Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

The whole concept of the article is 2021 type BS.

I've bought and sold several properties over the years without ever meeting either the vendor or the purchaser and never thought too much of it. Being as I'm painfully average, I'm guessing it's not uncommon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IMO, any one who believes Ottawa doesn’t dictate what is printed about certain subjects is living in LaLa land. You don’t spend billions to bail out the media and not expect something in return.

The North Vancouver stabbing incident has drawn my attention to something: Over the last few days I've noticed a trend, and now that I have noticed it (and its actually registered), I realize tha

Posted Images

None of this makes sense to me, I'm reminded of Collin Powell"s address to the UN prior to the Gulf war. So either I'm not smart enough to understand it (and require more training) or it really doesn't make sense. 

The specific intelligence vs established security vs response questions I have about Jan 6 could fill a deicer thread:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6237565766001#sp=show-clips

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

Time to mute Facebook?

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/17/facebook-content-supreme-court-network

Facebook's long-awaited content 'supreme court' has arrived. It's a clever sham

Jeremy Lewin (OpEd, The Guardian, March 17, 2021)

The [Facebook] regulatory body sounds like a positive step. But it’s designed to give political cover while Facebook continues to allow dangerous content.

 

In October, Facebook unveiled its long-awaited “oversight board” – a special, semi-independent body, staffed mainly by experts on free speech and constitutional law, with the authority to make decisions about controversial content posted on Facebook’s platform.

 

Sometimes described as Facebook’s “supreme court”, the oversight board has been met, in the legal and academic worlds, mostly with wonderexcitement and praise. Giving predominantly legal scholars input on the content moderation of the world’s largest social media platform seems like a positive step for social media governance.

 

But behind the gloss, Facebook’s experiment is intended to foster anything but genuine accountability. It is a clever obfuscation offering Facebook cover to engage in socially irresponsible profit-seeking that would be publicly reviled were it more transparent.

 

The trick is simple. Facebook faces a problem of two-sided economic incentives: dangerous and socially objectionable content is genuinely valuable to its bottom line, but so is the public perception that it’s proactively committed to maintaining a socially responsible and safe community. It designed the oversight board to escape this double-bind. Oversight by a legalistic body with the appearance of neutrality earns Facebook public goodwill and deflects blame for lax content moderation. But in designing the structure of the body itself, Facebook has virtually ensured certain financially beneficial outcomes: maximum content, even the dangerous and harmful, left online. The result is a win-win for Facebook. The platform keeps valuable content while heaping social culpability on an external body. Already, the board is showing these true colors.

 

“Engagement” is the holy grail of social media and digital advertising. For Facebook, more engagement means more ad dollars – which is how it makes most of its money. But false and/or hateful content often drives the most clicks. Among political content, “far-right” content drives far more engagement than center-right content; even more telling, within the “far-right” category, misinformation gets the greatest engagement. The most extreme – and deceitful – content is immensely valuable to Facebook. This isn’t exclusive to political posts; other obscene, abusive or false content also appeals to our addled and social-media obsessed brains. Mark Zuckerberg even made a fancy chart to admit as much.

 

The public already recognizes this and is demanding stricter moderation. Even before the 2020 election “Big Lie” and ensuing violent insurrection78% of American adults held platforms solely or partially responsible for the spread of false and offensive content on their sites, and 87% think platforms at least sometimes (65% “always”) have a duty to take down false content. Facing this mandate, a clear majority consider platforms “not tough enough” in content moderation. Most critically, this is not cheap talk by the public; it has already begun to affect Facebook’s bottom-line through widespread advertiser boycottsuser defections, and regulatory and legal scrutiny.

 

The board responds to both incentives. It offers the appearance of independence, yet is constructed to produce predictable results – by urging Facebook to leave more problematic content online. This structural flaw is already evident in the board’s first decisions.

 

The board’s operation mirrors an Anglo-American appellate court and imports public law principles. Almost all of its members are constitutional or human rights lawyers. Three of its four co-chairs are constitutional lawyers; two are from America, currently home to the most speech-protective jurisprudence in the history of the world. Conspicuously absent are scientists or economists; Facebook wants the benefit of speech-protective legal doctrines, not a quantification of the externalities of harmful speech.

 

Most critically, the board’s jurisdiction forces it into a one-way ratchet since it is can review Facebook’s decisions to take content down, not to leave content up. The only positive action the board can take is to order the restoration of content already deemed objectionable by Facebook.

 

The effects of this asymmetry go beyond the obvious. Many observers are tracking how often the board disagrees with Facebook, treating this as a critical indicator of independence. But if it only considers content already removed by Facebook, the board can only assert its “independence” by forcing Facebook to restore content, dovetailing with Facebook’s financial interests. So we shouldn’t be terribly surprised that Facebook has been receptive to the board’s early assertions of independence. Doing so is the ultimate expression of the win-win for Facebook: it restores valuable content while simultaneously bolstering the narrative that it is committed to independent oversight.

 

These dynamics are reflected in the board’s first six decisions. It ordered content restored online in five of these cases, including a quote attributed to the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, a post advocating religious violence against heretics, and one deriding Muslims which captioned pictures of lifeless children. Perhaps most ominously, it also protected blatant medical misinformation about a debunked coronavirus “cure” with potentially lethal side-effects.

 

The decisions read like a caricature of American constitutional law, particularly the medical misinformation opinion. It offers two principal justifications, both referencing foundational first amendment principles: vagueness in the relevant Facebook policy, and insufficiently “imminent” risk posed by the misinformation. To nobody’s surprise, constitutional lawyers formed in a court-like institution are employing familiar legal norms.

 

Constitutional law is designed to limit tyranny. It does not reflect social judgments about how private companies should tackle policy

 

But their invocation here is specious.

 

“Imminence” is a fluid standard developed to prevent political critics from being jailed for harmlessly criticizing the government; that notion has been ham-handedly applied here even though the FDA has already attributed foreseeable death and serious injury to off-brand Covid-19 treatment with exactly the same drug. And vagueness challenges, which prevent disparate enforcement, can be so broad that the supreme court recently affirmed that speakers whose conduct can constitutionally be regulated – like the poster here – cannot raise them. Nor does the board place any value on public sentiment; 85% of Americans believe platforms should never permit misleading medical information.

 

Anglo-American public law generally applies only to state actors, and for good reason. First amendment doctrine, for instance, has been carefully calibrated to reflect the unique nature of government – as opposed to private – power, especially with respect to speech. States can enact criminal penalties, use violence to deprive persons of their basic liberties, and can prohibit disfavored activity in every forum within their jurisdiction. The distinctive scope of this authority demands especially strict limitations on its exercise. Constitutional law is designed to limit tyranny. It does not reflect comprehensive social judgments about how private companies – or the government – should tackle complex policy problems.

 

Accordingly, particularly in its most contemporary form, this jurisprudence has evolved to become remarkably protective of speech and constraining of the state. If applied to Facebook as though a state actor, the familiar constitutional categories will inevitably produce only one result: markedly less content moderation. Although it may have chosen a neutral arbiter in the strictest sense of the term, by choosing Anglo-American free speech public law as its framework, Facebook has all but selected the outcomes itself.

 

Seen as such, the oversight board is dangerous. It insulates Facebook from public criticism that might force meaningful progress on content moderation and provides it with a powerful answer to political critics: let our “legal experiment” play out before considering state action. At the same time, it will force regression in Facebook’s already lax moderation policies – even as the US and the world trudge perilously closer, as Barack Obama recently warned, to a post-truth dystopia.

 

Jeremy Lewin is a second-year law student at Harvard where he has concentrated on constitutional law and served as a research assistant to Professor Laurence Tribe

 

 

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

CNN’s Ratings Have Crashed Since Trump Left Office. We Shouldn’t Be Surprised.

 

According to the Daily Wire, “CNN has lost about a million viewers on average each night since President Donald Trump left the White House, and the liberal network is drawing nearly 50% fewer viewers in the key 24-54 age group.”

Fox News reported that “CNN averaged 2.5 million primetime viewers from Nov. 4, the day following the presidential election, through Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. But viewers fled the liberal network once President Biden took office, and CNN has averaged only 1.6 million primetime viewers from Jan. 21 through March 15.”

 

CNN’s viewership during the primetime hours of 8-11 p.m. ET dropped 36% since Biden took office after it spiked following Election Day. CNN’s primetime viewership decline was even sharper among the key demographic of adults age 25-to-54, plummeting 47% during the same period,” Fox added.

This report comes as CNN’s coverage has made an overt pivot to focus on conservative media. For example, Brian Stelter claimed last weekend that “Tucker Carlson is the new Donald Trump,” and that Carlson had “taken Trump’s place” as the leader of the conservative movement.

The fact is that CNN is now struggling to decide how to survive in a post-Trump world, and their viewers are waking up from their Trump-induced slumber.

 

After all, CNN essentially spent the entirety of Trump’s presidency as the on-screen “anti-Trump” platform, embracing any number of conspiratorial or later debunked stories if they could be used to undermine or attack the former Republican president. Their obsession with opposing Trump — rather than reporting the news — came to a climax during the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C. 

“From Election Day through Inauguration Day, when Democrat Joe Biden was sworn in to succeed Trump as president, CNN was the most-watched cable news network in both total viewers (1.8 million),” reported USA Today at the time.

To the despair of those at CNN, however, by achieving their goal of unseating President Trump and replacing him with President Biden, they have destroyed their singular focus. As the Biden administration continues to wobble under a variety of policy failures — including a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and a wide assortment of authoritarian and radical executive actions imposed by Biden — CNN simply cannot afford to “report” the news again.

 

This leaves them with an uncomfortable decision to make — what next? What next, after Trump? Who can fill his boogeyman shoes?

Unfortunately for CNN, Trump was a unique figure, with every attempt by the “objective” outlet to replace him reminding us of his unprecedented role in modern American politics and culture. When CNN rushes to claim that Tucker Carlson, or QAnon, or Majorie Taylor Greene is the “new Trump,” their strategy of scapegoating and distracting becomes even more laughable. When Don Lemon descends into apparent ideological madness and Chris Cuomo refuses to report on major scandals, their claim of objectivity becomes even more ridiculous. When Brian Stelter leans into the camera and warns of the actualdanger lurking in the GOP, their entertainment value falls through the floor.

Is it any surprise that millions of viewers are walking away from CNN?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnns-ratings-have-crashed-since-trump-left-office-we-shouldnt-be-surprised?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR0XdikA4fp9YMHBtZZwGEsWUqcaTiDJCe1m7-ldQd9wrGwV3kG9BYjjpI4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The next shoe has dropped against Fox.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-media-lawsuits-elections-912eea8e168f95d51dec02da78ac2760

 

Dominion Voting sues Fox for $1.6B over 2020 election claims

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant falsely claimed in an effort to boost faltering ratings that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election.

The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trump’s election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trump’s historic second impeachment.

Dominion argues that Fox News, which amplified inaccurate assertions that Dominion altered votes, “sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process,” according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press.

“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” the lawsuit said. “Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the timing of these releases.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-accuser-danny-boy-hazing-incident-report

Cuomo has been thrown under the bus for conduct most State level Democrats have known about for years (and chose to ignore). That makes them more guilty than he is IMO.

The LTC manipulations were painfully obvious to all and we discussed them right here. So..... when you see these tidbits of salacious crap coming to light look deeper, consider the timing, be suspicious.... it's always a distraction from events of consequence. It should be an immediate clue that something is up and you should go looking for what they don't want you to notice..... It's exactly what I would do in their place and there is much more of this to come. Be assured they have a list of these revelations just waiting for release.

It's a media and political tool and not unlike the veteran affairs bombshell report released every year just before Remembrance Day.... the one news outlets have sat on for months.

If you travel in the right circles you know there are bets on the topic and release date.

Who do you think you are fooling?

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

CNN doing what CNN does best 

 

Two teen girls, ages thirteen and fifteen, allegedly assaulted sixty-six-year-old Mohammad Anwar with a stun gun, before crashing his car. Anwar was killed in the accident.

  • NBC Washington reports that the two teens face felony murder charges.

"The suspects are a 13-year-old from Southeast D.C. and a 15-year-old from Fort Washington, Maryland," police said. The juveniles' names were not released.

An accident? CNN called this crime, for which the suspects are charged with felony murder, an accident. The video does not appear to show an accident. The assault, instead, appears to be very intentional.

The text itself reads: "The girls, 13 and 15, assaulted Anwar with a taser while carjacking him, which led to an accident in which he was fatally injured. The girls were charged with felony murder and armed carjacking, police said."

It is unclear how felony murder and carjacking could be considered an accident.

It was pointed out that this is a vastly different take on murder than CNN has otherwise taken. In the wake of a mass shooting in Georgia, CNN jumped to the conclusion that it was an anti-Asian attack, though police reports indicated that the shooter had more personal motivations.

Anwar, who died as a result of being attacked, was Asian, but his murder was not considered by CNN to be part of anti-Asian violence. Why? Writer Asra Q. Nomani pointed out this peculiar phrasing. The Post Millennial's Ian Miles Cheongand Glenn Greenwald also noted that CNN has a long history of glossing over violence to suit their narrative.

Tragedy ensued: A GoFundMe page set up to help the family described Mr. Anwar as a "hard-working Pakistani immigrant who came to the United States to create a better life for him and his family."

He is survived by a wife and two children in the United States, and an adult son and four grandchildren in Pakistan.

Support has poured in, and at the time of writing, Mr. Anwar's family has received over $500,000 from more than fourteen thousand donors.

 

VIDEO of Incident

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

Just on the CBC, CTV and Toronto Sun websites specifically looking for an update on the mass stabbing in North Vancouver. 

If there was anything there, I didn't see it.

Why? 

I'm thinking I know why but there remains an underlying desperation to be wrong.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go. Considering that it was a mass attack on innocent people at a library, it took way more time to find this than it should have:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/heres-what-we-know-about-the-man-charged-in-the-fatal-north-vancouver-stabbing-attack

My sense of this report is that it results from efforts undertaken by Postmedia rather than information released by police. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

Just on the CBC, CTV and Toronto Sun websites specifically looking for an update on the mass stabbing in North Vancouver. 

If there was anything there, I didn't see it.

Why? 

I'm thinking I know why but there remains an underlying desperation to be wrong.  

IMO, any one who believes Ottawa doesn’t dictate what is printed about certain subjects is living in LaLa land. You don’t spend billions to bail out the media and not expect something in return.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 8:08 AM, Jaydee said:

You don’t spend billions to bail out the media and not expect something in return.

The North Vancouver stabbing incident has drawn my attention to something:

Over the last few days I've noticed a trend, and now that I have noticed it (and its actually registered), I realize that I've seen it before AND I've seen the very reverse of it. This is subtle enough to suggest it's absolutely deliberate. 

If you go to the CBC news site and run through the headlines you find no mention of the attack. But if you search for the story directly in a search engine you will find the details you're looking for. In other words, the reporting is hiding in plain sight.... anyone simply checking the "breaking news" site would be likely to miss it... and it's not just CBC doing this either.

It's difficult to track everything and it's only when you search out politically charged things that you have an interest in or significant experience with that you see the deliberate nature of the political manipulation and the willing participation of the media.

A cursory (or what might be considered normal) viewing of the days news would never bring that to light and if anyone (say here) were to suggest it, there would be a bunch of links to the very articles I found and they would be presented with a "here ya go, what are you talking about" inflection.

This appears (to me) to be classic propaganda information management as opposed to reporting....  and it seems that the new objective in news reporting is actually in support of that management which means it's not an accident.

I can say that personally, I have never been less informed about things that I have a level of interest and/or expertise in than I am right now in the information age. Seeking out the details I need to make a reasonable assessment of current events has become thirsty work.... why is that? 

Some may remember when CBC suggested that 50% of crime guns were domestically sourced and that straw purchases where a large contributing factor. My initial reaction was "wait a minute now, if that was even partially true I would certainly already know about it." It literally took weeks of searching out stats and looking for ATIP replies to see that it was a deliberate lie repeated over and over and over and over by a willing media complicit in spreading it. 

Now,, I'll falsely claim that 50% of airline pilots are flying with expired medicals and instrument ratings and that most of those used fake licences to get hired. You immediately know that isn't true.... right?

Now prove it.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

CBC suggested that 50% of crime guns were domestically sourced

This is not a diversion into gun control BTW, but further to the above it's worth noting some of the manipulation (i feel) the media supported.

As near as I can find, the true amount of domestically sourced crime guns runs at about 8% but clearly the government wants that number to appear higher. In a effort to achieve that, they included lost/stolen police service weapons (a staggering number BTW), paintball guns, BB guns and nail guns (if they were used in assaults).

If they found one at a crime scene it became a crime gun even if it was unrelated to the crime at hand, domestic dispute with neighbours at a house party, collection of 10 rifles found in the house..... poof, crime guns. If it could be traced to a Canadian owner or (and this is important) if it couldn't be traced at all..... poof, domestically sourced.

After the straw purchase accusation a few provinces jumped on that bandwagon too and long after the fact, an ATIP  showed no recent charges in the province making the claim. 

So, by the time you jump through the hoops to prove that I made up that story about pilots it won't matter anymore. The regulations will be in place and (in the interests of JT's transparent governance) the ATIP will be released after the fact. No matter though, even if people do notice (or care) it was all about keeping Canadians (in this case airline passengers) safe; and everyone wants that..... right?

Anyone who disagrees (even with the premiss) doesn't care about the safety of Canadians and is advocating for a return to the lawless days when 50% of pilots were flying without valid licences. In addition, the people who oppose these regulations are white supremacists since most airline pilots are white males (I think.... doesn't matter, I'd say it anyway). Only we can keep you safe and we are committed to passing meaningless laws to fix non-existent problems on your behalf. Want proof, look at our aviation safety record over the last 4 years.

That's how it's done..... you can even take courses on how to package these messages. And consider this, if a dumb grunt can figure it out just imagine it weaponized and in the hands of motivated political and media experts. Consider how the message plays in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and flavour it to appeal (especially) to them because they are the ones who matter most.

Don't fly, never travel? It doesn't matter, our skies are busy in urban areas and we are committed to the safety of people on the ground.... those who live near airports and dwell under the friendly skies.  

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, st27 said:

Selective reporting or moulding the message...

Both I think, all of it made worse by the obvious bias toward a narrative of choice and rationalized by the fallacy of relative privation.... then shamelessly distributed as fact to the point of making reasonable people want to scream. The best lies have an element of truth and contain verifiable facts spun into a web of deceit. Even I can do it so you know it's not that hard.

IMO, the firearms debate serves as the best example of political manipulation and media bias though. I simply can't think of a better one although the southern US border catastrophe is shaping up as a contender. 

I find chasing this stuff down pretty time consuming, in fact prohibitively so. But it does illustrate how easy it is to sway public opinion. It's pervasive, and when you see "BOMBSHELL REPORT....BREAKING NEWS" about the NY Governor or some senior military officers (here), have a look at what's actually going on with the government at the time of release. Keep in mind that many of the allegations have either been common knowledge for years or are based on allegations that are decades old. 

OK, put the keyboard down..... I'm not suggesting they aren't true and/or worthy of investigation, only that they could have been released at any time (LOL, like prior to the US election) but they weren't. They are dusted off and released when distraction is advantageous to the government and a willing media appears to be OK with releasing them on command. 

Look at the LTC debacle in the US, we watched it play out in real time, the revelations are hardly revelations at all and the media have mortally wounded their credibility with the public. People may choose  to watch what they watch based on political affiliation but (I think) most believe little of what's being reported. 

Anyway, got to run.... Happy Easter and best wishes to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise here. 

“ A new poll suggests that half of Canadians believe the media is purposefully misleading the public to support their own agenda.

The study released by consultancy firm Edelman found that 49% of Canadians believe journalists are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”

Not one information source – traditional media (55%), search engines (47%), owned (32%) or social media (22%) – is trusted in Canada and the latter three are distrusted. All four information sources have witnessed a decline in trust compared to last year,” Edelman wrote.

A total of 52% surveyed also believe most news outlets are more concerned promoting their own ideology than telling the truth.”

 

https://www.edelman.ca/sites/g/files/aatuss376/files/trust-barometer/2021 Canadian Edelman Trust Barometer.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

And its invaded other things too. Look at online reviews... they used to be a valuable source of information about products but the proliferation of fake reviews has exploded to the point that they are mostly worthless now. 

I hear there is even an app to help you spot them.

From a media/politics perspective though, the one and only way to fix all this is by voting based on policy.  

There is one simple test.... does it make sense? If someone tells you that defunding police, disbanding anti-gang units, easing bail conditions for weapon offences and opening safe injection sites (on your street) will reduce gang related shootings; take a moment and think about it. I use the "ask a 10 year old" method of eliminating stupid. Simply explain the situation in general terms and ask your granddaughter if she thinks it will work.

The US border fiasco is an easy one and Biden was absolutely upfront and honest about his intentions. I can only conclude one of two things, 50% of the voters actually wanted it or they simply weren't paying attention.

If you were to point out that a third possibility is that they disliked Trump so much they would vote for anyone who wasn't him, then I would direct your attention back to the "VOTE ON POLICY" thing and ask WTFDYTWGTH? I would further suggest that it would make you the most dangerous of voters and that it qualifies you for membership in a growing tribe.... now keep watching, there is one thing I know for sure, there will come a time when you won't like the tribe thing. 

 

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

“ Oh look: Now the ravines are racist, too”

It’s often in the moments after I’ve been on these outings — when I look at my phone for the first time in hours, and scroll through the day’s ludicrous shrieking contests (“No, YOU’RE the racist!”) — that I realize how much our information environment pollutes our understanding of race relations. The multicultural reality I see every day is idyllic, but also badly out of step with Critical Race Theory. Our prime minister has called his own country a genocide state, and his government is now set to spend hundreds of millions of dollars indoctrinating civil servants with imported American materials so they can learn how racist they are. What you see in the Toronto ravine system (and at thousands of similar nature areas across Canada, for that matter) is inconveniently off-message: There simply isn’t enough racism.

What you see in the Toronto ravine system ... is inconveniently off-message 

 

So how do journalists resolve this conflict between reality and ideology? Behold the Globe & Mail’s recent double-bylined feature arguing that non-white people face “barriers” when they try to access Toronto’s ravine system. By way of evidence, the two reporters offer the account of a Black woman who said she worried that a white person might see her near the ravine and “call the police.” The woman is an experienced hiker, yet offered no evidence that she’d witnessed anything close to this kind of treatment. Just the opposite: the only interactions she detailed to the Globe were encounters in which “perfectly polite” park-goers tried to help her, on the mistaken possibility that she might need directions.

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-oh-look-now-the-ravines-are-racist-too

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ny-post-reporter-quits-says-she-was-forced-to-write-false-kamala-story

NY Post Reporter Quits: I Was ‘Ordered’ to Write False Story About Kamala Harris

The New York Post reporter whose byline was attached to a false story that kicked off a days-long right-wing media outrage cycle has quit.

“Today I handed in my resignation to my editors at the New York Post,” reporter Laura Italiano posted to Twitter on Tuesday afternoon. “The Kamala Harris story—an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against—was my breaking point. It’s been a privilege to cover the City of New York for its liveliest, wittiest tabloid—a paper filled with reporters and editors I admire deeply and hold as friends. I’m sad to leave.”

Neither the New York tabloid nor Italiano immediately responded to The Daily Beast’s requests for comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does anyone listen to this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/26/trump-larry-kudlow-biden-plant-based-beer

Ex-Trump adviser mocked for claiming Biden pushing ‘plant-based beer’

Larry Kudlow grumbles that Biden’s climate policies would force Americans to drink ‘plant-based beer’ – instead of meat-based?

 

Edited by deicer
Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Times, Washington Post, NBC correct articles on Giuliani

8 hrs ago
Like33 CommentsNEW YORK — The Washington Post, New York Times and NBC News all issued similar corrections to stories regarding Rudolph Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, and his dealings in Ukraine.
The corrections, to stories that ran last Thursday or Friday, take back reports that the former New York City mayor had been warned by the FBI that he was the subject of a Russian operation to influence the American election.

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else see the conflict of interest here?

https://pressprogress.ca/postmedia-tells-shareholders-35-million-in-federal-government-handouts-is-now-a-key-pillar-of-its-business-strategy/

Postmedia Tells Shareholders $35 Million in Federal Government Handouts is Now a ‘Key Pillar’ of Its Business Strategy

Canada’s biggest newspaper chain says subsidies are for ‘welfare slackers’, but tells investors ‘government support’ is central to its business model

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.