Nah there’s no mainstream media bias”

More Trump Deranged Fake News From The Times..

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I’ve decided that I’m going to keep posting these “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” essays until one of the bias-deniers who hangs out in these parts finally screams, “All right! All right! We’ve been lying! Of course the mainstream media is actively trying to undermine the President, especially the Times!“

This one is especially timely after a prominent member of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers pleaded for support in arguing that Trump should be removed from office because he was mean to the Pope. The member also had the—something—to insist that this was not a partisan issue. I wrote, before refusing to read the many replies supporting the “non-partisan” who wants the 25th Amendment used…you know, like the Axis was claiming during Trump’s first term—to forcibly remove him from office,

“Oh for heaven’s sake. This is not a non-partisan issue, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, dishonest or being paid by the Democrats. 
And it is not a proper topic for conversation here, not that this has stopped the majority Left-leaning political bias on this listserv from leaking out with regularity. Did anyone here ever breathe a bit of concern that the previous President was showing ominous signs of being unfit for office? I don’t recall any, but I’d take seriously their arguments on why this is a legitimate APRL concern now.  Anyone else is prohibited by what I call “ethics estoppel.”

But I digress. Here is yesterday’s headline on a large Times feature (Gift link):

Trump’s Erratic Behavior and Extreme Comments Revive Mental Health Debate

“As the president threatens to wipe out Iran and attacks the pope, even some former allies and advisers are questioning whether he has grown increasingly unbalanced, describing him as “lunatic” and “clearly insane.”

The second I read that, I thought, “Hmmm, I wonder if I can guess who the ‘former allies and advisers’ are. Let’s see if you can guess: I’ll give you 30 seconds..

Pages: 1 2

Does Anyone Really Have To Ask This Question?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Ann Althouse, who for some strange reason is obsessed with AI in general and Grok in particular, asked her favorite bot, “Which U.S. First Ladies have received the cruelest treatment in the press (and in public conversation)? Especially which ones were disrespected as, essentially, whores?”

Anyone who doesn’t know the answer and the runner-up is both politically and historically ignorant. Obviously Grok informed Ann that Melania Trump is the “winner” and that it isn’t even close, telling the bloggress in part (my comments interspersed in bold),,

“Melania Trump stands out among actual U.S. First Ladies for receiving some of the most explicit, sexualized public disrespect in the modern era—being directly called a “hooker,” “whore,” or accused of having been a prostitute/escort. This came from tabloid stories, a New York Times reporter (who was reprimanded after a model publicly called out the comment), social media, and partisan commentary tied to her pre-White House modeling career and alleged links to escort services. She filed (and later settled or pursued) defamation suits, including a $150 million claim against the Daily Mail over “elite escort” allegations, which the paper retracted. Media and online discourse frequently framed her as ornamental, aloof, or unworthy in ways that veered into slut-shaming, far more personal and vicious than typical policy or style critiques faced by others. Some contemporary observers (across outlets) described her overall press treatment as among the worst for any modern First Lady.”
SOME? There’s no contest! Melania is first, second, third…American First Ladies have always, always, been treated with respect by the news media, though there have been partisan critics of some First Ladies like “Lemonade Lucy” Hayes, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan and Michelle Obama, but nothing close to the venom heaped on Malania. Back to Grok…
“No other serving First Lady matches this level of direct “whore/prostitute” framing in the historical record… The single most brutal sexual character assassination of a presidential spouse involved Rachel Jackson (wife of Andrew Jackson) during the 1828 campaign. Opponents dredged up her first marriage’s messy divorce and her subsequent union with Jackson, labeling her a bigamist, adulteress, “whore,” “harlot,” and woman of “open and notorious lewdness” in newspapers and pamphlets. She was devastated, withdrew from public life, and died of a heart attack shortly after the election (before inauguration). Andrew Jackson blamed the “slander” for her death and had “A being so gentle and so virtuous, slander might wound, but could never dishonor” inscribed on her tombstone. 
Note to Grok (and Ann): It wasn’t a “messy divorce,” it was a legally invalid divorce, so technically Rachel was a bigamist.
Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Month and Axis Media “Methinks They Doth Protest Too Much” Tweet of the Century”: CNN

/ Jack Marshall / 32 Comments

Ethics Alarms had flagged CNN’s incompetence and bias too often already this week: it was getting boring. Then the network, damn them, forced me to write about its crummy ethics again, by posting that ludicrous protest above.

Here is the “journalism” CNN stands behind:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Month: Julia Angwin

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“I guess it’s no surprise that Superhuman believed it could, in my opinion, break the law. We live in a world where A.I. companies are grabbing every bit of writing, art and music without consent. Where our president is launching wars without the consent of Congress that our Constitution requires. Where Jeffrey Epstein spent years coercing girls too young to provide consent into sexual relations”

—NYT “investigative journalist” Julia Angwin, dragging a flase and ignorant attack on President Trump into her op-ed about a lawsuit having nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Once again, I challenge the oblivious defenders of the New York Times and those who insist that the Axis news media isn’t a full-time Democratic propaganda operation to defend a passage that should never have made it into print.

The essay was headlined, “Why I’m Suing Grammarly,” and the writer had a valid and interesting story to tell on a hot topic: the failings of artificial intelligence. The A.I. editing service Grammarly apparently attaches the names of prominent writers to some of its re-write suggestions. Not only have the writers “quoted” not agreed to the use of their names and authority, the suggestions attributed to them might make them sound like unpublished hacks. Angwin writes,

“Like all writers, I live by my wits. My ability to earn a living rests on my ability to craft a phrase, to synthesize an idea, to make readers care about people and places they can only access through words on a page. Grammarly hadn’t checked with me before using my name. I only learned that an A.I. company was selling a deepfake of my mind from an article online. And it wasn’t just me. Superhuman — the parent company of Grammarly — made fake editor versions of a range of people…In my home state of New York, the century-old right of publicity law prohibits a person’s name or image from being used for commercial purposes without her consent. At least 25 states have similar publicity statutes. And now, I’m using this law to fight back. I am the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against Superhuman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it violated New York and California publicity laws by not seeking consent before using our names in a paid service…”

Fascinating and informative…and absolutely irrelevant to President Trump, the Iran War and the Constitution. But Julia couldn’t help herself. She couldn’t help herself because she is surrounded all day by Trump Deranged hysterics and bubble-dwelling boobs who spend every waking hour hating everything the President of the United States says or does, so she couldn’t resist inserting an attack on POTUS in her column, even though it was as wrong as it is was gratuitous.

Pages: 1 2

The Rest of the Story: CNN’s Abbe Phillip Forced To Issue On Air Apology

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

As chronicled here, CNN’s talking heads lied repeatedly in an attempt to blame the attempted terrorist bombing in New York City on anti-Muslim, right-wing bigots. First Abbe Phillip repeated the Big Lie that had already been proven false, then she deceitfully continued it with a misleading “clarification” on X, and then “The View’s” fake conservative Ana Navarro repeated the fake Axis narrative a day later. The criticism of Phillip’s lie was so loud on social media that CNN apparently told their incompetent (but black and female, so she will be hard to fire) to do an on air apology, so we got this:

Verdict: 1. Too late. 2. Not good enough. She’s still lying.

Pages: 1 2

Addendum to “Yet More Evidence [That]…Our Journalists Are Disgustingly Biased and “Enemies of the People”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

It’s even worse than that. Abby Phillips, the openly biased and incompetent host of CNN’s “NewsNight,”repeated the dishonest Axis media spin that the ISIS attack against a group of protesters outside Gracie Mansion was against NYC’s Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani last night.

ABBY PHILLIP: Up next, two Republicans say Muslims don’t belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the House Speaker Mike Johnson says nothing, really, to condemn those comments.

This lie, as discussed in the earlier EA post,had been debunked far and wide by that time, but never mind! It was apparently too good a Big Lie for a dedicated Axis propagandist like Phillip to surrender. Nobody spoke up on CNN (of course not!) to correct her, but enough abuse was heaped on Phillip that she issued a foxy “correction”…

Not “specifically” targeting the Muslim mayor, Abbe, you irredeemable hack?

Pages: 1 2

Jesse Jackson Jr. Properly Slams Obama and Biden for Trying To Turning His Father’s Funeral Into An Anti-Trump Campaign Rally

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Well good for him.

Jackson said, during a private memorial service at Rainbow Push Coalition headquarters in Chicago, that “[Y]esterday, I listened for several hours to three United States presidents who do not know Jesse Jackson.”

He continued,

“He maintained a tense relationship with the political order, not because the presidents were white or black, but the demands of our message, the demands of speaking for the least of these — those who are disinherited, the damned, the dispossessed, the disrespected — demanded not Democratic or Republican solutions, but demanded a consistent, prophetic voice that at no point in time ever sold us out as people. And it speaks volumes about who the Rev. Jesse Jackson was.”

Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Joe Biden all used their eulogies to attack the President and his policies, though, as you might have guessed, Harris was the most obnoxious and made the least sense. “Let me just say I predicted a lot about what’s happening right now,” Harris smirked. “I’m not into saying I told you so but we did see it coming.” I’d love to ask her what it was exactly that she “saw coming.” The forceful repudiation of the weak, zombie administration she was part of? The voters’ rejection of her embarrassing DEI candidacy? Her running mate’s utter disgrace and exposure as a corrupt hack?

Jackson’s was a subtle and measured rebuke, so subtle and measured that most of the Axis media felt it necessary to ignore it. Many, realizing how inappropriate it was for Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to turn attention away from Jackson’s father and onto their hatred of Donald Trump at Jesse Jackson Sr.’s funeral, also worked to hide the Democrats’ nauseating conduct from the public…after all, there’s an election coming!

Pages: 1 2

Good News, Progressives, Democrats and Trump Deranged! The Washington Post Is Still Biased, Dishonest and Untrustworthy…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

What a joke.

A lot of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends flipped out in fury after owner Jeff Bezos fired much of the Washington Post staff, including many unethical, lying pundits and columnists. How dare Bezos interfere with his paper’s partisan propaganda just because it was losing money by the millions? Many of my mentally ill friends announced that they would boycott Amazon in vengeance.

I’m thrilled to be able to inform my miserable friends, relatives and colleagues that they now have a reason to buck up. The Post may be gutted, but whatever remains in the ruins is still dishonest, unethical, biased and as partisan as ever.

In a story three days ago headlined, “Outside White House, hundreds protest attack on Iran, urge end to conflict,” the Post highlighted a protest that broke out near the White House hours after “Epic Fury” began. The reports chose to explain the event though the eyes of Ermiya Fanaeian, “a 25-year-old PhD candidate in political science at Howard University” whom the Post introduced as a young woman who “has lived in the United States since she was 1, but still has family in her home country of Iran.”

As “word spread of attacks there by Israel and the U.S.,” Post reporters Jasmine Golden and Liam Scott wrote, Fanaeian “grew concerned about her relatives and other Iranians” and “decided to protest the military action.” “It hits close to home,” Fanaeian was quoted as saying. “I also know that the people in Iran are the ones who are going to experience the most, the biggest consequences from these attacks.”

Poor Ermiya! This is the news media playing the cognitive dissonance game. Let’s watch the President’s attack on an international villain and purveyor of terrorism that has been declaring “Death to America!” and planning death to Israel for decades, as filtered through the emotions of an innocent young female student worried about her family.

Pages: 1 2

On the Colbert “Equal Time” Nonsense…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Gee, what a surprise. Democrats don’t like the Federal Communications Commission “Equal Time” rule applying to non-news shows when hey try to influence elections.

The Communications Act of 1934, once aimed at radio, now mostly applied to television, includes a provision regarding coverage of political candidates. If a station gives airtime to one candidate, then the same station must offer comparable time to other candidates competing in an approaching primary or election.  Regarding campaign ads, a station selling airtime to one candidate also has to offer to sell the same amount of time to other candidates for the same office. Exceptions to this rule include newscasts, “bona fide” interview programs, and coverage of live events or documentaries. Candidates appearing in non-news, entertainment programming near to elections now trigger the provision.

As they should.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert, on the way out already from his all-Democratic-cheer-leading-all-the-time show, attacked his own network this week after he was stopped from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D), a U.S. Senate candidate, because of the FCC ’s equal-time rule.

“You know who is not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert asked his audience. “That’s Texas state representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.” On cue, his partisan studio audience booed.

“Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on,” Colbert continued. “And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

Boy, isn’t he funny? My sides ache from laughing! No wonder Colbert is regarded as a comic genius. Admit it, the guy is hilarious.

Pages: 1 2

Why No, I Didn’t Know That!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Free-lance journalist Michael Tracy pointed out on “X” that all of the “victims” who Rep. Jayapal demanded that Pam Bondi apologize to were adults at the time of their claimed victimization by Jeffrey Epstein. Tracy asked if any news organization bothered to mention that rather salient point, especially since the Left’s narrative connecting President Trump to Epstein rests on calling Trump a presumed “pedo”-by-association.

It seems the answer is no. I certainly assumed the hand-raising women at Bondi’s hearing were all sexually exploited as minors.

The Epstein obsession is such an Ethics Train Wreck, and such a dumb one my eye-balls hurt from rolling. If Democrats succeed in the mid-terms because of the duel mendacities of the Epstein innuendos and the even dumber “affordability” talking point (“How dare Trump not lower the prices our incompetence raised?”), I think it will be fair to say that the American public is no longer intelligent enough for a republic.

I recommend a conservatorship.

In an excellent Wall Street Journal piece (which I no longer can find) on what the Epstein files didn’t include, the author wrote that the news media and Democrats are focusing on Trump’s past denials that he ever knew or suspected what his fellow billionaire was doing, when what they should be focusing on was that he alone among the many names being exposed in the files “got the hell out of there,” as soon as Epstein’s teenage girls turned up.

But that wouldn’t be “advocacy journalism.”