Stephen Miller TKOs Jim Acosta
Rich Lowry writes: When Donald Trump’s policy adviser Stephen Miller stepped to the podium of the White House briefing room on Wednesday to defend a plan for reducing levels of legal immigration, Jim Acosta of CNN was aghast and let everyone know it.
Put aside that Acosta believed it was his role as a reporter to argue one side of a hot-button political issue (this is how journalism works in 2017). The exchange illustrated how advocates of high levels of immigration are often the ones who—despite their self-image as the rational bulwark against runaway populism—rely on an ignorant emotionalism to make their case.
At issue is the bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia to cut legal immigration by half. The legislation would scale back so-called chain migration—immigrants bringing relatives, who bring more relatives in turn—and institute a merit-based system for green cards based on the ability to speak English, educational attainment and job skills.
Offended by the idea of putting a priority on higher-skilled immigrants, Acosta wanted to know how such a policy would be consistent with the Statue of Liberty. When Miller pointed out that Lady Liberty was conceived as a symbol of … liberty and the famous Emma Lazarus poem added later, Acosta accused him of “national park revisionism”—even though Miller was correct.
Stephen Miller is living rent free in Acosta’s head. pic.twitter.com/WR2AMEmDGW
— Nick Short 🇺🇸 (@PoliticalShort) August 3, 2017
At the dedication of the statue in 1886, President Grover Cleveland declared that the statue’s “stream of light shall pierce the darkness of ignorance and man’s oppression until Liberty enlightens the world.” His soaring oration did not include the admonition that so-called comprehensive immigration reform would henceforth be considered the only acceptable immigration policy for the United States.
Lazarus’ poem was added in a plaque in 1903. The words are not, as Acosta and so many others believe, emblazoned on the statue itself—the plaque is now displayed in an exhibition within the pedestal.
All of this might seem pedantic, but the underlying debate is over the legitimacy of reducing levels of immigration and whether it is appropriate to craft a policy mindful, above anything else, of the national interest. Miller clearly has the best of this argument.
One, making 21st policy in accord with late-19th century poetry makes no sense. We don’t ask, say, whether the naval appropriations bill is in keeping with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Building of the Ship” (“Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great!”)
Two, the cap on refugees in the Cotton-Perdue bill of 50,000 a year is in the ballpark of recent annual refugee numbers. We actually admitted fewer than this in the late-1970s and early-2000s, and the Statue of Liberty still stood … (more)
Source: POLITICO Magazine
CNN’s Jim Acosta claims victory in briefing beef with Stephen Miller: ‘He couldn’t take that kind of heat’
“I think what you saw unfold in the briefing room is that he [Miller] really just couldn’t take that kind of heat and exploded before our eyes,” Acosta said in an appearance on CNN Wednesday night, hours after the face-off.
Miller spoke to members of the White House press corps about a revised bill from Sens. David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas that would implement a merit-based point system for immigrants applying for legal permanent status. President Trump endorsed the immigration plan during a ceremony at the White House earlier Wednesday. Read the rest of this entry »
For decades, conservatives have been complaining about bias in the media, but that wasn’t quantified until now. CNN’s fake news does more than get them ratings — its libel undermines the very nature of our democratic republic. In this Firewall, Bill Whittle lambasts the mainstream media for its toxic politicizing of the news and exposes the influence of media bias on elections.
Mollie Z. Hemingway writes:
… Yesterday, the news broke at multiple outlets that the unmasking wasn’t done by a low-level official at an intelligence agency, but by Susan Rice herself. She was President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor. All of a sudden people began admitting that Nunes was right that information on political opponents had been collected, unmasked, and disseminated, but they turned to downplaying this as significant news.
This is a media-wide problem, but no one has been more shameless about this than CNN, which formerly at least attempted to position itself as politically neutral. CNN has decided to declare the news story “fake” because of this report from former Obama political appointee Jim Sciutto (who was a colleague of Susan Rice at the Obama State Department), who now covers the Republican administration:
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Slow down here. A person close to Rice said she did nothing wrong? Well this changes … oh wow, this changes … nothing. I mean, people close to Mike Flynn said he did nothing wrong, and they even had quite the case, but I don’t recall Sciutto either running with that angle, or believing such an angle “debunked” the coordinated leak campaign against Trump he was recipient of.
Of course Susan Rice’s family and friends will rush to her defense. That’s what friends are for. But that doesn’t “debunk” a story. The idea that you wouldn’t pursue this story and all of the interesting questions raised by it is an affront to journalism. But that seems to be the road CNN has chosen to go down. A few examples:
Me neither. It’s because it’s not real. It’s a parody.
But you know what the Huffington Post actually did run this week?
…As Obama concludes his reign of error, his party is smaller, weaker, and more rickety than it has been since at least the 1940s. Behold the tremendous power that Democrats have frittered away — from January 2009 through the aftermath of Election Day 2016 — thanks to Obama and his ideas:
- Democrats surrendered the White House to political neophyte Donald J. Trump.
- U.S. Senate seats slipped from 55 to 46, down 16 percent.
- U.S. House seats slid from 256 to 194, down 24 percent.
- Democrats ran the U.S. Senate and House in 2009. Next year, they will control neither.
- Governorships fell from 28 to 16, down 43 percent.
- State legislatures (both chambers) plunged from 27 to 14, down 48 percent.
- Trifectas (states with Democratic governors and both legislative chambers) cratered from 17 to 6, down 65 percent.
Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, eight U.S. presidents have served at least two terms or bowed to their vice-presidents due to death or resignation. Among them, Obama ranks eighth in total state legislative seats that his party preserved during his tenure. Obama has supervised the net loss of 959 such Democratic positions, down 23.5 percent, according to Ballotpedia, which generated most of the data cited here. This far outpaces the 843 net seats that Republicans yielded under President Dwight David Eisenhower. Read the rest of this entry »
Tucker Carlson takes on Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin over her claims that many of Trump’s voters are angry, racist white people. (December 9th, 2016)
New York Times wages noble fight against fake, bias-confirming news.
Bill McMorris writes: The New York Times exposed the threat of fake news following the election of Donald Trump two weeks ago, arguing that spreading faulty information is a threat to the Republic.
The paper highlighted alt-right conspiracy websites publishing outrageous lies masquerading as news in a piece headlined “Journalism’s Next Challenge: Overcoming the Threat of Fake News.” The Times interviewed journalists and “longtime critic of fake news” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) about how credulous Americans often fall for narratives that confirm their pre-existing biases without proper vetting from objective reporters.
“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” asked one D.C. editor.
“The cure for fake journalism is an overwhelming dose of good journalism. And how well the news media gets through its postelection hangover will have a lot to do with how the next chapter in the American political story is told.”
— Times writer noted shortly before Trump’s massive victory
The answer could be found on social media. “‘Folks, subscribe to a paper. Democracy demands it,” one Times reporter wrote. Another added, “Or don’t. You’ll get what you pay for.”
- On Oct. 2, the Times reported that the stock market would nosedive following a Trump win, making “a Trump victory … a bit worse than 9/11.”
- Following Trump’s victory, the stock market enjoyed its best week since 2011.
- The fake journalism that helped elect Donald Trump is now enemy number one for the fourth estate.
Times readers had the inside scoop that the nation was watching “Hispanics Surge to Polls,” which would serve as the mortar in Hillary Clinton’s blue wall. The surge would not have been possible without the Clinton campaign, which was “Looking to Expand Lead With Hispanics” with Spanish-language ads and get-out-the-vote operations as the Times reported on Oct. 2.
The New York Times‘ report on “dangerously fake news” news ran alongside a report that “Hispanic America has been mobilized like never before in the 2016 election, and is emerging as a formidable force with the power to elect a president.” Read the rest of this entry »
- 7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.
- 8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).
- Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”
- 8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.
- 97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.
[VIDEO] CNN Panelist’s Career Killer Confession: Trump Taught Non-Partisan Media It ‘Doesn’t Need to be Fair’Posted: November 8, 2016
Jury finds Reporter, Rolling Stone Responsible for Defaming University of Virginia Dean with Fictionalized ‘Gang Rape’ storyPosted: November 4, 2016
Deliberations about ‘A Rape on Campus’ spanned three days.
T. Rees Shapiro reports: A federal court jury decided Friday that a Rolling Stone journalist defamed a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 magazine article about sexual assault on campus that included a debunked account of a fraternity gang rape.
The 10-member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its parent company, Wenner Media, responsible for defaming Eramo, who has said her life’s work helping sexual assault victims was devastated as a result of Rolling Stone’s article and its aftermath.
The lawsuit centered on Erdely’s 9,000-word article titled “A Rape on Campus,” which appeared online in late November 2014 and on newsstands in the magazine’s December 2014 issue. Opening with a graphic depiction of a fraternity gang rape, the story caused an immediate sensation at a time of heightened awareness of campus sexual assault, going viral online and ripping through the U-Va. community.
But within days of the article’s publication, key elements of the account fell apart under scrutiny, including the narrative’s shocking allegation of a fraternity gang rape. The magazine eventually retracted the story in April 2015, and Eramo’s lawsuit came a month later, alleging that the magazine’s portrayal of her as callous and dismissive of rape reports on campus was untrue and unfair.
The jurors reached a verdict Friday after deliberating across three days. Eramo has asked for $7.5 million in damages but now, following the verdict, can argue for a different amount. The argument for damages is scheduled to begin Monday.
Regardless of potential damages, the verdict showed the jury’s willingness to slam a major media outlet for the impact of getting a story wrong. Originally hailed as a brave triumph of reporting for its raw accounts of rape and attempts at bringing accountability to a storied public university, the article led to protests of the U-Va. administration, vandalism of a campus fraternity and outrage among activists trying to prevent sexual assault. Once its flaws were exposed, the article’s deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting. Read the rest of this entry »
Source: New York Times
Nearly two dozen videos put into ‘restricted mode.’
Jennifer Kabbany reports: YouTube has placed 21 PragerU videos on “restricted mode,” a category meant for inappropriate and objectionable adult and sexual content.
“We’ve worked quietly behind the scenes for months to resolve this, but YouTube’s censorship continues, leaving us with no option but to go public.”
PragerU stands for Prager University. Its four- to five-minute videos promote Judeo-Christian values and principles and are ideal for young people as they distill complex issues into concise bullet points with stimulating graphics.
“There is no excuse for Google and YouTube censoring and restricting any PragerU videos, which are produced with the sole intent of educating people of all ages about America’s founding values.”
“We’ve worked quietly behind the scenes for months to resolve this, but YouTube’s censorship continues, leaving us with no option but to go public,” PragerU announced Tuesday on its Facebook page.
[PragerU has also launched a petition on the matter]
YouTube is owned by Google, and PragerU states on its website that “in response to an official complaint we filed, Google specialists defended their restriction of our videos, and said, ‘We don’t censor anyone,’ although they do ‘take into consideration what the intent of the video is….(read more)
Here’s a list of the 21 videos PragerU has requested YouTube remove immediately from restricted mode, some of which are directly related to higher education topics:
Are The Police Racist?
Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?
Why Did America Fight the Korean War?
Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?
What ISIS Wants
Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?
Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?
Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do
Did Bush Lie About Iraq? Read the rest of this entry »
“I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son. Personally, in an email to her daughter, Hillary Clinton blamed it on—shortly after the attack—terrorism, but when I saw Hillary Clinton, she lied to me and then called me a liar. Since then, I have repeatedly asked Hillary Clinton to ask [for] the real reason why my son is dead. I’m still waiting. Whenever I call the State Department, no one would speak to me because they say I am not a member of the immediate family… Sean was my son. Hillary Clinton is a woman, a mother, a grandmother of two. I am a woman, a mother, and a mother of two. How could she do this to me? How could she do this to any American family? Donald Trump is everything Hillary Clinton is not… He is blunt, direct, and strong. He speaks his mind and his heart. And when it comes to the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism, he will not hesitate to kill the terrorist who threaten American lives…. He will make America stronger, not weaker… This entire campaign comes down to a single question: If Hillary Clinton can’t give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?”
The backlash is back.
Back on the front page, that is:
Bobby Ross Jr. writes: Before dissecting today’s Houston Chronicle story, a little background: After the San Bernardino massacre, the New York Post splashed the inflammatory headline “Muslim Killers” across its tabloid cover. At that time, we noted that — ever since 9/11 — the phrase “Muslim backlash” has entered America’s lexicon.
In follow-up posts, we questioned media reporting a “surge” in anti-Muslim crime without providing hard data to back up that factual claim. Moreover, we pointed out bias by media using the term “Islamophobia” without bothering to define it.
That leads to Houston, where firefighters battled a Christmas Day blaze at a storefront mosque.Investigators called the fire “suspicious,” citing multiple points of origin.
The fire serves as the news peg for the Chronicle’s Page A1 report today on anxiety in the area’s Muslim community:
Even before investigators determined that a Christmas Day fire at a southwest Houston mosque was set deliberately, Muslims in the Houston area were on edge.
Recent terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., were followed by threats to area Muslims on social media and elsewhere. Now, in the aftermath of the arson at the mosque, local Muslim leaders and public officials are organizing a meeting to try to calm fears and ease tensions.
M.J. Khan, the president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, said he understands the community’s growing anxiety.
“Families and children come, and we do take precautions to make sure people are protected and feel safe,” said Khan, whose organization operates the mosque. Still, he added, “These are places of worship, and we cannot make them fortresses.”
The fire broke out at around 2:45 p.m. on Christmas Day at the small mosque inside the Savoy Plaza strip center, near Wilcrest Drive and Bellfort Avenue. About 80 firefighters helped extinguish the blaze, which significantly damaged the worship hall.
Given the fire, the Muslim community’s concerns are certainly newsworthy. I have no problem with the story angle or the report’s above-the-fold placement.
But here’s the problem with this 1,300-word piece (roughly twice as long as a typical daily newspaper story): It attacks the issue with a giant ax when what’s really needed is a surgical knife.
What I mean: On a story such as this, journalists need to take extra care to be precise, to report what they know — and no more. Readers deserve hard facts, not squishy generalizations.
Instead, the Chronicle makes the sweeping statement up high that “threats to area Muslims on social media and elsewhere” followed the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. OK, what threats? (Insert crickets.)
The newspaper never provides any evidence of actual threats, such as police reports. The story does provide this brief note:
Waqar Mehmood was browsing his Sugar Land neighborhood’s social media page when he saw posts from a neighbor calling for the community to cleanse itself of Muslims using pig’s blood. Read the rest of this entry »
Chris Stirewalt reports: Just how much is the news media shaping the GOP primary race? In the past three days, Donald Trump’s name has been mentioned 25 times more than the rest of the Republican field combined.
The data gurus at The New Analytics Company measure “scrub” television, radio, print, internet and social media for mentions of the 2016 candidates to produce scores for each candidate that we bring you each week in The Edge.
But given this week’s absolute media meltdown over Donald Trump’s plan to refuse entry to the United States any Muslim from any country, there’s really no comparison.
So here’s a slightly different, ahem, angle on The Edge: On Monday, the day before he proposed the religious test for entry, there were 19,355 unique mentions of Trump across all media in the U.S. Way more than his rivals, but within a measurable range.
His average for the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday was 64,638 mentions, a 234 percent increase in the size of his already huge media footprint. The combined score of every other candidate combined added up to the paltry average of 2,566 mentions over the same time. Read the rest of this entry »
Michael Barone writes: What influence does a front-page editorial in The New York Times have on public opinion? A strong negative influence, judging from the only two examples from the last 95 years. The Times famously ran a front-page editorial Dec. 4 calling for drastic gun control measures, including confiscation of weapons. The response: No. The latest CBS/New York Times poll reports that 50 percent oppose “a nationwide ban on assault weapons,” while only 44 percent support it.
That’s a sharp reversal of trend: In January 2011, 63 percent supported the ban on “assault weapons” — a vague term that invites agreement, even though any gun, even a toy pistol, can be used to assault someone (consult your law dictionary) and the 1990s legislation banning “assault weapons” distinguished them from other guns by purely cosmetic criteria.
The Times’ second-most recent front-page editorial, published in June 1920, had a similar effect. It criticized the Republican National Conventions‘ nomination of Warren G. Harding as that of “a candidate whose nomination will be received with astonishment and dismay by the party whose suffrages he invites.” Voters took a different view that fall….(read more)
Source: Washington Examiner
[VIDEO] Joe Scarborough Silences Morning Joe Panel: ‘Name One Republican In Prominent Mainstream Media Position’Posted: November 2, 2015
David Rutz reports: Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough assailed mainstream liberal media bias Monday, leading a lengthy discussion about the far-reaching influence of Democrats in television media and challenging his panel to name any Republicans who’d held such positions.
“Somehow, if you’re George Stephanopoulos, it’s ok because you’re a Democrat. If you’re Tim Russert, it’s ok. All I am saying is, you cannot do it. Name the single Republican that has hosted a Sunday show, that has been an anchor of a news network for the big three networks over the past 50 years. You cannot do it.”
His fellow MSNBC panelists could offer only sporadic examples, one of whom was deceased.
Scarborough remarked legendary anchor Walter Cronkite and the late Meet the Press host Tim Russert were liberals, yet they were considered “objective.” No Republicans, he said, were ever allowed to hold such esteemed places in the mainstream press by left-leaning network heads.
“Outside of Brit Hume, who has been a conservative in the mainstream media in the past 30 years who you’ve worked for? Outside of Brit Hume, who has held a powerful position at ABC, NBC or CBS News on the air?”
“When you say objective, we Republicans have been forced to define objective as people who were objective Democratic voters,” Scarborough said. “Outside of Brit Hume, who has been a conservative in the mainstream media in the past 30 years who you’ve worked for? Outside of Brit Hume, who has held a powerful position at ABC, NBC or CBS News on the air?”
“There is nothing more threatening to the liberal media in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, than a conservative woman. So of course there’s a double standard.”
“And conservative women from Sarah Palin to Michele Bachmann to Carly Fiorina are long used to this. It will not stop me. It will not scare me and maybe, the ladies of ‘The View,’ if I come back on again, let’s see if they have the guts to say that to my face.”
Read more: dailycaller
— The Real Bepo (D) (@TheRealBepo) August 27, 2015
Brendan Bordelon: New York Times Exposed; Publisher Finds ‘No Evidence’ for NYT’s Exclusion of Cruz’s Book from Bestseller ListPosted: July 11, 2015
HarperCollins has concluded that the New York Times’s rationale for excluding Senator Ted Cruz’s book ‘A Time for Truth’ from its bestseller list is ‘without merit’.
Brendan Bordelon reports: After a reportedly exhaustive internal review, publishing house HarperCollins has concluded that the New York Times’s rationale for excluding Senator Ted Cruz’s book A Time for Truth from its bestseller list is without merit.
[Order Ted Cruz’s bestselling book – excluded by the New York Times! “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America” from Amazon.com]
“HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s book ‘A Time for Truth’ and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization,” the publisher said in a statement on Friday.
“In a statement, the Cruz campaign accused the Times of perpetuating a ‘blatant falsehood,’ saying the paper ‘has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper Collins.’”
On Thursday, Politico reported that the Times refused to put Cruz’s book, released June 30, on its bestseller list despite the fact that it had sold more copies than all but two of the other top titles.
“The paper came under withering criticism for the choice, with many conservative commentators suggesting that the Times kept Cruz from the list due to political animus.”
— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) July 9, 2015
The Times explained that their analysis of book sales goes “beyond simply the number of books sold” and that the “preponderance of evidence” showed sales “were limited to strategic bulk purchases” rather than individual buyers.