Tag Archive for: FakeNews

New Book Exposes ‘Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias’ of Left-Wing Media

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

During my time in the White House press corps in 2001 and 2002, the press secretary was Ari Fleischer. He was the definition of mild-mannered and unflappable for President George W. Bush. But he would tell you the reporters were less confrontational back then.

Their aggression has grown so dramatically that Fleischer wrote a new book titled “Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias: Why the Press Gets So Much Wrong—And Just Doesn’t Care.” That sounds harsh, but if they cared, wouldn’t they try to fix their fact-mangling tilt? They have shown no interest in it.

My favorite chapter is about CNN. Fleischer notes he was a contributor there from 2011 to 2013 when it seemed a little more like “straight” news—at least compared with its incessant attacks on everything relating to Donald Trump.

Suppression, Deception, Snobbery, and Bias: Why the Press Gets So Much Wrong—And Just Doesn't Care by [Ari Fleischer]

Even personnel decisions demonstrated how deeply CNN loathed Trump. In 2019, when they announced the hiring of Sarah Isgur, who had served in Trump’s Justice Department, as a political editor, there was a nasty internal freakout. She had no journalism experience. The Daily Beast reported CNN employees were “upset and confused” that CNN would hire a “partisan political operative.” Brian Stelter reported employees questioned it as an “ethical breach.” CNN backed down and named Isgur a CNN analyst, not a political editor.

Fleischer points out there was no such freakout when CNN announced on Jan. 19, 2017, that top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett’s daughter Laura joined CNN as a Justice Department reporter—with no journalism experience. She’s now a morning anchor.

Another example is former FBI agent James Gagliano, who was hired as a CNN analyst in 2017 after he appeared on CNN to attack the firing of FBI Director James Comey. He told Fleischer he was quite critical of Trump in the initial part of the Mueller probe, but his opinion changed as new details emerged of overt partisanship by FBI employees Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe. After the Justice Department’s inspector general called out this behavior, Gagliano thought, “I’ve got to take a position and criticize the FBI here. I have to call this straight. Once I started doing that, I got moved off those issues.”

Suddenly, Gagliano was mostly analyzing crime stories on CNN’s Headline News channel. He was essentially replaced by Josh Campbell, who was hired straight from the CNN public relations office, and he continued sounding like a PR agent for Comey. CNN then promoted Campbell to being a reporter, not just an analyst. McCabe also joined CNN as a contributor, despite being caught lying to investigators about his press leaks.

As he was spending time on the CNN bench, Gagliano made his opinions known on Twitter, like approving of NFL quarterback Drew Brees standing for the national anthem. He said CNN executive Rebecca Kutler called to tell him to knock it off: “Your job at CNN is to be a law enforcement analyst.” He said he replied, “But you don’t use me” and pointed out the opinionated anti-Trump tweets from other CNN personalities. Kutler shot back, “You need to watch your social media.”

Gagliano was grateful for his CNN tenure but concluded the lesson was, “If you bash Trump, you can be political… If you dare push back the other way, you’re just not going to get airtime.”

Fleischer insists the American people deserve a media that won’t engage in suppression of news it hates and deception in overselling stories it loves. The people who aren’t as liberal as the press deserve respect, not snobbery. They deserve it, but it’s unlikely they’ll get it.


This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

75% Don’t Trust Social Media to Make Fair Content Moderation Decisions

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

81% of Republicans think Facebook and Twitter’s Trump ban violated the First Amendment, strong liberals are three times more likely than conservatives to report users on social media, 58% of Americans support a First Amendment content moderation standard.


A new Cato Institute/​YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that three-fourths of Americans don’t trust social media companies to make fair content moderation decisions. The survey, conducted in collaboration with YouGov, finds that nearly two-thirds (60%) would prefer social media companies provide users with greater choice and control over the content they see in their newsfeeds rather than do more to reduce all users’ exposure to offensive content or misinformation (40%). It also finds that a majority (63%) believe social media companies have too much influence over the outcome of national elections.

81% of Republicans Think Facebook and Twitter’s Trump Ban Violated the First Amendment

Republicans (81%) believe that Facebook and Twitter violated the First Amendment when they elected to ban Trump, while Democrats (89%) say that the First Amendment was not violated. While Facebook and Twitter are private platforms and their decision to ban Trump did not violate the First Amendment, Republicans’ perception that they did highlights their strong emotional response to the banning.

Part of this emotional response may be explained by Republicans’ concerns that if Trump can be banned, then they themselves are also more likely to have their account suspended by these companies. Republicans (38%) are nearly four times more likely than Democrats (10%) to say that Trump’s suspension makes them feel like their social media accounts are more likely to be suspended. A quarter (25%) of independents agree.

On the other hand, most Americans (55%) agree with the decisions made by Facebook and Twitter to ban former President Donald Trump from their platforms following the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. But there is a large partisan split: 93% of Democrats and 54% of independents agree with the decision, whereas 85% of Republicans disagree.

Liberals Are Much More Likely than Conservatives to Report Users on Social Media

Strong liberals are nearly three times more likely than strong conservatives to say that they have reported another user to a social media company for sharing offensive content or false information. This behavior is highly tied to political ideology. Among social media users, 65% of strong liberals, 44% of moderate liberals, 32% of moderates, 21% of moderate conservatives, and 24% of strong conservatives have done this.

This strong ideological trend continues even if the results are constrained among those who use social media several times a day. Among very frequent social media users: strong liberals (72%) are about 2.5 times more likely than strong conservatives (30%) to have reported another person because of what they posted. Similarly, when it comes to blocking people, strong liberals (83%) are 30 points more likely than strong conservatives (53%) to have done this.

58% of Americans Support a First Amendment Content Moderation Standard

A majority of Americans (58%) say that social media sites should use the First Amendment as the standard for their content moderation decisions. Partisans disagree, with 82% of Republicans and 60% of independents supporting the use of the First Amendment and 64% of Democrats saying companies should set their own rules.


Continue reading this article at CATO INSTITUTE.

Trump Hysteria from Sullivan and Frum

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Since Joe Biden was declared the 2020 winner, I have only written once about Trump. I have not changed my mind in that his policies were wonderful (particularly as contrasted with the disastrous Biden), but I think we should move on – there are better choices than Trump to move those policies forward without all the noise. Then Andrew Sullivan wrote his Weekly Dish defending a David Frum column but coming to a different conclusion, entitled It Wasn’t a Hoax, It was Media Overkill.

This comes at a time when John Durham has begun to charge people for providing manipulated information to the FBI regarding the Steele Dossier. It has become clearer that the Clinton campaign was behind the Russia, Russia, Russia allegations.

Sullivan starts his piece by lauding Frum as a man of clarity and truth by pointing out many aspects upon which the two agree. Sullivan writes that Trump had many conflicts of interest when it came to Russia. One could believe that to be true if he had initiated his business dealings in Russia with the idea it would catapult him toward a run for the U.S. presidency. There is little if any evidence ever presented about that. One must also say then that Trump had conflicts with many countries (30) where he had business dealings. That is the argument that the establishment employs to only have “Joe Biden types” in elected office — people who have zero experience in the private sector then tell you how much they feel your pain when their policies go sideways.

Sullivan goes on to say that for years Trump has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs. I was wondering where this charge came from, so I referred to Frum’s column. The charge stems from this assertion: one-fifth of all condominiums Trump sold were purchased in all-cash transactions on behalf of shell companies.

Since these condominiums were bought (supposedly) by shell companies, there would be no way to identify the name of the end purchaser. This method of purchase is extremely common in Los Angeles and other major metropolitan areas in buildings or with other housing that has nothing to do with Trump.

Celebrities do not want snoops digging into their lives and paparazzi standing in front of their homes, so they try to hide their purchases. For example, Bruno Mars purchased a home in my neighborhood. Soon after, the tourist buses were there “ad nauseum” with folks angling for a photo even with the house hidden behind tall gates. Bruno soon relocated to a nearby home, but in a protected community (guard gates). My long-time neighbor is a musician known worldwide, having moved in long before he became famous. Along came Google maps and sites like Virtual Globetrotting, and he had people knocking on his front door. He was forced to put up high gates to protect himself and his family from these intrusions. I am sure he wished he owned the house in a shell company.

Many wealthy, hardworking Americans also use the same process – possibly someone like mega-businessman/philanthropist David Rubenstein (though we have no evidence he has) where the Biden family stayed for Thanksgiving. Not to mention people who came here from Hong Kong, Macau, China, Colombia, Venezuela, and on and on.

Many homes sold today in an overheated market have a winning bid in all cash. One might think Russian oligarchs are buying up properties all over the country if you accept Frum’s logic.

The charge that Trump has been money laundering for Russian oligarchs has zero, zilch, none, absolutely no evidence nor validity.

One of Trump’s biggest problems is being a New York guy whose second language is sarcasm. The recipient of sarcasm must have a level of intelligence and a sense of humor. A sense of humor is apparently sucked out of journalists in journalism school, even if they have a satisfactory level of intelligence. You combine that with their complete hatred of Trump, and he should have refrained from sarcastic comments. When the rest of us were getting the jokes, the press’s heads were exploding.

Sullivan writes Trump “was absolutely willing to accept Russia’s — or any country’s — illicit support, and no doubt he asked for it. I saw him do it on national television, in the campaign. We all did.” Let’s address this one.

First, Sullivan’s assertion Trump was willing to accept any country’s illicit support has zero, zilch, none, absolutely no evidence of validity. Let’s deal with Russia though.
Hillary Clinton had come out and stated 30,000 emails had been erased. Remember when she made the stupendously juvenile joke about wiping her computer with a cleaning cloth after she had it wiped professionally by tech-heads. The story was huge though not as large as it should have been because something like 95% of the press was in confederacy with her election.

Trump held an extended press conference on July 27, 2016. Instead of focusing on the missing emails, the press focused on Trump and the fallacious Russian collusion story. There were significant assertions that the Russians were using the internet to spy on and steal information from candidates and news sources.

Near the end of the conference Trump, made the throw-off line: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” This tied together with the two themes of the line of questioning. I too was watching and found the comment to be hilarious, a particularly brilliant sarcastic comment. Trump was saying he hoped the Russians had the 30,000 emails and would release them. If the charges against the Russians were accurate then why would they not already have them?

If you doubt this was a sarcastic comment, go back and read it. Trump says if they released the emails they would be rewarded mightily by our press. You would have to be a flat-out numbskull to believe Trump wasn’t joking. There is no way the press would have been delighted or would have properly treated the newly surfaced emails as a story. Trump and everyone else knew the press hated Trump and hated the Russians. Trump was never asking the Russians for help. The only mystery is how someone as smart as Andrew Sullivan could not get that. The only explanation is he is being blinded by his Trump hatred.

This is the exact reason that I believe we should move on and embrace some of the excellent candidates who support the policies Trump adopted, but without his baggage.

I could spend another day or more picking out the flaws of the two authors’ commentaries, but it would be more of the same — false charges, innuendos, and vile hatred of Trump.


This article was published on December 12, 2021, in FlashReport and reproduced with the permission of the author.