The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.
It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:
In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.
Every outlet was negative more often than positive.
Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.
Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.
The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.
On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:
The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.
Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.
The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.
Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:
Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.
— ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) May 10, 2017
And so on and so forth – Democrats are SHOCKED and APPALLED that Trump would fire the honorable Jim Comey in the middle of the Russia investigation – much of which has been based on an increasingly discredited Russian hacking report from CroweStrike, an Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google, which was the only entity to analyze DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking.
Democrat Jon Ossoff is headed for a runoff in June against a Republican contender after failing Tuesday to score an upset victory
Seems like an appropriate song for today!
The Devil went down to Georgia – He was looking for a soul to steal – He was in a bind, ’cause he was way behind – He was willing to make a deal – When he came across this young man – Sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot – And the Devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said – “Boy let me tell you what:
I guess you didn´t know it, but I’m a fiddle player too,
Where is Jon Ossoff’s money coming from?
Five people employed by members of the House of Representatives remain under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed at least one of those under investigation.
The criminal investigation into the five, which includes three brothers and a wife of one of the men, started late last year, as reported by Politico in February. The group is being investigated by US Capitol Police over allegations that they removed equipment from over 20 members’ offices, as well as having run a procurement scheme to buy equipment and then overcharge the House.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week Capitol Police are receiving additional help for the investigation. “I won’t speak to the nature of their investigation, but they’re getting the kind of technical assistance they need to do that, this is under an active criminal investigation, their capabilities are pretty strong but they’re also able to go and get the kind of help they need from other sources,” Ryan said.
The brothers, Abid, Jamal and Imran Awan, worked as shared employees for various members of the House, covering committees relating to intelligence, terrorism and cybersecurity, which included the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.
Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, both of whom worked as House IT employees, are also under investigation.
The group were banned from accessing the computers as a result of the investigation but, as of earlier this month, Imran Awan remains as an “technology adviser” to former Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign in July following revelations that she worked to further Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic primary at the expense of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
News of the brothers’ investigation has sparked speculation that it may be tied to the hack of the DNC servers, the contents of which were first released by Guccifer 2.0 and later published on WikiLeaks.
Russian actors have been accused of being behind the hack, which Democrats claim contributed to Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. There have also been reports that the DNC hack came from an insider.
@Cernovich Can’t blame the Russians for Awan brothers, why is no one talking about them since were investigating leaks!
— JCross (@ccross5882) March 21, 2017
@Cernovich Were Dems really hacked? Looks like they’ll give just about anybody access to their computers. No ? asked.
— Sr Admin Official (@Im_Effin_Dunn) March 20, 2017
@TomFitton What is the actual proof specifically that in fact it was Russia doing hack of DNC because Awan Brothers issue disturbs me
— Cheryl Aschenbrenner (@CherylAschenbr2) March 21, 2017
An email between DNC staffers in April 2016, which was released by WikiLeaks, references a staff member named Imran and how this person has access to the passwords for Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.
Garret Bonosky, deputy director of office of the DNC chair, tells Amy Kroll: “I have to get [this iPad] thing figured out. Need to make sure I have her username and password before I delete and reload the app.”
“I do not have access to her ipad password, but Imran does,” Kroll replies, later writing: “Just spoke to Imran, call me whenever GB and I’ll update you, don’t delete anything yet.”
Another email from the DNC hack, dated December 2016, references Imran once again. Wasserman Schultz’s assistant Rosalyn Kumar tells scheduler Anna Stolitzka: “[Nancy] Pelosi is doing [a] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.”
The brothers were paid high salaries for their work with various House members, above the median salary for Congressional staffers.
Imran, who started working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, received $164,600 in 2016, with close to $20,000 of that coming from Wasserman Schultz.
Jamal, who started working as a staffer in 2014, was paid $157,350.12 in 2016.
Abid, who started working in 2005, was paid $160,943 in 2016.
Hina Alvi, who was employed as a staffer from February 2007, was paid 168,300 in 2016.
Rao Abbas was paid $85,049 in 2016.
The Daily Caller reports that Imran received $1.2 million in salary since 2010, while Abid and Alvi received over $1 million each.
House Democrats supporting the employees have suggested that the Pakistani nationality of the suspects may have inspired the investigation.
Quick rundown on ActBlue:
ActBlue bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action.” As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees. That is, ActBlue bundles and transmits earmarked contributions from individuals raised on their website to specific candidates.
The organization assists Democratic candidates and committees of all ideological persuasion, helping moderates and liberals alike. Through mid-2010, it has helped funnel more than $134 million — and counting — in contributions. Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure, the total amount given by donors via ActBlue is considerably greater than the totals listed below, which are based on FEC filings of candidates and committees that receive this money.
Their summary on Twitter reads:
“Our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of grassroots donors across the United States.”
Tied to Shareblue as shown here in a 2015 tweet:
This organization is always tagged with things like “resist” and resist accounts on Twitter.
Guess who received funds from Act Blue? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and..
This is like one big naughty list.
The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”
The video is less than a minute long and begins by stating that people are experiencing “great fear and uncertainty,” with the unstated implication it is due to Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House.
Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”
But the strongest words come in a statement that seems to suggest the answer is street action that will inevitably turn bloody and deadly.
“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people,” Lynch says. “I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.”
Lynch, who is scheduled to receive the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal of Law from the University of Virginia, goes on to say: “It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”
She is officially in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code § 2102. Inciting riots. Time to round her up.
The antagonism between Trump and the “Mainstream Media” is no secret, with Trump recently calling corporate-owned news media the “Enemy of the American People.” Now a new study, conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC), has confirmed that the media’s coverage of Trump has been anything but balanced, with 88% of all news coverage of the administration within its first 30 days in office found to be overtly “hostile.” The study analyzed evening newscasts on the “Big Three” networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS – for both tone and content during Trump’s first month in the White House. They found that the three networks had collectively produced around 16 hours of coverage on Trump and his administration, representing 54% of their total coverage for the entire month.
“Our measure of media tone excludes sound-bites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” wrote Rich Noyes – research director for the MRC – along with fellow MRC analyst Mike Ciandella. “Our measure of media tone excludes sound-bites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” the pair added.
Despite the study’s focus on allegedly nonpartisan journalists and experts, the networks were found to have filled their stories with quotes largely from citizens angry about Trump’s policies, giving minimal airtime to Trump supporters. It was also found that reporters “often injected their own anti-Trump editorial tone into the coverage. ‘It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality,’ CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley […] began his February 6 broadcast.”
The study also noted that Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” drew the most negative coverage, netting over three hours in total, though the border wall issue was a close second. The study also reported that “nearly an hour of coverage (56 minutes) was given over to anti-Trump protests on various topics, with nearly one-fifth (82 out of 442) of the Trump stories or briefs aired during these 30 days including at least some discussion of an anti-Trump protest.”
A previous MRC study had found that negative coverage of his campaign was similarly high with 91% of broadcast coverage at the time found to cast the Trump campaign in a negative light. With trust in the media at an all-time low and with a majority of Americans believing that the media is too critical of Trump, this latest study only confirms that the mainstream media remains remarkably out of touch with the average American.
Nancy Pelosi, when asked, why exactly she demands that Jeff Sessions resign:
(Sorry, I can’t help myself, I love this clip too much!)
She’s totally lost it!
An educational film to teach viewers about the dynamics of propaganda, made in the in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s.
A teacher dissects the processes in which propaganda works to an eager student. In it are moments of classic hokum, but curiously it all rings true today.
Beware of Propaganda!
The prime element of social control is the strategy of distraction consisting of deviating the public attention from the important problems and from the mutations decided by the political and economic elites by means of the flooding technique or the continuous inundation of distractions and insignificant information.
The strategy of distraction is equally indispensable to prevent the public from getting interested in the essential knowledge in areas of science, economy, psychology, neurology and cybernetics.
“To maintain the public attention distracted, away form the true social problems, captivated by subjects of no real importance. To maintain the public busy, busy, without any time to think; going back to the farm with the other animals.”
This method is also known as “problem-reaction-solution”. It creates a problem, a foreseen “situation” to provoke a certain reaction in the public in order to make this one the demanding force of measures that are desired to be accepted.For example: to let urban violence develop and intensify, or to organize bloody terrorist attempts in order for the public to demand laws of security or police-oriented ones in detriment of freedom. Or also: to create an economic crisis to make accepted the backward movement of social rights and the breaking down of public services as a necessary evil.
To make accepted an unacceptable measure it is sufficient to apply it progressively, in a “degraded” manner, over a duration of 10 years. It is in this way that radically new socio-economic conditions have been imposed during the years 1980 to 1990. Massive unemployment, lacking, flexibility, relocation, salaries that no longer secure a decent income, so many changes that would have provoked a revolution should they be abruptly applied.
Another way of making accepted an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful but necessary”, obtaining the agreement of the public in the moment for the future application. It is easier to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate one. Firstly, because the effort is not deployed immediately.Next, because the public, the people, have always the tendency to naïvely hope that “all will go better tomorrow” and that the demanded sacrifice may be avoided. Anyway, this allows more time for the public to be accustomed to the idea and to accept it with resignation when the moment comes. Recent example: the move to the Euro and the loss of their economic and monetary sovereignty have been accepted by the European countries from 1994 to 1995 for their application in the year 2001. Another example: the multilateral agreements ofALCA (or FTAA) that the United States have imposed in the year 2001 to the countries of all the American continent (Central and South America) in spite of their reticence, conceding an application and the coming into force in the year 2005.
The majority of the publicity “spots” addresses the public at large with the use of a discourse, arguments, personages, and a tone particularly infantile, many times near the weak, as if the spectator were a child of younger age or a mental handicapped. The more it intends to seek the deception of the spectator or listener, the more it is its tendency to adopt an infantile tone. Why? If it is addressed to a person as if he or she had 12 year of age, then, by reason of suggestion, he or she would also have, with a certain probability, a response or reaction that is lacking of a critical sense same as is the case of a person of 12 years of age.”
To make use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for making a short-circuit to the rational analysis, and hence to the critical sense of individuals. Besides, the utilization of the emotional registry allows us to open an access door to the unconscious to implant or to insert ideas, wishes, fears or worries, pulsations, or to induce behaviors.
To make it in a way that the public is unable to comprehend the technologies and the methods utilized for their control and slavery. “The quality of the education given to the lower social classes must be the poorest or the most mediocre possible, in a way that the breach of ignorance that isolates the lower classes from the upper social classes must be and remain incomprehensible to the lower social classes.”
To promote in the public the idea that being stupid, vulgar and uneducated is “cool”.
To make the individual believe that he himself is the only responsible for his misfortune, the cause of the insufficiency of his intelligence, of his capacities, or his efforts. Thus, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual self-devaluates and self-blames, which generates a depressive state, one of its effects is the inhibition of action. And without action, there is no revolution!
In the course of the last 50 years, the accelerated advances of science have generated a growing breach between the knowledge of the public and that one possessed and utilized by the leading elites. Thanks to biology, neurology and applied psychology, the “system” has achieved an advanced knowledge of the human being, both physically and psychologically. The system has been able to know the common individual better than what the individual know about himself. This means that in the majority of cases, the system possesses a greater control and a greater power over individuals than what individuals have over themselves.
I wonder if the parents of these Anti-First Amendment brats know that they’re rioting in the expensive designer clothes they get them on Christmas?
Is that a pair of L.L. Bean Duck boots on the Anti-First’er in the background? Don’t they know a L.L. Bean family member donated to a Pro-Trump SuperPAC?