David Brooks et al: Can They Ever Be Honest?

So David Brooks wrote an editorial is the ever-sleazy NYT. The headline looks good. Beatle O'Rourke and Gus Hall Brennan should apologize for accusing DJT of treason. Then, we are treated to David Brooks being David Brooks.

Republicans and the Sean Hannity-style Trumpians might also approach this moment with an attitude of humility and honest self-examination. For two years they’ve been calling the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. For two years they’ve been spreading the libel that there are no honest brokers in Washington. It’s all a deep-state conspiracy, a swamp. They should apologize for peddling the sort of deep cynicism that undermines our country’s institutions.


It most certainly was a witch hunt. It was ignited by Obama political appointees who knew tere was zero criminal predicate. All the while, they willfully overlooked the Dems and their assistance from hostile foreign actors including but not limited to George Soros, Carlos Slim, Christopher Steele and even Russian oligarchs.

Yes, we did peddle the obvious: that honest Washingtonians are few and far betwwen. Inconvenient truth: It was a deep-state conspiracy. If you want to talk about undermining our nation's institutions, start with with James Comey and Barack Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-collusion.html

The nation’s underlying divides are still ideological, but we rarely fight them honestly as philosophical differences. We just accuse the other side of corruption. Politics is no longer a debate; it’s an attempt to destroy lives through accusation.

More horseshit. We are opposed by a mob of idiots whose components are unable to express ideology, philosophy or values. Thus, the need to silence us as we can advance our viewpoints with logic and reason. The Dems' only values are loyalty to the Democrat Party and blind fealty to its leaders.

The political media, especially on TV, now has a template it can apply whenever a scandal looms into view, to hook viewers into the speculative story line. According to the Tyndall Report, the three main broadcast networks made the Russia collusion investigation the second-most-covered news event of 2018, trailing only the Kavanaugh hearings, another scandal.

A truthful tidbit but watch how Brooks follows up. 

All the players slip into their assigned roles. Straight reporters are doing good, hard work. But the flow of information is not fast enough to keep up with 24/7 programming, so you get this toxic deluge of raw speculation.

More inconvenient truth. The MSM continuously advanced a narrative that they either knew to be false.  If they did not know the Russian narrative was created by political operatives and parroted by other political operatives, they should have known. The Russian Collusion was a less credible, less believable conspiracy theory than the Queen Mother Peddles Heroin or the ongoing Loch Ness coverup. If integrity was not available, could they not used a little common sense? Rhetorical question.

The Democrats won the 2018 midterms by focusing on the issues, not collusion. For most voters, politics is about their lives, not a self-righteous TV show.

LIE! The Dems won the mid-terms not by talking about issues but by piling on even more character assassinations. What is worse, it seems that Mueller and company could have completed their report prior to the midterms but they sat on it to help their Democrat allies.

People like David Brooks just cannot be honest for very long.

More falsity.

American Pravda, NYT Part I – Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connec...

O'KEEFE DOES IT AGAIN

The Left's Politicization Of Absolutely Everything

There used to be indoctrination safe spaces. Sporting events, popular music, movies, the weather including day to day climate change to name but a few political-free zones. Times change.

Now, an event as innocuous as Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is politicized by CNN, NYT and as I first heard about this, MSN. Maybe this does not qualify as overt bearing of false witness. Maybe this should be filed under "half-truth." Maybe the echo chamber just honestly got the story wrong.

NAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Just more fake news.



WILL TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME EVER END?

Is Scott Pelley The King Of Fake News?

PELLEYNOCCIO

Perhaps not realizing that this would become a sensitive subject, "The New York Times" reported on this travesty (and probable multiple felonies) in 2015.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Hurry, before they scrub the story.

From Newsbusters:

But Pelley’s bold assertion is highly misleading. It wasn’t Hillary who was alleged to have been paid for the Uranium, it was her husband and the family foundation. And there was not one, but two credible sources who found those connections.

As many would remember, these assertions were brought up in the book Clinton Cash, which was written by Peter Schweizer.  One of his earlier books, Throw Them All Out, opened the nation’s eyes to how members of Congress take advantage of their insider knowledge and position to enrich themselves. The book was so successful that Congress was forced to pass bill limited that ability, even though they later removed it.

 Scott Pelley is a chronic, habitual and malicious liar (and a bad liar at that). To borrow from his predecessor, "And that's the way it is."

The "New York Times" Now Infamous Sensationalistic Headline

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

 

 

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

 

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

 

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

 

Complete story

The Russians Hacked The Election (Insert Laugh Track Here)

I am starting to believe there might be something to that post-modernism after all. The purveyors of fake news create a fake news witch hunt while promoting a fake news bonanza stating that "the Russians hacked the election."

The silly ass meme could be halted with one question: "Specifically, what constitutes election hacking?"

Even if the worst accusations against (that are not all that grievous) were proven to be true, that the Russkies used advanced cyber technology to gain access to Podesta's emails and then handed them over to Julian Assange--Assange denies any Russian connection--does this mean that we should sanction or punish foreign nationals who have aided and abetted the Democrats?

Citizen of the World-At-Large, George Soros, has interfered in American elections for three decades. In 2016 he extended his scope to successfully influence local races. Do his actions constitute election hacking?

Carlos Slim, a Mexican national who at various times has been listed as the wealthiest man on Planet Earth, is rabidly anti-Trump. In 2015 he became the largest single investor in "The New York Times." Ironically (said with a hint of irony) it was this esteemed purveyor of fake news that illegally procured Donald Trump's tax records in the 2016 presidential election season. Does this illegality constitute election hacking?

Does the slanted reporting of foreign news entities, like BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Times constitute election hacking? Regarding Russia Times, does anyone care to make the point that they have promoted a pro-Trump agenda? Good luck squaring that circle.

This from Ricochet.

The media is intentionally lying to the public because they want a better excuse for Election Day than the reality. They would rather focus on hacking, the popular vote, FBI Director James Comey, or the minuscule alt-right, instead of accepting that American voters slightly preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, at least in the states where it counted. People wanted change over the ineptness, cronyism, and stagnation of the Obama era. They didn’t trust the utterly untrustable Clinton and liked her even less.

"New York Times" On NPR

This is painful to listen to but reveals much about the promoters of fake news. I heard this interview in its original broadcast.  On listening to it a second I had to stop it around the 5 minute when the topic of Obama's birthplace came up. NPR and NYT both know Barack Obama himself invented the "Born in Kenya" meme and yet, they call Donald Trump a liar for parroting the original lie. Even this hardened media critic has trouble grasping the audacity of falsehood that permeates the 4th Estate.

Breitbart posts the "Fresh Air" interview in its entirety. This conversation is not for the weak of stomach.

New York Times Warns Against "Polling Insanity"

Just how reliable can an opinion poll be if it shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton?

Funnier yet, a Survey Monkey poll has the Donald raking in 28 % of Hispanic voters. Looks like those wacky Quinnipiacs are at it again, by golly.

From The Gray Lady Herself:

Part of the problem stems from the polling process itself. Getting reliable samples of voters is increasingly expensive and difficult, particularly as Americans go all-cellular. Response rates have plummeted to 9 percent or less. 

I guess this is where we should insert the Dems also taking back both houses meme.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/stop-the-polling-insanity.html?_r=1

Shocker: White House Spinmeister And Brother of CBS News President Lied Repeatedly To Idiot Reporters.

It has been reported extensively in everywhere (even this blog) except the Mainstream Media that White House national security adviser for strategic communication (fancy term for professional liar) Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. No administration in history has monopolized the news media as successfully as the current one. There are no close seconds.

If you are interested in the original source, click here:

However, The NYT outdoes itself for, well, whatever it is it does.

Like Obama, Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal.

Obama the storyteller? Like the false narrative that he was born in Kenya or one of the 37 "material discrepancies" found in his autobiography?

When I asked Jon Favreau, Obama’s lead speechwriter in the 2008 campaign, and a close friend of Rhodes’s, whether he or Rhodes or the president had ever thought of their individual speeches and bits of policy making as part of some larger restructuring of the American narrative, he replied, “We saw that as our entire job.”

Gee, I thought it might be something like securing peace and prosperity. Barry is restructuring the American narrative, is he? Now his job doesn't seem so tedious.

In this environment, Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing  (emphasis added by blogger) many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

 

“I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

 

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “but — ”

 

“In fact it’s a sign of strength!” I said, chuckling.

 

“And I’ll give them some color,” Price continued, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

 

What is interesting about the NYT "profile" is that the writer seems to admire the subject as he describes the antics of the sleaziest bastard this country ever produced.

 

Rhodes’s messaging campaign was so effective not simply because it was a perfectly planned and executed example of digital strategy, but also because he was personally involved in guiding the deal itself.

 

Can we get this slimeball an award? Any award? Isn't there a Scumbag Hall of Fame he can get inducted into?

 

I need a shower after reading that BS. But one parting quote from Rhodes.

 

 “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends,”

 

Given the context of tailored falsity, that is an amazingly accurate quote.

 

If you are not of strong stomach, here is a nice summary:

 

Rhodes concluded during the Iraq war—not the one his White House is currently overseeing, but the previous one—that Washington foreign policy decision-makers from both parties, whom, along with their helpers in the press he calls “the Blob,” are “morons” for whom he maintains “a healthy contempt.”

 

This contempt is evidently shared by his boss: hence the mind-meld, or at least an important element of it. Senior ex-administration officials express frustration and perhaps some confusion about how they got railroaded repeatedly by Rhodes and his allies in Obama’s inner circle.

As with Lois Lerner and Jonathan Gruber before him, one wonders why someone who has beaten the system would publicly admit to their high crimes, misdemeanors or flimflam. Probably because they are so damn proud of their cleverness that they just have to brag.

I heard Howard Kurtz on Fox News stating that there will be a journalistic backlash for the insults Rhodes hurled at the fourth estate. Nonsense! Tonight the DC pubs are packed with forlorn Jimmy Olsens crying in their Chardonnay. "What must I do to make my master love me?" Keep trying, Jimmy. Keep trying.

The Blogger Attends A Cruz Meet And Greet

Living in New Hampshire and having a newfound interest in politics I have twice pledged to be a more engaged reporter in presidential politics. 2015 was a dream season. Open primaries in both parties, a boatload of candidates, lots of issues. Yet, I stayed home most of the time.

Part of the reason for my non-involvement is a lack of enthusiasm for most candidates. Donald Trump eclipsed everything. I can't jump on his bandwagon but I love his style, his candor and his courage. Furthermore, like Sarah Palin I grew disgusted with the GOP candidates who would only speak out on issues AFTER Trump lead the way. I have had enough of jellyfish Republicans, thank you very much.

I turned out for Pataki's kickoff and then, nada. So earlier today (1/20/2016) I went to a Ted Cruz meet and greet at Exeter Town Hall. I play a game with myself where I try to blend in with different groups: the campaign, the press, the partisans, the townies. I chatted with a Dem videographer who had been asked to leave. I talked to two guys who denied any affiliation but I suspect were Larouchians. One was in a VATMAN suit with a sign denouncing Cruz's Vat tax. The other held a sign that labeled Cruz a friend of Snowden.

I chatted with Phillips Exeter's Ladies hockey coach. Great guy. Spent some time chatting with a woman who yesterday stood outside in 14 degree weather at the state capitol to pray with Franklin Graham. There were other conspicuous Christians in the crowd.

I have met Cruz's point man in NH, Ethan somethingother. I made a point of addressing him by name and we shook hands and I spent some time standing in his proximity with other campaign people, mimicking their body language and looking official. I was able to briefly chat with former Senator Bob Smith who is a magnet for reporters.

The boys and girls on the press bus know each other but there are always stragglers and newbies and local yokos and you can sit with them and act disinterested and bored and text some messages and you will fit right in.

Cruz's speech was exactly what I expected. He looked tired getting off the bus but after speaking he got fired up. Spoke for at least fifteen minutes without note or prompter. Answered questions for a sleepy morning crowd.

I would estimate spectators at 150-200. Cruz campaign would be about 25-50. Press would be 25-50. Guesses more or less.

As mentioned I can blend in pretty well. When the Pataki Campaign was at the same venue, a warm spring wind blew over a cardboard "Pataki" sign, some jackass pointed at me and told me to pick it up, even though I wasn't adorned in a blue polo shirt like all the other P-men. I stayed in character and assisted the campaign. Didn't much like following orders from the jerk but I felt satisfied that I looked the part.

So I was chitchatting with some straggler partisans and a "New York Times" reporter asked if we could talk. She had rightly identified me as a spectator-partisan and that bothered me a little bit. I agreed to sit with her and a voice inside me reminded me of my principles, such as they are. I believe candidates--and civilians as well--should shun the dinosaur media. They are the enemy. Trump is heroic for standing up to our overlords. A polite request and my principles go out the window.

I sat down feeling as if I had entered a chess match. She was going to make me out to be either a foam at the mouth racist or a movie extra who hasn't worked a day since they stopped shooting "Deliverance." First rule of walking through a minefield is to remove the clown shoes.

I could make excuses that I did not have time to eat breakfast or that the coffee shop across the street was temporarily closed or that I was not expecting to joust with a reporter from "NYT." This woman was good at what she did. She did not immediately talk about issues. She asked about New Hampshire quality of life, my life and how I ended up in New England. We were still talking when all the other chairs were folded up and put away.

For two days I have replayed our conversation paranoid about getting misquoted, wondering why she asked me certain questions, wondering if my unprepared or off the cuff answers would translate well into print (or electronic text.) Quite possibly I will be left on the cutting room floor and that would be fine with me. In the meantime I still replay our conversation, that reporter's interview technique and how I might be treated by The Gray Lady.

Maybe I am not cut our for the pressures of the public life.

In Praise Of Lion Killers

It's not often that I link to NYT. Then again, they don't always feature clear-headed thinkers like Goodwell Nzou.

So sorry about Cecil.

 

Did Cecil live near your place in Zimbabwe?

 

Cecil who? I wondered. When I turned on the news and discovered that the messages were about a lion killed by an American dentist, the village boy inside me instinctively cheered: One lion fewer to menace families like mine.

 

My excitement was doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain. I faced the starkest cultural contradiction I’d experienced during my five years studying in the United States.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”?

 

Eulogy for Cecil continues here:

By The Way, NYT Readers' Comments Do Not Necessarily Praise The Gray Lady

Re the preceding story: Take a glance at the comments section. Commentators who suggest there are cover-ups (by IRS and by NYT ) receive about 4 or 5 times the recommendations as the "nothing to see here folks" gang.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/is-the-times-ignoring-a-scandal-at-the-i-r-s/

NYT's The Public Editor's Journal

From NYT


My take:


The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails. My office had begun to field several days’ worth of reader protests on the lack of attention when the first story finally went online. Despite that slow start and the quiet display of the subsequent stories (an analytical piece might have been a good choice for the front page), The Times has given its readers insightful coverage of a situation heavily clouded by partisan politics.


http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/is-the-times-ignoring-a-scandal-at-the-i-r-s/






The take of Post Obotomy Syndrome's Public Editor concerning NYT's coverage of IRS scandal: COVERUP!

• SHARE
• 
  

Walmart Responds To NYT Smears

Score one for the Internet. In the old days the world was divided into the privileged media and the rest of us. Even wealthy people, like Walmart for instance, could be pummeled with innuendo, half-truth and even blatant falsehood and their recourse was limited. DARPA changed all of that.

I wish every victim of media falsehood would fight back with truth the way Walmart has. Of course, the pseudo-sophisticates who treat the Gray Lady as daily gospel will miss the rebuttals but the rest of the world will enjoy the public exposure of habitual liars. Viva Walmart!

http://blog.walmart.com/fact-check-the-new-york-times-the-corporate-daddy

Guess Which Transparent Chief Executive Met In Secret (Again) With Editors Of An Objective, Non-Partisan Newspaper

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html

Twofer Tuesday: David Mamet

DON'T WORRY OBOTS, HAYEK IS NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS

DON'T WORRY COMRADES, MILTON FRIEDMAN HAS BEEN SCRUBBED FROM THE HALLS OF ACADEME

Wikileaks

I am of at least two minds regarding Wikileaks. Firstly, the previous leaks of classified information were absolutely criminal and probably damaging in ways that we have not yet seen.

Secondly, even though I think the recent leaks are not good for the country, if I had more time I would be all over those cables. This might be better than anything Harold Robbins ever gave us. The Saudis wanted us to bomb Iran? Qaddafi digs blonds? The Karzai brothers waddle around with $52 million and they still wear goofy hats? This is tabloid material for the extra-ugly.

Thirdly, I would muster some respect for our vapid commander-in-chief if he said or did anything at all. Anything. Pro. Con. Beer summit with Assange. Anything. Sorry about the fat lip, big guy. Hope you heal real soon. Was there a theme song to "Being There" ???

Fourthly, we need to reconsider our policies on acccess. Many of these cables are not classified and hundreds of thousands of government employees could have access to them. Once more, "is there a president in the house?"

Fifthly and most importantly, we need to compare and contrast the mainstream media's coverage of these purloined cables with the hijacked East Anglia emails. Sometimes the constant, the chronic, the continuous is harder to see than a moment frozen in time. Sometimes a snapshot is more powerful than a truckload of video. The once reputable "New York Times" has devoted substantial resources to report on the Wikileaks cables. One year ago, they boldly announced that they would not publish the East Anglia emails because "they were not meant for publication."

The ongoing video shows the NYT constantly engaging in selective truth, if not overt falsehood. But the snapshot of their East Anglia coverage (an empty backdrop) placed side by side with the snapshot of their Wikileaks coverage (the following link credits 12 reporters on the case) provides what our commander-in-chief might call a teachable moment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
From my perspective, the bigger story now, as always, is Big Media's influence on information. Wikileaks good. East Anglia bad. What more do we need to know?

My Good Friend, X

My good friend, X, is a rare liberal. That is, he does not seem to take offense if you disagree with him. Rare indeed.

X subscribes to "New York Times." He also reads "The Boston Globe" and he listens to NPR. X is amazingly well-informed. He understands the Mideast better than I ever will, though that does not necessarily say very much. He reads books like "Fast Food Nation" and practices vegetarianism. He is well-versed on matters related to animal abuse and animal cruelty. He could certainly make the case that I am ignorant on a multitude of subjects and I would not have anything to say in my defense.

X and I frequently see the world through different lenses. He seems to view the Tea Party candidates in exactly the way the Far Left portays them: Extreme, incompetent, stupid, crazy, dangerous. On most issues, X's opinions approximate the opinions of the editorial page.

Not too surprisingly, X voted for Obama. Only recently have we discussed the subject of our exalted leader. As of three or four weeks ago, X had never heard of George Soros. That surprised me. I expect the Hope Dopes to be unable to identify Soros (or right hand from left hand, big toe from pinky) but X is not a Hope Dope.

X and I chatted a few days after the election. I made the comment that maybe now Obama will be vetted. He did not know what I was talking about. I explained to him that Obama has never released his records from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School (to say nothing of other records as well.) X had never heard about this. Apparently, NYT/NPR does not find Obama's secrecy newsworthy.

Obama's handlers have done a masterful job of spinning everything we know about the candidate and the president. They have focused on the Kenyan angle and Orly Taitz performance art to divert our attention away from everything, yes everything, in Obama's past. We know him only by what he has told us of himself in his two books. They might dumpster dive in Wasilla but there is no need to delve into their guy's past.

What will Obama's hidden records reveal? Maybe that he flunked math or wrote on the virtues of this ideology or that or that his narrative style did not resemble the narrative style employed in his books. They don't hire multiple law firms to cover up his membership on the debate team.

If there are bone chips in Obama's closet, the purveyors of high brow journalism will not find them. Obama's extreme secrecy would not have been tolerated by anyone else now or in the past. Not even the Kennedys were coddled to the degree that the chosen one has been coddled.

But then there was November 2 and high level Dems are running scared. Obama is the albatross around their neck and political winds can change swiftly. Hope is here and change might be right around the corner.

Obama in Sunday "New York Times"

I actually considered buying Sunday's NYT but it won't happen. The once great newspaper has not shed its credibility problem and I am not forking over any cash to those liars. But the much-hyped interview with their favorite president will surface on Sunday. It's tempting but it looks like I will be watching football.

Nonetheless, what I have heard about the interview is intriguing. Supposably he takes self-pity to heights never before imagined. President Thin Skin is disappointed to learn that not everyone is his cheerleader. The interview will feature plenty of finger pointing and blame shifting. Sneak previews suggest that this interview will not help the president nor will it help his party.

Let's hope this interview lives up to its advance billing. Both parties have reputations as disappointers. Maybe this time, we'll get a dose of truth.

Maybe.

NYT Cooks The Numbers in Poll About Obama and Health Care

I hope you are sitting down when you read this. It pains me to report that NYT has been caught massaging data in their poll about Obama and health care.
I am shocked! Shocked! Shocked I tell you!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/bogus-poll-alert-ny-times-over-samples.html