Nah there’s no mainstream media bias”

‘Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!’ The NYT on the Kirk Assassination…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Not for the first time, the New York Times, like the Axis media it rules over as the “news source of record,” has reminded me of the “dishonest waiter. 

In “Denial,” the film about the lawsuit by British Holocaust denier and fake historian David Irving against American Deborah Lipstadt, the late, great Tom Wilkinson as Lipstadt’s barrister Richard Rampton, in the process of excoriating Irving to the court where the case is being tried, evokes the analogy of “the dishonest waiter” in a memorable speech:

“My lord, during this trial, we have heard from Professor Evans and others of at least 25 major falsifications of history. Well, says Mr. Irving, ‘all historians make mistakes.’ But there is a difference between negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness, which is far more one-sided. All Mr. Irving’s little fictions, all his tweaks of the evidence all tend in the same direction: the exculpation of Adolf Hitler. He is, to use an analogy, like the waiter who always gives the wrong change. If he is honest, we may expect sometimes his mistakes to favor the customers, sometimes himself. But Mr. Irving is the dishonest waiter. All his mistakes work in his favor. How far, if at all, Mr. Irving’s Antisemitism is the cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or individually, it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian in favor of a bogus rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the dissemination of virulent Antisemitic propaganda.”

Bingo. New York Times, meet David Irving! Of course in this case the victim of bias and bad faith is not the history of the Holocaust, but the life and reputation of Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and organizer who was assassinated by a radicalized leftist who had been told by the Axis that Kirk was. Just as Stephen King pronounced Kirk a monster who believed in killing gays, the Times pronounced him an anti-Semite by attributing ananti-Semitic statement he was criticizing to him. But you see, King is just an old knee-jerk progressive celebrity (like Whoopie Goldberg, Robert DeNiro or Bruce Springstein) whom nobody should pay attention to when he opines outside of his area of expertise. The New York Times’ job is to inform the public, correctly. Yeah, I know, I know, anyone can make a mistake (Rationalizations 19 and 20) but oddly, the Times never makes such mistakes that unjustly impugn and denigrate Democrats and fellow progressives.

Then the Times added to its ethics-transgression dossier regarding Kirk by publishing this garbage op-ed: “I Was Supposed to Debate Charlie Kirk. Here’s What I Would Have Said.” The editor who green-lighted this thing should be stuffed into a barrel with fat Lithuanian midgets, to quote Woody Allen in “What’s Up, Tiger Lilly?” A socialist demagogue I blissfully had never heard of before, Hasan Piker, gave us one side of a debate that never occurred, omitting Kirk’s, or anyone’s with half a cerebrum really, rebuttals of his consistently dubious assertions, some of which included,

  • “[Kirk fell] victim to what clearly seems to be a rising tide of political violence.” Deceit: It is a rising tide of political violence against conservatives and Republicans coming from the Left’s campaign of demonization. Left that detail out, I guess. Kirk would have corrected him.
  • “The United States has both very loose gun laws and more violent gun deaths per capita than any other developed nation in the world. And while shootings occur most anywhere, campuses can be especially deadly. As news broke that Mr. Kirk was shot at Utah Valley University, there was a near-simultaneous tragedy at a high school in small-town Colorado, where a 16-year-old shot two fellow students. There have been 47 school shootings this year.”

Ah yes, another anti-gun hack exploiting a murder that could not possibly have been prevented by more gun laws (except ones banning and confiscating all guns)! And calling the execution of Kirk while speaking at a college a “school shooting” is statistical manipulation designed to deceive—which is why the “school shooting” figures are wildly inflated. There is no connection or relevance between the assassination and the Colorado episode or any mass shooting.

  • The author tries to blame Kirk’s death on the usual anti-American, anti-capitalism boogiemen: “rising rents and homelessness, the destruction caused by climate change, titanic levels of inequality, and too many others to name here. Our capitalist way of life — always accumulating, never evening out — leaves more and more people to deal with these problems on their own.”

Continue reading →

The Hyundai Raid: Parallel Universes

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Here is how Fox News reported on the massive ICE raid at a Hyundai factory in Georgia:

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) announced the arrest of 475 illegal migrants during a major immigration enforcement raid on Thursday at a Hyundai electric car battery factory in Georgia. 

HSI Atlanta Special Agent in Charge Steven Schrank noted that while the raid was at a Hyundai facility, not all the migrants worked for the parent company. Some worked for subcontractors at the site.

“We are sending a clear and unequivocal message that those who exploit our workforce, undermine our economy and violate federal laws will be held accountable,” Schrank said during a news conference on Friday.

Here is how the New York Times reported the same story (Gift link!):

Continue reading →

Talk About “The Wrong Hill To Die On”: Lisa Cook’s Refusal To Obey The President’s Lawful Dismissal Is Just Defiance

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The woman doesn’t have a metaphorical leg to stand on, except the disgusting (but still reflex), “There goes that racist Trump again, trying to bring down a black woman.”

“I strongly recommend that you suspend Ms. Cook from the Federal Reserve Board immediately,” states senior DOJ Ed Martin’s letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Of course. If he doesn’t suspend her, that’s grounds to fire Powell. “No one believes it’s appropriate for her to remain in her role while serious questions linger,” wrote Martin. That’s not quite right: Democrats and the Trump Deranged believe that everyone should just refuse to acknowledge that Donald Trump is President of the United States.

Continue reading →

One More Time: If People Tell You the Mainstream Media Isn’t A Democratic Party, Progressive Propaganda Mouthpiece They Are Liars or Morons…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Yesterday we had one more flagrant example of how completely useless our news sources have become in letting the public know what is happening in the nation and the world so they can be responsible citizens. Well, I guess they are not useless to progressives, Democrats and leftist totalitarians, because the biased and distorted stories, reports and interviews they spew out daily does keep citizens in the dark (where “democracy dies,” sayeth the Washington Post. Silly me, I once thought the Post meant that was a bad thing.) On the August 31, 2025 “Face the Nation,” host Ed O’Keefe interviewed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the American Left’s latest martyr, “Maryland Dad” Kilmar Abrego García. What the audience heard was this:

Continue reading →

WaPo “Factchecker” Glenn Kessler Is Out…Good!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Glenn Kessler, the biased “factchecker” who has a dossier on Ethics Alarms as long an your metaphorical arm, accepted a buy-out from the hopelessly unethical newspaper and then, after starting his substack (where disgraced pundits go to die), issued an article that proved, as if there was ever any doubt, what an utter hack he is.

Pompously titled ‘“Democracy Dies in Darkness’ — but what if the lights are going out from within?,” his screed whines that he had to leave the Post as a matter f principle because he was urged to do what he could so the Post would “appeal more to Fox News viewers.” Gee, tough one. What would that be? Maybe not beginning every inquiry with the assumption that the Axis narrative is the correct one? Not working so hard to appeal to the Post’s 90% Democratic readership’s biases? Actually checking facts rather than opinions?

To Kessler, of course, appealing to Fox viewers means tacking news analysis to appeal to racist, ignorant fascists—you know,

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Month: NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“As far as the accusations that we’re biased, I’d stand up and say, ‘Please show me a story that concerns you.’”

The infuriatingly dishonest, smug and biased Katherine Maher, head of NPR, on CNN yesterday.

Social media and others, like Senator John Kennedy and Instapundit, are going wild picking obvious examples. Hell, I have a lot of them; here’s one you may have forgotten (I had).

If Congress doesn’t finally strip public funding from NPR and PBS, there is no reason to trust those people to do anything. The Democrats love them because they are permanent propaganda mouthpieces for their party, but what’s the Republicans’ excuse?

Nah, There’s No Anti-Israel, Anti-Jewish Mainstream Media Bias…

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Britain’s media regulator (Great Britain doesn’t have a First Amendment, remember, so the government can punish dishonest, biased journalism. This is not a good thing…) said today it is investigating a BBC documentary about the dire fate of children in Gaza. The BBC removed the program, “Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone,” from its streaming service earlier this year after it was revealed that the 13-year-old narrator, “Abdullah,” is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, Hamas’s deputy minister of agriculture.

Oh. Sounds fair and objective to me! The media reports says this information “emerged.” Translation: the BBC was caught. News programs purporting to be factual must not materially mislead the audience in Great Britain, or so they claim. Imagine if the U.S. had such a regulation and enforced it. There would be no broadcast news.

The independent production company that made the program didn’t share the background information regarding the father of the young narrator’s Hamas ties, claims the BBC. Hoyo Films, which produced the documentary, claims it didn’t “intentionally” mislead the BBC. The BBC meanwhile, was wonderfully trusting and incurious—you know, like good journalists are supposed to be. After all, it’s not like anyone is out to vilify Israel as it tries to survive while protecting its citizens from being raped, murdered and kidnapped by terrorists.

Continue reading →

Do You Have Any Clue Regarding Whether the US Bombing of the Iranian Nuclear Facilities Were Successful or Not? I Don’t.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I just heard President Trump at his press conference, rambling as only he can, declare that the news outlets claiming his surprise bunker-busters attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not as effective as the U.S. claimed were “losers” and liars. Meanwhile, a CNN article, followed by the New York Times, citing leaked classified documents, and thus unnamed sources of those illegally retrieved materials, announced that “Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say.” Reporters Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Lillis, and Zachary Cohen wrote that “the US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by four people briefed on it.” It continued, “The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.”

Continue reading →

Kudos To The New York Times For Finally Eliminating All Doubt That It Is a Democratic Party Propaganda Organ And Not a “Newspaper”…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

This would be an Unethical Quote of the Week if there were any reason to believe what the New York Times says about President Trump, and if the Times didn’t make equally unethical quotes every day.

Here’s part of the Times editorial titled, “Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses”:

“…The political right, including President Trump, deserves substantial blame. Yes, he has led a government crackdown against antisemitism on college campuses, and that crackdown has caused colleges to become more serious about addressing the problem. But Mr. Trump has also used the subject as a pretext for his broader campaign against the independence of higher education. The combination risks turning antisemitism into yet another partisan issue, encouraging opponents to dismiss it as one of his invented realities.

Even worse, Mr. Trump had made it normal to hate, by using bigoted language about a range of groups, including immigrants, women and trans Americans. Since he entered the political scene, attacks on Asian, Black, Latino and L.G.B.T. Americans have spiked, according to the F.B.I. While he claims to deplore antisemitism, his actions tell a different story. He has dined with a Holocaust denier, and his Republican Party has nominated antisemites for elected offices, including governor of North Carolina. Mr. Trump himself praised as “very fine people” the attendees of a 2017 march in Charlottesville, Va., that featured the chant “Jews will not replace us.” On Jan. 6, 2021, at least one rioter attacking the Capitol screamed that he was looking for “the big Jew,” referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Mr. Schumer has said.”

It gives me great pleasure to know that Times boot-licker ” “A Friend,” the long-banned EA commenter who has set a nearly unbreakable record for unauthorized posts here, most bleating about how unfair I am to the noble Times, will be desperately searching for a way to rationalize that verbal offal without having to admit, “Okay, the Times editors are partisan hacks.”

Continue reading →

“What’s Going On Here?” Oh, Just the Usual Biased and Slanted Journalism Making It Impossible to Know What’s Going On Here…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I cannot describe how sick I am of this phenomenon.

Here is the Conservative Brief’s report on the recent decision by a judge not to take further steps enforcing his order that the Trump White House cease discriminating against the Associated Press following its refusal to embrace the President’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. Headline: “Associated Press Loses Court Case To Regain Coveted White House Access.” But it didn’t “lose the case.” Still, the slanted analysis was reported as fact by the conservative news site PJ Media. Here’s the New York Times spin. [Let’s see if the Gift Link works this time…]. Headline: “Judge Rejects A.P.’s Challenge to New White House Press Policy, for Now.” For now. “The judge said that he needed more time to determine whether the new policy was discriminatory, but said that the elimination of rotating access for newswires was ‘facially neutral.’”

Here’s the Associated Press: “Judge won’t take further steps to enforce his order in AP case against Trump administration.” “U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who handed the AP a victory last week in its efforts to end the ban, said it’s too soon to say that President Donald Trump is violating his order — as the AP suggests. ‘We are not at the point where we can make much of a determination one way or another,’ said McFadden, ruling from the bench. ‘I don’t intend to micromanage the White House.’”

Having read these three reports and a couple more, what seems to be the story is that the judge who said that the White House couldn’t punish the AP for which name it chooses to call the Gulf by banning it from White House functions (thanks to the White House announcing publicly that this was its motivation, making the ban a government infringement on free speech), the Associate Press could not insist that it has special privileges due to its once-justifiable status as long-time trustworthy news source, and could be placed in rotation with other news services instead of keeping a regular, permanent spot in the press pool.

The judge made clear what his conclusion was: that the proverbial jury is still out on whether the White House is engaging in viewpoint discrimination, which it may not do, or simply treating the AP like any other news service. However, he did reject the idea that because the AP has been anointed with special deference by past Presidents, the Trump White House is constitutionally obligated to continue them.

Especially since the AP now sucks. (But the judge didn’t say that.)