Tag: media

‘Everyone does it’: media pilfering from Air Force One prompts clampdown

A White House staffer recently met a reporter for a covert assignment by the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square.

But the House of Cards-esque rendezvous was not staged to hand over state secrets, or leak presidential gossip, or even to spread dirt on Joe Biden’s opponents. The item handed over – an embroidered pillowcase from Air Force One – was handed back, by the reporter involved.

So said Politico, reporting an attempt to clamp down on theft of branded items from the presidential plane.

The meeting by the Jackson statue, Politico said, came about after US air force crew members alerted the White House travel office that a west coast trip in early February ended with “several [items] missing from the press cabin”.

An email went out, described by one of no less than six anonymous sources as saying: “Hey, if you inadvertently wound up taking something off the plane by mistake, we can help facilitate a quiet return.”

The reporter who took the pillowcase had done so “probably not by accident”, Politico said. And so the meeting was arranged, the item “changed hands, and that was that”.

According to Politico, the White House press pack has long seen Air Force One as a source of souvenirs.

One unnamed current White House reporter said: “On my first flight, the person next to me was like, ‘You should take that glass.’ They were like, ‘Everyone does it.’”

Several unnamed sources, meanwhile, described to Politico a “former White House correspondent for a major newspaper” hosting a dinner party using “gold-rimmed Air Force One plates, evidently taken bit by bit over the course of some time”.

“Reporters recalled coming down the back stairs after returning to Joint Base Andrews in the evening with the sounds of clinking glassware or porcelain plates in their backpacks,” the site said.

Nor is such light-fingeredness a new phenomenon.

Keep reading

The Associated Press Gaslights Struggling Americans, Claims Lower Prices Would Actually Be a Bad Thing

The Associated Press (AP) is running cover for the rampant inflation experienced under Joe Biden by claiming that falling prices would actually be a bad thing.

In an article by the AP’s economics writer Paul Wiseman, he makes the case that lower prices would be worse for the economy as it is a sign of deflation:

Wouldn’t it be great if prices actually fell — what economists call deflation? Who wouldn’t want to fire up a time machine and return to the days before the economy rocketed out of the pandemic recession and sent prices soaring?

At least prices are now rising more slowly — what’s called disinflation. On Friday, for example, the government said a key price gauge rose 0.3% in February, down from a 0.4% gain in January. And compared with a year earlier, prices were up 2.5%, way down from a peak of 7.1% in mid-2022.

But those incremental improvements are hardly enough to please the public, whose discontent over prices poses a risk to President Joe Biden’s re-election bid.

Wiseman goes on to make the case that prices going back to what they were before Biden took office would have a detrimental impact:

“Most Americans are not just looking for disinflation,’’ Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, said last year. “They’re looking for deflation. They want these prices to be back where they were before the pandemic.’’

Many economists caution, though, that consumers should be careful what they wish for. Falling prices across the economy would actually be an unhealthy sign.

“There are,’’ the Bank of England warns, “more consequences from falling prices than meets the eye.’’

Deflation is, of course, a well known phenomenon that can have serious negative economic consequences. However, what most Americans probably wish for is that inflation had never been allowed to skyrocket in the first place, instead remaining at a healthy level of between one and two percent.

Keep reading

NBC REJECTS TRUMP VOICE BUT EMBRACES WAR PARTY

“YOU WOULDN’T HIRE a made man, like a mobster, to work at a DA’s office, right?” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said this week of NBC’s decision to hire former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, a decision the network later reversed. “You wouldn’t hire a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener.” 

But NBC does just that with another party: its pro-war stable of retired military generals and admirals who hold forth on wars and threats to national security. A partisan voice if there ever was one, the TV generals and admirals are all the more scandalous because the network presents them as objective “analysts” as they sit on defense industry and corporate boards that profit from forever wars, including ones not being fought by the United States directly. The conflict is not just tolerated by NBC, it is also never disclosed. (NBC did not respond to a request for comment on its current conflict of interest policies.)

“The U.S. needs to get involved in a leadership role here [in Haiti] and very quickly,” retired four-star Adm. James Stavridis said on the air earlier this month, speaking of the deteriorating situation. Stavridis calls for the deployment of a U.S.-led intervention force, warning of the consequences of inaction. “In the ’90s, we had waves of migration, refugee-driven, from Haiti,” he said.

The host, NBC News’s Gabe Gutierrez, to his credit, pushed back. “Admiral, you know this better than anybody else: The history of American intervention in the Americas has not always been that great,” he said. But the network, in giving Stavridis a platform — just as they would have done with McDaniel — doesn’t bother to mention that their “analyst” profits from the use of military force. For example, Stavridis serves as partner of the investment firm Carlyle Group, owner of major defense contractors and which lists the admiral among its Global Aerospace and Government Services Team. 

Keep reading

PBS Segment Claims Trump Wants To “Purge” Gay People From America

In a ludicrous paranoid segment on PBS NewsHour this week, the network’s White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez claimed that Donald Trump is not only planning to roll back “civil rights,” but also to “purge” LGBT people from the country.

Barron-Lopez and anchor William Brangham made the assertions while discussing Trump’s real criticism of transgender surgery and hormone therapy being carried out on children, and biological men competing in women’s sports.

“On the campaign trail, Trump has been talking about what he plans to do if elected in November, and that includes rolling back the rights of millions of LGBTQ people. It’s part of a wider playbook to undo many modern civil rights advances for minority groups,” Brangham asserted.

He then introduced Barron-Lopez, who claimed Trump “plans quick action if elected,” against LGBT people.

She then suggested that Trump and “roughly 100 right-wing organisations led by the Heritage Foundation,” have a secret plan to wipe out LGBTQ people… or something.

What does the dastardly plan consist of? Eliminating DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) from government mandates and banning federal funding for teaching Critical Race Theory.

OK, those things are not civil rights. If anything they are in direct opposition to civil rights because they discriminate based on skin colour.

Barron-Lopez, who is also a CNN political analyst, then complained that Trump will “rescind health-care protections for transgender people and urge Congress to define gender as male and female, fixed at birth.”

Without any actual explanation or evidence she further asserted that “this plan also is trying to stop any and all acknowledgement of an acceptance of gender identity and LGBTQ people, period.”

Keep reading

ABC News Asks Judge for More Time to Respond to Trump Lawsuit

American Broadcasting Companies Inc. (ABC) and ABC News have sought a 30-day delay to respond to a defamation lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against the network and its host George Stephanopoulos.

In his lawsuit, President Trump argues that Mr. Stephanopoulos made a dozen allegedly defamatory remarks on air on March 10 when the host repeatedly stated that a jury had found the former president liable for the rape of writer E. Jean Carroll.

According to a court filing, ABC, which was served on March 19, reached out the next day to President Trump’s attorneys, who consented to the broadcaster’s accepting service on behalf of Mr. Stephanopoulos, who hadn’t been served.

The broadcaster has until April 9 to file a response motion, and Mr. Stephanopoulos has until May 20.

ABC has requested a uniform response date of May 10.

“That date will extend the deadline for the corporate Defendants’ response by 30 days, while reducing the deadline for Defendant Stephanopoulos’s response by 10 days. Plaintiff consents to this request,” the court filing reads.

Keep reading

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey Files Lawsuit Against Media Matters for Refusal to Cooperate with State Investigation and Turn Over Documents Related to Twitter-X Fraud Investigation

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed suit on Monday against Media Matters for America for refusal to cooperate with a Missouri State investigation.

This comes after AG Andrew Bailey sued Media Matters in December for violating state consumer protection laws and defrauding Missourians.

AG Andrew Bailey accused Media Matters of using fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey made this explosive accusation, “We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America.”

The Missouri Attorney General did not hold back in his attacks on Media Matters alleging the enemies of free speech, like Media Matters for America, are attempting to kill Twitter-X because they cannot control it now that Elon Musk took over. Bailey added, “I’m fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.”

Media Matters for America (MMFA) refused to turn over court ordered documents so on Monday Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed lawsuit against MMFA for their refusal to cooperate in the state’s investigation.

Keep reading

If You’re a US Reporter, Anything but Rabidly Pro-Israel Coverage Is Dangerous to Your Career

Early in 2003, Ashleigh Banfield was a star in the making. A rising journalist at MSNBC, she covered the opening stages of the Iraq War. Before that, she’d made a name for herself covering the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. Smart, pretty, highly skilled, she was heading nowhere but up. Until she gave an honest lecture on her experiences in Iraq and the Middle East on April 24, 2003.

I’ve written before about Banfield’s honest and heartfelt critique of Iraq war coverage in the U.S. mainstream media, which won her no friends at NBC News. In fact, the NBC brass sidelined and essentially exiled her. I recently reread her Landon Lecture at Kansas State University and realized NBC wasn’t just angry about her critique of mainstream media war coverage: they were likely even more incensed at how she humanized and empathized with Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples and groups, including organizations like Hezbollah.

Here’s some of what she had to say back then in 2003:

But it’s interesting to be able to cover this [Israel and Palestine]. There’s nothing in the world like being able to cross a green line whenever you want and speak to both sides of a conflict. I can’t tell you how horrible and wonderful it is at the same time in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel. There are very few people in this world who can march right across guarded check points, closed military zones, and talk to Palestinians in the same day that they almost embedded with Israeli troops, and that’s something that we get to do on a regular basis.

And I just wish that the leadership of all these different entities, ours included, could do the same thing, because they would have an eye opening experience, horrible and wonderful, all at the same time, and it would give a lot of insight as to how messages are heard and how you can negotiate. Because you cannot negotiate when someone can’t hear you or refuses to hear you or can’t even understand your language, and that’s clearly what’s happening in a lot of places in the world right now, the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, not the least of which there’s very little listening and understanding going on. Our language is entirely different than theirs, and I don’t just mean the words. When you hear the word Hezbollah you probably think evil, danger, terror right away. If I could just see a show of hands. Who thinks that Hezbollah is a bad word? Show of hands. Usually connotes fear, terror, some kind of suicide bombing. If you live in the Arab world, Hezbollah means Shriner. Hezbollah means charity, Hezbollah means hospitals, Hezbollah means welfare and jobs.

These are not the same organizations we’re dealing with. How can you negotiate when you’ re talking about two entirely different meanings? And until we understand – we don’t have to like Hizbullah, we don’t have to like their militancy, we don’t have to like what they do on the side, but we have to understand that they like it, that they like the good things about Hizbullah, and that you can’t just paint it with a blanket statement that it’s a terrorist organization, because even when it comes to the militancy these people believe that militancy is simply freedom fighting and resistance. You can’t argue with that. You can try to negotiate, but you can’t say it’s wrong flat out.

And that’s some of the problems we have in dealing in this war in terror. As a journalist I’m often ostracized just for saying these messages, just for going on television and saying, “Here’s what the leaders of Hezbullah are telling me and here’s what the Lebanese are telling me and here’s what the Syrians have said about Hezbullah. Here’s what they have to say about the Golan Heights.” Like it or lump it, don’t shoot the messenger, but invariably the messenger gets shot.

We hired somebody on MSNBC recently named Michael Savage. Some of you may know his name already from his radio program. He was so taken aback by my dare to speak with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade about why they do what they do, why they’re prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they call a freedom fight and we call terrorism. He was so taken aback that he chose to label me as a slut on the air. And that’s not all, as a porn star. And that’s not all, as an accomplice to the murder of Jewish children. So these are the ramifications for simply being the messenger in the Arab world.

Emphasis added. Original spelling retained. You can watch her speech here.

Keep reading

Media Blocked From Border Area Where Ilegals Overran National Guard

The Customs and Border Protection Agency has blocked the media from accessing the area where hordes of illegal immigrants overran the National Guard in El Paso earlier this week, leaving reporters asking how they are supposed to do their jobs.

Footage emerged Thursday of illegal immigrants literally tearing down barriers near El Paso, Texas and storming the border, braying to be let into the US.

Now, two days later, this sign has been put up instructing the media to basically stay away.

Can’t have anybody documenting the border crisis any further right?

Keep reading

Social Media Erupts After Depraved Former NBC Executive Posts a Creepy Tweet Targeting President Trump’s Youngest Son Barron on His 18th Birthday

A depraved former NBC executive set off an internet firestorm Wednesday after posting a creepy tweet targeting President Trump’s youngest son on the day he turned 18.

Mike Sington, who served as the Director of Operations for NBC Universal from 1986-2016, sent a now-removed tweet calling Barron Trump “fair game” now that he was a legal adult.

“Barron Trump turns 18 today,” Sington wrote. “He’s fair game now.”

Unsurprisingly, social media erupted in anger upon learning of this disturbing post, with many users accusing him of preying on Barron.

Keep reading

How the Western Media Helped Build the Case for Genocide in Gaza

The past five months have been clarifying. What was supposed to be hidden has been thrust into the light. What was supposed to be obscured has come sharply into focus.

Liberal democracy is not what it seems.

It has always defined itself in contrast to what it says it is not. Where other regimes are savage, it is humanitarian. Where others are authoritarian, it is open and tolerant. Where others are criminal, it is law-abiding. When others are belligerent, it seeks peace. Or so the manuals of liberal democracy argue.

But how to keep the faith when the world’s leading liberal democracies – invariably referred to as “the West” – are complicit in the crime of crimes: genocide?

Not just law-breaking or a misdemeanor, but the extermination of a people. And not just quickly, before the mind has time to absorb and weigh the gravity and extent of the crime, but in slow motion, day after day, week after week, month after month.

What kind of system of values can allow for five months the crushing of children under rubble, the detonation of fragile bodies, the wasting away of babies, while still claiming to be humanitarian, tolerant, peace-seeking?

And not just allow all this, but actively assist in it. Supply the bombs that blow those children to pieces or bring houses down on them, and sever ties to the only aid agency that can hope to keep them alive.

The answer, it seems, is the West’s system of values.

The mask has not just slipped, it has been ripped off. What lies beneath is ugly indeed.

Keep reading