the arena I’ve chosen to enter. I didn’t want to believe the media is the “enemy of the people” or that our words could cause so much damage to a country that desperately needs to heal, but despite my protestations I’ve finally been forced to pull my head out of the sand. Mainstream media really is the problem.

I didn’t want to believe it because I believe in a free press. I know where this is heading. The President has called for changes to libel laws and has often espoused the precursors to censorship of the media. That terrified me. It still does. I’m not in the camp that believes the media needs to be put in check by the government and I can’t imagine a scenario where I would ever support even the slightest action that could lead to censorship. With that said, I’m starting to understand the frustration.

News outlets like the Washington Post have clearly demonstrated they will treat President Trump completely differently from how they treated his predecessor. They weren’t trying to blame President Obama for, well, anything that they’re attempting to pin on President Trump. They would never dare to say President Obama was to blame for stoking the hatred that led to the San Bernardino attacks. None of them were accusing him following Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Orlando.

In fact, the media was blaming the Republicans for those attacks as well, though not with the same fervor as they’re now blaming President Trump for the Pittsburgh attack and mail bomber.

It makes no logical sense to pin the machinations of clearly insane men on a President. There are disturbed individuals in our country who will do disturbing things. Nothing a President says or does can change that. No, President Obama wasn’t the great healer. If anything, his policies which led to economic challenges and lost jobs contributed more to the hatred that is rampant in our nation than President Trump’s rhetoric.

We knew what we were getting going in. Nobody expected President Trump to be the eloquent, soothing voice of reason. Mainstream media seems to think that’s what we need, but here’s the thing. What President Trump lacks in his communication skills, he makes up for with his policies. What President Obama lacked in making policies, he tried to make up for it with his words. This more than anything else is why mainstream media cannot understand President Trump’s popularity. They deal in words, and despite President Trump’s claims, it was President Obama who had “the best words.”

Mainstream media preferred to be fed soothing bulls–t from President Obama than sound policies from President Trump.

That all brings us to where we are today. The incessant chanting by mainstream media that President Trump is dividing us is precisely the action that is dividing us. They have become the truest form of division within our country, and it’s by design. Perhaps they don’t even realize it. Perhaps they truly believe their divisiveness is somehow going to heal us. I doubt it. I think they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re pulling from the propaganda playbook and using journalistic doublespeak to convince weak-minded people that their attacks are the solution, not the cause of all the division.

I am not a Trump supporter. I approve of many of his actions and pieces of his agenda, but I have no problem denouncing poor decisions. I agree that his method for handling many situations leaves much to be desired. I think he’s a narcissist who takes as much credit for himself as possible while deflecting all blame. That’s what we signed up for when we nominated him and eventually elected him. Thank God he didn’t lose to Hillary Clinton. I wish it had been someone else to beat her, but I’ll also admit there have been many pleasant surprises throughout his first two years.

It’s important to understand this because I’m not simply attacking the media from a partisan perspective. I’m not in the GOP or Trump “tribe” that sits around pretending everything he does is golden. Most of his tariffs are terrible, leftist moves that we would see if Bernie Sanders was President. His personnel moves in the White House have been comical. And, as mainstream media likes to trumpet constantly, I am not a fan of his choice of words in nearly any situation. I laughed out loud along with most of the United Nations when he felt it appropriate to toot his horn and claim he’s had more accomplishments than just about any president in American history.

What I will never do is assign blame to the President for every negative event that happens in America. It isn’t just irresponsible journalism. It’s irresponsible citizenship. Americans look to the media to help us decipher the world. We need the events reported to us and in many situations we need them interpreted for us. Mainstream media has a responsibility to help Americans understand the events that affect us. They are failing miserably in that regard because they’re playing partisan, anti-Trump games.

I will never promote any measures that stifle the press. I also recognize the ways the press is failing America. Many of them are actually harming America. Where does that leave us?

It’s up to the people. It’s up to you, me, and everyone we influence to step up and tell them we will not listen to their lies any longer. They are trying to be leftist heroes who are willing to abandon their principles for the sake of the progressive cause. We need to stop rewarding them for their idiocy.

Don’t buy their print publications. Don’t watch their television networks. Don’t go to their websites. Most things covered by CNN, NY Times, and Washington Post can be found on WSJ, Fox News, Red State, Conservative Review, National Review, or any of a dozen decent right-leaning media outlets. If you see a story that needs covering, send it to us. We’ll get it covered.

We will no longer be linking to leftist mainstream media outlets. We’ll find other sources. Our role will continue to be to share the news with a conservative understanding of what it all means. In performing that role, we will not be linking out to those outlets as we’ve done in the past.

Mainstream media seems willing to burn it all down if it means they can say “told you so” if President Trump fails. They’re willing to lie, cover up, and manipulate us all just to prove their point. It’s time for the people, not politicians, to tell them to stop.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Matt Walsh speaks out on #CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

Published

on

Matt Walsh speaks out on CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

When white Catholic students wearing MAGA hats are caught on video face-to-face with Native Americans on one side and Black Hebrew Israelites on the other, they’re definitely bigoted white supremacist hatemongers who went out looking for minorities to persecute. At least that’s how mainstream media and a good chunk of social media reacted when they saw the initial videos and images of smirking MAGA children.

But that’s not how it went down. It was the exact opposite of how it went down.

When the story first broke, I saw many of my fellow conservatives on Twitter scolding the kids while the progressive gangs attacked them. I held my tongue. It’s not because I don’t speak out against bigotry regardless of which side of the political, religious, or cultural aisle it comes from, but something seemed fishy. Other than having a disconcerting smirk, I didn’t see anything in the kids that resembled the type of bigoted outbursts we’ve seen in the past from actual white supremacists, Antifa, or other hate groups.

It seemed staged. As it turned out, it wasn’t quite staged, per se, but it was manufactured by the two “victim” groups who went after the MAGA kids, not the other way around. As political and religious commentator Matt Walsh asked, were they supposed to drop down to the fetal position when approached by the two groups?

Hot takes on social and legacy media are often based on incomplete pictures. Before people get outraged and attack others over perceptions based on partial evidence, perhaps we should wait until the whole story comes to light. Just a thought.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

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

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report