413 private links
"I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don't support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay." //
Laocoön of Troy
7 hours ago edited
Uri Berliner joins Bari Weiss, Alan Dershowitz, Megyn Kelly, and an army of liberals who've also been eagerly jettisoned by the fascist left. He will be blacklisted like the rest.
At some point somebody (like mebbee Mike Rowe or a few others) should organize these broken toys against the leftist monster who are eager to destroy us all.
The Washington Post published a story Wednesday about a 26-year-old black man in Chicago killed following a shootout with police last month. Readers have to scan eight paragraphs under the headline, “Police fire 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing Black man during traffic stop,” before learning bodycam footage indicates Dexter Reed fired first, wounding an officer. //
Neither CNN, USA Today, nor the Washington Post noted that Reed fired 11 rounds at the officers. His shots “almost kill[ed] an officer,” said Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara. The police shot back. Reed “continued to fire at the officers while they were firing those 90 rounds,” Catanzara noted.
Reading those headlines, you would never know that Reed fired and injured an officer before police fired upon him. Instead, the perception being pushed is that an unarmed black man was unjustly shot and killed. For context, the injured officer was black.
The bodies of the stories are no better. For example, The Washington Post's write-up doesn't mention that Reed opened fire first until the 8th paragraph. //
Much is being made about the number of times the officers fired and the fact that Reed no longer had the gun once he exited the vehicle. Both points are incredibly misleading. Once a suspect opens fire and strikes an officer, any expectation that the use of force will be limited goes out the window. At that point, the mission is to neutralize the deadly threat fully. No officer is going to count the number of shots they fire in the heat of the moment to make it look better for the press. Further, there would have been no way to know whether Reed was still armed or not after he exited the vehicle and began to move around it. That is hindsight that has no place in a fair analysis of what occurred. //
This was a justified shooting by every metric, yet one would be forgiven for speculating that members of the press want violence to occur in response to it. Why else would they go so far to cover up what actually happened? //
PetePatriot
4 minutes ago
The classic response to the question of why were so many rounds fired comes from Polk County, FL Sheriff Grady Judd who told reporters:
"'I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had,' Judd said. 'We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back.'"
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think. //
It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding.
In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.
If you are conservative, you will read this and say, duh, it’s always been this way.
But it hasn’t. //
Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.
By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.
An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. //
Given the circumstances of Floyd’s death, it would have been an ideal moment to tackle a difficult question: Is America, as progressive activists claim, beset by systemic racism in the 2020s—in law enforcement, education, housing, and elsewhere? We happen to have a very powerful tool for answering such questions: journalism. Journalism that lets evidence lead the way.
But the message from the top was very different. America’s infestation with systemic racism was declared loud and clear: it was a given. Our mission was to change it. //
In essence, this means the NPR union, of which I am a dues-paying member, has ensured that advocacy groups are given a seat at the table in determining the terms and vocabulary of our news coverage. //
More recently, we have approached the Israel-Hamas war and its spillover onto streets and campuses through the “intersectional” lens that has jumped from the faculty lounge to newsrooms. Oppressor versus oppressed. That’s meant highlighting the suffering of Palestinians at almost every turn while downplaying the atrocities of October 7, overlooking how Hamas intentionally puts Palestinian civilians in peril, and giving little weight to the explosion of antisemitic hate around the world. //
But what’s indisputable is that no one in a C-suite or upper management position has chosen to deal with the lack of viewpoint diversity at NPR and how that affects our journalism. //
Our news audience doesn’t come close to reflecting America. It’s overwhelmingly white and progressive, and clustered around coastal cities and college towns.
These are perilous times for news organizations. Last year, NPR laid off or bought out 10 percent of its staff and canceled four podcasts following a slump in advertising revenue. Our radio audience is dwindling and our podcast downloads are down from 2020. The digital stories on our website rarely have national impact. They aren’t conversation starters. Our competitive advantage in audio—where for years NPR had no peer—is vanishing. There are plenty of informative and entertaining podcasts to choose from. //
Defunding, as a rebuke from Congress, wouldn’t change the journalism at NPR. That needs to come from within.
Hannah Arendt once noted that Western intellectuals had adopted one of communism’s most effective tactics: making every debate about motive rather than the merits of an argument. This is the modus operandi of the modern leftist. You might be paid off by “dark money” or motivated by race (even unconsciously), but your arguments never really matter. Now the tactic is mainstreamed. When was the last time we had a real national debate on policy?
A responsible political media would treat allegations of Russian collusion as one does conspiracies about the moon landing or fluoride. Let’s face it, the biggest difference between Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones is aesthetics. Instead, no matter how many investigations disprove the conspiracy theory, no matter how many times its architects are caught lying, they keep being treated as good-faith political actors. The only way the media holds anyone accountable for the Russia collusion hoax, it seems, is to promote him. https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2024/02/13/natasha-bertrand-promoted-to-cnn-correspondent/
Journalists such as Ms. Zadrozny need to hype and holler about misinformation for the very reason that it is her job duty. This is not to say it does not exist, but she needs to keep it prominent and in the news for the sake of job security. But this also leads to the paradox of her realm: If misinformation is not only a problem but one growing in stature to the point of threatening democracy, does that not mean she is ineffective at her designated job?
To say there is a deep and insidious problem within our journalism industry is no longer conspiratorial talk. The examples of this pathology are mounting and becoming more widespread. A rational mind would think that, at some point, the news outlets would recognize their own problems and begin to take measures to address the credibility wounds, but instead, they only appear to be dumping sodium where they bleed as they sharpen more blades. //
-
The TMD conducted a search, and they found no episode.
-
The drownings took place on the Mexcian side of the river
-
Then, the main disqualifier was that Mexico initially alerted US authorities one hour after the bodies were recovered.
This is journalism malpractice of the highest (lowest) order, and it directly mirrors the unacceptable charges seen with the Israeli reports that were completely compromised. //
This is simply disturbing to behold from the press. When you are looking at a story that essentially maintains that a governor’s actions led to the deaths of a family, would it not be of importance to get the details correct before rushing forward? We can see clearly that the framing was in place and eclipsed the desire to get the facts collected; the story was just too perfect for the narrative, so why let accuracy interfere with the plan?!
Keep in mind: These are the same journalists and outlets decrying misinformation and lecturing on the threats of false news circulating. Yet, just as we saw with the Israeli incidents, there is no hesitation from them when accusing political opponents of murderous activity. That kind of ethical malpractice is acceptable, as we see from the lack of any accountability.
“We believe in objective truth. We believe that there are often right and wrong,” Woodruff told me when asked about its editorial process. “There are many times when our entire staff agrees on a specific issue, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to only present that side. We trust our readers to be able to be discerning.”
That purported neutrality is built on the hope that Christians avoid “falling into culture wars that promote hate of the other group” and instead seek greater understanding and love for “political enemies.” Concerned by how Christians, and Americans in general, are becoming siloed in ideological media echo chambers, Woodruff wants Pour Over readers to understand what “both sides” are saying about the news of the day.
But Woodruff’s philosophy conflates the understanding of other political opinions with the belief that they should hold equal weight, a fatal conclusion that misleads and misinforms his readership. While I resonate deeply with the idea that all Americans need an accurate view of what their political others believe, these perspectives shouldn’t be framed in an amoral vacuum. Political neutrality has never been the silver bullet that some presume it to be. //
Presenting all perspectives as equal creates a false binary and results in an unwillingness to hold firm, journalistic principles for the preservation of democracy and human rights, all while eroding public trust. According to reporter Sean Illing, “The issue for many people isn’t exactly a denial of truth as such. It’s more a growing weariness over the process of finding the truth at all. And that weariness leads more and more people to abandon the idea that the truth is knowable.” //
In these ways, The Pour Over is not so different from the mainstream outlets it’s seeking to distinguish itself from. In chasing the biggest news of the day, The Pour Over magnifies the vices of the mainstream press by framing its own view of objectivity as in line with the divine. The daily news is not all-encompassing, and holding a long-term perspective is important, but it also has real material and spiritual consequences. Good journalism should inform readers not only of the facts but also of the stakes.
By framing the news as all-but-equal, The Pour Over pushes readers toward an unbiblical political indifference.
Benny Johnson
@bennyjohnson
·
Follow
🚨 WOW 🚨
Vivek FLIPS script on Reporters, leaving media STUNNED by simply asking:
- 'Did you lie about Trump-Russia collusion?'
[SILENCE]
- 'Is Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation?'
[SILENCE]
- 'Did COVID leak from the Wuhan lab?'
[SILENCE]
Just WATCH:
1:57 PM · Jan 10, 2024 //
Atrox
an hour ago
One problem is people look at/view the "press" as well "press". They ARE NOT press. They are part of the government. They ARE the DNC. No fair, no balance, no opinions, no facts, no truth, just LIES, just DNC talking points/narrative. I call them USPRAVDA all the time because that is EXACTLY what they are. They ARE government.
Of the top 100-rated broadcasts in 2023, according to Nielsen, 93 of those were NFL games!
The overtaking of the airwaves is even more remarkable when you see that the few programs that managed to worm onto the list were special broadcasts. Three NCAA football games got in there, as did the Super Bowl postgame coverage. So, apart from that sport, all else you will find is three differing entries: The State Of The Union Address, The Oscars, and Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. The visual is just staggering.
KENNEDY: If your neighbor, first of all, Israel has no obligation. Israel built 3,000 hot houses and gave them for greenhouses. That would have made Gaza completely food self-sufficient. Gave it to them and offered to rebuild the Port of Gaza to make it the Singapore of the West. Hamas said no, we don't want Jew money, we don't want Jew ideas.
And what do they do? The international aid agencies have given Hamas, have given Gaza, more than 10 times per capita than what we gave to all of Europe after the Marshall Plan. They've gotten $8,300 per capita, for every person in Gaza. We rebuilt Europe with $621 per capita, in Europe, and we rebuilt it. What did they do with that money? Instead of using it to make this, Gaza is this beautiful country, with white sand beaches, it should be a paradise. Hamas says we don't want that. They take virtually all that money, and they steal it so the top five guys, the top five leaders of Hamas are billionaires. //
It was not a "blockade" that hampered Gaza (and the Rafah Crossing with Egypt is not controlled by Israel). It was Hamas' choice to waste billions upon billions of dollars of international aid to enrich its leadership and wage war. As Kennedy goes on to explain, Hamas has broken every single peace agreement Israel has agreed to, including the one that was in force on October 6th. //
KENNEDY" If Mexico attacked us, and we built a fence, would you blame us for caging in Mexico? I don't know what it is, but everything in your mind says to blame Israel instead of blaming Hamas. //
It’s a dry heat
3 hours ago
The amazing part is that RFK was clearly telling ms. nobrains information she did not know. But that didn't slow her down one bit. Never did she utter, "Oh, I didn't know that." She steadfastly pursued a narrative in the face of facts she did not dispute that made her narrative false. She was an advocate, not a newsperson. This, of course, is nothing new; but it was so clearly on display here.
The Times of Israel reported:
The Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement that Hamas “violated the framework, did not meet its obligation to release all hostage women, and fired rockets at Israel.”
“Amid the return to combat, we stress the government of Israel is committed to achieving the goals of the war — releasing our hostages, eliminating Hamas, and ensuring that Gaza can never again threaten the people of Israel.”
Hen Mazzig @HenMazzig
·
The IDF has created and published a map splitting the Gaza Strip into evacuation zones to notify Palestinian civilians of active combat zones and provide safety instructions.
Hamas uses their people as human shields.
The IDF is doing everything it can to protect them.
7:15 AM · Dec 1, 2023 //
“Israel seeks to kill Hamas leaders hiding abroad after war ends,” the Newspaper Israel Hayom reported Friday. “Israeli officials have openly stated that the goal of the ongoing war is elimination of Hamas, and its leaders residing across the Middle East are no exception.” //
David Collier @mishtal
·
Classic @bbcnews headline. Main item on their site.
"Israeli strikes" - no mention of Hamas breaking ceasefire. Along with image of grieving Palestinian mother and young child.
95% of people won't read the article. Israel blamed. Palestinians are victims. The BBC job is done. //
Eylon Levy @EylonALevy
·
Let’s put this [NY Times] headline in chronological order: FIRST Hamas “fired a projectile” from Gaza, THEN the truce expired, then Israel resumed the military campaign. The order is 3,1,2.
7:26 AM · Dec 1, 2023
You'll note, of course, the extremely awkward phrasing there, especially when it comes to "targeting Arab-speakers." That's pure Hamas propaganda playing up the "genocide" angle that's so popular in the West right now. There is no evidence that the Israel Defense Force is doing that. In fact, the IDF itself said they were going to specifically target Hamas operatives to try and avoid civilian casualties.
The network had to offer a retraction and an apology because it's extremely clear there were no editors on duty or, just as likely (if not more likely), the editors on duty also think Israel is both evil enough to do such a thing and dumb enough to announce it. //
The problem for the BBC, as the tweet above explains, is that this is all too common for the news outlet these days. //
Yuval Weinreb 于威
@yuval_weinreb
·
Follow
A common practice by now:
The BBC spreads fake news, causes riots - and then apologizes for the false reporting after the damage is done, when it's too late.
Somehow, miraculously - these errors are always supporting the same side...
I'm sorry if you "are contending with extensive power outages, food and water shortages, and a breakdown of the medical system." This may be a shock, but you are in a war zone, and unless you brought your own, the person responsible for supplying those items is your employer, not the IDF. It is unfortunate you are uncomfortable, but you are the one who decided to act like a vulture picking at carrion for fame and fortune, and you need to man up and own it.
You, a journalist, are not qualified to use words that have legal meanings, like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." These are terms that international tribunals, not reporters, award, and they carry legal consequences. Neither of those is happening in Gaza. Israel has opened a humanitarian corridor to allow safe passage of refugees out of the area of combat operations. Civilians are killed when they choose or are forced to be human shields for Hamas terrorists. //
Being a journalist does not get you immunity from the consequences of being in a war zone. Period. If you are embedded with combatants, you take the risks they take. If you are an active partisan and trying to sway international opinion in favor of a terrorist enterprise, in my view, you've become a legitimate target. And let's not be coy here. Evidence indicates the overwhelming majority of reporters who elect to report from the Hamas side of the battle line are Hamas partisans masquerading as journalists. We know, for instance, that the Associated Press shared office space with the Hamas leadership until an Israeli bomb evicted the lot of them. //
Being embedded with an FBI SWAT team raiding a criminal hideout is a lot different than helping a Mafia hit squad do its work. One is legal, the other makes you a criminal accomplice. No amount of letter writing is going to save the "journalists" who accompanied terrorists, nor should it; //
Finally, journalists are there to report accurately and objectively. It is the job of the senior editors and the publisher to decide what, if any, position the outlet takes on an issue. The idea that you get to use someone else's outlet to push your peculiar worldview shows a stunning lack of maturity.
However much you distrust the corporate media, it’s not enough. These aren’t the only — and certainly are not the first — instances that prove it. //
These seven failures from the past few weeks should dispel any benefit of the doubt you have left for the corporate media’s honesty.
It's Thursday, October 26th, and pigs have flown. That was the story after John Kirby managed to actually come out on top of an exchange with a reporter.
After being criticized for questioning the casualty numbers coming out of Gaza, Kirby let loose, not only doubling down but doing so in a way that would almost make one forget he works for the Biden administration. //
Krähenbühl: So, besides saying that he doesn't have confidence in these numbers, the President went further to say that innocents will die and that this is the price of the war. You also said that.
Kirby: I have indeed.
Krähenbühl: Don't you think this is insensitive? There’s being very harsh criticism in about it. For example, the Council of American-Islamic Relations said it was deeply disturbed and call on the President to apologize. Would the President apologize?”
Kirby: No.
Krähenbühl: And does he regret saying something like that?
Kirby: What’s harsh — what’s harsh is the way Hamas is using people as human shields. What’s harsh is taking a couple of hundred hostages and leaving families and anxious, waiting and worrying to figure out where their loved ones are. What's harsh, is dropping in on a music festival and slaughtering a bunch of young people just trying to enjoy an afternoon. I could go on and on. That's what's harsh. That is what's harsh and being honest about the fact that there have been civilian casualties and that there likely will be more is being honest, because that's what war is. It's brutal. It's ugly. It's messy. I've said that before. President also said that yesterday. Doesn't mean we have to like it. And it doesn't mean that we're dismissing anyone of those casualties each and every one is a tragedy in its own right...It would be helpful if Hamas would let [Gazans] leave....We know that there are thousands waiting to leave Gaza writ large and Hamas is preventing them from doing it. That is what is harsh.
On Tuesday, numerous media outlets reported that Israel bombed a Palestinian hospital. Did they actually see Israel strike the hospital and kill hundreds of people or confirm that it happened? No, they were just reporting it as if it were fact.
Of course, some left-wing congressional Democrats in “the Squad” seized on the reporting and immediately used it to castigate Israel on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
But is there any truth to the claim that Israel is just wantonly bombing hospitals? //
One should always be skeptical of information coming out of a war zone. Not only can war zones be chaotic, but the belligerents often have a strong incentive to manipulate information for propaganda purposes.
In the case of Hamas, the government of the Palestinian territories, it’s a terrorist organization with a history of hiding behind civilians as human shields, in hopes of dissuading Israel from attacking their military assets and to cause bad press for the Jewish state.
Despite what you’ve heard, both Israel and Hamas have their own version of defense given to them by Western countries. Israel has the Iron Dome; Hamas has left-wing media.
Hamas understands that. The only way they can “win” a war against Israel is by creating outside pressure and persuading Israel to restrain its military efforts so much as to be ineffective.
That’s why if media outlets are concerned about the truth and reporting the news—a fanciful notion, I know—they would at least be cautious when Hamas tells them that Israel blew up a hospital and killed hundreds of people.
That didn’t happen. Instead, countless legacy media outlets didn’t even wait for the dust to settle before they went with the narrative Hamas wanted to tell—that the hospital was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike.