Tag: mainstream media

New York Times report on AIPAC hides a central truth about Israel’s unpopularity

At first glance, that recent New York Times article on AIPAC, the wealthy pro-Israel lobbying organization, may have looked promising. It ran on the front page of the Sunday print edition, the week’s most prominent location. It jumped inside, where it covered nearly an entire page. It was 53 paragraphs long. The byline indicated that 4 Times reporters had worked on the article.

But, astonishingly, not a single one of those 53 paragraphs explained that AIPAC’s efforts to influence American elections have changed dramatically in recent years. These days, the organization often actually hides its pro-Israel views, even though promoting Israel is the only reason it exists in the first place. Instead, it dumps money into political campaigns and frequently raises issues that have absolutely no connection to Israel and Palestine.

Let’s take, for example, the Democratic primary earlier this year for the House seat in New Jersey’s 13th Congressional district. AIPAC decided to target Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who had the temerity to mildly suggest that military aid to Israel should be “conditioned” on its human rights record. This site’s estimable Michael Arria succinctly explained how AIPAC acted:

“Of course, AIPAC can’t actually run ads telling Democratic voters to reject Malinowski for being sufficiently pro-Israel as the [Democratic] base has completely soured on the country, and lobbying groups supporting that relationship.

“So, the AIPAC-funded [television] ads attack Malinowski for allegedly supporting Trump’s immigration policies. The allegation stems from a 2019 vote, in which that year Congress passed a funding bill that included money for law enforcement at the southern border. Most Democrats, including Malinowski, backed the package.”

(In that race, AIPAC’s strategy backfired. It dumped $2 million into TV ads attacking Malinowski — which apparently damaged him enough so that Analilia Mejia, who is even more progressive on Israel/Palestine, won the Democratic primary, and is presently in Congress.)    

AIPAC’s new stealth strategy was by no means a secret. Both Politico and MS Now covered the New Jersey race, and revealed the Israel lobby’s behind the scenes maneuvering.

AIPAC deployed the same stealth strategy in August, when it helped defeat progressive former Rep. Cori Bush’s effort to win back her seat in Missouri’s Democratic primary. The pro-Israel lobby had already helped her opponent, Wesley Bell, two years before. This time around, AIPAC’s ads sidestepped Israel again, and instead emphasized Bush’s alleged missed votes in Congress and her supposed criticism of the Biden administration. 

So: how did 4 NYTimes reporters, who were handed 53 paragraphs of space, miss this vital Stealth AIPAC angle? How did the echelon of editors who reviewed the report also fail to do anything? The only plausible explanations are institutional bias and conscious whitewashing and self-censorship.

Keep reading

Zelensky Responds to Trump Calling for New President – Nearly Cries While Playing Victim and Demanding More US Support

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ran to ABC for an interview on Sunday to respond to Trump’s fury toward him and whine about the United States not giving enough support for him to try and win the war. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump went off on Zelensky yesterday after announcing a deal with Russia to sell diesel to the US. While speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump blasted the Ukrainian President’s refusal to make peace and blamed him for the continuation of the war with Russia after Ukraine’s latest attack on a Russian oil export hub.

“I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president,” Trump said, blaming Zelensky for high oil and diesel prices.

Trump later doubled down last night, saying Zelensky “should have an election” and that “Putin would like to see a settlement strongly,” but “Zelensky does not want to make a deal.”

Zelensky on Sunday told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that it’s Russia’s fault that the war has continued, calling for a ceasefire. “Don’t attack us. Don’t kill our children. We will stop attacking your diesel. And I think it’s fair, fair deal,” he said. It should be noted that Zelensky turned down a US-backed ceasefire back in February 2025 when he and Trump had an explosive meeting in the Oval Office.

Zelensky further responded to Trump’s calls for an election and new president, claiming “it’s up to our people” to choose a leader as he continues to hold the country under martial law, barring an election.

Keep reading

After 3 Years, Mainstream Media Accepts That Netanyahu Knew Oct 7 Would Happen—And Allowed It

The mainstream corporate media — always a mere two to three years behind on every story — is finally coming to terms with (some of) the reality of the October 7, 2023, attack. It is suddenly acceptable for the liberal corporate pro-Israel outlets to say Netanyahu obviously knew October 7th was going to happen.

It’s been three years since the attack. For three whole years, many of us in the endlessly maligned and suppressed independent media world have been shouting from the hills that Israel’s ruling elite knew the attacks would happen, knew exactly how they would happen, facilitated them by pulling troops and security away from the border wall, then greatly amped up the death count by having the Israeli military massacre hundreds of innocent people via the Hannibal Directive.

For revealing the truth, per usual, we are mocked, suppressed, harassed and called conspiracy theorists.

And just this week, our beloved corporate media outlets such as NPR, MS Now, The Atlantic, BBC, the New York Times and more have “realized” we were right all along.

Keep reading

Genocide Treated as Afterthought by Media on Third Anniversary of October 7 Attacks

October 7 marked three years since the Hamas attacks on Israel that left some 1,200 people dead and 251 taken hostage. It also marks three years since Israel launched its genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with material and moral support from the United States, with an official death toll surpassing 74,000—including more than 20,000 children.

The official death toll is no doubt an underestimate, given the large number of missing and disappeared persons. (When Western corporate media outlets cite this toll, they often feel compelled to qualify it—e.g., as the BBC [10/7/26] had it, the “war between Israel and Hamas has killed more than 74,200 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, whose overall figures are seen as accurate by the UN”—lest, presumably, they be seen as taking Hamas’s word for it that the figure is so high.)

The killing spree continues in spite of an alleged ceasefire implemented last year, although the Jerusalem Post (10/5/26) charitably reckons that “less than 50%” of the casualties have been civilians.

The genocide was not, of course, a sudden violent outburst that came out of nowhere. Rather, it was a climax of genocidal momentum that had been building since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, which was itself achieved via the destruction of some 530 Palestinian villages, the killing of 15,000 Palestinians, and the expulsion of three-quarters of a million more.

Now, three years later, the corporate media still can’t bring themselves to refer to the genocide of Palestinians as such—notwithstanding it being a pretty textbook case of the phenomenon. Predictably, then, the third anniversary of the commencement of mass slaughter and devastation in Gaza has been cast in corporate media as an afterthought to the anniversary of the Hamas attacks.

Keep reading

BUSTED! Far-Left ABC News Caught Spreading Defamatory Lies About Trump’s Sons — Then Quietly Deletes Fake News Hit Piece Without Issuing a Retraction or Apology

The Corporate Fake News Media has reached a brand-new, shameful low, and this time, Disney-owned ABC News needs to be sued straight into bankruptcy.

On Wednesday, the radical hacks at ABC News published a completely fabricated, malicious hit piece targeting Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

The mainstream media propaganda outlet falsely claimed that the Trump brothers’ conservative venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, had taken a massive, multi-billion dollar stake in the defense technology company Anduril.

On Wednesday, October 7, ABC published a story under the headline “Trump sons’ investments have won billions in Pentagon contracts since his election.”

The hit piece claimed that 1789 Capital, the venture firm where Donald Trump Jr. is one of six partners, had taken a “major stake” in defense tech company Anduril out of a $2.5 billion funding round.

It further asserted that Anduril went on to score more than $6 billion in lucrative Pentagon contracts directly tied to this investment, including a massive new shipyard deal, implying pay-to-play favoritism under the Trump administration.

“The company is one of the largest manufacturers to receive an investment from Donald Trump Jr. and his brother Eric Trump, but they are not the only one,” according to the now-deleted article.

“An ABC News analysis found defense companies backed by the president’s sons, including Anduril, have now raked in more than $6 billion dollars in active or promised government contracts since those investments were made, according to the government’s official contract reporting,” the outlet said.

Naturally, the Far-Left smear machine immediately went into overdrive. Radical California Governor Gavin Newsom and a army of unhinged Democrats quickly weaponized ABC’s outright lies, pushing the viral hit piece across social media to frame the First Family.

Keep reading

Liberals accused of feeding bill details to CBC and Globe before MPs

Conservative and NDP MPs are accusing the Liberal government of giving journalists advance details of legislation before parliamentarians could examine it, alleging the leaks undermine parliamentary scrutiny.

As reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, NDP MP Don Davies joined Conservative Opposition House Leader Andrew Scheer in condemning disclosures about Bill C-40, which would make the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation.

The government tabled the bill Tuesday. A day earlier, the Globe and Mail reported the planned change, citing three unnamed sources. CBC published a similar report that evening, citing two federal sources.

Both outlets said their sources were not authorized to speak publicly. The Prime Minister’s Office told the Globe it would not comment on legislation before it was tabled.

Davies, who represents Vancouver Kingsway, argued that the reports contained substantive details unavailable to MPs and beyond what the bill’s title disclosed on the order paper.

He accused the government of repeatedly using unauthorized disclosures to influence public debate, saying leaks become a parliamentary privilege issue when legislation is already on notice, but MPs have yet to see it.

Davies said parliamentarians must defend their right to receive legislative details before journalists do.

Scheer also raised the matter in the Commons, arguing that leaking provisions of Bill C-40 showed contempt for Parliament.

“The House must stand up for its rights,” Scheer said, criticizing a government he accused of treating Parliament as “a mere speed bump.”

The objections concern opposition allegations of a breach of parliamentary privilege. The supplied report does not identify a Speaker’s ruling on the matter.

Keep reading

Axios Looks for Silver Lining in Trump’s Tinfoil Economy

Axios (10/5/26) thinks it’s spotted a mystery: “President Trump’s economic data keeps getting stronger. His economic polling keeps getting worse by the day.”

Or as the political news site put it in an earlier story (9/30/26): “America’s economy is roaring ahead. And Americans feel lousy about it.”

As both stories note, people don’t feel like the economy is “roaring ahead.” So what’s the proof that they’re wrong? As is its wont, Axios provides bullet points in the October 5 piece to lay out the “ample evidence the economy is, statistically speaking, relatively strong.”

First up: “Economic growth is solid and accelerating.” The link that backs that up goes to the September 30 piece, which reported, “The economy grew at a 2.2% annualized rate in the second quarter, a sharp upgrade from the 1.5% previously reported.”

Is 2.2% growth “relatively strong,” though? Average annual GDP growth since 1947 is 3.2%, a full percentage point higher. If that seems like too long a time frame for comparison, the Biden years—a period when the economy was rarely described as “roaring ahead” or “relatively strong”—averaged 3.7% annual GDP growth. Leaving out 2021—an exceptional year when the economy bounced back strongly from the Covid recession—still leaves Biden’s economy growing at 2.8% a year.

Relatively speaking, then, Trump’s growth is rather weak. It’s not “accelerating,” either; over the six quarters so far of Trump’s second term, the average annual growth rate has been 2.2%—the same as in the most recent quarter.

Keep reading

Watch the Hosts of ‘The View’ Openly Campaign for Texas Democrat James Talarico on the Air

This week, Ana Navarro, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the crew on ‘The View’ openly campaigned for far left Texas Democrat James Talarico on the air, in what seems to be a clear violation of FCC rules.

This has been happening a lot lately. Less than two weeks ago, Ana Navarro openly campaigned for a Democrat running for a House seat in Florida.

Trump’s FCC has been looking into these claims. It couldn’t be more obvious, could it?

The hosts are openly cheerleading for the Democrats to win.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

SUNNY HOSTIN: I think we will. I think we will see Texas go blue, actually.

I really do.

In September not only one but eight pollsters had Talarico ahead. 51 to 45 percent. That’s significant given a Democrat hasn’t won statewide office in 30 years. That same poll showed that he is leading Paxton among women, 56 percent to 40 percent. Among voters, 18 to 29, 66 percent to 22 percent. And among Hispanics 62 percent to 30 percent. We are talking about Texas. He is going to win this race.

GOLDBERG: We’ll see. We’ll see.

GOLDBERG: Remember. As – I’m sorry. As you guys pointed out the other day, we’ve seen this before. We have seen – I and suddenly some weird number comes out. And you’re going, ‘wait, what happened?’ So, fingers crossed.

ANA NAVARRO: You’re not kidding. 2016 left me scarred.

GOLDBERG: I know.

Keep reading

The Left Doesn’t Count Votes. It Finds Them.

f you saw a recent NYT report on Brazil’s election between incumbent socialist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and conservative Flávio Bolsonaro, you may have noticed that the Left’s “paper of record” made an astounding, if unintended, admission in the headline: it reveals its conception of elections. In its words, “Flávio Bolsonaro’s first round lead leaves President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva three weeks to find the votes to stop Brazil’s rightward shift” (italics mine). It doesn’t say “prevail in the election by voter turnout,” but it casts the election as an implied political obligation to manufacture ballots to block voter will and engineer an imposed social order against it. This is clearly the Left’s intention in November.

While this may read as routine journalism, or perhaps just wishful thinking on the writers’ part, it may strike some readers as more of a Freudian slip about how the Left’s mental worldview works: leftist parties operate under a duty to manufacture enough ballots to overcome an election deficit. If your candidate falls behind, you intervene on the sidelines to close the gap. This is now their “normalized” concept of an election.

More than that, progressives have inverted the structure of an election from one that sets two opponents in passive receipt of votes to an actively managed, planned event that aids one side during the election. What was traditionally an arm’s-length contest becomes a pre-existing agreement.

Rather than preserving a quiet period after the close of campaigning to measure the public result of candidate marketing through voluntary voter turnout, the election becomes merely part of their total political campaign operation. It turns votes into indicators, and the indicators into corrective ballot measures.

This obviously goes by other names, such as rigging, stealing, cheating, and fraud, but the extraordinary aspect of this language in the NYT is how it reveals a shift in political psychology and a determination to make that abnormal psychology generally accepted behavior. It resembles the Left’s efforts to make people think that transgender athletes are legitimate contestants among biological females: it asks you to accept a fraud as a right, and, more than that, that you are wrong for questioning it. That is how election fraud works: objections violate a higher moral standing claimed by the victor, even though the victor obtained it through deception.

To use an analogy, it is like two horses in a race where the spectators rush the racetrack on the losing horse, inject him with amphetamines, block the other rider, and the racing judge looks the other way, while the crowd is asked to keep quiet out of fairness to the horse.

To use a good legal analogy, it would be like two legal opponents in a trial, along with their lawyers, actually accompanying the jury into the deliberation room and trying to measure which way they’re leaning and “tip” the scales. Jurors privately deliberate after closing arguments because they weigh what they heard and reach a protected verdict based only on the evidence presented in open court.

Elections are the same: voters effectively go into private deliberation after hearing both sides, cast their ballots in private, and the verdict is then announced in the open “public court.” We have certain appeal processes for election irregularity (e.g., Florida in 2000 and Bush v. Gore), or for an election “mistrial,” as in a deadlock (a runoff or recount), including the discretion to count state electors (e.g., Pence, 2021). In all cases, the counting or verdict is subject to a quiet period, and campaigning of any kind must stand down.

The other key factor in Brazil that is reframing the Left’s vision of elections is based on its paranoia that any conservative candidate is a Trump candidate and ally and part of a larger plan to aid and abet President Trump’s mandates (“Brazil Is a Sign of Things to Come,” NYT, 10.5.26). But South America (and Cuba as well) has been dragging behind the West economically for decades because of its leftist political corruption and because it swings in the extreme between Left populists and Right militarists. Rarely has an actual business conservative, or even a moderate leader, emerged.

Keep reading

BBC pays white staff less than ethnic minorities – report 

White employees at the BBC earn less than their ethnic minority colleagues in six of seven salary grades, according to the British broadcaster’s 2025/26 annual report. The figures have raised new questions about the corporation’s drive to promote ethnic minority staff and its possible impact on pay.

According to the BBC’s 2025/26 pay gap report, highlighted by The Telegraph on Wednesday, black, Asian, mixed-race and other ethnic minority employees earn 13.2% more in median hourly pay than white colleagues in the lowest salary band. Even among the broadcaster’s most senior executives, the gap stands at 5.3%.

White employees came out ahead in just one category, where their median hourly pay was 0.6% higher. Across the BBC as a whole, however, white staff still earned 0.7% more, largely because they held a greater share of the highest-paid jobs.

Keep reading