Tag: media

BBC presenter calls for Trump to be assassinated

BBC presenter David Aaronovitch has called for the “murder” of former US President Donald Trump in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Aaronovitch later deleted his message following a backlash, claiming it had been “satire.” 

Aaronovitch, the voice behind the British state broadcaster’s Radio 4 program ‘The Briefing Room’, tweeted on Monday: “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security.”

The post was accompanied by the hashtag #SCOTUS, indicating that the comment had been triggered by Monday’s confirmation from the US Supreme Court that former presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for their official actions.

Aaronovitch was forced delete the post after an online backlash, and claimed in a follow-up message that he had been accused of inciting violence by “a far right pile.” The presenter insisted his tweet was “plainly a satire.”

Keep reading

Press Repeatedly Demands To Know If Biden Has Dementia During Briefing

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, holding her first proper press briefing for two weeks, was bombarded with questions from reporters repeatedly demanding to know whether Joe Biden is mentally ill.

Jean Pierre became visibly agitated as the reporters from The Independent, Fox News, CBS, CNN, ABC, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, Newsmax, and NBC one by one asked the same question.

Andrew Feinberg from the Independent asked why Biden can’t speak directly to reporters and why he never says anything that isn’t on an auto cue or scripted.

KJP dodged the question, claiming Biden has done hundreds of unscripted interviews.

“I’m going to ask something delicate and you may not like it. The President may not like to hear it if he’s watching but I think the American people need a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Does President Biden, at 81 years old, have Alzheimer’s, any form of dementia, or degenerative illness that may cause these sorts of lapses?” Feinberg followed up.

Keep reading

A Law Professor’s Beef With a First Amendment ‘Spinning Out of Control’: Too Much Speech of the Wrong Sort

“The First Amendment is spinning out of control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have interpreted freedom of speech too broadly, his complaint amounts to a rejection of the premise that the principle should be applied consistently, especially when it benefits speakers and messages he does not like.

The immediate provocation for Wu’s diatribe is yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions in two cases challenging Florida and Texas laws that aimed to restrict content moderation on social media. Although the justices remanded both cases for further consideration by the lower courts, Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice made it clear that the “editorial discretion” protected by the First Amendment extends to the choices that social media platforms make in deciding which content to host and how to present it, even when those decisions are inconsistent, biased, or arguably unfair. And that discretion, she said, includes the use of algorithms that reflect such value judgments.

Although Wu has reservations about “the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws,” he thinks “the breadth of the court’s reasoning should serve as a wake-up call.” He faults the justices for “blithely assuming” that “algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.” The ruling, Wu says, reflects a broader trend in which “liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called ‘speech,’ regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation.”

As Wu sees it, freedom of speech should hinge on the “value” of the ideas that people express. It is hard to imagine a broader license for government censorship.

Keep reading

They Knew

Rarely are so many lies dispelled in a single moment. Rarely are so many people exposed as liars and sycophants. Last night’s debate was a watershed on both counts.

The debate was not just a catastrophe for President Biden. And boy—oy—was it ever.

But it was more than that. It was a catastrophe for an entire class of experts, journalists, and pundits, who have, since 2020, insisted that Biden was sharp as a tack, on top of his game, basically doing handstands while peppering his staff with tough questions about care for migrant children and aid to Ukraine.

Anyone who committed the sin of using their own eyes on the 46th president was accused, variously, of being Trumpers; MAGA cult members who don’t want American democracy to survive; ageists; or just dummies easily duped by “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “fake news,” and, most recently, “cheapfakes.”

Cast your mind back to February, when Robert Hur, the special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice to look into Biden’s handling of classified documents, came out with his report that included details about Biden’s health, which explained why he would not prosecute the president.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote. “It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Can anyone doubt that characterization after watching Biden’s debate performance? 

Yet Eric Holder told us that Hur’s remarks were “gratuitous.” The former attorney general tweeted: “Had this report been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised.” Dan Pfeiffer, a former Obama adviser, said Hur’s report was a “partisan hit job.” Vice President Kamala Harris argued: “The way that the president’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts, and clearly politically motivated, gratuitous.” The report does not “live in reality,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, stressing that the president was “sharp” and “on top of things.” 

Shall I go on? Okay.

Keep reading

EXPOSED: Israeli Documents Reveal Concerted Effort By Government to Put Out Zionist Propaganda in the US Media

Amichai Chikli, a member of the Likud Party and a minister in the Israeli government, has been leading a campaign to spread pro-Israeli propaganda in the United State corporate media. 

According to a report by The Guardian, Chikli was brought before the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to inform elected officials on what could be done about the growing set of anti-war protests from young people all over universities across the US.  

Chikli and his team relaunched the “Concert”, a controversial program initially branded as Kela Shlomo in Hebrew. The program has the ostensive aim of carrying out what the Israeli regime has deemed as ““mass consciousness activities” primarily targeted largely at the US and Europe.” This specific iteration is part of a broader public relations drive to target US institutions of higher learning and change the definition of antisemitism according to US law. 

Concert is currently known as Voices of Israel. Previously, it teamed up with groups leading a campaign to enact so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that sanction Americans for participating in boycotts or other non-violent demonstrations against Israel.

The latest iteration of the program is a concerted effort, often run covertly, by the Jewish state to push back against university protests, human rights organizations and other dissenting voices. 

Voices’ most recent activities were carried out through non-profit organizations and other bodies that often do not reveal their donor information. From October up until May, Chikli has presided over at least $8.6m for a budget that’s allocated towards government advocacy to change the public debate.

One American pro-Zionist group that has been working with Chikli’s ministry, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, or ISGAP, was able to achieve a major victory in recent times. The ISCAP allegedly received the bulk of its funding in 2018 from the Israeli agency that was in charge of operating Concert. At an April 7 event at the Palm Beach Country Club, ISGAP boasted about a congressional public relations victory that it achieved. 

In this instance, they were referring to hearings led by Republicans such as New York Congressman Elise Stefanik designed to grill prominent university presidents such as then-Harvard President Claudine Gay and her counterparts in other elite universities. 

Gay ended up resigning earlier this year for engaging in alleged acts of plagiarism. 

Keep reading

“DMCA Does Not Apply”: Musk Says X Will Not Remove CNN Debate Streams, Footage

X owner Elon Musk has clarified that the platform will not block or remove live streams and footage of the Presidential debate on Thursday, despite apparent demands by CNN that social media companies do not allow creators to use their feed.

Podcaster Tim Pool claimed that he’d been told by CNN that he would not be legally allowed to simulcast the debate and provide his own commentary and fact checks on it.

The Post Millenial then highlighted an email they received from CNN, in which the network stated that “CNN’s debates are exclusive to CNN and may not be streamed or streamed with verbal or digital commentary on any platform or social media site by another party, other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.”

The email also stated “Podcast Use: Similar to broadcast rules, news organizations may use audio clips (up to 3:00 minutes at a time) on their shows after the debate conclude and must credit the ‘CNN Presidential Debate’ verbally in introducing the clip.”

Keep reading

Biden Campaign Launches Taskforce to Combat Alleged “Cheap Fakes,” Urges Media Support

The Biden campaign is putting together a specialized task force that has been formed to counter what it considers manipulated portrayals of President Biden in online videos.

According to a staffer, who spoke with Politico, this initiative aims to “mitigate the risks” associated with these videos, which depict the president in various awkward or confusing situations.

Despite pushback on the Biden administration that the videos are actually accurate and have not been manipulated with AI, this move underscores a deepening concern within the Biden administration regarding the circulation of these clips on social media platforms, often highlighted as signs of the president’s deteriorating mental agility.

The issue gained traction following a press conference where White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the media for distributing footage showing Biden in an unflattering light. Jean-Pierre labeled one such video, which showed former President Barack Obama assisting a seemingly bewildered Biden off a stage, as a “deepfake” and a “cheap fake video done in bad faith.”

Further incidents adding to the controversy include Biden’s peculiar behavior during a G7 summit and a Juneteenth event. In one instance, he was seen wandering away from a group of world leaders and in another, appearing disoriented among dancing attendees.

The campaign’s approach has sparked criticism from various quarters, accusing it of attempting to censor and control the narrative surrounding the president’s public appearances. Social media reactions have been sharply divided, with some users mocking the campaign’s efforts to label these videos as “cheap fakes” and questioning the integrity of the mainstream media’s coverage of these events.

Keep reading

MSNBC Host Takes Issue With The Term ‘Illegal’ To Describe Rapists And Killers

During a discussion about the sheer volume of illegal aliens who have raped and killed Americans since arriving in the country, an MSNBC host appeared more offended by the use of the term “illegal” than by the crimes themselves.

The discussion was taking place between former RNC chairman Michael Steele, who somehow has sidestepped into being an MSNBC co-host, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

The pair were talking about Donald Trump’s vow to instigate mass deportations, with the justification that many who have come to the country illegally are committing crimes.

The other co-host, Symone Sanders-Townsend, attempted to downplay that reality by quoting some study or other from three years ago.

After Sanders-Townsend insisted she was “just giving the numbers,” Roberts countered “Well, what do you tell the parents of those people, those young girls that are being killed? This is absurd. The preponderance of these folks, Michael, are male…”

Steele interjected and asked, “What is the difference between an illegal immigrant who, unfortunately, engages in that activity…” with Sanders-Townsend then interrupting and stating “we don’t like that, I want to be clear, we don’t use the term ‘illegal’ for undocumented indviduals.”

Steele then pathetically corrected himself, “yes, undocumented individuals,” while Roberts asserted “they’re illegal aliens.”

Keep reading

Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal laughs at news coverage of migrant who raped NYC 13-year-old girl

Something funny, Congresswoman?

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) had herself a good chuckle during an MSNBC interview this week in which she mocked news coverage of the case of an Ecuadorian migrant accused of having bound, gagged and raped a 13-year-old girl in a Queens park.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus chairwoman scoffed at a Fox News chyron during a Tuesday appearance on “The Reidout” that touched on the appalling June 13 attack by Christian Geovanny Inga-Landi, 25, who admitted to cops he recorded his sick deeds.

“There’s a lot of fear-mongering,” Jayapal told host Joy Reid after hailing President Biden’s executive order to extend permanent residency status to migrant spouses of US citizens who have lived in the country for at least 10 years.

Reid then turned Jayapal’s attention to a sample of Tuesday’s media coverage.

“Here’s the three cable networks’ reporting of this,” the host said. “Our [MSNBC’s] banner said, ‘Soon: Biden announces legal protections for undocumented spouses of citizens.’ CNN’s banner said, ‘Biden announces new protections for some undocumented spouses.’”

“Here was Fox’s banner, ‘Migrant arrested for raping 13-year-old New York City girl,’” she added, inaccurately claiming that the cable news ratings leader did not cover the executive order on its Tuesday broadcasts.

Keep reading

Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth Continues Campaign to Embarrass and Humiliate Herself

As we head into the weekend, a quick note that Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth remains one of the most ridiculous dunderheads in science writing, a journalism adjacent field of writing that many reporters refer to with derision as “scicomm.” Earlier this week, a reader sent me this post on Blue Sky, with Helmuth promoting an article falsely claiming there was evidence to support six-feet social distancing during COVID.

There isn’t. Former NIH Director Francis Collins and Tony Fauci have both testified to Congress that this evidence doesn’t exist.

Helmuth shoehorns this narrative into Scientific American by ignoring Tony Fauci’s congressional testimony that six feet social distancing was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data” and then insisting it’s actually just a political fight between Fauci and Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican Congresswoman long known for making outlandish statements that often stretch the fabric of reality.

Just like Laura Helmuth.

Keep reading