Tag: media

Megan McArdle is now a Bilderberger:

McArdle, Megan (USA), Columnist, The Washington Post
McCaskill, Claire (USA), Former Senator; Analyst, NBC News
Medina, Fernando (PRT), Mayor of Lisbon
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

On the other hand, her presence on the list does tend to demonstrate rather conclusively that the Bilderbergers are genuinely not evil geniuses not-so-secretly running the world.

I don’t know about you, but I’m absolutely shocked that the New York Times didn’t see fit to mention any of my medievalesque fiction in its recent hit piece on Rachel Fulton Brown:

The idea of medieval studies as a haven for white nationalist ideas gained ground when Rachel Fulton Brown, an associate professor of medieval history at the University of Chicago, began feuding with Dorothy Kim, an assistant professor of medieval English literature at Brandeis, after Dr. Kim, writing on Facebook, highlighted an old blog post of Dr. Fulton Brown’s titled “Three Cheers for White Men,” calling it an example of “medievalists upholding white supremacy.”

Many scholars were outraged when Dr. Fulton Brown, in a riposte to Dr. Kim written a few weeks after Charlottesville, tagged the right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos, whose website then ran an article about the dispute. Last July Mr. Yiannopoulos followed up with a 16,000-word attack on the field, which assailed Dr. Kim and others as “an angry social justice mob.”

The article caused a furor, as scholars accused colleagues of providing screenshots of private Facebook conversations and surreptitious recordings of conference sessions to Mr. Yiannopoulos.

Since then, Dr. Fulton Brown has become more isolated, as some who initially supported her have distanced themselves after she began citing the far-right writer Vox Day and even, in a recent blog post, entertained the idea that the Christchurch shooting might have been a “false flag operation.” (Dr. Fulton Brown, in an interview, said the depiction of her as a white supremacist or a member of the alt-right is “a misnomer” that “depends on a fantasy about me.”)

But the climate of intense suspicion and division the feud helped foster, particularly on social media, remains.

I am, however, genuinely disappointed they didn’t mention my run-ins with English historical fantasist Mary Beard, much less run any of my well-known memes on the matter.

I did take the liberty of pointing out to Ms Schuessler that with regards to any guilt by association created by citing me, everyone from Nature to The New York Times is similarly guilty, as it is not uncommon for science journals and newspapers to cite my “Religion does not cause war” argument, although they usually attribute it incorrectly to my primary source, The Encyclopedia of Wars.

But the numbers and percentages reported are always the dead giveaway because they only appeared in The Irrational Atheist.

The obvious attack vector it presents is why it is important for every media and technological organization that is to the right of center to reject every business model that is dependent upon advertising.

Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, liberal billionaire George Soros’ massive foundations, as well as the Omidyar Network. The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.” Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network. The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”

That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report. Conservative organizations were included throughout but liberal groups rarely were. The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it. That combined to create a shameless double-standard. It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include liberal ones.

The goal of the report is clear. Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list. It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete. Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”

Poynter has a longstanding history as an anchor in the journalism business. Its board of trustees includes  execs from The New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and The Washington Post. Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its fact-checking programs.

I have gotten offers to advertise this or that for years. I experimented once with an ad service, but quickly determined that the benefits were not worth the costs. This is why we are very unlikely to accept ads for Unauthorized at any point in the future; relying directly upon our viewers and supporters is much more reliable than trying to play the delicate game of hoping that the companies advertising won’t be converged or inclined to crumble under SJW pressure.

What I find mildly amusing about the whole thing is that the corporate left is so stupid and unable to foresee consequences that they don’t understand how their actions are multiplying the negative effects of advancing technology on the core advertising model that sustained media businesses for more than a century. If you consider that even Google, the dominant force in online advertising, is now seeing its market cap decline because it is methodically chasing away both its content creators and the rightward half of its user base, it should be obvious that all the lesser corporations dependent upon it are suffering even more.

What is the reason for the concerted mainstream media + social media + Big Tech campaign against Q? Think logically!

If we are merely a LARP asking questions on the Chans, why are we being attacked daily by some of the world’s biggest media co’s, social media co’s deliberately applying censorship/banning, shills paid/inserted to disrupt (media matters), blue checkmark coordinated attacks, etc.?
All for a ‘conspiracy’ on the Chans?
All for a ‘LARP’?
Why is there a constant flow of disinformation being pushed re: Q?
Example:
Disinformation push re: Mueller is a white hat.
FAKE & FALSE narrative.
Think BLOCKADE.
When you can’t attack the information directly, you attack the source, if that fails, you ‘create false misleading information’ to discredit knowing ‘select’ ‘unaware’ followers would not take the time to self-corroborate the claims (same vehicle/tactics used by FAKE NEWS media).
Logical thinking always wins.
Nothing can stop what is coming.
As the target(s) turn to the other side, the attacks will intensify.
We have the source.
Q

Notice that Q is now openly presenting as a team, which I told you was the case quite early on based on the different writing styles.

Because the other watchdogs certainly won’t:

The afternoon of March 7, 2018, was go time, or so we believed. Inside a glass huddle room at the Washington Post, its walls covered with headlines from journalistic coups of the past, we began dialing numbers on a speakerphone and pressing send on carefully drafted, bullet-pointed emails. For nearly four months, investigative reporter Amy Brittain and I, then a freelancer, had been working on a follow-up to our November front-page story about sexual-harassment allegations against Charlie Rose. In the wake of our story, Rose had been fired from his gigs as a CBS This Morning anchor and 60 Minutes correspondent, and his PBS show had been canceled.

This new article had 27 additional allegations against Rose and three instances in which CBS management had been warned about him, but it went further. Our editor, Peter Wallsten, had encouraged us to ask who had known about Rose’s conduct and protected him, and whether he’d been enabled by a culture — assuming we had the reporting to back it up, of course. Answering that question had led to the then–60 Minutes boss and former network chairman Jeff Fager, who had repeatedly championed Rose at the network. That was awkward because 60 Minutes had been the Post’s partner for a just-wrapped yearlong investigation of the roots of the opioid crisis.

The Post had nonetheless kept both Amy and me on the story and, to ensure the integrity of the process, reassigned us to editors on the national desk who had never worked with Fager. So the isolation of the huddle room wasn’t just to bar distraction. It was a firewall — between us and the reporters and editors who’d just spent months in the trenches with the very men we had found ourselves investigating.

By that day in March, our draft had passed muster with layers of editors all the way up to the Post’s legendary executive editor Marty Baron and his deputy, Cameron Barr, as well as the paper’s lawyers. Now it was time for Amy and me to find out what Fager and other CBS brass had to say about the fruits of our reporting.

Interesting to see how Mr. “Democracy Dies in Darkness” responds to being called out in this way by members of his own daily blog. It’s always revelatory to see how the media responds to facing the very sort of treatment it regularly dishes out to others.

Now those who perpetrated the failed coup are rapidly backtracking:

Former CIA chief John O. Brennan now says his months of attacks on President Trump may have been based on “bad information.”

One of the president’s harshest critics had a muted tone on Monday as he discussed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” No evidence was found to support the claim that Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia.

“Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” Mr. Brennan told host Joe Scarborough. “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”

Mr. Brennan said in December 2018, for instance, that Mr. Trump should prepare for the “forthcoming exposure of your malfeasance & corruption.”

“We need an actual leader — our Nation’s future is at stake,” he tweeted Dec. 31.

The former CIA head said he still maintained that some conversations between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russians were “inappropriate.”

Now it’s time to let the trials for treason begin.

Ann Coulter is beyond furious with President Trump:

Ann Coulter is taking her criticism of President Trump to the next level following his national emergency declaration, with the conservative commentator declaring Friday, “the country is over.”

Coulter hammered Trump in a Friday interview with KABC after he announced he would sign Congress’ funding deal and declare a national emergency. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,” she said, per Mediaite. She also fumed that Trump is just “fooling the rubes” with this national emergency declaration.

The root of Coulter’s criticism isn’t that Trump is bypassing Congress, as she argued that Trump never needed Congress to build the wall at all. Instead, she suggested the president is actually “hoping” the national emergency declaration will just be blocked by the courts “because for some reason, he really doesn’t want to build the wall.”

On Twitter, Coulter said that responsibility for the border wall deal, which the president has said he is unhappy with, is “100{f03b982df00939a0603520e349290ee9e722cb707fe7cb6b379ee8d64c20e193} his,” and she responded to Trump saying in his press conference that he barely knows Coulter by writing, “THANK YOU, Mr. President for admitting that your total capitulation on campaign promises has nothing to do with me.”

Maybe he has finally cucked and capitulated. Maybe not. As always with the God-Emperor, wait two days before reaching any conclusions.

It strikes me as more than a little odd that despite the report on Breitbart, no one in the media or in either party establishment is celebrating the President’s signing of the funding deal. This tends to lead me to conclude that it is at least possible that he is simply leading them on and that he will not sign it in the end.

The Fake News gang is preparing the ground for admitting that their Russian Collusion narrative was false all along:

In episode 171 of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza makes up a story about having a house in the Hamptons in order to avoid attending an event with his dead fiancée’s parents, the Rosses. He soon learns they know of his deception but the Rosses nevertheless accept an invitation to the fictitious house.

George picks them up and begins driving towards a house that doesn’t exist. Both the Rosses and George maintain the pretense until George drives to the end of island past the last house in the Hamptons. George silently pleads for the Rosses to put an end to the charade. The lie’s momentum took on a life of its own as the players all continued acting their parts long after the truth was known.

The episode comes to mind as the media has started backing away from the Russia collusion hoax. Like Costanza, many of the media perpetrators seem to know a reckoning is coming. Politico warned Trump haters, “Prepare for disappointment.” Other examples of expectation managing can be found, such as here, here, here, and here. Mueller’s longtime top deputy at the FBI recently warned, “A public narrative has built an expectation that the special counsel will explain his conclusions, but I think that expectation may be seriously misplaced.”

Most recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that after almost two years of investigation, it has uncovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Attorneys assigned to the Mueller team have quietly begun to slip away before the outcome of the investigation is made public (here, here, and here).

This is unsurprising. The Russia hoax is crumbling and people can’t run away fast enough. We’ve seen signs from the very beginning that many of the people who promoted the Trump-Russia collusion smear have always known it was a hoax. These signs have been in plain sight.

Mike Cernovich was right to call them the Hoax Media. Now, ask yourself this question: how many other major media narratives have been false all along?

When the Washington Post goes to war with the National Enquirer, I think we all know who wins. America.

Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? (On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake.)

In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”

If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie.

Be assured, no real journalists ever propose anything like what is happening here: I will not report embarrassing information about you if you do X for me. And if you don’t do X quickly, I will report the embarrassing information.

Nothing I might write here could tell the National Enquirer story as eloquently as their own words below.

These communications cement AMI’s long-earned reputation for weaponizing journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the tenets and purpose of true journalism. Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out.

I’m both amused by Jeff Bezos’s appeal to the nonexistent integrity of “real journalists” and amazed that the National Enquirer people were willing to put their demands in writing.

But I don’t see why Bezos should resist the idea of giving a false public statement. There are literally dozens of them published in his newspaper every single day.

The First Lady demonstrates to the defamed and the deplatformed the correct way to respond to a media attack:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.  Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump.  They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations.  As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

Do your homework, review the law, and then hit them back hard. Neither the media companies nor the social media companies are protected by the law, and the fact that they are accustomed to getting away with making provably false claims and committing illegal acts does not mean that one has to permit them to do so.

Remember, the law is different in different jurisdictions, and the reach of the Internet will often allow you to take action in a jurisdiction that is considerably less favorable to the libelists and slanderers than the various US states.