1. In a clip from a post-firing interview, the unbearable Scott Pelley actually says that nobody on the “60 Minutes” staff, including Pelley, thought that the long-time left-leaning Sunday magazine show was biased. Pelley himself is living proof that the show was biased. Here’s a brief montage of Pelley being what he thought was objective and fair over the years,
2. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton pleaded guilty of deliberately mishandling classified documents, a deal that requires him to pay a $2.5 million fine. He pleaded guilty because he was guilty. ABC and NBC, however, framed the news as President Trump getting “revenge” on a critic.
“He was a prime target of President Trump’s retribution campaign, said ABC’s justice correspondent. “And tonight, sources tell ABC News Trump’s former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, is planning to plead guilty to mishandling classified information.”
That’s classic deceit and false framing for partisan purposes, but also typical of how the Axis networks cover news regarding the Trump Administration. On NBC, the same game plan was in view. “Bolton was national security adviser during Trump’s first term,” the nightly broadcast began. “Then became a fierce opponent of the President. Now, sources tell NBC News he plans to plead guilty to one count of retaining national security information. For a year and a half now, the Justice Department has been pursuing cases against the people you see here, those the President believes have wronged him…”
The investigation of Bolton’s crime began under the Biden Administration’s Justice Department. Both ABC and NBC got that in at the very end of their reports, which is deliberately reversing the priority of the facts. This was by definition not a “retribution prosecution” by Trump because it began under Biden. That information belonged at the start. The fact that Bolton was a Trump critic is of interest but not central to the story. Placed up front, however, it “poisons the well.”
Ethics Alarms 
The receipts from clinical insanity.
No matter what one thinks of Trump, the fact that he has exposed the complete fraud of the media is worth the price of having to put up with him. That he has apparently driven them stark raving mad is even more delicious, because it is so well-deserved.
Imagine if Trump had even a modicum of self-restraint, a touch of humility, a minimal appreciation and understanding of ethics, and even a smidgen of self-awareness.
Alas.
I doubt it will recede post-Trump. I think this is the AUC playbook going forward. Whenever there is a Republican administration or congressional majority, they will play the “These are not ordinary times” card relentlessly. I don’t see this hysteria dying down. Look at New York City. Throw in a bunch of young, rootless voters who think these are not ordinary times because they haven’t seen anything other than Trump Derangement, and it will keep growing.
For example, look at how they treat a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They even admit they will do anything to pack it with a liberal majority in perpetuity so they can remake the country.
No matter what one thinks of Trump, the fact that he has exposed the complete fraud of the media is worth the price of having to put up with him. That he has apparently driven them stark raving mad is even more delicious, because it is so well-deserved.
In the course of my researches, around the time I first was writing on EA, I encountered and read The Persian Gulf TV War by Douglas Kellner. It is a book dealing on a sort of complicity and collusion between a hugely influential media company (CNN) that captured a vast American audience in what cannonly be understood to be astounding propaganda. Not “reporting” not “journalism” but overt propaganda on a level exceeding anything that went before it. This was in the 1990s!
He comes to his critical perspective from the academic position of “media studies” which, obviously, implies looking at media systems from a distance and understanding them as extensions of corporation-enterprises.
You are saying that you believe that Donald Trump has exposed the “lying media” for all to see? Can you be serious? Shouldn’t the position, it would start as a statement really, be What if we live within systems of communication and ideology wgose purpose is not to inform us, but to manipulate how we order our perception, not really for our own benefit, but for the benefit of those who prosper from the consent of a docile and manipulated population.
How far should one go in one’s analysis? Is there a point that is off-limits? How do you recommend that I examine the present situation and the present war (or semi-war)? As a “patriot” of it, or from a critical perspective that is fearless and as incisive as need be in order to achieve “understanding”? Will I bee seen as a “Communist radical” for doing this? Or as a genuine concerned citizen?
Jack? Steve of NJ? Zoltar?
Alas indeed.
Media lionizing one of its own: Scott Pelley, star of 60 Minutes, stood up for his principles and lost his job | Margaret Sullivan | The Guardian
Sheesh.
Regarding Whoopi Goldberg, when someone on the side you disagree with takes a stand on an issue that agrees with your stance, it’s advantageous. People who won’t listen to you will listen to them. I find it helpful to graciously accept the agreement, as that makes you more credible and easier to take seriously for people who don’t already agree with you. It also helps to encourage behavior I want to see continue.
“No, you apologist for creeps, your party changes the standards according to what fits its agenda.”
Exactly. If they didn’t have double standards, they’d have none at all.
Someone forgot to give the memo to those people who run across freeways to avoid deportation.
https://abc7.com/post/vigil-honors-man-fatally-struck-vehicle-210-freeway-fleeing-ice-raid-home-depot-monrovia/17987446/