↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → Breitbart

Biased Media Prove Prez. Trump Right by Being More Biased

128 Establishment News Outlets Coordinate Attack on Trump

By John Nolte, August 13 2018

Some 128 establishment news outlets are coordinating an attack against President Trump that is scheduled to launch on August 16.

While the media have undoubtedly been coordinating against Trump ever since he announced his candidacy (after all, there is a reason every news outlet reports on the exact same stories using the exact same left-wing narrative), this is the first time I am aware of where the media have openly and proudly coordinated to attack Trump.

This coming attack is premised on the entitled belief within the establishment media that the First Amendment protects the media from criticism, and that the First Amendment restricts a sitting president from criticizing the media.

How else to explain 128 (and counting) news outlets coordinating to attack the president for daring to criticize the media for launching coordinated attacks against him.

The event is being organized by the far-left Boston Globe.

Basically, on August 16, some 128 strongly worded op-eds will run to mislead readers into believing criticism of the media is “unacceptable” and an “attack on the First Amendment.”

Over the weekend, Brian Stelter, a CNN staffer who regularly spreads conspiracy theories, accidentally pointed out just how bad of an idea this is.

Back in March, Stelter blasted the Sinclair Broadcast Group after its local television affiliates broadcast a rather anodyne editorial against “fake news.”

While everyone understands why Stelter, who has made a cottage industry of spreading fake news, would be outraged against anyone who speaks up against his cottage industry, he still spent days savaging Sinclair for pressuring its local affiliates to be on the same page editorially.

This week, however, Stelter is all in favor of big media companies pressuring local newspapers to be on the same page editorially. He describes this upcoming attack against the president as “another example of unity across the news business.”

In other words, when news outlets show “unity” against “fake news,” Stelter freaks out, but when news outlets show unity in a coordinated attack against Trump, Stelter cheers.

Stelter, obviously, is not alone.

Almost all of the media establishment are cheering n this coordinated attack … an attack that is somehow meant to convince the American people that…

1) The media are protected from criticism by the Constitution.

2) The objective and unbiased media remain unbiased and objective, even while launching an unbiased and objective attack against the president, all in an effort to bully the president into ceasing his criticisms of their unbiased and objective attacks against him.

3) The media are not the “opposition party” who do things like coordinate attacks against the president.

4) That the Constitution protects the media — who relentlessly describe Trump as a “Nazi,” “racist,” “unbalanced,” “un-American,” a “dictator,” and a unique danger to America — from any pushback from Trump.  The Constitution requires him to lay down and take it.

5) Although the media believe criticism of the media is un-Constitutional, when a Democrat president like Obama uses the American intelligence agencies to literally spy on journalists and their parents, that does not rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, nor is it the type of thing that requires 128 outraged editorials.

Democrats sure got it good.

The bottom line is that this coordinated attack coming from all corners of the establishment media only serves to validate the criticism coming from Trump and other media critics; because what we have here is the gajillionth example of a thin-skinned media who love to make themselves the story and who are all working together to destroy Trump over fabricated nonsense.

[published on www.breitbart.com at https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/08/13/nolte-128-establishment-news-outlets-coordinate-attack-on-trump/ ]

What is behind a “journalism” degree, anyhow?

In our Information Age, a great deal of life is shaped by outlets dealing in information.

The best of this information is called news, and is supposed to be accurate information about what is new. What is new can be of most use. In military terms, the newest information is called intelligence, because the information it carries allows one to make the most intelligent decisions.

The guardians of news and the supposed arbiters of its accuracy and value are called journalists. This is because their writings are a sort of journal, a documentary of history, the history of a civilization, whether it is on clay tablets, papyrus, sheepskins, calf skins, or in 1s and 0s in the ether.

That these guardians today have abandoned their namesake is obvious. Their writings are no documentary any longer.

Accuracy, usefulness, meaning are now all discarded in the pursuit of shaping a narrative, delivering a political agenda by shaping what readers of news think, based on what they are told. And blocking or suppressing information that disrupts their agenda.

People complain about Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. They forget that none of these people or outlets would be needed, if the journalists would just do their job and deliver accurate information.

These renegade news sources are greatly outnumbered by the establishment media, which gets new recruits from college every year. Young people steeped in “journalism” for four years, purposefully devoid of the skill or even interest in rooting out news when they exit.

Which makes one wonder, What does it take to get a journalism degree in college? What is it really made of?

After all, actual journalism just involves having a phone and a pen, and asking questions, to get at the truth. Would actual training in journalism be a single course? Maybe several courses, at the longest, so at the most a single semester, right?

How is it, then, that people are spending four whole years of their lives to get a degree in “journalism”? What is it they are truly learning during that entire time? How much time does it really take to teach someone how to use a phone and pen, to ask questions, to write it down, and report the news?

The truth is, college students of ‘journalism’ are being indoctrinated for four years, and journalism, the sacred role of writing the journal of civilization, enshrined in our First Amendment to the US Constitution, has been bastardized and hijacked by people bent on control at any cost.

God be with us.

 

“Alt-Right”: What it is, what it is not

“Alt-Right” is one of the buzz-phrases popularized by the hard fought election, and it started with Breitbart.

Because I have been a Breitbart reader for six years, since the news site’s inception, I have closely followed the political developments spun off from its reporting.

One of those political developments has been the emergence of the “alternative right,” or “alt-right,” a loose assembly resembling the grass roots Tea Party activists who started in 2009, whose unofficial identity began to solidify and coalesce as the international “news” media, academia, and BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES openly flouted accuracy and integrity in favor of their common big government agendas.

Primarily Constitutional conservatives and libertarians, whites, Asians, and intellectually emancipated Blacks, this newly named Alt Right is nothing more than your next door neighbor – you know, the guy with a job, a backyard grill, a family dog, a pretty wife and a couple kids – getting disgusted with BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES and the establishment media, and deciding to make his own political way without their misguidance.

These are Americans who do not identify with the Right as defined by the washed out and spineless Republican Party, but who instead arrived at conservative values from alternate experiences and places. They are not “official” conservatives because of some political party affiliation, but because of their run-ins with bad government and official overreach.

Enter into it the gay guys who recognize that they are not only now accepted by general society, but they are desirable neighbors sought by normal suburban taxpayers throughout America.

No longer content to live in gay ghettoes within depressed crime-ridden Democrat-run urban hellholes, these gay men have ventured farther afield and found themselves warmly welcomed by our neighbor, the guy with the family, grill, and dog, because gay men are overwhelmingly law abiding taxpayers whose biggest crime is looking contemptuously upon their neighbors’ unraked leaves. These are pretty damned good neighbors to have, and in return, these gay men have increasingly left the old liberal political ghetto and accepted that they are safer with a strong national defense, concealed carry laws, and immigration enforcement skeptical of gay-killing Muslims newly arrived from Islamic hell-holes.

The one man most responsible for the coining and use of “Alt-Right” is Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo was one of the first politically incorrect purge victims at Twitter, whose gay CEO truly hates the openly gay Milo, because Milo is a conservative.

Typical of the Left, Twitter tried to deny Milo a platform for his unique political perspective and simply shut down his Twitter account. No reason given. No free speech rights for you, conservative gay Milo!

But Milo refused to butt out of politics and instead went head-to-head with Twitter, culminating a six-month battle with his highly effective “Dangerous Faggot Tour” (indeed it is called that, I am not making it up, go look it up). Across America, Milo the dangerous faggot was threatened, assaulted, maligned, and repeatedly denied access to university campuses as a speaker because his gay conservative message does not comply with politically correct culture.

As leftist activist Sally Kohn recently said, conservatives do not have free speech rights “because they are wrong” (again, I am not making this up, you must look this up). Milo discovered this un-American attitude on his own, and he broadcast for any and all to see just how hateful and intolerant liberals are. As a result, he became an Alt-Right hero and icon.

Because he’s on the political right, but coming at it from an alternative place than the traditional political party source, Milo, and by extension Breitbart, is Alt-Right.

What the Alt-Right is not: Racists, bigots, kooks, although the establishment mainstream media liberals would like you to think so. Then again, they are the same people who call flamboyant Milo a homophobe. Seriously.