Final Pre-Election Ethics Notes II

Jefferson quote

That meme turned up on Facebook. Of course, progressives and the Woke think Jefferson is racist whose memory should be consigned to the ash heap of history, so no wonder they disagree.

1. Daniel Horowitz suggests that Democratic and media fearmongering about the dangers of exposure to the Wuhan virus might have had the perverse effect of scaring Democratic voters away from the polls. “While we don’t know the ballot choices of those who voted early, we do know the party registration breakdown in most states. And in nearly every critical state, Republicans are doing much better than they did in 2016 in terms of in-person early voting,” he observes. “Given that Trump won in 2016 and the electorate will only get more favorable for Republicans on Election Day itself (because the majority of Democrats vote early), this portends an outcome way out of sync with the majority of polls.”

Boy, would that be what NeverTrumper George Will likes to call “condign justice”!

2. Hey! It just occurred to me: with all the grandstanding, insults and pronouncements that Trump had to be impeached or the republic was in existential peril, nobody mentioned the ugly, cynical sham at all, not even Biden when he was trying out every Big Lie in the book to pander to the Deranged in the Democratic base.

What does that tell us about the seriousness of the impeachment debacle? It was exactly as contrived and illegitimate as I concluded, and the pundits and news organizations that endorsed the attempt to overthrow a President because they didn’t like his “style” was unethical politics at its worst.

3. Yesterday, Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” that if President Trump declared victory on election night before all the votes have been counted.  NBC would refuse to broadcast the speech. Quoth Joe, “We’ll be doing coverage on Peacock and we can assure you if Trump declares victory we’ll say, don’t take the feed. It’s not going to happen. We won’t be part of any disinformation campaign, we’ll be doing election coverage until midnight or whenever is over.”

The President of the United States will give a speech, and NBC plans to keep that fact from viewers, as well as what he says.  Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!

Professor Turley states what nobody should have to,

The problem is that they are in the news business and NBC viewers tune in for news. This would be, by any measure, news.  Indeed, if premature or completely baseless, a victory speech would be even more significant news.What concerns me is the relative ease with which news figures now state their role in protecting viewers from what they consider “disinformation.”

It is precisely the slippery slope that took us to the expanding private censorship on sites like Twitter and Facebook, where a well-founded story in the New York Post is blocked for weeks.  Despite the tech companies admitting that the move was a mistake, Democratic Senators demanded more censorship from the companies in the recent hearing. What is missing is the original clarity of the free and open forum of the Internet.

Now a news program is pledging in advance to block its viewers from hearing the President directly if he claims victory on Tuesday night. Instead, they can expect the same formulaic, approved coverage that we now expect in the age of echo chamber journalism. 

NBC recently was criticized for a bait-and-switch story on Hunter Biden where they debunked an obscure document rather than address the confirmed emails found on Biden’s laptop.Obviously, viewers on NBC can switch over to Fox or another network to watch any presidential speech on election night. However, Scarborough was assuring the viewers that they would be protected from such news. Clearly he viewed promising to censor the President as a draw for NBC’s viewers — assuring viewers that they would be protected from the news like some journalistic safe space.  Protecting viewers from news was not a goal of NBC when I worked for the company many years ago. This would be news any way you cut it. It can be immediately followed by commentary pointing out that such a claim may be premature

24 thoughts on “Final Pre-Election Ethics Notes II

    • Yes, my wife is watching but I’m not – she was in the family room and said something like – I don’t understand this, Trump is ahead 54% to 46% in VA and they are calling it for Biden. I just replied back, there’s no way Trump will win VA.

      • What I worry about is: what if Trump wins but the media says he didn’t? What if the media intentionally reports fake voting results and insist Trump didn’t win even when the results say he did? Do you think they are above doing it?

        • I think they are all in on inciting a revolution. They know they have mobs on their side. I think if Trump legitimately wins they hold off reporting that until the earlier reports of a Biden win take hold…then report the real results amidst innuendo of fake counts and false ballots.

          I think if Biden legitimately wins it’ll just be continue reporting the false narrative because it doesn’t matter anyway, the votes are there.

          I worry if Biden even wins legitimately…remember, the Left has been telling on itself for months that it has been planning on cheating as much as it can get away with.

  1. While I’ve already apologized for an unconscionable breach of decorum, the Jefferson quote’s on a post-it to be delivered to my Dear Wife (a career Lefty), at whom I recently, and unfairly, snapped after she made an entirely accurate observation: “Isn’t it kind of weird that we’re both hoping for different outcomes, tonight?”

    Thomas Jefferson is right up there with Samuel Clemens, Oscar Wilde, Al Czervik, & Thornton Melon…

  2. Re Thomas Jefferson. From my admittedly limited reading : he was an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, particularly after they started guillotining their aristocrats. He spoke in favour of the poor and oppressed overthrowing their rulers everywhere, and suggested they should be supported. He at least proposed the idea that property ownership should only last for a lifetime : “the world belongs to the living”. And he was profoundly suspicious of hereditary monarchies, and not just the British one. OK like many (12?) of the first 18 Presidents he owned slaves. But other than that he sounds like a ‘left leaning’ good guy, maybe naive and even potentially ‘dangerous’ (?)

  3. As expected, Trump declared victory and objected to any votes being counted after polling day.

    From NBC
    ” With millions of votes still to be counted, Trump falsely claims he won

    Shortly after 2 a.m. ET on Wednesday and with millions of votes left to be counted, Trump falsely claimed he won the presidential election.

    “This is a fraud on the American public,” he told supporters and members of the media in a White House address. “This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election, frankly we did win this election.”

    He then vowed to take legal action to stop “all voting”

    He may succeed in that.

    • It was irresponsible for either candidate to speculate at all. Naturally, the news media had no problem with Biden saying he was confident of victory when any idiot could see he was in trouble.

      • There is a considerable difference between claiming you are confident of victory and claiming you’ve already won. At least he is predictable.

      • And naturally, the news media has no problem with several states stopping counting ballots just as the president starts to pull ahead and it starts to look like he might put Biden away after all. The story about the broken pipe in Georgia is the most transparently obvious, and the whole state of affairs reeks like the combined smell of feces, vomit, skunk cabbage, burning human hair, and unwashed feet.

  4. The”debunking” of some small, often irrelevant, portion of a story, or some rarely voiced odd variant of a claim has long been one of Snopes’ favorite methods of misdirection. Not surprised the rest of the Enemies of the People have adopted this type of strawman trick.

      • It appears that a Faulknerian family of untrustworthy lowlife miscreants, instead of being an entirely fictional creation, actually has a set of descendants who now run a con of pretending to be professional “fact checkers”.  They blatantly operate under the family name.

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 )

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.