From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: A “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Headline For The Ages

Where’s “A Friend” when you need him? The Ethics Alarms self-banned NYT defender who keeps trying to sneak into the comments anyway would have to get especially creative with this despicable headline in the print edition. I’d love to read how he would try to spin this one, but that would mean I’d have to read his unauthorized comment before spamming it, and I won’t.

This one is even worse than the typical “fake news” Times headlines, as the jury’s verdict in the Daniel Penny case makes the official facts of the case that Penny was not “choking a rider” but was restraining a dangerous and menacing lunatic in order to protect other riders. The headline is misleading, deceitful and an obvious attempt to cover for Manhattan’s unethical District Attorney, Alvin Bragg.

And this is the “best” newspaper in the United States. One of the main reasons I was rooting for a Trump win is that it would represent a rebuke of the biased mainstream media, which has debased itself, politics, and civic literacy with its complete commitment to progressive propaganda. The headline is a perfect example of what voters were symbolically spitting on with their votes for Donald Trump.

______________

Pointer: John Podhoretz

Journalism! An NBC Reporter Steals a News Story on the FEMA Scandal, Tries To Blur it, Gets Caught…

Three days ago, the Daily Wire broke the news that a FEMA employee ordered workers to bypass the homes of Trump supporters as they surveyed the damage caused by Hurricane Milton in Florida. This was a damning story in many respects; among them, Republican claims that this was happening were “fact-checked” by the Democratic Party allied media and declared “misinformation” before the truth came out.

The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro’s conservative website, broke the story because the mainstream media was probably burying it, but once it was out, every outlet had to report it and credit the Wire. Well, almost every outlet. NBC Breaking News reporter Mirna Alsharif, formerly of CNN, used the Daily Wire report without giving credit to the source. Hey, maybe she should apply to be President of Harvard! Then she omitted key information to try to make the scandal less clear.

But social media pounced, as it should have. The reporter’s responses were unprofessional, to say the least. Then she killed her Twitter account after being thoroughly exposed….

Continue reading

Just So There Is Accountability and We Don’t Forget, Here’s a List of The Lying Media Propagandists Who Claimed Trump Said He Wanted Liz Cheney Shot…

The Federalist was kind enough to supply what it says is complete list (it’s not, but never mind). The details are here, the unethical hacks are below.

When I point this kind of thing out to my usually intelligent, Trump-Deranged relative, the responses are:

  • “You keep saying the news media is biased and untrustworthy. Not ALL the reporters claimed that Trump said that!”
  • “Besides, that’s probably what he meant anyway.”
  • “So what? You know Trump has said that he wants to punish Liz Cheney!”
  • “Fox News exaggerates what Democrats say all the time!”
  • “Why are you always defending Trump?”

Here’s the list:

Jonah Goldberg

CNN anchor Kasie Hunt

CNN’s Eric Bradner

CNN’s Jim Acosta

Politico’s Andrew Howard

Politico bureau chief Jonathan Lemire

CNN’s Kate Sullivan

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake

Reuters reporter Andy Sullivan

Reuters reporter Susan Heavey

National Review’s Jim Geraghty

Politico Senior Political Columnist Jonathan Martin

Rolling Stone reporter Nikki McCann Ramirez

I know the Federalist missed a few and maybe more than a few, like those mentioned in the Ethics Alarms post yesterday such as Joe Scarborough (The Federalist may not consider MSNBC worth counting, and that’s defensible). As far as I know, Goldberg is the only one who apologized, and a weaselly apology it was.

I’m sure the rest will say that they were just trying to save democracy, and how can you fault them for that?

BOY these people deserve to lose…

4 Ethics Takeaways From USA Today’s 5 Takeaways From Joe Rogan’s Interview With JD Vance

The target is this USA Today story.

1. The quote everyone seems to be repeating is “It’s just strange that everyone’s accepting that this person who is the least popular vice president ever is now the solution to the problem and that the media machine in just a few days did this 180 and just sold her as the solution. And as long as they keep her from having these conversations where she’s allowed to talk, they’re able to pull this off. And the, the fact that it’s happening with no primary should be really concerning to people… because that’s never happened before…. they could have had a primary….”

It should tell voters everything they need to know to vote against Harris that even with the race so close, she refused to do an interview with Rogan for his massive audience of mostly young men unless he did it under her staff’s control and limited the interview to an hour rather than his usual three. This shows that she’s hiding her real nature, unsure of her abilities, a coward, a weenie, and a prop candidate. Why would anyone vote for someone like that to be President? There are no ethical reasons: the reasons that exist are all linked to unethical conduct and characteristics or non-ethical considerations like fear and hate.

Continue reading

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Hilarity of the Day: The New York Times Gets It Backward Trying To Cover For Harris And Vilifying Trump

Here’s another one: I have yet to ban a commenter for doing no more than saying the mainstream media isn’t flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats, but the day is coming, and it’s coming fast. Ridiculous smoking guns like this one, from the New York Times, will seal the deal. The Times’ apparent standard, based on the story: If Harris says something happened with no evidence to back it up, it’s true. If Donald Trump questions the claim, he’s lying.

Got it. The sickening display of bias reminds me of the line circulating on Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit lately: “No matter how much you hate the mainstream media, it’s not enough.”

Back in August, Ethics Alarms noted that it was becoming increasingly likely that Kamala Harris’s oft-repeated claim that she worked at McDonald’s like the typical middle-class kid she claims to have been was, like so many other Harris claims, a load of hooey. I wrote in part,

Continue reading

An Ethics Estoppel, Double Standard Classic From The Axis After Walz’s Meltdown

I actually laughed out loud reading Politico’s “Walz says he ‘speaks like everybody else.’ And it’s not working for the campaign.” representative excerpts:

  • “’Any time you are forced to go off message is never welcome,” said Mike Mikus, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. ‘But in the end, voters are looking for somebody who is more concerned about what these candidates are going to do to improve their lives than, ‘Did he get every single fact correct?’”

That was the one that got me  laughing. It is exactly the argument Trump defenders have been making for years, to the sneers of the Left.  How dare any Democrat resort to it?

  • “Yeah, look, I have my dates wrong,” Walz told reporters in Harrisburg. “I was in Hong Kong in China in 1989. … I speak like everybody else speaks. I need to be clearer.”

Another Trump defender line: “He speaks like normal people.” Continue reading

Our Objective News Media: ‘Trump May Have Caused His Own Assassination Attempt’

Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!

That was USA Today’s reporting of the Trump assassination attempt yesterday. (I haven’t checked to see if it has been changed.)

The sub-head is a non-sequitur unless the reader is supposed to conclude that there is a causal connection between Trump’s Truth Social post, Vance’s provocative comments on Sunday Morning TV, and the later assassination attempt.

There is no defending such blatant partisan hackery from a news source. The fact that this nonsense could make it to the USA Today site without a sane professional putting a stop to it is damning. Are we supposed to conclude that the shooter was an offended Taylor Swift fan? USA Today might as well have written, “The incident occurred that same day that Trump had hush puppies for breakfast.”

Again, this is how you try rig an election, at least if you’re aiming at the moron vote—which is, sadly, considerable.

_______________

Pointer: Willem Reese

On Trump’s Rejection Of Another Debate…

It is amusing, in a mordant way, to hear Kamala Harris tell her rallies that Donald Trump has an obligation to voters and democracy to agree to a second debate with her. She might as well be wearing a giant blinking “I am a shameless hypocrite!” neon sign on her head, as would be her party, if it had a literal head.

Democrats in general are ethically estopped from making this complaint. President Biden and his party rejected debates before the Democratic primaries. Harris was awarded her DEI Presidential nomination without having to test herself against any other potential nominees, in a debate or on a ballot. Trump, meanwhile participated in a training-wheels debate against whom he was assured would be his opposition in November, and when that presumed nominee metaphorically burst into flames, the Democrats demanded and got a Mulligan.

If I were Trump, I wouldn’t have agreed to the last debate.

The way ABC rigged the debate to boost Harris’s chances made Trump’s decision to eschew future public muggings by the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) obvious and unassailable. The moderators “factchecked” Trump five times and Harris not at all: now there’s neutrality for you. (Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!) It’s not as if Harris didn’t repeatedly misrepresent facts and repeat familiar Democrat Big Lies, because she did. The decision had apparently been made by ABC brass to “Get Trump!”

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.