Among All The Smoking Guns Showing The Mainstream Media’s Willingness to Lie Outright To Impugn President Trump, This Might Be The Smokingest

Here’s a sequence from yesterday’s news conference:

Watch it, please. Here’s a summary of what transpires:

Step 1.:  A reporter asks the President about his thoughts on the theory floated by a Constitutional law professor in Newsweek that Kamala Harris shouldn’t be considered a ‘natural born citizen” and thus technically isn’t eligible to be Vice-President or President.

Step 2: The President offers no opinion on it whatsoever, and makes it clear he didn’t read the article (who reads Newsweek?). He says 1) he heard about it 2) it is his understanding that the author is a genuine authority 3) he doesn’t know what the guy actually argued (Trump asks the reporter if the problem is that Harris “wasn’t born” in the U.S.)

Step 3.The reporter quickly summarizes the professor’s point.

Step 4. The President says, first, that he has no idea if the professor’s claims are right, and  concludes by saying he “doesn’t know about it” that he “just heard about it” and will “take  a look.”

And Step 5?

CNN headlines, “Trump promotes another birther lie, this time about Kamala Harris”

Reporter wrote,

” President Donald Trump spent years pushing lies about the birthplace and presidential eligibility of President Barack Obama, the first Black president. On Thursday, he started floating a new birther lie about Sen. Kamala Harris, who, if elected, would be the first Black and Asian American vice president. Trump’s incendiary nonsense about Harris was part of a Thursday self-described “news conference” he largely used to campaign against his Democratic election opponents…”

Three reporters wrote this completely false story, and CNN published it!

Let’s count the lies:

ONE. The President didn’t “float” the theory, an irresponsible professor did, as I explained here.

TWO. The President didn’t raise it (and publicize it) at his news conference, a reporter did, presumably to prompt the President into supporting the theory.

THREE. As the video unequivocally shows, the President doesn’t endorse the idea at all, and makes it clear that he doesn’t know what the reporter is talking about other than the fact that he “heard about it.” He says he doesn’t know if the professor is right.

FOUR. The theory is not a “birther” theory but a legal one, and it is not a lie but an opinion, though not the President’s.

The video is right there on YouTube to check, and CNN nevertheless plays “It isn’t what it is,” (Rationalization #64) confident that the Trump Deranged will cheer, and the truth will be drowned out because the mainstream media won’t explain that CNN is deliberately lying.

And, sure enough, other allegedly respectable news sources joined in the disinformation campaign against the President, itself based on Big Lie #4.:

  • CBS wrote that Trump” did not “denounce…a racist false accusation.,” under a headline that said he “amplified” a “Harris birther conspiracy.” As he demonstrated by openly admitting he didn’t know what the professor’s argument was, the President would have been irresponsible to “denounce” anything. Now, Democrats will denounce as “racist” Professor Eastman’s theory without reading it, because their game plan is to call any statement that doesn’t support Harris’s candidacy racist.

Trump did not “amplify anything either; the reporter did. How does saying “I don’t know about it” amplify something? Moreover, the legal theory is not “racist” by any coherent definition of the word. Nor is it “false.” It is an opinion, and opinions can be wrong or badly reasoned, but an opinion cannot be “false.”

CBS’s story and headline are false.

“Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President: President Trump falsely suggested that Kamala Harris, who was born in California, does not meet citizenship requirements.”

This would be funny if it were not so infuriating. How did Trump “encourage” the theory by saying he knew nothing about it? The theory, again, is not racist, and it doesn’t assert any conspiracy. The President did NOT “falsely suggest” that Harris was not a citizen, and “who was born in California” is a non sequitur, deceitfully used to imply the “theory” is that Harris wasn’t born in the U.S. That has nothing to do with the article in question.

I don’t think these reporters bothered to check  Eastman’s essay!

  • NBC’s smear is similar: “Trump echoes fringe birther attack on Harris: Harris, Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, was born in Oakland, California, and is eligible to be president under the constitutional requirements.”

No, Trump didn’t “echo” Eastman’s theory, which wasn’t an “attack.” How is “What did you say?” an echo? Again, the reference to Oakland deliberately deceives readers about what Eastman is arguing.

There are similar lying stories all over the web. See how many of them your Facebook friends are linking to. Save this one for future reference. If there was ever screaming proof of how little our journalists respect the truth, this is it.

The mainstream media is now the enemy of an informed citizenry, and enemy of democracy, and, yes, an enemy of the people.

23 thoughts on “Among All The Smoking Guns Showing The Mainstream Media’s Willingness to Lie Outright To Impugn President Trump, This Might Be The Smokingest

  1. I think they are operating under the assumption that people read the headline and the lede. Usually, if you read the whole thing, a couple paragraphs in, or if very annoying, in the last paragraph, they usually have some kind of weasel wording about how everything you just read was bullshit.

    • I think you’re absolutely right, Aleksei. I have learned that when most people say “I read an article”, what they mean is “I saw a headline”. Most people don’t read much, and usually only about their own special interests. Which makes for a poorly informed electorate. TV news is by it’s nature only the headline and the lede, delivered by meat puppets with teeth and hair who pretend that they know what they’re talking about. Remember, journalism (I guess they call it Communications now) is the fall back major for failing sociology students at many colleges, it’s also popular with ‘student-athletes’.

      • “I have learned that when most people say “I read an article”, what they mean is “I saw a headline”.”

        I have this fight all the time! In fact, when Charles and Chris used to post here, one of my most common replies to anything they posted with a link was “You didn’t read your own reference, did you?”

        It’s an effective tactic, to a point: shellac someone you’re arguing with someone else’s work that seems at face value to reinforce what you’re saying, assuming that the person you’re arguing with is as intellectually lazy as you are. Problem is at some point, you get called on it and develop a credibility gap, and it’s really hard to build that back up.

        • Yes! I don’t miss either of them for that reason! I wasted time checking their sources too often, only to find that their argument was in no way supported by the reference. It got to the point where I assumed their references were bullshit, and didn’t waste my time anymore. To be fair to them, I find myself doing this constantly now, having to check sources, and then the sources credibility ad infinitum. It’s amazing how much bullshit is out there. The panic porn surrounding Covid-19 has likely made things worse. If a reference in an article about Covid-19 isn’t to a peer-reviewed white paper, I just ignore the article.

          • What’s really insidious is how sometimes you have to check the citations in the citation.

            Someone links you an article. Maybe that article even says the same thing as the headline and that matches what you were told. Frabjous day, right? Well, no. What I’m finding is that now that people have gotten away with shellacking BS around the internet, the shellacked BS is getting recirculated in this really incestuous bullshit circlejerk… In order to get down to what actually happened, you might end up having to go through several layers of citations, and then try explaining to the person you’re talking to how the citation of the citation of the reference they linked didn’t actually say what was asserted. It’s exhausting. We used to have media outlets to filter out garbage before, now they *are* the garbage.

          • In reference to your comment about peer reviewed covid stuff. In a comment section about masking, someone asked for scientific proof that masks helped stop the spread of Covid. Someone else happily responded with a few links to studies.

            The studies they shared, and the only studies I’ve seen ever referenced, are a study that shows that masks are effective in blocking water from leaving the mouth and the infamous study that concludes masks work because cases decreased in certain states after mask mandates were enacted.

            Neither study even comes close to proving that masks materially affect the spread of Covid, yet these seem to be the source of all the “science” people are denying by questioning the necessity of masks.

            Are there other, actual conclusive studies that I haven’t seen? Or are we really using correlation to justify this authoritarian overreach?

            • It’s my understanding that a true study of masks effecting Covid-19 spread is currently impossible because: a) It’s too new and poorly understood to ethically do a true double blind study. Multiple groups, wearing masks, and others not, being exposed to, and exposing others to the virus. b) It’s too recent to have accumulated meaningful data about mask use “in the wild”, organised it, and tested the conclusions accross a broad geographic and demographic sample. Even accumulating meaningful data is difficult, since all subjects self-report falsely. i.e. “Do you always wear a mask?”
              Correlation may be causing distortion as well. NYC is doing well now, and politicians are damn sure it’s because of their mandates. The best, most right, most often, modeler of this epidemic, Youyang Gu of MIT (his site is, shows NYC’s total infection rate at 20.7%. This plus an estimated 40-50% of the population with natural immunity or that are extremely unsusceptible, puts NYC squarely in range of herd immunity. So masks are mostly pointless there, even if they make a difference. It has been compared to wearing a condom to a baby shower, but still, if I were 85, I’d wear the mask in areas with substantial infection activity. Also, herd immunity usually has some level of the disease in question still extant in the herd, just not epidemic levels.

  2. I almost gave my computer the finger when the tinny-voiced dude that came on after the Trump clip started speaking. I will give begrudging credit for showing the completely unedited exchanged before “dissecting” it to show Trump is a racist.

    Trump, literally differed to the Democrats on whether she was eligible, and showed he had no first hand knowledge of the details of the legal argument. I of course, risk putting my foot in my Trumps mouth, if he starts using this as a campaign issue….

  3. Joe DiGenova suggested that all this disinfirmation could undermine protections afforded under Sullivan v NYTimes.

    I will be fun to see them squirm.

    • But then they would have a field day if Trump actually tried to undermine Freedom of the Press.
      It would play right into their hand, with little to gain for anybody.

      • Rich,
        Sullivan required malice to be proved. DiGenova was saying that the behavior of the media toward Trump undermines the press argument that a few mistakes of fact should not jeopardize the important work they do. Thus to win plaintiffs have to show actual malice. The media’s behavior suggests that malice can be inferred as they pick who to destroy. Trump needs to do nothing as liable cases emerge all the time. The recent Sandman case is an example. Moreover, if Trump successfully defends his position and the media continues to lie then he has nothing to lose. If he loses he could sue and the attacking the freedom of the press argument could not used as he is not in power.

        • What did you do to be exempt? Two years ago, a typical post would be shared from 10-50 times according to WordPress stats. I haven’t had a share since, and 98% of links I attempt to post (except in a comment) is rejected.

          • I share them in comments by copying and pasting the url. Tomorrow I’m going to share one in a #walkaway group. You would LOVE the stories Jack. You’d not believe them.

            Each story get hundreds to Over 2k comments and over 10k likes.

            I’ve not told my story yet but will. If you walk away and vote for trump it would be a great place to share. I bet you’d get thousands of new readers.

            I’m blown away by the diversity of the stories.

            I shared this article in a Biden group lol. On a comment that said trump lied lol.

            Then a bot wrote me on messenger asking me who I was voting for then to donate lol.

  4. What angers me is that NPR is spouting the same BS as the rest of the TD media. I don’t like having to subsidize propaganda

  5. now it’s on the NYtimes and every other MAIN STEAM site!! i can’t believe it!!!! wtf???? shows how stupid they think their voter are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.