Tags Posts tagged with "Media Bias"

Media Bias

0 70
Fake News
President Trump said it all, "CNN is VERY fake news"

White House aide Sebastian Gorka and CNN’s Chris Cuomo argued about over whether the Trump administration is on message on the terror travel ban.

“There are no games,” Gorka said. “The president can call it whatever he likes because he has the constitutional authority to control whoever comes into this country, Chris. That’s his job. The Constitution, tradition, precedents, and administrative law give him that right. If he wants to call it a ban he’s the president, he’s the chief officer of this administration and he has every right to do that.”

To this, Cuomo responded, “Right, and why wasn’t the administration just honest about it, why have Sean Spicer and you and everybody else say ‘it’s not a ban, it’s just vetting, and you’re trying to make it sound like something it isn’t.’ The president just proved what the truth is – all this has been spin and a distraction. Why?”

“I’m not going to fall into the trap of us being the spinmeisters when CNN is one of the greatest purveyors of fake news,” Gorka interjected. “The fact is it’s been the same from the beginning. From the first EO to the second EO, it’s one thing, Chris, it’s about protecting Americans. And if anybody out there has a problem with us trying to keep Americans safe they need to look in the mirror and they need to ask themselves if they are the purveyors of fake news.”

“It’s always been about who it targets,” Cuomo replied, “how it targets them and whether or not that will keep us safe. And you guys played games about it and said it’s not a ban. I could play you Sean Spicer right now but you know it’s true.”

“And then the president decides to be honest about it this morning,” he continued. “That is spin, you are the purveyor of spin because that was your message that it wasn’t a ban and it was untrue that’s why I’m asking you.”

“So I guess President Obama was also a purveyor of spin with that calculation because the executive order is based upon the Obama White House analysis of the seven nations of greatest concern for immigration into America,” Gorka shot back. “Is he a purveyor of spin, Chris?

“Well that’s an interesting question,” Cuomo replied.

“It is, isn’t it?” Gorka laughed.

The much heated debated devolved into shouting.

“The facts are not your friend because that move with the executive order from the Obama administration was about travel to those countries,” Cuomo claimed. “It was about whose coming in and out and why. Your order is about Muslims. About targeting Muslims and keeping them out and allowing those who are not Muslims a carve-out, to come in. Very different.”

 

“So if this had anything and I mean anything, to do with race or religion, why would those two nations, the most populous Muslim nation and the most populous Arab nation, not be included in the executive order?” Gorka demanded. “Explain that logic to me, because this is where your spin fails. This is where the fake news propaganda collapses, because if we had some dark dread ulterior motive, then those are the two first nations you would put on the list, not the seven nations the Obama White House identified as the greatest concern. So please answer that question.”

The debate stirred up as President Trump tweeted on Monday, calling his executive order to “ban” travel from terror-stricken countries.

0 75
Charitable Giving
Is this a Republican or a Democrat donation?

Of the 500 million pieces of mail processed and delivered by the United States Postal Service each day, many are solicitations from non-profit organizations. In fact, if you’re above a certain age and have been an active donor to non-profits in the past, there is a good chance much of your daily mail constitutes such appeals. To help donors intelligently navigate among so many requests, online tools are available that rate charities based on financial health, transparency, and accountability. One of these services, however, has decided to include in the information it presents on its website evaluating specific non-profits, highly questionable material that is far more ideological message than a legitimate fact about the organization’s not-for-profit work.

GuideStar is one of the more popular charity ranking tools. However, this well-known site is now placing its credibility at risk by partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in slapping a “warning” label to charity profiles on its site that SPLC has “flagged as a hate group.” The red label, featured top and center on 46 charity profiles, is the first thing a visitor sees when landing on its page; even GuideStar’s own “Silver Award” noting a charity’s commitment to transparency is not given the visibility of this new warning. Absent from the site is any explanation as to is why GuideStar believes the charity warrants such a bold and negative warning.

In fact, the warning links the visitor only to SPLC’s overdramatic “extremist files” page, warning about “anti-gay zealots,” “white nationalists,” the alternative right, and anti-government movements. It is hardly an objective analysis for an organization like GuideStar supposedly both objective and neutral in its ratings.

To be sure, some organizations the SPLC identifies with its nebulous “hate group” label deserve it; there is no question that white supremacist organizations like the Aryan Brotherhood are groups driven by nothing except hate. On the other hand, organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), appear on the list for no reason other than their support for political agendas opposed by the SPLC.

The SPLC is, of course, free to offer whatever political opinion or label it wishes against groups with whom it disagrees; and, the Center certainly has developed a knack for doing so. Karl Zinsmeister, writing at Philanthropy Roundtable, described SPLC as a “cash-collecting machine” that uses its extremist list as a “political tool,” while directing only a fraction of its revenue to its original mission as a legal aid organization. The Center’s use of fearmongering rhetoric is obvious to anyone familiar with its history. What is less obvious is why GuideStar blindly follows SPLC’s guidance on these matters, rather than conducting its own independent analysis on why such a label may be warranted.

To wriggle out of this irresponsibility, GuideStar adds a vacuous caveat to its hate group banner, stating they “leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.”

As GuideStar should, and likely does know, appearances in fundraising can make all the difference to potential donors. Fundraisers regularly test millions upon millions of fundraising letters to where even the slightest details of an envelope are designed to improve the chance that the recipient will open it. But it does not take a direct mail expert to predict how a red banner with “hate group” scrawled across it will impact potential donors.

This is likely the intent of the SPLC — to deprive groups like FRC and FAIR of funding; but GuideStar should not be a participant in such an ideologically-motivated game. At least, not so long as it claims to be neutral in its assessments of non-profit organizations based on metrics potential supporters actually care about, like how much of their money will be spent on the charitable programs to which they are donating.

Perhaps GuideStar is drinking social justice Kool-Aid like the hip “woke” kids on the Left, or maybe it earnestly believes these labels make a difference. Regardless of motive, GuideStar is abusing the trust charity supporters place in it by launching an uninspired and lazily conceived response to the ongoing debate about “hate speech” in the public space. And, whether they intended or not, this hackneyed feature is blatantly partisan, and biased against conservative organizations for reasons completely outside the scope of GuideStar’s mission. As the adage goes, “keep it simple, stupid.” GuideStar should stick to the basics of what it does, and leave politics to the SPLC and others who have made it an art form.

0 82
ESPN viewers are tuning out.

Writer Jason Whitlock and former ESPN commentator attacked the very evident left-wing lurch in the commentary at sports network ESPN.

On Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, this Thursday, Carlson asked “ESPN is the most powerful and the most beloved brand in sports, people love ESPN, some people still do, some people hate ESPN because of pushing politics. Why are they doing that?”

“I think you’ve asked the right question,” Whitlock answered. “I think cord-cutting has a lot to do with their subscriber and the viewership loss. But the animosity and some of the viewership loss, I do think is a direct result of their lurch to the left, and injecting progressive victimology into the sports conversation.”

“If you really understand sports culture, and all the values taught in sports,” he explained, “from Little League, Pee Wee, on, you’re never a victim. There are never any excuses that are accepted. Every coach teaches every play from 5 years old to 45 years old, we don’t tolerate excuses, we don’t tolerate victimology, and now so much of the conversation by the sports media, ESPN being the leader of this, is just filled with so-and-so is a victim, Colin Kaepernick is a victim, and everybody’s a victim. It’s turning traditional sports fans off.”

“It doesn’t take a sports expert to predict something like that,” Carlson responded, “people go to sports as a refuge from things like politics. So why would you throw it in the face of viewers, what is the point of that?”

“I think, again, so much of the media has moved left,” Whitlock responded. “I’ve written about this and talked about this and it applies to ESPN but it also applies to all the media. Silicon Valley, Google, Facebook, Twitter, is now in control of the mainstream media. Everyone is catering all of their content to Silicon Valley and San Francisco values. That’s far different than the old media which catered everything to New York traditional liberal values. The values in San Francisco, a bit more revolutionary, a bit more progressive, than a traditional New York based media.”

While, Carlson praised Whitlock for his point, the Deep Root Analytics performed an analysis that clearly shows trends that made ESPN audience more liberal in response to what many saw as left-wing preaching on the network.

 

0 100
megyn kelly

It makes sense why Megyn Kelly doesn’t like Donald Trump, but her bias has been showing lately and one guest pointed it out, live on her show.

Newt Gingrich was the guest on the Kelly File, Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News, when he got upset at some of the unfair questioning.

Newt explodes and says that Megyn is only interested in “sex”.

The exchange is very entertaining to watch.

Megyn Kelly has been called a Clinton fan by co-worker Sean Hannity, and it is easy to understand why she doesn’t like Trump due to his comments to her on Twitter after the first debate.

In a recent study, it showed that 91% of the reporting on Trump has been negative, and he has dominated the news channels.

Megyn is part of that, often using her show to attack Trump, especially on topics of women.

Kelly even went after Trump’s campaign chairwoman on women issues.

In all fairness, Megyn is tough on a lot of people though. In the video below, she hit DNC head, Donna Brazile hard during an interview.

Megyn Kelly is tough, but Fox fans are shocked at the veracity in which she attacks Trump.

It has affected her viewership too. The Kelly File, which has had the top spot in primetime cable news lost to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC earlier this month.

Do you like Megyn Kelly’s reporting? Let us know in the comments below.

Social Media