Connect with us

Everything

Trump TV in your face: Is it agitprop or amateur hour?

Published

on

After nearly a year of sifting through swirling rumors regarding a creation of “Trump TV”, it’s here. On Sunday, “Trump TV” debuted on Trump’s FB page with former CNN contributor and Trump defender, Kayleigh McEnany appearing to be the face of the new outlet.

The move may come as a shock to some, particularly when back in 2016 Trump was quoted as saying “No, I have no interest in Trump TV,” to Cincinnati’s Scott Sloan of 700WLW radio. Yet, it’s worth remembering that during his campaign Trump aired a nightly show via Facebook Live. Plus, on August 2nd, Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, hosted a “real news” program which also ran on President Trump’s Facebook Page.

Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng wrote a compelling piece at the Daily Beast which reported that Lara Trump was in fact running the show at “Trump TV”, using her previous experience as a producer at Inside Edition and her role at consulting firm Giles-Parscale, for the President’s reelection effort.

“Giles-Parscale hired Lara in late March. Since then, she has taken over its Trump campaign work, practically replacing Parscale on that front in all respects but his official campaign title.

With Lara overseeing that digital consulting work for the Trump campaign, Giles-Parscale has helped to craft the new Trump TV videos. Trump herself starred in the first such video, which was released through the campaign’s social media channels last week. The firm is also doing some editing and graphics work for the videos.

The title “Real News” is an allusion to Trump’s and his supporters’ frequent allegations that reporting unfriendly to the president and his agenda is, almost by definition, “fake news.””

The article goes on to say:

“Though the videos are entirely produced by the campaign, not the White House, Trump is the first president to declare his re-election candidacy on the day of his inauguration, allowing him to use campaign resources to promote his agenda to a greater degree than his predecessors.”

The fact that the videos are, essentially, part of a reelection campaign effort, and their lack of “paid-for-by” disclosures have raised legal questions, it pales in comparison to the charge of “state propaganda” that had engulfed social media.

McEnany appeared in front of a backdrop emblazoned with Trump’s logo and website address kicked off the video with, “Thank you for joining us as we provide you the news of the week from Trump Tower here in New York”, praising the latest jobs report and the RAISE act.

While most would state that they do not have a problem with the President making his case to anyone who is willing to tune in, Susan Wright notes in her piece for Red State, suspicion arises after the President has repeatedly slammed various news outlets for being “fake news” while calling segments airing on Trump TV “real news”:

The problem is when the president spends half his day slamming the media, then employs others to get in front of a camera to not just tout his record, but to call it “real” news, suggesting anything outside of the echo chamber is illegitimate.

That’s propaganda straight out of North Korea’s playbook. In fact, the backdrop of these videos have the look and feel of professional agitprop, and that’s just freaky.

“Real” news gives everything: the good, the bad, and the inconvenient. That’s not what’s happening here.

Doubtless there will be an audience for Trump TV while the media’s trustworthiness numbers abysmally low. A new poll from Bospar, a public relations firm, revealed that as many as 6-in-10 Americans believes that the mainstream media creates “fake news”. It’s a sobering reminder that now, more than ever, it’s imperative to seek multiple sources of information that both agree and disagree with our deeply held presuppositions. Otherwise, a true State-run Media isn’t so far-fetched, nor too far into the future.

 

 

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report