News outlets continue a rich tradition of racially biased coverage.
On the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2014, a police officer fatally shot an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. Eyewitnesses said Brown was compliant with police and was shot while he was running away. Police maintained that the 18-year-old had assaulted an officer and was reaching for the officer’s gun. One clear thing, however, is that Brown’s death followed a disturbingly common trend of black men being killed, often while unarmed and at the hands of police officers, security guards and vigilantes.
After news of Brown’s death broke, media-watchers carefully followed the narratives that news outlets began crafting about the teenager and the incident that claimed his life. Wary of the controversy surrounding the media’s depiction of Trayvon Martin — the Florida teen killed in a high-profile case that led to the acquittal of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman — people on Twitter wondered, “If they gunned me down, which picture would they use?” Using the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown, users posted side-by-side photos, demonstrating the power that news outlets wield in portraying victims based on images they select.
Days later, a Twitter user tweeted out a photo driving home another point: Media treatment of black victims is often harsher than it is of whites suspected of crimes, including murder.
This is by no means standard media protocol, but it happens frequently, deliberately or not. News reports often headline claims from police or other officials that appear unsympathetic or dismissive of black victims. Other times, the headlines seem to suggest black victims are to blame for their own deaths, engaging in what critics sometimes allege is a form of character assassination.
When contrasted with media portrayal of white suspects and accused murderers, the differences are more striking. News outlets often choose to run headlines that exhibit an air of disbelief at an alleged white killer’s supposed actions. Sometimes, they appear to go out of their way to boost the suspect’s character, carrying quotes from relatives or acquaintances that often paint even alleged murderers in a positive light.
In 2008, 18-year-old Ryan Schallenberger was accused of plotting to bomb his South Carolina high school. Ohio’s Chronicle Telegram wanted readers to know that he was a straight-A student, running an AP story with this headline.
The Putin-Chumph fake missile attack in Syria which succeeded in blowing up a couple of goats and a couple of antique junkyard Mig 15s, and left the target airport in such bad shape they were launching planes a few hours later to bomb the hell out of hospitals – was a publicity stunt to try and bail out a rapidly failing presidency…The Chumph’s.
Yet no one seemed to attack the absurdity of the attack, and things only became unglued when ABC News reported two hours after the attack that the Russians and Syrians had, under Putin’s orchestration – moved their aircraft, personnel, chemical weapons, and critical equipment to another airport long before the Chumph ordered the launch of the missiles.
Sexual Molestation and Racial Discrimination Central, Fox News was overjoyed to have something else to talk about except serial rape by their leading talking head and others on their staff. Literally gushing about Putin’s Bitch bombing the hell out of some “A-rabs” they lead their easily dupeable slack jawed, ignorant followers in the usual orgasmic outpouring of plastic patriotism, that their “Trump had bombed some brown people. Faux News even trotted out a couple of pics of some destroyed antique Mig 15, last used in the Korean War, an which hadn’t been flown above sea level in 30 years as evidence of the “destruction”.
Took three days for much of the MSM to get their collective dicks off the table and realize they had been royally hoodwinked again.
One pointless display of military machismo, and the TV talking heads Trump loves to mock are swept off their feet
For nearly two years now, we’ve followed the incomprehensibly remedial political life of Donald Trump. For nearly two years, we’ve observed in shocked horror at episode after episode in which Trump is engulfed in controversy of his own making, only to be given chance after chance after chance to redeem himself, unlike nearly every other worldwide public figure, political or otherwise.
No matter how often President Trump whines and hurls tantrums on Twitter about the “dishonest media” and all the “fake news” it publishes, the television press has gifted him with unprecedented latitude — his very own set of political rules, devised by Trump and implemented by the cable news media. Actually, I hesitate to call them “rules” because the word suggests there are limits to and punishments for Trump’s behavior. Anyone following his greatest hits knows there aren’t any, at least in compared with the rules applied to previous presidents, not to mention the Democratic nominee whom Trump barely defeated last year.
This partially illiterate New York socialite turned reality-show punchline continues to be given opportunity after opportunity to behave in a reasonable, rational way by kneejerk pundits who appear desperate to artificially endow Trump with presidential qualities. His version of “presidential” lasts around 12 seconds and is barely more presidential than the behavior of a tween bully running for class president. Whether in describing his banal, off-the-rack address to Congress last month or his transparently political missile strike against a Syrian airbase, there are more than a few actors in the cable news sphere who can’t wait to normalize and legitimize Trump, only to be castrated by the president hours or days later.
In the aftermath of Trump’s ineffectual cruise missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield in which 59 missiles constructed by Raytheon — a military contractor in which Trump owns undivested stock — caused marginal damage, allowing Bashar al-Assad to launch new airstrikes from the base the very next day, cable news was buzzing with declarations of Trump’s freshly acquired savoir-faire as a sober and decisive leader. This was Trump they were talking about — the TV huckster who once looked into a video camera and declared that “Trump Steaks,” inexplicably sold at Sharper Image stores back in the day, “are the world’s greatest steaks, and I mean that in every sense of the word.”
It’s also worth noting that President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs in 2016, his final year in office.
NBC News reporter Kristen Welker said she thought Trump had “turned a page” in his presidency: “This is a president who is coming off of a rocky couple of weeks. Arguably, he’s turned the page on that to some extent with these foreign leader meetings that he’s had this week and now with the focus on Syria.”
Elliott Abrams wrote in the Weekly Standard that “the Trump administration can truly be said to have started only now. The president has been chief executive since January 20, but this week he acted also as Commander in Chief. And more: He finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.”
Fox News Channel’s Carl Higbie: “Huge victory. All the people I have spoken to recently, active and former, have all said this was Donald Trump’s first test and he absolutely nailed it. This is right on par. This is a show of force that the world needs to see and the world now knows that we will do. And everybody in the military that I have spoken to is extremely proud to call him our president this morning.”
On Friday night’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” CNN’s Ana Navarro qualified her praise for Trump, but endowed him with a role neither he nor any president actually possesses. Navarro said, “I still think he is a racist, misogynist, lying pig, but he’s also my commander in chief.” Apologies for nitpicking, but the president isn’t Navarro’s commander in chief, nor is he the commander of any American civilian. He’s strictly the commander in chief of the military. Nothing more. Please stop giving him ideas like this. Thank you.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has been widely and justifiably mocked as the worst of the batch, declaring: “I think Donald Trump became President of the United States” with this ineffectual strike.
The only excuse I can think of for this brand of unearned fluffing, other than submissiveness and/or masochism, is that certain members of the press continue to genuflect before the “both sides” attitude. These are transparently weak attempts to generate some sense of cosmetic balance around the coverage of a president who, no matter what he says or does now, is still under numerous federal investigations for colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 election cycle. It was a trespass against American sovereignty and the integrity of our electoral process, and if the current president was involved in any way, it was an unprecedented and massively treasonous act. And the Russia headlines make up only part of the roster of manifest reasons why Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to tour the White House, much less run the nation from the Oval Office.
A monkey can order a missile strike, and Trump kind of screwed this one up. He hit a few inconsequential items on the checklist — managing to avoid upwards of 100 Russian personnel who were on hand at the base for some still-unexplained reason — but he failed to take out any chemical weapons, which I thought was the point of sticking our noses into a civil war that hasn’t involved any attacks against the United States. And let’s say this again: Syrian fighter jets were taking off from Al Shayrat the next day. Oh, and Trump’s attack reportedly managed to kill seven civilians, including four children.
You had one job, Mr. President.
All in all, my biggest objection to Trump’s intervention in Syria — he’s also secretly put boots on the ground there, by the way — is the fact that it’s being carried out by this tabloid weirdo with cartoon hair named Donald Trump. It’s like finding out your bypass surgery is being performed by Gary Busey and the pilot for your cross-country flight will be Meat Loaf. Trump is in no way equipped with any of the qualities of a strong leader. He’s a petulant, obnoxious, intellectually incurious doofus who needed four tries to correctly spell the word “hereby.” He and his worthless, somnambulant secretary of state don’t have a Syria policy, beyond lamenting Assad’s murdering of babies on one hand while blocking other Syrian babies from seeking refuge from Assad inside the United States on the other.
Everything Donald Trump touches turns to crap sooner or later. As American warships steam toward the Korean peninsula, we, and especially the cable news media, must not forget who this president really is. We must not forget the myriad disasters and irreparable destabilization for which he’s responsible. And the worst is yet to come.
The Chumph declared war on CNN back before the election. That hasn’t worked out too well for the Chumph, making major enemies of one of the major cable news networks. Unlike the Chumph’s usual victims who are people with little ability or resource to fight back against the awesome power of the Chumph’s media machine…Picking on CNN is like Mickey Mouse picking a fight with a 600 lb Gorilla.
CNN has responded with an all-out attack on the Chump’s legitimacy, and has been far more effective than the Progressive MSNBC at ripping the foundations from under Putin’s Bitch.
Is it “bullshit”? Of course the way CNN sets up Trumpazoids to fail, the answer would lean towards yes. However, most of the Trumpazoids selected to come on CNN ARE selected by the Trump Campaign, or are spokespeople for the Chumph Whites Only House…
So the “stupid” Trumpazoid on the panel…Is fair game. They deserve to get the shit beat out of them advancing ludicrous facts, and easily disproven wild conspiracy theories.
So…Yeah, it’s bullshit…Fighting bullshit.
Somebody in MSM needed to step up and make it painful for the Trumpazoids to tell bald faced lies.Are the Chumph people as a class stupid? Let’s put it this way, if they had a “Non-bright” scholarship instead of a Fullbright…None of the Trumpazoids representing the Whites Only House in the media would need to worry about paying for college.
I am going to do two articles on this one. The first deals with the crime, the second is about Timothy Caughman – the victim, and how the press has tried to de-humanize him as a black man. Funny how the Press and the courts can find so much sympathy for a white boy committing the most heinous of crimes…
But make excuses for the murder of an unarmed black man by sullying his reputation – such as to say somehow he deserved getting shot or stabbed in the back for doing nothing more than walking down the street.
“His intent was to kill as many black men here in New York as he could,” prosecutor Joan Illuzzi said as James Harris Jackson, 28, was arraigned in the slaying of 66-year-old Timothy Caughman. “The defendant was motivated purely by hatred.”
Illuzzi said Jackson was angered in particular by black men who date white women.
Authorities said Jackson traveled from his home in Baltimore last week, picking New York because he hoped to “make a statement” in the media capital of the world. He encountered Caughman, who was collecting bottles from trash cans, and stabbed him in his chest and back, authorities said.
He turned himself in at a Times Square police station early Wednesday, a day after the wounded Caughman staggered into a police precinct. The sword was found in a trash can.
Illuzzi said the charges could be upgraded because the killing was an act “most likely of terrorism.”
Jackson’s lawyer suggested that his client might be suffering from mental illness.
“What we’re going to do is take a few minutes, let the dust settle and figure out what the facts are,” defense attorney Sam Talkin said outside court. “If the facts are anything near what the allegations are, then we’re going to address the obvious psychological issues that are present in this case.”
Jackson told police he had harbored hatred toward black men for at least 10 years, authorities said….More Here…
Timothy Caughman was killed for being Black. He was 66.
A canner, who supported himself by gathering and redeeming bottles and cans, Caughman was doing his job–sorting through recycling–when a 28-year- old army veteran, James Harris Jackson, pulled out a 26-inch mini-sword and repeatedly stabbed him in the chest and back Monday night in Manhattan’s Hell’s kitchen neighborhood. Caughman died at a hospital.
Wednesday, Jackson turned himself in, telling police that he traveled from Maryland to New York City on Friday in order to “target male blacks,” according to Assistant Chief William Aubry of Manhattan South Detectives. “The reason why he picked New York,” said Aubry, “is because it is the media capital of the world… He wanted to make a statement.” The New York Post reports that “Jackson identifies as a white supremacist and told police he penned a manifesto about his racist views,” which included a plan “about an imminent attack on blacks in New York.” He was particularly disturbed by Black men who were in romantic relationships with white women.
So, to recap, a self-identified white supremacist fatally stabbed an unarmed man because he was Black.
Yet, much of the mainstream media coverage has turned a story about the murder of an unarmed Black men into an investigation into the character of an unarmed Black man, as Adam Johnson points out at FAIR. The Daily News and New York Post reported on Caughman’s utterly unrelated and irrelevant arrest record. Even more remarkably, The Daily News thought it was appropriate to remind readers that, “In December 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley traveled to the city from Baltimore and assassinated Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, who were in the car near Myrtle and Tompkins Avenues in Bedford-Stuyvesant. Brinsley had made anti-police statements on social media prior to the murders.” Though tragic, a murder that took place over two years ago doesn’t seem germane. Johnson suggests,
This is a bizarre journalistic choice that appears to be some kind of attempt at “balancing” the coverage, suggesting that there could be a bit of score-settling going on: Yes, this black man was senselessly murdered by a white supremacist, but some other black guy killed cops two-and-a-half years ago, so….
To be fair, there is another angle here. Both crimes were committed by men who traveled from the state of Maryland to New York City. So there’s that.
Another important thing, according to the Daily News and New York Post, is that Caughman lived in transitional housing.
This isn’t the first time the media has tasked itself with scrutinizing and smearing the character of an unarmed Black murder victim. See: Michael “no angel” Brown, Freddie “he caused his own injuries (which he didn’t)” Gray, Trayvon “he smoked pot once and gave the middle finger in a photo once” Martin. The punishment for having once smoked pot is not, actually, execution at the hands of someone who failed the police entrance exam, beats his girlfriends and volunteers as a neighborhood watchman.
Curiously, the same media which is so quick to the judge victims, finds itself capable of extraordinary empathy and understanding when the perpetrator is white. Consider, for example, the story of Brock Turner, who was sentenced to six months (of which he’d serve three) for assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. While some were disturbed by the rape and the light sentence, The Washington Post, worried that Turner’s promising swimming career would be disrupted by the conviction. The article, whose headline read, “All-American swimmer found guilty of sexually assaulting unconscious woman on Stanford campus,” featured a fresh-faced posed photo of Turner, not the traditional mugshot. and not his mug shot.
Caughman happened to be a collector of autographs, a passionate consumer of pop culture and a huge fan of Shari Headley, so outlets have also picked up the human interest angle of the story, which, though preferable, still manages to incorporate the irrelevant information from the smear-based reports. Even an additional article in The Daily News, whose headline reads, “New Yorker who was fatally stabbed by Maryland man loved meeting Hollywood stars,” includes the fact that he lived in transitional housing. Because so little information has been released about Caughman, even places like The Hollywood Reporter, included this irrelevant tidbit in its seemingly harmless listicle: “Timothy Caughman Stabbed To Death: 5 Things About The Innocent NYC Man.” The fourth thing you need to know, apparently, is that Caughman,
lived in transitional housing. Timothy resided in a transitional housing facility on W. 36th street, sources told New York Daily News. Transitional housing is a place for homeless people to stay, generally after they have suffered a crisis.
At least Bustle focuses on the positive in its meta piece promising that “The New Yorker’s Sense Of Optimism Won’t Be Forgotten.”
But there is another story to be found in Caughman’s biography. I first heard about Caughman when Benjamin Dixon, the host of the Benjamin Dixon Show, shared a selfie Caughman had posted of himself at 9:30 A.M. this past election day. It read, “Standing on line waiting to vote I love america.” Dixon added his own comment: “Wow. Timothy Caughman. Murdered by a white supremacist who specifically targeted black men.”…More on Timothy’s life Here...
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston says he received two pages from the 2005 document in the mail from an unknown source.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston suggested Tuesday night on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” that President Donald Trump himself may have been the unknown source who sent two pages of his 2005 tax return to the journalist.
“It came in the mail over the transom,” Johnston told Maddow, following the host’s roughly 25-minute build-up before discussing the documents in detail. “There is absolutely nothing improper about journalists — if you haven’t solicited something — getting it over the transom. Let me point out, it’s entirely possible that Donald sent this to me. Donald Trump has, over the years, leaked all sorts of things.”
Johnston didn’t indicate he has any actual evidence Trump was the source, but he does know Trump’s tendencies well after decades of covering him. Johnston was the Atlantic City, New Jersey, bureau chief for The Philadelphia Inquirer from 1988 to 1991, charting Trump’s rise and fall in the city, and he wrote about the casino mogul in his 1992 book, Temples of Chance: How America Inc. Bought Out Murder Inc. To Win Control of the Casino Business. Johnston joined The New York Times in 1995 and later won a Pulitzer at the paper for his reporting on loopholes in the U.S. tax system.
Just weeks into Trump’s candidacy, Johnston posed 21 questions in The National Memo about the Republican’s business dealings and philanthropic claims, some of which remain unanswered given Trump’s decision to break with four decades of precedent by not disclosing his tax returns. The veteran investigative journalist reported on candidate Trump for outlets such as The Daily Beast, wrote a critical biography of him and continued to dig into his past for information relevant to his race for the White House.
When The Huffington Post interviewed the legendary reporter Wayne Barrett in March 2016 for an article on the media’s failure to vet Trump’s business record, Johnston was in the late journalist’s basement poring through old boxes of files on Trump from Barrett’s decades at The Village Voice.
“If Donald Trump were to become president, he is the first person I know of who would be in the White House in modern times with deep, continuing associations with mobsters, con artists, drug traffickers, convicted felons — gratuitously involved with these folks,” Johnston told The Huffington Post at the time. “That deserves enormous inquiry.”
On Jan. 20 — 16 years ago — thousands of protesters lined the inauguration parade route of the incoming Republican president. “Not my president,” they chanted. But despite the enormity of the rally, it was largely ignored. Instead, pundits marveled over how George W. Bush “filled out the suit” and confirmed authority.
“The inauguration of George W. Bush was certainly a spectacle on Inauguration Day,” marvels Robin Andersen, the director of Peace and Justice studies at Fordham University, in the 2001 short documentary “Not My President: Voices From the Counter Coup.”
It’s nearly impossible not to anticipate the eerie parallels between George W. Bush’s inauguration and that of Donald Trump.
“Forty percent of the public still believed that Bush had not been legitimately elected, yet there’s almost no discussion of these electoral problems or the constitutional crisis,” Andersen explains in the film. “Instead, Bush undergoes a kind of transformation where he fills out the suit and becomes a leader. Forgotten are any of the questions about his ability, his experience or his mangling of the English language. His transformation is almost magical,” she adds.
Andersen estimated the inauguration protests, which occurred throughout the country, garnered approximately 10 minutes of total coverage on all the major networks.
“When we did see images of protesters, there was no explanation as to why. We were asked to be passive spectators in this ritual of legitimation when the real democratic issues that should have been being discussed were ignored,” Andersen says in the film, reflecting on the “real democracy” in the streets of Washington, D.C.
“It was a diverse crowd with lots of things to say, but they weren’t given a chance to speak, they weren’t given a voice,” Andersen says.
Now, two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Andersen foreshadows what America can expect come Jan. 20.
“There will certainly be similarities, but Trump doesn’t have the legal delays that the Bush administration had, so the idea that the inauguration is a coronation isn’t going to be part of the protest discourse,” she told AlterNet.
“All Trump will have to do is keep somewhat quiet and do the bare minimum to look like a human being and they will anoint his appearance,” she noted.
Fake news, Russian hacking and Trump’s outlandish campaign promises will all be a distant memory for the networks, Andersen predicted.
On the other hand, “the protests might present an alternative frame, because Trump has asked his supporters to come to Washington. Bikers for Trump will be there. There will of course be tens of thousands more progressive protesters, but the mainstream media will ‘balance’ that out and make them seem equal,” she predicted. “And they will of course emphasize any tiny bit of conflict that occurs.”
Activists carried out one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in recent history—yet got little media coverage
It was one of the most massive acts of civil disobedience in recent U.S. history. Over the past week, well over 1,000 people were arrested in an enormous sit-in protest at the U.S. Capitol.
The demonstration is part of a new movement that calls itself “Democracy Spring.” Activists are calling for ending the chokehold money has on U.S. politics, overturning Citizens United and restoring voting rights.
On April 2, activists launched a colossal 10-day, 140-mile march from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. This was the preface to the mass arrests.
At least 1,240 protesters were arrested in the week from Monday, April 11 to Monday, April 18, according to police, on charges of crowding, obstructing or incommoding. Some activists even tied themselves to scaffolding in the Capitol rotunda.
Activists say even more people were arrested. The Nation put the figure at 1,400. The left-wing magazine refers to Democracy Spring and the allied Democracy Awakening protests from April 16 to 18 as “the most important protest of the 2016 election.”
A host of celebrities and prominent figures joined the protesters. Actress Rosario Dawson — who has become an outspoken Bernie Sanders supporter — was arrested, as was Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, along with leaders from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP.
And although the Washington, D.C. demonstration officially ended Monday, Democracy Spring is only just beginning.
Leaders in the movement say they plan on expanding it throughout the country.
“Despite this unprecedented call to action, the congressional leadership did nothing,” Kai Newkirk, the campaign director of Democracy Spring, explained.
“Now we will take the battle into their offices in D.C., their home districts and to their fundraisers, to the party conventions and beyond.”
Democracy Spring activists are asking that all U.S. political candidates sign the Equal Voice for All Declaration, which maintains that the “government should be free from the corrupting influence of big money in politics and solely dependent upon the People” and calls “for pro-democracy, anti-corruption reforms, including voting rights protections, citizen-funded elections, and a constitutional amendment to overturn
The movement is non-partisan and is not affiliated with any political candidates or parties. It has been organized by a coalition of more than 120 organizations, activist groups and unions, which share principles of unity.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has expressed support for the new movement.
“We must overturn Citizens United if we are serious about maintaining the foundations of American democracy,” his campaign tweeted.
“Americans understand that our gov’t is dominated by big money. Glad to see people taking action to restore democracy.”
Whether it is “liberal Rags” or conservative propaganda outlets, the MSM has taken a beating recently in public trust…
No wonder, when there is so much bad reporting, a series of untrustworthy sources, and an overriding focus on the political Carnival instead of good solid reporting. It Ain’t Journalism anymore, it’s just a PT Barnum Side Show.
When your trust is below that of the Republican led Congress…That is lower than dirt.
The study mirrors past reports that found the public’s trust in mass media has reached historic lows, according to data gathered by the Media Insight Project, a partnership between The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute. The report found faith in the press was just slightly higher than the 4 percent of people who said they trusted Congress.
Alongside the dire findings, the report found respondents valued accuracy above all else, with 85 percent of people saying it was extremely important to avoid errors in coverage. Timeliness and clarity followed closely, with 76 percent and 72 percent respectively saying those attributes were imperative among media sources.
“Over the last two decades, research shows the public has grown increasingly skeptical of the news industry,” the report reads. “The study reaffirms that consumers do value broad concepts of trust like fairness, balance, accuracy, and completeness. At least two-thirds of Americans cite each of these four general principles as very important to them.”
Ironically, despite news organizations’ ongoing battle to master social media platforms, that trust doesn’t extend to the likes of Facebook and Twitter. The report found just 12 percent of people trust media delivered via Mark Zuckerberg’s evolving juggernaut, even though 87 percent of people get news from Facebook.
LinkedIn, in fact, garnered the most faith over competitors like Instagram and Reddit, with 23 percent or people finding links from the site trustworthy.
The media has also faced a barrage of criticism during the ongoing presidential campaign season, particularly from Republican leaders including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has launched repeated attacks against Fox News’ Megyn Kelly (culminating in a reported “clearing of the air“ last week), while Cruz haslambasted the press for being too hostile.
Tavis Smiley, author and public television talk show host, hit back at Donald Trump for calling him a racist, noting that the GOP presidential candidate had failed to condemn the white supremacists who support his 2016 campaign.
The host of Tavis Talks on PBS went on the ABC talk show This Week and said Trump is an “unrepentant, irascible religious and racial arsonist” for his comments calling undocumented immigrants criminals and calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country. In response, Trump tweeted that Smiley is a “hater & racist.”
When asked about his comment by CNN host Don Lemon on Monday night, Smiley repeated it and also said the news media is asking the wrong questions when it comes to Trump’s prominence among American voters.
“What troubles me quite frankly is that we keep talking about… Trump rising in the polls as if somehow this is happening miraculously,” Smiley said.” It’s happening in part because, as your lead-in shows with these now white supremacists supporting him — it’s happening because he’s appealing to a certain base voter in this country. He’s appealing to the dark side, the night side of America and that’s why he’s rising in the polls. And we ought not cover him without condemning him for doing that.”
Smiley then chided Trump about his tweet.
“First of all, for a guy with a Wharton degree, he’s got to do better than ‘hater and racist,’” Smiley said. “Can we just remove the word ‘hater’ from our lexicon?”
He then question how Trump could conclude that Smiley was a racist after failing to condemn a white supremacist group for making campaign robocalls for his campaign.
“I’m on your program tonight because I made a comment about Donald Trump yesterday on a morning show,” Smiley said. “And within a matter of hours, Donald Trump had tweeted about me… So if that story broke over the weekend about this white supremacist — again, he can’t be responsible for who is supporting him. But how can he get around to calling me a racist and a hater in less than 24 hours, but since the weekend he hasn’t gotten around to condemning a white supremacist for supporting his campaign.”
He then pointed out that “nobody in the media is asking these questions.”
The Whiteisis Cow trumpeters in Oregon seem to be upset about the fact that everyone who isn’t making fun of them…
Is ignoring them.
“Worse treatment” in this case being disowned by the Mormon Church, other Militia Groups, and even the Hammond family who ostensibly were the reason for kicking off their terrorist invasion of a Park Visitor Center.
In the parking lot of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge — which the militants stormed and took over on Saturday in the name of grazing privileges — a man who claimed to be a body guard for the group’s leaders said they are facing worse resistance than Black Lives Matter, a nationwide campaign to end police brutality against people of color.
“The Black Lives Matter movement, they can go and protest, close freeways down and all that stuff, and they don’t get any backlash, not on the level that we’re getting,” said the man, who identified himself as “Fluffy Unicorn.”
While acknowledging that police have used force against Black Lives Matter protesters, he also said “their level of protesting is different; we’re not obstructing schools.” (In fact, an Oregon school district has canceled classes this week because of the federal building’s occupation.)
So far, backlash to the occupation has included hashtags like #YallQaeda and #YeeHawd on social media to describe the group’s attempts to defy the federal government.
But many say that authorities are responding with far less urgency to the Oregon occupation than to Black Lives Matter protests. In Ferguson, Missouri, for example, marches condemning police violence against African-Americans prompted aresponse by the National Guard.
Critics say that temperate response highlights a double standard in how authorities respond to threats from white people versus black people. Salon highlighted both 12-year-old Tamir Rice and Eric Garner’s deaths as examples:
A black 12-year-old boy who was guilty of the “crime” of playing with a toy gun in an “open carry” state was summarily executed by local police.
A black man who was selling loose cigarettes on a street corner in order to help support his family was choked to death by police while he screamed “I can’t breathe.”
White folks can brandish real weapons, steal public resources, engage in acts of terrorism and insurrection, and threaten to kill the police and other State authorities with little if any consequences.
Meanwhile, on Monday, occupation leader Ammon Bundy — a son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who led a rebellion against federal law enforcement officers in 2014 — likened his group’s objective to that of the Black Lives Matter movement.
I hope Ammon and Fluffy have a great time camping out together and presumably “bonding” as “true Patriots” in the Visitor’s center – but I don’t recall BLM Protesters coming armed to the teeth to any protest march – or even asking those protesting to “bring their guns”.
What this whole issue is about is white folks Welfare. The Federal government allows these miscreants and Western Welfare Queens to farm, log, and graze cattle, as well as hunt on Federal owned land for free, or at ridiculously low rates. As seen in the Cliven Bundy case, these lollygagging nitwits won’t even pay nominal fees after utilizing Federal Land (our land) to raise thousands of cattle over decades, which they would not have been able to do otherwise.
Is the mass of paperwork and bureaucracy of the Federal Government a pain in the ass to deal with? Absolutely. But that doesn’t call for whipping out you Glock substitute manhood to take possession of a facility which belongs to all Americans.
News coverage of President Obama is biased towards the negative, explaining why he is having such a difficult time getting his message across, or getting credit for the accomplishments of his Administration. This isn’t the first time this has happened. If you will remember back to the 2000 Presidential Election cycle, the MSM all but crowned Bush President 11 months BEFORE the actual election. The MSM spent a lot of time tossing Bush softball questions and giving him the benefit of the doubt.
They are doing it again, this time in support of a stable of Republican mental midgets and moral degenerates who, under no circumstance could be considered “Presidential material”. It is time to fight back, at least for fair media coverage.
President Obama “has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment” of all presidential candidates over the past five months, according to a study released Monday from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Pew found that Mr. Obama was the subject of negative assessments nearly four times as often as he was the subject of positive assessments. It found he received “positive” coverage nine percent of the time, “neutral” coverage 57 percent of the time and “negative” coverage 34 percent of the time.
The study, which was conducted using a combination of “traditional media research methods [and] computer algorithms to track the level and tone of coverage,” cuts against the widespread conservative claim that the “liberal media” aides Mr. Obama and other Democrats while attacking Republicans.
Pew says it looked at coverage from more than 11,500 news outlets, including local and national broadcasts, news websites and blogs.
Mr. Obama’s negative coverage could be explained in part by the fact that he is “covered largely as president rather than a candidate,” Pew said – and coverage of him is linked to the struggling economy.
Among the Republican presidential candidates, Pew found that Rick Perry has received the most positive coverage of all the candidates, with 32 percent positive coverage. He was followed by Sarah Palin (31 percent), Michele Bachmann (31 percent), Herman Cain (28 percent) and Mitt Romney (26 percent.) Palin, a vocal critic of the media, ultimately decided not to seek the GOP nomination.
Perry had the best ratio of any candidate, with 32 percent positive coverage to 20 percent negative coverage, a 12 percent net positive ratings in terms of coverage. He was followed by Palin (with 9 percent net positive coverage), Bachmann (8 percent net positive), Cain (5 percent net positive), Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman (both with 4 percent net positive coverage.) Pew found that Cain surged in positive coverage starting in late August – even before he did so in the polls.
The only candidate who received more negative coverage than Mr. Obama was Newt Gingrich, whom Pew found was the subject of negative coverage 35 percent of the time. That can be attrubited in part to his early stumbles, including his criticism of the House GOP Medicare plan and the decision by top staffers to abandom Gingrich’s campaign. While Pew found that Mr. Obama received just nine percent positive coverage, however, Gingrich received 15 percent positive coverage.
The candidates with the worst coverage ratio were Mr. Obama (25 percent net negative coverage), Gingrich (20 percent net negative), Rick Santorum (3 percent net negative) and Mitt Romney (1 percent net negative.)
As Politico’s Keach Hagey notes, Pew found that Mr. Obama had widely positive media coverage during his first 100 days in office, with 42 percent positive coverage and 20 percent negative coverage.