Newsweek – Journalism

Newsweek Headline 4/28/20

DR. FAUCI BACKED CONTROVERSIAL WUHAN LAB WITH MILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS FOR RISKY CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH

Newsweek Headline 5/4/20

DR. FAUCI DISMISSES WUHAN LAB AS SOURCE OF CORONAVIRUS, CONTRADICTING TRUMP AND POMPEO

Conflict of interest? Who cares if it makes the Trump Administration look bad. Instead of investigative journalism to identify whether or not the virus started in the Wuhan lab, Newsweek does lazy gotcha journalism to attempt to drive a wedge between members of the Trump Administration.

The media in this country is the worst it has ever been even surpassing in awfulness the rotten media that existed during the American Civil War. A new professional low for “journalism.”

The drift to awful picks up pace

Pulitzer Prize awarded to controversial NYT 1619 writer

Andrew Sullivan – Pultizer goes to renowned liar

Lefty entities in the media are shameless. I don’t agree with much Andrew Sullivan says, but he recognizes the nonsense in this award.

It seems a number of major US media outlets have financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it shows in their coverage

Chrissy Clark:

“…Despite the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) record of oppression, corporate media outlets are parroting the authoritarian government’s propaganda, even in the midst of an outbreak the CCP worsened through a cover-up. Many of those media outlets have financial ties to Chinese companies with intense oversight from the CCP.

“You often see representatives from American companies with financial ties to China naturally become defenders of the CCP’s policies and spreading the CCP’s propaganda,” said Helen Raleigh, an author and senior contributor at The Federalist who emigrated from China. “The financial tie means these Americans will be much less likely to challenge China’s human rights record or unacceptable demand such as technology transfer.”

We do not know the extent of editorial oversight from corporations and individuals with financial incentives to placate the CCP, if any. But we know the incentives exist, and that’s worth understanding. Below is a breakdown of financial ties between major U.S. media organizations and the CCP…”

The New York Times

The Washington Post

CNN

MSNBC & NBC

ABC

Bloomberg

Original

Tucker busts holier-than-thou Lori Lightfoot

Ridicule is a good corrector for politicians drifting off the rails

Lightfoot threatened to arrest Chicago residents for simply planning on Facebook to attend social events. Then it was revealed that Lightfoot violated her own lockdown orders in order to get a haircut. Her explanation is one for the ages – ‘I’m someone who takes my hygiene seriously.’

It is getting to the point of ridicule for these Dem governor’s who want to control Americans’ lives

Newsom Issues List of Approved Activities, ‘Allows’ Californians to ‘Watch Sunsets’

‘Educating Liberals’ banned by twitter

Liberal media and social platforms are censoring conservative voices, because they can.

 

Mollie Hemingway destroys the hypocritical Washington Post

Mollie Hemingway in a long and masterful exposition of the Washington Posts’ coverage of the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation versus the Biden Sexual assault allegation demonstrates the double standard the Washington Post applies to stories depending on which party is accused. You already know which party the Washington Post favors. You may not know how obvious, ham-handed, and really disgraceful the Posts’ writers are in their hypocrisy. The media is shameless. I highly recommend clicking over for the whole thing.

Don’t Let The Washington Post Get Away With Memory-Holing Its Anti-Kavanaugh Campaign

Trump boat owner gets the last laugh on his snowflake neighbors

Hat tip to Kane

On why Flynn was framed

Andrew McCarthy:

“…To understand what happened here, you have to understand what the FBI’s objective was, first formed in collaboration with Obama-administration officials. That includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Flynn’s predecessor, national-security adviser Susan Rice, with whom then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI director James Comey met at the White House on January 5, 2017 — smack in the middle of the chain-of-events that led to Flynn’s ouster. Recall Rice’s CYA memo about the meeting: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia” (emphasis added). Rice wrote those words on January 20, at the very time the FBI was making its plan to push Flynn out.

The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.

But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?

The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.

That is why Flynn had to go.

President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance. He was not supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize in the campaign. The staff he brought into the government consisted mainly of loyalists. There were some skilled advisers, too, but their experience was not in the national-security realm.

The exception was Flynn. The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played — how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.

Someone as smooth as Director Comey might be able to dissuade President Trump from inquiring too deeply into the Russia investigation. Trump would be satisfied as long as Comey kept assuring him not to worry because the bureau was not investigating him personally — even though it was. The unseasoned Trump staff would also be easy to brush back: Just tell them that the FBI was rigorously independent, and that if the White House poked around too much, Trump staffers would be accused of political meddling. The staff was green enough to be bullied into minding its own business even about the FBI’s counterintelligence mission, in which the bureau is supposed to serve the White House, not the other way around.

But Flynn was different. After 33 years in the Army chain of command, the decorated former combat commander grasped that the FBI, like other executive-branch components, worked for the president. As NSA, Flynn would ensure that Trump ran the intelligence agencies, not be run by them. If Flynn wanted to know what was going on in intelligence investigations, he’d be able to find out — he wouldn’t take Jim Comey’s “no” for an answer. He was loyal to Trump, not to the intelligence establishment or the “policy community.” And he was White House staff, not a cabinet appointee — i.e., he did not have to wait interminably on an iffy Senate confirmation; he would be on the job from the very first moments of the new administration, getting his arms around what the executive branch intelligence apparatus was up to…”

Original

Doug Santo