This has been covered on my show ad nauseam for years.
Prior to Trump’s political arrival, the media ignored hate crimes against white people (which are rising according to the FBI). The double standard on political ‘violent rhetoric’ is undeniable.
Post-Trump, we’ve seen a surge in fake hate hoaxes.
We even caught the DNC and Hillary campaign funding the Creamer Group to manufacture fake hate and political violence to blame Trump supporters for.
The sheer amount of examples of Trump supporters being verbally accosted or physically assaulted for wearing their MAGA hats should have been enough to spur some media attention at least. Alas, they still ignore real hate to peddle blatantly obvious fake hate scandals.
The formula is simple:
Outlandish, unbelievable hatred claim is made. Media elites organize to make the story believable.
The MSM, social media, blue check mark brigade uncritically spread the story and make it viral.
A crowdfunding site is created to support the ‘victim.’
Cracks in the story start to appear but the MSM and social media apologists run interference for the fraudster.
MSM drops the story altogether. Rarely reporting that the story they peddled was a hoax.
Social media blue check mark brigaders excuse peddling the hoax because ‘it’s still an important discussion that raises awareness.’
Fraudster has to give money the defrauded back, but this gets no MSM attention at all, and is only covered in alternative media.
The standard for this formula to be deployed are that the alleged ‘victim’ must be from a protected class typically aligned with the Democratic Party or other leftist philosophy. If they are white or aligned with the political right, the story is ignored.
Case in point, the Jussie Smollett hoax. It was uncritically believed and spread my MSM news outlets and verified ‘journalists’ on Twitter. It was always suspect and unbelievable as a real story. The media elite didn’t care. It checked all of their social justice boxes. Racist – check. Homophobic- check. Can be used to attack Trump and his supporters – check. With that, the hoax went viral.
Now, we have two stories of actual hate directed at Trump supporters. One was just a kid and the other involved potential murder. The media has all but ignored these stories. Some outlets haven’t covered them at all, others have buried the stories in their platforms and not given nearly the attention they give the typical hate hoax.
A 14-year-old boy was verbally accosted by a Van’s store employee for wearing a MAGA hat. A kid! After telling this kid “fuck you” the mother had this exchange with the employee:
“He did nothing to you,” the mother told the employee. “What did you say to my son, to my 14-year-old?”
“I’m sure he’s heard it before,” the employee responded.
Gee, might a story about adults accosting children for their political views be something we can have a ‘national discussion’ about?
Or how about the story where a guy pulled a gun on two Trump supporters who were wearing their MAGA hats. A GUN!
He threatened to kill them because they wore MAGA hats after flipping them off by saying: “It’s a good day for you to die.” He’s been arrested.
Again, might there be a ‘national discussion’ about threating to murder people because you don’t like their political views?
Both stories basically ignored by the MSM. Real examples of unhinged hatred for fellow Americans. Links to both stories here.
To steal a quote from CNN spreading the Jussie Smollett hoax … this is America in 2019. Or rather, this is your media in 2019.
UPDATE:
Today, after writing this post, the story broke that a leftist harassed an elderly man for wearing a MAGA hat.
So much for the media’s ‘treat your elders with respect’ mantra.
UPDATE II:
This 7-year-old was allegedly called ‘little Hitler’ for selling hot cocoa to raise money for the wall. So classy adults.
This hoax had all the hallmarks of the standard and commonplace fake hate hoax we’ve become accustomed to. So on today’s show, I’ll again do the obligatory ‘at some point the media and public have to start being skeptical of these cases, right?’ segment.
On Saturday, Chicago police revealed that the focus of the investigation had “shifted.” CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz reported that authorities now believe that Smollett actually paid two men to fake the attack, both of whom were now cooperating with law enforcement.
According to law enforcement officials who spoke with TMZ, a grand jury will hear the case next week to examine its credibility. The police sources also provided details on why Smollett’s claims seemingly lacked credibility.
“The sources say there were red flags from the get-go,” TMZreported. “Cops were extremely suspicious when Jussie took them out to the area where he said he was attacked and pointed to an obscure camera saying how happy he was that the attack was on video. Turns out the camera was pointing in the wrong direction. Cops thought it was weird he knew the location of that camera.”
Obviously, this isn’t surprising or new information. However, it’s always nice to have empirical data to back up your case.
It’s no secret that Twitter censors and shadow-bans conservatives. The Gateway Pundit has reported on this extensively over the past few years. We reported in July 2018 that Twitter has long been accused of censoring conservatives. Twitter was indeed censoring and shadowbanning the President of the United States, Donald Trump‘s twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. Twitter is […]
Luckily, through the use of standard statistical methods—similar to those commonly applied to calculate confidence intervals in the physical and social sciences—one may determine that the underlying population disparity (i.e. the disparity between liberal and conservative behavioral norms) would have to be quite large in order for there to be any significant likelihood of observing a randomly constituted 22-point data set characterized by the above-described 21:1 ratio. Indeed, assuming some randomness in enforcement unrelated to bias, one would have to assume that conservatives were at least four times as likely as liberals to violate Twitter’s neutrally applied terms of service to produce even a 5% chance (the standard benchmark) that a 22-data point sample would yield a result as skewed as 21-1.
Left-wing activists on college campus regularly engage in the practice of de-platforming—including the use of violence or the threat thereof as a means to prevent someone from speaking. Victims of this practice typically are conservative figures such as Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter. At Berkley, when Milo Yiannopoulos tried to give a speech, a large mob threw stones and fireworks at police officers, and attacked members of the crowd. Around the same time, commentators noted that during the 2016 president campaign, when Bernie Sanders visited Liberty University, the evangelical institution run be Jerry Falwell, Jr., his message was met with “polite skepticism.”
Are we to believe that while prominent figures on the left encourage uncivil and even violent tactics, both on an off college campuses, their online behaviour is, with the solitary exception of Rose McGowan, universally exemplary?
Harassment and the advocacy of violence are serious issues, and there is nothing morally objectionable about social media companies removing this kind of content from their platforms. However, such laudable objectives should not be used as cover to prosecute ideological campaigns. While social media platforms are private companies, anti-discrimination laws generally allow legislators avenues to address businesses that exhibit unacceptable biases in how they treat the public.
For the record, none of this is new information. We’ve known major US media outlets publish Chinese propaganda for years. Their hypocrisy on the subject of election influence by foreign powers is absolutely hysterical though.
Explanatory media website Vox has been receiving money from a Chinese communist government-backed front organization.
A recent Vox blog post by foreign editor Yochi Dreazen titled, “The big winner of the Trump-Kim summit? China” discloses at the bottom of the piece that the reporting was subsidized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation.
“This reporting was supported by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), a privately funded nonprofit organization based in Hong Kong that is dedicated to ‘facilitating open and constructive exchange among policy-makers, business leaders, academics, think-tanks, cultural figures, and educators from the United States and China,’” the post states in a note at the bottom.
CUSEF, as first noted by Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, is a front organization backed by the Chinese government and established to spread the party’s propaganda.
A publication that screeches about Trump/Russia collusion and Russian meddling in our elections via Facebook ads should probably steer clear of doing what they decry. Vox, however, like the Washington Post, doesn’t seem to care if they do it.
Vox’s ties to CUSEF are receiving increased scrutiny in light of efforts to lawmakers to counter China’s promotion of propaganda in the U.S. media.
The Chinese government doesn’t just pay to have their propaganda published in American media, but they fund a LOT of that Washington DC think tank data the American media publishes to sway American public opinion.
The influence operations are conducted by the United Front Work Department, a Central Committee organ that employs tens of thousands of operatives who seek to use both overt and covert operations to promote Communist Party policies.
The Party’s United Front strategy includes paying several Washington think tanks with the goal influencing their actions and adopting positions that support Beijing’s policies.
“The [Chinese Communist Party] has sought to influence academic discourse on China and in certain instances has infringed upon—and potentially criminally violated—rights to freedoms of speech and association that are guaranteed to Americans and those protected by U.S. laws,” the report says.
All bought and paid for by the Chinese government.
As I never tire of saying, China Daily is my favorite newspaper in the world.
But it’s conceivable that not every visitor to the Washington Post’s web site would know the reason for my fondness and loyalty. China Daily is the state-controlled English-language voice of the Chinese government to the outside world. Sometimes this makes it a useful source of intel about the line the government wants to push.
The Washington Post has written two pieces in the past week drawing attention to the dangers of China’s foreign influence campaign, yet the newspaper appears to be complicit in advancing Chinese interests.
“The foreign influence campaign is part and parcel of China’s larger campaign for global power,” a Post opinion writer wrote Sunday, “Beijing’s strategy is first to cut off critical discussion of China’s government, then to co-opt American influencers in order to promote China’s narrative.”
“By influencing the influencers, China gets Americans to carry its message to other Americans,” the editorial explained, citing Glenn Tiffert, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The Washington Post, an unquestionably influential publication, regularly features Chinese propaganda. The Post’s China Watch insert is written and paid for by the state-run China Daily. While the prominent newspaper acknowledges that China Watch is an “advertising supplement” prepared by the Communist Party’s English-language mouthpiece and the People’s Republic of China in its print edition, the China Watch website lacks any clear indication that the information is of Chinese origin.
Under the proud motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” the Washington Post’s editors have run a Communist authoritarian defending his party’s attack on democracy and subjugation of the state to the Communist Party.
On Monday, the Post published Chinese venture capitalist, Eric X. Li’s endorsement of Chinese President Xi Jinping‘s recent eradication of term limits for his office.
It’s distressing to see The Post become a channel for state propaganda from the People’s Republic of China. Yet that’s what’s happening with the lengthy advertorials from the China Daily that are distributed with your newspaper.
The Sept. 30 “Chinawatch” insert was especially objectionable. Four of the six pages were filled with happy, seemingly fact-filled reports about the latest developments with Taiwan, all masquerading as “news.” But they were missing crucial context for understanding the fraught relations across the Taiwan Strait. There was no mention of controversies within democratic Taiwan about the new policies and their effects, nor any observations contrary to China’s deceptive strategies. All was harmony and light.
The Chinese government is spending generously worldwide to promote its view. But your accepting its advertising dollars is no mere commercial transaction. These “news reports” are from a state-controlled arm of the Chinese propaganda establishment.
Hong Kong (CNN)US President Donald Trump went off topic in characteristic style at the United Nations Security Council this week, accusing China of using state media to meddle in the upcoming midterm elections.
While he provided no evidence for his remarks, which derailed a meeting that was supposed to focus on issues of nonproliferation, he later accused China on Twitter of “placing propaganda ads in the Des Moines Register and other papers, made to look like news.”
Gotta love CNN’s ‘he provided no evidence’ comment considering everyone knows the Chinese government does this and it’s been widely reported for at least a decade.
You could not get away from this story a few days ago. Especially here in Michigan.
Here are some of the headlines:
Those are the Google results from just a minute before I wrote this post. On page one of Google right now, only 2 articles mention that this story was fabricated. Given that up to 95% of users won’t go to the second page (various studies have it 80% – 95%), this is a perfect scenario for this fake news to continue to spread.
“She came in the house and she was wet, like soaking wet, and I’m asking her what happened but she was afraid to tell me because she thought she was going to get in trouble,” Rapier told Fox17. “And then I called my boys because I knew they’d tell me and then they said the guy said ‘stupid N-word’ and started peeing on her.”
After interviewing several of the children who had allegedly witnessed the incident, police arrested David Allen Dean on the charge of felony sex offense excluding assault and commercializing, WWMT reported.
Sounds horrific. I even came close to posting it myself. Then again, I’ve been in the media a long time. I know the patterns, and I’m a cynic. The overwhelming majority of these types of stories are garbage.
You saw the headlines in the image above. This became a national viral story.
Then … the truth:
A thorough investigation by the Grand Rapids Police Department, in conjunction with the Kent CountyProsecutor‘s Office, has revealed that recent allegation that an adult male urinated on a child were fabricated. After interviews by a trained specialist, the parents of the children talked to them more, and the children admitted the adult make was not involved. One the of the children urinated on another child, and the story was concocted to avoid trouble. Additionally, citizens in the surrounding provided a verifiable alibi for the recorded time of the incident.
We appreciate the conscientiousness of the parents in bringing the matter to the attention of the police, and in continuing to ask their children question as new evidence was obtained.
As I’ve said countless times … don’t rush to validate a sensationalized story. They’re usually hoaxes.
