Posted on Leave a comment

Jeopardy! Producers Walk Back ‘Problematic’ Israel Question After Enraging Palestinians

TV game show “Jeopardy!” producers have responded to the online uproar over regarding a controversial in-game question regarding disputed Israeli/Palestinian territory.

On Friday, Jan. 10, long-running games series “Jeopardy!” featured a question about the location of the famous church which is believed to mark the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Of course, that church is in Bethlehem, Israel, the same reality that host Alex Trebek affirmed on air. However, pro-Palestinian viewers took issue with that and the show’s producers have since come out claiming the question was a mistake in the first place.

Producers released an apology for the controversy, claiming that the question was supposed to be scrapped from the final live version of the NBC program, but made it in there to due to human error.

During the segment, the inadvertent “clue” to the $200 question/category, “Where is that church?” read, “BUILT IN THE 300s A.D., THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY.” Variety reported that “contestant Katie Needle responded with, ‘What is Palestine?’” but her answer was ruled incorrect, while rival contestant Jack McGuire’s answer “What is Israel?” was ruled correct.

Of course, woke anti-Israel Twitter users went nuts, blasting the game show for its apparent pro-Israel stance. Deputy director of the Arab American Institute Omar Baddar tweeted, “Unacceptable!! Bethlehem is in the Palestinian territories which Israel illegally occupies (Katie Needle got the correct answer & was robbed.)”

Baddar added, “@Jeopardy owes an apology for endorsing Israel’s universally-condemned illegal takeover of Palestinian lands.” Arab American Institute founder James Zogby chimed in as well, tweeting that Jeopardy!’s judgment was “an outrage & an insult to history, reality, the thousands of oppressed Palestinians of Bethlehem.”

Adeb Ayoub, Policy Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, also tweeted, “Hey @Jeopardy, The Church of Nativity is in #Palestine. How was her answer wrong? You should correct this or make a statement. Embarrassing and wrong on many levels.”

Sure, whatever they say. But, of course, an official Palestinian state has never been recognized by Israel nor the United States, though many Palestinians live in the region. They have no official claim to it. Variety also detailed that Bethlehem, the town in which the Church is, is in the West Bank, saying, “The West Bank has been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967 and is home to about 2.6 million Palestinians.”

On Monday Jan. 13, however, “Jeopardy!” producers released a statement clarifying that the Israel/Palestine question was replaced with another that was supposed to air, with the intention of getting away from the controversial subject matter. The fact that the original question aired was due to an error.

“In the process of taping this clue, ‘BUILT IN THE 300s A.D., THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY’ we became aware that the clue was flawed as written and that determining an acceptable response would be problematic,” the producers shared, adding, “In accordance with our rules and in the interest of fairness, we voided the clue and threw it out.” Though the Israel question broadcast “through human error in post-production.”

The replacement clue was supposed to be “The Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe,” to which the response was “What is Mexico?” Strange, though, that an American network game show would made a mistake in airing the legitimate question and answer. Perhaps it was an “error,” but why? Does the media really value the overblown assertions of Palestinian activists over the fact that Israel lays claim to the area?

Posted on Leave a comment

‘Trumpism Is the Greatest Threat’ to America Since Communism

Just over an hour prior to Tuesday’s latest 2020 Democratic presidential debate, longtime Democrat and former Clinton official James Carville appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball to unspool his latest takes of lunacy. 

This time, he insisted that “Trumpism is the greatest threat this country has faced since the fall of communism” and Republicans cannot ever be trusted to “save the United States.”

 

 

Carville declined to make the case for Bennet, but instead attacked Trump by claiming that, instead of radical Islamic terror that’s killed thousands of Americans in the last three decades, it’s “Trump and Trumpism” that’s “the greatest threat this country has faced since the fall of communism and the only way to deal with it is defeat it resoundingly.”

He added that it will not only need to be “defeated at the polls,” but “decimated” in the same way that it’d “look like Clemson looked last night” against his LSU Tigers.

Later and in closing out their discussion, Matthews screeched with the utmost faux concern for the Republican Party (click “expand”):

MATTHEWS: What happened to the Republican Party? The opposition party —

CARVILLE: They don’t exist.

MATTHEWS: — from your thinking, the party that wasn’t evil, it wasn’t stupid. Now, I mean, I noticed in the whole day of defending Trump, not a single Republican member of the House, and they’re all — some of them smart, not one of them said one good thing about Donald Trump personally. Nobody — nobody spoke for his character. Nobody said he’s a good, honest, guy. I mean, it was immaculate, immaculate. Not a single positive comment. And yet, they bow to him like he’s the emperor of Siam. They bow to him without ever respecting him personally. How do you explain? 

Similarly falsely claiming to have an interest in the future of a vibrant GOP, Carville stated that “the Republican Party that you and I knew does not exist” because “[t]here’s only Trump and Trumpism.”

He added that, when it comes to stopping Trump, “[i]t is up to the Democrats to eradicate this scourge” and “save the United States” since “[t]here’s no Republican going to come up and save us.”

Matthews then complimented Carville without missing a beat that he “[s]peaks integrity and true partisanship.” 

Okay, sure, Chris.

To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on January 14, click “expand.”

MSNBC’s Hardball
January 14, 2020
7:50 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Michael Bennet — here you are, the pro, I’m building you up and you come into this race in mid-January now and you’re picking a candidate now? Why? This late? Why this one?

JAMES CARVILLE: Because I think — I think that Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat this country has faced since the fall of communism and the only way to deal with it is defeat it resoundingly. If Michael Bennet is the Democratic nominee, you’re going to get 55 percent of the popular vote and you’re going to pick up 55 senate seats. It will be the end of Trumpism. Trumpism doesn’t have to just be defeated at the polls. It has got to be decimated. It’s got to look like a beaten arm. It’s got to look like Clemson looked last night. Beat and ready to quit and Michael Bennet is the best choice among any Democrat to accomplish that.

(….)

7:54 p.m. Eastern

MATTHEWS: What happened to the Republican Party? The opposition party —

CARVILLE: They don’t exist.

MATTHEWS: — from your thinking, the party that wasn’t evil, it wasn’t stupid. Now, I mean, I noticed in the whole day of defending Trump, not a single Republican member of the House, and they’re all — some of them smart, not one of them said one good thing about Donald Trump personally. Nobody — nobody spoke for his character. Nobody said he’s a good, honest, guy. I mean, it was immaculate, immaculate. Not a single positive comment. And yet, they bow to him like he’s the emperor of Siam. They bow to him without ever respecting him personally. How do you explain? 

CARVILLE: Right. Look, the Republican Party that you and I knew does not exist. There’s only Trump and Trumpism. The Republicans are going to do nothing about it. It is up to the Democrats. It is up to the Democrats to eradicate this scourge, and the way to do that is by massive and humiliating election defeat. There’s no Republican going to come up and save us. That’s not going to happen. Everybody keeps waiting. Well, you know, pretty soon, maybe Rob Portman will say something. They’re not going to say something. They’re scared to death.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

CARVILLE: And the Democrats have to save the United States. That’s it. There’s no other choice. The Republicans are not going to do it for you. 

MATTHEWS: Okay. Spoken like a great partisan, sir. Thank you, James Carville. 

CARVILLE: Geaux Tigers. 

MATTHEWS: Speaks with integrity and true partisanship.

Posted on Leave a comment

Smoochy! CNN Booker Reporter/Fan Rebecca Buck Concludes with Sugary Twitter Thread

A journalist getting assigned to a second-tier presidential candidate should probably be upset at the assignment, as far as their career aspirations go. But CNN reporter Rebecca Buck — who had turns at BuzzFeed and the Washington Examiner — concluded her term as Team Zucker’s embed assigned to Cory Booker’s campaign with a flourish of superlatives in a 15-part Twitter thread. He’s morally earnest! He’s loving! He made people cry! He’s like Oprah! 

These were the first five tweets in the thread.

1. Rachel Maddow, who knew Cory Booker from their Stanford days, summed him up perfectly in Feb last year. She said he “is so different than anybody I have ever known on earth” and “such an absolutely unique embodiment of moral energy and moral earnestness.”

2. At the time, I thought that sounded hyperbolic. But as I covered Booker more and spent time with him and his campaign team, I discovered it wasn’t. He is unlike any candidate, maybe any person, I’ve ever encountered.

3. Booker wanted to win, but there were limits to what he would do to achieve that end. He resisted attacking his rivals, even if it might have been to his benefit. [Except for Trump, not to mention his “evil” Supreme Court pick.] And he didn’t deviate from his core message of love and building a “beloved community.”

4. Inevitably, some people viewed Booker’s earnest message with skepticism. Like, Is this guy for real? It might be why Booker often converted people into supporters at campaign events, when they could see his conviction and passion for themselves.

5. Booker’s campaign events were also unique. Possibly due to his past success on the paid speaking circuit, they often felt more like TED Talks or sermons. People cried! He cried! It was Oprah’s presidential campaign without Oprah.

Buck added that “Reporting on Booker was challenging in a weird way. Although he was accessible to the press, and happy to answer questions, he wasn’t interested in making news for news’ sake — probably to his detriment.” She added “it was also fun,” like when Booker made everyone sing along to “Born to Run,” because “He was always like this — singing, yes, but also incomprehensibly upbeat.” 

As often happens with CNN, it’s hard to distinguish between the reporter and the Democratic candidates and operatives. Buck oozed that Booker’s staffers didn’t pick a winner, but they “stuck with him because they truly believed in their candidate.” 

12. They also believed in what he was trying to do, which was ultimately pretty simple. Booker viewed the presidency as a moral post from which to inspire and heal the country. He was running for “spiritual reasons,” he said in Iowa recently.

13. Maybe that was too esoteric for most voters, or they were too risk-averse in this cycle to choose someone like Booker. Or the media didn’t give him enough attention. Or all of the above. See any number of why-he-didn’t-take-off thinkpieces out there.

On Monday, Buck appeared on CNN as the Booker surrender was announced: “He never had a breakout moment….He had a consistent message of love, of community, of mending the moral fabric of America, but it wasn’t something that voters ever responded to.” 

If only a fraction of Democrat voters responded with the passionate ardor of CNN’s Rebecca Buck.

Posted on Leave a comment

Nets Warn That Russia Is Trying to Steal the Election for Trump Again

Despite the fact, there was no evidence that Russian meddling in the 2016 election had any influence on the result, the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC warned they were at it again with a hack of the Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden. In the course of their fear-mongering reports, the networks suggested Russia was working on behalf of Trump, was the reason he got elected, and in one case insinuated Trump may have been working with the Russians. All of which were unfounded conspiracy theories.

During the lead-in on CBS Evening News, anchor Norah O’Donnell told viewers “the timing of the hack is especially important” because it happened when the impeachment proceedings were starting to heat up. “The report says Russian military hackers targeted Burisma, the firm where Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the board. It is the same company President Trump wanted investigated,” announced CBS’s chief justice and homeland security correspondent, Jeff Pegues as if he found a clue.

Pegues would later appear to insinuate the President had some personal influence over Russia’s actions in 2016 by taking a Trump quote out of context and conflating it with the leaked emails:

PEGUES: U.S. intelligence officials have warned that the Russians would again meddle in the presidential election.

TRUMP: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

PEGUES: In 2016, they stole and released thousands of documents and emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

 

With the use of juxtaposition in her NBC Nightly News report, chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson suggested Russia was working for Trump. “Democrats say the President abused his power by pressuring Ukrainians to investigate that company, something the President denies,” she said. “Now, a security firm says Russian spies are trying to hack Burisma, potentially looking for damaging emails about the Bidens.”

If that wasn’t clear enough, Jackson then shared this soundbite from proven-liar, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA): “It is clear if that’s the case that once again, they have a favorite. They don’t want Joe Biden it would appear from this target, and this would help Donald Trump.”

Over on ABC’s World News Tonight, chief Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas reported: “The company suspects the Russians were fishing for damaging information about the Bidens to try to help Trump, using the same playbook from the 2016 campaign.

He then promoted the unfounded conspiracy theory that the Russians were the reason Trump was elected by leaning a tweet from two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “The irony not lost on Hillary Clinton who today tweeted, ‘Will the Russians help pick our POTUS does again?’ For his part, President Trump has suggested he’d take dirt on an opponent from a foreign power,” Thomas reported.

The networks were effectively doing the work of the Russian government for them by they spread panic and misinformation about what happened in 2016, further dividing the country.

The transcripts are below, click “expand” to read:

ABC’s World News Tonight
January 14, 2020
6:43:16 p.m. Eastern

DAVID MUIR: And as the impeachment trial gets underway early next week, there is a new report tonight that the Russian military is interfering in the 2020 election already. Accused of hacking the Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden worked. Here’s ABC’s chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas tonight.

[Cuts to video]

PIERRE THOMAS: Tonight, a new security report claiming the Russians are at it again. Area One, a cyber-security firm based in Silicon Valley says, the same Russian military division that targeted Hillary Clinton’s campaign has hacked Burisma, that’s the Ukraine-based energy company where Joe Biden’s son Hunter served on the board.

The report says the hack came in November at the height of the impeachment hearings. The President’s push to get Ukraine to investigate the Biden’s now focus of the case against him.

(…)

THOMAS: The security company claims that Russia’s GRU unit targeted Burisma employees, trying to trick them to click onto fake websites, giving the hackers a backdoor in. The company suspects the Russians were fishing for damaging information about the Bidens to try to help Trump, using the same playbook from the 2016 campaign.

The irony not lost on Hillary Clinton who today tweeted, “Will the Russians help pick our POTUS does again?” For his part, President Trump has suggested he’d take dirt on an opponent from a foreign power.

(…)

[Cuts back to live]

THOMAS: David, we reached out to Burisma, but so far, no comment. The Biden campaign is emphasizing that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong and are calling on President Trump to condemn the alleged hack. David?

MUIR: All right, Pierre, thank you.

 

CBS Evening News
January 14, 2020
6:38:11 p.m. Eastern

NORAH O’DONNELL: The impeachment, of course, is centered on allegations that the President pressured Ukraine for information on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Well, tonight, we’re learning details about a new Russian hacking effort into a Ukrainian gas company. Jeff Pegues reports the timing of the hack is especially important.

[Cuts to video]

JEFF PEGUES: The report says Russian military hackers targeted Burisma, the firm where Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the board. It is the same company President Trump wanted investigated.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Hunter, you’re a loser. Why did you get $1.5 billion, Hunter?

PEGUES: The breach came just as the talk of impeachment intensified on Capitol Hill. The hackers tricked some of Burisma’s employees into handing over their log-in credentials and got into one of the company’s servers. The hackers barraged the company with fishing attacks.

(…)

PEGUES: Norah O’Donnell asked the former Vice President on 60 Minutes about the likelihood he would be the target in 2020.

O’DONNELL: The Russians are targeting you.

FORMER VP JOE BIDEN: The Russians don’t want me to be president and Trump doesn’t want me to be the nominee.

PEGUES: U.S. intelligence officials have warned that the Russians would again meddle in the presidential election.

TRUMP: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

PEGUES: In 2016, they stole and released thousands of documents and emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

(…)

 

NBC Nightly News
January 14, 2020
7:07:47 p.m. Eastern

(…)

HALLIE JACKSON: Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian company called Burisma. Democrats say the president abused his power by pressuring Ukrainians to investigate that company, something the President denies.

Now, a security firm says Russian spies are trying to hack Burisma, potentially looking for damaging emails about the Bidens. It’s the same Russian group indicted for hacking the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman in 2016. Democrats warning today the Kremlin could be at it again, trying to interfere in our next election.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): It is clear if that’s the case that once again, they have a favorite. They don’t want Joe Biden it would appear from this target, and this would help Donald Trump.

(…)

Posted on Leave a comment

Shocker! Journalists Funded by Google Also Give It Good Ratings

Leading journalists and editors around the world have some advice for social media companies: there needs to be more censorship.

In a 2020 report released by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 233 people from 32 countries, including the United States, complained about misinformation in tech and where it stands in relation to journalism. “It’s grim out there,” said one unnamed “Leading US Publisher.” This attitude extended to social media companies. Seventeen percent of those polled approved of Facebook’s attempts to remove misinformation and disinformation from the platform.

YouTube came in second-to-last place with an 18 percent approval rating, while Google was given a 34 percent approval rating. Twitter had a 41 percent approval rating because the platform had completely banned ads from politicians.

The report predictions were dire. In elections, “The role of platforms will be increasingly politicised, with direct attacks and accusations of bias from prominent politicians.” Misinformation and disinformation will be spread in this era of “Post-Truth Politics.” But journalists aren’t simply blaming politicians for this: tech platforms are also at fault, according to the report.

Swiss strategy expert from the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation Vinzenz Schmid was quoted as saying, “Most platforms still hold the position ‘if it’s not criminal, it’s free speech’, which is unacceptable. Once more, they take the money, and leave the costly work (fact-checking, counter-arguing, etc.) to journalists from media outlets.”

Regulations from the European Union in the past year have threatened to globally erase content which broke the laws of one country.

Journalists were also asked to rate the major social media and tech companies in terms of how much these companies support journalism. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has received a grant from Google for the past five years. Google gave the Institute £8.47 million.

The study released found that 60 percent of journalists surveyed gave Google a score of average or higher when it came to supporting journalism, making it the highest-rated out of the tech companies. Thirty-three percent rated Twitter average or higher, while 26 percent rated Apple average or higher. The study noted that Google was highly rated because of the “large number of publishers in our survey who are current or past recipients of Google’s innovation funds.”

Facebook (25 percent), Snapchat (12 percent), and Amazon (7 percent) only received an average or higher rating from 25 percent or less of the journalists surveyed.

Other key points from the survey included the journalists rating themselves on racial diversity. Only 33 percent believed that they were doing a good job with racial diversity. One of the solutions offered in the report was software that could help “measure diversity.”

Posted on Leave a comment

Washington Examiner’s ‘Liberal Media Scream’ With the MRC’s Assessment

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five).

This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2020.

> For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for:

> July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.)

Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week.

(For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center’s Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)

 

■ New on January 13, 2020: Liberal Media Scream: Former New York Times critic says Trump aides are cultists, ‘toadies’

I’ll add text and video here next week, but so the Washington Examiner gets the traffic for their post when it’s fresh, please read Paul Bedard’s post on their site where you can watch the video and read the full quote.

 

■ January 6, 2020: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Don Lemon promises ‘to lean in harder’

(Washington Examiner post)

CNN anchor Don Lemon, one of cable’s notable critics of President Trump, is the first 2020 winner of our weekly Liberal Media Scream feature for his promise to turn up the heat on “the craziness.”

In celebrating the New Year on CNN shortly after midnight, he said, “I’m going to lean in harder.”

Co-host Brooke Baldwin, live from Nashville with Lemon, asked, “What does that mean?”

Lemon said, “I’m going to lean in harder. I’m sick of the craziness. So, if you thought I went hard in 2019, watch 2020, baby. There’s more to come. I’m a soldier. I’m ready to fight … We’ve got to get ready. It’s an election year. We’re on the grind.”

Media Research Center Vice President of Research and Publications Brent Baker explains our weekly pick: “Lemon, who doesn’t hesitate to disparage President Trump as ‘unhinged’ and a ‘racist,’ already seems unhinged on many a night in his vitriol toward Trump, so it’s hard to imagine how he can ‘lean in harder.’ Telling, though, that he sees himself as a ‘soldier’ who is ‘ready to fight’ for a cause. That shouldn’t be the motivation for anyone pretending to be a journalist.”

Rating: Four of Five SCREAMS.

 

 

> Liberal Media Scream posts for 2019.

> For all of 2018.

> For July through December 2017.

> For January through June 2017.

> For July through December 2016.

> For January through June 2016.

> For July to December 2015.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Joe, Mika, and Colbert ‘Hopeful’ Trump Will ‘Pay For All the Lies’

Appearing on CBS’s Late Show Monday night, aired early Tuesday morning, MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski joined liberal comedian Stephen Colbert in predictably trashing President Trump on everything from impeachment to Iran. The trio were “hopeful” Trump will “pay for all the lies.”

Colbert began the friendly chat by of course asking about impeachment, wondering if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s strategy of withholding the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate was a “smart thing.” Brzezinski declared: “I don’t think she’s thinking about that. I think she was doing what she felt she needed to do.”

 

 

Scarborough heaped praise on the Democratic leader, claiming the failed gambit was actually a great success:

I thought it was a great move. She actually created space. You know, in soccer, you talk about making space for the players. She actually made space, and in that space, Republicans actually got a little bit nervous. You had Bolton, of course, coming out saying he could testify. The longer that went on, you looked at the polls, it showed more and more Americans wanted to hear the testimony. So now we’re hearing today there’s a possibility that you may have some Republican defectors in the Senate actually demanding that they hear –

His comments were greeted with cheers and applause from the liberal audience. Colbert chimed in: “That would be great.”

Citing an op-ed Scarborough recently wrote for The Washington Post about impeachment, Colbert asked: “Who needs the courage here?” Brzezinski quickly remarked: “Like every Republican.” Scarborough was eager to lecture members of Congress:

I mean, I think every Republican. I also think Democrats, as far as understanding that what they’re doing is not about 2020, what they’re doing is about history, it’s about sending a message to future presidents, it’s about sending a message to future politicians.

Moments later, the ex-Republican Congressman turned left-wing MSNBC anchor ranted: “It’s what I don’t understand, what job is worth selling your political soul for?” Maybe Scarborough should answer that question for himself before putting it to anyone else.

Later in the discussion, Scarborough asserted:

But you now, one of the things that frustrates me is you hear the common refrain, “When is Donald Trump going to pay for this? When is Donald Trump gonna pay for all the lies? When is he going to pay for the recklessness?” The American people have proven he already has and he will again. The 2018 election, there was a reason why, in the House, Republicans lost by the largest vote landslide in the history of the republic.

Colbert chimed in: “That’s hopeful. That’s a hopeful idea.” Scarborough agreed: “Well, that is a hopeful idea.”

Switching topics, Colbert announced: “Well, let’s talk about Iran and the recent sort of destabilizing of that region and the world. A lot of people are nervous all over the place about what’s going on there.”

 

 

Brzezinski offered a conspiracy theory to explain the U.S. air strike against Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani: “I initially thought that this was, you know, one of his major deflections.” Colbert clarified: “That perhaps it was so we wouldn’t talk about impeachment? You thought that was one of the things he was doing?” Brzezinski continued pushing her unfounded claim: “You know, we’ve always wondered how far he would go to distract from what is going on.”

She then slammed the national security decision: “The Secretary of Defense did not have any information on the basis for this attack, but trusts the President. I mean, we’re in crazy town and it’s around the world now and it’s adjusting our entire place in the world.”

Scarborough later touted unspecified polls showing “Americans are scared” and “were against the strike.”

Colbert bitterly whined: “I sort of am offended that they’re not actually trying to get their lies in order and put a unified face on the lie….it says to me we don’t matter, our opinion doesn’t matter about what they do, that I’m insulted as an American.”

Apparently the opinions of the wealthy liberal media elite are just not as important as the three of them would like.   

Here are excerpts of the January 13 interview, aired early on January 14:

12:05 AM ET

(…)

STEPHEN COLBERT: Impeachment looms.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yes, when she’s ready.

COLBERT: When Ms. Pelosi is ready.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

COLBERT: Okay. She says she’s going to send it over this week, the Articles of Impeachment. Do you think that was a smart thing that she did to hold these back for a while?

BRZEZINSKI: I don’t think she’s thinking about that. I think she was doing what she felt she needed to do.

(…)

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I thought it was a great move. She actually created space. You know, in soccer, you talk about making space for the players. She actually made space, and in that space, Republicans actually got a little bit nervous. You had Bolton, of course, coming out saying he could testify. The longer that went on, you looked at the polls, it showed more and more Americans wanted to hear the testimony. So now we’re hearing today there’s a possibility that you may have some Republican defectors in the Senate actually demanding that they hear – [cheers and applause] that they –  

COLBERT: That would be great.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

COLBERT: That would be great. I’ll believe it when I see it.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.

SCARBOROUGH: Right.

COLBERT: Joe, you wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, Joe, in December, about “impeachment and courage.” Who needs the courage here?

BRZEZINSKI: Like every Republican.

SCARBOROUGH: I mean, I think every Republican. I also think Democrats, as far as understanding that what they’re doing is not about 2020, what they’re doing is about history, it’s about sending a message to future presidents [applause], it’s about sending a message to future politicians. And what I found at my very low level in politics when I was in the House, that when you’re not worried about the next election, remarkable things happen. People listen to you, people follow you. When they don’t think you’re calculating but you’re doing something because you think it’s the right thing, then they follow.

(…)

SCARBOROUGH: It’s what I don’t understand, what job is worth selling your political soul for? What job is worth doing? [applause] What so many of these Republicans are aware, where you can look at the people who are running in Republican primaries, and you can predict what they’re going to do. It’s – yeah, it’s very disappointing.

COLBERT: Well, let’s talk about Iran and the recent sort of destabilizing of that region and the world. A lot of people are nervous all over the place about what’s going on there. What does this mean for Trump?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, that’s a good question because I initially thought that this was, you know, one of his major deflections.

COLBERT: That perhaps it was so we wouldn’t talk about impeachment? You thought that was one of the things he was doing?

BRZEZINSKI: You know, we’ve always wondered how far he would go to distract from what is going on. And nobody seemed to really understand what was the basis for the decision and there are people saying, “Well, I didn’t really have the information.” The Secretary of Defense did not have any information on the basis for this attack, but trusts the President. I mean, we’re in crazy town and it’s around the world now and it’s adjusting our entire place in the world.

(…)

12:10 AM ET

SCARBOROUGH: But you now, one of the things that frustrates me is you hear the common refrain, “When is Donald Trump going to pay for this? When is Donald Trump gonna pay for all the lies? When is he going to pay for the recklessness?” The American people have proven he already has and he will again. The 2018 election, there was a reason why, in the House, Republicans lost by the largest vote landslide in the history of the republic. If you look at the polls – [cheers and applause]

COLBERT: That’s hopeful. That’s a hopeful idea.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that is a hopeful idea. And also with Iran. I mean, yes, perhaps Donald Trump was cynical, but you look at the polls that have come out, Americans are scared. They’re nervous about this. Only one in four Americans believe that the attack on Soleimani makes America a safer place, and the overwhelming majority of Americans were against the strike, regardless of the fact I think most Americans understand that this was a really, really bad guy. But so is Kim Jong-un, so is Assad. There are a lot of really bad guys on Earth who –

COLBERT: Well, that’s what struck me about it is, yes, I’m not arguing whether Soleimani was, you know, a good person or a bad person. I trust that all the things that people say about Soleimani are accurate because they’re coming from all sides, but I sort of am offended that they’re not actually trying to get their lies in order and put a unified face on the lie.

SCARBOROUGH: They should really – they’re not even trying anymore!

COLBERT: Well, it says to me we don’t matter, our opinion doesn’t matter about what they do, that I’m insulted as an American. You know, as a Catholic, I put my dollar in the collection plate, I want to see some gold leaf on the walls.

SCARBOROUGH: Exactly.

COLBERT: As an American, I pay my taxes, I want them to put some energy into their lies.

SCARBOROUGH: If you’re gonna lie – yeah. [applause]

(…)

Posted on Leave a comment

Andrea Mitchell Laughs, Scoffs at ‘Trolling’ Kevin McCarthy

Apparently, cynicism is warranted for congressional leaders. Well, some of the time anyway. Nancy Pelosi fan Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday scoffed and laughed at Kevin McCarthy as the House Minority Leader suggested that Pelosi’s delaying of impeachment articles is nothing more than a transparent attempt at helping Joe Biden. 

Mitchell contemptuously explained, “The House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, kind of trolling, created some problems this morning — or tried to create some problems this morning —  by suggesting that maybe Joe Biden should suspend his campaign in fairness to his Senate colleagues.” 

 

 

So, Kevin McCarthy is a troll now? Mitchell certainly doesn’t use that kind of language about Pelosi. Here’s the point McCarthy made in front of reporters: 

REP KEVIN MCCARTHY (House Minority Leader-California): If there’s anyone who gains from this, it would be anyone who’s running for president that’s not in the U.S. Senate. With Iowa quickly upon us in early February, those four senators who are running for president will now no longer have a voice. If you look at the true political of nature of why, to harm one campaign and give a benefit to another. The only rightful thing of Joe Biden is to make a pledge not to campaign while Bernie Sanders cannot. 

Mitchell could not hide her disgust, laughing at McCarthy ad sputtering to her guest: “Michael Steele, as a former Republican national chairman, I’m sure Joe Biden is taking advice from the House Minority Leader.” “Let’s drop out for now,” she sarcastically suggested. 

Obviously, the Republican McCarthy isn’t trying to help the Democrats. But Mitchell rarely shows such skepticism about Pelosi’s motives. In December, she “attested” to the “deep faith” of the House Speaker. In January, she hailed the “pitch perfect” way in with Pelosi spun a profanity-laced rant by a far-left Democrat. She’s also cheered the “dignified,” “remarkable” Pelosi. 

Skepticism? Maybe that’s only for Republicans
                                    
A transcript of the exchange is below. Click “expand” to read more. 

Andrea Mitchell Reports
1/14/2020
12:05

ANDREA MITCHELL: And the calendar makes it complicated for senators who are jurors as well as running for president. So the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, kind of trolling, created some problems this morning — or tried to create some problems this morning —  by suggesting that maybe Joe Biden should suspend his campaign in fairness to his Senate colleagues. 

REP KEVIN MCCARTHY (House Minority Leader-California): If there’s anyone who gains from this, it would be anyone who’s running for president that’s not in the U.S. Senate. With Iowa quickly upon us in early February, those four senators who are running for president will now no longer have a voice. If you look at the true political of nature of why, to harm one campaign and give a benefit to another. The only rightful thing of Joe Biden is to make a pledge not to campaign while Bernie Sanders cannot. 

MITCHELL: [Laughs] Michael Steele, as a former Republican national chairman, I’m sure Joe Biden is taking advice from the House Minority Leader. 

MICHAEL STEELE: After they heard that, they said, “That’s a good —  maybe we should think about that.” 

MITCHELL: “Let’s drop out for now.” 

STEELE: “Let’s drop out for now.” The timing can be a problem. It will be a problem for those senators who have to sit silently. It gives an opening for Joe Biden. 

Posted on Leave a comment

Importante para los inmigrantes que Trump sea derrotado

En Univisión, la campaña para bombardear a las audiencias de sus noticieros con propaganda liberal gana impulso a diario con los presentadores colmando las transmisiones de agravio racial y una determinación infatigable por retratar al presidente Donald Trump como “antiinmigrante”.

Este informe sobre un nuevo comercial de televisión en español para el candidato presidencial demócrata Michael Bloomberg, es un ejemplo perfecto de cómo la presentadora Patricia Janiot enmarca las noticias para adaptarse a la agenda política de su telecadena. En este caso, afirma “la importancia que tiene precisamente para los inmigrantes derrotar a Trump”. Aquí un recordatorio diario de que Univisión es un PAC liberal en defensa de la inmigración con una licencia de transmisión:

PATRICIA JANIOT: En un intento por cortejar el voto del creciente electorado latino, el precandidato a la nominación presidencial demócrata Michael Bloomberg lanzó su primer anuncio televisivo en español. Bloomberg, nieto de inmigrantes, destaca en el vídeo la importancia que tiene precisamente para los inmigrantes derrotar a Trump tras implementar duras políticas contra NUESTRA comunidad.

Tras presentar a Bloomberg como un candidato amigo de los latino que habla “en su característico español” en el anuncio, la reportera Peggy Carranza hizo hincapié en cómo intenta “captar el voto hispano” con el tema del muro fronterizo y los niños migrantes.

Sin embargo, el informe cierra con Carranza señalando a Bloomberg por su política de “tensión y cateo” que “afectó desproporcionadamente a hispanos y afroamericanos en Nueva York cuando fue alcalde”, algo que ahora preocupa a los votantes indecisos como uno entrevistado que dice del candidato: “No ha hecho mucho por nosotros en el pasado, so, las palabras no son suficientes. Habría que ver más actos”.

Vaya admisión en un informe que comenzó afirmando que fue Trump quien implementó “duras políticas contra NUESTRA comunidad”.

Oprima “expand” para leer la transcripción completa del reporte arriba mencionado, tal y como se transmitió el jueves, 9 de enero de 2020, por Noticiero Univisión, Edición Nocturna:

PATRICIA JANIOT: Y en un intento por cortejar el voto del creciente electorado latino, el precandidato a la nominación presidencial demócrata Michael Bloomberg lanzó su primer anuncio televisivo en español. Bloomberg, nieto de inmigrantes, destaca en el vídeo la importancia que tiene precisamente para los inmigrantes derrotar a Trump tras implementar duras políticas contra NUESTRA comunidad. Peggy Carranza tiene más.

PEGGY CARRANZA: En su característico español, el exalcalde de Nueva York Michael Bloomberg lanzó su primer anuncio electoral en castellano para televisión y plataformas digitales.

BLOOMBERG: Juntos vamos a reconstruir la nación.

CARRANZA: El aspirante a la nominación presidencial demócrata busca captar el voto hispano, aludiendo en el vídeo al muro fronterizo y a los niños migrantes.

JOSÉ GONZALES: Ya las minorías sumadas en los Estados Unidos son prácticamente la mitad de la población electoral. Y dentro de las minorías los hispanos somos una de las más grandes, sino la más grande. Por lo tanto, el voto hispano es un voto decisivo.

CARRANZA: El multimillonario ingresó a la contienda en noviembre, meses después que los otros candidatos por lo que no participará en las primeras elecciones primarias. Siguiendo con su estrategia, se espera que los anuncios salgan al aire en los estados que realizarán sus elecciones primarias el llamado Súper Martes en marzo. Y aquellos que tienen votaciones más tarde.

Pero no sería suficiente para votantes indecisos como Ginet Miranda y otros, que criticaron su política de tensión y cateo que afectó desproporcionadamente a hispanos y afroamericanos en Nueva York cuando fue alcalde, y por la que pidió disculpas.

GINET MIRANDA: No ha hecho mucho por nosotros en el pasado, so, las palabras no son suficientes. Habría que ver más actos.

CARRANZA: Se estima que Bloomberg ha gastado $147,000,000 en anuncios televisivos y otros $10 millones en una publicidad que saldrá al aire durante el Super Bowl como también hizo el presidente Trump.

GONZALES: La campaña de Bloomberg va a buscar ganar en publicidad lo que no tiene en lo que se llama “grassroots” en elección de base. De hecho, ya el gasto en publicidad en lo que va de su campaña excede a prácticamente de todos los precandidatos.

CARRANZA: Además, el candidato no está recibiendo donaciones para su campaña. En la ciudad de Nueva York, Peggy Carranza, Univisión.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Top Tech Journo Swisher Calls Rupert Murdoch ‘Uncle Satan’

One of the internet’s foremost tech journalists blasted the owner of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal as the “largest menace to the modern world.”

Recode co-founder and New York Times contributor Kara Swisher wrote in a tweet on Jan. 8, 2020, “If you had to pick one person who has been the largest menace in the modern world, spreading hate and disinformation that has disastrous results everywhere he goes, Rupert Murdoch or, as I like to call him, Uncle Satan, would top the list.”

Much like Big Tech itself, tech news outlets have liberal biases. Wired Magazine, for example, which has an annual list of the internet’s most dangerous people, listed President Trump as the most dangerous internet user of the decade on Dec. 31. The Verge wrote a piece full of condemnations of YouTube because some of its popular creators encouraged college students to question liberal indoctrination in school.

The article Swisher shared with the tweet was “How Rupert Murdoch and Disinformation Are Influencing Australia’s Bushfire Debate” from The New York Times.

The article claimed that Murdoch was part of a misinformation campaign doing damage control against the rising popularity of climate change concerns.

“Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp, the largest media company in Australia, was found to be part of another wave of misinformation. An independent study found online bots and trolls exaggerating the role of arson in the fires, at the same time that an article in The Australian making similar assertions became the most popular offering on the newspaper’s website.”

The Times added that “It’s all part of what critics see as a relentless effort led by the powerful media outlet to do what it has also done in the United States and Britain.” The mission in question supposedly has been to “shift blame to the left, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change.”

Murdoch’s News Corp denied playing a misinformation role, and claimed in an email quoted by The Times: “Our coverage has recognized Australia is having a conversation about climate change and how to respond to it.” News Corp explained later in the email that “[t]he role of arsonists and policies that may have contributed to the spread of fire are, however, legitimate stories to report in the public interest.”