Connect with us

Media

Journalistic Integrity

Published

on

FRAMING THE DISCUSSION

How often have you read words to the effect that a highly placed source close to the investigation revealed xyz today under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case… Blah… Blah… Blah…. ?

Is your first thought that just really must be something juicy that I can barely wait to read? Or do you stop and wonder how untrustworthy is the person who was supposed to protect information who instead divulged it?

Do you also think about how unscrupulous the person was who received the information and published it without concern for the consequences? The more fundamental question is do you believe that the whole world has a right to know everything a government agency is doing?

Is there ever a need to protect anything from public disclosure? The government sometimes has to classify information to protect sources whose lives would be in danger and to avoid revealing methods by which the data was collected.

Whatever the American public knows, our enemies around the world also know. That is simply a fact of life.

Do you feel sympathetic for Bradley Manning revealing sensitive U.S. military information? Do you admire Julian Assange for making it known? Do you think Edward Snowden is a traitor or a hero or somewhere in between?

Have you delved into all the nitty-gritty details of the incident in San Francisco? Is there a legitimate reason a law enforcement agency would want to stop a leak within their Department? That is a totally separate issue from how they go about trying to plug the leak.

Does a journalist have a right to publish anything he or she becomes privy to? Without understanding the entire case, how would the writer estimate the implications of such disclosure?

Does it even matter or is just getting a scoop and public acclaim an uncontested ultimate goal which overrules all other considerations? War correspondents often have to agree not to disclose locations and other sensitive info.

I still remember when Geraldo Rivera went on Fox News live shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and drew marks in the dirt showing where they were and how they got there. He was quite appropriately disinvited from accompanying the troops.

It all comes down to whether one considers his or her own career as tantamount to the national well-being.

SELECTIVE COVERAGE

The next point of contention comes into play when a journalist is convinced that their role is that of apologist for a particular ideology. The flipside of the disclosure of secret information is the suppression of matters which the public has every right to know.

All the major influential news media in Hawaii are controlled by the Democrat Party. Oh, I doubt there is any actual deed of ownership. Not even a signed agreement. Just a tacit understanding that perpetuating the status quo is the media’s proper role.

Therefore any conservative upstart candidate does not deserve to be heard and his or her message should be buried. The most effective way to do that is simply to ignore and refuse to cover the campaign.

It’s really hard to say whether a liberal society leads to a liberal media or whether a liberal media leads to a liberal society. One thing for sure is that they go hand-in-hand.

During the last 25 years or so in this internet age, print media has lost its dominance in influencing public opinion. 24×7 cable news coverage was a big deal 35 years ago. Now websites and social media provide real-time access to both breaking news and analysis.

PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE

There is now a real opportunity for conservatives to get our message to the people. Most of our fellow travelers in this world are followers and lurkers. They are the lemmings who plunge over the cliff if somebody charismatic leads them there. So, we need to recruit qualified men and women to provide objective alternatives without trying to lead anybody anywhere.

Many misuse their rhetorical talents for self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. But journalists must recognize their responsibility to the public trust. It is an awesome privilege to be one of those who document an epoch in human history.

We know what has gone before us in the world only through the eyes of those who wrote about it either contemporarily or in retrospect. If this world is still here a hundred years from now, and there is some doubt about that, what will people know about the year 2019? None of us is going to be around in 2119 to reminisce about it.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH

We could go back 160 years to the administration of President James Buchanan in 1859 and read about events that led up to the War Between the States. Now we mostly hear it called the Civil War, but it used to be more commonly understood as what it really was. It wasn’t civil. It was a conflict that tore this country apart.

Lest we go that route again, we all need to start thinking of ourselves collectively. Rather than fanning the flames of divisiveness, journalists would be commended to emphasize those common beliefs and objectives that draw us together as a nation.

It really is not complex. It is the simplest thing in the world. Have integrity. Do what is right. Write the truth.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Immigration

Mainstream media censors images of dead bodies when convenient

Published

on

Mainstream media censors images of dead bodies when convenient

It isn’t common for mainstream media to post images of dead bodies. It has been considered bad form to show images of human death for decades, but there are times when the media is willing to make an exception. If you see a dead body in a newspaper, on television, or on a mainstream media website, you can count on one certain attribute: It reflects a piece of narrative they’re trying to push.

An example of this was yesterday when nearly every major media outlet showed an image of two dead migrants, a father and his 23-month-old daughter. It was a heartbreaking image, and clearly politically charged. Independent journalist Andy Ngo asked a series of important questions regarding coverage of the image on Twitter:

His questions and brief observations say all we need to know. The reality of how journalistic standards are applied across the board depends solely on how invoking or breaking them will affect their agenda. This applies to both sides of the current ideological divide plaguing the media and the country as a whole, but anecdotal it seems the major right-leaning outlets like Fox News and WSJ tend to be more consistent with their reporting style.

This image is intended to invoke outrage over the Trump administration policies that supposedly caused these deaths. The odd thing is the Democrats are the ones whose policies have encouraged hundreds of thousands of migrants in recent months to pay outrageous sums to the cartels, make the dangerous journey to our southern border, sacrifice women and children to the sexual predators “guiding” them on their journey, and facing the dangers to their well-being they face along the way.

But the narrative says blame Trump, so that’s what they’re doing. It’s why they universally broke their own protocols to share a viral image of recently deceased migrants, including a toddler.

It may be too much to ask for consistency from mainstream media, but we should at least have our own understanding of their motives for doing the things they do. Hat tip to Andy Ngo for continued intrepid reporting.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Imagine the Left being completely honest

Published

on

By

Imagine the Left being completely honest

The Left has to hide its core ‘value’ of forced wealth redistribution in order to survive, but imagine if the whole truth came out.

No one would support the Left’s socialistic slavery if it were truthful about its ideology of forced wealth redistribution. They will, however admit to some half-truths using the sin of omission to keep the rest under wraps. This is a look at what it would be like if they were completely honest about their socialist national agenda.

After all, these are people who disguise who they are with deliberately false labels. They can talk all they want about being ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’, but it’s all backward thinking with the antithesis of Liberty in having ‘the pedagogy of the paredón’ [execution wall].

Leftists weren’t socialists until suddenly they were.

It is really astounding that the Left expects their words to be taken at face value when their history has always been one of lies. For years they solemnly denied that they were socialists, even though the dictionary and their national agenda told a different story. Everyone was supposed to ignore their obvious denial of reality.

Then in a rare flash of honesty, they admitted what had been obvious for decades: They were socialists.

Lost in the accolades of their coming out of the red closet was the fact that they had been lying about their core values for years. It was positively Orwellian in how they switched without the slightest hint of guilt over their abject deception.

Leftist weren’t demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

Leftists certainly seem to have a talent for being able to lie while the truth is in front of everyone else. They used to parrot the lie that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ while absolutely demanding gun confiscation.

It was a bold-faced lie designed to assuage the objections to the Left’s demands for Intergalactic Background Checks or gun registration. We’re not supposed to worry our pretty little heads about the implications of these measures because this just wasn’t in the cards. It was an obvious lie, but the Left demanded that we accept it as the truth along with many others.

These days it’s to the point that the mere rumour of the possibility of a shooting or a particularly cutting remark to a Leftist politician is enough to bring forth this demand. Nevertheless, Leftists will still try to parrot this obvious lie, expecting it to be taken at face value.

Happy talk half-truths.

The national socialist Left would like to be lauded for those rare occasions when they are truly honest. In most cases it’s only part of the story with ‘happy talk’ about free health care, free college, free food, free housing, leaving out the justification over how other people are morally obligated to fund all the freebies.

That is by design, because those discussions delve into the messier aspects of socialism. The false promises, the forcible wealth redistribution, the oppression when the false promises become manifest, the rounding up of dissidents into gulags and concentration camps, the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

The full implications of Leftist half-truths reveals why they keep them hidden, only emphasising the positive aspects of their socialist national agenda.

‘From each according to his abilities’ has to be done at gunpoint.

It should be no surprise that a man who advocated the ideas of a parasitical ideology would have stolen them from the ancient dialogs of someone else. Good old Karl Marx was aware of these ancient texts since he commented on them in his writings. Many others were experimenting – and failing with socialism well before he wrote his ‘manifesto’.

However, the man did phrase the essence of forced wealth redistribution with his:

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’    Karl Marx

Leftists love to talk up the second part of that little ditty with the promise of all kinds of free stuff while leaving out how the ‘From each’ is supposed to be implemented. This is because other people’s money has to be taken by force.

Bernie Sanders gloated about cancelling student debt and making Wall Street pay for it, without mentioning why they are morally obligated to fund that freebie. He also failed to mention the economic implications of stealing of $1.6 trillion from some people simply because he wants to buy votes.

Where the Leftists truly honest, they would make sure everyone knows some people will be forced to pay for all of the ‘free’ goodies. Most people don’t have to worry about being at the wrong end of government gun, but they do have to worry about that taking of other people’s money sinking the economy.

The full implications of Medicare-for-All.

If there is one thing Leftists love more than being called Liberal, its being lauded for generously spending other people’s money. How they think that money is theirs to take can only be attributed to the distorted mentality of the collectivist mindset.

As reported by JD Rucker Bernie Sanders confirmed the ‘all’ in Medicare-for-All includes illegal immigrants Let’s complete the ‘logic’ of the left in this case and other entitlement issues.

The truthful implications of this are that he believes that everyone has a claim on the property of those who may happen to earn or have more than others. That government is more than a mere protectors of basic human rights, but should be the conduit by which wealth is equally distributed to all in the world.

Never mind that the prospect of free health care, free college, free food, free housing will have the entire world-beating down our ‘door’.

The Left wants everyone to be able to vote to steal other people’s money.

As in the previous example, we all knew what the Left wanted. It was a case of the Left finally coming out and admitting the truth. As reported on Townhall: Caught Red Handed: Despite Their Protests, Democrats Want Illegals To Vote. This is not just a case of the government obtaining the consent of the governed, it is one of the Left flooding the country with illegal invaders that will vote to have other people’s money redistributed to them. Couple this with the promise of free stuff for all who can come in over the border and the people who pay the bills will have lost control of their own country. It will be the end result of every democracy that will be inherently unstable.

If they can accomplish this, the national socialist left will have succeeded in taking the most stable and functioning systems of government and perverting it to one where the minority will be tyrannised by the majority. It will inevitably disintegrate as fewer people work to have their earnings stolen by others, shifting the burden to fewer and fewer until the whole system collapses.

Open borders and reparations for past sins.

Our final two examples – in more ways than one – we have Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking ‘What’s The Point?’ on the issue of enforcing Immigration Laws In U.S. as reported in the Daily Wire.

Then there is the story reported on the website Twitchy of an opinion piece from the New York Times that openly admits that the illegal invasion and reparations movement are meant to be penance for ‘our’ past sins.

The national Socialist-Left doesn’t see any point in borders or Enforcing Immigration Laws and that we must pay some form of penance for our past sins. Never mind that the people who committed these sins have long since passed or that the people benefiting weren’t the original victims. No, to those on the Left, we have committed the unpardonable crime of being successful and having the best system of government ever conceived.

The Takeaway.

The full extent of the truth of what the Left has admitted is almost too monstrous to contemplate. They have no qualms about forcibly taking property in order to buy votes and loyalty. They are perfectly willing to hand out goodies to anyone who will vote for them. Finally, they don’t believe in sovereignty and see the illegal invasion and reparations as a way of the innocent of today to pay for the collective sins of the past.

Thus whatever they do to the country to attain power for themselves is perfectly legitimate in their minds. It doesn’t matter to them if it leads to our destruction because we probably deserve it. It used to be said that certain foreign entities hated us for our freedom. In looking at the implications of the rare instances when the Left has been a little honest, it would seem they agree with that sentiment.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

Mainstream media tried again with E. Jean Carroll. Then she told Anderson Cooper something insane.

Published

on

Mainstream media tried again with E Jean Carroll Then she told Anderson Cooper something insane

Immediately after E. Jean Carroll made her accusation President Trump raped her 23 year ago, mainstream media pounced. But her story seemed odd at best, though not nearly as odd as her own responses to questions, so they backed off quickly. This week started with a resurgence of support as the NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, and other progressive outlets revived the story and gave her a chance to make sense of her story. They wanted to believe it, not just because of backlash from the #MeToo crowd that didn’t like the dropped coverage but because if she is being honest, that would taint the man they hate the most.

They NY Times went so far as to call themselves out for not covering the story more because she’s a credible accuser.

How will the rest of the week play out now that she made the oddest of all her statements to date while being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper?

“I think most people think of rape as being sexy. Think of the fantasies.” – E. Jean Carroll

Taken aback, Cooper instantly called for a commercial break.

Like Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, and everyone else the left chooses as the person to take down President Trump, E. Jean Carroll is turning out to be even less capable than her predecessors. This woman may be insane.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending