The announcement that the shamelessly biased and wildly incompetent “media expert” Brian Stelter is returning to CNN and that the network is resurrecting “Reliable Sources,” the once legitimate media watchdog show that Howard Kurtz ably and fairly hosted until it was corrupted by Stelter, proves one thing. CNN, after a brief (and only partial) attack of conscience, is fully committed to being a metaphorical whore for the Left again. After all, it has to help save democracy! Here’s Stelter’s announcement:
This revolting development means that Stelter, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, CNN’s most flaming propagandists and untrustworthy talking heads who were fired for disgracing even what is now laughingly called broadcast journalism, have found gainful employment, not at Hardee’s where they belong, but again in the field that they sullied by their presence. Continue reading →
1. Item:PBS. During a Monday night segment of her PBS News program, long time progressive hack Judy Woodruff said, “The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign.” It was a total fabrication. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office immediately denounced Woodruff’s reporting, and Netanyahu’s office released a statement denying an Axios’ report about a phone call between the prime minister and Trump about the Gaza hostage and cease-fire deal that the outlet claimed happened on August 14. Trump also denied both reports.
Woodruff subsequently issued an apology and retraction on Twitter/X, explaining that her false statement was “was not based on” her “original reporting,” and that she was only “referring to reports” she had read in Axios and Reuters. She was apparently lying about that, too. Nobody can locate any items either in Axios or by Reuters that Trump urged Netanyahu not to “cut a deal.” And, as several have pointed out, the Woodruff retraction was on Twitter to the fools who follow Woodruff, a far smaller group than the millions who inexplicably watch PBS news.
Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” are “baseless, you know. The people who are trying to rig this one say so.
Incredibly and against all odds, the mainstream media is demonstrating that it is even more biased and determined to swing the 2024 election to the Democrats than they were in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. Not only that, but its propagandists are being more obvious about it.
As a case study, let us examine CNN’s handling of the Tim Walz scandal. Walz has been falsely representing himself to the public as a combat veteran for many years and in many ways. In addition, he abandoned the leadership of the troops he had trained with as soon as they were ordered to deploy in Iraq. This isn’t even a matter of serious dispute, yet the Harris ticket’s promoters in the news media, aka “almost all of it,” have been furiously spinning, obfuscating and ignoring inconvenient facts. Under different circumstances (such as, say, a VP nominee on a Republican ticket), the news media would be all over this story like Jaws on Pippin. It would be a daily feeding frenzy.
In the past few days, more of Walz’s former almost-comrades-in-arms have come forward to condemn Walz’s conduct and character. For example, the chaplain of Walz’s field artillery regiment said there was no excuse for the him to have abandoned his National Guard unit before a critical deployment. “In our world, to drop out after a WARNORD [warning order] is issued is cowardly, especially for a senior enlisted guy,” retired Capt. Corey Bjertness, now a pastor in Horace, North Dakota, told the New York Post. This wasn’t even newsworthy to most news sources: it might take public attention away from the fact that Trump keeps claiming Harris is misrepresenting the sizes of her rally crowds.
CNN’s spin debacle regarding Walz’s “stolen valor” was special, however.
In the process of being grilled at yesterday’s conference of black journalists, Donald Trump noted the constant fluctuating of Kamala Harris’s racial identification according to what audience she’s addressing and what will best serve her ambition at the time. In the cooking show segment above, for example (I apologize for Juanita’s vulgarity), Kamala pronounced herself “Indian.”
Ethics Alarms generally refers to her as “sort-of black” [I now see that WordPress’s AI bot presumes to challenge my use of the term “generally.” It can bite me.] Trump said, “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black.”
There are so many stunning examples of the apparently irrepressible Trump hate and anti-Trump bias in the news media that it would take an over-long post to thoroughly document it. I decided that the one above was the blue ribbon winner; I can’t even imagine the degree of ugly bias in a news room that would permit a headline like that to reach publication. Then there was CNN’s characteristically disgusting fake news spin:
Anyone looking at the video could see that Trump didn’t “fall;” he ducked down after feeling a bullet hit his ear and hearing gunshots. In its front page photo, the New York Times carefully cropped out the American flag over Trump’s head, making the spectacular composition of the original photo…
…look ugly: this was obvious cognitive dissonance scale manipulation. Mustn’t have any positive imagery linked to that monster Trump! Quickly after the incident, as EA already noted, a CNN talking head criticized him for saying “Fight!” minutes after he was shot, as blood dripped down his face. As I also noted, some found it an appropriate time to suggest that Trump’s upraised fist was another fascist “dog whistle.”
This was a confirmation bias classic: commenter Joel Mundt sent me these photos, none of which inspired a similar interpretation.
Gee, I wonder why? There was also a lot of triumphal fist-raising yesterday at Wimbledon too, but then we all know that pro tennis is a hotbed of fascism.
Again, it is important to emphasize the very valuable silver lining in this horrible episode for America. It has ripped the masks off so many metaphorical Phantoms of the Opera. We now know, unless we are determined not to know, that the Democratic Party and the White house has deliberately defied core democratic principles by deceiving the public regarding the capabilities of the President of the United States, probably from the very beginnings of his term. We now know that the corrupt news media made no effort to let the public know about this information crucial to their ability to self-govern, either hiding the fact of President Biden’s deterioration or employing contrived ignorance.
And, as that disgusting rant above from a Democratic delegate above to black sports pundit Stephen A. Smith shows, we now know how warped and cynical the values of the progressive cult are.
The <gasp!> apocalyptic news was the New York Times posting an editorial board statement telling Biden he has to go “for the good of the country.” Of course, the Times can’t be expected to accept a share of responsibility for saddling the U.S. with Biden by burying the credible account of a staffer who claimed he raped her, hiding the Hunter laptop story until the success of Joe’s basement campaign was cinched, and generally serving as an uncritical Democratic Party cheering section when it counts. The Times also let the completely discredited Lincoln Project take a typical shot at Trump in its op-ed pages. And a silly one: the Project’s mouthpiece said that Trump botched the debate because he didn’t “lay out a positive economic plan to appeal to middle-class voters feeling economic pressure” (Sure he did: get Joe Biden out of the White House! Works for me!) and reverse himself on abortion, saving “young girls” from having to “endure extremist politicians eager to criminalize what was a constitutional right for two generations.” No woman is in danger of ever being imprisoned in the U.S. for having an abortion. Dumb prosecutors will do dumb things, but that’s no reason to ignore the critical issue at the core of the abortion problem: the delicate human lives abortion enthusiasts want to ignore. In the debate, Trump focused on that. It wasn’t a mistake.
As for the Times board, it dutifully parroted the official DNC talking points about Trump’s lies and “lies,” as if Biden wasn’t spitting out whoppers himself when it was possible to figure out what he was saying. The Times also used the latest trope from the Axis: Republicans should consider replacing Trump. Sure, that makes sense. If Biden was a complete vegetable and still beating Trump in the polls, is there any chance that Democrats would replace him as their nominee? Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
Waking up this Father’s Day [Thanks, Dad,for 1) being such a terrific, selfless father 2) for continuing to be an inspiration, a role model and a guide during my highs and lows (like now), and everything in-between 3) for loving my wonderful mom and showing it so brilliantly to everyone, especially her, without interruption for almost sixty years; 4) for somehow saving so much money on a modest salary to hand over to my sister, me, and the three grandchildren through sacrifice and smart investing, because without it I would be living in a cardboard box right now, and 5) for surviving the Battle of the Bulge] to the near certainty that my son (who informed me last week that he would like me to refer to him/her/they as my daughter, Samantha. OK! ), is almost certain to ignore this rather contrived holiday (which is fine with me), a mystery in my yard in which someone or something keeps pulling the 15-foot-long heavy plastic, 7″ diameter tubing, installed to send runoff from the gutters into the garden rather than into my home’s foundation, off the down spout and dragging it into my neighbor’s yard, and another fight with a customer service rep, who, I swear, spoke exactly like Andy Kaufmann’s character on “Taxi” but faster than an auctioneer—yes, this IS a long sentence!—I sat down with Spuds to talk myself out of seppuku, drink a cup of coffee, and check what nonsense the various news networks were spouting.
From the moment ABC made Bill Clinton’s media propaganda guy its supposedly objective host for the network’s Sunday public affairs, talking heads show, the jig was up, or should have been. George Stephanopoulos is and was a Democratic Party operative; that he was allowed to keep this job, which allowed him to, for example, interview his former de facto boss, Hillary Clinton, on more than one occasion, should have put to bed permanently the claims of the ethically blind that mainstream media news reporting was not disgracefully biased.
Now George is apparently more secure than ever that his displaying open partisanship will meet with no resistance from his management at Disney/ABC. Asked by CNN host Abby Phillip this week what the “most important question” for both candidates should be in the June 27 debate moderated by the CNN, Stephanopoulos recommended that CNN’s moderators should confront former President Trump with “Who won the last election?”
That’s a great way to try to duck the actual issues in the election. Then, I suppose, CNN’s moderators should start grilling Trump on the substance of his various prosecutions.
“When the going gets tough, the tough get unethical.”—Me. Also, in election year 2024, Machiavellian and disgusting.
These are repulsive people. When I saw the Rolling Stone headline, “Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can’t Be Compromised,'” I thought, “Oh-oh.” Then I read the story. Alito was tricked by a left-wing James O’Keefe imitator (Ethics Alarms’ verdict on O’Keefe’s methods and conduct has been consistent and unequivocal from the beginning: he’s an unethical journalist, dishonest and untrustworthy, whose methods have occasionally uncovered hidden agendas that can’t be ignored) posing as a conservative admirer at an event. Attending the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, Lauren Windsor, a progressive documentary filmmaker, introduced herself to Alito as a religious conservative. Then she proceeded to ask him leading questions and offer her own “opinions.” What she learned was that Alito was nice to strangers, and that with a stranger who seemed to admire him in a social setting, he chose to be agreeable rather than confrontational.
Here is the exchange: Windsor approached Alito at the event and reminded him that they spoke about political polarization at the same function the year before (who knows if they did or not, but if Alito didn’t remember, he wasn’t going to argue about it). In the intervening year, she told Alito, her views had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor said. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.” Alito’s reply: “I think you’re probably right. On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
You will see from this that the Rolling Stone headline is misleading and deceitful. Alito’s comment could have been made from either side of the ideological spectrum: it shows agreement with neither side. Moreover, it begins “You’re probably right,” which could easily mean, “You’re full of crap, but you’re welcome to your opinion, and I’ll make you feel like a Supreme Court Justice agrees with you because I’m a nice guy and now you can tell your friends, ‘Justice Alito agreed with me!'”
I have often wondered about this phenomenon, reflecting back on my lucky hour-long conversation with Herman Kahn when he was widely regarded as the smartest man alive. He was an unpretentious, kindly, engaging individual, and throughout our conversation made me feel like I had expressed theories and ideas that he thought were perceptive and valuable. Maybe he left that meeting and told a friend, “Boy, I was just trapped talking to an idiot for an hour!” But he made me feel good, which is an ethical thing to do.
And I wasn’t secretly recording him so I could leak to the Washington Post my comments as his revealed beliefs.
Next Windsor told Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” Alito replied. Rolling Stone adds at that point that he “authored the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which reversed five decades of settled law and ended a constitutional right to abortion.” Oh! I see. Alito voted to end Roe “to return our country to a place of godliness” ! He’s a religious fanatic! He helped end Roe because of his religious beliefs!
Read the words, as Sir Thomas More might say. All Alito says is that he agrees that people need to fight for what they believe. He doesn’t even say that he believes in God. He also just says, “I agree with you. I agree with you,” which under those conditions might mean, “Now, nice talking to you, but stop monopolizing my time and let me meet some other people.” There is no rhetorical smoking gun in this conversation and nothing illuminating or newsworthy, except perhaps that the desperate left is stooping to emulating an unethical conservative fake journalist to discredit the U.S. Supreme Court, and unfairly victimizing Joseph Alito for the third time in two weeks.
These are, I repeat, disgusting people.
The New York Times, I must note, was hardly better than Rolling Stone. It also treated this manipulated, unethically recorded and ambiguous conversation as news worthy, and had a deceitful headline of its own: “In Secret Recordings, Alito Endorses Nation of ‘Godliness,’ Roberts Talks of Pluralism.” That implies that Alito (and Roberts) were aware of the recordings, and worse, Alito did NOT endorse a nation of “godliness.”
This revolting development means that Stelter, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, CNN’s most flaming propagandists and untrustworthy talking heads who were fired for disgracing even what is now laughingly called broadcast journalism, have found gainful employment, not at Hardee’s where they belong, but again in the field that they sullied by their presence. Continue reading 
Ethics Alarms 