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 *

Democrats

After AP fact checks Beto O’Rourke, AOC, and the Green New Deal, leftist publications lose their minds

Published

on

After AP fact checks Beto ORourke AOC and the Green New Deal leftist publications lose their minds

A minor news story posted by the Associated Press this weekend enraged a few far-left publications. Their point of contention: A fact-check on Beto O’Rourke (and by extension anyone promoting the Green New Deal) revealed the United Nations didn’t claim we’re on the verge of death and destruction in 12 years of we don’t reverse climate change immediately.

O’Rourke was campaigning last Thursday in Iowa when he said, “This is our final chance. The scientists are absolutely unanimous on this. That we have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis.”

But, as the Associated Press concluded, this isn’t even close to being true:

There is no scientific consensus, much less unanimity, that the planet only has 12 years to fix the problem.

A report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it’s not a last chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.

“Glad to clear this up,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report and professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, told The Associated Press. The panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”

He added: “The hotter it gets, the worse it gets, but there is no cliff edge.”

“This has been a persistent source of confusion,” agreed Kristie L. Ebi, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle. “The report never said we only have 12 years left.”

The report forecasts that global warming is likely to increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 2030 and 2052 “if it continues to increase at the current rate.” The climate has already warmed by 1 degree C or 1.8 degrees F since the pre-Industrial Age.

Even holding warming to that level brings harmful effects to the environment, the report said, but the impact increases greatly if the increase in the global average temperature approaches 2 degrees C or 3.6 degrees F.

“The earth does not reach a cliff at 2030 or 2052,” Ebi told AP. But “keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and temperatures will continue to rise.”

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.

Cornell University climate scientist Natalie M. Mahowald told the AP that a 12-year time frame is a “robust number for trying to cut emissions” and to keep the increase in warming under current levels.

But she said sketching out unduly dire consequences is not “helpful to solving the problem.”

The story was widely distributed but didn’t cause much of a ruckus because it was part of a weekly recap story that included fact-checking on President Trump. But it’s starting to get much more attention now thanks to several progressive publications who are emphatic in their belief that the Associated Press is wrong.

Here are a couple of headlines we found from two of the most prominent progressive publications, DailyKos and ThinkProgress:

Daily Kos

Think Progress

Unfortunately for the leftists, neither these articles nor any of the others I read calling out the Associated Press were able to give better examples than the United Nations’ climate change people in rebunking the debunked science. They definitely didn’t counter the fact-checking done on the claims by O’Rourke, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or any of the Democratic contenders for President, all of whom are saying that the consensus is there and practically unanimous.

It’s not unanimous. Not even close.

The narrative has been built by the hyper-leftists that we’re all going to die in a dozen years if we don’t elect radical progressives immediately. They get annoyed when conservatives counter their claims, but they get full-blown unhinged from reality when leftists at the U.N. and A.P. do it.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why free speech is so hated by college students

Published

on

Why free speech is so hated by college students

You’ve heard the stories. Free speech isn’t actually a thing on college campuses around the country. There seems to be certain types of protected speech, such as anything that embraces the leftist narrative of these progressive indoctrination centers, but any views that are considered to be too conservative for the delicate eyes or ears of college students are quickly stifled.

But it’s not just the administrators, professors, and other far-left employees of the colleges. The students themselves are opting out of free speech willingly. Sure, they’d probably complain if anyone intruded on their rights to espouse hyper-leftist ideologies or spew out progressive talking points, but that won’t happen. Why? Because those who may be opposed to their ideas are the same people who embrace limited government, free speech, and our rights as Americans. Therefore, the people who have an incentive to quash leftist notions are the very people who are against quashing anyone’s notions at all.

It’s a conundrum for conservatives because the same courtesy is not paid to them. Free speech (or any of our rights, for that matter) is neither appreciated nor sacred to leftists. So we’re stuck trying to protect our own rights to free speech while defending the left’s rights to the same. Meanwhile, they don’t have to defend their right to free speech because nobody’s trying to deny them of this right, but they’re busy trying to prevent any conservative ideas from seeping through to the collective conscious of their precious university environment.

This video by Campus Reform shows leftist students doing everything they can to prevent conservative ideas from being seen, let alone appreciated. This is important to them to stop ideas from being observed and potentially discussed, but they believe the reason they do it is to stop “hate speech.” The definition of “hate speech” on college campuses throughout America has become anything that’s contrary to their own progressive philosophy. Therein lies the real reason free speech is so hated.

We appreciate everything Campus Reform and their parent organization does. We strive to deliver strong conservative perspectives for college students as well, which is why we remain a crowdfunded publication powered by donations of our readers. The only way to stop the censorship of conservative ideas on college campuses is to continue to spread the word. We have reality on our side, so the more we push the message, the easier it will be to break through their indoctrinated defense shields.

The bottom line for college leftists is deep down, they realize their arguments are wrong. Their only defense against thoughtful conservative perspectives is to prevent as many people as possible from hearing them. Why? Because they have no defense against the truth.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Liberty Daily: The Conservative, Christian alternative to Drudge Report

Published

on

Liberty Daily The Conservative Christian alternative to Drudge Report

I’m old enough to remember when the Drudge Report was the place to find some of the most important links on the internet. The site, which started before America Online became AOL, has been credited over the last couple of decades with breaking news so fast as to put mainstream media outlets to shame. But that was then. This is now.

For a while, perhaps three or four years, the conservative stalwart of news aggregators has been showing a bit too much of its left-of-conservative leanings. That’s not to say owner and operator Matt Drudge is a leftist, but he’s more of an anti-Democrat than a true conservative. There’s nothing wrong with that if there were no other issues, but there are three other things that often leave me (and other conservatives, I’m sure) scratching my head.

  • First, the site rails against leftist mainstream media sites like WaPo, NY Times, and CNN, but continues to link to them profusely. I wrote a public letter once asking him to stop linking to fake news media, but it was ignored.
  • Second, readers must sift through offbeat stories to get to the conservative news pieces. We’re just as likely to see a story from TMZ about Paris Jackson as we are to see a link about border security on Breitbart.
  • Lastly, the only Christian news published is bad news. Christian persecution around the world gets widely ignored on Drudge, but if a pastor gets caught in a scandal, it’s plastered on the site with multiple links.

The alternative I strongly recommend is The Liberty Daily. It’s pro-conservative, pro-Christian, and absolutely fearless. I had the pleasure to talk to long-time friend and co-owner of the site, Matthew Burke. He owns and operates the site with his wife, Jennifer.

“My wife Jennifer and I started The Liberty Daily in 2015 as a conservative alternative to Drudge, which I felt needed some competition,” he said. “I was frustrated by the amount of traffic he was driving to left-wing publications like the New York Times and Washington Post. Plus, he wasn’t doing anything to help conservatives in the culture wars which we’ve been getting clobbered on by the Left for decades.”

In case that sounded repetitive, please keep in mind I had written my complaints about Drudge before asking Burke, and he hadn’t seen my own perspectives before replying.

What I’ve found at The Liberty Daily is everything I believe conservatives and Christians need to know on daily basis in order to navigate through the treacherous waters of online media. There’a a dangerous combination of propaganda on the internet today. There’s the left-leaning news outlets who essentially act as the opposition communications board for Democrats. Then, there’s the pseudo-right with news outlets that purport to be right-leaning but invariably distort the conservative message, dumbing it down to being right-light. These are the same sites that love to pretend to be conservative but who justify John Kasich’s existence and who believe Mitt Romney is still the future of the Republican Party.

The Liberty Daily doesn’t mess with any of that. The Burkes understand conservative media because they’ve lived in it for years. My first occasion to learn of them was seeing Jennifer on Fox News representing their previous venture.

“We had another conservative site, Politistick, which was beginning to get tamped down by Facebook censorship and we both saw the writing on the wall,” Burke continued. “We needed to have a site that wasn’t dependent on social media like everybody else. Almost all traffic to The Liberty Daily is direct or from people who are fed up with Drudge, found the site, and tell their friends.”

It isn’t just about the need for more conservative media, as we discuss on a regular basis. NOQ Report is a crowdfunded site that relies on donations, so we enjoy some editorial freedom that other sites might not get. But even ad-supported sites can be bold if they’re willing to follow their conscience instead of focusing on click-bait. The Liberty Daily does it right:

“I don’t get caught up in trying to post links to stories that get the most clicks like most websites. I want to put up stories that are pro-Christian, pro-Constitution, Pro-America, anti-Communism and try to fight the evil forces that are trying to destroy America through the culture.” – Matthew Burke

The site, which started out around 50 views per month and continues to grow beyond its current level of 2 million visitors per month, has no problem calling things the way they should be seen. Unlike “polite” news aggregators and opinion sources, The Liberty Daily is bold with the way they present the news without going down the road of hysteria or hyperbole.

My last question for Burke was, “What does America need the most, in one sentence?” He didn’t need a sentence. He didn’t even need a phrase. He summed it up in one word. “Jesus.” That’s the type of people I want running The Liberty Daily.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report