Connect with us

Media

Media Caught Red Handed

Published

on

By Jim Bowman

In pre Trump times, the well worn phrase “liberal press” was simply the acceptance of normal media bias. The reader was resigned while the journalist felt a sort of pride in knowing that his slant was being digested daily.

Not so today. Now, that “liberal” moniker is being subjected through a detailed microscope, one that they themselves instigated. Decades of indiscriminate accusations and ridicule now face a Presidential accounting. No longer can those assorted journalists and editors freely intimidate without paying the price; and they don’t like it!

Last week, the Boston Globe organized over 300 editorial chiefs into one voice of rebuke against this White House review. This stemmed from Trump’s responses to what he considers as a “fake” presentation of news events. What follows is a rebuttal to such editorial thin skinners. It should offer a greater understanding and accounting of the results from the media’s habitual fakery. Also, this tends to bolster our President’s messaging.

Trending: First Day of ‘Impeachment Hearings’ Immediately Prove Farcical

Fifty years ago, our “free press” began its coverage of the Tet Offensive. This month long offensive was often brutally detailed during evening viewing and was depicted as a major defeat for our military in Vietnam. Only problem was, nothing could have been further from the truth! With this time span, an emerging inference that our President’s characterization of the media’s “fake news” product is long overdue and welcomed.

For some reason, our “free press” chose to report that our forces suffered a humiliating defeat rather than detailing the enemy’s near total destruction. The question which has never been addressed is “why?” Why report such a total fabrication when it would obviously increase at home unrest but more disturbingly, aid our enemy? When comparing that long ago abuse of the truth with today’s media parade of anti-Trumpisms, one could say that similarities exist. That long ago false reporting redirected our Country’s war effort while also affecting our societal norms. Could the present media agenda be a rescale of such disloyal heights? Since it’s obvious that only an impeachment will silence the angry three hundred, could their goal be to once again achieve a redirection of our National policy?

A glimpse into that time so long ago should provide a more accurate focus or understanding of just what the media’s reporting of Tet reversed. A detailed but relatively unknown analysis comes from North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin who wrote of Tet in his “Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel,” that “our losses were staggering and a complete surprise.” The Colonel continues that “Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence…” Also, “If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely…”

Our media’s month long “Tet campaign” to deceive both the American public and governmental leaders with reporting a defeat, rather than rejoicing over our military victory, is best undressed by Col. Tin’s conclusion that, “If Johnson had granted Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.”

Try to measure the damage from such a deceptive media agenda and at a time when Americans were serving and dying in the very effort which was being sabotaged by our “free press!” It would seem that Trump’s labeling of “fake news” is a well earned and deserving acknowledgment?

To think that now, the Boston Globe is joined by their cabal of thin skinned journalists and editors who mutually feel that as one editor stated, “Trump diminishes and belittles the work of the nation’s free press.” This was presented in an August 16th editorial in the Daytona News Journal. Also expressed was that “At every level, most media outlets have restrained from firing back at Trump. We strive to be rational and fair…” No comment on their “rational and fair” efforts, that goofiness speaks for itself, but what is implied from the 300 editorials if not a “firing back?”

Such a long ago accounting of a supposedly battle lost, while fully aware that the opposite was true, may now qualify as the cornerstone for today’s legitimate “fake news” impressions. The degree of injury, both at home and in the field, from this anti-American format stands as testament to the harm that is created when journalistic integrity and truth fall out of favor. After all this time, hopefully what is taking place is a long awaited undressing of what the media has managed to accomplish with its pen; a pen that was and apparently still is valued to be “mightier than the sword.”

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Advertisement

Media

CNN’s Ignorance of Epstein-ABC Scandal Raises Eyebrows with Media Observers

CNN’s unwillingness to report on this incredibly bizarre chain of events suggest that they, too, may be compromised.

Published

on

Jeffrey Epstein is a man whose lore will likely live on in American pop culture for decades, if not longer.

The wealthy and well-connected financier was already a convicted pedophile at the time of his alleged suicide, which took place while Epstein was being held in one of the nation’s most secure detention facilities just days after being taken off of suicide watch at the behest of his lawyers.  At that time, Epstein was being held on charges of child sex trafficking, cementing his reputation as one of the nation’s most heinous socialites.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time that Epstein had been in trouble.  Back in 2008, after years of legal lethargy, Jeffrey Epstein was given a sweetheart deal in Florida, skating on charges of “solicitation” while everyone understood explicitly that he was grooming underage women for sexual slavery.

This only added to the mythos surrounding him, with a vast conspiracy emerging online that connected Epstein to all manner of high-ranking public figures; from the founder of Victoria’s Secret all the way to former President Bill Clinton.

Back in 2015, long before his recent suicide, Epstein was about to be exposed by an intrepid report at ABC News when the UK’s Royal Family forced the network to abandon the story, based on Epstein’s connections to Prince Andrew.

When undercover news specialists at Project Veritas exposed this coverup, the hunt was on for the employee, (or, as it turns out, the former employee), responsible for blowing the whistle on the story.

A massive folly ensued as CBS then fired an employee who they believe was responsible, having had worked at ABC prior.  The move was erroneous, however, as the leaker themselves took to the internet to refute what had happened.

This is by far one of the juiciest stories in the media today, yet CNN doesn’t seem willing to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Brian.

Stelter.

Ignored.

All.

Of.

It.

Stelter’s show is called Reliable Sources, and promises viewers that its purpose is to  “examine the media world, telling the story behind the story.”

But that is not the case at all, and we all knew that before this weekend, which is why the far-left Stelter’s ratings (like the rest of far-left CNN) are in freefall.

Even for Stelter, though, ignoring this story is just beyond the beyond… Shameless cover ups are nothing new with Zucker’s Puppet, but this one is going to be remembered, will be defining.

What did Stelter talk about this Sunday? Well, he brought on tired old PBS lefty Bill Moyers to scream about how Drumpf is killing democracy and must be impeached. He brought on lefty Anthony Scaramucci to talk about how Drumpf is killing democracy and must be impeached. He brought on a panel of lefties, including al-Baghdadi fanboy Max Boot,  to talk about how Sean Hannity and Drumpf are killing democracy and must be impeached.

Knowing what we know now about ABC’s reticence to report the truth on account of Royal pressure, one can only assume that CNN is similarly compromised.

Continue Reading

Media

MSNBC’s Bias Gets Shredded Live, On-Air by Mark Meadows

It’s no wonder that Americans are increasingly finding themselves distrustful of the mainstream media.

Published

on

In the pre-Trump era, the bias of the mainstream media was amusing; perhaps a little garish at times, but still entertaining.  You could flip back and forth between competing infotainment brands and almost giggle at just how blatant they were being regarding their political affiliations.

Today, however, that mild bemusement is gone, and every word uttered by these paid entertainers is pushing our nation further and further into ruin.  Thanks to the latest push for impeachment being made by the Democrats, the vitriol has turned downright ugly.

One Congressman just couldn’t stand it anymore this week, and brutally corrected one MSNBC talking head live, on-air.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk praised Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., on Friday, after Meadows interrupted an MSNBC reporter on the air to defend his fellow Republican lawmakers and President Trump.

Meadows “caught [MSNBC] with their own bias in real-time,” Kirk said, during an appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”

On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell was reporting live from Capitol Hill about the Trump impeachment inquiry.

“Republicans continue to hang everything on Ambassador [Kurt] Volker,” Caldwell told viewers, referring to the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who resigned from the State Department in September after his name appeared in a whistleblower complaint about a July phone call between Trump and the leader of Ukraine.

Then things got testy.

During Caldwell’s report, Meadows — a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee — walked by with his staff, so Caldwell attempted to flag him down for an impromptu interview, but he declined.

Caldwell then continued her report, claiming Republicans “are really struggling to defend the president.”

Meadows was off camera at the time but within earshot of Caldwell. Suddenly, he returned to Caldwell, leaned into her camera shot, and sternly responded:

“I’m not struggling on anything. The Republicans are not struggling on anything,” he said, continuing to further defend President Trump.

Charlie Kirk made the point that Caldwell was seemingly putting words into the mouths of the Republican Party members by insinuating that they are struggling, as opposed to asking them if they are struggling.

It’s no wonder that Americans are increasingly finding themselves distrustful of the mainstream media.

 

Continue Reading

Media

Sen. Paul Lays Out Facts: It’s NOT ‘Illegal’ for Media to Disclose Whistleblower’s Name

Senator Rand Paul made a point to correct at least one fake news reporter who was pushing the media’s newest Ukraine lie.

Published

on

The latest l lie being passed around by the left-media is the claim that it is somehow “illegal” to publish the name of the Democrat’s fake “whistleblower.” But Senator Rand Paul made a point to correct at least one fake news reporter who was pushing the media’s newest Ukraine lie.

While walking through the Senate office building on Monday, a “reporter” for the liberal Washington rag, The Hill, laid the “illegal” lie on the Kentucky Republican. And the Sen. just had to stop and correct the fake news.

As Paul was walking, the reporter asked, “The whistleblower laws protect the whistleblower. You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower?”

Of course, this is a lie.

In fact, the reason the government does not disclose the names of whistleblowers is to protect their job, not their name per se. For instance, if a State Department worker blows the whistle on what he feels is illegal activity, the law helps shield the employee from being fired by the State Dept. while any investigation might be underway. The law isn’t meant to protect the whistleblower’s name, it is to protect his job.

And in THIS case, the law does not apply because the whistleblower, whose name is Eric Ciaramella, was already fired from the White House over a year ago for leaking to the press. In this case, Ciaramella’s job is not in jeopardy in the least.

Ciaramella is a 33-year-old registered Democrat who was first hired to work in the White House by Barack Obama. He also had jobs with Vice President Joe Biden’s office as well as former CIA Director John Brennan. After he was fired by the White House, he went right back to work for the deep state coup operators at the CIA. So, his job is safe.

Further, there is no law at all that prevents news people from releasing the name of any whistleblower.

In any case, Sen. Paul took the time to school this purveyor of fake news.

“Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong,” Paul said before going on to disabuse the ignorant “reporter” of her quaint, left-wing, Democrat-protecting notions.

“You should work on the facts,” Paul told the woman. “The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.”

“The other point, and you need to be really careful if you really are interested in the news,” Paul continued, “is the whistleblower actually is a material witness completely separate from being a whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month. So, the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time.”

“Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there a discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There are a lot of questions the whistleblower has to answer,” Paul concluded.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media

‘New York Times’ Opposes Airing National Anthem on TV Because It is Too Offensive

The ‘New York Times’ says it now opposes playing the national anthem on TV because it may upset some snowflakes who hate the U.S.A.

Published

on

The New York Times says it now opposes playing the national anthem on TV because it may upset some snowflakes viewers who hate the U.S.A.

On Wednesday, Times writer Julia Jacobs criticized the long-standing practice of TV stations airing “The Star Spangled Banner” because it might offend some viewers.

In her culture piece entitled, “Local TV Revives a Bygone Tradition: Airing the National Anthem,” Jacobs claims that the song is a “dividing line” between people who love America and the haters who may be triggered by seeing and hearing the anthem on TV.

The paper noted that “one of popular culture’s generational divides” is if you are old enough to remember when national anthem aired on television stations at the end of each broadcast day. The national anthem was historically played at the end of the night when TV stations stopped broadcasting until the next morning because TV did not run 24 hours a day until the 1970s. The broadcast day usually ended with the national anthem aired over patriotic images followed by a test patter image and a test tone audio.

The practice nearly disappeared once all TV stations went to 24-7 programming.

“Now, the early morning hours are filled with rebroadcasts and infomercials, eliminating any practical reason for a formal sign off,” the article noted.

However, some stations have recently revived the practice of airing the national anthem before getting into late, late night programming — most of which is often infomercials.

Jacobs decried this renewed practice saying that airing the anthem “might hear political overtones.”

“The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America,” Jacobs insisted.

The article went on to call the anthem a “politically charged song” that is “provocative.”

But this is just how liberals warp the debate. The national anthem has never been a “politically charged song” or “provocative” until liberal elites and extreme left-wing activists decided to start claiming it was provocative and political.

Now, all of a sudden, the song is characterized as triggering just because hard-core left-wingers say it is despite that few agree with them. And since they control the media, that is how the debate is carried on.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media

Obama Photographer Claims Trump Baghdadi Raid Situation Room Photo was Faked, Then Admits to Fake News

President Obama’s one-time official White House photographer jumped to Twitter on Sunday to claim that Trump put out a faked photo of the situation room.

Published

on

Pete Souza, President Obama’s one-time official White House photographer, quickly jumped to Twitter on Sunday to claim that Trump put out a faked photo of the situation room taken during the raid on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The photo released shows President Trump, Vice President Pence, and others waiting for information about the raid to come from the forces in the field, but Souza insisted that the photo was staged and not a real photo taken during the raid.

The Obamaite insisted that the times were all wrong because the raid took place at 3:30 PM Washington D.C. time, but the time data on the photo was “17:05:24” (that is 5:05 PM military time).

Therefor, Souza was stating that the photo is a fake put out by the White House because the times are way off:

Soon enough he was forced to issue another tweet to correct his fake news.

Souza was forced to note that the raid didn’t actually begin until 5 PM (not 3:30 as he stated in the first Tweet) and that the military helicopters took about 70 minutes to get over the target, meaning the kill happened around 6 PM.

So, that means the time stamp of “17:05:24” of a photo showing the president waiting for updates is 100 percent correct as the kill happened not long after “17:05:24.”

Naturally, Souza’s fake news got 16.8K retweets and over 44,000 likes from leftists desperate for something to accuse Trump of while his “correction” of his fake news only got 574 retweets and 1.3K likes.

Despite Souza’s attempt to give aid to our enemies, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was eliminated, for certain. But so was ISIS Spokesman Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir.

It appears that al-Muhajir was working to get al-Baghdadi spirited away to be hidden in Turkey when the end came for the both of them.

Trump wins again.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @WTHuston.

Continue Reading

Media

Manufactured Media Narrative on Impeachment Exposed by Dueling Poll Results

The media wants chaos in the capital.

Published

on

There is a new frustration sweeping the nation this week, as Americans from far and wide continues to find themselves befuddled by the mainstream media.

They turn on their televisions or log into Facebook to see a litany of literature regarding what seems like the inevitable impeachment of President Donald Trump.  That narrative is bolstered by the infotainment industry and their bloodthirsty quest for ratings.  Just today, after a cabinet meeting, Donald Trump was asked if he believed that a House vote on impeachment was a “foregone conclusion”.

Even uttering the phrase “foregone conclusion” in relation to impeachment is a bit of the media’s brainwashing at work, as it forces the President to make a soundbite that will be played ad nauseam for next day and half, continuing to pound the phrase into the minds of We The People.

And the media seems to be having some success in their pursuit of tanking Trump, as a number of recent polls show a slight uptick in support for impeaching and possibly removing the President.

At least, that’s what they want you to believe.  The reality of the situation is far more complicated.

Voters in the states likeliest to decide the 2020 presidential election support the impeachment inquiry that House Democrats began last month, but a majority still opposes impeaching President Trump and removing him from office, according to a New York Times/Siena College survey.

In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50 percent to 45 percent. The same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, 53 percent to 43 percent.

The survey depicts a deeply divided electorate in battleground states a year from the election, with the president’s core supporters and opponents exceptionally energized and unified. Yet at the same time, a crucial sliver of relatively moderate voters — just 7 percent of the electorate — support the inquiry without backing Mr. Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.

Furthermore, it appears as though all of this impeachment-fever is actually backfiring on the Democrats as it galvanizes the President’s base.

Mr. Trump’s supporters from 2016 are nearly unanimous in their opposition to removing him. Over all, 94 percent of respondents who said they voted for him four years ago said they opposed his impeachment and removal. It is possible that Trump voters who have soured on him are less likely to divulge their 2016 preference to a pollster. (Crosstabs available here.)

Trump voters are not convinced that the president’s conduct was atypical for politicians in Washington. Only 11 percent of Mr. Trump’s 2016 supporters believe that his Ukraine-related conduct is worse than the conduct of most politicians, while 75 percent said it was typical.

Make no mistake about it; the distortion that we see here, this incongruity, can be blamed nearly entirely on the mainstream media’s wanton desire for chaos and anarchy in Washington DC.  They are the catalysts for this cacophony of anti-Trump tirades, and we must remember that always when peering through their liberal lens.

Continue Reading

Foreign Policy

Media Falsely Claim White House ‘Admits’ Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

On Thursday, the media breathlessly proclaimed that the White House “admitted” that Trump perpetrated a quid pro quo on Ukraine. But it is all fake news.

Published

on

On Thursday, the media breathlessly proclaimed that the White House “admitted” that Trump perpetrated a quid pro quo on Ukraine. But it is all fake news. In truth, the White House admitted no such thing.

As Breitbart News’ Joel Pollak reported, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to no such thing during his Thursday presser.

As it happens, Mulvaney said just the opposite, that NO quid pro quo occurred.

What Mulvaney actually said was that the Trump administration had initially withheld funding from Ukraine for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Europe was not providing enough funding for military aid. Another reason, he said, was suspicion of past corruption in Ukraine — which included Ukraine’s possible role in interfering in the 2016 presidential election, including its possible possession of a Democratic National Committee server.

“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things [President Trump] was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney said on Thursday.

A reporter insisted that it sounded like a quid pro quo. But Mulvaney thoroughly disagreed. Indeed, he said this sort of stuff goes on all the time.

“He gave an example from this week: the U.S. had withheld aid from the ‘Northern Triangle’ nations — El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala — until they agreed to help stop migration,” Pollak wrote.

“The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” Mulvaney noted.

Like a dog with a fake news bone, another reporter tried to throw out the “quid pro quo” charge. But Mulvaney struck back:

Those are the terms you use. Go look at what [U.S. Ambassador to the European Union] Gordon Sondland said today in his testimony — was that, I think, in his opening statement — he said something along the lines of, they were trying to get the “deliverable,” and the deliverable was a statement by the Ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption. Okay? Go read his testimony, if you haven’t already. And what he says, and he’s right, that’s absolutely ordinary course of business. This is what you do. When you have someone come to the White House — when you either arrange a visit for the president, you have a phone call with the president — a lot of times we use that as the opportunity to get them to make a statement of their policy, or to announce something that they are going to do. It’s one of the reasons you can sort of announce that on the phone call or at the meeting. This is the ordinary course of foreign policy.

Naturally, the lefty media spent the rest of the day claiming Mulvaney “admitted” to a quid pro quo.

Clearly the media has a lie-filled agenda to push. It doesn’t care what the facts are.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

The Mitchell Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Pin It on Pinterest