Liberal dominant media prefers fulmination to fulcrum

  • Our purposes are emblazoned on our masthead, would that dominant liberal media did the same.  It would need to read something like “orange man bad”

First up is an expose that is but one example of the insidious bias analyzed in general in  the second part of this post, quite tellingly, by a former president of CBS News. His is in an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal. We provide a bit of annotation to that one.

Thanks to RD:

CBS Busted… Again… For Use Of Old Photo To Stoke Fear About Kids And Coronavirus . . .

(Tea Party PAC) – It’s become pretty much common knowledge that you cannot trust a single word that comes out of the mainstream media, especially outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and apparently CBS News. We’ve seen the journalists who work for these companies constantly report fake news as a means of crafting an anti-Trump narrative that would take the president down and aid the Democratic Party in their mission to oust the president from office.
And it seems they are still up to no good in that regard, because ever since the coronavirus pandemic reached American shores, they’ve been doing their best to hype things up and keep people living in fear, hoping to turn the masses against Trump and destroy his chances of reelection come November.
A good case in point is what CBS News got busted doing back in April. The news organization was caught using footage from an Italian hospital when they were reporting on the conditions in New York City, attempting to pass it off as if that was what was happening there when it waThe actual footage perfectly matched that being used of an Italian Hospital.
Well, they’ve been busted for doing this again, using a photograph from the Ukraine to try and hype fear about the effects of coronavirus and children.
Fear mongering at its finest, folks.
Here’s more from The Gateway Pundit:
CBS News was caught using photo from 2016 in Ukraine to describe a baby suffering from Kawasaki disease linked to coronavirus.
Via Feeling Froggy.
Here is the 2016 photo describing an infant suffering from Coxsackie virus.
And here is the same image used by CBS to describe a rare condition in children linked to the coronavirus.
They had to find a good scary picture to promote their ongoing “panic porn” on coronavirus.
It should be noted that, despite the comments by Dr. Fauci, this skin condition linked to the coronavirus is seen every year in 13 of 100,000 children in a Canadian study.
Dr. Fauci is not being completely honest with the American public again.
People, this is getting insane, don’t you think? Here we have photographic evidence of an attempt by the mainstream media to help create a narrative of fear to get people worked up and panicked so they will go along with whatever draconian measures the government tries to shackle them with. Ultimately, if there is no action taken, they will twist things to make it somehow be the fault of President Trump, and hope to turn potential voters away from him in November.
The individuals who are in control of the mainstream media are, simply put, diabolical. We have to keep our eyes open and never just take the official narrative that comes out in the news at face value. It doesn’t mean you deny everything in the news with some sort of unhinged paranoia. It means you do your own research and verify what you are hearing. Look for alternative takes on the same stories that interest you. This helps to keep things fair and balanced. We cannot depend on the media to remain objective at this point.

Past CBS News president during Reagan years writes at the Wall Street Journal:  (our annotations and emphasis set apart).  Text thanks to  peckford 42 blog site.

The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point 

A return to balance would be commercially unviable. The best solution may be an honest embrace of bias.

By Van Gordon Sauter  May 25, 2020

About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.

“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”

Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.

News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

This is what conservatism is up against, and the professoriate of course translates into what is taught children in grade-school and beyond

To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.

They are on a mission, however lazy in fact finding they feed each other ad nauseam

This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.

More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.

Hmmm —  if so is it not limited however comfortable to them and then does that not imply a market for other outlets. And what of reports that news functions of the networks are money losers for those networks — what are the implications for profitable competitors?

On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.

The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.

Keep in mind their supposed satisfaction with the size of their pie or market, their view is not one of a growth industry

There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.

Yes there is if others are shown to be profitable (unless the concern is not with profitability which may be the case now but is that an obliviousness that is sustainable?

Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”

It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!

Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.

Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.

The “other side” can proceed to challenge and succeed at it

But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.

Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.