How can you trust anyone in the media?
This month, we saw a journalist 'report' on Cornel West's run for president on The People's Party's ticket. Yes, that story did implode in a matter of days. That's not what bothered us. What bothered us was when Cornel switched over to the Green Party and decided to share (see this Iraq snapshot) that he was encouraged to take the nomination. It wasn't his fault, you see. He explained on camera that Chris Hedges talked him into it, Chris Hedges promoted the party to him, Chris Hedges was going to be his People's Party running mate but then Chris Hedges' wife put her foot down that he wasn't running.
Remember that journalist who reported on Cornel being the candidate for The People's Party? It was Chris Hedges. And in his 'zany' column for SCHEER POST, the serial plagiarist left out all of those details. Chris portrayed himself as a friend of Cornel's interviewing him during a car ride. He left out the fact that he was the one who pushed the nomination -- both on Cornel and on The People's Party -- and that he was supposed to have announced he was Cornel's running mate.
How do you trust a liar like that? You really can't.
And the media is full of Chris Hedges-like 'journalists' who just lie over and over.
Last week, failed rapper, Libertarian and hate merchant
Maj Tourie lied that the Pride flag included a stripe for pedophiles.
It was a lie. AFP factchecked:
Activist and designer Daniel Quasar developed the Progress Pride Flag in 2018 (archived here).
"The
white, pink and light blue comes from the trans pride flag," Quasar
told AFP on June 9. "My use of those colors in the 'Progress Pride Flag'
are one and the same as the trans flag served as inspiration for the
design."
Activist Monica Helms designed the first transgender pride flag in 1999. It debuted the following year at an LGBTQ pride parade in Phoenix, Arizona.
Quasar said those claiming the colors represent pedophiles are "trying to spin false narratives about my community."
More of AFP's reporting on misinformation about the LGBTQ community is available here.
Fox digital did not add an editor’s note explaining the edits or the headline change to the article, which now reads, “White House flew controversial new transgender flag that troubles some critics in the gay community.”
Some critics in the gay community? Who? "Gays Against Groomers – a far-right anti-LGBTQ advocacy group."
Yep them.
Transhausen
by Proxy parents are transing their children for internet points. They
are abusing them for their own sense of validation and importance. We
can’t think of too many things much worse than that.
Yep him.
How
far does he get to go before people on the left start denouncing him?
He is a bitter old man that's no longer in charge of anything. His
grand monument was supposed to be SOURCEWATCH but it's been restricted,
heavily edited and rarely has anything new (November 22nd is not "new"
in June). Like everything else he did, it fell apart. And now he takes
to Tweeting to attack anything left while promoting hate merchants like
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jonathan Turley, etc, etc. He even promotes
Noor Bin Ladin. Now she might raise eyebrows due to her uncle -- yes,
that bin Laden -- but our concern is that she's a heavy promoter of
Q-Anon crackpot theories and of Donald Trump.
And John's supposed to be left.
If you don't think it matters, consider Ingrid Jaques.
Who?
Our point exactly.
She
is a USA TODAY columnist. And she came across many people's radar last
week when her "Social conservatism is on the rise. Maybe DeSantis is
on to something with anti-'woke' fight."
BING NEWS carried it online which exposed her to a new audience. Resulting in e-mails to this site and THE COMMON ILLS asking, "Who is this liar?"
She's
a cherry picker, for one thing, selecting from the poll what she wants
to frame her argument -- look at the poll, look at her year choice when
quoting in her column. She's also apparently one of those idiots who
never took a research and methodology course in grad school but thinks
she can weigh in on polls. She majored in English for undergrad and in
journalism for her grad schooling -- in other words: General Studies
major who waited too late to sign up for hotel management. That may be
why she can't be bothered with margin of error (+/- 4%) or bothered by
repeated notations by Gallup such as "Percentage without an opinion is not shown" and "Percentage who identify as moderate is not shown."
We doubt she mined the raw data; if you do 2% stated they had no
opinion -- on whether or not they were conservative, moderate or
liberal.
The question, as
asked, is meaningless and questions GALLUP's own polling. Jaques is
attempting to use the polling to justify her stances on issues and those
issues aren't covered in the polling. That's why it's a useless poll
for her.
The first question is your political leaning. On "social issues." What "social issues"? They don't define that.
(Jaques
looks at another Gallup poll on transgender school athletes in the
seventh last paragraph of her nineteen paragraph article. We're
not interested in going through her nonsense and refer you to this video by Leeja Miller on how hate merchants like Jaques have crafted their messaging.)
Ingrid
Jacques asserts that what most people call banning books is an effort
to “ensure age-appropriate material in school libraries.”
That is, in fact, banning books. Who is Jacques to
decide what is appropriate for all children? I have grandchildren who
read anything they choose, and I’m sure Jacques would not approve of
many of the titles.
For the umpteenth time: If Jacques wants to control her own children’s reading, fine.
What
she may not do is decide what is appropriate for ALL children. Put
simply, what other kids read —through school and public libraries — is
not her business.
And she's not identified as such. She's just a generic voice, a generic (albeit manly) looking blond.
When
people are working with an agenda, readers deserve to know that. We're
feminists. More than anything else, that's how we identify and have
throughout our time writing here. We haven't changed.
Strangers
like Jaqcues should be labeled. Readers have a right to know if the
person they're reading has a political orietation. By the same token,
there should be relabeling. John Stauber is not a liberal or a
leftist. You cannot attack LGBTQ+ people on a daily basis and claim to
be left, you cannot promote a talk show by a QAnon conspiracy freak and
be left, you cannot spend all day attacking THE NATION, the Human Rights
Campaign, Poynter, THE GUARDIAN, DEMOCRACY NOW!, on and on it goes.
We're all for the left criticizing our own. We're all for
accountability. Hell, we're all for bitchy. But at the same time he's
slamming the left over and over, Stauber's praising one right-winger
after another. He's not left. And those outlets that once promoted him
should be informing people that, as Rebecca noted, "john stauber is the 21st century david horowitz."
The
online confrontation marks the second time the White House has fired
back at Fox News this week. On Wednesday, press secretary Karine
Jean-Pierre criticized the network for a chyron that called President
Joe Biden a "wannabe dictator" Tuesday evening as it aired a
split-screen view of Biden's Juneteenth event and former President
Donald Trump's rally decrying his 37-count criminal indictment, The Independent reports.
"So,
there are probably about 787 million things that I can say about this,
that was wrong about what we saw last night, but I don't think I'm gonna
get into it," Jean-Pierre said during her daily briefing.
A
spokesperson for Fox News told media outlets in a statement that the
controversial chyron was "taken down immediately and was addressed"
internally. The response, however, came nearly 12 hours after the chyron
aired and reactions to it rolled in.
It's actually worse than that. BUZZLOVING explains, "Brian
Kilmeade, Fox News host, introduced Trump as the president of the USA
before a Fox News chyron said President Joe Biden was a 'wannabe
dictator'."
We
found so much about that interesting. Including the fact that 'legal
scholar' and noted transphobe Jonathan Turley had no comment. You may
remember that when not trashing LGBTQ+ people or ignoring crooked
Clarence Thomas' many scandals, Swirley Turley can be found trying to
'tone police.' If there's been a tut-tut that his name wasn't on, we'd
be shocked. Except until right now. He's hectored people repeatedly on
how the discourse is being poisoned. Yet a 'news' network -- one he
works for -- calls a sitting US president a "wannabe dictator" on air
and Jonathan is left without a pearl to clutch. Apparently, that's what
happens when you shove them all up your sphincter. Or maybe the
answer's much simpler and we noted it earlier, "he works for" FOX
"NEWS." That explains the silence, right?
That
and a lack of ethics because, after all Howard Kurtz works for FOX
"NEWS" and Howard either comments on issues -- troubling ones -- with
the network or notes publicly that he has been told not to cover it.
Ethics. Sad that journalist Howard Kurtz has them but attorney Turley
continues to struggle with the very basics.
Who can you trust? We see lies on the left and right. Take Chris Hedges. In 2014, when THE NEW REPUBLIC exposed his long, long pattern of plagiarism, that should have been it for him. But Katie Halper brings him on her show all the time and she refers to him as "friend of the show." In what world is that acceptable. He has been exposed a serial, non-stop plagiarist. He got caught plagiarizing when he tried to sell his writing to HARPER'S and that prompted the long look, the deep dive, into his work which found he ripped off Naomi Klein, ripped off everyone -- including Ernest Hemingway. Not only did he do that, but he then lied each time he was asked about the repeated thefts. Why would Katie Halper -- or anyone who fancies themselves a journalist -- want to be associated with Chris Hedges? He is a known thief and, when confronted, he lies every time.
People need to know they can trust the media but Chris Hedges -- and journalists promoting him -- destroy that trust as surely as the liars on FOX "NEWS."
Caveat emptor? Let the buyer beware but how can the buyer beware when they're not informed?
