Truth Emerging

For John, BLUF:  Mnetioned in Dispatches.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'We Were Badly Misled' About COVID Origin, Says ...

From Hot Air, by Capotain Ed Morreissey, 17 March 2025, 9:20 AM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Were they 'misled'? Or did they lead the charge against anyone who dared question the consensus?

Now that the cat has come out of the bag, suddenly the New York Times feels the need to get out in front of the backlash. For years, the NYT ran story after story, scathing column after column, about anyone who dared to challenge The Science®. How dare people suggest that a novel coronavirus might have emerged from the nearby lab being run under questionable practices doing exactly the kind of research intended to produce novel coronaviruses! Those dissenters were all raaaaaacists, remember?

Now, the NYT -- and not even in its own editorial voice -- wants to play victim of The Science®:

Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology — research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world — no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been terrifyingly lax.

And it goes on and gets better.  Read the whole thing.

There is little doubt in my mind that we, the Citizenry, were fed disinformation about the COVID-19 Pandemic.♠  I would like to put all the blame on Dr A Fauci, but that would not be fair.  He was aided and abetted by others in the medical community.  And, there was the Trump-despising Press, who went with Dr Fauci, because it was the easy way to place the burden on President Trump 45  Sad.  Very sad.

It is going to tqke time for experts, in and out of Government, to regain the confidence of the American People.  I hope those "experts" starat working on it soon.  I owuld like to get back to the time that Sergeant Friday and Inspector Lewis Erskine represented what was best in Government.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  An Undertaker friend of mine pointed out early on that the typical surgical mask was not suited to dealing with the COVID-19 virus.  Rather, we needed the N-95  But, I have been at hospitals that rejected the N-95 and asked me to don the ineffective mask.

Getting the News

For John, BLUF:  Back in the day we believed that there was objectivity in our news sources, the days of Yellow Journalism having passed.  No more.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CBS and Objectivity

From Chicago Boyz, by Mike, 10 October 2024.

Here is the lede plus four:

CBS has had an interesting week. First there was the interview of Ta-Nehisi Coates by “CBS This Morning” co-anchor Tony Dokoupil regarding Coates’ book “The Message.” Dokoupil treated Coates well, like a Republican, in that he asked some pointed questions about Coates’ book; his claim Israel was a white supremacist ethnostate akin to the Jim Crow South, that he treated Palestinians exclusively as victims without agency, and that he failed to state how Israel was surrounded by enemies pledged to destroy it.

Tough, but civil…. and then all heck broke loose

Apparently the morning show staff was so traumatized by the interview that CBS held a struggle session the next day. One of the criticisms that was hurled at Dokoupil was that he ignored the “one-sheet:”

”…the network went through its standard protocol of vetting questions through its legal, standards, and race and culture departments. The properly vetted questions were then included on what’s known as a ‘one-sheet,’ from which everyone within the show works.”

It’s standard protocol to vet questions through a race and culture department?

Mike seems to think that CBS is a fraud in terms of being an objective news organization.  For example, he calls out one of my big concerns:

The first is the standard DEI mantra of equating a certain percentage of racial/gender/LGBT+ identities in their newsroom with a diversity of viewpoints.

It is a little sad that we need to filter our news, looking for inherent biases that might distort what we are learning.  It is even sadder that there are people working in such organizations who have to filter what they say or write in order to conform to some socially constricting standards impose by identity politics.

It is incumbent on all of us to widen our news souorces and do the tear and compare of what we are hearing, so we can be better voters and citizens.

Regards  —  Cliff

Watch Your Tongue

For John, BLUF:  It should be a "No No" for people to publically call for the assassination of a President or Presidential Candidate.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

New York Times Columnist Promotes Political Murder

Here is the sub-headline:

A study in dangerous cluelessness

From Bravo Blue, by Attorney John A Lucas, 10 July 2024.

Here are two key paragraph from the article:

A more recent example of this homicidal fixation was on display in an interview of a New York Times columnist, John McWhorter. He appeared on June 28, on The Glenn Show which is a podcast by Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury. McWhorter, who is a regular Loury guest, had appeared on an earlier episode when he said that someone should kill President Trump. Although McWhorter sprinkled his June 28 comments with half-hearted regrets, he essentially doubled down on his earlier comments, saying only that he should not have made his statements publicly and promised that “I’m gonna say it again.”

McWhorter is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University and a regular New York Times columnist. Most of his Times columns discuss the use of language and words. Think about that as you listen to and read his words about his desire to see President Trump murdered.

Professor and New York Times Columnist John McWhorter has called for the assassination of Donald J Trump, to prevent him from again becoming President.  This is a question of acceptability at two levels.  The first level is that of the Secret Service.  Is this something that the Secret Service needs to take seriously?  I would think that had I uttered those kinds of words and the Secret Serice became aware they would take it seriously, as should the rest of us.  Threatening the life of a President or Presidential Candidate is unacceptable.♠

At another level there is the question of civil society accepting this kind of talk.  As the Author points out, at The New York Times the Newsroom forced out an Editor for allowing an Opinion Piece by a sitting US Senator, Tom Cottom, to go to print.  Why not a ssimilar response to a suggestion by an opinion writer that someone assassinate Candidate Donald J Trump?

It is one thing to call for the President to stand down or for him to face the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or to say the President, or a Candidate is not fit.  That is all legitimte.  It is wrong to suggest physical harm or violence against a President or a Candidate.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Which is why I find it so strange that the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas, does not provide security for Independent Candidate Robert F Kennedy, Junior.  Is the assassinatoin of his fsther, a Presidential Candidate, by Sirhan Sirhan, not informing their thihking?

The Debate

For John, BLUF:  Who pushed this early Presidential Debate, and what was their motive?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

They Knew

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden is no longer fit to be president. Last night’s debate exposed the lies we’ve been told.

From The Free Press, by Editor Bari Weiss, 28 June 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

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.”

Were we shocked by the outcome?  I anticipted the outcome and wanted to skip the show, since I don't like watching people embarrass themselves in public.  However, my Wife said we should watch.  So we watched.  My response was not that of New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman, but I understand:

"I watched the Biden-Trump debate alone in a Lisbon hotel room, and it made me weep," writes Thomas L. Friedman.  "I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime."

But, back to Ms Weiss, I think she is correct in saying that people have been covering for President Biden and his decline.  For those of us who live long enough, decline will come.  My Mother passed from Cancer in her late 60s.  I visited her days before she died and she was sharp.  My Father lived to be 89, but it was agreed, at the end, by the three Sons, to take away the car keys.  Families have a role to play in how we deal with older people who have lost a step.

The question is the path forward.  There is time for the Democrats to replace President Biden on the 2024 ticket.  However, there is a stumbling blocks in the way.  One might think it should fall naturally to the Vice President, Kamala Harris.  However, she is not popular with the public, although more popular than some of the alternatives.  My Wife and I are thinking the Democrats will, after clearing away Ms Harris, settle on former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has been popping up in the news recently, after having gone to ground since he stepped down from the Governorship in August 2021.♠

As a note, I was pleased with the professional job done by the two CNN moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  It is ironic that President Biden was one of those who called for Governor Cuomo to step down after the release of a report on his personal conduct by New York AG Letitia James.

Trying to Influence the News

For John, BLUF:  The Main Stream Media trying to influence the news.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NBC’s Secret Trump Scheme Exposed – Here’s Their Shocking Move Against Judge Cannon

From Patriot Journal, by Reporter Mick Farthing, 4 June 2024.

Here is the lede plus three:

Democrats have engaged in what some are calling “lawfare” against Donald Trump. They have launched several criminal trials in various districts, hoping, it seems, to stop him from becoming president. One of the trials is over, resulting in a guilty verdict.

Another case is in Florida, where a federal prosecutor is trying to pin Trump for the documents he kept at Mar-A-Lago.

The big problem for the left? The prosecutor, Special Counsel Jack Smith, has been outed for “manipulating evidence.” The judge presiding has postponed the case until the election to sort through these accusations. Now, it has come to light that Democrats plotted to get this judge removed to speed up the case.

From Breitbart: NBC and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner has been revealed as the origin of an “orchestrated campaign” to file complaints against Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over former President Donald Trump’s case in Florida…

This kiind of action seems self-defeating.  And a little too activist for a legitimate news organization.

If the Biden side (including NBC) believes in the legal system, as they claim, they should let it work out its efforts without people trying to put their thumb on the scale.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A National Pubic Radio Network

For John, BLUF:  Sgt Mom pretty well covers the waterfront concerning National Public Radio.  It is off the rails.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

To the Great Surprise of Many…

From Chicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 18 April 2024.

Here is the lede plus two:

… It turned out that there was one genuine, for real, professional old-line journalist still working at National Public Radio.  Was being the operative word, as business reporter Uri Berliner quit, after spectacularly blowing up any lingering pretense of the publicly financed institution being an impartial and unbiased news-gathering organization, reporting on news without fear, favor or partisanship.  Frankly, anyone claiming to be the teeniest bit rightish of center and believes that load of codswallop is likely too innocent to be let out in public without a dedicated keeper.  They probably believe every word in the NY Times, as well – although as Agent K of Men in Black observed – that publication stumbles into the truth on rare occasions.

Uri Berliner’s final report may yet blow apart NPR federal funding, both that which is direct, and that which is paid to them by local affiliates for the rights to air their various news, information and entertainment features.  The new CEO for NPR, one Katherine Maher, appears to be a singularly unappealing progressive apparatchik, a neurotic child of ruling-class privilege without a single shred of a background or experience in journalism … but all the right progressive opinions.  (I swear, I’d be a better fit for that job based on a DINFOS shake-n-bake course for print and broadcast journalism, followed by twenty years as a military public affairs specialist!)  I’d also swear that Katherine Maher was another generated parody like Titania McGrath, but alas – she’s all too horribly real.

I do wonder if this might be the final straw that breaks NPR.  For all their many awards, organizational self-regard, and incestuously close connections to the Washington power structure, they have also been hemorrhaging ordinary listeners in Flyoverlandia for years now.  I’m one of those once-listeners myself.  Heck, I even worked for years at the local affiliate here in San Antonio on a part-time – on the classical music side, though.  Every time I mentioned how I came to quit listening to NPR – a fair number of commenters chimed in with similar tales of disenchantment and outright disgust.  NPR used to make at least a pretense at being even-handed, the presence of that lugubrious old talking prune, Daniel Schorr notwithstanding – or Cokie Roberts, the daughter of two (count ’em!) longtime career Democrat Party politicians, Lindy and Hale Boggs.  NPR did more than the immediate sensational bleeding and leading coverage of news, and extended features … and then … and then, they seemed to have less and less to say to anyone who wasn’t a bicoastal progressive.  For me, the point came sometime between 9-11 then the election of Obama; definitely by the time of the rise of the Tea Party.  NPR looked at the Tea Party with the horrified interest of someone discovering a dead worm in their expensive mushroom vol-au-vent appetizer, before thumbing through their golden Rolodex of experts and demanding an explanation … instead of, you know – calling up any of the local Tea Party organizations and asking them.

Yes, I know.  Venturing into the hinterland and speaking to those bitter clingers would be asking to much.  Or hiring someone like Reporter Salena Zito.

I think Mr Uri Berliner was trying to save NPR.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

He's Back

For John, BLUF:  Reporter Raymond Arroyo has been absent from my television screen for a while now, but tonight he was back.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Raymond Arroyo Disappearing Act

From Hot Air, by Columnist Jazz Shaw, 27 March 2024, 5:00 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

Anyone who watches Fox News on a semi-regular basis is probably familiar with Raymond Arroyo. He's been a Fox contributor since 2017 but particularly in the recent past he was most often seen working alongside Laura Ingraham on The Ingraham Angle. He was typically called on for some comic relief and he worked elements of humor into most of his features. But you may have noticed in recent weeks that he's been nowhere to be seen and the regular segments that he did with Ingraham are no longer showing up. As The Daily Beast put it, he seems to have simply vanished. But why? As it turns out, one of his jokes reportedly went several steps too far and it had to do with Donald Trump, Black voters, and... sneakers.

Fox News pundit Raymond Arroyo has vanished from the network’s airwaves since sparking backlash last month by claiming Black voters would support Donald Trump for president because “they love sneakers.”

A paid on-air contributor with the conservative cable giant since 2017, Arroyo is best known to Fox News viewers for his regular appearances on Laura Ingraham’s nightly program. In addition to his “Seen and Unseen” and “Friday Follies” segments, he has also served as a substitute host of The Ingraham Angle.

His near-daily presence on Ingraham’s program, however, suddenly came to a halt in late February after his on-air claim that Trump’s new sneakers would win him Black votes went viral in the worst way across social media and prompted widespread rebuke.

i was pleased to see Reporter Raymond Arroyo back on the Ingram Angle.  I like his humerous take on the news of the day.

By the way, those Gold Sneakers from Candidate Donald Trump go for $399.  Out of my price range, although the inflation under President Joseph Biden could make them in range if he is elected again.

My opinioin is that Fox News over-reacted.

Hat tip to my Wife for the original article.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ronna is Better Off

For John, BLUF:  With the NBC news staff following in the wake of those folks at The New York Times, we are seeing the employees telling management how to operate, even if, in the long run, it isn't good for profits or the news.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NBC News Division Cretins Are So Awful That They're Almost Making Me Like Ronna McDaniel

From PJ Media, by Commentator Stephen Kruiser, 26 March 2024, 3:55 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

The reports of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel getting hired by NBC News didn't get much attention from me at first. It was very much a "Let them have each other" situation as far as I was concerned. My overwhelming dislike of Ms. Romney McD's tenure at the RNC has been well documented here.

The NBC News division, however, is far and away the worst of the behemoth disseminators of American leftist propaganda. It didn't take very long for its prevaricating horde of Democratic National Committee lapdogs to make even my icy heart want to side with McDaniel.

Sort of.

The brouhaha among regulars in the NBC News division is being presented as consternation over the fact that McDaniel is, according to them, an "election denier," the Left's grammatically clunky catch-all label for anyone who questions any part of any election. They're beating their cancel culture drums and pretending that they occupy the ethical high ground.

I would say Mr Stephen Kruiser is a little over the top in his comments on Ms Ronna McDaniel, former Republican National Committee Chairwoman.  She may have had a different drift from other Republicans, but she is a Republican and Republicans should have a big tent.  The real issue here is not Ms McDaniel, but the deplorable bigotry of the talking heads at NBC and MSNBC.

Take, for example, this Tweet by News Reader Chuck Todd:

The issue isn’t about ideology, it’s about basic truth. Those trying to make this a left-right issue are being intentionally dishonest. This is about whether honest journalists are supposed to lend their credibility to someone who intentionally tried to ruin ours.
5:49 PM · Mar 25, 2024

In what reality is Mr Todd living?  Why would he think the average Joe Schmoe would take him as the model of Journalism?  I woould not.  He comes from a barn yard of hacks who have only one way of viewing things and who are dismissive of those who do not align with them.

I believe Ms McDaniel is better off not being with NBC, and I suspect she will pocket a nice chunk of change.  In fact, if she is not compensated for this outrageous termination by the executive suite stiffs at NBC, she should sue them for several million dollars.  Now there is some news I could enjoy following.

Good Luck Ronna McDaniel.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

No Cigar

For John, BLUF:  Actress Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City) appears to have whiffed on a question on Celebrity Jeopardy, but she actually got a bit of it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

And just like that … Cynthia Nixon loses ‘Celebrity Jeopardy!’ with embarrassing history clue flub

From The New York Post, by Reporter Lauren Sarner, 30 November 2023, 1:53 p.m. ET.

Here is the lede plus seven:

And just like that … Cynthia Nixon blows it on “Celebrity Jeopardy!”

On the episode of “Celebrity Jeopardy!” aired Wednesday, the “Sex and the City” and “And Just Like That…” star lost, with stand-up comedian Heather McMahan beating both Nixon, 57, and fellow celeb participant Cedric the Entertainer, 59.

During the episode, going into the new Triple Jeopardy! round, Cynthia led with $7,100, while Heather had $6,600 and Cedric, $3,200.

The game between Nixon and McMahan was close, but Nixon got the last Daily Double, adding $2,000.

By Final Jeopardy!, it seemed like Nixon would win, as she had $19,700, Cedric had $4,000 and McMahan had $15,600.

The clue under “Unique Buildings” read: “Despite 17.5 miles of hallways, you can walk anywhere in this Virginia building within about 5 minutes, due to its concentric layout.”

Nixon revealed that she scribbled something that looked like “VA Hospital” and tossed up her hands, in apparent confusion.

Cedric and McMahan both correctly guessed, “The Pentagon.”

This topic was discussed on The Grace Curley Show on Thursday, the 30th of November.  I tried to call in to give them the 'gen, but after keeping me holding for about 15 minutes, they dropped me.  Such is life.

It turns out that the building, as originally designed and build was intended to be a Veterans Hospital with the close of World War II.  You could see it in the 1980s, with the large elevators, capable of holding two gurneys and in the gently sloping ramps between floors, allowing equipment to be pushed between levels.  It is just that the conversion never happened.

As Agent Maxwell Smart often said:  "Missed it by that much."

So, while i think her views on the Hamas war on Israel need some more insight, her insight into the Pentagon was very good.

Hat tip to the The Grace Curley Show.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting the Truth

For John, BLUF:  Initial News reportds on the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza blsmed it on Israel, but it sorted out that the explosion in the Hospital parking lot was the result of an Hamas short round incident.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

BBC confronts its own journalist over false reporting about Gaza hospital strike — and a stunning response follows

From The Blaze, by Reporter Chris Enloe, 27 November 2023.

Here is the lede plus five:

journalist who helped fan the flames of misinformation about the alleged Al-Ahli Arab Hospital strike is refusing to apologize for his mistake.

After a jihadist rocket fell on the parking lot of the hospital last month, the legacy media uncritically regurgitated Hamas' claim that Israel struck the hospital, totally destroying it and killing more than 500 people.

BBC international editor Jeremy Bowen is one such journalist who joined the chorus claiming the hospital was destroyed. He reported:

The missile hit the hospital not long after dark. You can hear the impact. The explosion destroyed Al-Ahli Hospital. It was already damaged from a smaller attack at the weekend. The building was flattened.

In a recent interview on the BBC's "Behind the Stories" program, Bowen was asked if he regrets his false reporting.

"To answer your question: No, I don't regret one thing in my reporting because I think I was measured throughout. I didn't race to judgment," Bowen answered.

It is a sign of arrogance, and a lack of humility for a reporter to get it wrong in an initial report and to not feel some regret.  What kind of an upbringing did this person have?

This reporting fail does not reflect well on the Beeb, maring its reputation as an excellent news source.

In a Democrcy, or a Republicsan form of Government, we, as Citizens, need to sample a number of differenta sources.  As Luther "Suitcase" Simpson says:  "The truth is out there.  All you have to do is let it in."

Regards  —  Cliff

Avoiding the Term Terrorism

For John, BLUF:  To not properly name something is to not understand it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yes, Hamas is Legally, Morally, and Factually a Terrorist Organization

From Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks, by Jonathan Turley, 25 October 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

Below is my column in the New York Post on the Associated Press guideline for reporters to avoid calling Hamas a terrorist organization.  Voice of America and other media outlets have made the same decision.  This is not about supporting the Palestinian cause.  It is about correctly describing a group that commits terrorist attacks as a terrorist organization.

Here is the column:

Confucius once said that “the beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.” That does not appear to be the approach of the Associated Press this week after the media organization told its reporters not to call Hamas fighters “terrorists” after they massacred civilians, raped women, and took a couple hundred hostages from Israel on Oct. 7.

I urge you to read the whole thing.  And to contemplate the slippage in our national media as a source of solid information for our American Citizens and their decision making.

To deny that Hamas used terrorism on 7 October is to obscure the brilliance of their action.  They have pub Israel in an awkward poosition.  The brutality of of the attack demands a reaction, and a strong reaction.  However, too much of a reactioon would bring the condemnatioon of the world.  As it is, before Israel started its ground incursioon into Gaza, there were large demonstratioons on various US Ivy League Campuses in favor of, believe it or not, Hamas.♠ 

Since "war is the continuation of politics by other means"♥, a goal of Hamas is to garner world wide support for an independent Palestine on the land now making up israel.  To deny that this is terrorism is to fail to understand what is going on and to try and make it into something it is not.  Again quoting Carl von Clausewitz and On War.

The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.

Name it and know it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  While the Students may not realize it, by chanting "From the River to the Sea, Palestine must be free" they are calling for the elimination of Isrsel as a state and the death of the seven million Jews living there.  Not very attractive.
♥  Carl von Clausewitz, On War.

White House War Room

For John, BLUF:  I think the Biden Administration is taking his Impeachment Inquiry very seriously.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN Breaks Story About Secret White House Media Directive to Bash Impeachment — to Bash Impeachment

From PJ Media, by Writer Athena Thorne, 13 September 2023, 12:55 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

A Tuesday report from CNN Business is a real piece of work. It’s probably the most egregious example of media bias I’ve seen this year.

The report is blatant following of ze orders by a Left-wing news outlet even as it openly reveals that it is following ze orders. This goes way beyond your basic self-awareness fail to land somewhere between dereliction of journalistic duty and utter immorality in the pursuit of partisan service.

A CNN headline that read, “White House to send letter to news execs urging outlets to ‘ramp up’ scrutiny of GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry ‘based on lies’” surprised me this morning. I was ready to grudgingly give the left-wing rag some credit for speaking truth to power for once. But a quick read through the article shattered my dreams of CNN actually committing an act of journalism.

The gist of the story is that, on Tuesday, CNN obtained an advance draft of a media directive from the White House that it would have received on Wednesday anyway. The newsworthy part is that the directive is absolutely shocking for a White House to send to the allegedly free media. And the first two paragraphs of the CNN piece almost read like a real news item (emphasis is added throughout all quotes).

I was disappointed in my Senior Senator's response to the House embarking on an Impeachment inquiry.  On the surface there are indications of issues.  It should not be this way.  Granted, without a smoking howitzer there would be no conviction by the US Senate, but still, that is not a reason to dismiss the indications out of hand.

That said, this is a distraction for Congress, which should be focused onte Authorization and Appropriation Bills, and the Hyde Amendment (DoDshould not be unilaterally ignoring US Law.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dark Times

For John, BLUF:  The Press has always been partisan, but now it seems to be involved with Government Agencies to suppress free speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Washington Post Says Democracy Demands Less Freedom of Speech

Here is the sub-headline:

The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."

From Reason, by Editor Jacob Sullum, 25 August 2023, 4:20 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

Donald Trump was back on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, last night for the first time since he got the boot in 2021 following the riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Trump posted the mug shot of him that was taken at Atlanta's jail this week when he was booked on the charges laid out in his Georgia indictment, which stem from his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. He included a caption that described the indictment as "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" and urged his followers to "NEVER SURRENDER!"

After taking over the platform that was then known as Twitter last year, Elon Musk, an avowed "free speech absolutist," reinstated Trump's account. But this is the first time that Trump, who started a competing platform that is still known as Truth Social, has made use of Musk's permission. The Washington Post, in a news story published this morning, portrays Musk's decision and the attitude underlying it as part of a worrisome trend that threatens "democracy" by allowing "political misinformation" to proliferate on social media. The piece nicely illustrates the confusion, obfuscation, and hypocrisy that characterize mainstream press coverage of that subject.

As is typical of this journalistic genre, Post reporters Naomi Nix and Sarah Ellison never address the question of what counts as "misinformation," a highly contested category. Nor do they grapple with the content moderation problem of how to deal with politicians who say things of public interest that are arguably or demonstrably untrue. And although they allude to a constitutional challenge provoked by the federal government's efforts to restrict speech on social media platforms, they never mention the First Amendment. That is a pretty striking omission by people whose profession relies on that amendment's protections and who claim to be worried about the health of our democracy.

If our speech is moderated by the Government then how we vote will be influenced by the Gvernment, or the Deep State.  That there isn't absolute outrage over actions to suppress the Hunter Biden Laptop story is a major disappintment to me.  I understand that such suppression helped Candidate Joe Biden win election in 2020, but the ends don't justify the means.

There should be no doubt in peoples' minds that The Washington Post is helping to subvert the principles of The Declaration of Independece and The Constitution.  It is sad.  Very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Justice For Andy Ngo

For John, BLUF:  AntiFa seems to hate freedom of the press and hate Reporters who do not adhere to their party line.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge rules three of Andy Ngo's Antifa attackers must pay him $100,000 each

From Hot Air, by Reporter John Sexton, 22 August 2023, 7:20 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

A small amount of justice at last in this case.

Earlier this month Andy Ngo’s civil trial against members of Rose City Antifa went to trial. As I explained here, the trial only involved two defendants, John Hacker and Elizabeth Richter, because three other defendants had been found “in default,” meaning they were found liable (the judge would determine the amount of that liability after the trial). One additional defendant had settled the case with Ngo prior to the trial. The trial of the remaining two defendants resulted in the jury siding with the defense.

. . .

Ngo tried to have the verdict overturned given that Hacker had admitted the incident in the gym but the judge didn’t allow it.

Yesterday, the judge issued his decision on the remaining three people who’d been found in default prior to the trial. Each of them was ordered to pay Ngo $100,000.

I am glad to see justice finally given to Reporter Andy Ngo.  I ad been disappointed in the jury.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trust the People

For John, BLUF:  "If we’ve learned anything from the pandemic and earlier disasters, we ought to be doing precisely the opposite by enacting new limits on government power during emergencies. Americans need what Swedes have enjoyed:  legal protection against autocrats posing as saviors."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lockdowns:  the Self-Inflicted Disaster

Here is the sub-headline:

Governments’ use of the pandemic to claim sweeping new emergency powers has had destructive effects.

From City Journal, by Author John Tierney, 6 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

Long before Covid struck, economists detected a deadly pattern in the impact of natural disasters: if the executive branch of government used the emergency to claim sweeping new powers over the citizenry, more people died than would have if government powers had remained constrained. It’s now clear that the Covid pandemic is the deadliest confirmation yet of that pattern.

Governments around the world seized unprecedented powers during the pandemic. The result was an unprecedented disaster, as recently demonstrated by two exhaustive analyses of the lockdowns’ impact in the United States and Europe. Both reports conclude that the lockdowns made little or no difference in the Covid death toll. But the lockdowns did lead to deaths from other causes during the pandemic, particularly among young and middle-aged people, and those fatalities will continue to mount in the future.

“Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times,” says Lars Jonung of Lund University in Sweden, a coauthor of one of the new reports. He and two fellow economists, Steve Hanke from Johns Hopkins University and Jonas Herby of the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, sifted through nearly 20,000 studies for their book, Did Lockdowns Work?, published in June by the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in London. After combining results from the most rigorous studies analyzing fatality rates and the stringency of lockdowns in various states and nations, they estimate that the average lockdown in the United States and Europe during the spring of 2020 reduced Covid mortality by just 3.2 percent. That translates to some 4,000 avoided deaths in the United States—a negligible result compared with the toll from the ordinary flu, which annually kills nearly 40,000 Americans.

Our response to COVID-19 was based on the twin pillars of "trust the experts" and don't trust The People.  And throw in a pinch of don't trust President Trump.♠  This seems just the opposite of the basis for our Republic, which is based, in large part, on trusting the People.

In honor of all those people who died unnecessarily in nursing homes in New York, or Veterans Homes in Massachusetts, we should dedicate ourselves to not letting timid Elected Officials and officious bureaucrats take away our freedoms and from feeding us false information,♥ and along with media, censoring debate.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  As exemplified by Speaker Nancy Pelosi decrying President Trump saying COVID-19 (Wuhan Flu) came from China and we should stop flights from there.
♥  As exemplified by the Government statements that we didn't need masks, followed by a mask mandate.

A Free and Frolicking Press

For John, BLUF:  The Press has played an active role in our politics since before the Revolution.&This article suggests that freedom could be certailed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Keeping Speech Robust and Free

Here is the sub-headline:

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan set a vital standard in libel law. Could the clash between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems dismantle it—and at what cost?

From The New York Review of Books, by Jeffrey Toobin, 20 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

The libel lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, over the network’s coverage of claims that the company had rigged the 2020 election, was settled this spring, but the case may soon become an artifact of a vanished era. In pretrial skirmishing, the two sides agreed on this much: the law of libel is governed by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. In the last legal arguments before the jury was to be seated, Rodney A. Smolla, one of the lawyers for Dominion, called Sullivan “the landmark decision that is the genesis for all of our modern First Amendment principles involving defamation law.” Erin E. Murphy, a lawyer for Fox, likewise said that the principle governing the case “starts in Sullivan.” But the emboldened conservative majority on the Supreme Court, having dispatched Roe v. Wade to the dustbin of overruled precedents, may now target Sullivan for the same treatment. Such a change would have fundamental consequences for both those who speak and those who are spoken about.

It’s a fitting time, then, to take a fresh look at Sullivan—how it came about and what it means today. In Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan, Samantha Barbas, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law, tells the improbable story of the advertisement that gave rise to the case and the decision that Justice William J. Brennan ultimately wrote. It’s a tale that has been told before—notably in books by Anthony Lewis and Aimee Edmondson—but Barbas has a distinctive and relevant argument.

Like the earlier authors, Barbas makes the reasonable claim that Sullivan represented a straightforward battle between good and evil. It was, she writes, “one of a string of libel lawsuits brought by Southern segregationist officials against Northern media outlets…to prevent them from reporting on the civil rights movement.” By ruling for the Times, the Supreme Court “freed the press to cover the civil rights movement” and, not incidentally, likely saved the newspaper from being bankrupted by the damages it would have been ordered to pay in this and similar libel cases. But Barbas’s endorsement of the Sullivan decision is more nuanced than those of Lewis and Edmondson, and more reflective of the current moment. She appreciates the need for libel lawsuits at a time when “damaging falsehoods can spread online with a click, and reputations [can be] destroyed instantly.” But she recognizes that the protections of Sullivan are needed as much, or more, by individuals as by media companies. The story of Sullivan, and of the precedent’s possible demise, reveals as much about our own times as it does the 1960s.

This article was good for bringing me up to speed on Sullivan, which I learned was about an advertisement in The New York Times, and about the fight to end Jim Crow in the South.

I see the Author's point that the US Supreme Court could reconsider Sullivan  The Court could divide over the issue, and perhaps along the lines described, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voting to overturn and make libel suits against media outlets easier.  The author thought they might be joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

However, I think a reversal of Sullivan would be a disaster.  I worry that it could result in us knowing less about our politics and our world.  The Author is totally dismissive of the allegations against Dominion over election fraud.  I, on the other hand, thought that was an issue worthy of some investigation, along with the exclusion of poll watchers in Philadelphia and Atlanta (as seen on TV).

I hope we don't see a reversal of Sullivan.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fox Shakeup

For John, BLUF:  Fox News seems to be suffering from a self inflilcted wound.  The questioon is why.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Fox News announces new primetime lineup with Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, and Greg Gutfeld

Here is the sub-headline:

'[New lineup] will ensure our viewers have access to unrivaled coverage from our best-in-class team for years to come,' CEO Suzanne Scott said

From Fox News, by Reporter Brian Flood, 26 June 2023, 11:43am EDT.

Here is the lede plus two:

Fox News Channel will debut a new primetime lineup on July 17, FOX News Media CEO Suzanne Scott announced on Monday.

"The Ingraham Angle" with Laura Ingraham will kick things off at 7 p.m. ET, followed by "Jesse Watters Primetime" shifting to 8 p.m. ET, "Hannity" will remain at 9 p.m. ET and "Gutfeld!" will begin at 10 p.m. ET.

"FOX News Channel has been America’s destination for news and analysis for more than 21 years and we are thrilled to debut a new lineup. The unique perspectives of Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, and Greg Gutfeld will ensure our viewers have access to unrivaled coverage from our best-in-class team for years to come," Scott announced.

I admit to be one of those who think that Fox News made a big mistake in terminating Opinionator Tucker Carlson.  I think Mr Carlson was well liked and was appealing to a lot of viewers.

As to the new lineup, I do not think that Fox News has made up for the loss of Mr Carlson.  I like Ms Laura Ingram, but I don't think she is everyone's cup of tea.  She was where she was supposed to be.  As for Talker Jesse Watters, his style is different from Tucker Carlson, and not a good substitute.  The move does extend Mr Watters' work day.  Moving Mr Greg Gutfeld to the Ten slot seems reasonable.  Overall, not a splendid mixup.

Good luck to Fox and to the rest of us.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anathematizing Our Opponents

For John, BLUF:  We can all try to get along or we can divide up and hate each other.  The former is what we were supposed to have learned in Kindergarten.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Impeachments, insurrection, indictments — and indifference from Trump’s followers

Here is the sub-headline:

There’s no redemption for supporters who’ve chosen racist ideology over country or even party.

From The Boston Globe, by Columnist Renée Graham, 13 June 2023, 2:22 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

It’s not that Republicans defending Donald Trump don’t believe that the former president willfully took boxes of classified documents when he left the White House; piled them up in unsecured locations all over Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate; endangered national security by showing them to guests; and tried everything short of smothering them in ketchup and eating them to keep them despite federal officials repeatedly demanding their swift return.

They just don’t care.

So, the Columnist asserts that those who follow Donald Trump are, in the Judeo-Christian view, mired in sin and cannot be saved.  For us there is no redemption, nothing to expiate our sins.  That is a pretty stark judgement.  It reminds me of 2016, when one of my friends said to me that until I renounced Donald Trump I had nothing to say [to them].

The end of the column wasn't much kinder than the beginning.

This is what happens to people dialed into their phony victimization and beliefs that equality is the province of whiteness (or those willing to employ pretzel logic to twist toward white adjacency) while accountability is a punishment only for those they don’t like.

Eight years ago this week, Trump descended an escalator in his garish Manhattan “tower” to announce his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s been dragging this nation through hell ever since, and his followers remain down for a ride that has pulverized political norms, the rule of law, and democracy itself. And that’s shocking only to those who still refuse to acknowledge the white supremacist origins of Trump’s repulsive success.

In fact, it expanded into something like an invocation of Author Robin J. DiAngelo's White Fragility:  Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.  We are supporting Donald Trump because we are "White Supremecists".

In my mind I compared this Column with Dr Richard Haass' book, The Bill of Obligations:  The Ten Habits of Good Citizens.  My conclusion was that the Author had judged some 74 million fellow Citizens and found them wanting.  They were so bad that there was no basis for compromise.♠

If the Biden voting base really thinks those who voted for Donald J Trump, and still support him, are irredeemable, then we are setting ourselves up for a confrontation.  Perhaps we will end up like Senegal this last month.♥  There are 23 dead in Senegal as of this writing.  I don't think we want to go there.

Because of my concern about the tone of this Column and the direction it seemed to be heading, I made it a topic for Lowell's Local Access TV City Life Show.  I invited, via EMail, Ms Graham to come on the show and present her views.  Alas, she did not respond.

In the mean time, we all need to acknowledge that our neighbors have acceptable reasons for favoring one candidate or another.  We are not living through the Stalinist Era, the Hitler Era or the Maoist Era.  There is no Gulag, no concentration camps, no Re-Education Camps.  No one has declared a Year Zero for the United States.  So, let us walk on together, working to make our union more perfect.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  In researching this Blog Post I did come across something new for me.  It turned out "The Redeemers" was a political coalition in the Southern United States during the Reconstruction Era.  They were the Southern wing of the Democratic Party and their goal was to regain their political power and reestablish White supremacy.  Wikipedia has them active from the 1870s to 1910.
♥  There are rumors that two term President Macky Sall is trying to make a third run, despite a Constitutional limit of two terms.  There are segments who believe the conviction of opposition leader Ousmane Sonko represents an effort to prevent him from running in 2024.

Daniel Ellsberg (RIP)

For John, BLUF:  Daniel Elsburg made his name with The Pentagon Papers, a collection of documents on the Viet-nam War, which he leaked to the media..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, dies aged 92

Here is the sub-headline:

Analyst who leaked studies showing US government knew the Vietnam war was un-winnable became activist and writer

From , by Martin Pengelly in New York @MartinPengelly Fri 16 Jun 2023 15.04 EDT.

Here is the lede plus one:

Daniel Ellsberg, a US government analyst who became one of the most famous whistleblowers in world politics when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, has died. He was 92. His death was confirmed by his family on Friday.

In March, Ellsberg announced that he had inoperable pancreatic cancer. Saying he had been given three to six months to live, he said he had chosen not to undergo chemotherapy and had been assured of hospice care.

“I am not in any physical pain,” Ellsberg wrote then, adding: “My cardiologist has given me license to abandon my salt-free diet of the last six years. This has improved my life dramatically: the pleasure of eating my favourite foods!”

On Friday, the family said Ellsberg “was not in pain” when he died “surrounded by his family”. He spent his final months eating “hot chocolate, croissants, cake, poppyseed bagels and lox” and enjoying “several viewings of his all-time favourite [movie], Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” their statement added.

“In his final days, surrounded by so much love from so many people, Daniel joked, ‘If I had known dying would be like this, I would have done it sooner … ’

It is nicee to see someone with a sense of humor about their condition.

I think the subheadline at The Orange County Register csaptured an important outcome of the leak of the Pentsagon Papers.

The government consultant’s leak inspired acts of retaliation by President Richard Nixon that helped lead to his resignation.

The leaked documents from Dr Ellsburg to The New York Times laid bare disshonesty and confusion within severwl Administrations regsrding the war in Viet-nam.  To that extent it was good for the nation.  On the other hand, it served to further undermine ongoing efforts to support the relatively free and Democratic Republic of Viet-nam.  In the end the US Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Viet-namese government and it fell to the Communist Dictatorship of North Viet-nam.

There are those who say we could not win the war in Viet-nam.  I am not one of them.  However, we would have needed a military leader more like Edward Lansdale, which the Army lacked.

One collateral outcome of the leaks was, on 30 June 1971, a Supreme Court decision, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for a prior restraint injunction (New York Times Co. v. United States).  This is an important part of our Free Press Rights under the First Amendment.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fox News Flailing

For John, BLUF:  It seems Management at Fox News has lost its ever-loving mind.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Fox News Channel Cancels ‘The Next Revolution’ With Steve Hilton As It Debuts ‘Fox News Saturday Night’ And New Weekend Primetime Lineup

From Deadline, by Tom Tapp, 1 June 2023, 2:26pm.

Here is the lede plus one:

Fox News Channel announced today that it is canceling The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton, though the network indicated the host would stay on as a contributor. The move is part of a reshuffle of the channel’s weekend primetime lineup, the new version of which is set to debut on Saturday.

Megan Albano, Senior Vice President of The Five & Weekend Programming at Fox News Channel indicated that The Big Saturday/Sunday Show will become The Big Weekend Show, airing at 7 p.m. ET on Saturdays and Sundays while a new entry, Fox News Saturday Night, will premiere at 10 p.m. ET. Trey Gowdy’s Sunday Night in America will move into the spot formerly occupied by Hilton’s show at 9 p.m. ET.

Has fox News hired someone from Anheiser Bush to help them make programing decisions?

This, on top of shutting down Tucker Carlson, is a second big strike.

Who is next, Maria Bartiroma?

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff