Why You Need Trusted News Sources


Recommended Posts

Candace Owens decided to sue PolitiFact for their listing a post she wrote as disinformation, even though it was factually correct. 

After she sued, both PolitiFact and Facebook backed down like a bully who gets punched in the nose. Facebook claims that they decided in favor of Owens after she objected to the rating. The lawsuit had nothing to do with it. Right.

Facebook not only retracted the warning, but they also went so far as to issue an apology. Maybe more people should sue Facebook and their crooked fact-checkers. 

 

This is not the only problem Zuckerberg is facing. He and his wife funded an election initiative that allegedly violated the law by funding operations such as vote harvesting and illegally allowing people to fix their ballots.

The video in question is titled “Joe Biden is literally and legally not the President-elect. So why is the media pretending he is?” It was factually correct then just as it is factually correct today. 

In 2000 was George Bush the president-elect before the lawsuits were completed? So why should Biden be president-elect now?

 

Weeks ago, [Facebook] censored a post of mine which truthfully stated that [Joe Biden] is NOT the President-elect. So I got lawyers involved,” she said Saturday via Twitter. “Conclusion? [PolitiFact] uncensored the post & admitted that they LIED by rating my post false. The fact-checkers are lying for Democrats.”

The note from PolitiFact reads as follows:

 
 

Correction: PolitiFact originally labeled this video false in our capacity as a third-party fact-checker for Facebook. On Nov. 20, an appeal to that decision was made on behalf of Ms. Owens. PolitiFact approved the appeal on Nov. 20, determined that a correction was appropriate, and removed the false rating.

“At 8 Months pregnant, I unfortunately cannot fight on the ground alongside patriots like I am used to, but I am taking every measure to fight these communists in the court room,” Owens said in a follow-up post. “It is my goal to expose these lying ‘fact-checkers’ one by one. [Joe Biden] is NOT the President-elect.”

Owens, who’s currently suing fact-checkers from USAToday and Lead Stories, said that she knew she would get no satisfaction from Facebook without getting her lawyers involved. Facebook claims they are trying to find the reason her post was labeled false. When they have finished with that, they plan to help OJ find the real killer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 868
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m not defending Trump or his policies, but at least the Potus has open access by the press...he may answer, he may ignore them, he may tell the to F off, but at least he has the guts to be in front

Now we all have to quit quoting him so we never have to see a post from him.

This always saddens me and I think he got it desperately wrong here; the election results reflect it too IMO. I can only speak for myself I guess, but this is the sort of attitude and headline where D

Posted Images

On a previous post there was a comment on 80 % of people lose interest in the New York Times. If that is the case why has this paper been publishing since September 18th 1851? Maybe for some it is because they can not see beyond their own narrow focus. Based on the many awards I will take this paper over alternative facts web sites that have popped up on this forum. 

Have any of those websites have the gravitas that the New York Times have? 

 List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times - Wikipedia

 

1910s[edit]

·         1918The New York Times, for complete and accurate coverage of World War I.

1920s[edit]

·         1923Alva Johnston, for distinguished reporting of science news.

·         1926Edward M. Kingsbury, for the most distinguished editorial of the year, "The House of a Hundred Sorrows".

1930s[edit]

·         1930Russell Owen, for graphic news dispatches from the Byrd Antarctic Expedition.

·         1932Walter Duranty, for reporting of the news from Russia.[2][3][dead link]

·         1934: Frederick T. Birchall, for unbiased reporting from Germany.

·         1935Arthur Krock, for distinguished, impartial and analytical Washington coverage.

·         1936Lauren D. Lyman, for distinguished reporting: a world beat on the departure of the Lindberghs for England.

·         1937Anne O'Hare McCormick, for distinguished foreign correspondence: dispatches and special articles from Europe; William L. Laurence, for distinguished reporting of the Tercentenary Celebration at Harvard, shared with four other reporters.

·         1938Arthur Krock, for distinguished Washington correspondence.

1940s[edit]

·         1940Otto D. Tolischus, for articles from Berlin explaining the economic and ideological background of war-engaged Nazi Germany.

·         1941The New York Times, special citation for the public education value of its foreign news reports.

·         1942Louis Stark, for distinguished reporting of labor stories.

·         1943Hanson W. Baldwin, for a series of articles reporting a tour of the Pacific battle areas.

·         1944The New York Times, for the most disinterested and meritorious service rendered by an American newspaper—a survey of the teaching of American history.

·         1945James B. Reston, for news and interpretive articles on the Dumbarton Oaks Security Conference.

·         1946: Arnaldo Cortesi, for distinguished correspondence from Buenos AiresWilliam L. Laurence, for his eyewitness account of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and articles on the atomic bomb.

·         1947Brooks Atkinson, for a distinguished series of articles on Russia.

·         1949: C.P. Trussell, for consistent excellence in covering the national scene from Washington.

1950s[edit]

·         1950Meyer Berger, for a distinguished example of local reporting—an article on the killing of 13 people by a berserk gunman.

·         1951Arthur Krock, a special commendation for his exclusive interview with President Harry S. Truman: the outstanding instance of national reporting in 1950; Cyrus L. Sulzberger, special citation for his interview with Archbishop Stepinac of Yugoslavia.

·         1952Anthony H. Leviero, for distinguished national reporting.

·         1953The New York Times, special citation for its Review of the Week section which "has brought enlightenment and intelligent commentary to its readers."

·         1955Harrison E. Salisbury, for a series based on his five years in RussiaArthur Krock, a special citation for distinguished correspondence from Washington.

·         1956Arthur Daley, for his sports column, "Sports of The Times."

·         1957: James B. Reston (Scotty Reston), for distinguished reporting from Washington.

·         1958The New York Times, for distinguished coverage of foreign news.

1960s[edit]

·         1960A.M. Rosenthal, for perceptive and authoritative reporting from Poland.

·         1963Anthony Lewis, for distinguished reporting of the United States Supreme Court.

·         1964David Halberstam, for distinguished reporting from South Vietnam.

·         1968Anthony Lukas, for a distinguished example of local reporting—an article on a murdered 18-year-old girl and her two different lives.

1970s[edit]

·         1970Ada Louise Huxtable, for distinguished architecture criticism.

·         1971Harold C. Schonberg, music critic, for distinguished criticism.

·         1972The New York Times, for a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper—publication of the Pentagon Papers.

·         1973Max Frankel, for his coverage of President Richard Nixon's visit to China, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1974Hedrick Smith, for a distinguished example of reporting on foreign affairs, coverage of the Soviet Union.

·         1976Sydney H. Schanberg, for his coverage of the fall of Cambodia, a distinguished example of reporting on foreign affairs; Walter W. Smith (Red Smith), for his "Sports of The Times" column, an example of distinguished criticism.

·         1978Henry Kamm, chief Asian diplomatic correspondent, for articles calling attention to the plight of Indochinese refugees; Walter Kerr, Sunday drama critic, for an outstanding example of distinguished criticism; William Safire, Op-Ed Page columnist, for his columns on the Bert Lance affair, an example of distinguished commentary.

·         1979Russell Baker, for his "Observer" column, an example of distinguished commentary.

1980s[edit]

·         1981Dave Anderson, for his "Sports of The Times" column, an example of distinguished commentary; John M. Crewdson, for his coverage of illegal aliens and immigration, a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs.

·         1982John Darnton, for his coverage of the crisis in Poland, a distinguished example of international reporting; Jack Rosenthal, deputy editorial page editor, for a distinguished example of editorial page writing.

·         1983Thomas L. Friedman, for his coverage of the war in Lebanon, a distinguished example of international reporting; Nan C. Robertson, for her article in The New York Times Magazine on her experience with toxic shock syndrome, a distinguished example of feature writing.

·         1984Paul Goldberger, for distinguished architecture criticism; John Noble Wilford, for national reporting on a wide variety of scientific topics.

·         1986Donal Henahan, music critic, for distinguished criticism; The New York Times, for explanatory journalism: a series of articles on the Strategic Defense Initiative, the "Star Wars" program.

·         1987The New York Times, for national reporting on causes of the Challenger shuttle disaster; Alex S. Jones, for distinguished specialized reporting on the dissension that dissolved a Louisville newspaper dynasty.

·         1988Thomas L. Friedman, for coverage of Israel, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1989Bill Keller, for coverage of the Soviet Union, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

1990s[edit]

·         1990Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, for coverage of political turmoil in China, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1991Natalie Angier, for coverage of molecular biology and animal behavior, a distinguished example of beat reporting; Serge Schmemann, for coverage of the reunification of Germany, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1992Anna Quindlen, for "Public & Private," a compelling column covering a wide range of personal and political topics; Howell Raines, for "Grady's Gift," an account in The New York Times Magazine of his childhood friendship with his family's housekeeper and the lasting lessons of their interracial relationship.

·         1993John F. Burns, for courageous coverage of the strife and destruction in Bosnia, a distinguished example of international reporting.

·         1994The New York Times, for local reporting of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, pooling the efforts of the metropolitan staff as well as Times journalists covering locations as far-ranging as the Middle East and Washington; Isabel Wilkerson, for distinguished feature writing; Kevin Carter, for his photograph of a vulture perching near a little girl in the Sudan who had collapsed from hunger, a picture that became an icon of starvation.

·         1995Margo Jefferson, for her book reviews and other pieces, examples of distinguished criticism.

·         1996Rick Bragg, for distinguished feature writing; Robert D. McFadden, for distinguished rewrite journalism, applied to a broad range of stories; Robert B. Semple, Jr., for distinguished editorial writing on environmental issues.

·         1997John F. Burns, for distinguished international reporting on the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.

·         1998Linda Greenhouse, for reporting on the Supreme Court's work and its significance with sophistication and a sense of history; Michiko Kakutani, for reviewing 1997's many major literary works in essays that were fearless and authoritative; The New York Times, for a series of articles on the effects of drug corruption in Mexico, a distinguished example of international reporting.

·         1999Maureen Dowd, for the moral insight and wit she brought to bear in her columns on the combat between President Bill Clinton and Kenneth StarrThe New York Times, notably Jeff Gerth, for a series of articles disclosing the corporate sale of American technology to China with the approval of the U.S. Government despite national security risks.

2000s[edit]

·         2001:The New York Times, for national reporting, for its compelling and memorable series exploring racial experiences and attitudes across contemporary America. David Cay Johnston, beat reporting, for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms.

·         2002The New York Times, for public service, for "A Nation Challenged," a daily special section covering the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and America's campaign against terrorism. The section, which included biographical sketches of the victims, also appeared online; The New York Times, for its informed and detailed reporting that profiled the global terrorism network and the threats it posed, a distinguished example of explanatory reporting; The New York Times, for its photographs chronicling the pain and the perseverance of people enduring protracted conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a distinguished example of feature photographyThe New York Times, for its consistently outstanding photographic coverage of the terrorist attack on New York City and its aftermath, a distinguished example of breaking news photography; Gretchen Morgenson, for her trenchant and incisive Wall Street coverage, a distinguished example of beat reporting; Barry Bearak, for his deeply affecting and illuminating coverage of daily life in war-torn Afghanistan, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs; Thomas Friedman, for his clarity of vision, based on extensive reporting, in commenting on the worldwide impact of the terrorist threat.

·         2003Clifford J. Levy, for investigative reporting, for his "Broken Homes" series that exposed the abuse of mentally ill adults in state-regulated homes.

·         2004The New York Times, for public service, for its series written by David Barstow and Lowell Bergman that examined death and injury among American workers and exposed employers who break basic safety rules.

·         2005Walt Bogdanich, for national reporting, for his investigative series about the corporate cover-up of responsibility for fatal accidents at railway crossings.

·         2006Nicholas D. Kristof for commentary on bringing the genocide in Darfur to the world's attention; Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley for international reporting for their examination of China's legal system; James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for national reporting for their coverage of the United States' government's secret eavesdropping program.

·         2007Andrea Elliott for feature writing for coverage of an immigrant imam striving to serve his faithful in America.

·         2008: Amy Harmon for explanatory reporting on the social impact of genetic tests; Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker for investigative reporting on how contaminated ingredients from China make their way into consumer goods, including medicine.

·         2009David Barstow for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

2010s[edit]

·         2010Michael Moss, in Explanatory Reporting, for an investigative feature on food safety (e.g., contaminated meat); Matt Richtel, in National Reporting, for a series on the dangers of distracted drivingSheri Fink of ProPublica in collaboration with The New York Times Magazine, in Investigative Reporting, for “The Deadly Choices At Memorial” about Hurricane Katrina survivors (award shared with the Philadelphia Daily News).[4][5]

·         2011Clifford J. Levy and Ellen Barry, in International Reporting, for their “Above the Law” series, which examined abuse of power in Russia, showing how authorities had jailed, beaten or harassed citizens who opposed them; and David Leonhardt, in Commentary, for his weekly column “Economic Scene” which offered perspectives on the formidable problems confronting America, from creating jobs to recalibrating tax rates.[6]

·         2012: David Kocieniewski, in Explanatory Reporting, for his series on tax avoidance; and Jeffrey Gettleman, in International Reporting, for his reports on famine and conflict in East Africa.[7][8]

·         2013David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab, in Investigative Reporting, for describing bribery by Walmart in Mexico; New York Times staff, in Explanatory Reporting, for examining global business practices of Apple Inc. and other technology companies; David Barboza, in International Reporting, for exposing corruption in the Chinese government; and John Branch, in Feature Writing, for "Snow Fall," a multimedia presentation about avalanches.[9]

·         2014Tyler Hicks, in Breaking News Photography, for his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya; Josh Haner, in Feature Photography, for his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life[10]

·         2015: Eric Lipton, in Investigative Reporting, for reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected; New York Times staff, in International Reporting, for courageous front-line reporting and vivid human stories on Ebola in Africa, engaging the public with the scope and details of the outbreak while holding authorities accountable (Team members named by The Times were Pam BelluckHelene CooperSheri Fink, Adam Nossiter, Norimitsu OnishiKevin Sack, and Ben C. Solomon.); and Daniel Berehulak, in Feature Photography, for his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa[11]

·         2016Tyler Hicks, Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev and Daniel Etter for breaking news photography for coverage of the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe and the Middle East, and Alissa Rubin for international reporting for her coverage of the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan including the horrific murder of young Afghan woman who was beaten to death by a mob after being falsely accused of burning a QuranJohn Woo and Adam Ellick produced a powerful accompanying video about the murder.[12]

·         2017C.J. Chivers, in Feature Writing, for showing, through an artful accumulation of fact and detail, that a Marine’s postwar descent into violence reflected neither the actions of a simple criminal nor a stereotypical case of PTSD.

·         2017: The New York Times staff, in International Reporting, for agenda-setting reporting on Vladimir Putin’s efforts to project Russia’s power abroad, revealing techniques that included assassination, online harassment and the planting of incriminating evidence on opponents.

·         2017: Daniel Berehulak, in Breaking News Photography, for powerful storytelling through images published in The New York Times showing the callous disregard for human life in the Philippines brought about by a government assault on drug dealers and users. (Moved into this category from Feature Photography by the nominating jury.)

·         2018Jodi KantorMegan TwoheyEmily Steel, and Michael S. Schmidt in Public Service, for "explosive, impactful journalism that exposed powerful and wealthy sexual predators, including allegations against one of Hollywood’s most influential producers, bringing them to account for long-suppressed allegations of coercion, brutality and victim silencing, thus spurring a worldwide reckoning about sexual abuse of women." (Received jointly with Ronan Farrow of "The New Yorker".) [13]

·         2018: Staff, in National Reporting, for "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." (Received jointly with the Washington Post.)[13]

·         2018: Jake Halpern and Michael Sloan, in Editorial Cartooning, for "an emotionally powerful series, told in graphic narrative form, that chronicled the daily struggles of a real-life family of refugees and its fear of deportation."[13]

·         2019: David BarstowSusanne Craig and Russ Buettner, in Explanatory Reporting, for "an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump’s finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges."[14]

·         2019: Brent Staples, in Editorial Writing, for "editorials written with extraordinary moral clarity that charted the racial fault lines in the United States at a polarizing moment in the nation’s history."[14]

2020s[edit]

·         2020: Dar Yasin, for Photojournalist.

·         2020: Mukhtar Khan, for Photojournalist.

·         2020: Staff, in International Reporting.

·         2020: Brian M. Rosenthal, for investigative journalism.

·         2020: Nikole Hannah-Jones, for commentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A330PilotCanada said:

On a previous post there was a comment on 80 % of people lose interest in the New York Times. If that is the case why has this paper been publishing since September 18th 1851? Maybe for some it is because they can not see beyond their own narrow focus. Based on the many awards I will take this paper over alternative facts web sites that have popped up on this forum. 

Have any of those websites have the gravitas that the New York Times have? 

 List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times - Wikipedia

 

1910s[edit]

·         1918The New York Times, for complete and accurate coverage of World War I.

1920s[edit]

·         1923Alva Johnston, for distinguished reporting of science news.

·         1926Edward M. Kingsbury, for the most distinguished editorial of the year, "The House of a Hundred Sorrows".

1930s[edit]

·         1930Russell Owen, for graphic news dispatches from the Byrd Antarctic Expedition.

·         1932Walter Duranty, for reporting of the news from Russia.[2][3][dead link]

·         1934: Frederick T. Birchall, for unbiased reporting from Germany.

·         1935Arthur Krock, for distinguished, impartial and analytical Washington coverage.

·         1936Lauren D. Lyman, for distinguished reporting: a world beat on the departure of the Lindberghs for England.

·         1937Anne O'Hare McCormick, for distinguished foreign correspondence: dispatches and special articles from Europe; William L. Laurence, for distinguished reporting of the Tercentenary Celebration at Harvard, shared with four other reporters.

·         1938Arthur Krock, for distinguished Washington correspondence.

1940s[edit]

·         1940Otto D. Tolischus, for articles from Berlin explaining the economic and ideological background of war-engaged Nazi Germany.

·         1941The New York Times, special citation for the public education value of its foreign news reports.

·         1942Louis Stark, for distinguished reporting of labor stories.

·         1943Hanson W. Baldwin, for a series of articles reporting a tour of the Pacific battle areas.

·         1944The New York Times, for the most disinterested and meritorious service rendered by an American newspaper—a survey of the teaching of American history.

·         1945James B. Reston, for news and interpretive articles on the Dumbarton Oaks Security Conference.

·         1946: Arnaldo Cortesi, for distinguished correspondence from Buenos AiresWilliam L. Laurence, for his eyewitness account of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and articles on the atomic bomb.

·         1947Brooks Atkinson, for a distinguished series of articles on Russia.

·         1949: C.P. Trussell, for consistent excellence in covering the national scene from Washington.

1950s[edit]

·         1950Meyer Berger, for a distinguished example of local reporting—an article on the killing of 13 people by a berserk gunman.

·         1951Arthur Krock, a special commendation for his exclusive interview with President Harry S. Truman: the outstanding instance of national reporting in 1950; Cyrus L. Sulzberger, special citation for his interview with Archbishop Stepinac of Yugoslavia.

·         1952Anthony H. Leviero, for distinguished national reporting.

·         1953The New York Times, special citation for its Review of the Week section which "has brought enlightenment and intelligent commentary to its readers."

·         1955Harrison E. Salisbury, for a series based on his five years in RussiaArthur Krock, a special citation for distinguished correspondence from Washington.

·         1956Arthur Daley, for his sports column, "Sports of The Times."

·         1957: James B. Reston (Scotty Reston), for distinguished reporting from Washington.

·         1958The New York Times, for distinguished coverage of foreign news.

1960s[edit]

·         1960A.M. Rosenthal, for perceptive and authoritative reporting from Poland.

·         1963Anthony Lewis, for distinguished reporting of the United States Supreme Court.

·         1964David Halberstam, for distinguished reporting from South Vietnam.

·         1968Anthony Lukas, for a distinguished example of local reporting—an article on a murdered 18-year-old girl and her two different lives.

1970s[edit]

·         1970Ada Louise Huxtable, for distinguished architecture criticism.

·         1971Harold C. Schonberg, music critic, for distinguished criticism.

·         1972The New York Times, for a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper—publication of the Pentagon Papers.

·         1973Max Frankel, for his coverage of President Richard Nixon's visit to China, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1974Hedrick Smith, for a distinguished example of reporting on foreign affairs, coverage of the Soviet Union.

·         1976Sydney H. Schanberg, for his coverage of the fall of Cambodia, a distinguished example of reporting on foreign affairs; Walter W. Smith (Red Smith), for his "Sports of The Times" column, an example of distinguished criticism.

·         1978Henry Kamm, chief Asian diplomatic correspondent, for articles calling attention to the plight of Indochinese refugees; Walter Kerr, Sunday drama critic, for an outstanding example of distinguished criticism; William Safire, Op-Ed Page columnist, for his columns on the Bert Lance affair, an example of distinguished commentary.

·         1979Russell Baker, for his "Observer" column, an example of distinguished commentary.

1980s[edit]

·         1981Dave Anderson, for his "Sports of The Times" column, an example of distinguished commentary; John M. Crewdson, for his coverage of illegal aliens and immigration, a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs.

·         1982John Darnton, for his coverage of the crisis in Poland, a distinguished example of international reporting; Jack Rosenthal, deputy editorial page editor, for a distinguished example of editorial page writing.

·         1983Thomas L. Friedman, for his coverage of the war in Lebanon, a distinguished example of international reporting; Nan C. Robertson, for her article in The New York Times Magazine on her experience with toxic shock syndrome, a distinguished example of feature writing.

·         1984Paul Goldberger, for distinguished architecture criticism; John Noble Wilford, for national reporting on a wide variety of scientific topics.

·         1986Donal Henahan, music critic, for distinguished criticism; The New York Times, for explanatory journalism: a series of articles on the Strategic Defense Initiative, the "Star Wars" program.

·         1987The New York Times, for national reporting on causes of the Challenger shuttle disaster; Alex S. Jones, for distinguished specialized reporting on the dissension that dissolved a Louisville newspaper dynasty.

·         1988Thomas L. Friedman, for coverage of Israel, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1989Bill Keller, for coverage of the Soviet Union, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

1990s[edit]

·         1990Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, for coverage of political turmoil in China, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1991Natalie Angier, for coverage of molecular biology and animal behavior, a distinguished example of beat reporting; Serge Schmemann, for coverage of the reunification of Germany, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

·         1992Anna Quindlen, for "Public & Private," a compelling column covering a wide range of personal and political topics; Howell Raines, for "Grady's Gift," an account in The New York Times Magazine of his childhood friendship with his family's housekeeper and the lasting lessons of their interracial relationship.

·         1993John F. Burns, for courageous coverage of the strife and destruction in Bosnia, a distinguished example of international reporting.

·         1994The New York Times, for local reporting of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, pooling the efforts of the metropolitan staff as well as Times journalists covering locations as far-ranging as the Middle East and Washington; Isabel Wilkerson, for distinguished feature writing; Kevin Carter, for his photograph of a vulture perching near a little girl in the Sudan who had collapsed from hunger, a picture that became an icon of starvation.

·         1995Margo Jefferson, for her book reviews and other pieces, examples of distinguished criticism.

·         1996Rick Bragg, for distinguished feature writing; Robert D. McFadden, for distinguished rewrite journalism, applied to a broad range of stories; Robert B. Semple, Jr., for distinguished editorial writing on environmental issues.

·         1997John F. Burns, for distinguished international reporting on the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.

·         1998Linda Greenhouse, for reporting on the Supreme Court's work and its significance with sophistication and a sense of history; Michiko Kakutani, for reviewing 1997's many major literary works in essays that were fearless and authoritative; The New York Times, for a series of articles on the effects of drug corruption in Mexico, a distinguished example of international reporting.

·         1999Maureen Dowd, for the moral insight and wit she brought to bear in her columns on the combat between President Bill Clinton and Kenneth StarrThe New York Times, notably Jeff Gerth, for a series of articles disclosing the corporate sale of American technology to China with the approval of the U.S. Government despite national security risks.

2000s[edit]

·         2001:The New York Times, for national reporting, for its compelling and memorable series exploring racial experiences and attitudes across contemporary America. David Cay Johnston, beat reporting, for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms.

·         2002The New York Times, for public service, for "A Nation Challenged," a daily special section covering the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and America's campaign against terrorism. The section, which included biographical sketches of the victims, also appeared online; The New York Times, for its informed and detailed reporting that profiled the global terrorism network and the threats it posed, a distinguished example of explanatory reporting; The New York Times, for its photographs chronicling the pain and the perseverance of people enduring protracted conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a distinguished example of feature photographyThe New York Times, for its consistently outstanding photographic coverage of the terrorist attack on New York City and its aftermath, a distinguished example of breaking news photography; Gretchen Morgenson, for her trenchant and incisive Wall Street coverage, a distinguished example of beat reporting; Barry Bearak, for his deeply affecting and illuminating coverage of daily life in war-torn Afghanistan, a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs; Thomas Friedman, for his clarity of vision, based on extensive reporting, in commenting on the worldwide impact of the terrorist threat.

·         2003Clifford J. Levy, for investigative reporting, for his "Broken Homes" series that exposed the abuse of mentally ill adults in state-regulated homes.

·         2004The New York Times, for public service, for its series written by David Barstow and Lowell Bergman that examined death and injury among American workers and exposed employers who break basic safety rules.

·         2005Walt Bogdanich, for national reporting, for his investigative series about the corporate cover-up of responsibility for fatal accidents at railway crossings.

·         2006Nicholas D. Kristof for commentary on bringing the genocide in Darfur to the world's attention; Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley for international reporting for their examination of China's legal system; James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for national reporting for their coverage of the United States' government's secret eavesdropping program.

·         2007Andrea Elliott for feature writing for coverage of an immigrant imam striving to serve his faithful in America.

·         2008: Amy Harmon for explanatory reporting on the social impact of genetic tests; Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker for investigative reporting on how contaminated ingredients from China make their way into consumer goods, including medicine.

·         2009David Barstow for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

2010s[edit]

·         2010Michael Moss, in Explanatory Reporting, for an investigative feature on food safety (e.g., contaminated meat); Matt Richtel, in National Reporting, for a series on the dangers of distracted drivingSheri Fink of ProPublica in collaboration with The New York Times Magazine, in Investigative Reporting, for “The Deadly Choices At Memorial” about Hurricane Katrina survivors (award shared with the Philadelphia Daily News).[4][5]

·         2011Clifford J. Levy and Ellen Barry, in International Reporting, for their “Above the Law” series, which examined abuse of power in Russia, showing how authorities had jailed, beaten or harassed citizens who opposed them; and David Leonhardt, in Commentary, for his weekly column “Economic Scene” which offered perspectives on the formidable problems confronting America, from creating jobs to recalibrating tax rates.[6]

·         2012: David Kocieniewski, in Explanatory Reporting, for his series on tax avoidance; and Jeffrey Gettleman, in International Reporting, for his reports on famine and conflict in East Africa.[7][8]

·         2013David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrab, in Investigative Reporting, for describing bribery by Walmart in Mexico; New York Times staff, in Explanatory Reporting, for examining global business practices of Apple Inc. and other technology companies; David Barboza, in International Reporting, for exposing corruption in the Chinese government; and John Branch, in Feature Writing, for "Snow Fall," a multimedia presentation about avalanches.[9]

·         2014Tyler Hicks, in Breaking News Photography, for his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya; Josh Haner, in Feature Photography, for his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life[10]

·         2015: Eric Lipton, in Investigative Reporting, for reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected; New York Times staff, in International Reporting, for courageous front-line reporting and vivid human stories on Ebola in Africa, engaging the public with the scope and details of the outbreak while holding authorities accountable (Team members named by The Times were Pam BelluckHelene CooperSheri Fink, Adam Nossiter, Norimitsu OnishiKevin Sack, and Ben C. Solomon.); and Daniel Berehulak, in Feature Photography, for his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa[11]

·         2016Tyler Hicks, Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev and Daniel Etter for breaking news photography for coverage of the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe and the Middle East, and Alissa Rubin for international reporting for her coverage of the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan including the horrific murder of young Afghan woman who was beaten to death by a mob after being falsely accused of burning a QuranJohn Woo and Adam Ellick produced a powerful accompanying video about the murder.[12]

·         2017C.J. Chivers, in Feature Writing, for showing, through an artful accumulation of fact and detail, that a Marine’s postwar descent into violence reflected neither the actions of a simple criminal nor a stereotypical case of PTSD.

·         2017: The New York Times staff, in International Reporting, for agenda-setting reporting on Vladimir Putin’s efforts to project Russia’s power abroad, revealing techniques that included assassination, online harassment and the planting of incriminating evidence on opponents.

·         2017: Daniel Berehulak, in Breaking News Photography, for powerful storytelling through images published in The New York Times showing the callous disregard for human life in the Philippines brought about by a government assault on drug dealers and users. (Moved into this category from Feature Photography by the nominating jury.)

·         2018Jodi KantorMegan TwoheyEmily Steel, and Michael S. Schmidt in Public Service, for "explosive, impactful journalism that exposed powerful and wealthy sexual predators, including allegations against one of Hollywood’s most influential producers, bringing them to account for long-suppressed allegations of coercion, brutality and victim silencing, thus spurring a worldwide reckoning about sexual abuse of women." (Received jointly with Ronan Farrow of "The New Yorker".) [13]

·         2018: Staff, in National Reporting, for "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." (Received jointly with the Washington Post.)[13]

·         2018: Jake Halpern and Michael Sloan, in Editorial Cartooning, for "an emotionally powerful series, told in graphic narrative form, that chronicled the daily struggles of a real-life family of refugees and its fear of deportation."[13]

·         2019: David BarstowSusanne Craig and Russ Buettner, in Explanatory Reporting, for "an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump’s finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges."[14]

·         2019: Brent Staples, in Editorial Writing, for "editorials written with extraordinary moral clarity that charted the racial fault lines in the United States at a polarizing moment in the nation’s history."[14]

2020s[edit]

·         2020: Dar Yasin, for Photojournalist.

·         2020: Mukhtar Khan, for Photojournalist.

·         2020: Staff, in International Reporting.

·         2020: Brian M. Rosenthal, for investigative journalism.

·         2020: Nikole Hannah-Jones, for commentary.

I really don't care what the New York Times creds are or are not, does any one else care? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon All:

From the New York Times:

How Misinformation ‘Superspreaders’ Seed False Election Theories - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Researchers have found that a small group of social media accounts are responsible for the spread of a disproportionate amount of the false posts about voter fraud.

By Sheera Frenkel

Nov. 23, 2020, 12:09 p.m. ET

On the morning of Nov. 5, Eric Trump, one of the president’s sons, asked his Facebook followers to report cases of voter fraud with the hashtag, Stop the Steal. His post was shared over 5,000 times.

By late afternoon, the conservative media personalities Diamond and Silk had shared the hashtag along with a video claiming voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Their post was shared over 3,800 times.

 

That night, the conservative activist Brandon Straka asked people to protest in Michigan under the banner #StoptheSteal. His post was shared more than 3,700 times.

Over the next week, the phrase “Stop the Steal” was used to promote dozens of rallies that spread false voter fraud claims about the U.S. presidential elections.

New research from Avaaz, a global human rights group, the Elections Integrity Partnership and The New York Times shows how a small group of people — mostly right-wing personalities with outsized influence on social media — helped spread the false voter-fraud narrative that led to those rallies.

That group, like the guests of a large wedding held during the pandemic, were “superspreaders” of misinformation around voter fraud, seeding falsehoods that include the claims that dead people votedvoting machines had technical glitches, and mail-in ballots were not correctly counted.

“Because of how Facebook’s algorithm functions, these superspreaders are capable of priming a discourse,” said Fadi Quran, a director at Avaaz. “There is often this assumption that misinformation or rumors just catch on. These superspreaders show that there is an intentional effort to redefine the public narrative.”

Across Facebook, there were roughly 3.5 million interactions — including likes, comments and shares — on public posts referencing “Stop the Steal” during the week of Nov. 3, according to the research. Of those, the profiles of Eric Trump, Diamond and Silk and Mr. Straka accounted for a disproportionate share — roughly 6 percent, or 200,000, of those interactions.

While the group’s impact was notable, it did not come close to the spread of misinformation promoted by President Trump since then. Of the 20 most-engaged Facebook posts over the last week containing the word “election,” all were from Mr. Trump, according to Crowdtangle, a Facebook-owned analytics tool. All of those claims were found to be false or misleading by independent fact checkers.

The baseless election fraud claims have been used by the president and his supporters to challenge the vote in a number of states. Reports that malfunctioning voting machinesintentionally miscounted mail-in votes and other irregularities affecting the vote were investigated by election officials and journalists who found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The voter fraud claims have continued to gather steam in recent weeks, thanks in large part to prominent accounts. A look at a four-week period starting in mid-October shows that President Trump and the top 25 superspreaders of voter fraud misinformation accounted for 28.6 percent of the interactions people had with that content, according to an analysis by Avaaz.

“What we see these people doing is kind of like setting a fire down with fuel, it is designed to quickly create a blaze,” Mr. Quran said. “These actors have built enough power they ensure this misinformation reaches millions of Americans.”

In order to find the superspreaders, Avaaz compiled a list of 95,546 Facebook posts that included narratives about voter fraud. Those posts were liked, shared or commented on nearly 60 million times by people on Facebook.

 

Avaaz found that just 33 of the 95,546 posts were responsible for over 13 million of those interactions. Those 33 posts had created a narrative that would go on to shape what millions of people thought about the legitimacy of the U.S. elections.

A spokesman for Facebook said the company had added labels to posts that misrepresented the election process and was directing people to a voting information center.

“We’re taking every opportunity to connect people to reliable information about the election and how votes are being counted,” said Kevin McAlister, a Facebook spokesman. The company has not commented on why accounts that repeatedly share misinformation, such as Mr. Straka’s and Diamond and Silk’s, have not been penalized. Facebook has previously said that President Trump, along with other elected officials, is granted a special status and is not fact-checked.

Many of the superspreader accounts had millions of interactions on their Facebook posts over the last month, and have enjoyed continued growth. The accounts were active on Twitter as well as Facebook, and increasingly spread the same misinformation on new social media sites like Parler, MeWe and Gab.

Dan Bongino, a right-wing commentator with a following of nearly four million people on Facebook, had over 7.7 million interactions on Facebook the week of Nov. 3. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host, had nearly four million interactions, and Diamond and Silk had 2.5 million. A review of their pages by The Times shows that a majority of their posts have focused on the recent elections, and voter fraud narratives around them.

None of the superspreaders identified in this article responded to requests for comment.

One of the most prominent false claims promoted by the superspreaders was that Dominion voting software deleted votes for Mr. Trump, or somehow changed vote tallies in several swing states. Election officials have found no evidence that the machines malfunctioned, but posts about the machines have been widely shared by Mr. Trump and his supporters.

Over the last week, just seven posts from the top 25 superspreaders of the Dominion voter fraud claim accounted for 13 percent of the total interactions on Facebook about the claim.

Many of those same accounts were also top superspreaders of the Dominion claim, and other voter fraud theories, on Twitter. The accounts of President Trump, his son Eric, Mr. Straka and Mr. Levin were all among the top 20 accounts that spread misinformation about voter fraud on Twitter, according to Ian Kennedy, a researcher at the University of Washington who works with the Elections Integrity Partnership.

Mr. Trump had by far the largest influence on Twitter. A single tweet by the president accusing Dominion voting systems of deleting 2.7 million votes in his favor was shared over 185,000 times, and liked over 600,000 times.

Like the other false claims about voter fraud, Mr. Trump’s tweet included a label by Twitter that he was sharing information that was not accurate.

Twitter, like Facebook, has said that those labels help prevent false claims from being shared and direct people toward more authoritative sources of information.

Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook employees questioned whether the labels were effective. Within the company, employees have sought out their own data on how well national newspapers performed during the elections, according to one Facebook employee.

On the #StoptheSteal hashtag, they found that both The New York Times and The Washington Post were among the top 25 pages with interactions on that hashtag — mainly from readers sharing articles and using the hashtag in those posts.

Combined, the two publications had approximately 44,000 interactions on Facebook under that hashtag. By comparison, Mr. Straka, the conservative activist who shared the call to action on voter fraud, got three times that number of interactions sharing material under the same hashtag on his own Facebook account.

Jacob Silver contributed reporting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This always saddens me and I think he got it desperately wrong here; the election results reflect it too IMO. I can only speak for myself I guess, but this is the sort of attitude and headline where Democrats and Liberals utterly fail me:

Obama: ‘White population' fear that 'African American community' will 'get out of control’ with police reform

I care about criminals, not what colour, creed or religion they are. I care about terrorists, not their religion, whether they be left wing or right, white or brown.

So shouting see he was a white Republican Christian fails to resonate.... he's a bloody range and windage assessment and nothing more.  I care about hunting these creatures down wherever they are and wherever they go.

You can only find this confusing if you deliberately choose to or are motivated by some BS narrative.

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's another example of madness.

I don't know (or even care) whether these fraudulent efforts were on behalf of Republicans or Democrats, AND IT DOESN"T MATTER. It should be investigated, and if true, the great axe should fall where the offence lies... and fall hard.

Mass mailings are certainly not the same as absentee/military ballots and this was a WDYTWGTH event from start to finish:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/voter-group-founded-by-stacey-abrams-under-investigation-seeking-out-of-state-dead

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The media still hasn't had it fill of posting hate stories about President Trump.

 

THE HEADLINE READS.   Scoop: Pentagon halts Biden transition briefings

AFTER BERATING Trump and his administration through the entire SCOOP...

 

NOT UNTIL the last paragraph DO THEY THROW THIS LITTLE TID BIT In.

 

"  In a statement released after the publication of this story, Miller said: "At no time has the Department cancelled or declined any interview. ... After the mutually-agreed upon holiday, which begins tomorrow, we will continue with the transition and rescheduled meetings from today."

This story has been updated with Miller's on-the-record response and new details about frustrations at the Biden team over the Washington Post story

The statement >>>>>.  EpiKBTXVQAIXn4W?format=jpg&name=large

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

NOT UNTIL the last paragraph DO THEY THROW THIS LITTLE TID BIT In.

To be fair, the last paragraph(s):

"But the Biden transition team disputed Miller, telling reporters that the break in meetings with Pentagon officials was not mutual, instead calling it an “abrupt halt" in information sharing from an agency crucial to national security.

Yohannes Abraham, the executive director of the transition, said that the Biden team was told Thursday that its Pentagon briefings were being put on hold.

“We have met isolated resistance in some corners including from political appointees within the Department of Defense," Abraham said, adding that he hoped the meeting would resume “immediately.”

The tension comes after the presidential transition did not begin until Nov. 23, more than two weeks after Biden was declared victorious over Trump in the 2020 election. As Trump launched repeated and unfounded allegations afterward of widespread voter fraud, his administration delayed completing a step known as ascertainment that acknowledges the apparent successful candidate in the election and allows transition to begin.

The U.S. official familiar with the transition process said there have been up to 20 meetings per day, with a relatively small number of lawyers needed to staff them. The cancellation of the meetings Friday was first reported by Axios."

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone getting their 'information' from Fox News, fact is they got slapped and now have to publicly walk back the lies they have been spreading.

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-host-lou-dobbs-airs-debunking-election-fraud-claims-made-his-own-show-1556143

Fox Host Lou Dobbs Airs Debunking of Election Fraud Claims Made on His Own Show

Fox Business host Lou Dobs ran a segment Friday night fact-checking his own claims that electronic voting companies like Smartmatic helped rig the 2020 election against President Donald Trump.

The segment came just five days after Florida-based Smartmatic, the voting technology system used only in Los Angeles County, issued legal notices and retraction demands against Fox News and two other right-wing media companies, OAN and Newsmax, for "publishing false and defamatory statements" about the company's involvement in the general election.

A Monday statement from Smartmatic says that there are dozens of factually inaccurate statements made by each media organization as part of a "disinformation campaign" to discredit the election.

Lots of opinions about the integrity of the election, the irregularities of mail-in voting, of election voting machines and voting software," Dobbs said during the Friday segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight. "One of the companies is Smartmatic, and we reached out to one of the leading authorities on open source software for elections, Eddie Perez, for his insight and views."

 

Perez, the global director of technology development and open standards for the Open Source Election Technology Institute, then proceeded to debunk claims made against Smartmatic on the network while answering a series of questions. They included whether there was any evidence indicating that Smartmatic software flipped the votes for President-elect Joe Biden and whether the company and Dominion, another voting machine software that has been a target of frequent attacks from the Trump campaign and right-wing media like Fox News, were linked in any way.

"I have not seen any evidence that Smartmatic software was used to delete, change, alter anything related to vote tabulation," Perez said.

"Both Dominion and Smartmatic individually and respectively put out very clear statements from their corporate headquarters, each of them indicating they are independent companies, they are not related to each other," Perez said when asked if the two were owned by the same person. "It is my understanding that neither one of them has an ownership stake in the other or anything like that."

He also denied claims that there is any connection between billionaire philanthropist George Soros and Smartmatic. He added that he wasn't aware of any evidence to indicate that the company sent U.S. votes to be tabulated in other countries, nor were there instances where Smartmatic's technology was banned in the U.S. due to security weaknesses.

Fox News pointed Newsweek back to the Lou Dobbs segment when asked for comment on Saturday.

The baseless claims against Smartmatic were peddled on Dobbs' own show when former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell falsely accused Venezuelan communications minister Jorge Rodriguez of being the "ringleader" of an election fraud system involving voting machines like those from Smartmatic and Dominion and what Powell called a "Cyber Pearl Harbor." One of the four people who Powell baselessly claims "orchestrated" these attacks was Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica.

"They have no evidence to support their attacks on Smartmatic because there is no evidence. This campaign was designed to defame Smartmatic and undermine legitimately conducted elections," said Mugica in a statement.

"Our efforts are more than just about Smartmatic or any other company," he continued. "This campaign is an attack on election systems and election workers in an effort to depress confidence in future elections and potentially counter the will of the voters, not just here, but in democracies around the world."

The statement notes that Smartmatic, founded in 2000, has designed and enacted secure election technology in 25 countries and helped tabulate over 5 billion auditable votes without any security breaches.

Several conspiracy theories pushed claims that the company is tied to the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. However, Smartmatic, which began working with Mugica's native Venezuela in 2004, broke all ties with the country in 2017 after Venezuelan leaders announced election results different from Smartmatic's tally. Because of the automated election system, Smartmatic was able to detect the overstated turnout and publicly denounced the fraud.

The company's announcement indicates that Smartmatic is reserving its right to pursue defamation and disparagement claims.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little reality...

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/11/23/21594110/rudy-giuilani-trump-election-challenge-courts

Why Trump’s lawyers can lie to you but not to a judge

When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what they or the politicians say.

There seems to be a real disconnect between the claims of widespread fraud, a stolen election and illegal voting made by President Donald Trump and his allies and the actual claims formally made by his lawyers in court.

Both Trump in his Twitter feed and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany in her press conferences have made allegations of broad-based election fraud. But under questioning from judges in Arizona and Pennsylvania, Trump’s lawyers have backed away from actually asserting fraud. Despite Trump’s allegations to the contrary, his lawyers have acknowledged that they are not claiming that dead people voted or that occasional computer glitches were part of a deliberate conspiracy.

Opinion

In one of several Pennsylvania cases, Trump attorneys actually signed a legal document in which they stated:

“Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.”

The attorney backpedaling is not surprising.

It’s one thing to speculate via tweet, but quite another for an attorney, who is an officer of the court, to make representations to a judge. Trump’s lawyers are constrained in what they can assert by three major restrictions that apply to lawyers: professional ethics, rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence.

Legal ethics apply

As members of the bar association — the state entity that grants attorneys their license to practice law — lawyers have a professional ethics obligation “not to abuse legal procedure” by filing “frivolous” claims. Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, some version of which applies in all states, forbids a lawyer from bringing a claim or argument “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.”

The bar requires lawyers to “inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law” and “determine that they can make good faith arguments” supporting their clients’ positions.

At least outside the context of criminal defense, lawyers must be able to honestly represent to the court that they have a basis for believing they have a path to getting relief either based on existing law or “a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

Violating this requirement could expose the lawyer to sanctions from the state bar, which could range from a reprimand to a fine to a license suspension. More practically, it can erode courts’ confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and damage the lawyer’s professional reputation.

In Trump’s case, this means his attorneys can only say the election was stolen if they know of actual, credible reports of systematic fraud.

Sanctions can be imposed

Formal disciplinary administrative proceedings against lawyers by the bar for this kind of misconduct are rare. But less rare are motions by opposing parties for sanctions under a different rule.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows an opposing party to move for sanctions against a lawyer who files a frivolous claim or makes a frivolous argument. Most states have an analogous rule for their courts.

Rule 11 provides that when making a claim before the court, the attorney certifies, “after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that:

  1. it’s not being made for an improper purpose, such as to harass or delay;
  2. the claims are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law; and
  3. the factual assertions have evidence to support them, or will likely have such support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery.

For example, if a corporation’s lawyer files an antitrust complaint that she knows to be a stretch, just to block a rival’s merger deal and give her client time to complete its own merger deal first, that would be a violation of Rule 11.

The rule allows any opposing party to ask for sanctions, or for the court to order sanctions on its own initiative. Frequently, such sanctions include paying the other side’s attorney fees for having to do the work to oppose the frivolous claim or argument.

Put up or shut up

As an election law scholar and practitioner, I believe that perhaps the most compelling rule keeping lawyers cautious is the practical consideration that making unsubstantiated claims of fraud is not only unethical but also a waste of time.

Eventually — and, under the accelerated time frame of these cases, that means pretty quickly — the lawyers are going to have to present actual evidence to judges. Without such evidence, judges will dismiss the claim.

And a lawyer making fraud claims without evidence runs the risk that an impatient judge might dismiss an entire case, even if other, legitimate claims are being made.

When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what the politicians say.

Steven Mulroy is a professor of constitutional law, criminal law and election law at the University of Memphis.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning All:

From the New York Times:

The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media

Voting machine companies threaten “highly dangerous” cases against Fox, Newsmax and OAN, says Floyd Abrams.

By Ben Smith

 

Published Dec. 20, 2020 Updated Dec. 21, 2020, 6:06 a.m. ET

Antonio Mugica was in Boca Raton when an American presidential election really melted down in 2000, and he watched with shocked fascination as local government officials argued over hanging chads and butterfly ballots.

It was so bad, so incompetent, that Mr. Mugica, a young Venezuelan software engineer, decided to shift the focus of his digital security company, Smartmatic, which had been working for banks. It would offer its services to what would obviously be a growth industry: electronic voting machines. He began building a global company that ultimately provided voting machinery and software for elections from Brazil to Belgium and his native Venezuela. He even acquired an American company, then called Sequoia.

Last month, Mr. Mugica initially took it in stride when his company’s name started popping up in grief-addled Trump supporters’ wild conspiracy theories about the election.

“Of course I was surprised, but at the same time, it was pretty clear that these people were trying to discredit the election and they were throwing out 25 conspiracy theories in parallel,” he told me in an interview last week from Barbados, where his company has an office. “I thought it was so absurd that it was not going to have legs.”

But by Nov. 14, he knew he had a problem. That’s when Rudy Giuliani, serving as the president’s lawyer, suggested that one voting company, Dominion Voting Systems, had a sinister connection to vote counts in “Michigan, Arizona and Georgia and other states.” Mr. Giuliani declared on Twitter that the company “was a front for SMARTMATIC, who was really doing the computing. Look up SMARTMATIC and tweet me what you think?”

Soon his company, and a competitor, Dominion — which sells its services to about 1,900 of the county governments that administer elections across America — were at the center of Mr. Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell’s theories, and on the tongues of commentators on Fox News and its farther-right rivals, Newsmax and One America News.

“Sidney Powell is out there saying that states like Texas, they turned away from Dominion machines, because really there’s only one reason why you buy a Dominion machine and you buy this Smartmatic software, so you can easily change votes,” the Newsmax host Chris Salcedo said in one typical mash-up on Nov. 18. Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business reported on Nov. 15 that “one source says that the key point to understand is that the Smartmatic system has a backdoor.”

Here’s the thing: Smartmatic wasn’t even used in the contested states. The company, now a major global player with over 300 employees, pulled out of the United States in 2007 after a controversy over its founders’ Venezuelan roots, and its only involvement this November was with a contract to help Los Angeles County run its election.

In an era of brazen political lies, Mr. Mugica has emerged as an unlikely figure with the power to put the genie back in the bottle. Last week, his lawyer sent scathing letters to the Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN demanding that they immediately, forcefully clear his company’s name — and that they retain documents for a planned defamation lawsuit. He has, legal experts say, an unusually strong case. And his new lawyer is J. Erik Connolly, who not coincidentally won the largest settlement in the history of American media defamation in 2017, at least $177 million, for a beef producer whose “lean finely textured beef” was described by ABC News as “pink slime.”

Now, Mr. Connolly’s target is a kind of red slime, the stream of preposterous lies coming from the White House and Republican officials around the country.

“We’ve gotten to this point where there’s so much falsity that is being spread on certain platforms, and you may need an occasion where you send a message, and that’s what punitive damages can do in a case like this,” Mr. Connolly said.

Mr. Mugica isn’t the only potential plaintiff. Dominion Voting Systems has hired another high-powered libel lawyer, Tom Clare, who has threatened legal action against Ms. Powell and the Trump campaign. Mr. Clare said in an emailed statement that “we are moving forward on the basis that she will not retract those false statements and that it will be necessary for Dominion to take aggressive legal action, both against Ms. Powell and the many others who have enabled and amplified her campaign of defamation by spreading damaging falsehoods about Dominion.”

These are legal threats any company, even a giant like Fox Corporation, would take seriously. And they could be fatal to the dream of a new “Trump TV,” a giant new media company in the president’s image, and perhaps contributing to his bottom line. Newsmax and OAN would each like to become that, and are both burning money to steal ratings from Fox, executives from both companies have acknowledged. They will need to raise significantly more money, or to sell quickly to investors, to build a Fox-style multibillion-dollar empire. But outstanding litigation with the potential of an enormous verdict will be enough to scare away most buyers.

And so Newsmax and OAN appear likely to face the same fate as so many of President Trump’s sycophants, who have watched him lie with impunity and imitated him — only to find that he’s the only one who can really get away with it. Mr. Trump benefits from presidential immunity, but also he has an experienced fabulist’s sense of where the legal red lines are, something his allies often lack. Three of his close aides were convicted of lying, and Michael Cohen served more than a year in prison. (Trump pardoned Michael Flynn and commuted the sentence of Roger Stone.)

OAN and Newsmax have been avidly hyping Mr. Trump’s bogus election claims. OAN has even been trying to get to Newsmax’s right, by continuing to reject Joe Biden’s status as president-elect. But their own roles in propagating that lie could destroy their businesses if Mr. Mugica sues.

The letters written by lawyers for Smartmatic and Dominion are “extremely powerful,” said Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s most prominent First Amendment lawyers, in an email to The New York Times. “The repeated accusations against both companies are plainly defamatory and surely have done enormous reputational and financial harm to both.”

Mr. Abrams noted that “truth is always a defense” and that, failing that, the networks may defend themselves by saying they didn’t know the charges were false, while Ms. Powell may say she was simply describing legal filings.

“It is far too early to predict how the cases, if commenced, will end,” he said. “But it is not too early to say that they would be highly dangerous to those sued.”

Lawyers said they expected that the right-wing networks, if sued, would argue that Smartmatic and Dominion should be considered “public figures” — which would require the companies to prove that its critics were malicious or wildly reckless, not just wrong.

Mr. Connolly said he would argue that Smartmatic was not a public figure, a legal status whose exact meaning varies depending on whether Mr. Mugica files suit in Florida, New York or another state.

“They have a very good case,” another First Amendment lawyer who isn’t connected to the litigation, the University of Florida professor Clay Calvert, said of Smartmatic. “If these statements are false and we are taking them as factual statements, that’s why we have defamation law.”

Fox News and Fox Business, which have mentioned Dominion 792 times and Smartmatic 118 times between them, according to a search of the service TVEyes, appear to be taking the threat seriously. Over the weekend, they broadcast one of the strangest three-minute segments I’ve ever seen on television, with a disembodied and anonymous voice flatly asking a series of factual questions about Smartmatic of an expert on voting machines, Eddie Perez, who debunks a series of false claims. The segment, which appeared scripted to persuade a very literal-minded judge or jury that the network was being fair, aired over the weekend on the shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, where Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell had made their most outlandish claims.

 

Newsmax said in an emailed statement that the channel “has never made a claim of impropriety about Smartmatic, its ownership or software” and that the company was merely providing a “forum for public concerns and discussion.” An OAN spokeswoman didn’t respond to an inquiry.

I’m reluctant to cheer on a defamation case against news organizations, even networks that appear to be amplifying dangerous lies. Companies and politicians often exploit libel law to threaten and silence journalists, and at the very least subject them to expensive and draining litigation.

And defamation cases can also collide with subjects of genuine public interest, as in the most prominent case I’ve been involved in, when a businessman sued me and my colleagues at BuzzFeed News for publishing the Steele Dossier, while acknowledging that it was unverified. There, a judge ruled that the document was an official record that BuzzFeed was entitled to publish.

In this controversy, even the voting companies’ worst critics find the coverage wildly distorted.

“They’ve been mining every paper I’ve ever written and any deposition I’ve ever given and it’s nonsense,” said Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa who has long argued that voting software isn’t as secure as its vendors claim. He said Ms. Powell’s cybersecurity expert, Navid Keshavarz-Nia, called him on Nov. 15, apparently seeing him as a potential ally, and spent an hour going point-by-point over claims that would wind up in a deposition. “He seemed sane, but every time I would ask him for evidence that would support one of these allegations he would squirm off to a different allegation,” Mr. Jones said.

As the conversation wore on, he wondered, “Was someone trying to pull a ‘Borat’ on me?”

But the allegations are no joke for Smartmatic and Dominion. Mr. Mugica said he had taken worried calls from governments and politicians all over the world, concerned that Mr. Trump’s poison will seep into their politics and turn a Smartmatic contract into a liability.

“This potentially could destroy it all,” he said.

Mr. Mugica wouldn’t say whether he has made up his mind to sue. Mr. Connolly said that he has “a lot of people watching a lot of videos right now,” and that he’s researching whether to file in New York, Florida or elsewhere. I asked Mr. Mugica if he’d settle for an apology.

“Is the apology going to reverse the false belief of tens of millions of people who believe in these lies?” he asked. “Then I could be satisfied.”

 

Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-55350794

How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories?

You're dreading the moment.

As your uncle passes the roast potatoes, he casually mentions that a coronavirus vaccine will be used to inject microchips into our bodies to track us.

Or maybe it's that point when a friend, after a couple of pints, starts talking about how Covid-19 "doesn't exist". Or when pudding is ruined as a long-lost cousin starts spinning lurid tales about QAnon and elite Satanists eating babies.

The recent rules changes have upended holiday plans for many of us, but you still may find yourself grappling with such situations over the next few days - talking not about legitimate political questions and debates, but outlandish plots and fictions.

So how do you talk to people about conspiracy theories without ruining Christmas?

1: Keep calm

While it's important to confront falsehoods, it's never useful if things end up in a flaming row.

"My number one rule would be to not spoil Christmas," says Mick West, author of Escaping the Rabbit Hole. "An angry, heated conversation will leave everyone feeling rubbish and further cement conspiracy beliefs."

Psychologist Jovan Byford, a lecturer at the Open University, notes that conspiracy theories often have a strong emotional dimension.

"They are not just about right and wrong," he says, "but underpinned by feelings of resentment, anger and indignation over how the world works."

And they've boomed this year, with many searching for grand explanations for the pandemic, American politics, and huge world events.

Catherine from the Isle of Wight understands that better than most. The 38-year-old used to be a big believer in conspiracies about vaccines being used to deliberately harm people. She's since rejected such claims.

"It is extremely important to remain calm at all times," she says. "Whoever you're talking to is often just as passionate as you are about your own beliefs and will defend them to the grave."

And also remember - medical experts say shouting increases the chance of spreading coronavirus. Yet another reason to keep things low-key.

2: Don't be dismissive

"Approach conversations with friends and family with empathy rather than ridicule," says Claire Wardle from First Draft, a not-for-profit which fights misinformation. "Listen to what they have to say with patience."

Her golden rule is: never publicly shame someone for their views. That's likely to backfire.

"If you do decide to discuss conspiracy theories, don't be dismissive of the other person's beliefs," Jovan Byford agrees. "Establish some common ground."

Remember that people often believe conspiracy theories because deep down, they're worried or anxious. Try to understand those feelings - particularly in a year like the one we've just had.

3: Encourage critical thinking

People who believe conspiracy theories often say: "I do my own research."

The problem is that their research tends to consist of watching fringe YouTube videos, following random people on Facebook, and cherry-picking evidence from biased Twitter accounts.

But the spirit of doubt that pervades the conspiracy-minded internet is actually a key opening for rational thought, says Jovan Byford.

"Many people who believe in conspiracy theories see themselves as healthy sceptics and self-taught researchers into complex issues," he says. "Present this as something that, in principle, you value and share.

"Your aim is not to make them less curious or sceptical, but to change what they are curious about, or sceptical of."

That's what helped Phil from Belfast. He used to be big into 9/11 conspiracies.

"I used to point out the fact that there were various experts who doubted official stories. This was very persuasive to me," he explains. "Why would these experts lie?"

But then he began applying scepticism not to just "official sources" but also the alternative "experts" that was listening to.

He developed a deeper understanding of the scientific method and scepticism itself. Just because one expert believes something, doesn't make it true.

"You can find experts and very intelligent people who lend credence to any position," he says.

"Focus on those who are pushing these ideas, and what they might be getting," says Claire Wardle. "For instance, financial gain by selling health supplements, or reputational gain in building a following."

4: Ask questions

Fact-checking is important, but it's often not the right approach when someone passionately believes in conspiracies. Questions are much more effective than assertions, experts say.

"Focusing on the tactics and techniques used by people pushing disinformation is a more effective way of addressing these conversations than trying to debunk the information," Claire Wardle says.

Think of general queries that encourage people to think about what they believe. For instance, are some of their beliefs contradictory? Do the details of the theory they're describing make much sense? Have they thought about the counter-evidence?

"By asking questions and getting people to realise the flaws, you ultimately get people to doubt their own confidence and open them up to hearing alternative views," says former conspiracy believer Phil.

5: Don't expect immediate results

You might be hoping that a constructive conversation will end with some kind of epiphany over Christmas pudding - but don't bet on it.

For those who have fallen deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole, getting out again can be a very long process.

"Be realistic about what you can achieve," psychologist Jovan Byford warns. "Conspiracy theories instil in believers a sense of superiority. It's an important generator of self-esteem - which will make them resistant to change."

For fact-checker Claire Wardle, it's not just about bruised egos. This year has been scary - and for many, conspiracy theories have been a source of comfort.

"Recognise that everyone has had their lives turned upside down, and is seeking explanations," she says.

"Conspiracy theories tend to be simple, powerful stories that explain the world. Reality is complex and messy, which is harder for our brains to process."

But the experts agree that even if you don't see immediate results - don't give up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fido said:

I just had my page-down button fixed and now it is broken again.

The ignore function uses only 1/2 inch of screen space, it lowers your blood pressure and the very act of ignoring it makes you smarter at the same time.

To date (20 some years here), there is only one fool ignored on the first post... something about who carries the nav bag as I recall and posted on Canada's premier aviation forum to boot. I have but two words for those listed for cause... any guesses?

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A look at the Indigenous names for Edmonton's 12 wards

 
The Canadian Press logoA look at the Indigenous names for Edmonton's 12 wards
arlier this month to change the names of its 12 wards to Indigenous ones. Here are the new names and their meanings: 

Nakota Isga (Ward 1): (NAH'-koh-tah EE'-ska). Of Sioux origin meaning "the people." In 1880, the Alexis Nakota Sioux were set up on a reserve on the shore of what is now called Lac St. Anne after signing an adhesion, or sacred agreement, to Treaty 6. They established themselves along the Saskatchewan and Athabasca rivers and set up fur-trading posts.

---

Anirniq (Ward 2): (ah-NIHL'-nook). Means "breath of life" or "spirit." In the 1950s and '60s, about one-third of Inuit were infected with tuberculosis. Most were flown south to Edmonton for treatment. Many died without their families being notified and were buried in city cemeteries. Recommended by Inuit elders because tuberculosis took the breath and spirit of many Indigenous people.

---

tastawiyiniwak (Ward 3): (tass-taw-WEE'-noh-wok). A Cree term roughly translating into "in-between people." Cree heritage does not have a binary view of gender. It recognizes eight genders, and each has its own role to play in the betterment of the community.

---

Dene (Ward 4): (dehn-EH') Refers to tribes and people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who settled along the North Saskatchewan River, including the area where Edmonton now sits.

---

o-day'min (Ward 5): (oh-DAY'-mihn). "Strawberry" or "heart berry" is a traditional medicine, which guided the Anishinaabe understanding of the deep connection between mind, body, spirit and emotions. Anishinaabe people in Alberta have been referred to as Saulteaux.

---

Métis (Ward 6): (MAY'-tee). Métis people originated in the early 1700s when French and Scottish fur traders married Indigenous women. After a few generations, descendants of these marriages formed a distinct culture. As the fur trade slowed, Métis people developed farms on river lots close to Fort Edmonton.

---

sipiwiyiniwak (Ward 7): (see-pee-WEEN'-oh-wok). Enoch Cree Nation members were known as the River Cree, or sipiwiyiniwak, to other tribes. In the 1800s, the First Nation covered about 114 square kilometres. In 1884, Chief Enoch Lapotac signed an adhesion to Treaty 6, but involuntary land surrenders caused the loss of more than half of Enoch land. The First Nation, bordering the west side of Edmonton, continues to fight for land rights.

--- 

papastew (Ward 8): (PAH'-pah-steh-oh). Was a highly respected leader of Papaschase Band 136, which signed an adhesion to Treaty 6 in 1877. It also translates to "large woodpecker."

---

pihêsiwin (Ward 9): (pee-EH'-soh-wihn). Cree for "land of the thunderbirds." It was given to the ward because, from an aerial view, it is shaped like the bird. 

---

Ipiihkoohkanipiaohtsi (Ward 10): (ee-PEE'-koh-kah-nay-pee-oht-seh). From the Blackfoot language. Was the traditional land where the Blackfoot Nation performed buffalo rounds. The Blackfoot are usually associated with southern Alberta, but traditional migration patterns often had them follow bison up to the North Saskatchewan River.

---

Karhiio (Ward 11): (kar-ah-EE'-oh). Mohawk for "tall beautiful forest." Iroquois men became frequent traders in the NorthWest and Hudson's Bay companies when the fur trade expanded west. These traders married Cree and Métis women along these settlements and a distinct band known as Michel First Nation formed. 

---

Ssopmitapi (Ward 12): (spoh-MEE'-tah-pee). Blackfoot for "star person." Comes from stories that acknowledge the sky and the stars, often referred to as Sky Beings. Stories say the Ssopmitapi were sent to Earth by Napi (the Creator) to help the Blackfoot and bison have a reciprocal relationship. Chosen to honour the Iron Creek Meteorite, or Manitou Stone, once located near Viking, Alta. The stone was shared by all tribes and was a place the Blackfoot would perform ceremonies. It was taken to Ontario in the 1800s by missionaries, but was returned to Alberta in the 1970s and is in the Royal Alberta Museum.

---

(SOURCE: The City of Edmonton)

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Music City car bombing on Christmas morning.

 We may look back on this as a graduation of sorts, something refugees and simple soldiers feared might happen. The investigation will take weeks but my fear is always escalation and reprisal. Were first responders the target here.... we will see.

Divisive polarization leads to hate and propaganda stokes that hate into action. This may prove not be that but it has that lingering smell:


https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/12/25/nashville-explosion-bomb-expert-vpx.cnn

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the truth be known, quite a different tale than what trump tells.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/23/forbes-estimates-china-paid-trump-at-least-54-million-since-he-took-office-via-mysterious-trump-tower-lease/

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease

Donald Trump maintained a stake in Trump Tower when he became president, and with it, a financial connection to the Chinese government.


President Donald Trump, who declared “I don’t make money from China” in Thursday night’s presidential debate, has in fact collected millions of dollars from government-owned entities in China since he took office. Forbes estimates that at least $5.4 million has flowed into the president’s business from a lease agreement involving a state-owned bank in Trump Tower.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China signed a lease for space in 2008, years before the president took office, paying about $1.9 million in annual rent. Trump is well-aware of the deal. “I’ll show you the Industrial Bank of China,” he told three Forbes journalists touring Trump Tower in 2015. “I have the best tenants in the world in this building.”

Trump moved from the skyscraper to the White House in 2017, but he held onto ownership of the retail and office space in the building, through his 100% interest in an entity called Trump Tower Commercial LLC. That put him in an unusual position, given that government-owned entities in China hold at least 70% of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Suddenly, a routine real estate deal became a conduit for a foreign superpower to pay the president of the United States.

Trump Tower

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China maintained an office space inside President Trump's Fifth Avenue skyscraper. 

ROBERT ALEXANDER/GETTY IMAGES

The arrangement posed legal concerns, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state” without Congressional approval. Ethics experts, who have often focused on the president’s hotel in Washington, D.C., argued that the president would be in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause from the moment he took office.

On January 11, 2017, Trump and his team held a press conference inside Trump Tower, not far from the office of the Chinese bank. Trump’s lawyer, Sheri Dillon, claimed that routine business transactions are not violations of the so-called Emoluments Clause. But she also said the president planned to donate all foreign government profits at his hotel to the U.S. Treasury. The next month, first son Eric Trump, who had just taken over day-to-day operations of his father’s business, told Forbes the donations would come from “all the properties.”

Perhaps Eric Trump meant all hotel properties, because it sure doesn’t seem like the Trump Organization handed over all their profits from the deal with the Chinese. The Trump Organization reportedly donated a total of $343,000 to the U.S. Treasury in 2017 and 2018, Trump’s first two years as president. Yet, a document connected to Trump Tower suggests that over those same two years, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China was set to pay about $3.9 million in rent. Operating profit margins inside the building are an estimated 42%, which would suggest that the deal yielded $1.6 million of earnings over those two years. Even if you only count roughly 70% of that money as coming from the Chinese government, it still adds up to $1.2 million—or more than three times what the Trump Organization reportedly gave to the Treasury.

Debate

President Trump debates Joe Biden in the closing days of the 2020 election. 

JABIN BOTSFORD/THE WASHINGTON POST

The lease was set to expire on October 31, 2019, according to a debt prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2018, the state-owned bank agreed to a new lease in a different office building nearby, suggesting it might leave Trump Tower. But then, the bank decided to stay in the president’s building anyway. “They are keeping a couple of floors,” Eric Trump confirmed onstage at a business conference in October 2019.

The new arrangement is somewhat murky. Contacted Friday morning, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization initially said that the bank had “consolidated with their other offices in New York.” When told that Forbes might publish that statement, the spokesperson then seemed to confirm that the Chinese bank was in fact maintaining space in the building: “They’ve exited the vast majority of their space in Trump Tower.” The website for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China still lists an address inside Trump Tower.

Trump has other financial connections to China. The New York Times revealed Tuesday that the U.S. president has a bank account in China. His daughter, Ivanka Trump, received 41 Chinese trademarks from the time she was appointed a White House adviser in March 2017 to April 2019, according to an analysis of documents. The review also showed that the trademarks Ivanka applied for after her father’s inauguration got approved about 40% faster than those she sought out beforehand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2020 at 11:35 AM, deicer said:

Let the truth be known, quite a different tale than what trump 

 

"Let the truth be known" ?? The comic relief just never ends :whistling:


2020 was the point of no return for establishment media

This may be the year that the establishment press crosses the point of no return.

After 2020, it will be hard to see corporate media as anything but a public relations arm of the Democratic Party following the former’s attempts to bury not one, not two, but three major allegations leveled against left-wing politicians. 

Axios, one of the more aggressive and fairer online news outlets, revealed in December that failed presidential candidate and Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California developed a relationship with a suspected Chinese spy who worked on behalf of the Communist Chinese government as part of a far-reaching espionage operation.

Swalwell, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has declined to address his past interactions with Christine Fang, including that she managed somehow to place an intern in his office. He has offered no good reason for why he should remain in his congressional assignment despite the sensitive nature of what is discussed in the committee. His ability to dodge the issue has been enabled in part by media, which have not bothered to press him on the matter. In fact, news of the congressman’s entanglement with a Chinese spy has been ignored entirely by the larger, older news outlets.

ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored the story entirely when it broke. The major broadcast networks continued to ignore it even after Republicans moved to have the congressman removed from the intelligence committee. NBC has nothing on its website about the Chinese spy scandal. Neither does CBS or ABC. The New York Times, the Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times, similarly have avoided reporting on the scandal. Swalwell, meanwhile, has been allowed to skate on the excuse that the Axios report was a hit joborchestrated by the Trump White House, which doesn’t make any sense.

What a change of pace for the newsrooms that have spent the past four years hunting relentlessly for some connection between the Trump administration and Russian intelligence operations! 

Next, there is Democratic Georgia Senate candidate Rev. Raphael Warnock, whose ex-wife, Ouleye Ndoye, is on tape alleging assault by her former spouse. 

Ndoye told Atlanta law enforcement officials in March that Warnock had run over her foot during a domestic dispute, according to a police report obtained this month by the Washington Examiner.

“[A]ll he cares about right now is his reputation” because of his Senate campaign, a tearful Ndoye says in footage recorded by a police body camera.

I’ve tried to keep the way that he acts under wraps for a long time, and today he crossed the line,” she added, tearing up. “So that is what is going on here. And he’s a great actor. He is phenomenal at putting on a really good show.”

The two were going through divorce negotiations at the time.

Weirdly, the newsrooms that published practically every allegation leveled against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings have seen no news value in Ndoye’s on-camera remarks about the Georgia Senate candidate. 

Neither NBC, nor CBS, nor ABC has reported on her allegations. The Washington Post hasn’t touched the story. The New York Times has not touched the story. CNN hasn’t touched the story. MSNBC hasn’t touched the story. The New Yorker hasn’t touched the story. And so on. Just a brief reminder: The New York Times and the New Yorker share a Pulitzer Prize for their #MeToo coverage.

Lastly, there is the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Hunter Biden revealed in December that he is under federal investigation. The FBI, the IRS, and federal prosecutors in Delaware are reviewing his overseas business activities for possible tax and money laundering violations.

Evidence of the investigation, which launched in 2018, first came to light in October after the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop that reportedly belonged to the president-elect’s son. The New York Post’sinvestigation into whether Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s political influence to line the family’s pockets included the publication of the laptop's contents, including an FBI report marked with a case number with “the code associated with an ongoing federal money-laundering investigation in Delaware,” according to the Daily Beast.

“Another document — one with a grand jury subpoena number — appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office,” the report adds. 

The New York Post's coverage was questioned and ridiculed for weeks by competing newsrooms, including the New York Times, Politico, and MSNBC, which alleged, without a shred of evidence, that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. The New York Post was even locked out of its Twitter account because of its laptop coverage.

The federal investigation is real. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are real. Swalwell’s past relationship with a suspected Chinese spy is real. Warnock’s ex-wife is on tape alleging abuse. 

Yet, many of the same news outlets that have spent the past four years chasing after nearly every allegation leveled against conservatives, no matter how ridiculous or outlandish, have ignored all three stories. At some point, one must conclude that the deciding factor in whether these establishment newsrooms cover scandals is whether it hurts members of the Democratic Party.

If that’s how it’s going to be, then what good are these news organizations?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2020-was-the-point-of-no-return-for-establishment-media

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When one speaks of using trusted news sources:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/washington-examiner/

And this last one sums it up nicely:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Washington-Examiner-a-reputable-news-source

To quote one of the answers...

Answered September 13, 2019 · Author has 9.3K answers and 23.8M answer views
 

No. In fact, it is not really a “news source.”

They merely take the news from other popular resources, and then re-write it, adding a conservative “spin” to the event. It is a propaganda tool, designed to sway people’s opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3

Which websites can be considered ‘Fake News’?

This was one of the biggest questions that stuck out in my mind when I sat down to do this analysis.

The below list is any news source rated with a reliability factor of lower than 24 points (37.4%) according to Ad Fontes Media. News sources falling within these metrics can be considered to produce a significant amount of purposefully non-factual articles.

Be extremely skeptical when reading these news sources:

  1. 🔴World Truth TV — 11.6%
  2. 🟢National Enquirer — 15.1%
  3. 🔴The Gateway Pundit — 19.4%
  4. 🔴InfoWars — 20.3%
  5. 🔴NewsPunch — 22.5%
  6. 🔵Wonkette — 23.9%
  7. 🔴WorldNetDaily — 26.5%
  8. 🔴Twitchy — 26.7%
  9. 🔵Palmer Report — 27.6%
  10. 🔴PJ Media — 28.7%
  11. 🔵Bipartisan Report — 30.1%
  12. 🔵Occupy Democrats — 31.3%
  13. 🔴Breitbart — 32.2%
  14. 🔵Alternet — 33.4%
  15. 🔴Conservative Review — 34.1%
  16. 🔴The American Spectator — 34.4%
  17. 🔴The Federalist — 34.7%
  18. 🔵ShareBlue — 35.5%
  19. 🔵Crooks and Liars — 36%
  20. 🔴American Thinker — 36.1%
  21. 🔵Daily Kos — 36.2%
  22. 🔴Daily Caller — 37.4%
  • 8 of the above 22 news sources can be considered to have a liberal bias, with 14 of 22 having a conservative bias
  • 187 million total visits from Americans in July
  • 47k (World Truth TV) to 13 million (Breitbart) unique visitors
  • 3.3 average monthly visits per person
  • Every one of these websites can be considered very biased as well as very unreliable for factual information — with the odd exception of a neutrally ranked National Enquirer
 

Which news sources should we be reading?

Amongst all the clutter of thousands of news articles being pumped out every day, how are we to know if it’s reliable, factual, and not biased?

This is an important question, and according to the following data, these are the sites we should trust the most.

To calculate this, I used both metrics of reliability and bias, measured by Ad Fontes Media. I did a basic multiplication of the two data sets and weighted them equally.

The aim was to rank the publications by the least amount of bias with the most amount of reliability in their reporting.

The following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.

  1. 🟢AP, 79.2%
  2. 🟢Reuters, 78.9%
  3. 🟢Weather.com, 75.9%
  4. 🟢ABC News, 73.9%
  5. 🟢The Advocate, 73.9%
  6. 🟢Bloomberg, 72.9%
  7. 🟢National Public Radio, 72.9%
  8. 🟢Wall Street Journal, 72.1%
  9. 🟢The Hill, 72.1%
  10. 🟢Financial Times, 71.9%
  11. 🟢LA Times, 70.8%
  12. 🟢PBS, 70.6%
  13. 🟢Al Jazeera, 70.5%
  14. 🟢CBS, 70.3%
  15. 🟢Fortune, 69.8%
  • None of the above news sources have a high enough score to be considered as being biased (their reporting is largely neutral in terms of politics — a very good thing)
  • 1.169 billion visits by Americans in July
  • Average of 1.9 visits per user monthly
  • Who are the 10 most biased news sources?

    News organizations used to be a bastion of reliability. But somewhere in the past few decades, the idea that opinions could be substituted for facts became acceptable.

    In my humble opinion, bias should be kept out of the news, as much as possible.

    And from that viewpoint — here are the 10 worst offenders for having the most bias according to Ad Fontes Media.

    (Remember, the bias rankings are on a scale of -42 to +42. The more negative the bias ranking, the more liberal. The more positive it is, the more conservative it’s considered.)

    Avoid these sources if you value neutrality:

    1. 🔵Wonkette, -31.15
    2. 🔴InfoWars, 31.05
    3. 🔴American Thinker, 29.82
    4. 🔵Palmer Report, -29.37
    5. 🔴NewsPunch, 28.58
    6. 🔴The Gateway Pundit, 28.55
    7. 🔵Occupy Democrats, -25.59
    8. 🔴Conservative Review, 25.3
    9. 🔵ShareBlue, -24.95
    10. 🔴Life News, 24.75
    • These websites get almost 44 million visits from Americans each month
    • The number of unique individuals visiting each site ranges from 150k (ShareBlue) to 4 million (The Gateway Pundit)
    • They are visited 3 times per month on average (a high value for the online news industry)
     

    Who are the 10 most neutral news sources?

    This list shows who is consistently rated to be the most unbiased site of the 102 websites in this analysis.

    News media to consider the most neutral sources:

    1. 🟢The Hill, 0.09
    2. 🟢Forbes, 0.2
    3. 🟢Christian Science Monitor, -0.21
    4. 🟢Business Insider, -0.38
    5. 🟢Fortune, 0.43
    6. 🟢Marketwatch, -0.54
    7. 🟢Financial Times, 0.62
    8. 🟢Bloomberg, -0.85
    9. 🟢Reuters, -0.95
    10. 🟢AP, -1.06
    • These websites are visited almost 504 million times by Americans every month
    • The number of unique Americans visiting these websites ranges from 600k (Christian Science Monitor) to 69 million (Business Insider)
    • They are visited roughly 1.9 times per user each month.
    • Who are the 10 most liberally biased news sources?

      1. 🔵Wonkette, -31.15
      2. 🔵Palmer Report, -29.37
      3. 🔵Occupy Democrats, -25.59
      4. 🔵ShareBlue, -24.95
      5. 🔵Truthout, -24.4
      6. 🔵Bipartisan Report, -23.55
      7. 🔵Crooks and Liars, -23.46
      8. 🔵Second Nexus, -22.61
      9. 🔵FreeSpeech TV, -22.49
      10. 🔵Daily Kos, -21.49
      • Visited 38 million times in July
      • 70k (FreeSpeech TV) to 3.9 million (Daily Kos) unique visitors
      • 3.5 average monthly visits per person
       

      Who are the 10 most conservatively biased news sources?

      1. 🔴InfoWars, 31.05
      2. 🔴American Thinker, 29.82
      3. 🔴NewsPunch, 28.58
      4. 🔴The Gateway Pundit, 28.55
      5. 🔴Conservative Review, 25.3
      6. 🔴Life News, 24.75
      7. 🔴The American Spectator, 23.89
      8. 🔴Daily Signal, 23.31
      9. 🔴The Federalist, 23.29
      10. 🔴WorldNetDaily, 22.92
      • Visited 49 million times in July
      • 380k (The American Spectator) to 3.9 million (The Gateway Pundit)
      • 2.6 average monthly visits
      • Commentary

        I spent an incredible amount of time on this article. By far the most I’ve ever done for a single piece.

        The constant anger, arguments, and contempt we see in our everyday lives spurred me on to gather and analyze this dataset.

        And yet, I find myself now with even more questions than I was able to answer in creating this article.

      • How can we stop such bias from infecting the national discourse?
      • Where is the line between allowing propaganda to permeate freely versus free speech? Is this an absolute argument, or can we somehow find a line to discern the truth from fiction?
      • Can we please stop listening to tinfoil hat-wearing maniacs?
      • As you can see from some of the data above, there are many sites that are clearly spreading false information, opinion, and extremism.

        This does not bring us together.

        It leads to us doubting our neighbors, our friends, our parents, and other important people in our lives.

        Eternal distrust.

        You can’t believe what you hear.

        Every man for himself.

        It seems that many people these days, mistakenly in my opinion, search for sources based on what they already want to hear.

        They look for articles to confirm their suspicions. Their thoughts and feelings.

        Right or left, it doesn’t matter. If you search on Google for something to back up your feeling on a subject (regardless of truth) — you will find it.

        There’s an article for everything now.

        Opinions being added to the news cycle has corrupted the impartiality of it.

        This is not how we come together as a world, as a nation.

        We must be better than this.

        It’s my belief that many of these websites, their owners, and their anchors are one of the largest absolute causes of anger in the world today.

        Be better, people.

        I’ll close off by stating my most nagging thought after conducting this extensive exercise — I couldn’t wait to clear my browser cookies fast enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to see a tv today tuned to CNN  - big banner across the bottom of the screen:

"US vaccination effort remains woefully behind schedule"

This must come as a big shock to regular CNN viewers since they've been told incessantly for the last 10 months that any hope of having a vaccination before Q4 2021 was foolishly irrational.  I also remember several CNN experts saying getting a vaccination before the middle of 2021 would "be a miracle".  

So, which is it; is the US woefully behind schedule or are they experiencing a miracle?

I'm thinking somewhere around the 3rd week of January we'll see a change to the narrative and by February we'll be hearing about the dramatic turn around and the great improvement in the process and massive improvement in the vaccination rate - all attributed to Biden and the Democratic party no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, seeker said:

I'm thinking somewhere around the 3rd week of January we'll see a change to the narrative....

And we'll be seeing it right here in a thread entitled Biden 1.0

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

And we'll be seeing it right here in a thread entitled Biden 1.0

Naw.  the Trump whining will continue along with reports on the various law suits even if  he grants himself a pre-emptive Presidential Pardon. Some  suits will still go on as evidently a Pardon would only apply to federal crimes, not state offences.

If Donald Trump pardons himself before he leaves office, will Joe Biden be able to undo it when he becomes president? - ABC News

  We may also see reports regarding his mental stability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.