Category: Fake News and Its Results

We now know for certain, Journalism Is Dead! June 8, 2017, TruthNewsNetwork published a story here titled “The Day Journalism Died.” In that story, (feel free to go back and read it) we referenced the “markers” in the media-political stories published in print and broadcast that proved the title of that story is true.

While I along with many journalists would love for President Trump to not be quite so abrasive in his plethora of tweets, and not continuously declare that “Media is Fake News,” I concur with the thought that this president has no other way reach Americans with his message than to take the bull by the horns, bypass the media filters, and speak directly to his 100 million+ Twitter followers himself. In doing so, HIS media filter has been turned off! He speaks from his heart.

We now have professional, inside proof of the premise of our June 8, 2017, story straight from the horse’s mouth. President Trump is absolutely right, although I would still love for him to “turn down the volume” a bit. While the Media is NOT in total “Fake News” and not in total “the enemies of the American people,” almost without exception, Mainstream Media are more often than not speaking the language of enemies in their reporting of this President.

Proof of that is coming out in a book titled “Merchants of Truth” written by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson. The facts she reveals in the book are the indisputable truths of the President’s allegations against the MSM. I could summarize for you the information Abramson has included in the way of truth in her soon-to-be-released book. But I could not say it better than has Howard Kurtz — host of Media Buzz  — in an article published at FOXNews.com:

A former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper’s news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.

In a soon-to-be-published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

What’s more, she says, citing legendary 20th-century publisher Adolph Ochs, “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes.

Trump claims he is keeping the “failing” Times in business—an obvious exaggeration—but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated.”

The Times has long faced accusations of liberal bias, even before Trump got into politics and became its harshest critic. But Abramson’s words carry special weight because she is also a former Times Washington bureau chief and Wall Street Journal correspondent specializing in investigative reporting.

Baquet has said that Trump’s attacks on the press are “out of control” and that it is important to use the word “lie” when the president tells a clear untruth.

In “Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson praised as “brave and right” Baquet’s decision to run this headline when Trump abandoned his birtherism attacks on Barack Obama: “Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent.”

Abramson, who had her share of clashes with Baquet when he was her managing editor, sheds light on a 2016 episode when Baquet held off on publishing a story that would have linked the Trump campaign with Russian attempts to influence the election.

Liz Spayd, then the Times public editor, wrote that the paper, which concluded that more evidence was needed, appeared “too timid” in not running the piece, produced by a team that included reporter Eric Lichtblau.

Baquet “seethed” at this scolding, Abramson says, and emailed Lichtblau: “I hope your colleagues rip you a new a*****e.”

Baquet wrote that “the most disturbing thing” about Spayd’s column “was that there was information in it that came from very confidential, really difficult conversations we had about whether or not to publish the back channel information. I guess I’m disappointed that this ended up in print.

“It is hard for a journalist to complain when confidential information goes public. That’s what we do for a living, after all. But I’ll admit that you may find me less than open, less willing to invite debate, the next time we have a hard decision to make.”

Lichtblau soon left the Times for CNN, where he was one of three journalists fired when the network retracted and apologized for a story making uncorroborated accusations against Trump confidante Anthony Scaramucci. And the Times soon abolished the public editor’s column.

Abramson is critical of Trump as well. She calls his “fake news” attacks a “cheap way of trying to undermine the credibility of the Times’s reporting as something to be accepted as truth only by liberals in urban, cosmopolitan areas.”

The Times, which broke the story of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, also “made some bad judgment calls and blew its Clinton coverage out of proportion,” Abramson writes. She says Clinton “was wary of me,” mishandled the scandal and “was secretive to the point of being paranoid.”

Abramson is candid in acknowledging her faults. When then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was considering promoting her to the top job, he told her over lunch at Le Bernadin: “Everyone knows there’s a good Jill and a bad Jill. The big question for me is which one we’ll see if you become executive editor.”

She admitted to him that “I could be self-righteous when I felt unheard, I interrupted, I didn’t listen enough.”

It was a heated battle with Baquet that led to her ouster in 2014. He was furious upon learning that she was trying to recruit another top journalist—Abramson says an executive ordered her to keep it secret—who would share the managing editor’s title.

Sulzberger called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied: “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release. I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Her final judgment: “I was a less than stellar manager, but I also had been judged by an unfair double standard applied to many women leaders.”

Summary

According to Abramson’s narrative, the Times is no doubt biased against this President. Why is that? It could be for factual reasons. It could be for financial reasons. It could be for a group of heavily biased journalists to in unison attack a political opponent using the resources they have readily available: newspaper print and electronic media. Personally, I think — at least for the Times — the purposes are the last two. As Abramson indicated in her book, online subscriptions to the Times skyrocketed with the addition of Donald Trump to the political landscape in D.C. I am one American who subscribed to the Times online services just to keep up with “the other side” of Journalism. Honestly, I would NOT have done so if not for President Trump.

Don’t get me wrong: I have questioned the validity of much of what Abramson offered up in the past as editor and a contributing columnist at the Times and elsewhere. I give her kudos for this new revelation. To my knowledge, she is the first reputable journalist from a reputable news source to admit to rampant political bias in American reporting.

But there’s a bigger and more important story here. It begs for all of us to ask this question: “Where do we go to get REAL news — news that is objective, truthful, and without political perspective?” If Abramson’s revelation reveals nothing more to us than the confirmation of President Trump’s verbal attacks against the Times and other news outlets, it’s a start. But the very reason Journalism even exists is to provide people with information that is factual, accurate, and unbiased.

Other than here at www.TruthNewsNet.org, I cannot give you the name of ANY news outlet any of us can depend on for straightforward news all the time. That includes conservative like the Rush Limbaugh show, that of Sean Hannity, Breitbart News, FOX News, and others. And our resources and ability to wade through the bureaucratic layers of political narrative that heavily cloud the political landscape in America are limited to at best finding and passing along ALL the facts Americans need to know.

What do we do?

I cannot answer this question as today’s television, radio, and print editors, columnists, and reporters would, telling Americans “ignore all the others and just listen to us.” Our only alternative? “Think and research for yourself.”

Is that good enough?

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Obviously, based on that verse from the book of John, it is critical for us each to find the truth. And the only way I know we can do that is to honestly search through all the news we see and hear, and trust our own instincts to ferret out the truth.

And we need to get started. You can bet that 2019 will shortly see the beginning of an all-out assault by media outlets like the Times and other news sources, the Democrat Party and liberal politicians against anything to do with Donald Trump. It will be quick, across the spectrum of all things dealing with national politics, and vicious. The assault will be immense and broad. It will shock most Americans to learn that so many will align themselves with the Leftists in these attacks.

Be vigilant. Be thorough. Be honest and committed to finding the truth. It’s there.

We will continue to share what we know mixed with our opinions on many of these matters. Remember this: when we share facts it will be prefaced as “factual.” When we share an opinion, it will be labeled as “opinion,” so that you will know the difference. And we know this: “Just because one thinks something is right doesn’t mean it is right.” And, “Just because one thinks something is wrong doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

Here’s to a rewarding and informative year ahead for you and TruthNewsNet.org!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I am a New York Times subscriber. Before you X-out of TruthNewsNet.org, please understand why I subscribe: the New York Times is the epitome of the mainstream media “Fake News” sources. I, therefore, am required to daily stay on top of the latest chapter of “Fake News.” So, every morning I choke down a cup of coffee and the latest drivel from the Times. It is ALWAYS entertaining while at the same time ALWAYS nauseating.

We could daily chronicle the latest examples of New York Times “Fake News” for our thousands of TNN partners — there are a plethora of samples every day. We don’t want to waste your time — so we don’t do that. But occasionally there are examples that cry for exposure. Today is one of those days with a couple of those “Fake News” stories in The Times that begs for exposure and discussion. Let’s get to it.

The NY Times Today

The Times broke an explosive expose’ of President Trump’s usage of cell phones for official telephone communications. A president doing so is not unusual nor unexpected. But The Times claims the Chinese and Russians are listening to each of those conversations:

WASHINGTON — When President Trump calls old friends on one of his iPhones to gossip, gripe or solicit their latest take on how he is doing, American intelligence reports indicate that Chinese spies are often listening — and putting to use invaluable insights into how to best work the president and affect administration policy, current and former American officials said.

Mr. Trump’s use of his iPhones was detailed by several current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security arrangements. The officials said they were doing so not to undermine Mr. Trump, but out of frustration with what they considered the president’s casual approach to electronic security.

American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the president’s cell phone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials.

(The underlined text is the subject of this segment)

The Times is very obviously — and even now with impunity — relying almost totally on “anonymous” sources, allegedly members of the Trump Administration for their “big news” stories about President Trump. In doing so, they apparently use as the default for the assumptions of their readers that everything their reporters say is believed. Therefore, truth in reporting is no longer necessary. Let’s break that down:

The phone usage details were allegedly “detailed by several current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security.” In other words, current and former Trump staffers are voluntarily divulging classified information — at least according to the New York Times.

The Times wants you to believe that simply (in order to throw the President under the bus) they are embracing the real possibility of being jailed for committing multiple felonies in having these discussions with reporters. What benefit could there possibly be to take this risk?

Certainly, there are people who do not like President Trump. Certainly, it is probable that not all who now work or did so previously in the White House are supportive of President Trump, his methodology of governing, his messaging, and some of his policies. But I find it ludicrous that any staffer would roll the dice on federal jail time to talk with reporters about the President’s conversations that are monitored by foreign governments. Their risking their personal freedom was not about the President giving the Chinese top secret military or intelligence secrets. In fact, they risked jail to simply tell Times reporters that Mr. Trump talked on iPhones!

And the New York Times expects YOU to believe that, too.

Real or Fake

It is extremely difficult to accept anonymous sources any longer. Multiple anonymously sourced stories in many Mainstream Media (MSM) reports have never been factually verified. Many have been proven incorrect. MSM editors have very obviously assumed that Americans are oblivious to the obvious: MSM who use anonymous sources do so to simply paint THEIR political narrative pertaining to Donald Trump. And they are now certain that Americans are either too busy, too distracted, or too stupid to pick up on their intentions.

The MSM excuses and justification for the continued use of anonymous sources is this: “If we are forced to publish news sources, much of what the First Amendment guarantees in Free Speech will be lost. Sources who fear retribution for telling the truth will no longer step forward. Media outlets will then be unable to — on behalf of all Americans — hold brutal and unethical governments accountable for their wrongdoing.”

Poppycock! There is a Whistleblower law put in place by the federal government that protects any of those “anonymous sources” from retribution of any kind IF they step forward. That law is to accomplish what MSM claims THEY must do: protect those who have real stories of real wrongdoing to report.

MORE New York Times Madness

The Times has taken this entire craziness in reporting to a new and vitriolic level. October 25th, they released an article in which the writer fantasizes about the President being gunned down by a Russian spy in cahoots with a Secret Service officer.

In an article published in the New York Times‘ Book Review, five writers conjured up fantasy scenarios about President Trump’s future with the Russia investigation.

One writer, Zoe Sharp, took liberal fantasizing to the next level and wrote a story that ends with President Trump being assassinated by a Russian agent. The Times’ editors illustrate the piece, titled “How It Ends,” with a Russian flag sticking out of a pistol barrel.

In the story, the Russian attempts to shoot the president, but his gun misfires. A Secret Service agent then offers his own pistol to the Russian:

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

The Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …” 

This assassination fantasy was published just one day before the media exploded with criticism for President Trump’s rhetoric after a series of apparent mail bombs sent to many Democrat political figures Wednesday, including one sent to CNN’s New York office.

It’s unbelievable that the newspaper formerly known as the premier newspaper in the Nation has resorted to whipping up soap opera stories to attract a crowd. And it is reprehensible they would do so in the caustic political environment in the U.S. Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly released a book during the Obama presidency that contained the Obama murder at the hands of a member of his Secret Service contingency. Americans would go nuts! And the MSM outrage would have been off the charts.

Summary

Here’s the sad proof of what’s going on, not just at the New York Times, but throughout Mainstream Media: readership is plummeting. Americans have steadily moved to instant 24/7 news through “quick” news stories, ditching the traditional methods of getting news: from newspapers. MSM outlets are fighting to survive as they watch their readership, ratings, and advertising revenue tank as their markets shrink.

So what do they do? They find ways to whip-up readers by finding the juiciest stories about the most controversial people and occurrences to keep those in front of sensationalist hungry Americans. And when there are not enough factual incidents to satisfy those American appetites for juicy news, THEY MAKE IT UP! Here’s how they do it:

Instead of a group of reporters with an editor sitting around a conference table at the paper and looking at the potential stories to go in the “next edition,” they sit around the conference table bemoaning there are not enough salacious happenings at the White House to entice their audience to wait breathlessly to grab that paper from the newsstand. They only have one option: create the story.

So, they come up with topics that will surely hook their audience members who are looking for ugly stuff about well-known people. The President is a crass, New York “bully” who is constantly taking shots at all those who disagree with him. He’s a perfect story subject!

“Hey, Billy. How about ‘investigating’ the rumor that Trump is using unsecured cell phones to hold conversations with foreign leaders. Certainly, the Russians and the Chinese are accessing those conversations to get dirt on the Administration so they can blackmail,” said Jim, the Editor-in-Chief.

Billy replied, “OK, Jim. I’m on it. When’s my deadline?”

“5:00 PM tomorrow. Don’t be late,” quipped Jim. Billy was Jim’s best political reporter and ALWAYS came up with some real dirt on politicians. “Get a good source or two on the cell phone stuff and let’s run with it.”

Billy calls everyone he can that currently works at the White House or the few that have left. None know anything about the Trump cell phone usage talking to foreign leaders. But Billy has a substitute plan: ANONYMOUS SOURCES! No one will know that if he writes a juicy story that makes the President look dumb or uncaring or simply as a buffoon too stupid to know the danger of doing something like that, he can credit his source as “anonymous,” and he’ll get a green light.

Having real sources at the New York Times — and probably many other MSM outlets — seems to no longer be necessary. That old journalistic adage that journalists formerly scoffed at: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,” appears to be the fundamental marching order of the Mainstream Media. Anonymous sources save the day.

With the two atrocious examples detailed above, unbiased Americans who are willing to accept the truth can at least accept the “possibility” above as more than just a fairy tale. In this crazy news environment in which 90% of all news stories about all things Trump are negative, keeping fresh “garbage” about Trump gets harder and harder. This necessitates the use of “anonymous sources” that probably are really “no sources at all” — just made-up to give reporters and editors security to get their payroll check deposit.

Is it any wonder that the New York Times is dying? Every day more and more Americans wake up and go “Hmmmm…..that’s just too hard for me to believe!”

More and more it’s hard to believe because more and more what they are seeing is NOT TRUE!

 

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

We all have wondered how for the past years whenever attacks come from those on the Left, they seem to be coordinated. Most Americans when seeing this happen over and over again have only two options in their determination of what is happening. One is to simply believe what those on the Left are saying is true. The only other believable explanation is that there is some liberal conspiracy designed and implemented. The latter seems unrealistic because there are so many involved in the process, it would take immense efforts to coordinate with everyone to be on the same page. But it seems that there is now a third option.

America looked on as the angst from the Left reached a fever pitch during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. That angst revealed itself in well-coordinated demonstrations in multiple cities but especially in Washington D.C. Protestors stormed the Capitol, famously confronting Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in an elevator. That confrontation was documented on national television. Was it planned and coordinated? (Read on for the answer) Senate Judiciary hearings were flooded with protestors who in a coordinated fashion consistently interrupted proceedings by screaming and then visibly being dragged out of the hearing by Capitol police. Demonstrations outside the Capitol and Supreme Court involved hundreds and even thousands of protestors. What was going on?

Planned or Not

Immediately after the Saturday afternoon vote in which Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed through a Senate vote, it was revealed that many of those protestors were actually paid to protest. The obvious financial “backer” was globalist George Soros who, it was later revealed, actually through several of the non-profit organizations he funds, DID pay for protestors regarding this confirmation process. How many? I doubt we’ll ever know.

You have seen and heard many conservative radio and television talk show hosts point out that the media have adopted the role of being the second branch or arm of the Democrat Party. It has been uncanny to watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, C-SPAN, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and other news outlets in seemingly coordinated fashion parrot the same talking points over and over again. They all have been unified around one cause: to discredit Brett Kavanaugh while “reporting” anything that looked bad about the nominee, saying anything no matter what it took to block his confirmation. Before Kavanaugh and certainly going forward, this approach has been and will be to perpetuate daily criticism of all things Trump.

How did all this media uproar and furor become unanimous in content and timing in its presentation? Was it really planned and coordinated? Is there some vast conspiracy that involves all the liberal media in cahoots with the Democrat Party?

The answer to the last two of those questions is “yes” and “yes.” The answer to the first is “Wrap-up Smear,” a process used by Democrats for a long time in fighting against conservative legislation and appointments. Even though it has been in operation for decades, in the brutal and far-reaching drive by the Left to kill the Kavanaugh confirmation, its identity and its uses slipped through the carefully devised and maintained veil of secrecy hiding the Left’s operational guidelines so no conservatives know how it’s used.

Carefully watch and listen to Pelosi, Blumenthal and other politicians separated by reports from liberal media reporters. Nancy Pelosi in a press conference actually exposed the Democrat coordinated plan and tells how they use it:

Conspiracy

Any conservative who dares to call tactics of the Left “conspiratorial” is immediately excoriated by all on the Left. The power of this tactic so successfully used again and again has been fueled in the past by its anonymity. With the Kavanaugh hearings, this tactic of “Wrap Up Smear” has been exposed to the World to the Left’s horror. Remember this: the one thing in which evil and darkness cannot exist is light. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and associated news hysteria have shined the light on this conspiratorial process used by the Left. I did not make that up, and I am not some conspiracy nut job.

I liken this current political process employed by the Democrat Party to what in my city we experience with a powerhouse high school football team. Evangel Christian Academy is a very small private school (less than 400 students) that has amassed 14 state high school championships while playing in the Louisiana High School Athletic Association’s public school category. There are dozens of Evangel alumnae who have played in the NFL and are playing right now at the NCAA Division 1 level who are probably headed to the NFL.

One can imagine the furor targeted at this small private school’s football success from public high school coaches and school administrators. Even some other private school administration and sports personnel hate their success as well. For years, this public school organization has systematically endeavored to push Evangel and at least one other private school in the state from its ranks. Evangel and this other school have weathered the outrage and are still at it.

What’s the big allegation from coaches and administrators from Louisiana public high schools? Evangel is successful they must be cheating. But in more than 20 years, Evangel has been the most investigated high school in LHSAA’s history, according to its longtime executive director. And Evangel has never been found cheating. Still, the allegations by others continue annually and become deafening about September 1. That’s when football season starts!

How does this analogy compare to the “Wrap Up Smear” of the U.S. political Left? Both have the same fundamental premise as their foundation: “We will NOT change our operations to compete with others by working to rise to the same level in which they play. Instead, we will just go out in the public and make unfounded allegations of cheating against our opponents. That is much easier than working harder and working smarter, and surely will achieve the same results.” But they never do.

But they HAVE worked in the past. But how?

Their success draws from the same fuel used in peoples’ animus against that private high school. Rather than find and implement the same or similar processes used for a couple of decades by Evangel’s coaches in preparing players in whatever ways necessary to pick up 14 championship trophies, they opt to verbally denigrate Evangel, perpetrating the thought, “If they’re winning this much, it must be because they cheat.” That effort has not worked to stop Evangel Christian Academy. It has not worked for America’s political Leftists either. But as in the case in Louisiana among public school administrators and coaches, the allegations continue from the Left against conservatives.

By the way, what’s the definition of insanity? “Doing the same thing, again and again, expecting different results.” Doing so has not worked in Louisiana, has not and will not work for political Leftists in the U.S.

Should Conservatives be Afraid?

No. Conservatives should be invigorated! The exposure of these tactics prove several points:

• Democrats and their minions are running scared. And as most know, it really is hard to make good decisions when one is afraid. It daily becomes more obvious the Left is NOT making good decisions;
• When one knows for certain who their enemies are, it is much easier to plan and implement specific responses aimed directly at a specific target. Conservatives now know for certain where their arrows need to fly;
• This craziness of the Left being revealed to all of America proves that there really IS a conspiracy in American politics — and that conspiracy is NOT from conservatives. There is a real conspiracy on the left that includes Democrats AND the drive-by media.

What are the opposites of “Fear?” “Trust” and “Faith.” Conservatives in government, for the most part, trust the current administration — especially now that this leftist conspiracy has been exposed. Further, those same conservatives have stronger faith than ever before to believe all of the positive information being revealed every day about the good things happening for Americans of every socioeconomic sector. And those Americans know for certain these good things are direct results of the Donald Trump Administration.

EVERY Leftist is horrified by Trump Administration success.

Summary

As promised, today’s story is the first that we will share this week detailing the falsehoods that have been sold to the American public by Democrats and others from the Left. As the clock ticks and pages of the calendar turn toward the midterm elections, two things are critical:

1. Conservatives MUST get out to vote. Not doing so will give Democrats control of the House of Representatives and possibly control of several Senate seats currently occupied by Republicans. And even today the Democrats along with their watchdog leftist Media are promoting the investigation and impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh if they win the House. Though Dems know such an attempt would not be successful in unseating Justice Kavanaugh, their hope is to keep their base stirred up so as to ensure maximum numbers of votes;
2. Every Republican MUST engage in understanding how critical it is for all to fight back against the tyranny of the Left is trying to turn our government toward Socialism. Simply understanding it is NOT sufficient. All must engage in this process of educating everyone within our circles of influence. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.”

I really do not think a midterm blue wave is coming. But I know for certain the Left is energized in a way I have not witnessed in my lifetime. Knowing the truth is one thing. Acting on that truth is something else and is much more important. If conservative Americans don’t act on these truths, knowing the truth is really meaningless.

Remember the story above about coaches and administrators from those Louisiana public schools holding such anger for that little private high school? They though knowing what’s wrong and how to successfully address the problem by stepping up THEIR game, watching their opponent and learning the truth about the success in achieving those 14 state championships, they simply stand back and mount a constant verbal attack using hollow allegations wrapped in anger and hatred. Democrats doing so in the Kavanaugh case did not stop his confirmation to SCOTUS. But unless conservatives act, they may just be successful in the midterms with a true “blue wave.”

I don’t want to watch an impeachment process. To stop it, we MUST act.

 

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Looks like we coined a new word: “Death-tistics.” The furor that has escalated about the number of deaths attributable to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico begs some explanation. Pretty much every news organization has — just as they always do — created the stories about the death-tistics, re-buffed the original “official” report of deaths from the hurricane that  were given by the Puerto Rican government, and launched a crazy string of “new” reports stating a much higher number of Maria-related deaths, Breitbart News weighed in with “The Rest of Story.” Let’s look-in:

(Breitbart News) On Thursday morning, President Trump pushed back on Twitter, alleging that Democrats had inflated the death toll “in order to make me look as bad as possible.” That led to more criticism, with the Associated Press accusing Trump of making claims “without evidence.”

But Trump is correct.

His opponents — including the media — have strained for more than a year to turn Hurricane Maria into his version of Hurricane Katrina, the devastating 2005 storm that prompted criticism of President George W. Bush’s response — even though state and local authorities had been far worse — and foreshadowed a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. Leading the charge was CNN, which made a special effort to link Hurricane Maria in 2017 to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and made a temporary media sensation of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, who accused the Trump administration of neglect.

However, the media’s effort at the time was frustrated by several factors.

• First, experts praised the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria, which posed special challenges because Puerto Rico is so far from the mainland U.S.
• Second, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló himself praised the federal government’s response: “The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” he told Fox News in September 2017.
• Third, Puerto Rico was already something of a disaster before the hurricane hit, thanks to mismanagement by the territory’s government that led to a debt crisis in recent years. (Mayor Cruz herself is reportedly under FBI investigation for corruption.)

However, Trump’s critics did not give up. Over the past several months, they have attempted to cite several new studies that created new estimates of the “real” death toll of Hurricane Maria — based on statistical models, not on actual death counts.

Many studies addressed a real concern that the Puerto Rican government lacked the competence to do an accurate death count, but much of the media hype around the results were clearly motivated by the attempt to damage the Trump administration. The Washington Post noted just some of the studies as of June 2018 (original links):

• The New York Times calculated 1,052 deaths through October.
• The Center for Investigative Reporting calculated 985 through October.
• University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez professors calculated 822, with a 95 percent confidence range that the total was somewhere between 605 and 1,039.
• Pennsylvania State University professors calculated excess deaths of about 500 in September, or a total of 1,085 if the same pattern held in October. That estimate was based on six weeks of mortality records.
• A Latino USA analysis, using updated data from Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, calculated 1,194 excess deaths in September and October.
• The Washington Post noted that the new estimates hovered around the 1,000 mark.

Then, in June, a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the number of deaths from Hurricane Maria at 4,645 instead of the official figure of 64. The researchers had conducted a survey and extrapolated the results — an extremely sloppy methodology. The number was highly inflammatory. Puerto Rican opponents of the president cited it to accuse him of “genocide.” Much of the media hyped those claims: the caption that accompanies a Getty/AFP photograph reads: “Hurricane Maria, which pummeled Puerto Rico in September 2017, is likely responsible for the deaths of more than 4,600 people, some 70 times more than official estimates, US researchers said Tuesday.”

Even the Washington Post was skeptical of the absurdly high estimate: “This is not a verified number, unlike body counts in wars. The Harvard study offers only an estimate – a midpoint along a broad range of possibilities. It is not based on death records, only estimates of deaths from people who were interviewed in a survey.”

Last month, a new study was produced by George Washington University that estimated the “excess mortality” from Hurricane Maria over a six-month period at 2,975 within a 95% confidence interval of 2,658-3,290 “excess” deaths. This was the second-highest estimate after the faulty Harvard study and was based on a statistical model that subtracted the number of people who theoretically should have died over the same period from the number of people who actually died during that time. It is also a rather useless way of comparing death tolls, because, in order to evaluate the relative scale of Hurricane Maria, the same method would have to be used to measure other natural disasters, likely increasing their estimated death tolls as well.

The media reported the new estimate as if it were an actually confirmed death toll — with CNN taking care to note that the new number was released near the anniversary of Katrina. The Puerto Rican governor, under heavy political pressure due to the slow pace of the island’s recovery, officially revised the death toll to match the estimate. That gave the media an excuse to throw out science and statistics, and to report the 2.975 number as an established fact — even though it was just an estimate based on a statistical model, and three times higher than all but one of the previous estimates.

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that “3,000 people died in Puerto Rico” in Hurricane Maria — as if it were a proven fact. It did not indicate that the number was simply one estimate among many and that its evidence was a controversial statistical model.

On Thursday, the AP — with a touch of chutzpah — accused the president of stating “without evidence” that the “Puerto Rico hurricane death count is a plot by Democrats to make him look bad.”

(Update: National Public Radio weighed in to accuse Trump of “falsely” claiming Democrats had inflated the numbers.)

Setting aside the AP’s odd effort to “fact-check” an opinion, the evidence is ample that the Democrats — and much of the media — did exactly what Trump accused them of doing. Their goal, and the goal of Democrats who are hyping probable outliers as established facts are to take down the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm elections by linking Trump with Bush’s alleged failures in Hurricane Katrina.

Actual Puerto Rico “Death-tistics” in 2017

The graph below shows actual total Puerto Rican deaths from 2010 through 2017, as computed by the Puerto Rico government. Take a look:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This graph shows the “official” statistics of total deaths during September, October, November, and December in Puerto Rico by year from 2010 through 2017. These are important comparison numbers when discussing Puertican deaths directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, for it hit Puerto Rico September 17, 2017. By any realistic comparison of deaths, directly and indirectly, attributable to Maria, AND ancillary deaths during the 3 months following the hurricane, (which is what the purveyors of the death-tistics number of 3000-4000 are doing) there were 326 more total deaths in Puerto Rico during those 4 months in 2017 than in 2016. Even assuming every one of those increased deaths to Maria, there is no way to “factually” state there were several thousand deaths in Puerto Rico from Maria, and certainly, no way to claim those were because of Trump’s mismanagement of the disaster.

So What’s Going on Here?

Have you ever seen in recent history any scenario where Democrats and others on the Left do not find ways to blame President Trump for everything wrong and/or bad in America — and, for that matter, any bad thing anywhere in the World? Brexit was his fault, immigrants overrunning Europe was his fault, separation of babies from illegal immigrant parents during processing in 2014 was his fault, icebergs are his fault, every hurricane for the balance of World history will be his fault because he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, MS-13 is his fault, etc.

It is safe to say the insanity in New York and Washington D.C. among the liberal news media has reached epic proportions. I have stated before many times that it exists and will escalate — especially heading into the mid-term elections. The truth is insignificant and irrelative when it comes to political narrative. And the only political narrative that matters is this: Destroy Donald Trump.

Summary

Have you stopped to consider exactly why this lunacy not only exists but continues to ramp-up? Is there any other plausible explanation for it other than to do and say anything and everything to 1) win back the House of Representatives, and 2) set the stage for a Trump re-election White House bid upset in 2020? I don’t think there is.

Nevertheless, I feel strongly that even if the House turns blue and the U.S. Senate turns bluer, it will only make Trump’s message to the public during the next two years stronger, easier to understand, and much more obvious that the truth means nothing to Dems and other liberals. They will try to ram meaningless legislation through the House that all will attack President Trump and his agenda, take back those tax cuts, reinstall regulations, and will do everything within their power to do away with immigration as we know to open our borders.

If and when that happens, it is my opinion that it will open the eyes of more and more Americans to the horrors conservatives have been warning about. That will make the 2020 elections nationally and on the state and local levels a red bloodbath.

Americans are not stupid. Americans understand that Mainstream media does not present factual and unadulterated news to the American people. The Hurricane Maria deathtoll reports in Puerto Rico are prime examples of how corrupt the MSM is and will continue to be. And that’s all right. Americans understand that the truth is out there — somewhere. More and more Americans are spending the time necessary to find the truth and put it in place of the current political agenda being crammed down their throats by the lies of the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Associated Press (AP) and others.

It’s just a matter of time!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

No, this is NOT a case of an attack on free speech. Remember that old saying regarding the freedom to say anything: “You can say anything, but, you cannot cry ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater?” I think we’re getting to that point in “politi-speak.” Let me explain.

“Attorney Lanny Davis says he was an anonymous source in a July CNN story that reported his client, Michael Cohen, had privately claimed that President Trump had advance knowledge of the infamous Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians — contradicting Davis’s own words on CNN’s air last week. Davis, Michael Cohen’s lawyer and spokesperson, said he also regrets lying about his involvement in the story on CNN last week.”

Lanny Davis is a well-known attorney who for decades has kept close ties to the Clintons. He has been the media “go-to guy” for both Bill and Hillary throughout Bill’s two terms as President and Hillary’s term as New York Senator and as Obama’s Secretary of State. Davis — a staunch Democrat — has appeared often on FOX News on the “Sean Hannity Show.” Hannity has maintained an amicable friendship with the Clinton sycophant and their on-air banter had become commonplace.

But this latest from Davis has exposed the dangers of “anonymous” sourcing for news stories of every kind. It’s time to take a look at this practice, its purposes, and its dangers. And — at least in the opinion of this writer — it’s time to make some changes.

The Essence of Free Speech

In a nutshell, here is the core and guarantee of free speech: “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Heretofore, this Amendment has been broadly defined as it pertains to the media, allowing members of the media to say anything, claim anything, quote anyone named or unnamed, without any accountability for the truthfulness of what any source states as fact. Further, members of the media have had no accountability for what they say or write being truthful or not, nor is there any requirement for the media to divulge who those sources are.

But does the guarantee put into the First Amendment grant any American the right to lie with no accountability for doing so? That’s the question driving today’s discussion here at the TruthNewsNetwork.

What Does the Constitution Actually Guarantee?

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: no one here is a Constitutional attorney. But everyone here has the ability to think reasonably through topics such as this. It makes no sense for anyone to be allowed to purposefully tell lies, shield unverified sources who provide unverified information that could (because of their being reported to the World as they are today) damage national security, purposely defame individuals, impact financial markets, and even affect election results! That may seem a bit over the top, but it really isn’t. In today’s 24/7 news cycle environment in which anyone and everyone has instant access to news, how can any person believe what is being reported? Think about it: no reporter is required to tell the truth. No reporter is required to disclose sources of what they report. No reporter is required to verify that the content obtained from sources is accurate. Heretofore journalists have had carte blanche to say anything they so choose, quote “anonymous” sources, and can even make-up stories and report those to the world even knowing that their content is either false or unknown and verified to be truthful. And in the case mentioned above of Lanny Davis, he not only made up (lied) about the “news” he presented, HE LIED ABOUT THE SOURCE!

What types of speech are NOT protected by the Constitution? Scholars will agree and disagree on that. But most will agree the following categories are NOT Constitutionally protected as Free Speech:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

Plagiarism is also not protected.

But the one thing that has become glaringly obvious during the 2016 election cycle and since is that truth in reporting is missing. Should “Untruthful/non-factual” reporting be added to that not-protected list?

Shouldn’t the general public have a right to receive accurate information from the Press? Is it unreasonable to feel that purposeful untruth in reporting should bring accountability to those who are guilty of that? Should there not be some price to pay for the media lying to Americans?

“Self” Policing

The Society of Professional Journalists has published a handbook for journalists to use as a template for preparation and reporting of news. The handbook addresses this issue this way:

“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:  Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.”

Regarding the controversial policy of using anonymous sources in news reports (a practice I personally detest) NPR (National Public Radio) offers this about their reporting:

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Why does it seem we find it necessary to concentrate on the Mainstream American Media at least half of the time? Some say conservatives do so just because conservatives cannot stand media criticism. Others say it is because Media report the truth and conservatives refuse to accept facts. Neither is true. The fact that these two explanations are the most common given about Americans’ Media distrust illustrates just how out of touch Mainstream Media members are and how smart American voters really are. Let me explain:

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.
2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with a false report.
3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.
4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.
5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. The dishonest reporter showed a picture of empty arena HOURS before the crowd started pouring in.
6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.
7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in the process.”
8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.
9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.
10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.
11. And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

Those are just a few of the hundreds of examples of the ridiculous “reporting” Americans struggle with daily. Who should Americans believe in news reporting? Why should Americans believe ANY news reports!

So let’s just open Pandora’s Box a little bit wider and share the most ridiculous reporting from just 2017. (We’ll take you through 2018 later)  Starting in order working backward from December 26, 2017, here is our catalog of 2017’s shoddiest political reporting:

Dec. 26: Stop Making Fund of Me

The Claim: Republicans funded the Trump-Russia dossier.

The Source: CNN’s Evan Perez.

The Facts: GOP donor Paul Singer contracted Fusion GPS via the Washington Free Beacon during the 2016 primaries to perform opposition research on Trump and the other Republican candidates. The research that was done for that specific project is ultimately unrelated to the so-called “Russia dossier.”

Dec. 21: Dismissed!

The Claim: A judge has dismissed a suit accusing President Trump of profiting through his office, ruling that the president had not violated the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: The judge didn’t quite clear Trump of the charges. Rather, the judge said he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. It’s a small thing, and this isn’t really a major mistake on the Times’ part. That said, the reason this since-corrected misfire is so notable is that it stands as one of the extremely rare examples of a media misstep that favored Trump.

Dec. 19: Begging the Begin

The Claim: The GOP “begged” Democrats to work with them on tax reform, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: She said no such thing. Rather, Sanders said Democrats should have been “begging” the GOP to work with them on the bill.

Dec. 18: Off the Rails

The Claim: A deadly Amtrak derailment in Tacoma, Wash., that killed three people is another example of how the GOP puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of funding for infrastructure and technology advancements that could save lives.

The Source: A tweet by MSNBC’s Joy Reid that ended up being shared by more than 10,000 social media users.

The Facts: The derailment happened on a new track built specifically for a brand-new high-speed rail. Reid issued a correction eventually noting the facts of the deadly derailment.

Dec. 15: How Orwellian

The Claim: Under the Trump administration, the CDC has issued a list of banned words, including “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: There is no ban, and there was no attempt by right-leaning ideologues to strip supposedly politically charged language from the CDC’s lexicon. Rather, some bureaucrats suggested that certain words be removed from budget proposals so as to ensure specific programs would get requested funding. “The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans,” the paper reported.

Dec. 12: Fox Overhype

The Claim: Fox News has obtained roughly 10,000 messages sent by two anti-Trump FBI officials previously involved in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The Source: Fox News.

The Facts: Fox obtained the same 375 texts that were made available to Congress and the press prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before Congress. The cable news network did not, in fact, have access to additional materials that could’ve have gone a long way to disquieting concerns regarding the fact that the text scandal hinges entirely on out-of-context excerpts taken from private conversations spanning several months.

Dec. 11: Pentagon With the Wind

The Claim: “The Pentagon says it will allow transgender people to enlist in the military beginning Jan. 1, despite Trump’s opposition.”

The Source: The Associated Press.

The Facts: Nope. “Just confirmed with the lead lawyer on this case: This tweet is WRONG. The Pentagon will respect a court order requiring transgender enlistment on Jan. 1. That’s it. The order will likely be appealed before then,” reported Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. “No, the Pentagon did not overrule Trump on the trans troop’s ban,” he added. “I suppose the tweet could be technically correct under an EXTREMELY generous reading of it — but even then, highly irresponsible because anyone without our background knowledge of the case would misunderstand it.”

Dec. 8: Audience Size Twitter is the Best Twitter

The Claim: President Trump appeared before a nearly empty arena in December to stump for Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

The Source: The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel.

The Facts: Weigel shared a picture on Twitter claiming President Trump’s appearance on behalf of Moore had attracted a pitifully small crowd. Weigel was wrong, and the picture he shared was taken prior to the rally’s official start time. Weigel deleted the inaccurate claim and apologized.

Dec. 8: “A Colossal Screw Up”

The Claim: Donald Trump and his inner circle received advance notice during the 2016 presidential election of WikiLeaks’ plans to dump thousands of hacked emails belonging to Democratic National Committee staffers and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The Source: CNN, MSNBC, and CBS News.

The Facts: The email that supposedly showed the 2016 GOP nominee and his team received advance notice of the email dump was actually sent after the hacked correspondences were made publicly available. CBS, MSNBC, and CNN each reported separately that Trump and his team were given a heads-up, according to an email sent on Sept. 4. In reality, the email in question was sent on Sept. 14, after the emails were published online. The difference between Sept. 4 and Sept. 14 is the difference between someone flagging already public information and someone quietly slipping the GOP nominee and his team advance access to hacked correspondences. In short, the since-amended reports are little more than a “colossal fuck up” for their respective newsrooms, as on CNN reporter put it for the Washington Examiner.

Dec. 5 and Dec. 6: Deutsche Marks

The Claim: Special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed President Trump’s bank records.

The Source: Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal.

The Facts: Both newsrooms eventually walked backed their supposed scoops and the stories that remain are now about Trump associates. “Trump’s Deutsche Bank records said to be subpoenaed by Mueller,” read the original Bloomberg headline. A day later, Bloomberg amended the story and the headline so that it now reads, “Deutsche Bank Records Said to Be Subpoenaed by Mueller.” The Wall Street Journal, for its part, published a headline originally titled, “Trump’s Deutsche Bank Records Subpoenaed by Mueller. That headline was corrected eventually to read, “Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump.”

Dec. 4: Another Huge Russia Scoop!

The Claim: Former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland appears to have lied to Congress this summer when she testified about disgraced Gen. Michael Flynn’s communications with the Russians, according to her personal emails.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: The Times has amended the article heavily since publication so that it is now mostly innuendo. The initial references to the emails have been removed, and the story now leans mostly on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who only questions whether McFarland was forthright in her congressional testimony. The report’s core message has been softened considerably since its initial publication. Where the headline once declared that “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts,” the story now reads, “A leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned on Monday whether a high-ranking official in Donald J. Trump’s transition team had been deceptive over the summer about her knowledge of discussions between Michael T. Flynn …” The article, which was once so sure of itself, now eases away from its original message by stating McFarland, “might have given ‘false testimony’ in her answers.” That’s not to say the article doesn’t try to pin something on the former deputy national security adviser. The wink-winking seen in the original version of the story is still there; the language is just less certain.

Dec. 3: Hatched From Thin Air

The Claim: Sen. Orrin Hatch is largely uninterested in rescuing funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program because he believes sick and lazy children do not deserve government aid.

The Source: Journalist Twitter, including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald, and the Los Angeles Times’ Jamil Smith.

The Facts: Hatch said no such thing. Rather, he said that the “billions and billions” that are wasted on those who can help themselves make it harder to keep CHIP-funded. Hatch said in reference to welfare spending in general: “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.” The senator also said in those same remarks that he’s committed to protecting CHIP funding. Lastly, it’s worth noting Sen. Hatch co-wrote the bill to extend funding for CHIP.

Dec. 2: A Huge Russia Scoop!

The Claim: K.T. McFarland conceded in a private Dec. 29 email that Russia tipped the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: McFarland did indeed write that Russia “has just thrown the U.S.A. election to [Trump].” However, as Times report itself noted, she most likely said this in a paraphrase of Democratic criticisms of the Trump administration. The White House certainly denied she wrote it in earnest. The Times’ breathless handling of a single excerpt from her emails nevertheless set off a news cycle alleging McFarland had actually conceded Russia stole the U.S. election for Trump.

Dec. 2: A Kushner Job

The Claim: Kushner ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: White House senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly ordered Gen. Flynn during the transition period to contact Russian officials about a certain U.N. resolution. That’s it. The headline suggests something much more ominous, but it’s just not there.

Dec. 1: Lobbyists Everywhere

The Claim: More than 6,000 lobbyists worked on GOP tax reform bill.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: The report itself notes that there are, “11,000 active lobbyists in the nation’s capital … and more than half of them — 6,243 — have reported working on taxes this year.”

That’s not quite the same thing as working specifically on the GOP’s tax bill.

Dec. 1: Flynn, ABC News, and Brian Ross

The Claims: Former national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn is prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.

The Source: ABC News’ Brian Ross.

The Facts: The referenced directive came after the 2016 election. The president-elect reportedly ordered his transition team to contact Russia and other world leaders regarding the incoming administration’s foreign policy objectives, which is standard for incoming presidents. It took ABC eight hours to issue a correction. When it did, it characterized it incorrectly as a “clarification.” Ross was suspended for his error and subsequently banned from any further coverage of the president.

Nov. 30: Plagiarist Not

The Claim: Ivanka Trump plagiarized one of her own speeches during her visit to India

The Source: Newsweek.

The Facts: Ivanka Trump didn’t plagiarize a thing. She referenced her earlier, original speeches. That’s called repeating yourself. The Newsweek story has since been amended so that the headline now reads, “Ivanka Trump Recycles One of Her Own Speeches in India.” The article also includes an editor’s note that reads, “The headline of this story was changed to reflect that Trump reused portions of an earlier speech rather than ‘plagiarized’ it.”

Nov. 9: Not a First

The Claim: Trump is the first president since George H.W. Bush to fail to take questions from reporters alongside his Chinese counterpart on his first visit to China.

The Source: CNN’s Jeremy Diamond.

The Facts: Trump is the first U.S. president since the last U.S. president to take no questions during the first trip to China. Former President Barack Obama took no questions with the Chinese president during their first meeting in China.

Nov. 6: Japan and Cars

The Claim: President Trump doesn’t know Japan already builds cars in the United States.

The Source: CNN.

The Facts: The president is definitely aware Japanese businesses build cars in the U.S. “[W]e have a couple of the great folks from two of the biggest auto companies in the world that are building new plants and doing expansions of other plants,” Trump said in his address to Japanese business leaders on Nov. 6. “I also want to recognize the business leaders in the room whose confidence in the United States — they’ve been creating jobs — you have such confidence in the United States, and you’ve been creating jobs for our country for a long, long time.” He added, “Several Japanese automobile industry firms have been really doing a job. And we love it when you build cars — if you’re a Japanese firm, we love it — try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over.

Nov. 6: Don’t Be So Koi

The Claim: President Trump embarrassed himself in Japan when he dumped all of his fish food during the ceremonial feeding of the palace koi.

The Source: CNN, the New York Daily News the Guardian and many more.

The Facts: Full video of the event showed Trump was only following Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s lead. The two world leaders visited the Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, where they were both given individual boxes of fish food for the traditional feeding of the palace’s koi fish. The president and the prime minister spooned in their feed a little at a time. Abe then dumped the rest of his box into the pond. Trump followed suit, spooning in just a little at first, and then dumping out the remnants of his box. That’s it.

Nov. 2: Kill Him Two Times

The Claim: The fact that Donald Trump called for the death penalty for vehicular terrorist Sayfullo Saipov, but not for the white man who carried out the Las Vegas shooting, suggests the U.S. president is probably racist.

The Source: GQ magazine.

The Facts: Trump probably hasn’t called for the death penalty for Stephen Paddock because the Las Vegas shooter is already dead. Meanwhile, the man who killed eight people in New York City on Oct. 31 is still very much alive.

October 19: Flunking a True Statement

The Claim: No, the Clintons were not paid millions by Russia.

The Source: Newsweek.

The Facts: Yes, the Clintons have accepted millions of dollars from Russian entities. Newsweek’s supposed fact check came in response to a tweet from President Trump that read, “Russia sent millions to Clinton Foundation.” He is not wrong, and the Newsweek article acknowledges as much. It acknowledges that former President Bill Clinton received a generous $500,000 speaking fee in 2010 from a Kremlin-linked bank with ties to Uranium One, a Canadian uranium company that had mines in the U.S. The Newsweek article also acknowledges a separate New York Times report that showed Uranium One’s chairman donated approximately $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation in four separate installments as his company was being acquired by a Russian nuclear energy firm called Rosatom. The Newsweek article doesn’t, however, acknowledge that Uranium One owners donated an estimated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That particularly glaring omission is just icing on a crummy cake.

Oct. 13: Lyin’ Ryan

The Claim: House Speaker Paul Ryan said it’s on hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico to get back on its own two feet.

The Source: The Hill, MSNBC’s Joy Reid, NowThis News’ Matt Saccaro, SB Nation’s Marc Normandin.

The Facts: Ryan wasn’t being callous about the situation in Puerto Rico, nor did he dismiss the issue as merely a problem for the small unincorporated U.S. territory. “There’s a humanitarian crisis that has to be attended to. And this is an area where the federal government has a responsibility, and we’re acting on it…Yes, we need to make sure that Puerto Rico can begin to stand on its own two feet,” he said. Ryan added, “They’ve already had tough fiscal problems, to begin with,” the House Speaker told reporters this week. “We’ve got to do more to help Puerto Rico rebuild its own economy so that it can be self-sufficient.”

Oct. 2: The Mentally Ill and Guns

The Claim: Republicans have made it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns.

The Source: An oldie, recycled most recently by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Politico’s Michael Grunwald,

The Facts: This is a malicious smear. Here’s what happened: Congress voted to overturn a last-minute Obama-era regulation that would give the Social Security Administration the power to revoke a person’s Second Amendment rights based on whether he receives disability for a mental impairment that keeps him from working, or if he “[uses] a representative payee to help manage their benefits.” The repeal of the Obama-era regulation “doesn’t allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable,” as my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso explained at the time. “The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people’s rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ‘need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'” he added. “As the many non-political mental health and autism advocacy groups that supported the House action noted, there is no link between these factors and a propensity for violence.”

Republican lawmakers were joined in their opposition to the regulation by a number of disability and civil liberty advocacy groups, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union. Like the GOP, these organizations held that the Obama gun regulation posed a threat to civil liberties. They also argued that the now-defunct regulation stigmatized the disabled. The opposition wasn’t about making it “easier” for the mentally unstable to get their hands on firearms. Only an intentionally uncharitable read of the issue would take someone to that conclusion. The opposition was about restoring due process rights to people caught up in the now-defunct regulation’s overly broad guidelines.

Oct. 2: Gun Lift

The Claim: The House is voting to lift restrictions on gun suppressors just days after a mass shooting event in Clarke County, Nevada, left 58 dead and hundreds more wounded.

The Source: CNN chief national security correspondent and former Obama State Department official Jim Sciutto, NBC News’ Rebecca Sanchez and Mic’s Emily C. Singer.‏

The Facts: The House had no plans that week to address H.R.3668, which includes a provision that would loosen federal restrictions on gun suppressors. It never did. This story appears to have originated with a San Francisco Chronicle report titled, “Pair of pro-gun bills on move in House.” The article suggests the House “could pass” the SHARE Act as soon as this week, but it never provides proof of this claim. The closest that the report gets to backing the allegation is when it cites House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who said last week that the House had the votes to pass H.R.3668. A review of the House’s legislative itinerary for the week beginning Oct. 2 showed the measure was not scheduled for consideration. A handout provided to reporters on Sept. 29 by the office of Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., which is responsible for setting the House’s legislative agenda, also showed no signs of the SHARE Act. A source in McCarthy’s office also confirmed the bill was never slated for consideration that week. In short, this particular narrative is a total fabrication.

Summary

We’re going to stop right there…and we’ve only finished one quarter from the last year! But don’t worry: below this story finds a link that includes the Media lies listed above as well as all those to finish up the last 12 months.

Here’s the point of all this: we cannot trust the Mainstream Media for truth. We all must use what they tell us as nothing more than a starting point. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it now: we MUST research for truth on our own. It’s out there. There are plenty of resources in which you will find the truth on any item.

And of course, you can always come right here to the TruthNewsNetwork! We never tell you WHAT to think. But we DO give you things to THINK ABOUT.

2017 Media Lies

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download