Reuters Study: America Has the Least Trusted Media In The World

Reuters study has found that nowhere is the media less trusted than in America where fewer than one in three people have any form of trust in the institution.

The survey, which was conducted in 46 nations across the globe, reveals that a total of 44% of U.S. citizens do not have any trust in the media to report the truth.

Of that 44%, 23% ‘strongly disagree’ that they trust the media, while only 29% expressed trust.

Keep reading

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow’s Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts

MSNBC’s top-rated host Rachel Maddow devoted a segment in 2019 to accusing the right-wing cable outlet One America News (OAN) of being a paid propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. Discussing a Daily Beast article which noted that one OAN reporter was a “Russian national” who was simultaneously writing copy for the Russian-owned outlet Sputnik on a freelance contract, Maddow escalated the allegation greatly into a broad claim about OAN’s real identity and purpose: “in this case,” she announced, “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow’s words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda.” In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow’s own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda”).

In concluding that Maddow’s statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

The judge’s observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda” — was even more damning. Maddow’s own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added):

Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . .

Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.

In sum, ruled the court, Rachel Maddow is among those “speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact.” Despite Maddow’s use of the word “literally” to accuse OAN of being a “paid Russian propaganda” outlet, the court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that, given Maddow’s conduct and her audience’s awareness of who she is and what she does, “the Court finds that the contested statement is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim.”

What makes this particularly notable and ironic is that a similar argument was made a year later by lawyers for Fox News when defending a segment that appeared on the program of its highest-rated program, Tucker Carlson Tonight. That was part of a lawsuit brought by the former model Karen McDougal, who claimed Carlson slandered her by saying she “extorted” former President Trump by demanding payments in exchange for her silence about an extramarital affair she claimed to have with him.

Keep reading

What If The Mainstream Media Had Told The Truth?

What If the Media Had Told the Truth? Five MSM Lies for Which Trump Has Been Vindicated, and the Damage They Caused

Remember that time when the mainstream media lied about former President Donald J. Trump, only to have Trump proven correct afterwards?

“Can you be more specific,” you ask?

Good point.

There are so many to mention, we need to be more precise, so let’s narrow the list down to five, and let’s consider the true impact of their dishonesty.

While the media may have been successful in sustaining political damage against Trump, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement – which was their ultimate goal, no doubt – they also caused significant collateral damage, either unwittingly or uncaringly.

Keep reading

Wikipedia’s Quiet, Big-Tech-Funded Grip On Internet Knowledge Gives It Too Much Power

Wikipedia’s quiet dominance over internet knowledge and close ties to authoritarian big tech companies is giving the online encyclopedia site too much unchecked power.

In one recent example, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is under federal and state investigation for mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and growing list of scandals, is described on his Wikipedia page in a positive light while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential GOP frontrunner for the 2024 presidential election, is painted as a partisan hack who ignored the science.

Anyone who searches for information about both of these governors’ pandemic responses will be given this information that isn’t necessarily true, and Wikipedia doesn’t seem to do anything about it. As a matter of fact, any user who wanted to manipulate a page to fit his agenda could as long as it slipped through Wikipedia’s editing process. That happened seven years ago when a Wikipedia user overlooked The Federalist’s long list of “featured-in” publications and important interviews to try to delete our publication’s entry because, according to the user, it “does not pass the threshold for notability.”

Wikipedia’s move to the left, especially when echoing narratives found in corporate media, is not a sudden one. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is just one of the many people who recently called attention to Wikipedia slowly but surely kissing its neutrality goodbye. In an interview in February, Sanger said the 20-year-old website’s shift towards the left is “disheartening” and “troubling.”

“Wikipedia’s ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work,” Sanger said.

Keep reading

More media lies about Donald Trump and Bill Barr debunked

Insisting that President Donald Trump had politicized the Department of Justice was a regular part of the media assault on him, yet a host of recent developments proves it was all in the press’ fevered, hyperpartisan imagination.

The big one, of course, is the Interior Department inspector general report on the Lafayette Park incident: The IG thoroughly vindicated Trump and then-Attorney General Bill Barr, saying the federal Park Police had decided all on their own last June to clear protesters out of the area to install fencing after several nights of violence and vandalism. It was indeed sheer coincidence that Trump went to the area later that day for a photo op.

Then and since, outlets from CNN and MSNBC to The New York Times and Washington Post repeatedly reported as fact the claim that Trump had demanded the protesters be cleared out of his way.

Some headline samples: “Officers fire tear gas on peaceful protesters to clear the way for Trump’s photo op” (Vox); “Analysis: How the clearing of Lafayette Square made the White House look a bit more like the Kremlin” (Washington Post); “The day police charged a peaceful protest for Trump’s photo-op” (CNN). Heck, a Washington Post “fact checker” is still trying to insist the IG’s report doesn’t really debunk the months of misreporting.

But that’s not the only Trump vindication. President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is standing with the Trump DOJ on a couple of high-profile controversies. It’s gone to court to continue blocking access to internal government documents relating to the Trump International Hotel in DC and to keep secret most of a memo sent to then-AG Barr arguing that Trump should be cleared of obstruction-of-justice charges after the Mueller report refused to take a position on the issue.

Keep reading

CLOWN SHOW: Leftist Hack Who Told Kamala Harris “I Voted for You” at Guatemala Presser — Is a Fake Reporter and Lied About Working at Hispanic Channel

Earlier today at her presser in Guatemala, a far-left reporter “Maria” from UniNoticias told Kamala Harris, “I voted for you.”

This was during the question and answers period today on her disastrous tour of Latin America.

But it was just more fake news.

The “reporter” does not work at UniNoticias or Univision. Daniel Coronell, president of Univision Noticias, released a statement following the presser that Maria Fernanda Reyes DOES NOT work at their media organization.

It was all a stunt by the fake news media.
What horrible and pathetic people.

Keep reading

Jeff Bezos’ Fake News in the Newspaper He Really Owns

Media criticism sometimes involves reading between the lines, assessing the layered meanings of journalistic rhetoric, or considering what’s left unsaid in a given conversation. But we shouldn’t be numb to all the times media problems hit you like a sock in the jaw.

That was the case when readers opened the Washington Post online recently to find a full page “native” ad—that’s the kind designed to look like news—from Amazon (Jacobin5/27/21). Whose owner Jeff Bezos owns the Post and soon MGM (Washington Post5/26/21), among much else.

Blended in with the Post‘s banner and “Democracy Dies in Darkness” tagline, readers got text about how Amazon supports a raise in the federal minimum wage and has been paying its workers $15 an hour since 2018. A big picture showed an African-American employee and her child talking about how Amazon‘s generosity is allowing them to move to a bigger home.

Never mind that, as many could tell you, the company was dragged kicking and screaming to that wage increase (Jacobin10/2/18); that they continue to fund groups that strenuously oppose a $15 minimum wage (Jacobin5/27/21), like the US Chamber of Commerce; that they have vigorously and vehemently opposed union organizing (New York Times3/16/21)—and that no wage can justify the dangerous and degrading conditions Amazon is reported to subject many of its workers to (Intercept3/25/21).

Keep reading

Fake-News Reuters Reports on Feds Seizing $90,000 from Antifa-BLM Organizer John Sullivan — Neglect to Report Most Important Facts

It really is stunning how dishonest the mainstream media has become.
We are at the point where you cannot trust a single item that they publish for mass consumption.

The US government has seized $90,000 from Utah BLM-Antifa organizer who sold footage of the Capitol riot to NBC and CNN.

John Sullivan was paid tens of thousands of dollars by fake news media outlets for his footage of the Capitol riot.

Sullivan wore MAGA gear and claimed to be an independent reporter but he was actually a left-wing insurgence leader encouraging violence and telling people to “burn” the building.

Reuters reported:

U.S. authorities have confiscated roughly $90,000 from a Utah man who sold footage of a woman being fatally shot during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump, according to court filings.

Sullivan now faces a total of eight criminal counts, including weapons charges, related to the riot. Sullivan’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the court filings, Sullivan portrayed himself as an independent journalist who was reporting on the chaos, but actually encouraged other participants to “burn” the building and engage in violence.

It is not until the last paragraph of the article that Reuters slips this in:

“According to media reports, Sullivan participated in Black Lives Matter protests last year. Other Black Lives Matter activists in his home state have disavowed him.”

Of course, this report by Reuters is deceptive and irresponsible on what it leaves out.

The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on Antifa-BLM organizer John Sullivan who dressed in Trump gear to enter the US Capitol and create havoc.

According to our earlier reports — with video– John Sullivan bragged about posing as a Trump supporter, broke a window in the US Capitol and organized two Antifa-BLM events near the US Capitol just hours before the US Capitol was breached.

Keep reading