This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Media

  • Will VA chief be voice of reason on climate change and medical marijuana in Trump administration?

    We all know how concerned the Washington Post is about the healthcare of veterans. That’s why they asked this question in their pages today; Will VA chief be voice of reason on climate change and medical marijuana in Trump administration? That’s veterans’ biggest concern these days. Not that the VA is largely mismanaged, or that they can’t get access to the care that they’re owed. Veterans also want free weed and they want to send taxpayer dollars to China;

    [Veterans’ Affairs Secretary, David]Shulkin didn’t mention either controversy during his prepared remarks, delivered in the White House briefing room Wednesday for increased exposure, but they were raised in back-to-back questions from reporters. Each is a delicate issue for the physician Shulkin. He’s a scientist devoted to improved care for veterans and a top official in a Trump administration that denounces enlightened views on marijuana and the changing climate.

    It’s a tough spot, but one where he could be a needed voice for reason.

    He cautiously signaled a willingness to advance medical marijuana for veterans, while making it clear that he wants no part of the climate change debate.

    If anyone can prove that there is a medical reason, beyond a placebo effect, for the use of marijuana as a treatment for anything, I’d be all for it – that doesn’t seem to be the case, though. The potheads at the Washington Post are just trying to get closer to acceptance using veterans – just like the LBGT issue.

    Same goes for the climate change issue – what would the VA have to do with making policy in regards to global warming, or cooling, or whatever?

    Following his frank depiction of VA’s problems, a reporter asked whether “in the spirit of the candid assessment” [David] Shulkin considers climate change a threat to his department’s mission.

    This was the day before President Trump exploded the climate change debate by making the United States an international outcast when he withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.

    Shulkin dodged, saying he is “focused on those environmental issues that impact veterans … beyond that, it really is beyond my scope as secretary.”

    Was he “repudiating the multiple reports that have come out of your department that say climate change” is a real issue for vets?” the reporter asked. “That’s not something that you’re even considering at this point?”

    Shulkin replied: “Look, I am focused on the health of our veterans. And clearly, there — there’s — there’s a relationship between health and the environment. What I’m not focused on is the bigger political issues about United States policy on — on other types of reform. I’m focused on the health of veterans.”

    But, of course, climate change is related to veterans’ health, as reports from his department have said.

    The author of the Post story presents as evidence a 2014 report from the VA, their “VA Climate Change Adaptation Plan” which begins with this paragraph:

    The climate is changing at a pace never before experienced in recorded human history, affecting natural and human systems alike. Climate change is affecting how and when precipitation falls, the intensity and duration of excessively high temperatures, the availability and quality of water, the intensity of storms, the level of the world’s oceans, and the range and intensity of some diseases. In turn, these natural systems affect human systems by increasing the likelihood of damage to built infrastructure, harming human health, impeding operation of existing energy and water systems, damaging plant life and agriculture, and posing risks to national security. All economic sectors and communities, including the federal government, face new challenges.

    It also says that; “Temperatures at the surface of the earth rose by more than 1.5°F between 1880 and 2012”. How are we still alive?

    The document blames everything from influenza outbreaks to tainted drugs on global whatever. What the document doesn’t explain is how global whatever is preventing veterans from getting care they need in a timely manner. It doesn’t explain why global warming makes it so hard to fire incompetent VA employees.

    The Obama Administration politicized every facet of the executive department and apparently the Washington Post liked it that way. Me? I just want the VA to do what it’s supposed to do and stop doing bad things to veterans.

    Luckily, it looks like David Shulkin wants to do that, too, despite the stupid-asses at the Washington Post, who, thankfully, don’t run the VA.

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

  • Fake News? Yep.

    This just seemed apropos, given the article Jonn just published.

    Poll: Majority of Americans Think
    Mainstream Media Publishes ‘Fake News’

    The results were from the most recent Harvard-Harris poll.

    It’s not just Republicans who think the media “pulls things out of it’s (ear)” these days, either. A majority of both political independents and Democrats also believed the mainstream media often contains fake news. Nationwide, the combined total was nearly 2/3 of those polled.

    When most people say that something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well . . . there’s a damn good chance that it’s a duck.

    IMO there’s a reason the US public today has less respect for the press as an institution than they do for Congress. And when we see stuff like Jonn wrote about featured by “reputable” news organizations as “big news”, IMO the public has a damn good reason for its low opinion of the former.

  • Washington Post tackles David Clarke’s Stolen Valor

    Washington Post tackles David Clarke’s Stolen Valor

    I guess the question about Sheriff David Clarke’s uniform and the Slate article which ignited the discussion was too good for the Washington Post to ignore. Despite the fact that the Left’s own fact checkers at Snopes admitted that it was a tempest in a teapot. The Post determined that it was worth their time and money to identify every little pin on the Sheriff’s uniform in an article entitled “Here’s what the pins that Sheriff Clarke wears actually mean“. Their conclusion should have been that they have too much time on their hands.

    So here are the 22 things on Clarke’s uniform when he spoke at the convention in July, and, where possible, what the items represent. You’ll notice that, for Clarke, the pins are a mix of résumé and politics, precisely as he indicated.

    So they list each and every piece of flair and they don’t find a single incident of something that was “stolen” or anything that denotes “valor”. I’ll agree that it’s just too much, but, for Pete’s sake, there’s nothing really wrong with the Sheriff’s uniform.

    Many Democrats are using it to indicate some sort of deceit so they can demean the Sheriff, you know, because he’s black and strayed from the plantation as a Trump supporter – the same way that they created a myth that Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon, is an idiot.

    For example, one of the 1600 comments on the Post article;

    tyee
    4:09 AM EST
    Jesus protect us. THIS MENTAL MIDGET is commissioned to carry a BADGE and a GUN? Perhaps the most frightening image since Charles Manson! I’ve seen him on Hannity, who does the knee pad act on him.

    Speaking of mental midgets….

  • UK Police stop sharing Manchester intel with US

    According to BBC, British law enforcement has ceased sharing intelligence from their Manchester bombing investigation because everything that US intelligence agencies are given ends up leaked to the US media;

    UK officials were outraged when photos appearing to show debris from the attack appeared in the New York Times.

    It came after the name of bomber Salman Abedi was leaked to US media just hours after the attack, which left 22 dead.

    Theresa May said she would tell Donald Trump at a Nato meeting that shared intelligence “must remain secure”.

    The US’s acting ambassador to the UK “unequivocally condemned” the leaks in a BBC radio interview.

    “These leaks were reprehensible, deeply distressing,” Lewis Lukens said.

    From The Guardian;

    “This is an operational matter for police,” a No 10 spokesman said. The police and the Home Office refused to comment. The Guardian understands there is not a blanket ban on intelligence-sharing between the US and the UK.

    Relations between the US and UK security services, normally extremely close, have been put under strain by the scale of the leaks from US officials to the American media.

    So much for any credibility the New York Times had in the discussion about the security of classified information.

  • Is Trump Correct in Calling the Media Biased? Harvard Study Says . . . .

    . . . you betcha.

    And yes, the study was by that Harvard:  the university in Cambridge, MA. The East Coast liberal academic Mecca.

    A group at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy recently looked at media reporting concerning President Trump during his first 100 days in office. They categorized stories in the mainstream media concerning President Trump in two ways: first by primary subject  (e.g., economy, immigration, health care), and second by the article’s overall tone. The stories’ were “binned” into multiple subject categories; the stories’ tone was assessed as either positive or negative towards the POTUS.

    The group conducting the study then did the same for Trump’s last three predecessors. Stories from 10 mainstream media organizations were used – 3 foreign, and 7 US.

    What the study found was IMO quite telling. This Heatstreet article has more details – but here’s the study’s “bottom line” at a glance:

    Based on how they’ve reported on the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, the US mainstream media appears to be biased as hell against the POTUS.  The US media has consistently used far more negative “spin” regarding his Administration than was the case with any of his 3 immediate predecessors during their first 100 days in office.

    It’s been normal over the past 25 years for a new POTUS to get somewhat more negative coverage than positive during his first 100 days.  (The SCoaMF that occupied 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, before Trump was an exception to this rule.)  However, the degree of unfavorable “spin” being according President Trump is exceptional – and possibly unprecedented.

    Even more revealing are the actual “splits” for the seven US mainstream media outlets studied:

    • CNN and NBC – 93% negative coverage, 7% positive
    • CBS – 91% negative coverage, 9% positive
    • New York Times – 87% negative, 13% positive
    • Washington Post – 83% negative, 17% positive
    • Wall Street Journal – 70% negative, 30% positive
    • Fox – 52% negative, 48% positive

    In fact, four of the US mainstream media organizations studied – CNN, NBC, CBS, and the NYT – were each more negatively biased against President Trump than 2 of the 3 foreign mainstream media organizations included in the study.  Since Trump has a clear “America first” public persona, one would expect US media organizations to be more favorable towards him than the European ones.  That’s not the case at all.

    Two things stand out when looking at those “splits”. First, based on the study’s results Fox may well be quite accurate in its “Fair and Balanced” claim.  They’re the only mainstream media outlet, US or foreign, of the 10 studied to treat President Trump anywhere near evenhandedly during his first 100 days in office.

    And second: if there’s any “vast conspiracy” in the mainstream media, that conspiracy sure as hell isn’t some kind of “vast right-wing conspiracy”. If anything, the media is skewing even more to the “hard left” today than usual.

    No, the mainstream media doesn’t control the facts behind events they report.  (Well, unless they engage in outright MSU –AKA “Making Sh!t Up”, or creating false or misleading news – though the mainstream media indeed seems to do exactly that as well on occasion.)  However, they do control what facts they choose to report and omit, along with how those facts are presented – AKA “spun”.  And based the media “spin” found by the Harvard study group, the degree of negative bias shown by most of the mainstream media against the Trump Administration during its first 100 days is shocking.

    Indeed, it almost appears as if the news media is actively trying to overturn the recent US Presidential election.  I guess they must only believe in our Constitution and our form of representative democracy when their preferred candidate wins.

    Then again, the US mainstream media has been overwhelmingly politically liberal since at least the Eisenhower administration (and almost certainly well before then). Given that fact, the media regarding themselves as our “betters” – as well as them believing that “the media knows what is best for the country; the public should just ‘shut up and color’ and take our word for it” – should be no great surprise.

    The Heatstreet article linked above is IMO worth a read. An online copy of at least a short form of the actual study appears to be available here.

    Trump certainly has his flaws.  But based on this Harvard study’s results, falsely accusing the media of being “out to get him” doesn’t seem to be one of them.  That accusation certainly appears to have a basis in fact.

  • Washington Post jumps the Trump shark

    Washington Post jumps the Trump shark

    Last night, the Washington Post breathlessly reported “House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump“. In the article they recounted that conversation;

    A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

    It sounds very conspiratorial doesn’t it. Well, an actual transcript of the conversation tells a different story;

    There are four incidences of [Laughter] that aren’t in the text of the Washington Post article. If the internet has taught us anything, the written word is difficult to judge without some kind of emotional context-that’s why we now have emojis with which to express ourselves. The Congressmen were joking – like that time Ronald Reagan joked that he was bombing the Soviet Union after he outlawed it.

    This article rates right up there, or right down there, with the two scoops of ice cream article on CNN last week. Between you and me, I don’t think Putin could afford Trump.

  • Trump can’t be trusted with sensitive information — and now the world knows

    The Washington Post editorial board is charged up for this opinion piece in this morning’s print edition; Trump can’t be trusted with sensitive information — and now the world knows. As Chief Tango reminds us, that’s pretty hypocritical of the Post to make that declaration, especially given that the folks at the Post can’t be trusted with sensitive information either – especially during a Republican presidential administration;

    The consequences of the president’s lapse could be far-reaching. In addition to disrupting a vital flow of intelligence and possibly endangering agents on the ground, Mr. Trump has let the world know that he and his administration cannot be trusted with sensitive information. Governments that share their secrets with the CIA, from Britain to Israel to Australia, may feel compelled to recalibrate their cooperation. Those that don’t have a cooperative relationship, such as Russia and China, will try to use their access to Mr. Trump to extract more indiscretions.

    The administration’s attempts to defend the leak only underlined the continuing chaos in the White House.

    It’s as if they’re talking about themselves. Here’s an article from the early days of the Trump Administration; “Here’s how to leak government documents to The Post“.

    This is precisely why The Washington Post and other news outlets created systems to allow government employees to leak information as securely as possible.

    […]

    If you don’t already have a code name, you’re given one. This allows you to maintain contact with a reporter at The Post if you wish to do so. All of the other information about you is lost through the Tor-SecureDrop system: No IP address, no browser information — no nothing

    That’s not espionage is it? It also explains why they’re so dependent on anonymous sources.

    Remember, all we’re talking about here is ISIS’ intent to bomb airliners with explosives-laden laptops. Its not brand new information. And if it was sensitive that an ally supplied the information to the Trump Administration, why did the New York Times identify that ally on their front page?

    Also from the New York Times;

    “What the president discussed with the foreign minister was wholly appropriate to that conversation and is consistent with the routine sharing of information between the president and any leaders with whom he’s engaged,” General McMaster said.

    General McMaster suggested that Mr. Trump did not violate any confidentiality agreement with the country that provided it, which he did not name. In fact, General McMaster said: “The president wasn’t even aware where this information came from. He wasn’t briefed on the source or method of the information either.”

    Moreover, he said, the president did not give away secrets by discussing the city the information came from, as reported, because it would have been obvious. “It was nothing that you would not know from open source reporting in terms of a source of concern,” General McMaster said. “And it had all to do with operations that are already ongoing, had been made public for months.”

    But, the media is still clinging to a non-issue.

  • Trump and his intel reveal

    The Washington Post caused quite a stir last night when they put out their story entitled “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador”. Apparently, the president discussed some intelligence about ISIS that had been gathered by a third party nation with the Russians.

    The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

    The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

    “This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

    You’ll notice that the Post doesn’t name their sources on this story, probably because they admit that they depend more on “unnamed sources” than on legitimate folks who don’t mind going on the record. Margaret Sullivan, the Post’s media critic admits as much just this past weekend;

    The newspaper’s media critic, Margaret Sullivan, says she’s no fan of unnamed sources because of the lack of accountability and scrutiny they provide, but she defends the use of them in the Post’s current White House coverage.

    “There is no way to get at the story through talking to the White House press secretary or listening to the spin that is offered by officials who are willing to go on the record,” she says.

    In short, the only way to get the story that they want is to use anonymous sources. You, know even if those sources are only in the reporters’ heads.

    For the uninitiated, the President decides what information is classified and to what degree it’s supposed to be protected from prying eyes – so really, even if Trump did tell the Russians something sensitive, he did nothing illegal. However, HR McMaster, the National Security Advisor to this President says that he was at that particular meeting with the President and what the Washington Post reported “it didn’t happen”.

    The Post mentioned McMaster;

    “The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

    McMaster reiterated his statement in a subsequent appearance at the White House on Monday and described the Washington Post story as “false,” but did not take any questions.

    But let’s base the story on what “unnamed sources” tell us instead.

    Apparently, the information that Trump revealed was in regards to ISIS planning to use explosives in laptops on aircraft. If the Russians weren’t aware of that, they haven’t gone through TSA inspections in the last 16 years.

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the tip.