Journalism & Media

The President Sues the BBC, and It’s the Right Thing To Do.

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

The complaint filed yesterday in the Southern District of Florida states:

‘In the BBC Panorama documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance”… first broadcast on October 28,2024, the BBC intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021…. The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said. The Panorama Documentary falsely depicted President Trump telling supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”… 

President Trump never uttered this sequence of words. This fabricated depiction of President Trump during the Speech was false, deceptive, and defamatory given that President Trump’s actual and full remarks during the Speech were (a) “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressman and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021, 12:12p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 14:52 into the Speech), and then, much later, (b) “[B]ut I said ‘Something’s wrong here, Something’s really wrong, can’t have happened.’ And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021 at 1:07 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 69:30 into the Speech). 

“Moreover, the BBC purposefully omitted President Trump stating, less than one minute after urging supporters to cheer for their senators and congressmen, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (Remarks made on January 6, 2021, 12:13 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 15:48 into the Speech).”

Continue reading →

President Trump Is Spot-On About Signers For The Deaf. Of Course He’s Going To Be Attacked For It.

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

All the headlines and articles about this ongoing example of political correctness and the tyranny of a minority in action are sneering and biased. “Sign language services ‘intrude’ on Trump’s ability to control his image, administration says,” is PBS’s intro. The President is right: there is no need or justification for a signer to be standing in view while the President of the United States is addressing the nation. None. Nada. Zilch. It is distracting, of course it is. I wrote this on the issue eight years ago. Just substitute President Trump’s name for Rick Scott, and that’s the bulk of my commentary today.

“Yesterday I watched Florida Governor Rick Scott give his pre-hurricane warnings, or tried to, since standing next to him was a signer for the deaf, gesticulating and making more elaborate faces than the late Robin Williams in the throes of a fit. I have mentioned this in the context of theatrical performances: as a small minority, the deaf should not be enabled by political correctness to undermine the best interests of the majority. What Scott was saying was important, and could have been adequately communicated to the deaf citizens present by the signer standing off camera. TV viewers could and should have been able to watch a text crawl following Scott’s speech, or closed captioning. Public speaking involves verbal and visual communications, and having a vivid distraction like a professional signer—many of whom feel it is their duty to add broad facial expressions to their translations—is unfair to both the speaker and his or her audience. This is one more example of a sympathetic minority bullying the majority to establish its power.”

Continue reading →

If Ann Althouse Read Ethics Alarms As Often As I Read Her Blog, She Would Have the Answer to This Question…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I generally check out Althouse’s blog every few days because 1) she’s a smart and independent moderate, and a source of objective and unbiased takes on political events and media coverage of them 2) she’s a retired law professor with time on her hands, and thus finds possible ethics topics that I might normally miss and 3) she’s really, really weird, with obsessions about word usage, Bob Dylan, her blog’s tags (almost nobody uses the tags, reading her blog or this one), Saturday Night Live, drawings of rats (thankfully expired) and, lately, Grok. But she wouldn’t even add Ethics Alarms to her list of useful blog links (I asked), then decided not to have any blog links.

Well, I’m smart; I’m not dumb like everybody says and I want respect! If she bothered to check in on EA, she would have had an easy answer to what was a blog topic for her this week: “Help me think of a term to apply to articles like this, something that expresses why it bothers me so much, was her headline. It’s not ‘fake news,’ because it’s not even news.” The article was the Washington Post’s “Trump leans into isolation as challenges mount at home.”

Well to begin with, it is “fake news,” Counsellor. It is a news item presented by a journalist as news, and Ann herself agrees it isn’t news: that’s fake news by definition. Now I have regrets that I never completed my promised compendium of all the varieties of fake news engaged in by our biased and corrupt news media. I know I promised that a long time ago, and yes, I still think it’s relevant and important. “Fake news” is one of Trump’s most valuable additions to our lexicon, and he’s had several.

Continue reading →

Prof. Turley Calls “False Light” on House Democrats Sleazy Epstein Photos Smear

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I hate that I am tempted to write this every day now, often several times a day, but how can anyone of good character and admirable values continue to support a political party, whatever its claimed beliefs are, that behaves this way?

Yesterday EA discussed the desperate Democratic Party tactic of picking 19 photos (out of thousands) that showed a young Donald Trump (and other progressive hate-objects, like Alan Dershowitz and Steve Bannon) in the company of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein when he was known as just another billionaire on the celebrity party circuit or in the company of unidentified women. These were described in some of the Axis media as “bombshell” and “explosive” photos, though it is unclear when and where most of the photos were taken, many of them had been publicly released before, and none of them suggested any criminal, illicit or even unethical activity.

Despite that, political hack Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) had the gall to say, “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world. We will not rest until the American people get the truth.”

He might as well have added, “And we won’t stop lying about this phony Epstein scandal either until we Get Trump!”

Today Professor Jonathan Turley, a one-time Democrat who is obviously disgusted with Democrats, pointed out that what his former party has done with the photos is a classic example of a tort known as “false light,” where true photos are presented in a misleading and harmful way to damage a reputation or otherwise harm an individual via innuendo . It is essentially photographic deceit. He writes,

Continue reading →

An Inquirer Asks, “How Can I Stop My Wife From Badgering Our Friends About Climate Change?” How About….

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

…showing her that her hysteria is based on lies, bad stats, politicized “science” and hooey?

I admit it, that headline sucked me in to reading “Social Q’s,” a Times advice column that puts wokeness over wisdom, causing me to put it on the EA blacklist.

“My wife has become an eco-warrior,” a married weenie writes. “She has strong feelings about the environment and other people’s carbon footprints. She challenges our friends repeatedly about their lifestyle choices. I agree with her in principle, but I can’t support her moral outrage. …Help!“

Predictably, the column’s proprietor, Phillip Galanes, begins by saying, “I would begin by praising her, rightfully, for her commitment to an important issue.” I’ll fix it for him: “an important issue that nobody really knows much about, especially indoctrinated progressives who are passionate about what their bubble-mates are passionate about regardless of facts.”

Much better.

Continue reading →

The Rep. Henry Cuellar Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I had missed this story until one of Trump Deranged Facebook friends made an arch comment about me teaching “Presidential pardon ethics.” Huh, I wondered, what this old fool blathering on about now? It can’t be Biden’s advance pardons of his whole corrupt family because this guy never criticizes Democrats, so it must be something Trump did!” The Deranged have their uses: if Trump has done anything that by any possible stretch of the imagination could be bitched about, these people are like human Geiger-counters.

Sure enough, an op-ed in the Times came out yesterday called “The Pardon That Represents the New Era of Corruption.” [Gift link!] Wait, would that be President Clinton’s outrageous pardon of international fugitive from justice Marc Rich in exchange for a huge donation to the Clinton Library by his ex-wife? No. Democratic federal prosecutors Molly Gaston, who was part of the “Get Trump!” DOJ prosecution, and J.P. Cooney, special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deputy at DOJ, wrote the opinion piece because the President pardoned Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat awaiting trial on federal bribery charges. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say the wrote the opinion piece because they could see the potential in the story to impugn President Trump.

For good measure, to style the partisan hit job as “non-partisan,” the two prosecutors also attacked Hakeem Jeffries for praising Trump’s pardon of a Democratic House member. “Rather than be critical or perhaps stay silent, the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, welcomed the pardon and engaged in shameful pandering, apparently to maintain Mr. Cuellar’s party loyalty,” they write. “Most disturbingly, Mr. Jeffries did so by attacking the legitimacy of the criminal case against Mr. Cuellar, publicly dismissing the indictment against him as “very thin.” As former federal prosecutors who spent our careers rooting out public corruption, we see this for the wagon-circling that it is. The jury’s detailed, 54-page, multicount indictment against Mr. Cuellar was anything but thin, and he should have had to stand trial before a jury of his peers.” They continue, “Mr. Jeffries’s embrace of Mr. Cuellar was a disturbing sign that Democratic leaders, when it is politically advantageous, may be willing to join in Mr. Trump’s degradation of the justice system.”

Continue reading →

Oh Look! NOW the New York Times Says That President Biden Mishandled Illegal Immigration!

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

As with the Axis news media’s refusal to investigate or admit that Joe Biden was Demented POTUS Walking (sort of) while he was winning the Worst President Ever competition, as with the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, as with so much that it was complicit in distorting or hiding from the American public during the past 5 (6…7…8….9…) years in alliance with America’s proto-totalitarians, the New York Times was either deliberately or negligently asleep a at the metaphorical switch as Biden’s Administration opened the floodgates at our southern border. (Yikes! What a long sentence!)

My eyeballs almost fell out onto the keyboard as I read the headline, “4 Takeaways From The Times’s Reporting on Biden’s Immigration Record: A New York Times review of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s actions on immigration showed that they created an opening for a more aggressive Trump administration agenda.” NOW the Times is looking at the issue? What about when such analysis might have stopped the disastrous wave of illegals, many of them criminals or criminally oriented? Moreover, even as it purports to do its job too late to do any good, the Times language still betrays its bias and dishonesty.

This was an illegal immigration crisis created by the Democrats, not “actions on immigration.” And, as usual, the emphasis is on the Republican response to the Times’s favorite party’s misconduct, blurring the real issue. The problem with Biden’s indefensible failure to enforce our immigration laws and keep the border secure is that it allowed millions of unvetted, dangerous, illegal foreigners into the U.S. to the detriment of Americans, making it expensive, burdensome and divisive to kick them out, and not that the dereliction of duty “created an opening” for Trump.

Continue reading →

The Pattern: Trump Makes A Decision That Can Be Legitimately Criticized, and the Media Reports It In a Misleading and Biased Manner To Rig the Debate…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

This one nearly got me!

The USA Today headline: “National parks cut free entry for MLK Day, add Trump’s birthday.” I almost leaped for my keyboard. Sure, trolling the “No Kings” Trump Deranged is fun for POTUS, but this crossed the line. It also seemed like a deliberately racially provocative act: substituting his own birthday for MLK’s among the days commemorated by the National Parks? This mandated an Ethics Dunce post that would write itself!

It was not until the end of the story (by USA TODAY hack Kathleen Wong, who “covers travel news with a passion for sustainable tourism and human-focused storytelling” —gag/ack/yecchh!) where the full list of days when admission to the National Parks will be free of charge to American citizens is listed, that I recognized the nasty partisan con.

The new list of 2026 free admission days to the National Parks during patriotic holidays: President’s Day (Feb. 16), Memorial Day(May 31), Flag Day (June 14) Independence Day weekend (July 3–5),  the 110th Birthday of the National Park Service (Aug. 25) Constitution Day (Sept. 17) Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday (Oct. 27)—Teddy launched the National Parks— and Veterans Day (Nov. 11).  I had forgotten, as I suspect many readers have, that Flag Day happens to be Trump’s birthday, but the holiday fits naturally into the category of non-interest group, non- divisive patriotic commemorations that was clearly the motivation for “patriotic fee-free days” announced by the Department of the Interior.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “On the Venezuelan Drug Boat “Double-Tap…”

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

As I have stated periodically here, few things make my heart soar like a hawk more than when I awaken feeling punk and have the comforting knowledge that a worthy Comment of the Day awaits to be posted, giving me precious hours to become coherent, if not wise.

Thus I am thrilled to post 77Zoomie‘s invaluable and informed commentary on the controversy surrounding the deaths of two apparent drug smugglers. [I am sorely tempted to note that the Axis of Unethical Conduct is routinely outraged at the well-earned fates of illegal immigrant criminals and drug runners, but have been oddly reluctant to express similar concern for the many citizen victims of illegals who never should have been allowed enter and stay in our country. But I won’t…

Anyway, here is 77Zoomie’s Comment of the Day in response to “On the Venezuelan Drug Boat ‘Double-Tap’ Controversy”…

***

Former JAG here–I’ve taught the Law of Armed Conflict and Operational Law to active duty special operators at one of our special operations schools, as well as advised on use of force to some local commanders. A couple of observations:

I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this appears to be some kind of shaping operation directed at not just the President, but members of the armed forces. The original report of this incident was back in September in a publication called “The Intercept.” That report lay dormant until the National Lawyers Guild, a far left legal organization, published an information piece on the military’s obligation to disobey “unlawful” orders, on November 11. The tendentious video by the six congressmen followed shortly thereafter, followed immediately by the posting of billboards outside several major U.S. military installations urging soldiers to question the legality of their orders. This was immediately followed by the pick-up of the Intercept story and its publication by the corporate press.  Draw your own conclusions.

A key point in this discussion that seems to have been omitted by most if not all commentators is that we are engaging our military forces against a state-sponsored narco-terrorism operation. The Maduro government is supporting, sponsoring, and profiting from drug importation into the US, and is working hand in glove with Venezuelan cartels.  In other words, this is not a law enforcement operation but rather a state-versus-state confrontation involving what are effectively unlawful combatants on one side.

Continue reading →

On the Venezuelan Drug Boat “Double-Tap” Controversy

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

President Trump’s controversial policy of destroying vessels from Venezuela smuggling drugs into the U.S. is now the latest example of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s desperation search for bogus issues with which to impugn the President and his administration. Let’s see, we have: not “bringing down prices” that cannot come down after the last Administration caused 9% inflation; “cruelly” deporting illegal immigrants, including criminals; improving the White House with a long-needed ballroom; the President saying exactly, if intemperately, what six Democrats did by urging the military to defy its Commander-in- Chief; the Department of War requiring journalists not to leak sensitive information illegally provided by Deep State operatives…I’m sure I left out some. Now the Trump is defending the legality of a September 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean Sea where a second missile strike was ordered that killed survivors of the first strike.

Continue reading →