anon-ice5
a day ago
Even the initial question by the reporter is misleading. She says what is Johnathan's reaction to the four hostages and them getting released. But, they weren't released they where rescued, released would imply that Hamas willingly gave them up to the IDF but they plainly didn't. Rescue though shows that the IDF took them away from Hamas captivity despite Hamas' resistance.

Something similar would be the police rescuing an abused child from their abusive parents vs the the abused child being released from the abusive parents to the police. //

Avatar
Cafeblue32 anon-ice5
a day ago edited
When I did an oh-so-brief semester stint in a Journalism 101 classd thinking I wanted to be one, we learned about these things called "weasel words" that are subtle bias inserted into the story to gently nudge you into agreeing with the author's viewpoint. But now everything is in stark contrast of right v left, the holy v the profane, the rich against the poor, with everyone v white people, especially the ones with dangly bits. There is no need for sublety anymore. The left controls all the institutions. Once you have control, you don't need persuasion. You just need force and compliance.

Our system was always an adversarial one of the people v their government. It is so serious they created an entire Constituion dedicated almost entirely to limiting and separating government power. The press is protected because they are the advocate of the powerless against the powerful.

But the press has chosen sides, and decided to side with the bureaucratic state dedicated to corporatist fascism rather than the people. It in fact attacks the very people it is supposed to be defending. Thus, it is no longer a mechanism of a free society, it is the oppressive tool of the bureaucratic state that exists to reap ever more power over citizens and to sustain itself. When you have the media actually condemning free speech and calling it dangerous and a threat, and openly lying about what we can plainly see is a lie, they have jumped the shark and forfeited their right to protection, and something is very wrong in within the entire institution. //

Prester John
a day ago edited
The reporter didn’t ask about Cornicus’ reaction to the rescue, she asked him for his reaction to the hostages’ “release”. A significant difference that shows a deliberate choice of words.

anon-89ic
a day ago
There is something else going on here that you would think the American Left would be all over--namely, what Israel is learning about life inside Gaza, which reminds so many Jews of what the Americans found when they entered the death camps at the end of World War 2. While Israel is not engaging in genocide, Hamas is engaging in a sort of its own, not seen since Bosnia in the 90s. Namely, Hamas is using this war to kill not only its own people who it views as collaborator with israel, but, increasingly, its war on girls. Hamas needs boys for fighting, but girls are basically useless. It appears that Hamas is intentionally murdering thousands of girls--deaths that they then blame on Israel. Hamas hates women and doesn't want them, except the few they need for sex slaves. This gives us insight why the American Left loves Hamas so much--between abortion and the trans thing and girls sports, the American Left hates girls as much as Hamas does. It's the only way to explain why the Left supports Hamas--because the Left and Hamas believe in the same thing and Biden is their standard bearer. Report that, I dare them. //

anon-89ic anon-8w73
a day ago
I've been needing some light reading this spring, so I've been re-reading old Agatha Christie and Ellis Peters mysteries for the first time in probably 40 years and I noticed something about these books, written by similar English women. At the end of each book, not only is the murderer dealt with, but also order is fully restored which means all the women are securely locked down in the control of strong men. Feminism was supposed to erode this restriction on women running wild, but modern Democrat women seem to be yearning for that order, and if American men won't give it to them, the Imams will. Weird, huh? //

Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 @MarinaMedvin
·
“How dare those Jews rescue their hostages!” — WaPo, outraged.
8:22 PM · Jun 8, 2024

Everything about that headline is carefully crafted to mislead. For one, the claim that "more than 200 Palestinians killed" is completely unverified. Those numbers come directly from the Hamas-controlled "Gaza Ministry of Health." Also absent in them is any admission of how many of the dead were combatants, either because they were members of Hamas or chose to fire on the Israeli forces.

Then there's the labeling of the operation as an "Israeli hostage raid." This was not a "raid," a word that typically produces impressions of aggression (i.e., a bombing raid). It was a rescue in which self-defense was used while securing the safety of the four hostages.

That's nothing, though, compared to what one BBC reporter did while interviewing Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF spokesman.

Brian BJ @iamBrianBJ
·
The prize for most stupid question of the day goes to.... the bbc for asking the following question:

Should the @idf have warned Palestinians before launching the rescue operation ?

Listen to how @jconricus handled that one Show more

4:31 AM · Jun 9, 2024

After allowing Conricus to share his reaction to the rescue, the reporter's first question wasn't about why these hostages were being held by civilians. It wasn't about how the families felt when their loved ones returned after such a daring mission. It was to immediately pivot to "the death toll among Palestinians." //

Long story short: The mainstream press is awful. There is no low its members won't stoop to, and that includes becoming propagandists for terrorists. ///

In one sense, the BBC reporter actually gives an opportunity to defuse and debunk some of the criticism that IDF is going to get.

Like a rabid dog gnawing on a bone, the New York Times will just not let go of the non-story involving Justice Samuel Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, and a 2021 dispute with a neighbor that allegedly culminated in Mrs. Alito "briefly" flying the American flag upside down 11 days after the Capitol riot.

Not even counting the guest essays, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and Spanish language versions they've published on the issue, by my count they've published nine - count 'em - nine articles over the last two weeks related to flag-flying at the homes of the Alito family, from the upside down one at their primary residence in 2021 to the Revolutionary War-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag that was flown at various points in 2023 at their beach house.

The insinuations have been clear in all of them: In their view and that of their "experts," due to the alleged Jan. 6th symbolism of the flags, Mrs. Alito is sympathetic to the beliefs of the Capitol rioters and as such, her alleged beliefs have compromised Justice Alito's ability to impartially judge cases related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election. //

We are looking at a completely fabricated outrage, and the press has resorted to reporting on the “growing” tide of indignation to have Alito step down – coming from the press. This lame attempt is producing little more than eye-rolling from the public. The news outlets need to wave their white flags on this issue.

And upside down if they have to.

Google is the internet librarian. Google leads all inquiries down the aisle that Google decides is best, and that is invariably and distinctly leftist aisles. Sure, you can eventually get to opposing opinions and relevant facts, but you have to work for it. //

When they look for information, they don’t read books; they Google. Politico, HuffPo, and Taylor Lorenz for example, are the end results. The search results tell them they live on a dying planet, that skin color trumps merit, and that gender has a spectrum. If contrary facts are presented to them, an inordinate number will scream and stick their fingers in their ears. A liberal niece of mine wrote something false online that she pulled off the internet. I corrected her, in private. Instead of correcting her mistake, she chose to “un-person” me. She hasn’t spoken to me in eight years. She went to Cal Berkley and majored in English. //

All cultures are not equal, and pretending that they are and instructing teachers to elevate all cultures to equal status makes a mockery of our own. One of the developers of Critical Race Theory does not belong in primary or secondary education. Critical thinking does.

How to stop indoctrination? I’m not sure. I hovered over the final paragraph for quite some time. I still don’t know. We might be at the point of no return. I hope not. I hope we are, instead, at a crossroads. Florida is leading the way with pedagogy designed to teach, not indoctrinate. Facts do matter. There is no gender spectrum. Math is not racist. Palestine was never a country. Let’s get back to facts, and maybe we can save the country. //

The Original John Doe
8 hours ago
"How to stop indoctrination?"

You might as well ask how to Unbrainwash someone. If you Google that you will see that nearly every site says step one is to re move the stimulus that is causing the brainwashing. This mean you would have to remove every leftists cell phone or remove every leftist news agency. This is basically impossible.

Therefore an examination of history is in order. Every country that successfully brainwashes at least 50% of its population (The United States has accomplished this) either ends up becoming a socialist/communist country or devolves into civil war. Keep in mind that the United States has already brainwashed 100% of the population into accepting an UNELECTED president in the White House for 3 years, 3 months, 9 days and counting with ZERO consequences.

After the stolen 2024 election, we shall see if conservatives will let the country become a socialist/communist regime or if something else will transpire. //

Sargon of Cincinnati
2 hours ago
The great Thomas Sowell fears we are past the tipping point. You are not alone in your questioning of if this indoctrination can be stopped.

But perhaps there is one item that succinctly declares where NPR rests on the political spectrum. Each year, on July 4, the network has the tradition of having various on-air talent reading from one of our most famous founding documents. The outlet, in recent years, has seen the need to include an editor’s note with this presentation, heeding the possible sensitivities of its audience that could become offended by some of its content.

Yes – National Public Radio provides a trigger warning for the Declaration of Independence.

According to Politico, many well-known legal and political commentators have been getting together on previously unreported, weekly off-the-record Zoom calls to talk about the lawfare against former President Donald Trump. //

The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment. //

Laocoön of Troy
11 hours ago
Same thing they did with JournoList back in the day. Some of the same people too. Krystol, Rubin, and others among the upscale NYC/National Review crowd.

Ben Kew @ben_kew
·
NPR’s far-left CEO Katherine Maher: "Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done."
0:18 / 2:11
7:46 AM · Apr 17, 2024

Look, it is a staggeringly ignorant thing for anyone to come out and declare that the facts and the truth can become distaff items in the servicing of the narrative. For this to be a set of principles held by someone overseeing a news outlet is downright disturbing. This is — quite literally — Orwellian “Big Brother” (Sister) statism thought-policing taking place. And as we have come to learn, this is hardly Maher slipping up and having the veil slide on her views; she not only holds to these principles of lording over the facts, she brags about it. //

She goes on to say the First Amendment makes it “a little bit tricky” to censor content. She is not holding the 1-A as sacred; she is declaring it an inconvenience to her goals. Controlling speech and driving the approved narrative — with the partnership and coordination of government — is kind of, sort of, a little bit, maybe the polar opposite of what journalism is charged with as its mission statement. This is who NPR chose to lead its news dissemination outfit. Maher is vastly inexperienced and displays all of the traits that run counter to journalistic principles, yet NPR selected her to run its entire operation.

It is not a question of who thought this was a good idea, but “why?” //

The reason why she was hired might be seen in the reaction to all of these revelations in the broader journalism sphere. That is to say – there is no reaction. Uri Berliner’s column has mostly been covered in the press by the reactions it has generated. The actual revelations he delivered and the effects it has been having on the press industry have gone wholly unaddressed. Now we have a CEO of a major news outlet found to have a history of avowed hostility towards facts and the truth in order to drive the news narratives, and nobody in journalism circles seems at all bothered by these revelations.

There is abject silence because so many news divisions operate in this very fashion. //

Katherine Maher is not an anomaly in the industry; she is the very product that is sought out. A generation ago, the idea of trampling on the First Amendment would have generated immediate howls from proper journalists. Today, a news division CEO can boldly tout the need to silence free expression, and she is welcomed with open arms. The only reason this is a possible problem today is that the voices pointing out her disturbing views had not been properly silenced.

"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