Category: CNN

The Clinton News Network

Posted on Comments

Gabriel Sherman at New York magazine:

Shortly after 9 p.m. [Tuesday] night, Donald Trump launched another salvo at CNN, tweeting: “Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN — public is smart!” CNN tweeted back that they had matched Fox in Nielsen numbers: “Those are the facts.”
Trump’s attacks on CNN may be a response to the network’s recent coverage, which Trump views as biased and unfair. But sources say there may also be a personal dimension at play: According to people close to both sides, Trump has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by CNN chief Jeff Zucker.
Trump complains that Zucker should be programming CNN more favorably toward him because of their long relationship, which can be traced back to 2004 when Zucker put The Apprentice on NBC. Trump has also said to White House staffers that Zucker owes him because Trump helped get him the job at CNN.

The bias at CNN is not a matter of personal perception. The network clearly made a choice, several years ago, to challenge MSNBC for the loyalty of left-wing voters, and it did so in very cynical way: First, by treating the Tea Party movement of 2009-2010 as illegitimate, and second, by turning the 2012 Trayvon Martin story into national news.

Some of this was arguably defensible as a business decision. If Fox News dominates among Republican-leaning voters, it would seem logical that the two other major cable networks — CNN and MSNBC — are vying mainly for Democrat-leaning voters. During the Bush presidency, MSNBC boosted its ratings by positioning Keith Olbermann as the spokesman for anti-Bush sentiment. Olbermann’s “Angriest Man on TV” act, however, lost much of its raison d’etre once Obama became president. When Olbermann left MSNBC in 2011, this created an opportunity for CNN, and they have exploited it quite irresponsibly.

CNN’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin story, treating this shooting as emblematic of American race relations, was clearly an election-year attempt to mobilize black voters in support of Obama’s re-election campaign. Nothing else could explain why, in a nation where young black men are rather routinely murdered by other young black men, CNN should devote so much coverage to this local crime story from Sanford, Florida, merely because the shooter was “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman. And having discovered they could exploit racial hostility for ratings, CNN then doubled down in 2014 with its biased coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

“According to one analysis, of all the people shot and killed in the U.S. by police so far in 2016, only 24 percent, or 122, were black. Black people are only about 13 percent of the population but they commit around half of all violent crimes. So far this year 47 percent of people shot and killed by police, or 235 individuals, were white.
“Only 3 percent, or 13 people shot and killed by police year to date were black and unarmed.”
— Matthew Vadum, July 8, 2016

The “Black Lives Matter” movement was to a great extent created by CNN. Every time a cop shot a black suspect anywhere in America, it seemed, CNN went into round-the-clock coverage mode, and we might ask whether the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte would have happened had it not been for CNN.

Race riots and politics — that’s what CNN has been about, and their coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was so blatantly one-sided that they certainly earned their title as the “Clinton News Network.”

What would truly objective TV journalism look like? We don’t know. The claim by Fox News that their network is “fair and balanced” has long been scoffed at by liberals, but if Fox is pro-Republican in its bias, is it therefore necessary that CNN be anti-Republican? And what about the real-life consequences of such biased coverage?

How can CNN justify its deliberate incitement of racial hostility — which is the only accurate way to describe the network’s coverage of Ferguson, etc. — when this foments an anti-police bias that endangers the lives of citizens, including innocent black people who suffer from a wave of criminal violence? And isn’t it also the case that CNN, by promoting the Democrat Party’s narrative of Trump as a dangerous villain, helped incite the violence that erupted during the inauguration protests in D.C.?

 

Because most conservatives watch Fox News, they may not realize how extreme the partisan bias at CNN has become in recent years. If you are a Republican who hasn’t watched CNN lately, you should try watching it occasionally, just to see the alternative universe that CNN presents to its audience. The producers at CNN seem to assume that their viewers are all Democrats who hate Trump. The producers’ concept of who is watching CNN dictates the network’s coverage. It’s not just politics, but CNN’s coverage of everything which is made to conform to this partisan worldview. CNN would never knowingly hire a Republican as a producer, writer, director, editor or reporter. Everyone in any position of influence at CNN is a Democrat, and the network’s coverage is scripted and edited by Democrats for Democrats. Whenever any news event happens that might tend to contradict this partisan weltanschauung, CNN immediately convenes a panel of pundits to spin it around the other way, to explain and interpret the news according to the officially-approved talking points issued from Democrat Party headquarters. Anyone who watches CNN closely cannot help but perceive that most of the network’s anchors — Chris Cuomo, John Berman, Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, et al. — are motivated by a deep personal hatred of the Republican Party. Everyone in Chris Cuomo’s circle of family and friends hates everything Ronald Reagan stood for, and Erin Burnett would spit on any Republican voter who even so much as tried to speak to her.

It is impossible to exaggerate how wildly biased CNN actually is, and the fact that other liberal journalists are complaining about the way Donald Trump is calling out CNN tells you that the Democrat-controlled media machinery understands the importance of CNN to their collective mission of producing partisan propaganda.

 

Yes, #BlackLivesMatter Is About Hate

Posted on Comments

“With Election Day only weeks away, it is possible the chaos in the Tarheel State is part of a left-wing get-out-the-vote effort to foment unrest in the state’s black communities. . . .
“Riots, of course, are the stock in trade of radical speculator George Soros, the preeminent funder of the Left who has given generously to Black Lives Matter. Soros has a long history of underwriting violence and civil unrest not just in America but all over the world.”
— Matthew Vadum, “Charlotte Burning,” Sept. 22, 2016

“Seriously, what are you supposed to do if an angry mob surrounds your car and you’re trapped? I guess you can sit and wait for help to arrive, and pray that help arrives in time. But when the angry mob is also trying to throw white people in fires, the help might be too busy to get there in time to save you. So really, what the hell do you do?”
— The Lonely Conservative, “If Your Car Is Surrounded By A Rioting Gang Of Thugs What Do You Do?” Sept. 22, 2016

It should not be necessary, after a year of CNN-inspired race riots, to explain that #BlackLivesMatter is not a spontaneous grassroots movement about curbing police brutality. The movement launched last year is led by professional activists, funded by a network of “progressive” tax-exempt foundations (connected to billionaire George Soros) in consultation with Democrat Party operatives. A major goal of #BlackLivesMatter is purely political — i.e., driving black voter turnout to help elect Hillary Clinton and other Democrats — and also to influence public policy, to undermine law enforcement and, arguably, to infringe free speech protections. (Glenn Reynolds has been suspended from USA Today for his “run them down” tweet.) By inciting riots in the black community, the Left simultaneously incites fear in the white community, and when white people condemn the kind of criminal violence #BlackLivesMatter inspires — first in Ferguson, then in Baltimore, most recently in Charlotte — this response is labeled “racism.” No one can credibly claim Professor Reynolds is a racist, and yet his “run them down” tweet made him a target of the Thought Police, and the online progressive bully mob turned its rage against him. Thus are the limits of discourse increasingly narrowed in a way that favors the Democrat Party.

This is not an accident.

These consequences of the #BlackLivesMatter movement — which the Democrat Party’s media machine, particularly CNN, have helped promote — were predictable, and it is therefore not a paranoid “conspiracy theory” to assume that these consequences are entirely intentional. It would be naïve in the extreme to suppose that the professional activists who descended on Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014 didn’t know what they were doing, or what the results would be. Militant anarchists produce violent chaos, racial mau-mauing begets hostility, and history provides enough lessons about where such movements lead that only fools could believe that the sponsors of #BlackLivesMatter (including CNN and the Democrat Party) did not foresee the consequences.

 

That message to truck drivers (including my brother Kirby) to “avoid the area near I85 and I77 if at all possible” was sent out Wednesday night after a criminal mob descended on the freeway in downtown Charlotte, intent on perpetrating violence. As Professor Reynolds pointed out in his statement to USA Today, his “run them down” tweet was in response to a local TV reporter’s interview with a driver whose truck had been looted by the vandal horde: “She is still inside her truck as people loot her cargo and burn it. She fears for her life. . . . ‘I understand they want to make a statement but they are hurting innocent people trying to make a living.’ . . . This was an absolutely horrifying interview. She kept asking me where police are. She’s trapped inside as people destroy her truck and cargo.” It was this threat to an innocent civilian — a female truck driver, surrounded by a mob of dangerous thugs, with no police protection amid the violent riot #BlackLivesMatter activists had deliberately provoked — that brought back a vivid memory of the past for Professor Reynolds: “I remember Reginald Denny, a truck driver who was beaten nearly to death by a mob during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.”

 

Young people have no memory of the 1992 riots, which were arguably caused by CNN’s dishonest editing of the video in which Rodney King was arrested by Los Angeles police. If you watched the full-length video, and knew that Rodney King was under the influence of PCP at the time he was confronted by police after a high-speed pursuit, you realized that the baton-wielding police were dealing with a dangerously violent suspect who had already been tazed and was still resisting arrest. How are police to handcuff a suspect who is resisting arrest? When a criminal is apprehended and refuses to comply with the commands of officers armed with pistols, this always creates a life-or-death situation for police, because a struggling suspect may attempt to grab the officer’s weapon. Does “social justice” require police suffer death or injury rather than to use their batons to subdue a violent criminal? This was what anyone with common sense could see, once the full video of the Rodney King arrest was shown and the relevant facts had been reported. However, because CNN had spent several days repeatedly broadcasting a deceptively edited version of the video before the full version was finally shown, they created a false impression of the situation that led to the L.A. riots in which the truck driver Reginald Denny was nearly killed.

History teaches us lessons, and anyone old enough to remember 1992 knew what the consequences of #BlackLivesMatter would be. Are we to believe that #BlackLivesMatter leaders, and their accomplices at CNN and in the Democrat Party, did not also foresee this result?

 

Let’s be clear that these riots are anti-cop and pro-criminal. The Charlotte riot was about the police shooting of Keith Scott:

A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.

Keith Scott was a career criminal with a record in three states. He had a history of armed violence. His victims included women and children. Certainly, he was not a symbolic hero of “social justice.”

#BlackLivesMatter is a racial hate movement, organized with the assistance of the Democrat Party and its media apparatus, with the goal of exploiting hatred in order to elect Hillary Clinton president.

Rioting May Tip Presidential Scales
in Crucial North Carolina
— Bloomberg News

Charlotte protesters ‘hate white people,’
NC Congressman Robert Pittenger says
— Charlotte News-Observer

“Run them down”? Or vote Republican. Same difference.




 

Hillary and the Clinton News Network

Posted on

The great thing about having the media as part of your campaign team is that they willingly lend credibility to your most implausible excuses:

Hillary Clinton said Monday night she’s “met a high standard of transparency” about her health and didn’t think the pneumonia was “going to be that big a deal.”
Clinton said she felt dizzy and lost her balance Sunday, but did not lose consciousness, and is now “feeling so much better.”
“I was supposed to rest five days — that’s what they told me on Friday — and I didn’t follow that very wise advice,” Clinton told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a phone interview.
“So I just want to get this over and done with and get back on the trail as soon as possible,” she said. . . .
“Obviously I should have gotten some rest sooner — I probably would have been better off if I just pulled down my schedule on Friday, but like a lot of people, I thought that I could just keep going forward and power through it. And obviously that didn’t work out so well,” she said.

Let’s face it — as long as Hillary Clinton has a pulse, CNN will consider her a viable candidate and continue acting as her public-relations agency.

 

Why Does CNN Hate Police?

Posted on Comments

 

CNN’s role in creating the Black Lives Matter movement cannot be ignored. Back in 2012, it was CNN that turned the Trayvon Martin case into such a national media carnival, and after George Zimmerman was acquitted, the network went scouting around for other “social justice” sagas to exploit for ratings. This led eventually to CNN’s 24/7 saturation coverage of the Michael Brown shooting. Focusing the media spotlight on Ferguson caused riots there, and then CNN covered the riots.

Civil disorder is good for CNN’s ratings, apparently, so network executives are trying to cause as much civil disorder as possible.

People get shot all the time in America, but CNN only pays attention to shootings that fit a certain narrative. The endless carnage of black-on-black violent crime? Not newsworthy, according to CNN. More than 300 people have been shot to death in Chicago so far this year, and more than 250 of the victims were black, but CNN ignores that bloodshed, because it can’t be exploited by “social justice” activists blaming racist cops.

“So what I think is very important for you to understand just like there are rogue cops who shoot black people for sport.”
— Angela Rye, CNN, July 8

“Turn off your TV!” I want to shout at people who let themselves get worked into a frenzy over this stuff. “Cable news is making you crazy!”

No one ever seems to question the basic editorial decisions behind this kind of coverage. More than 100 people were shot last week in Chicago, but that’s just another average week in Chicago. Because this happens routinely, it is not news, and nobody cares:

Chicago, for all intents and purposes, is a “gun-free zone.”
But all the state and city regulations associated with firearms in Chicago have failed to produce a safe city, and these are the policies that President Obama and Secretary Clinton wish to extend to the rest of the country.

The streets of Chicago are covered in blood:

Weekend gun violence in Chicago pushed the number of people shot in the city this year to around 2,100, about 700 more than this time last year.
A total of 43 people were shot in the city over the weekend, four of them fatally. Nineteen of those were shot during an 11-hour stretch Friday night into Saturday morning, including two men wounded on a crowded sidewalk outside a taco restaurant in Wicker Park, according to police.
Late Saturday, a 21-year-old man was killed and a 15-year-old boy was wounded as they played basketball in Ogden Park in Englewood on the South Side, police said.
Between Friday into Saturday morning, two men died and at least 17 others were wounded; another man was killed and 15 people were hurt from Saturday morning to early Sunday; a fourth man was killed and seven were wounded in shootings Sunday afternoon and evening.

While the death toll in Chicago is strictly local news, CNN continues exploiting “social justice” for ratings and also, partisan politics:

Hillary Clinton wasted little time in assigning responsibility for Thursday’s shooting in Dallas that left five police officers dead — blame whitey!
“I’m going to be talking to white people, we’re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries coming from our African-American fellow citizens,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN Friday. “Clearly, there seems to be a terrible disconnect between many police departments and officers and the people they have sworn to protect.”
Exactly what “legitimate grievances” motivated cop-hating gunman Micah Xavier Johnson were not specified by the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Nor did Mrs. Clinton explain why reports of wrongful police actions in Louisiana and Minnesota should have led to bloodshed in Dallas, where the police chief is a black man and law enforcement officials have striven to build trust in the community. Yet the former Secretary of State’s misplaced concerns were not disputed by the interviewer Wolf Blitzer, whose network’s bias is so blatant that Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in this year’s primary campaign revived the longstanding Republican claim that CNN is an acronym for “Clinton News Network.”
Being pro-Clinton requires CNN and other establishment media outlets to conform their coverage to fit whatever narrative serves the “permanent campaign” mode that Democrats have maintained since Bill Clinton was inaugurated more than 20 years ago, after he received a mere 43 percent of the vote in the three-way election of 1992. Liberal journalists have never ceased singing along with the Fleetwood Mac tune that was the Clinton campaign theme song, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” expressing their shared hope that the future would bring eternal Democratic control of the federal government. . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


‘Rape Culture’ as Stalinism: Propaganda Tactics by ‘Hunting Ground’ Makers

Posted on Comments

Erica Kinsman is featured in The Hunting Ground.

“All these people were praising him; they were calling me a slut, a whore. . . .I kind of just want to know, like, why me?”
— Erica Kinsman

Even while the new movie Trumbo engages in a whitewash of a notorious Communist, dishonest Stalin-era Soviet propaganda tactics have been given a new digital-age update by feminists:

A crew member from “The Hunting Ground,” a one-sided film about campus sexual assault, has been editing Wikipedia articles to make facts conform with the inaccurate representations in the film.
Edward Patrick Alva, who is listed on the film’s IMDB page as part of the camera and electrical department, has been altering Wikipedia entries for months, in violation of the website’s conflict-of-interest guidelines. Alva is the assistant editor and technical supervisor for Chain Camera Pictures, the production company associated with “The Hunting Ground” director Kirby Dick. . . .
Alva created his Wikipedia account just two weeks after Florida State University President John Thrasher first called out the filmmakers for their inaccurate and unfair portrayal of the school and its handling of the rape accusation against former star quarterback Jameis Winston. . . .
Nearly all of Alva’s Wikipedia edits have related to “The Hunting Ground,” either through edits to the film’s main Wikipedia page or through edits to the pages of some of the people featured in the film.
Alva took particular interest in editing the Wikipedia page of Jameis Winston, the only person named in the film as an alleged rapist. Winston was cleared by three separate investigations, yet activists — and the film — claim this was due to a biased process and investigators seeking to protect a star football player. The film doesn’t mention the holes in Erica Kinsman’s accusation against Winston and in fact allows her to tell a story that contradicts physical evidence. . . .
The film itself is inaccurate, as the president of FSU and 19 Harvard Law professors have noted. The film distorts the evidence and uses false statistics to paint a picture of a rape epidemic at American universities. (Despite the filmmakers insistence that it is a documentary and “completely accurate,” emails between an investigator for the film and the lawyer of one of the accusers strongly suggest otherwise.) . . .

Read the rest by Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner.

The issue here is not whether we believe Jameis Winston is innocent, but instead whether The Hunting Ground accurately depicts the Winston case, which in turn leads to the question of whether the film accurately depicts the general situation on America’s university campuses. If we catch the producers of a documentary telling a false version of one incident, we are entitled to doubt the truth of their general portrayal of the larger phenomenon (the so-called “rape culture” on campus) that is the subject of their film. And when a member of The Hunting Ground‘s crew subsequently attempts to alter the online record and delete criticism of the film — a trick reminiscent of Soviet propagandists airbrushing Leon Trotsky out of photos of the Bolshevik leadership — we may indeed wonder if this “documentary” is fundamentally dishonest:

Amid a growing controversy involving questions of accuracy and fairness, the makers of The Hunting Ground, a documentary indictment of campus sexual assaults, are defending the film, which is set to air on CNN on Nov. 22.
Florida State University, where one of the cases depicted in the documentary occurred, has asked the news network not to air the film and has produced a detailed critique of what it alleges are instances of inaccuracy and unfairness that depart from standard journalistic practice.
In response, CNN — which also will air a roundtable discussion of campus sexual assaults after it airs the film — said it is “proud to provide a platform for a film that has undeniably played a significant role in advancing the national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses.”

CNN is dedicated to “advancing the national conversation,” even if it has to tell lies to do it. But do they really want a conversation or is this actually a one-sided propaganda lecture? Because a conversation might include questions like, why were two minors — Erica Kinsman and Jameis Winston were both 18 — being served alcohol in a Tallahassee bar on the night of Dec. 7, 2012? Why did Kinsman leave the bar in a cab with Winston and two other men and go back to Winston’s apartment? She claims somebody put a drug in one of her drinks, but the toxicology report showed no evidence of any drug. And let me repeat again: The issue is not whether Jameis Winston is innocent, but whether the case is presented accurately in The Hunting Ground.

The producers of this documentary claim that the Jameis Winston case is emblematic of a larger “rape culture” on our nation’s university campuses. If female students are indeed routinely victimized by such an “epidemic” of sexual assault, we might suppose, The Hunting Ground‘s producers would have many clear-cut cases to choose from and, by devoting a major segment of their film to the Jameis Winston case, they imply that the failure of officials to punish the FSU star athlete is self-evidently an injustice. Yet when we look at the facts of the case, reasonable doubts are immediately apparent. There is no evidence Erica Kinsman was drugged. She and Winston were both underage and drinking in a bar. There is no evidence that she was coerced to leave the bar with him, nor any evidence that he forced her to go back to his apartment.

If these reasonable doubts are apparent, we must nonetheless ask why Erica Kinsman immediately claimed she had been raped. Unlike many other cases that have come to light, there was no dubious delay in her accusation. This wasn’t like the infamous Columbia University “Mattress Girl” case where Emma Sulkowicz waited several months to claim Paul Nungesser had raped her. No, Erica Kinsman went to the hospital and reported that she was raped, an accusation the Tallahassee police were required to investigate. The alleged inadequacy of that investigation, and claims that police and university officials conspired to protect Jameis Winston, are the real issue in this case. But does anyone want to dig down into the, uh, racial subtext of this case? Is it merely a coincidence that the producers of this documentary focused so much attention on a blonde girl claiming she was raped by a black man?

We could speculate about such factors. We could wonder what an 18-year-old girl expects will happen when she goes back to the apartment of a guy she met in a bar. We can speculate what a 6-foot-4, 227-pound star athlete like Jameis Winston might have expected to happen in that situation. It is reasonable to speculate that (a) his expectations and her expectations were not exactly the same, and (b) Erica Kinsman was not prepared to deal with the consequences of her own decisions.

Are such speculations inappropriate? Perhaps. Yet if CNN wants to generate a “national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses,” they cannot silence the voices of those who see these kinds of reasonable doubts. And let the record show that there have been allegations that Jameis Winston was the target of a shakedown:

Jameis Winston’s lawyer has fired off a letter to Florida State University … claiming the woman who accused his client of rape demanded $7 MILLION to buy her silence.
David Cornwell, the lawyer for the Heisman Trophy winner, sent a letter to FSU, saying Winston will fully cooperate with the University’s ongoing investigation into the handling of the rape charges. The alleged victim claims the University engaged in sexual discrimination by sweeping her claims under the rug to protect its prized athlete.
According to the letter — obtained by TMZ Sports — the alleged victim’s lawyer, Patricia Carroll, demanded $7 MIL to settle her client’s claims against FSU and Winston, telling Cornwell, “If we settle, you will never hear from my client or me again — in the press or anywhere.”
Cornwell says he rejected her offer and 4 days later she went to the media.
Cornwell also says Carroll claimed her client’s sexual encounter had to be rape, because she would never sleep with a “black boy.” Fact is … the alleged victim’s boyfriend at the time was black. The criminal case fell apart, partly because the alleged victim had semen from 2 different men on her shorts.

Will CNN address that claim in their “national conversation”?

Probably not. Because they don’t really want a conversation.




 

Media as Islamic Publicity Agents

Posted on Comments

One of the best books you’ll ever read is Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, and in Chapter 6 (“Crusades of the Anointed”), Sowell observes the tendency of liberals to divide the world into “targets” and “mascots.”

For example, the U.S. military and evangelical Christians are common targets of the Anointed, whereas homosexuals and criminals are among their favorite mascots. You see how this plays out especially in media coverage of different groups. During the “Occupy” movement, when college kids took part in riotous protests against big business, this made college kids mascots, because they were attacking a target of the Anointed. The media were willing to ignore reports that women were being sexually assaulted in Occupy encampments. However, once the anti-business protests ended and the kids returned to college, sexual assault was suddenly big news because, in that context, heterosexual males are targets and feminists are mascots.

The media narrative must always conform to the particular prejudices of the Anointed, which is why the media are always more concerned about “Islamophobia” than about, say, guys named Muhammad flying jets into skycrapers. Generally speaking, of course, the American media is hostile to religion, because in America, “religion” means Bible-thumpers who vote Republican. However, in terms of foreign policy, the Anointed always sees foreigners as mascots, and if the foreigners are Muslims, this means Muslims are automatically mascots, too. This was especially true after 9/11, because the U.S. military was fighting Muslims and the media hate the U.S. military almost as much as the media hate Bible-thumping evangelical Christians. You can tell when the Anointed have picked a group as mascots, because the media will always portray mascots as victims of “prejudice” and “stereotypes”:

During a segment on the recent New York Times piece detailing the systematic and ideological slavery and rape perpetuated on thousands of young girls by ISIS soldiers, CNN host Chris Cuomo wondered whether the story might feed negative stereotypes about Islam.
“Let’s finish this part of the discussion on a point that you feel often needs to be made,” Cuomo said to Muslim woman’s rights activist Qanta Ahmed. “This feeds the impression that these Muslims are animals, savages and their faith makes them that way.”
“And it feeds an impression of what Islam is,” he continued. “What is your response to that?”

See? The problem for Chris Cuomo isn’t that Muslim terrorists are raping little girls. No, the real problem is that this “feeds the impression” that Muslims are terrorists who rape little girls. Maybe if some of these ISIS guys enrolled at Amherst or Columbia, Chris Cuomo would stop worrying about our “impression” of them.

 

Forgiving Brooke Baldwin

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Another day, another unfortunate utterance by someone on the Left. Watching the clip, it’s clearly a scripted set-up between her and good ol’ Elijah “fake racial slurs” Cummings.

But let us express compassion for poor wee Brooke, a thirty-something special snowflake from the UNC Chapel Hill Department of Commie Propaganda (that is, Journalism). When I went to boot camp in 1987, my company commander was a SMC Baldwin. That’s Chief Signalman for you civilian types, though the rating was apparently merged with Quartermaster in 2004.

I kind of wonder what old Baldwin would think of his namesake slandering veterans as though military service turns Americans into some kind of foreign, invasive species. Veterans support and defend the Constitutional right of Brooke and her ilk to be as false and useless as they want to be. There is some irony to be mined in how the era of Hope and Change segregates Americans into victim groups, like the Baltimore rioters, and target groups, like veterans, Christians,  and males (trifecta for me!).

So, take your paycheck, Brooke. Take it knowing that, even though you’re on the wrong team, at least some veterans forgive you. We pray that wisdom find you, and you truly repent past the casual tweet and instead start doing some useful reporting. While you had EC on camera, for example, you could have diverted from your talking points to inquire if Cummings approved of Martin O’Malley’s 2013 gun law, which probably did little to help societal politeness recently in Baltimore.

But, again, we’re in a forgiving mood, and, besides: we expect absolutely nothing from you whatsoever, Brooke. It’s only when you veer negative that something must be said.

via Breitbart

Hey, Remember When CNN Was ‘The Most Trusted Name in News’?

Posted on Comments

That was a long time ago:

Supporters of the Islamic State have taken to Twitter to mock claims the terrorist organisation is luring women into its fold using kittens and Nutella.
The original claim was made by CNN’s Newsroom anchor Carol Costello on Wednesday during a piece on how ISIS twists and manipulates its image to present living in the vast swathes of Syria and Iraq currently under the group’s control as being a pleasant experience.
The accusation was that women are falling for ISIS’ use of images and videos of cute cats to make the Sunni extremists appear less intimidating, and have been duped into thinking life under the terror is similar to the West thanks to references to eating Nutella in emoji-strewn Twitter posts.

The exact quote:

“ISIS is talking online about jars of Nutella, pictures of kittens and emojis. These three images are, in part, helping ISIS recruiters lure Westerners into their fight because they want people to believe their life on the battlefield isn’t so different than yours.”

Via Memeorandum.