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

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

Case Study: How Broadcast News and “Experts” Deceive the Public

As I have mentioned here before, I usually sample broadcast news by simultaneously watching CNN, Fox News, BBC America and MSNBC on the DirecTV “News Mix” channel, never staying with any of them for more than a few minutes because they all are unethical, biased, and untrustworthy and it drives me CRAZY!

Just now, I saw Wolf Blitzer (has anyone ever parlayed a cool name into such a long, undeserved TV career despite persistent mediocrity?) interview an “expert,” clearly another Trump-hating law professor. She opined that President Trump “might” be violating the Constitution ( “KING! FASCIST!”) by directing ICE to again focus their illegal immigrant raids on restaurants, farms and hotels. It’s a likely violation of the Tenth Amendment, she opined. “The Tenth Amendment reserves the policing power to the states.”

That’s funny, I thought. I don’t recall the Tenth Amendment saying anything about police, and indeed, it doesn’t. What it says is that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Like the Second Amendment, the Tenth was not the Founders’ most shining hour in terms of clear, unambiguous language. The Tenth continues to be a rich and never-ending target for the Supreme Court controversies, but SCOTUS did rule, in McCulloch v. Maryland, that there is a principle of implied powers where the federal government (Congress or the Executive) can exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Obviously the ability to enforce federal law would fall under that category, but okay ICE foes, take your best shot and see what SCOTUS says.

However, what the “expert” implied was that the Tenth explicitly included policing as one of the powers reserved to the state. Wolf, either as a deceitful accomplice or as an ignorant boob (I’m guessing the latter to give him the benefit of the doubt) just sat there nodding. Thus any viewer who wasn’t moved to check the Bill of Rights (I’m guessing that’s 99.9% of CNN’s audience) was left with the false impression that President Trump is being a dictator again by directing a Federal Agency.

Let’s see: fake news, misinformation, partisan spin, deceit. Take your pick. No wonder the Axis was able to gull thousands of citizens into wasting time on “No Kings” day.

On Qatar, Air Force One, And the Lying News Media

Another week, another fake news story designed to undermine President Trump.

I must say, I admire the New York Times headline: “Trump is said to be planning to accept a luxury 747 from Qatar for use as Air Force One.” You see, “Trump” isn’t getting a 747 from the Middle Eastern Arab nation at all. The United States is. But, see, “Trump” is said to be getting the gift by Democrats and slimy journalists, so that’s the news. But people lying about what the President does isn’t news, it’s SOP, so why would this be worth a story? In fact, the headline only tells us someone or someones are saying that Trump is planning to accept the gift. That’s another one of my favorite kinds of fake news: psychic fake news, with the sources being unknown “sayers.”

ABC’s Jonathan Karl tweeted out a perfect example of how the news media distorts the news by manipulating the context. He tweeted yesterday,

“ABC EXCLUSIVE: President Trump is poised to accept a luxury jet as a gift from Qatar. It’s to be used as Air Force One and then transferred to the Trump library by January 2029. Perhaps the biggest foreign gift ever. DOJ insists it’s legal, not bribery, not violation of emoluments clause.”

Let’s see: the President will be accepting the jet on behalf of the nation, as Presidents do. The DOJ doesn’t have to “insist” that it’s not bribery, not illegal and not a violation of the [dead, inapplicable and never enforced] Emoluments Clause, because gifts to the U.S. are not personal gifts to the President, are legal, are not bribery, and the Emoluments Clause, one of the Axis’s Big Lie impeachment theories [Plan C], “has nothing to do with the price of beans,” as my father liked to say. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives without Congressional approval. Again, Trump personally isn’t being given anything.

Continue reading

New York Magazine Is Caught Manufacturing Fake Evidence Of “White Supremacy”

Once upon a time, the news media would get away with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

The story itself that New York Magazine used this deceptively cropped photo to introduce (The Cruel Kids Table: Out late with the young right as they cultivate cultural domination”) states that “Almost everyone is white” after beginning the story by quoting a party attendee as observing, “Have you noticed the entire room is white?” Promoting the piece, the NY Mag X account wrote that the story was about “the young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers who, after conquering Washington, have their sights set on the rest of America.” This was a hit piece about a supposedly all-white conservative influencers Trump inauguration party, yet the party’s host was black Gen Z Republican strategist CJ Pearson. Others pointed out, like black conservative pundit and “influencer” Rob Smith, also a guest at the party, that there were many Hispanics, blacks and Asians there. He posted this photo…

Continue reading

ABC Provides A Fake News Classic!

“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” I find this stunt by ABC News today as astounding as it is unforgivable.

The Axis, as I noted yesterday, is shaken to its core by polling data that seems to show that Kamala Harris’s efforts to hide, lie, cackle and flip-flop her way to the White House is no longer working despite the news media’s intense assistance. Meanwhile, Nate Silver posted today that his analytical model gives Trump a 53.4% chance of winning Wisconsin, 54.9% in Michigan, 60.8% in Nevada, and a 64.9% chance of winning Pennsylvania, giving Trump a likely 312 votes in the Electoral College.

So ABC, determined to rescue their party’s flagging spirits, published a story headlined, “Harris support rises among some likely voters: POLL.” “As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people,” this trusted name in journalism announced.

Continue reading

Wow. The Corrupt Journalism “Profession” Really Doesn’t Get That Ethics Thingy, Does It?

A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, wrote an op-ed for the Times’ arch rival the Washington Post that was so jaw-droppingly infuriating that it took me three tries to finish it. It had the Axis-speak headline “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America.” (I have a pay-wall-escape link for you.)

The publisher of one of the most influential fake news purveyors in the media thinks Donald Trump is planting the seeds of censorship by correctly, fairly, and invaluably having the guts to call what the current plague of “advocacy journalism” really is. His tagging of the mainstream media as an “enemy of the people” was similarly apt, and just as important.

At its core, Sultzberger’s indignant screed amounts to “How dare he?” That is a ludicrous stance for the publisher of a newspaper that has abused its mission openly by (among other things) stating on multiple occasions that it would slant its reporting against Donald Trump. “Fake news,” far from being an invitation to censor the press, is a necessary reminder not to trust the press as well as the rest of the mainstream media.

Indeed, the op-ed is, ironically, an excellent example of why this bunch is so untrustworthy. Althouse wrote today,

The #1 thing I didn’t say but wanted to say was that contrary to Sulzberger’s perverted argument, criticizing the press is not censorship. Criticizing the press is more speech. Trump has been criticizing the press. It is Trump’s antagonists who have pursued censorship, for many reasons, including his criticism of the press.

The news media was given great power by the First Amendment as well as the right to abuse it, which it has increasingly in recent years. Media censorship of the news that doesn’t support the narratives and policies favored by alleged journalists who lack the skills and intellect to responsively wield control over public knowledge is the real threat to democracy, not Donald Trump calling it what it is.

Althouse also quotes Glenn Reynolds, who wrote yesterday,

Well, if you guys would stop lying so much — *cough* Russian Collusion *cough* — and start reporting actual news *cough* Hunter’s laptop *cough* — maybe he wouldn’t have gotten traction with [“fake news”]. But in fact you’re the guys trying to shut down reporting and opinion that run against your chosen storylines, which are often false. And now that people have noticed you’re trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to pretend that we have healthy, normal institutions. We don’t. You aren’t.

I would have coughed a lot more, notably after Sulzberger’s repeated defense of “independent journalists.” Does he really think that anyone paying attention regards Times reporters and pundits as “independent”? Or is “independent” his deceitful way of making readers think he’s talking about objectivity?

I suspect the latter. Objectivity only intermittently creeps into the reporting of the Times, the Post, and…well, you can recite the list. Because you often can’t tell when that blessed event has occurred, the default attitude of any alert citizen has to be skepticism. That, Mr. Sulzberger, is why it is so important to call attention to fake news as a phenomenon and the frequency of its appearance in your media product and others. Its proliferation precludes trust.

And the news media has no one to blame for that but themselves.

From the Ethics Alarms “Conservatives Do Fake News Too” File…

I really hate this stuff, and I’m getting sick of having to post on it.

Today I saw misleading click-bait headlines on various conservative blogs and websites were like this one: Woke California: U-Turn Signs Are Homophobic. There were many social media posts on accounts like “End Wokeness” with the same implication: those crazy LGPTQ fanatics are out of control, and are now even offended by regular traffic signs.

That was certainly my reaction to just reading the headlines. When I investigated—-my sock drawer is furious with me for using up our quality time together—I learned that the traffic signs removed by the LGBTQ community and the town of Silver Lake, California were considered homophobic because….the signs were homophobic.

In the 90s, before gay dating apps like Grindr, gays in Silver Lake (and elsewhere) relied on printed guidebooks to find public areas and gay bars where they could meet other men like them. “No U-Turn” and “No Cruising” signs were put up in parts of Silver Lake where residents had complained about gay men gathering. The signs were a—subtle? Not so subtle?—rebuke and warning.

The gay community in Silver lake has been trying for years to get official action approved to remove what the LA Times calls “signs of its anti-gay past,” and finally succeeded. None of the conservative websites that mocked this episode as hysterical hyper sensitivity mentioned the “No Cruising” signs in their headlines, and it’s obvious why. Seeing “No U-Turn” as an anti-gay message takes a little thought. “No Cruising”? I’ve never seen such a sign in my life. That one’s more obvious…so they buried it .

Deceit is one of the primary tools of fake news journalism.

If conservative blogs, news outlets and website have valid issues and points to make, they should be able to make them honestly by straightforward reporting. It is very disappointing to see a usually fair and reliable conservative commentary site like Legal Insurrection stooping to these tactics.

Obama’s Favorite Songs: An Often Ignored Insidious Form of “Fake News”

Among the Ethics Alarms long-promised essays that have yet to be posted (you never know when one will finally pop up!) is the Ethics Alarms Fake News Directory. A story that has ended up on many MSM news sources reminded me of why what I thought it would be an easy list to compile turned into a chore. It has appeared in the Washington Post, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Variety, CNN, the Hill, the Chicago Sun -Times, Yahoo!, AOL and dozens—yes dozens— more. The breathlessly urgent story: Barack Obama shared his list of favorite songs for 2023, or, as the Post put it, “Obama’s 2023 bangers include Beyoncé, Burna Boy and Blondshell.”

There was real news about Obama recently: several conservative-leaning news sources like the New York Post and Fox News reported that the ex-President had lobbied Harvard’s governing body to keep unqualified serial plagiarist Claudine Gay as president of Obama’s alma mater. Of course, the “good” media didn’t see that as newsworthy, or felt that the public didn’t need to know about it. Instead, many of them chose to treat Obama’s annual favorite music list as worthy of breaking news treatment.

This is favoritism and propaganda by innuendo. Only a celebrity presumed to be deserving of top of the cognitive dissonance scale status can get such treatment. The publications that printed this non-news as news are pushing readers to adopt their position: this is an inarguably good and great man of iconic stature, and so attention should be paid to his every thought, statement and opinion. It is a familiar media propaganda tactic and was one of the ways the news media propped up Obama during his mediocre terms as President (and I’m being kind) when they treated his college basketball tournament bracket choices as worthy of attention. These same news sources didn’t think the Hunter Biden laptop discovery was news in the middle of a hotly-contested election, nor did it rush to cover an accusation by a former Biden Senate staffer that he had raped her, but the music playlist of a politician with no special expertise in music at all—at least Bill Clinton played the saxophone—warranted coverage.

Continue reading

No, “Over 1,600 Scientists” Have NOT Signed A “No Climate Change Emergency” Declaration

Climate change hysteria, hype, propaganda and disinformation have become overwhelming lately, and with hurricane season upon us, it can be expected to get even worse. So is evidence that the spectacularly woke and incompetent Biden administration is so dedicated to the enviro-fascism this cult engenders that its priorities have become unhinged. For example, when the Pentagon needed to be devoting it full attention to minimizing the carnage from Biden’s disastrous snap withdrawal from Afghanistan in the two weeks between the fall of Kabul to the Taliban on August 15, 2021, and the final U.S. military flight out of Afghanistan on August 30, newly revealed emails show that top Pentagon officials were working to finalize the Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Plan, which declares climate change a major national security risk. After all, what’s a few dead servicemen and abandoned foreign allies along with the collapse of U.S. foreign policy credibility when the END OF THE WORLD looms?

Central to this international brainwashing and bullying effort—the U.N. recently ruled that children can sue nations that haven’t adequately wasted resources on anti-climate change measures that are likely to have no effect whatsoever on the climate—is the misleading claim that there is “scientific consensus” on the topic, when in fact there is not, and when even if this were true, “consensus” on scientific matters has been wrong, sometimes disastrously wrong, throughout history. The conclusions of this so-called consensus are being parroted by activists, politicians and journalists who couldn’t pass a 7th grade science quiz.

Meanwhile, President Biden is being urged to declare a constitutionally dubious “climate emergency” because of all this “certainty” regarding climate change doom, despite the fact that none of the models have panned out and predictions of deadlines to “save the planet” have been as accurate as the those of latter day prophets who have announced the exacts dates when Armageddon was arriving.

Despite all of this (and more), today’s lie being plastered as a headline on multiple conservative and anti-climate change news and a commentary sources is still a lie, still unethical, and still unforgivable. “1,600 Scientists Humiliate the Climate Ghouls Once and for All,” claims PJ Media, the conservative punditry giant. “Coalition of Scientists: ‘There is No Climate Emergency,” shouts CatholicVote. “Over 1,600 Scientists Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration” is the most common phrasing, as used by the Epoch Times.

Continue reading

At CNN, More Smoking Gun Evidence Of Malign Mainstream Media Partisan Bias

You have to feel a little bit sorry for Media Matters. The far-Left propaganda outlet that specializes in spinning for progressives while supposedly flagging “fake news” on the right has to restrict itself primarily to Fox News, though it does participate enthusiastically when it wants to assist the mainstream media in burying stories like the discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop or the mysterious <cough!> discovery of cocaine in the White House. NewsBusters, in contrast, has almost the entire mainstream media spectrum to mine for outrageously biased and unethical news coverage, even with its own conservative bias in full operation. And the alleged giants of the once honorable field of journalism keep churning out frightening examples like this:

Continue reading