Friday, November 25, 2016

The Pollsters lied, the Media lied, ...


Maybe now we can finally stop trying to imitate the Chinese State Press?

Half the population forcefully rejected the whole  Leftist agenda in every way shape and form.  That unrest was there and Donald simply articulated it.  Once this population found their place to go they went without hesitation.

Against all this the press was mostly blind or pretended to be and pushed the Obama story line of the past two terms.  Hilary made the mistake of accepting  the premise and failed to change the subject back to the economy which she may have made work for her.  That tack may have saved enough votes.

I expect a successful Trump Presidency.
The pollsters lied, the media lied, Hillary lied, America elects Donald Trump president, and the media respond by . . . lying some more

I labored in the newspaper business for 40 years. I started out driving the delivery truck. I broke front-page stories as a twenty-something reporter at my first small-town daily in Willimantic, Connecticut, eventually working my way up to become an editor and then a 20-year columnist and editorial writer at a major metropolitan daily.

In the process, I journeyed from high-tax, collectivist New England to rural Arizona and Nevada, where I learned firsthand about Americans who make their living farming, ranching, mining and cutting timber — or used to, before Washington City decided to drive these hard-working Americans off the land and into poverty and decay, using the absurd and disgusting pretext that these jobs and livelihoods had to be sacrificed to “protect” some obscure bird or weed or bug few people had ever heard of, to please self-satisfied bunny-huggers two thousand miles away.

So allow me to offer some unsolicited advice to those who own today’s major television networks, wire services, and major daily newspapers.

Call in your editors. Show them Tuesday’s election map, maybe the one at . But don’t stop with the main “state” map. Cursor over to the left and click the one that says “counties.”

See those little islands of blue? Majorities in those little islands of self-referential smugness voted Tuesday for the unindicted bribe-grabbing felon Hillary Clinton and the proud Democratic party of her beloved pal, Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle (and U.S. Sen.) Robert Byrd.

The little blue dots mark New England and New York City (but not most of upstate New York); New Jersey and Maryland and Washington, D.C.; Miami and Atlanta and Detroit and Chicago; some desperately poor black folk in the cotton belt of northwest Mississippi; the Indian reservations of South Dakota and northern New Mexico; the southern tip of Texas; Tucson and Denver and Las Vegas and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland and Berkeley and Seattle.

That’s about it. The rest of the country is a vast sea of brilliant Republican red. But the smug elitists of your Mainstream Media including the New York Times and the Associated Press insist on dismissing the occupants of that vast sweep of Republican/Independent red as “uninformed and deluded white males without college educations in rural backwaters.”

Don’t they?

How’s your ad revenue, Mr. newspaper or network or wire service owner? Way down? Circulation, viewership, market share? Miserable?

Some of this is due to technological change: the Internet. Whether you can make money as a primarily Internet company I don’t know. But there are some things that CAN be helped. Surely it wouldn’t be wise to drive away 50-odd percent of your remaining market simply through the unexamined ignorance and arrogance of your employees, do you think?

Tell your editor: “I’ve been looking over your attempts to diversify the newsroom. You’re doing well and I want that to continue. As you know, I don’t want inferior performers hired or tolerated just because they’re black or female or Hispanic or gay or whatever. Weed out the chaff. But when the best candidate for a given job happens to fall into one of those categories, keep hiring them.

“One great benefit of that policy is that when anyone on our staff is tempted to get lazy and use some racial or gender stereotype, they’ll now realize, ‘Wow, there’s a lesbian or a black person sitting right next to me. I’d better re-think that.’

But in my “post-Election-Day meeting” scenario, the boss now grows more serious.

“Still, there’s another kind of diversity we need, where we’re not doing so well,” he says. “It’s not a diversity of cosmetics, of appearance. Instead, it’s a diversity of political and moral and economic viewpoint, where about half the nation turn out to be dead-set against most of that ‘progressive, politically correct’ indoctrination they’ve been promoting at Columbia.

“Those folks point out some embarrassing stuff — that there’s been no measurable global warming in 17 years; that the government pays out millions in damages every year for infant brain damage caused by supposedly safe vaccines; that the cities with the most gun control have the most violent crime; that a lot of economists say our deficit spending will ruin the dollar; that the Founding Fathers never meant Washington to own half the land area of the Western states, that our public-school graduates can no longer count change or spell very well or find Austria on a globe. And instead of looking into this stuff, our guys just make fun of them, ridicule them as ‘conspiracy nuts, clinging to their guns and their religion.'”

“Look at this election map. How many of our staff grew up in these big red areas, or have spent any real time out there? How many have families that still live out in those states and counties, farming or ranching or working in some steel mill or coal mine? When some arrogant young college graduate who’s never spent so much as a week out there in Flyover Country hauls out some derogatory caricature of all those Americans, calling them uneducated racist hicks, who is there in our newsroom to say, ‘Hey, that’s my family you’re talking about’?”

Watch this short video clip of Republican analyst Steve Schmidt on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show on Nov. 9, the morning after those Americans elected Donald Trump (transcript follows):

STEVE SCHMIDT: “First off, usually when you have a candidate who wins the presidency, they defeat the other party. He’s the first candidate who’s now sitting here this morning as the president-elect who not only defeated his opposition party, but he blew up the Republican party, too. He took out two parties. So the party of Ronald Reagan, of both Bushes, that party doesn’t exist anymore.”


SCHMIDT: “It’s over. It’s something new. And I don’t know quite what that looks like over time. But don’t underestimate the cultural condescension heaped on millions of these working class Americans by elites in this country. Their God is mocked. Their service to the country is mocked. The fact that their patriotism, they get teary eyed when they see the flag. Their values are scorned and you saw this massive resentment manifest itself in this campaign and it’s a huge part of it.”

Or consider Daniel Henninger’s comments in the Sept. 15 Wall Street Journal (under the Zero Hedge blog “house” pseudonym Tyler Durden): “Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are ‘racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic’ . . . puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect.

“This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton,” Henninger explained. “The progressive Democrats, a wholly public-sector party, have disconnected from the realities of the private economy, which exists as a mysterious revenue-producing abstraction. . . .

“Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. . . . They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists,” Mr. Henninger concludes.

“If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because America’s ‘les deplorables’ decided enough of this is enough.”


As today’s Exhibit A, let’s look at the official Associated Press news of Trump’s victory, put together about 2:30 in the morning of Nov. 9, in Washington, D.C.

Mind you, I’ve written precisely this kind of story — a quick wrap-up on an unexpected event, attempting to cover a lot of bases and thrown together on deadline in the wee hours of the morning. It takes talent and facility with words. I don’t belittle the skill required. But such writing can also be revealing of unrecognized prejudices, because it allows so little time for review and revision:

“Trump wins White House in astonishing victory,” reads The Associated Press headline:


Associated Press

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump was elected America’s 45th president Tuesday,” the piece begins, “an astonishing victory for a celebrity businessman and political novice who capitalized on voters’ economic anxieties, took advantage of racial tensions and overcame a string of sexual assault allegations on his way to the White House.

Eight accurate words to start, followed by an opinion which I, for one, do not share.

There was nothing “astonishing” about this election result . . . unless Brother Robert and Sister Julie want to admit it “astonished those who failed to go to the alt-Right Online media for the real facts; who had been misled by us, the Legacy Media, and our stubborn refusal to report on Trump’s articulate presentation of substantive, popular issues and the absolutely phenomenal crowds he drew by doing so, instead focusing on an absolutely manufactured, uncorroborated, stage-managed narrative of ‘Trump the Foul-Mouthed Groper,’ while desperately covering up Hillary Clinton’s obviously frail health, her unstable personality, and her known crimes, either admitted or undeniable.”

Rather, the mainstream media and their pollsters lied, dawn to dusk, for months — and then got caught believing their own propaganda, a common but sometimes fatal failing.

Donald Trump cleaned Lying Hillary’s clock in the second, “town hall” debate, and never looked back.

The Legacy Media insist Hillary Clinton won all three debates, but voters saw through the evasive, memorized, tap-dancing speeches of the lying lady with the creepy grandma smile even BEFORE we found out (from Wikileaks) that you crooked media types (“CNN” for starters, though the list goes on) were in bed with her campaign staff, slipping her all the questions in advance, setting up signals so Mistress Hillary could let the “neutral moderator” know when she wanted to be called on for a clever retort ( ), et blooming cetera.

(After the third debate, CNN asked a panel of 25 “undecided” voters who THEY’D chosen, live on camera, whether the debate had helped them make up their minds. As I recall, four said no, five said they were now more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, and the number who raised their hands and said they were now more likely to vote for Donald Trump was . . . sixteen. But Hillary “won the debate”?)

In fact, armed with nothing but a home computer with Internet access and one dedicated and severely underpaid brunette researcher, I called the race for Trump a month ago, on Oct. 10, at , the day following that second, “town hall” debate, detailing the way the major polls ADMITTED overweighting their sample with Democrats by 4 to 8 points (later by as much as 12 points; way to go, ABC!), as though Hillary Clinton, who had trouble getting 500 people into a room for a rigged “rally” with planted questions ( ) — while Trump had to turn away overflow after filling stadiums that held 20,000 and 30,000 — was going to generate the kind of excited election-day swarms that Barack Obama drew among Democratic voters back in 2008.

I also documented — with links — the way Democrats in western Pennsylvania were switching their registrations to Republican and vowing to vote for Trump over the “jobs and fossil fuels” issues, and the way the Obama policy of dumping colonies of unassimilable Muslims seeking to impose Shari’a law on America into states like Michigan and Minnesota was helping Trump resonate with voters on the immigration issue, there in the “Rust Belt.”

I documented not just THAT the polls were rigged, but HOW the polls were rigged, on Oct. 26 at , and then again on Nov. 4 at .

I did that with a research budget of zero. Yet Julie Pace and Robert Furlow of The Associated Press — with a dozen credited researchers and helpers — found Trump’s victory “shocking”? How much time did they spend away from the blue islands on that map, during the past three months?

“His triumph over Hillary Clinton will end eight years of Democratic dominance of the White House and threatens to undo major achievements of President Barack Obama,” Pace and Furlow continue.

That is, prima facie, a statement by Democrats, approved by a Democratic editor too blind to note the partisan slant of the rhetoric.

Read it again. Republicans -– and the vast majority of Independents who voted for Trump -– would surely say Trump “promises to correct and save America from the major blunders of President Barack Obama.”

If The AP would toss out the second sentence as “partisan,” why not the first version -– the one that actually ran? Because it’s much harder to see and correct a bias you agree with, of course.

Can The Associated Press deny that the Obamacare “health exchanges” are collapsing, that major insurance companies are pulling out of the scheme rather than risk additional millions in losses, that huge double-digit premium hikes have already been announced, with the result that Obamacare’s victims are now skipping doctors’ visits?

Can they deny the amateur Obama-Hillary foreign policy has the Middle East in flames, that their short-sighted meddling and bungling helped create and strengthen the Islamic State, threatening to pull us into a ridiculous and unnecessary major war with Russia, when we claim to be fighting the same ISIS that Russia is fighting? (Personally, I can’t watch Hillary Clinton laughing at the death of Moammar Gaddafi without suspecting that THERE sits your depraved and dangerous candidate, out of touch with normal human emotions except as mannerisms and behaviors to be studied and faked the way a professional actress would. ( .)

Can they deny “environmental overkill” including absurd “renewable energy” subsidies and high death taxes and corporate tax rates are driving capital overseas and thus killing jobs in many vital American industries, including coal, oil, gas, steel, automobiles and machine tools?

I realize they don’t CARE about those brewing economic (and strategic) disasters, since they believe they and their families are permanently guaranteed their artificial prosperity, in those little blue islands. But can they DENY all that?

Then what, precisely, are “President Barack Obama’s major achievements” that anyone fears to see “undone”? The record number of Americans who have given up even looking for work?

“A New York real estate developer who lives in a sparking Manhattan high-rise, Trump forged a striking connection with white, working class Americans who feel left behind in a changing economy and diversifying country,” continue Ms. Pace and Mr. Furlow of the AP in their condescending account of Tuesday’s election, implying (like the good “progressives” they are) that any kind of “diversifying” has to be good, and all those redneck ditch-diggers who “feel left behind” are a bunch of pathetic knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who can never be taught to count past 10, anyway, who don’t even have a Facebook account, who should therefore probably just be encouraged to put themselves out of their misery, run out in front of the bull at the rodeo or something.

“He cast immigration, both from Latin America and the Middle East, as the root of the problems plaguing many Americans and taped (sic) into fears of terrorism emanating at home and abroad,” the AP duo go on.

“Trump upended years of political convention on his way to the White House, leveling harshly personal insults on his rivals, deeming Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, and vowing to temporarily suspend Muslim immigration to the U.S.”

And now we finally come to material that is plainly untrue. No, not “suspending Muslim immigration.” He did say that and that’s precisely what majorities in a huge majority of states want and voted for, Tuesday. They can go to the Internet and see the riots, the violence, the murders and gang rapes paralyzing Europe due to the huge influx of non-assimilating Muslim “refugees” -– including men in their 30s who claim to be “children” ( ) -– even if America’s Muslim-coddling Obama administration and oh-so-Politically-Correct mainstream media refuse to properly identify even our own, HOMEGROWN murderers as Islamic terrorists when appropriate (going so far as to censor out Orlando nightclub mass murderer Omar Mateen’s pledge of fealty to ISIS from his final 9-1-1 call — see . . . . . . and . . . 

No, I mean I paid pretty close attention to this election, and I never heard Donald Trump utter a single word of criticism of “Mexican immigrants.” Neither he nor I nor -– I will presume -– the vast majority of his supporters have any problem with LEGAL immigrants from Mexico or anywhere else, with the exception of Muslims who come here intending to wage violent jihad in an attempt to impose Sharia law on America.

What he did point out was that ILLEGAL ALIENS from Mexico and other countries -– whom the Obama administration was duty bound to expel but whom they did NOT expel, under the extra-legal policy widely dubbed “catch-and-release” — have committed rapes and murders, lots of them, after being allowed to remain here ILLEGALLY.

Do the AP reporters deny this? Do they think it’s a good thing?

If you really don’t know this is true, simply click any one or two of the following links:

This is not an accident. This is not some mere “typographical error.” Mr. Trump objects to the Obama administration refusing to expel illegal aliens EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE COMMITTED ADDITIONAL, SERIOUS felonies ON TOP OF being here illegally, and The AP and the rest of the mainstream press then strive to purposely obscure what’s really being talked about by commingling these illegals with legal immigrants, contending -– like the conjurer pulling a silver dollar out of your ear -– that Mr. Trump (and his supporters) “hate Mexican immigrants.”

To become an “immigrant” in America you have to follow certain rules set down in law, and neither Mr. Trump nor his supporters have said a single word against such LEGAL immigrants, so far as I can tell. Thus the media’s Politically Correct euphemism, supposedly chosen so as “not to offend anyone” (Heaven forbid we should “offend” illegal-alien rapists and murderers!) morphs into an actual lie.

Nor is this an isolated case of The Associated Press using Politically Correct euphemisms to create what are, in effect, lies. Look up any AP story dealing with the cities in which Palestinian Arabs have been living on the “West Bank” and in Gaza since 1948.

The AP refers to these towns and cities -– which have paved streets and high-rise apartment buildings with elevators, electricity, and running water -– as “refugee settlements,” purposely attempting to create the impression that the poor Palestinians (whose grandparents left Israel voluntarily in 1948, and many of whose parents were then kicked out of Jordan for trying to stage a coup there in the 1970s) are living in tent cities, having to haul water in buckets, while they await the righteous Arab conquest of the temporary “state” of Israel.

Phoenix and Las Vegas were pretty small towns in 1948. Most of their current occupants were born in other parts of the country. Does the AP regularly and as a matter of stated policy universally refer to these cities as “refugee settlements”?

“Trump will inherit an anxious nation, deeply divided by economic and educational opportunities, race and culture,” the AP pronounced early Wednesday morning.

Oh, nonsense. They’re mostly making this up. Although the public schools do suck -– Thanks, Democrats! And thanks to your pals the teachers’ unions, too! -– Americans spend more on them, per capita, than any other nation in the world, and they’re available free to all (yes, currently including the children of illegal aliens, no questions asked, whether we like it or not.) Most colleges also offer scholarships to gifted poor students. So how is the nation “divided by educational opportunities”? This is nothing but “code talk” for the Hillary/Progressive call for “free college education for all,” which is now held to be necessary (like government-subsidized birth control and sex-change operations) to bring us closer to the ever-receding goal of redistributionist, socialist perfection.

The problem, of course, is that collectivist government already insists on subsidizing college loans with tax money, encouraging more young people to attend college than are likely to enter any profession really requiring that kind of study, so that colleges increasingly become bloated social clubs (“community colleges” are suddenly “universities”) that help hold middle-class kids out of the job market for an additional four years (favored by the labor unions on the erroneous theory of “limited jobs”) till they get their “ticket stamped” with a degree in “Minority Studies” or “Music Appreciation” . . . at which point they complain they’re “saddled with high student loan debt” (since the colleges, of course, merely increase their tuition by the amount of the tax-subsidized loans) . . . leading to a call for politically popular “loan forgiveness,” sticking either the failing banks or the taxpayers with the bill . . .

. . . leading for a demand for Uncle Sugar to just cut the Gordian Knot and fund the whole deal, from the outset. Print and spend; borrow and spend, world without end.

“Economic opportunities”? Hillary Clinton favored raising the minimum wage -– the best known way to PREVENT young blacks from finding jobs, according to black economists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. ( .) 

To win union support, she also vowed to oppose “so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws,” which are actually, um . . . right-to-work laws. Didn’t she?

The main source of racial tension over the past four months has been Democratic activists (some of them black, but surely not all) attacking Trump supporters and purposely starting riots. (See .)

Once the Clintons and much of their criminal gang are in prison for their known felonies, things should get better on that front pretty quickly. I don’t feel angry or hostile when interacting with my black or Hispanic neighbors. Do you?

(Who benefits from such ginned-up “racial divides,” anyway? Only the pandering politicians and their lapdog press, so far as I can figure.)

And the only reason that once culturally unified America is at all “divided by culture” is that the Democrats keep inviting in far more foreigners than can be assimilated, with far too many of them determined to murder as many of us as necessary to get us to “submit” to Shari’a Law!

Yes, America is “deeply divided” -– between those who believe in free markets, liberty, and inflation-free saving, and those in the little blue islands who worship at the idol of all-powerful government, seizing and redistributing till they achieve “economic justice” and equality for all . . . equal poverty and hopelessness with a virtually worthless currency, that is to say, as perfected in the former Soviet Union.


“Exit polls underscored the fractures,” The AP duo continue. “Women nationwide supported Clinton by a double-digit margin, while men were significantly more likely to back Trump. More than half of white voters backed the Republican, while nearly 9 in 10 blacks and two-thirds of Hispanics voted for the Democrat.”

What? Am I supposed to have my calculator out, at this point? Aren’t they going to tell me who did better among left-handers and redheads and people descended from Latvian immigrants?

What is all this divisive decimal-point tabulation supposed to accomplish, precisely? Trump got more than 10 percent of the black vote and one third of the Hispanic vote? Pretty good for a supposed “racist.” In fact, the Cuban vote undoubtedly helped him win Florida. But whether Mrs. Clinton drew more female votes by 13 percent or by 7 percent -– I’ve seen both numbers, and the second one sounds like a “single digit,” to me — women’s massive support of Trump (and their failure to overwhelmingly support the self-anointed “first woman president”) is precisely why he won. It appears he even got surprisingly strong support among “college educated women” (as though anyone really cares. While you’re at it, can we see a breakdown comparing female history versus anthropology majors of Irish descent? Surely THAT will prove significant!)

But of course The AP could never admit that support from women and Hispanics and Catholics and even blacks at higher levels than enjoyed by Mitt Romney was actually what allowed Trump to win. After all, that would go against their pre-scripted narrative, that only racist, snake-handling, quasi-literate white male hayseeds living along dirt roads in Appalachia or the Ozarks who keep their barefoot, pregnant womenfolk chained to the coal-burning stove could possibly have voted for Trump the “Racist” Buffoon.

“Clinton asked voters to keep the White House in her party’s hands for a third straight term,” Mr. Furlow and Ms. Pace of The AP continue. “She cast herself as heir to President Barack Obama’s legacy and pledged to make good on his unfinished agenda, including passing immigration legislation, tightening restrictions on guns and tweaking his signature health care law.”

Well, they got that “tighter restrictions on guns” part right — tighter restrictions on everyone but their own armed bodyguards, of course. Bill Clinton said gun control lost them control of Congress in 1994, but “Progressives” are nothing if not slow learners.

And Mrs. Clinton wanted to “pass immigration legislation”? We’ve already got TONS of immigration legislation that the Democrats have refused to enforce. Can’t these people SPEAK ENGLISH?! How about ditching the misleading euphemism, coming clean and writing that Hillary’s goals “. . . included a complete amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens who have arrived since the last time Democrats vowed to ‘seal the border,’ back in 1983 . . . and then permanent ‘open borders’ for all the illegal aliens who ever want to come here, thereafter”?

The piece goes on, citing “persistent questions about (Mrs. Clinton’s) honesty and trustworthiness.” (Who the heck retains any “questions”? She’s ADMITTED to deleting 33,000 emails that were under subpoena. And it’s impossible to read the emails obtained by the Judicial Watch FOIA action without concluding Huma Abedin served as Hillary’s State Department “bribe broker” — see .)

The AP staffers even repeat the Democratic talking point that “On Sunday, just two days before Election Day, (FBI Director James) Comey said there was nothing in the material (on Anthony Weiner’s seized laptop) to warrant criminal charges against Clinton,” when what the weasel Comey has actually said -– obviously under pressure from the obstructive Barack Obama and his crooked Attorney General Loretta Lynch -– is that Hillary DID break laws in her handling of classified material, but that Mr. Comey didn’t think he could get any prosecutor in Lynch’s office to pursue THAT SPECIFIC case . . . an excuse so pathetic that the initials FBI are now widely held on the Internet to stand for “The Fix Be In.”

Meantime, We know investigations into the “Clinton Foundation” bribe-processing machine and other crimes detailed on the Weiner laptop . . . continue.

But perhaps I’ve made my point.

The Associated Press is losing clients left and right -– both newspapers that are just plain going out of business, and newspapers that are deciding to concentrate on local news and stop wasting paper re-printing the Politically Correct national and international AP guff out of New York and Washington.

If the AP and our other “legacy media” want to survive at all, it might behoove them to look at the map of last night’s election — the COUNTY map — and see if they can’t fill at least 25 percent of their newsroom desks (half would be better) with writers who don’t hail from those tiny little blue islands of redistributionist arrogance — fill them with some Americans who haven’t spent their entire formative lives in Washington, New York, New Haven or Boston, who are willing to speak to the other half of America on these issues, in Politically Incorrect plain English.

Kind of like, you know . . . Donald Trump.
10 Comments to “The pollsters lied, the media lied, Hillary lied, America elects Donald Trump president, and the media respond by . . . lying some more”
Bob Ashman Says:
  1. November 10th, 2016 at 12:09 am
    Vin: We disagree seldom – but this is brilliant. I too was especially struck by the the AP story’s phrase “the major achievements” of the Obama administration. When I pointed it out to my wife (who is resolutely non-political), she said “Well, what about it?”
    But when I said “How would the story change if it had read ‘the dominant schemes’ of the Obama administration”? Then she understood.
    Keep writing. BA
    MamaLiberty Says:
  2. November 10th, 2016 at 11:36 am
    The horrible thing is that all these people already KNEW they were telling lies, manipulating the information available to further the lies. The goal has not been finding and reporting the truth for a very long time. The agenda has been to control as many people as possible, by whatever means they could find.
    I’m delighted to see the AP die, to watch as the major print newspapers wither, and for the MSM of all kinds to be distrusted as much as it is. Unfortunately, one look at the liberal rag local paper here – in a VERY “conservative” town full of Republicans and folks who have no use for either party – tells me that this battle is far from over.
    The publisher of this little weekly would have been delighted to see a Clinton win this race. How many other local papers push the same liberal agenda?
    We have a LOT more work to do in order to find individual liberty, and must never forget it.
    anarchyst Says:
  3. November 10th, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were “journalists” (I use that term loosely).
    From “Remember the Maine” in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty’s extolling the “virtues” of communism while one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking place, in order to force the “collectivization” of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite outright lying about American military’s effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam “Tet offensive” (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a “nasty craft”. In cronkite’s case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite’s lies about the supposed American “defeat” were publicized. Cronkite’s lies gave the North Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American “news media” on their side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the so-called “mainstream media”. All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over Cuba’s Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist “paradise”.
    Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their “profession” for what it really is…with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same “mainstream media” is calling for the “licensing” of journalists–something that would have been unheard of (and treasonous) in previous decades…
    Professional journalism is its own worst enemy…
    John Taylor Says:
  4. November 11th, 2016 at 5:51 am
    In addition to the “blue enclaves”, one must also look to the ‘leading’ J-schools in the nation. (I assume at least some of these “journalists” still come from there?) I am intimately familiar with two of the largest and they are both a nest of vipers within a den of snakes when it comes to “progressive” indoctrination.
    DC Says:
  5. November 11th, 2016 at 9:30 am
    I took your advice after reading the editorial posted in our local paper, The Monitor (which used to carry you back in the 1990’s) to speak with Mrs. Sanchez regarding her editorial of today. I told her that I thought she as the one living in a bubble and even though I tried to point out this editorial, and explaining your professional history, she informed me that anyone who reads bloggers is living in a bubble.
    She pushed the fact that newspapers have integrity and print truth even after I pointed out that Wikileaks has proven that at least 65 MSM “journalists” were nothing more than Hacks for the DNC. Her 9-years at USA today trumps all it appears.
    Thank you for everything you done all these eyars.
    Below is the link and 3 selected paragraphs.
    COMMENTARY: Decrying the age of anti-intellectualism
    Tuesday’s election of Donald Trump has me deeply concerned for a number of
    I’m bothered by the apathy among younger voters who didn’t go to the polls.
    I’m upset by the Latino vote. I’m fearful of the president-elect’s ability
    to lead. I’m worried about our severely divided society. And, most
    importantly, I’m scared that my media industry no longer has an impact.
    But it isn’t really. Because real journalism — the kind backed by hundreds
    of years of ethics, integrity and standards — has always been, and still is,
    Because on social media there are no gatekeepers who ensure that what is put
    online is correct. Bloggers can write whatever they want. And anyone with
    enough money (and time) can spend their days spinning anything any way they
    anarchyst Says:
  6. November 11th, 2016 at 10:16 am
    I must respectfully disagree with DC. He criticizes bloggers because there is no “framework” in which they operate.
    It is “real” journalists who, throughout history, have ALWAYS had an “agenda”, depending who the “powers that be” are. You see, “journalists” are more worried about being disinvited from the Washington DC and Georgetown “cocktail party” circuit, as “journalists” are more interested in rubbing shoulders with the “cream of society” than pursuing and disseminating the unvarnished TRUTH.
    DC is attempting to defend a system that has been corrupt (and corrupted) for a very long time…
    Bloggers have to be MORE honest, as they realize that lies and fabrications will cost them their readership, unencumbered by financial or other considerations.
    DC Says:
  7. November 11th, 2016 at 11:33 am
    Please go back and re-read because reading is fundamental.
    Vin Says:
  8. November 11th, 2016 at 1:22 pm
    Hi, Anarchyst — I believe DC was quoting Sandra Sanchez of the 36,000-circulation McAllen (Texas) Monitor, which used to be a good, libertarian-leaning paper in the Hoiles “Freedom Newspapers” chain, but was acquired by AIM Media (basically Jeremy Halbreich, formerly of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Dallas Morning News) in 2012.
    Ms. Sanchez, the “Opinion editor” who says she grew up reading the Washington Post, continues to peddle the standard schoolbook pabulum that “The opinion page is the one spot where views can be expressed” in her newspaper — ignoring all evidence that the NEWS pages of most American dailies now more and more parrot a “Politically Correct” opinionated leftist line, disguised as “objective news” (thanks in part to The Associated Press) . . . as I’ve gone to some trouble to demonstrate and document, above.
    In the piece for which DC provides a handy link — — Ms. Sanchez asserts only she and her brand of “professional journalists” adhere to “ethics, integrity and standards,” condescendingly dismissing those who reject her line and decline to follow her instructions as “anti-intellectuals.”
    She urges her readers to “Listen to other voices, those that differ from your own.”
    Good advice. So are we to believe Ms. Sanchez, following her own advice, now starts her day with Breitbart and the Drudge Report, Wikileaks and the Daily Caller and Paul Joseph Watson, maybe even with the Online New York Post, in order to escape the incestuous “echo chamber” of the George Soros leftist/globalist New York Times, CNN, NBC and Associated Press . . . all of which seem to have coincidentally “missed the boat” in the same manner, on November the eighth?
    Maybe. I don’t know.
    “We don’t screen for what we want or who we want in news stories. Real journalists lay it out there for all to read (and see) and hopefully absorb and analyze and thoughtfully consider,” Ms. Sanchez asserts.
    Really? I’m not a regular reader of the Monitor. I don’t know. Did they spend the past two months exposing in detail Hillary Clinton’s State Department bribe-taking (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, including from convicted felons and terror-sponsoring foreign governments) as revealed by the Judicial Watch FOIA email dump? The way the Clinton campaign ridiculed Catholics and evangelical Christians in their internal emails as exposed by Wikileaks (and as referred to by Donald Trump in his hilarious presentation at the Al Smith dinner — )?
    How much time and space did they devote to investigating Mrs. Clinton’s frail neuro-psychiatric health as analyzed by Dr. Ted Noel ( ); asking insistently why she wasn’t being prosecuted for ADMITTEDLY deleting 33,000 emails that were under subpoena by investigators seeking to learn whether she’d allowed foreign governments to hack state secrets off her illegal private email server? (It now appears five of them did, by the way . . . despite her denials. See or .)
    Did the Monitor carefully note that bugling charges Donald Trump “groped” someone on an airliner 30 years ago — in the absence of a police report and despite the fact that report was immediately contested by a neutral British eyewitness who said it was the LADY who was doing the coming-on ( ) — would violate the “ethics and standards” of any traditional American daily newspaper I ever worked for or heard of, in my 40-year journalism career, much of it at a newspaper five times larger and a lot more influential than the McAllen Monitor? (Though, to be honest, we were often frustrated to find readers wouldn’t vote the way we advised them, either.) :-)
    Maybe. Perhaps DC can let us know.
    “I’m scared that my media industry no longer has an impact,” Ms. Sanchez admits.
    OK. Good start. And has she done any soul-searching about why that might be — why her former readers might feel they’re no longer getting the straight dope, there?
    Instead, it sounds to me like she’s kicking her heels on the floor and whining as she complains “Clearly, the American public did not listen to newspaper endorsements for Hillary Clinton. Columnists who railed against Trump’s lack of experience, his attitude toward women and Hispanics, and his vague policies on how he would govern, were largely ignored.”
    Awww. They wouldn’t LISTEN!
    Yes, there’s nonsense on the net. You have to serve as your own “screener,” these days. But whose fault is it the public no longer trusts the legacy media to perform that function?
    As enormously successful (and considerably more amusing) columnist Ann Coulter wrote on Oct. 19, she kept hearing this “vagueness” complaint even as Mr. Trump detailed his policies and plans at those huge rallies so clearly that “At this point, the only ‘policy specific’ Trump hasn’t given us is which company will supply rebar for the wall.” ( .)
    But the Mainstream Media ignored all that, of course, since it didn’t fit their pre-scripted narrative of “Trump the racist buffoon” — wouldn’t even pan their cameras around to show the size of his huge crowds — while they carefully shot from low angles and framed photos of Hillary “rallies” to make it look like a pathetic 125 hand-picked attendees were somehow filling the room.
    All of which Ms. Sanchez could easily have learned . . . if she’d tuned out her Mainstream TV channels and spent more time on the dreaded Internet.
    (For crowd comparisons, see .) For evidence that Mainstream Media coverage of Donald Trump was 91 percent negative, see .
    — V.S.
    anarchyst Says:
  9. November 11th, 2016 at 2:19 pm
    DC, Vin, Thank you for the clarification. Best regards,
    DC Says:
  10. Vin,
    No it did not. It promoted the AP stories that tended to be positive and the Letters to the Editor on Hillary that tended to be positive along with pushing the negative for Trump. Two examples are below and the timing noted specifically.
    On October 30th, a commentary was published from a member of the Monitor’s Board of Contributors, Louise Butler, whom has derided Trump from the beginning (which can be seen not only in the Letters to the Editor and Opinion pages of the Monitor but also on the Hidalgo County GOP Facebook page). She states that she is a lifelong Republican, but I do not recall ever seeing her at county Republican party meetings (of which I have attended at least 85% over the past 8-years).
    Late at night on November 7th, a story by The Monitor staff writer, May Ortega, was published with the title: Beneath the surface of the millennial vote.
    This article relates the interviews of three of local university’s 20-year old students. The Vice President of the Young Republican Club, the president of the Progressive Young Democrats and an Independent who leans left. All three were completely negative on Trump– the first writing in Marco Rubio and the latter two casting votes for Hillary.
    This has been the “spirit” of most of the articles published in the paper and its website and which, as you had pointed out above, is shame as it used to be fairly decent when it was owned by Freedom Newspapers.
    Thank you again Vin for all you have done over the years.
    You are very welcome and best regards too.

No comments: