Journalism & Media

Ethics Dunce: Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy [Link Fixed]

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

There is no way not to take yesterday’s public warning from the nation’s top health official as ominous, indeed sinister. U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy expounded on the risks of social media to children and teens, citing possible “harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.” The remarkable 19-page advisory, begins by acknowledging that the effects of social media on adolescent mental health are not well understood, and even that social media can be beneficial to “some users.” It then goes on to argue ,“There are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”

And thus the U.S. Surgeon General lays the groundwork for government censorship, despite admitting that there is insufficient hard data to support his conclusions. Parental supervision is not enough for this government, as we have already seen in multiple settings. After all, “it takes a village,” the village that one side of the current culture wars is trying to define includes treating words and expression as “harm” from which people must be kept “safe.” Predictably, the near-completely compliant national news media is behind such government appropriation of parental authority, in this as well as other matters.

Continue reading →

Oh Great, Just What We Needed: “Nick Sandmann II: Citi Bike Karen”

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Surely you recall the Nick Sandmann episode? That’s when a young Catholic school student visiting the Lincoln Memorial was confronted by a Native American activist who got in his face while the high school student’s group was trapped between protesters, and because a single photograph appeared to show Sandmann “smirking” (and because he was wearing a MAGA cap), he was called a racist by various pundits and reporters on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,The Guardian, Huffington Post, NPR, Slate, The Hill, Gannett News, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Several alleged comic, like Bill Maher, also tarred the boy as a racist. CNN, the Post, NBC and others ended up settling laws suits after Sandmann’s lawyer sued for defamation The full video showed conclusively that the Native American activist was the aggressor, and that.Sandmann’s “smirk” was simply a momentary expression of discomfort while he was placed in a difficult position.

As in the cases of the Mike Brown shooting, the George Floyd death, Kyle Rittenhouse, and now Daniel Penny, currently facing a possible manslaughter trial for killing a black, mentally-ill homeless man who was threatening subway passengers in New York City, the media’s reflex attitude in any ambiguous confrontation between a white American and a member of a currently sanctified minority group is to assume the white individual is at fault and indulging his or her racist beliefs. After all, as the late Leslie Gore might have sung if she were an anti-white racist, “That’s the Way Whites Are.”

Now we have another example, the Saga of “Citi Bike Karen.” The video above went viral on social media showing a pregnant woman named Sarah Comrie arguing with young man about a Citi Bike that he was trying to take away from her. As Comrie protested and cried for help, she is heckled and intimidated by a group of five blacks surrounding her. Finally, she gave up and rented another bike.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Jonathan Turley

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“As [the WaPo’s Philip] Bump wrote when he was falsely accusing Barr, “it is the job of the media to tell the truth.” This would be a good time to start.”

—-Prof. Jonathan Turley in an epic defenestration of Washington Post Democratic Party propagandist Philip Bump

The Washington Post continuing to publish columnist Philip Bump’s “advocacy journalism (aka. lies) tells us as much about that once respectable paper as MSNBC continuing to provide a platform for Al Sharpton (and Joy Reid, and Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell, and Joe Scarborough…). Bump distorts facts and sets out to disorient Post readers, which is, I was taught in journalism class, the opposite of what newspapers are supposed to do. “But he’s a pundit, not a reporter!” you protest? Fine: as the saying goes, he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.

Continue reading →

More On Disgraced Ex-U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins: “The Dark Underbelly Of The Intersection Of Politics And Media”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Fortunately, Boston still has surviving conservative competitor of the dominant Boston Globe—you know, that heroic newspaper portrayed in “Spotlight.” If it didn’t, it’s quite likely no news media sources would publicize the disturbing unholy alliance between the corrupt U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins, a brazenly unethical prosecutor pushed into power by the Democratic Party, and Massachusetts’ most influential news source.

The Boston Herald may be struggling, but it performed a public service by revealing the Globe’s alliance with Rollins, whose fall Ethics Alarms discussed here. The conservative paper cursed to try to survive in a one party city and state reports today,

“No mercy. Finish him,” Rollins demanded to Boston City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo in one of their text exchanges about Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden, whose campaign they were trying to torpedo….The two conspired – with the Boston Globe as willing accomplice – to tilt the Democratic D.A. primary in Arroyo’s favor by trying to smear Hayden to show he was somehow under federal investigation, texts and emails show….The Globe actually ran three stories about Hayden using Rollins as an anonymous source.

...That’s why it’s so important for reporters to know the personal agendas of anonymous stories and to check out everything they tell you. Journalists like to think of themselves as using lofty ethical standards but when it comes to political or investigative journalism the sausage-making can be unseemly. The Rollins probe has slimed an untrustworthy press and feeds into why an already cynical public hates and doesn’t trust the media.

The twin investigative reports about Rollins also showed how dangerous it is for the public and media to glorify and lionize public officials. When Rollins threw herself an elaborate swearing-in ceremony over a year ago at the federal courthouse in Boston, both Democrats and Republicans rushed to praise her as a “trailblazer” – as the Boston Globe called her – and predicted greatness for her.

Amusingly, one of those who was effusive in her praise for Rollins was Massachusetts’ spectacularly unethical Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren, aka “Fauxahautus,” who raved, “She has the values, the vision, and the courage to be an outstanding US attorney!” Among Rollins’ values was blatant politicizing of the law for Democratic gain as well as her own.The Herald notes that Rollins would have probably gotten away with her unethical election tampering and remain a U.S. Attorney today if she hadn’t attended a Democratic Party fundraiser where a Boston Herald reporter saw her and reported her presence.That flagrant ethical breach, for which Rollins falsely claimed claimed she had prior approval, triggered the ethics investigations by the Inspector General and Office of Special Counsel that ended her tenure.

Now that she has resigned in disgrace, the Globe is back to playing objective journalism again, issuing stories and columns condemning Rollins. It has not, of course, condemned its own complicity in her machinations.

The lesson of this relatively under-reported scandal is that while the Russian Collusion hoax, as revealed by the Durham Reports, was a national collaborative effort by Democrats, corrupt government officials and the biased news media to tamper with democracy, the same rotten alliance is hard at work undermining democracy at the state and local levels as well. What is desperately needed is a non-partisan watch-dog organization that fingers and exposes news media corruption, awarding the opposite of the Pulitzers (which, being politically biased themselves, has not retracted its awards to the Washington Post ad New York Times for their false and partisan coverage of “Russiagate.”) Such negative awards would have to be monthly rather than yearly, so frequently do journalists today engage in propaganda and disinformation.

Maybe Elon Musk, if he has any money to spare after his sputtering efforts to restore free speech to Twitter, can install such a system. Exposure and shame seem to be the only weapons we have against “the enemies of the people.”

CNN’s Internal War Over The Trump Townhall Shows How Corrupt And Dangerous U.S. Journalism Has Become

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Of all the offensive, obnoxious and outrageous things Donald Trump has said or tweeted, none infuriated progressives more than his calling the news media the “enemies of the people.” This is ironic, because nothing he’s ever said was more true or important to express.

Ace of Spades, the conservative blogging provocateur who is often as incisive as he is inflammatory, issued an impressive examination of what is transpiring at CNN in the wake of last week’s Trump “townhall.” He predicts, as others are predicting, that CNN chief Chris Licht’s days are numbered because the programming went against the pure, near-MSNBC level of full-throated Democratic propaganda CNN has been selling as “news” for more than a decade. It seems clear—and it really shouldn’t be surprising—that the audience CNN has nurtured by slanting its reporting isn’t interested in opposing views, perspective or objective analysis. Thus there has been a sudden drop in CNN ratings following the Trump event similar to the exodus from Fox News following the removal of its demagogue-in-chief, Tucker Carlson. Both migrations are evidence of ethics corruption, but of the two, punishing CNN for what once would have been considered responsible and necessary journalism is the more ominous.

Ace’s various references reveal, among other things…

Continue reading →

Miller Lite Surpasses Bud Lite’s Self-Immolating Beer Ad With One That’s Even More Unethical

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

By now it should be clear what was wrong with the Bud Light promotion featuring silly biological male drag queen Dylan Mulvaney,. First of all, it was incompetent: alienating your core market to score political correctness points with  groups that don’t care about your product is idiotic. It was also irresponsible: investors in the company don’t own stock to be part of political grandstanding, they want to make money, and a company has an obligation not to undermine that objective. It was disrespectful too: making one’s product into a symbol of one side of a culture wars skirmish forces consumers to take sides, and is a slap in the face to consumers who don’t happen to agree with the company’s stance.

None of this was difficult to figure out, but a smug female marketing VP decided to use her job to advance her own political beliefs rather than to do what she was hired to do: sell beer.  This, of course, should have meant a bonanza for the competitors of Bud Lite; if Bud’s sales were going to implode (and they have, down about 25% with no relief in sight), light beer-lovers (weird as they may be) had to go somewhere. But even before the “Drink Bud Lite, show your support for self-identifying women with penises” campaign, Miller Lite had issued the smugly woke video above during Women’s History Month. It’s worse than the Bud Lite ad, even though it won’t lose as many loyal customers:

Continue reading →

Unexpectedly, The Biden Administration Policy Of Using Diversity/Equity/Inclusion And Hyper-Partisanship As Criteria For Law Enforcement Appointments Results In An Unethical US Attorney

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Who couldn’t see this coming? The bipartisan effort to politicize the justice system, recently brought into focus by Durham Report, resulted in a spectacularly unethical and corrupt U.S. Attorney, Rachael S. Rollins, the Biden selection for the job in Massachusetts. A 161-page report issued by Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, found that Rollins has been a whirlwind of unethical conduct, misusing her office to help a political ally, defying ethics rules to get free tickets to Boston Celtics games, her acceptance of flights and a resort stay paid for by a sports and entertainment company, and lying under oath to investigators, among other misdeed. The New York Times calls the IG’s work “one of the most extraordinary public denunciations of a sitting federal prosecutor in recent memory.” The U.S. Office of Special Counsel released its own findings on Rollins’ sleaziness, concluding that she had violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal officials.

Continue reading →

Assorted Ethics Observations On The Durham Report, Part I: The News Media

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

John Durham, the special counsel charged with investigating the Trump campaign-Russian collusion “witch hunt” (as Donald Trump calls it, with more accuracy than usual) finally released his 306 page report late yesterday. I’m still slogging through it, but I’ve read a lot of excerpts and snippets, and it’s not too early to make some judgments.

I don’t need to read the whole thing, for example, to cite the news media’s coverage of Durham’s work as a fairly revolting example of a “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” spin job. Attention should be paid, because various outlets are essentially plastering signs on their metaphorical foreheads reading, “We’re biased, pro-Democrat, anti-Trump hacks!”

At Memeorandum, for example, the useful headline aggregator much praised by Ann Althouse, the Durham report’s release isn’t even the lead story. That would be the “graphic” law suit a former assistant has filed against Rudy Giuliani alleging that he coerced her into sex, among other sensational claims. One headline above the Durham report coverage is “Rudy Giuliani made antisemitic remarks about Jews’ genitalia, mocked ‘freaking Passover’ observance, new lawsuit claims.” I think I can state with reasonable certainty that when the history of this awful period is written, the successful efforts by Democrats, the news media and the “deep state” to cripple and de-legitimize the efforts of a duly-elected U.S. President to do the job he was elected to do will be a continuing source of analysis and debate, and the accusations made in his dotage against Giuliani will be a footnote at best, even if they turn out to be true.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: How Jean Carroll Got To Sue Trump For A Sexual Assault Allegation Over Two Decades Old

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

When I was discussing the recent jury verdict finding Donald Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault with an astute trail lawyer friend, he expressed surprise that the sexual assault civil case wasn’t barred by the statute of limitations, as the criminal case was. Among the glaring problems with the jury verdict was that it found by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual assault—not the rape allegation , which, strangely, is what Trump called a lie on social media, prompting the defamation suit—took place even though Carroll couldn’t say what year it had occurred in. “This is the reason we have statute of limitations,” my learned friend said. “Memories fade, evidence is lost, testimony becomes unreliable. I’m amazed New York’s statute allows this.”

Well therein lies a tale. The statute didn’t allow it until, coincidentally <cough> last year. The Adult Survivors Act was passed by the New York legislature and signed by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul in 2022. It created a “one-year lookback window for survivors of sexual assault” to legally pursue their alleged abusers, irrespective of when the abuse took place.

It was and is a blatantly political measure, pandering to the #MeToo crowd, which itself is deeply conflicted and corrupt. Now bad, bad men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and…surprise! Donald Trump, can be sued during a convenient one year window no matter how long ago their alleged sexual misconduct took place, or how blurry memories of the details may be. Never mind that the protection against unfair sexual assault and sexual harassment lawsuits based on accusations that only surface when the accuser calculates that there are forces at play in society (like “Believe all woman”) making a victory likely should be available to all citizens. Never mind that such late-hit lawsuits rely on emotion and politics as much as evidence.

Continue reading →

Next Up On The Rapidly Expanding List Of Speech Progressives Want To Censor: “Fear Speech”

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

New York Times reporter and opinion writer Julia Angwin has been given a prominent space in the latest Sunday Times to expound on why another kind of speech needs to be suppressed, controlled and if possible, censored: “fear speech.”

Already the relentlessly radicalizing progressive hoard has embraced the anti-American concept of censoring other kinds of speech according to their very subjective definitions: “misinformation,” meaning opinions or analysis they disagree with, or distortions of truth that emanate from someplace or some one not devoted to advancing the Left’s goals and agendas, and “hate speech,” which they want to have excluded from First Amendment protections as they define it on a case by case basis. Now the Times is starting the metaphorical ball rolling to target more speech that these two categories might miss. Its designated messenger declares,

This year, Facebook and Twitter allowed a video of a talk to be distributed on their platforms in which Michael J. Knowles, a right-wing pundit, called for “transgenderism” to be “eradicated.” The Conservative Political Action Coalition, which hosted the talk, said in its social media posts promoting the video that the talk was “all about the left’s attempt to erase biological women from modern society.”

None of this was censored by the tech platforms because neither Mr. Knowles nor CPAC violated the platforms’ hate speech rules that prohibit direct attacks against people based on who they are. But by allowing such speech to be disseminated on their platforms, the social media companies were doing something that should perhaps concern us even more: They were stoking fear of a marginalized group.

Note the carefully crafted rhetoric: stoking fear of a marginalized group. Stoking fear of a group to marginalize it as much as possible for political gain is apparently hunky-dory, as in…

She continues,

Continue reading →