Moral Instruction From the Opposition Media

How accurate is a poll based on a set of facts that don’t exist?

The WaPost’s Greg Sargent is excited about a new CNN poll claiming a vast majority of Americans essentially support open borders. But before we decide to delete the 4th of July from the calendar and add Cinco de Mayo, it’s crucial to know the entire question, so as to judge the accuracy of the result.

It reads:

Now, thinking about how the U.S. government should treat illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe.

Would you favor or oppose a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in this country rather than being deported and eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship?”

CNN may as well have asked respondents their view on the commercial viability of unicorn ranching. A more accurate question would have included the qualifier “and meet only one of the following four conditions.

An accurate question is both longer and more truthful:

Estimates of the number of illegal or undocumented immigrants currently living in the US range from 9 million to 19 million. One approach to dealing with those who have lived here a number of years is to offer amnesty or a path to citizenship. [Rotate description]. Supporters say it’s morally right that illegal or undocumented immigrants who have a job, speak English and are willing to pay back taxes should have the opportunity to become productive and legal. Opponents say the jobs illegal or undocumented immigrants hold are taken from citizens, bi–lingual ballots prove the requirement to speak English is not enforced now and depending on immigrants to admit to owing taxes is unrealistic and back taxes won’t be paid. [Rotate arguments]

Knowing this do you favor or oppose a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in the country rather than be deported and eventually be offered amnesty or a path to citizenship?

That balanced question reflects reality and produces an answer that would merit news coverage and analysis, rather than the 90 percent approval CNN’s fantasy question got.

So what did the media make of these results and how were they wrong? You guessed it, click on the link below and go to my complete Newsmax column:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/bannon-california-cnn/2017/04/27/id/786847/

 

 

Trump Shows Beta Politicians How a News Conference Is Done

Another bedrock of conventional wisdom has been overturned. During the Trump administration it is okay to shoot the messenger.

Metaphorically speaking.

trump-meat-the-pressTrump finally held the news conference the media had been demanding and he gave it to them good and hard. Trump already holds the distinction of winning the greatest modern presidential debate — Round 2 with Hillary. Now news conference as president–elect set a record for entertainment and pugnacity that will be hard to top.

The big blowup came in connection with stories concerning slanderous sexual accusations that allegedly took place when Trump was in Moscow. Evidently Access Hollywood didn’t have this tape but the media hoped the FSB did.

It is an index of the contempt in which the media holds Trump that they could believe the charges were true. It takes an Anthony Weiner–sized intellect to think a man of Trump’s prominence could go to Moscow, hire hookers and not be videotaped by the Russian security service.

As much as it loved the story CNN didn’t have the tape, so the network did the next best thing and mentioned the existence of the slanderous charges and said US intelligence officials had a copy. This is sleazy signaling. Connecting the allegations with intelligence agencies gives a hint of veracity to viewers and fits nicely with the Putin–stole–the–election theme of the administration’s honeymoon period with the media.

Even worse, CNN’s mere mention gives other reporters cover when they use it. It’s the Pontius Pilate Gambit. CNN thinks it can’t be held responsible because they didn’t mention specifics.

The dean of CNN weasels, Wolf Blitzer, uses the technique frequently. I use a video in media training sessions where Blitzer quizzes former President Dick Cheney regarding the sexual preferences of one of his daughters. The question has nothing to do with any national issue, but MSM reporters love to discuss homosexuality with Republicans.

Cheney doesn’t dignify the question with an answer. He gives the furry Mustela a withering glare and says, “Wolf you’re out of line.”

Blitzer proceeds to wet his pants and whine “but people are saying.” Essentially the same excuse CNN is using now.

Trump not only won’t suffer fools gladly — he won’t suffer them at all.

He told the CNN reporter, “No, I’m not going to give you a question…You’re fake news.” The New York Times moaned the scene “stunned” journalists and “delegitimized” reporters while the LA Times said Trump broke “the norms of presidential engagement with the news media.”

These so–called norms are rules unilaterally written by the news media. The mainstream media (MSM) is accustomed to Republican presidents who are quickly domesticated. Since they are interlopers in an office the media believes rightly belongs to the left, MSM culture informs Republicans it’s “not presidential” to object to the tone or content of coverage.

So Trump is supposed to grin–and–Bush it.

This might have worked in the past when the media sold the public on the fiction they were high priests of propriety and impartial purveyors of fact. Now the public can see and judge for themselves events that in the past might have been unavailable. Even more important, a multiplicity of news outlets has given the information consumer a variety of opinion instead of the cultural Marxist groupthink that dominated news coverage until the rise of Fox and the Internet.

Journos who followed the lead of the New York Times media columnist and threw what passes for their objectivity to the wind when covering Trump are now reaping the whirlwind.

Journalists are the ex–wives or ex–husbands of public discourse. Pretentious Pharisees who believe they are somehow exempt from societal norms.

The public simply doesn’t adore the media the way the media adores itself. That’s why they lose confrontations with Trump. He acts exactly the way 75 percent of the fly–over public would act when some self–important jerk starts badgering them.

The other 25 percent would deck them.

The media is so full of themselves they don’t even recognize an insult. After Trump dispensed with the CNN heckler, he went to the next reporter who was with BBC. Trump commented that network was a “beauty,” lumping them in with CNN, but the reporter thought it was praise.

Trump isn’t going to play by the media’s rules. He’s not going to answer, “When did you stop beating your wife” questions and he’s not going to flatter their egos.

If you haven’t watched the entire news conference you should do so. You’ll enjoy what Fox News host Sean Hannity described as “the single greatest beatdown of the alt-left, abusively biased mainstream media in the history of the country.”

Gargoyle Joe Is Your Debate Firewall?

Biden’s new debate coach is not an improvement over John Kerry.

What does it say about a campaign when its hope for putting a stop to a precipitous decline in the polls is Joe Biden? Last night fireman Joe was at his pompous, bloviating best in the Vice President Debate with Cong. Paul Ryan. The most memorable line in his paper thin, fact–free rebuttals came when Biden looked directly at the camera and asked viewers, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Earlier in the week Obama staffers were trying to pin the blame for the current President’s poor showing on John Kerry’s debate preparation, but I don’t think replacing Kerry with the Cheshire Cat was much of an improvement. In the split–screen shots Biden looked like a dirty old man staring at an elementary school swing set as he leered and grinned during Ryan’s answers.

When he wasn’t interrupting and talking over Ryan, Biden was muttering and chuckling to himself like Gollum in the underground lake. I suggest that whoever posts these clips on YouTube use Aqualung as the background music.

The only time I had any sympathy for “Good Old Joe” was when the camera showed a view of the back of his head and you could see where even his hair implants were thinning.

Believe it or not Biden took a full six days off the campaign trail just to prepare for the debate. To put this in perspective, Jesus didn’t require six days to prepare for the crucifixion.

Presumably the first three days of preparation were devoted to words Joe wasn’t supposed to say including but not limited to: gay, marriage, chains, crushed, taxes, jobs, 7/11, Slurpee, f–ing, deal, articulate, bright and clean. And the last three days to words he should say. In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Joe was programmed with hand–me–down one–liners that Obama refused to use on Romney.

Fortunately, since the debate was held before a mixed audience, Biden did not have to adopt with the black dialect Obama affects when he’s speaking exclusively to minorities. Biden got to keep all his ‘g’s and was not be required to use “folks.”

The process wasn’t brainwashing per se, but it required at least a light rinse.

And somewhere during all this preparation Joe found time to rent a floor polisher so he could buff his teeth.

This focus on Biden brings back memories doesn’t it? Joe was added to the team for his “extensive foreign policy experience” and his “long term Washington expertise.” Yes, 69–year–old Joe was cashing a government paycheck and sticking his foot in his mouth at time when the 42–year­–old Ryan had to be content with his thumb.

This is why conservative columnists hav alwayse been grateful Biden is the white guy.

Last night while showing off his expertise, Biden claimed the US is Israel’s best friend and that Obama and Netanyahu have personally met 12 times. Both are lies: Obama pledged to create some distance from Israel and the two have met nine times.

“Foreign Policy” Joe stated emphatically that the consulate in Libya had not asked for additional security, intelligence experts did not warn of an attack and that he knows from security briefings that Iran is a long way from getting an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately Ryan failed to point out that Thursday’s Washington Post had printed the emails asking for additional security at the consulate and he failed to ask Biden if the “intelligence experts” who assured him Iran is a long way from the bomb are the same ones who promised him the Libyan consulate was in no danger.

After Romney won the first debate so decisively, one would have thought MSM coverage of the VP event would be reality–based. But that’s not so, the media remains an Obama co–conspirator. CNN reported its own poll of debate watchers “a draw.”

Yet the graph clearly shows Ryan won 48 percent to 44 percent. What’s more, 28 percent of viewers said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney compared to the 21 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Obama. And Ryan was judged more likeable than both “Public Trough” Joe & Big Bird by 53 percent to 43 percent, both of the latter being outside the margin of error.

And a pathetic AP reporter by the name of Jocelyn Noveck claimed, “the vice president also came up with the two catchiest phrases of the night – “bunch of malarkey” and “bunch of stuff.” Both of which are trite and ancient.

Fortunately, participants in a Luntz debate focus group that — was not on the MSM or Obama campaign payroll — felt Biden was “arrogant.” Personally, I thought that if Joe had a few feathers he could play Foghorn Leghorn.

The best part about the debate was viewers now realize to their horror that a lying boastful buffoon is a heartbeat away from a President that is helpless without a teleprompter.

Or as Barbara Schribner wrote: Now we can put a set of teeth on the empty chair.

 

 

Nine out of ten journalists say, “Guilty!”

Audio experts are working around the clock to find more Zimmerman racism hidden in the 9–1–1 tapes. Maybe if they play them backward…

Good news for Neighborhood Watch celebrity, George Zimmerman. The Associated Press reports that in 23 years only 2,000 people have been exonerated after being wrongly convicted of a serious felony.

Each year there are nearly one million felony convictions, over 10,000 times more than the 90 innocent defendants wrongly convicted. The findings are particularly encouraging for Zimmerman as he faces criminal prosecution for second–degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and simultaneously a trial–by–media for the same offense.

The miscarriage of justice rate compares very favorably with the hospital medical error rate of 18 percent, where presumably the doctor doesn’t have any animus toward the customer, as opposed to prosecutors who do.

And public opinion is starting to come around. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey found 40 percent think Zimmerman acted in self–defense.

This finding is in sharp contrast to a survey of mainstream journalists that found 85 percent believe Zimmerman should already be doing time in Guantanamo.

Then when it appears justice may finally be allowed to take its course, the Washington Post uses a discredited CNN idea to attack George.

You may recall CNN reporter Gary Tuchman examined Zimmerman’s 9–1–1 call and discovered RACISM! Which is to be expected from someone with a white father. Using “one of the most sophisticated audio edit suites in the broadcast news business” CNN heard Zimmerman saying “(bleeping) coons” after technicians “enhanced” the recording.

Naturally to demonstrate even–handed news judgment, the tape was played for viewers about 300 times during the segment. As the reporter intoned, “Listen closely for “coon,” a word only bigots use. Remember it starts with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘oon.’”

Except the word wasn’t “coon.” Two weeks later, with much less fanfare, CNN re–enhances the tape and sure enough Zimmerman was saying “(bleeping) cold.”

How fortunate Zimmerman didn’t have to hide in the weeds to observe Martin. I can only imagine what the media would have done if George had muttered something about being bitten by a (bleeping) chigger.

Which brings us back to the sound–enhancing WaPo and its recording of a witness call, which FBI analysts have already termed “inconclusive.” The WaPo recycles the lie that Zimmerman ignored an order from the dispatcher. And in a nice touch, writes “…cursing under his breath, Zimmerman got out of his truck and began to follow (Martin).” But, thanks to CNN, we know Zimmerman was cursing the weather, a common activity worldwide, and not Martin.

Martin’s father heard the WaPo tape and told police the voice was not his son’s, But that was before lawyers got to him and visions of wrongful death lawsuits began dancing in his head. In contrast, the WaPo’s expert — who wouldn’t have known Trayvon if the kid had approached him at 7/11 and asked for a loan to buy Skittles — imagines Martin yelling, “I’m begging you!” “Help me!” And then, “Stop!”

Since the story was written by two females, I won’t fault them for their lack of expertise when it comes to fight dynamics. But in the real world the person who lands the first punch usually wins. Since witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him “MMA” style, it’s reasonable to assume his was the first punch.

Someone winning a fight is also not the one calling for help. The puncher is usually concentrating on pounding the punchee. Evidence shows Zimmerman’s back was wet from ground contact and he had a broken nose, two black eyes and cuts on the back of his head, so Trayvon evidently was doing a thorough job.

You can find the recording on the Post website and identifying any one element is like trying to isolate a single razzberry in a Spike Jones recording. One of the edited audio segments purports to be Martin’s “Stop!” But I’ve been in recording studios for 35 years and I hear “Help!” in both recordings, which stands to reason since Zimmerman is losing the fight.

But this is where it gets interesting. The “expert” asserts those 45 seconds aren’t Zimmerman calling for help during the fight, but Martin pleading with Zimmerman not to shoot him AFTER the fighting was over.

So by his reckoning, the fight is concluded. Zimmerman has his gun out. Martin begs for his life for almost a minute and then Zimmerman executes him in cold blood.

But lab results reveal the gunshot was so close it burned Martin’s skin. We know there was a single shot. If the entry wound is low and travels upward, it supports Zimmerman. But even without that information, if the fight was over and Martin was pleading for his life, chances are he would have been backing or running away, putting distance between himself and Zimmerman.

Common sense would dictate waiting for the evidence and using practical experience to evaluate it, but the Post, along with the majority of the media, has already found Zimmerman guilty and they want us to join them.