Tag: media

Media Claims “Right Wing Activists” Got Doritos’ Trans Brand Ambassador Fired

Oily GMO tortilla chip brand Doritos has fired a non-binary transgender ‘brand ambassador’ who previously posted horrible tweets, some of which seemed to express a desire to carry out sexual abuse on children, prompting some legacy media outlets to claim that “right wing activists” were behind the backlash.

As we highlighted last week, the ‘transgender artist’ Samantha Hudson, formally known as Iván González Ranedo, was given the role for Doritos in Spain and featured in sponsored programming.

It quickly emerged that Hudson holds some vile views in general, including apparent hatred for female victims of sexual abuse, and also previously posted crazy statements to social media wishing to anally rape a 12-year-old girl.

Following obvious backlash, Doritos terminated the agreement with the person, noting in a statement to NBC News “We [Doritos Spain] recently created a content series with Samantha Hudson, a local influencer. After the campaign started, we were made aware of Samantha’s deleted Tweets from around 2015.”

“We have ended the relationship and stopped all related campaign activity due to the comments,” the statement continues.

While the pedophilic tweets were not specifically mentioned, the statement also said “We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind.”

Hudson claimed Wednesday that the tweets were all jokes and that they were taken out of context.

The posts had previously surfaced in 2021, and Hudson claimed “I didn’t even remember having written such atrocities. At that time At that time I dedicated myself to saying stupid things, the heavier the better, because I believed that ‘dark humor’ was fun. Logically, I don’t think that way anymore.”

‘Joke’ or not, this person saying they wish to sexually abuse children is certainly not a good look for Doritos or its parent company PepsiCo.

Reporting on the development, however, some news outlets including NBC News and the BBC have claimed that the backlash against Hudson and Doritos was “led by right wing activists.”

Keep reading

BBC Tries To Frame AI Parody Images as a “Disinformation” Scoop

The BBC used to produce some of the best comedy series – but now many of the “comedians” seem to have moved to the news division.

To make things more perplexing, they appear not to – or not want to – understand humor. Now they (pretend?) not to understand content produced by obviously parody accounts, and (pretend?) to be taking them seriously.

So now, critically minded observers are not laughing with the BBC, but at them, especially when the BBC comes out with a deceptive podcast episode (based on parody content, falsely framed as “serious news).

The target: the highly likely US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

It’s one thing to not like Trump – but is it worth, so to speak, “burning your own house down?” In this case, what remains of BBC’s once commanding credibility?

And yet the situation is actually no laughing matter, in terms of free speech and free press. Unsatisfied with turning out questionable, in terms of bias, and just clickbaity content these last years, the BBC News would clearly like to establish itself as an arbiter of truth for other media to follow. Absurd, or what?

Keep reading

MSNBC Cuts Off Trump Victory Speech; Claims It’s “Irresponsible” To Broadcast

MSNBC’s salty anchor Rachel Maddow once again cut away from Donald Trump giving a victory speech after winning 15 of the Super Tuesday states, reasoning that it is “irresponsible to allow” Trump to “knowingly lie.”

As Trump was speaking, Maddow interjected “Yeeeaaaah okay,” while one of the other clowns laughed in the background.

The anchor then stated, “I will say it is a decision that we revisit constantly in terms of the balance between allowing somebody to knowingly lie on your air about things they have lied about before and you can predict they are going to lie about, so therefore, it is irresponsible to allow them to do that.”

Maddow continued, “It is a balance between knowing that that is irresponsible to broadcast and also knowing that as the de facto soon to be de facto nominee of the Republican party, this is not only the man who is likely to be the Republican candidate for president, but this is the way he is running.”

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle chimed in “Well here is how to balance it. We fact check the hell out of him.”

“Yes, and we do that after the fact,” Maddow responded, adding “That is the best remedy that we’ve got. It does not fix the fact we broadcast it.”

Keep reading

WORTHY VS. UNWORTHY VICTIMS: STUDY REVEALS MEDIA’S SELECTIVE COVERAGE OF NAVALNY AND LIRA

Anew MintPress News study of media coverage of the deaths of American journalist and commentator Gonzalo Lira and Russian political leader Alexey Navalny has found that the establishment U.S. press overwhelmingly ignored the former and focussed on the latter. The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, Fox News and CNN collectively ran 731 segments on Navalny between February 16 and February 22, compared to just one on Lira since his death on January 12, perhaps because one was a Western-backed figure who died at the hands of an official enemy state, while the other was a pro-Russian voice who met their end at the hands of the Ukrainian government.

ROUND-THE-CLOCK COVERAGE VS RADIO SILENCE

MintPress conducted a quantitative analysis of the media coverage of two political figures who recently died in prison: Alexey Navalny and Gonzalo Lira. Both were controversial characters and critics of the governments that imprisoned them. Both died under suspicious circumstances (their families both maintain they were effectively murdered). And both died in the past six weeks, Navalny in February and Lira in January. A crucial difference in their stories, however, is that Navalny perished in an Arctic penal colony after being arrested in Russia (an enemy state), while Lira’s life ended in a Ukrainian prison, abandoned by the pro-Kiev government in Washington, D.C.

The study compared the coverage of Navalny and Lira’s death in five leading outlets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, Fox News, and CNN. These outlets were chosen for their reach and influence and, together, could be said to reasonably represent the corporate media spectrum as a whole. The data was compiled using the Dow Jones Factiva news database and searches on the websites of the news organizations. This study takes no position on the matter of Navalny, Lira, or the Russia-Ukraine war.

Keep reading

MSNBC Hosts Blast ‘White Rural Voters’ As Conspiracy-Driven ‘Threats To Democracy’

Apair of MSNBC panelists derided “white rural voters” as ignorant, conspiracy-driven rubes who present a “threat to democracy.”

Journalist Paul Waldman and University of Maryland professor Thomas Schaller went on MSNBC Monday to promote their new book, “White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy” with “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski.

“We lay out the four-fold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country,” said Schaller. “They’re the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay geodemographic group in the country.”

“Second, they’re the most conspiracist group,” Schaller continued. “QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, Covid denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism.”

“Third, anti-democratic sentiments,” Schaller added. “They don’t believe in an independent press, free speech. They’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without any checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy. They’re also the most strongly white nationalist and white Christian nationalist.”

Schaller kept going. “Fourth,” he said, “they are most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.”

“You mentioned a lot of negative factors about this demographic,” Brzezinski responded.

Keep reading

MSNBC Legal Analyst Argues for ‘Common Sense’ Speech Restrictions Live on Air

A legal analyst at MSNBC argued earlier this week that there is a need for “common sense” restrictions to the First Amendment to prevent “disinformation” online.

The comments from University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade underscore how many on the far left now view basic American Constitutional rights.

During an interview with network host Rachel Maddow that The New York Post flagged on Thursday, McQuade argued that current restrictions on free speech might not go far enough.

McQuade said previous arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court had set a precedent — that there are some limitations to what people can say if it is intended to create harm — but she added those might not be far-reaching enough.

One such case is 1919’s Schenck v. United States, in which it was ruled that a person could not shout “fire” while in a crowded theater if that person’s rationale for speaking was only to cause public harm.

In the context of American political discourse in the age of social media, McQuade said that the country’s “deep commitment to free speech,” a cornerstone of society, is leaving people vulnerable to being misled.

While hawking a new book she has authored called “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America,” McQuade told MSNBC she hoped to initiate a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to [free speech].”

After Maddow asked if Americans are vulnerable to being misled more than citizens of other countries without First Amendment protections, McQuade agreed.

Keep reading

NY Times Plays CIA Messenger — Turn Off The Lights, The Party Is Over

I apologize on not writing about the NY Times article by  Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz, The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin, before now but my schedule did not give me the time I needed to do the subject justice. I was inundated with requests for a comment by several media outlets and did my best to accommodate those in radio and TV interviews.

The key thing you need to understand is that this article is a deliberate piece of misinformation that is intended to shape public and policymaking opinion in the United States. The following opening to the article, like all propaganda, is a mixture of fact and fantasy.

the intelligence partnership between Washington and Kyiv is a linchpin of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. The C.I.A. and other American intelligence agencies provide intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements and help support spy networks.

But the partnership is no wartime creation, nor is Ukraine the only beneficiary.

It took root a decade ago, coming together in fits and starts under three very different U.S. presidents, pushed forward by key individuals who often took daring risks. It has transformed Ukraine, whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia, into one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.

Yes, it is true that U.S. intelligence, along with NATO, supplied Ukraine with intelligence used to carry out missile strikes on Russian positions. Admitting this in the pages of the NY Times is reckless and dangerous. I am pretty sure the Russians already knew this but putting this on the record with U.S. intelligence sources is a casus belli for Russia. Can you imagine the reaction if Russian intelligence confirmed they provided intel to a group or country that attacked the U.S.? Do you think Washington would ignore that and not seek retribution? Of course not.

But the article starts with the big lie by claiming that the CIA relationship with Ukraine started in February 2022 and then piles on with these two whoppers:

Before the war, the Ukrainians proved themselves to the Americans by collecting intercepts that helped prove Russia’s involvement in the 2014 downing of a commercial jetliner, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Maidan and the ensuing events in February and March 2014 involved what I believe was a joint U.S./U.K. intelligence operation to remove Ukraine’s President Yanukovich and install a pro-Western government that would be used to attack Russia. The fact of the matter is that the CIA has been dealing with Ukrainian opponents of Russia since at least 1947.

The propaganda purpose of the article is revealed by the decision of the reporters to repeat the specious claims that Russia shot down Malaysia Airlines flight 17 and that Russia “meddled” in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. We have had a slew of revelations over the last two months, principally from Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger, showing that it was the Clinton campaign with the help of the CIA and the FBI who meddled in the 2016 Presidential campaign in a failed effort to defeat Donald Trump. Entous and Schwirtz insert the bogus claim that Ukraine fingered the Russian officer responsible for “election interference.”

Keep reading

Soros Buys 220 US Radio Stations

If you are a radio listener, a lot of what you hear may start to sound like Deep State propaganda…kind of like MSM TV. You won’t have to wonder what happened. George Soros, who gets off on destroying countries, is at it again.

Soros just bought 40% of the Audacy network, second largest to IHeart, in the country. The 220 Audacy stations are from coast to coast, in 40 states and Guam. You can pretty well bet that George Soros will have his finger in every pie.

Audacy went Chapter 11 in January, and Soros scooped up the 40%, dirt cheap, for him. What’s $400 million when you can sway impressionable voters? Yes, that is minority ownership, but a large voting group of shareholders would be required to override his wishes, and I’d bet they will be well paid not to do so. Guaranteed, the messaging will be ALL about Left-wing/Globalist priorities.

Do I dare ask why a CONSERVATIVE group didn’t think to do the same? Nah…I get crazy some times…

AM and FM radio are still a very large source of information for millions. Audacy claims they have presence in every genre of radio in the 2020 “battleground” states, so it’s a perfect purchase for one seeking to bend minds in those crucial voting areas.

An online research group, Musical Pursuits, which tracks America’s listening habits, finds that 55% of Gen Z listens to approximately 2 hours/day of radio, and more people listen to radio every day than are on Facebook. That’s impressive.

Keep reading

Deja vu: Russia collusion is back

Anyone tuning into Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) interview with former White House press secretary and MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Monday night would be forgiven for thinking they were watching a clip from 2016. Pelosi said she believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has something” on former President Donald Trump and that it likely involves money. Sounds familiar, right?

After establishing that Trump “brought disgrace to the White House” and that “we must be sure that he does not step one foot into the White House” again, Pelosi asked, “What does he [Putin] have on Donald Trump that he has to constantly be catering to Putin? Telling Putin to go into these countries, NATO countries.”

“What do you think Putin has on him?” Psaki asked. “I mean, it sure seems like something, as you’ve said a few times, given that he refuses to criticize him, that he seems to be a fanboy of him. Are you worried at all?”

“I don’t know what he has on him, but I think it’s probably financial,” Pelosi replied. “Either something financial he has him on or something on the come. Something that he expects to get.” 

Of course, Pelosi doesn’t believe a word of what she said. Trump’s potential ties to the Kremlin, financial or otherwise, were debunked by special counsel Robert Mueller’s exhaustive 22-month investigation, which ended in March 2019. She is merely laying the groundwork for the Democrats’ plan to defeat Trump in November.

Lo and behold, the loyal foot soldiers in the legacy media are already repeating Pelosi’s words. The marching orders from the Democratic National Committee or the Biden campaign or whatever entity it is that determines party messaging has gone out. 

It is now clear that resurrecting the narrative that Trump is an agent of Russia will be an integral part of the Democrats’ 2024 strategy. And they are using it to discredit the House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his family’s foreign influence-peddling business. 

Keep reading

Shielding US Public From Israeli Reports of Friendly Fire on October 7

Since October, the Israeli press has uncovered damning evidence showing that an untold number of the Israeli victims during the October 7 Hamas attack were in fact killed by the IDF response.

While it is indisputable that the Hamas-led attackers were responsible for many Israeli civilian deaths that day, reports from Israel indicate that the IDF in multiple cases fired on and killed Israeli civilians. It’s an important issue that demands greater transparency—both in terms of the questions it raises about IDF policy, and in terms of the black-and-white narrative Israel has advanced about what happened on October 7, used to justify its ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip.

Indeed, IDF responsibility for Israeli deaths has been a repeated topic of discussion in the Israeli press, accompanied by demands for investigations. But the most US readers have gotten from their own press about the issue is a dismissive piece from the Washington Post about October 7 “truthers.”

Keep reading