Posted by sanityinjection on May 20, 2016
Remember the big pressure campaign a couple of years ago to force the NFL’s Washington Redskins to change their allegedly “offensive” name? President Obama and 50 Democratic Senators proclaimed their support for this “civil rights movement”. And then, as with so many armchair liberal cause celebres, it just seemed to disappear; the professional protesters moved on to “Black Lives Matter” and suddenly the supposed legions of mortally offended Native Americans didn’t seem like such a compelling issue.
Now comes a clue as to why the pressure campaign hasn’t been revived. A new Washington post poll of 500 Native Americans across the country indicates that 9 out of 10 are not offended by the name “Washington Redskins”. 7 out of 10 said the word “redskin” was not offensive in general, and 8 of 10 said they would not be offended if a non-Native American called them by that term. These results mirror the findings of a previous poll in 2004. Naturally, Native American “leaders” continue to reject these poll findings, as will the mostly rich, white, left-wing politicians who were the prime movers behind the whole issue. (Never mind that these same politicans spend virtually no time advocating for the things that Native Americans say they need, like decent schools.)
The whole thing would actually be comical if it weren’t for the giddy participation of the mainstream media in whipping up hysteria to aid in this phony campaign. (In this regard, kudos to the Washington Post, which remains a faint glimmer of some journalistic integrity amongst the sad detritus of formerly respectable left-wing newspapers, for publishing this poll. See also a thoughtful WashPost op-ed on the issue here.) It should be of concern that the sources from which most Americans still get their news are demonstrably more interested in pushing an ideological political agenda than in any kind of factual reporting. You need look no further than the recent New York Times attack piece against Donald Trump, which went to a great deal of effort to characterize Trump as a misogynist based on his pattern of hitting on women as a rich single man. Keep in mind this is the same publication that consistently defended Bill Clinton for sexually harrassing and having sex with women as a rich married man. See Camille Paglia’s excellent destruction of this pathetic propaganda here.
Meanwhile, if sports teams’ use of cliches offensive to Native Americans is the issue, how come there hasn’t been any fuss at all about the Cleveland Indians’ continued use of the “Chief Wahoo” logo? Why hasn’t their trademark been revoked? Answer: Because the Cleveland Indians kissed the ring: Whenever anybody complains, they hide Chief Wahoo for a while, using alternate logos and uniforms, until the subject dies down. This appeases the professional Left, because what they really want is not actual civil rights change so much as acknowledgement of their power and righteousness. Kiss their asses and they’ll let you off with a slap on the wrist; dare to suggest that the emeperor has no clothes, as Redskins owner Dan Snyder has done, and you reap the whirlwind of attacks from their subservient media allies.
The point is not that the Washington Redskins or their owner, a wealthy successful man and organization, are some kind of sob story. The point is the one made so famously by pastor Martin Niemoller. With apologies to him: “First they came for the Washington Redskins, and I said nothing, because I was not a Redskins fan.” One day it’s a sports team. The next day it’s climate change “deniers”. The target changes with the wind, but the tactics are the same. Always ask yourselves: Cui bono? (Who benefits?)
Posted in Domestic News, Politics, Sports | Tagged: Camille Paglia, Cleveland Indians, Donald Trump, hysteria, Media, media bias, Native Americans, New York Times, polls, propaganda, the Left, Washington Post, Washington Redskins | Leave a Comment »
Posted by sanityinjection on December 3, 2015
Following up on my previous post, here is another example of how the media does not give the same scrutiny to the statements of someone they like, such as Hillary Clinton, as they do to someone they dislike, such as Donald Trump.
I first noticed this statement by Ms. Clinton during one of the recent Democratic presidential debates, and according to this from Politico.com, apparently she is now repeating the claim in one of her TV commercials: Clinton states that between 88-92 people are killed every day by guns.
Now, that would seem like an easy thing to fact-check wouldn’t it? After all, the FBI reports crime statistics on an annual basis. In 2014, the *total* number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the US was 13, 472. Ms. Clinton’s lowest figure of 88 per day, multiplied by 365 days, would give a total for gun murders alone of 32, 120.
Clearly, this is not a slight exaggeration. Nor is it an isolated mis-statement, since Ms. Clinton has repeated the claim multiple times. It is quite a simply a deliberate and blatant falsehood designed to trick people into thinking that gun violence is a much larger problem in this country than it actually is (the recent terrorist attack in San Bernadino notwithstanding) in order to win support for further eroding that pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution. (In fact, the 2014 homicide rate of 4.5 per 100,000 people is the lowest since 1963.)
Now, does anyone doubt that if Donald Trump had uttered a massive falsehood like that even once, every major media outlet would be holding it up and trumpeting it as an example of his unfitness for office?
Which is worse: when the mainstream media tells you what they want you to know? Or when they deliberately don’t tell you what they don’t want you to know? At this point, Ms. Clinton could simply declare – as O’Brien famously did in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four – that 2 + 2 = 5, and you would hear nary a peep from the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, and their assorted imitators.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Donald Trump, fact checking, gun crime, Hillary Clinton, homicide, Journalism, media bias, Second Amendment, violent crime | 2 Comments »
Posted by sanityinjection on December 3, 2015
I call your attention to this superb piece by Emmy-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. In it, she uses the recent controversy over Donald Trump’s remarks about Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11 to illustrate the fundamental double standard the mainstream media applies to politicians they don’t want the American people to vote for.
It’s hardly a secret that many mainstream media reporters, editors, and talking heads abhor Mr. Trump and are appalled by the possibility of him becoming President. (I happen to agree with them.) Ms. Attkisson uses a technique she calls “the Substitution Game”, giving specific examples of how the media’s behavior would be very different if the person in question were someone they approve of such as President Obama or Hillary Clinton. She also points out how convenient it is for Ms. Clinton’s campaign to have the national media painting her potential election opponent as dishonest even as polls suggest that perecptions of her own dishonesty are one of her biggest problems with voters. Attkisson isn’t necessarily suggesting a well-orchestrated media conspiracy, but rather a culture of bias that permeates the major television news networks and newspapers.
If this bias were to be stated in its most naked form, it would be something like this: Dishonesty, in the form of intentional misrepresentation of facts or outright lying, is OK as long as it is in service of good liberal causes, but it’s abhorrent whenever it’s done by someone we don’t like or someone who disagrees with us. This fits in with a more general theme that the end justifies the means: that it is OK for the “good guys” (which in the view of so many influential media members means the liberals) are justified in lying, cheating, stealing, or doing whatever is necessary to advance their noble aims, but the “bad guys” – Second Amendments rights advocates, climate change skeptics, etc. – are abhorrent if they use the same methods, because they have the wrong aims.
Attkisson is not saying that the media should not challenge counterfactual claims by public figures. Rather, she is questioning why they only seem to beat the drum about such claims when those figures are on one side of the political spectrum. When a huge segment of the broadcast and print media spends a lot of time making a huge deal out of controversial statements by Mr. Trump while deliberately downplaying and even ignoring those made by Obama and Clinton, even a relatively savvy news consumer who is not paying close attention can, over time, absorb that implication of what is important. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how propaganda works.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Bias, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Journalism, Media, media bias, President Obama, propaganda, Sharyl Attkisson | 1 Comment »
Posted by sanityinjection on August 8, 2015
For the second time in recent months, I find myself in the unpleasant position of coming to the defence of Donald Trump. For the record, I dislike Trump, and I think his Presidential candidacy is an absurdity and an embarrassment to the Republican Party.
However, when Trump was pilloried by the media and some of his fellow candidates over his remarks concerning criminal behavior by illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, I felt compelled to rise in his defense. The media inaccurately portrayed Trump as having asserted that Mexican immigrants are all criminals and rapists, when in fact he said nothing of the kind. What he did say – and said again in Thursday’s debate – is that among the illegals surging across our border are criminals and rapists from Mexico and other Latin American countries, and that the Mexican government is deliberately encouraging these criminals to cross the border so that they become America’s problem and not Mexico’s. Is Trump a bigot? Maybe he is, but that is not a bigoted statement. I happen to believe it is an accurate one, and the increasing number of violent criminal arrests in this country of illegal immigrants supports the assertion. However, Trump’s subsequent retweeting of an inappropriate comment about Jeb Bush and his Hispanic wife is not defensible. You do not attack a candidate’s spouse.
Now I am once again forced to defend Trump’s most recent controversial remarks about Fox News personality and debate questioner Megyn Kelly. His phrase about “blood coming out of her, wherever” has been taken by many to be a reference to menstruation, which if true would certainly be an inappropriate and sexist remark. And it has already got him disinvited from the upcoming RedState conservative forum by founder Erick Erickson.
However, Trump insists that once again, his meaning has been misconstrued. He was complaining about Kelly’s apparent eagerness to attack him during the debate, and referred first to “blood coming out of her eyes” as a metaphoric illustration of her intent.
I don’t know how anyone who watched the debate could fail to agree with Trump that Kelly was out to get him. You could see her practically salivating at the prospect of being the person who single-handedly brought down Trump’s campaign. The opening question about pledging not to run as an independent and support the party’s nominee was transparently aimed directly at Trump. Trump’s remark does make sense in that context. Is Trump a sexist? Maybe he is, but I don’t think his remark was a sexist one. Kelly is not the most reputable or professional TV commentator around. One ought to able to criticize the questionable conduct of a female professional without being labeled as sexist.
Frankly, all of this faux outrage is just playing into Trump’s hands. He can now dismiss any criticism of his childishness and buffoonery as “just more political correctness”, because his critics have chosen to focus on specific allegedly offensive comments rather than on his entire demeanor and behavior, which is offensive to everyone.
There’s no need to try to twist Trump’s words around in order to undermine him. His consistent jackassery should be quite sufficient to do that for him. But even a jackass, like a stopped clock, is right twice a day. Trump is right about Mexico, and he’s right about Megyn Kelly.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Donald Trump, GOP debate, illegal immigration, Megyn Kelly, Political correctness | 5 Comments »