September 22, 2019

Trey Gowdy Offends Media With Questions

But do any of these people, media and politicians, really want any of us to know the truth?

Share

Conservatives Ask NY Times, Gannett CEOs About Bias Issues

Warning New York Times Shareholders: Management Puts Liberalism Over Shareholder Value

At Gannett, CEO Addresses Lingering Questions from Local Paper’s Decision to Print an Interactive Map of Home Addresses of Registered Gun Owners in New York State

National Center Asks New York Times to Add “Genuinely Conservative” Writers to Opinion Page

Tells Gannett CEO that Local Paper’s Decision to Publish Gun Map “No Doubt” Was Political, Describes Recent Tweet of Local Publisher Denigrating NRA Head Wayne LaPierre as Evidence

New York, NY/McLean, VA – National Center personnel went one-on-one with the CEOs of two major media companies this week, asking them pointed questions about specific elements of liberal bias in their organizations.

On Wednesday, April 30, in Manhattan, Senior Fellow Jeff Stier asked New York Times Chairman and Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. about statements by the paper’s own public editors that the Times has a liberal bias and also asked why the Times does not add several genuinely conservative editorial writers to its opinion page. Stier noted that this move could improve profits and enhance shareholder value by making the paper more attractive to the 40% of the public that, according to Gallup, is conservative.

On Thursday, May 1, in McLean, Virginia, Chairman Amy Ridenour asked Gannett Corporation President and CEO Gracia Matore about last year’s controversy in which a Gannett newspaper in New York published the names and addresses of all registered handgun owners in two well-populated New York counties in an interactive map, upsetting the community and exposing Gannett personnel to threats. She also said the decision to run the interactive map almost certainly was political, given that the president and publisher of the local paper just this week tweeted to her Twitter followers a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association with the words “STARK RAVING MAD” across the top.

Stier asked Mr. Sulzberger, in part:

Gallup polls for the last 22 years show that nearly twice as many Americans — on average, 40 percent to 20 percent — identify as conservative than identify as liberal. So about 40 percent of our potential customer base looks at us as out-of-touch with the values that are important to them.

It seems that liberal ideology is being placed ahead of shareholder value.

My question is this: why does the New York Times continue to intentionally alienate so many potential readers? Can you explain the business rationale for rejecting 40 percent of potential subscribers? What, if anything, has been done to address the bias concerns from your own public editors? And why do we not add several truly conservative writers to our opinion pages to enhance our appeal to 40 percent of the market?

Stier received what he called “a cordial non-answer answer.”

“I felt his answer was a little bit of a shell game,” Stier said. “He kind of acknowledged they are perceived as liberal, but said the news is completely separate from the opinion section, and in the news, he said, we do the best we can. He agreed that the paper’s editorial perspective is liberal, but our criticism – and that of the papers own ombudsmen — was about liberal bias in the news division. Our criticism was more substantive than his answer; his answer was more spin than substance. And when it came to the point of why the paper does not put more conservatives on the op-ed pages in order to appeal to a larger customer base, he avoided giving me a direct answer. My impression is that they see themselves as liberals and are comfortable with that; that they aren’t really concerned with making more money at the expense of offering opinions the majority owners disagree with.”

The full text of Stier’s question to Mr. Sulzberger of the New York Times, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Ridenour asked Gannett’s Ms. Matore about a Gannett newspaper, the Journal News, publishing the names and addresses of legally-registered handgun owners in two New York counties a year ago. The action frightened many people, who feared criminals could target them as a result. Some angry people threatened the local newspaper staff and Gannett management, including Ms. Matore herself.

Ridenour asked, in part, and as prepared for delivery:

That the [decision to publish the map] was political there can be no doubt. I note that the paper’s president and publisher just six days ago tweeted out a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association under the words “stark raving mad.” This was on an account identifying her as president and publisher of a Gannett newspaper, and not noting in any way that her tweets were personal opinion only.

If reporting is correct, no one in upper management here at Gannett was consulted before the Journal News outed legally-registered handgun owners. If there was no policy at that time that management should be consulted before such a controversial, and even dangerous action — for Gannett employees as well as law-abiding members of the general public — is there one in place now? Or are publishers of local Gannett papers empowered to publish anything they see fit, even if controversial, potentially-dangerous and on topics on which they have intense personal views?

“I received a decent, if careful, answer from Ms. Matore,” said Ridenour. “Bottom line: the local papers are encouraged – this was said twice – to check with the appropriate executive at Gannett when making future decisions about such things as publishing interactive gun registry maps. I note this falls short of a pledge not to print any more such maps, or to place a mandate on local publishers that executives be contacted, but we can’t expect Gannett to be micromanaging the day-to-day publishing decisions of all of its publications. It needs to be able to trust its local publishers to make the correct decisions and to know when an issue is of such a magnitude as to make it wise to consult upper management. It appears the Journal News publisher wasn’t as wise as she might have been when she decided to publishing the interactive map.”

“Ms. Matore did not comment on my description of the Journal News publisher, using a Twitter account identifying her position with the Journal News, tweeting a picture of the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre with the words ‘stark raving mad’ over it, but she was attentive,” added Ridenour. “In her place I would not comment publicly on a personnel matter either, but in private I’d ask for a resignation. Here’s why: After it published the interactive gun registry map, the Journal News repeatedly claimed its motive was journalistic, yet with one little tweet, the publisher has revealed strong personal feelings against the NRA. It’s clear she was not objective in the matter of the maps. Given her strong personal views, she should have recused herself and consulted upper management. I doubt they would have been published if she had; at least, not in that controversial way. Instead, she scared a lot of people and cost her employer ad and subscriber revenue. Then, having done that, she failed to support the premise that her goal all along was journalistic by revealing her animus in public. Instead, she revealed to anyone who cared to see that her decisionmaking on behalf of the Journal News on the matter of the maps was a low-minded attack on the Second Amendment rather than a high-minded exercise of the First.”

“Although I believe the local publisher should resign, on the whole I was encouraged by what I heard at Gannett,” Ridenour concluded. “The reaction I received was very positive. To my great surprise, individual Gannett executives came up to me afterwards, on their own initiative, to praise my question and thank me for asking it. 100 percent of the feedback I received was positive, when I expected the reverse. Strongly positive, even.”

The full text of Ridenour’s question to Ms. Matore of Gannett, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Amy Ridenour is a shareholder of both Gannett and the New York Times.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist program. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing conservative and free-market principles in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. The National Center has participated in 20 shareholder meetings so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Why Newspapers Can’t Be Relied on as Intelligent, Factual Source of Information

DontUnderstandIt began this way. On April 4, 2014, Pulse published an article by Jim Lundstrum called, “Wolves at the Door.” That same day Jim Beers, a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper with a comment to make about the substance of the article, “Wolves at the Door.”

The entire back and forth between Mr. Beers and the newspaper editor would make a fantastic comedic routine for any pair of standup comics. The problem is, this actually really happened. Beers introduces the act this way:

Talking to a (WI) Newspaper about Wolves

The following interchange followed a Letter to an Editor regarding an article about wolves recently arriving in his popular and populous NE Wisconsin County, where one would (mistakenly evidently) assume a modicum of familiarity with wolves. It is enlightening for anyone dealing with wolves and the media. I say this not to impugn my skill or this editor’s response, but only to present this rare glimpse of what often is the case when we assume we are having a conversation that is merely gibberish, for whatever reason, to a listener. Jim

“Are you Druids?

When you quote a respected warden regarding wolves in Wolves at the Door, to wit “It comes back to, what can the landscape tolerate” you are simply using your human-owned newspaper to promulgate a secular animal rights’ belief to justify government force to oppress rural people with dangerous and deadly urban fantasies.

To paraphrase the good warden, wolf presence and tolerance “comes back to what those being forced to live with them can tolerate.” It is really quite simple and quite American, I might add.

Jim Beers
Eagan, MN
4 April 2014”

The editor of the newspaper writes back to Beers and says:

“I have no idea what you are implying. I can’t run a letter that makes no sense.”

Perhaps a bit frustrated or something more, Jim Beers makes another attempt at making his point:

I imply that you present the matter of the presence and abundance of wolves as only limited by what “the landscape” can tolerate.

What you publish is literally that human objections and perceived harm to human values are of no importance. In other words, humans and their objections are of less importance than the amount of food and surface conditions wolves encounter.

This philosophical difference supports the value difference between us that establishes people like myself believing that the threats and harms from diseases, dog loss, livestock loss, game reduction and human safety concerns caused by wolves are not justifiable and others like Druids (?) or nature worshippers that believe that human enterprise and society like the rest of “the landscape” must and should adjust to whatever wolves cause much like, for example, what is happening to the Minnesota moose, European sheep flocks and The Northern Yellowstone elk herd thanks to wolves placed and protected by the force of government fiat.

I assume the warden’s job security is tied to such a statement and that your paper would only engender strong reactions from readers that obviously are not hosting many or any wolves to date and like other public factions from urban donors and environmental activists to bureaucrats and politicians whose families and livelihoods remain unaffected by what we are talking about here. It might be better stated (though more words) as:

When you report that a Wisconsin warden believes that the presence and abundance of wolves is limited only by “what can the landscape tolerate” you and he are legitimizing an environmental falsehood that dates back to ancient pagan nature worship. This justification for forcing wolves and their continued presence by government fiat on local communities where residents strongly object to them is greatly flawed because it treats human concerns as equal to or lesser than food availability and other survival conditions that affect wolves. Human concerns about wolves in settled landscapes are always superior to other factors. These concerns include but are not limited to, diseases and infections, livestock losses, dog losses, game herd reductions and most important the human safety of those forced to “live with wolves”.

To paraphrase the warden, wolf presence and abundance is ultimately limited only by “what those being forced to live with them will tolerate.”

It is really quite simple, quite sensible, and it reflects American traditional cultural values I might add.

To which the editor once again responded”

“Sorry. I still don’t get it.”

Share

What Could Go Wrong With New Obama Media Guidelines?

Holder was referring to two new bodies within the DOJ that would assist the Attorney General when it comes to investigating the media. One would be a “media review committee,” that will asses[sic] the impact of the department’s new media policies. The second is the “media dialogue group” involving outsiders who would assist the department periodically to review how the reforms are being implemented. The committee is expected to have their first meeting in February, Holder said.<<<Read More>>>

Share

When Selfish “Media Servants” Out Selfish “Public Servants”

Peggy Noonan, a media shill of which I am not a big fan, writes an article about selfish public servants, i.e. politicians. Pay close attention to everything she writes and if you do, you will continue to put money in her pocket and allow her to continue on her path of shilling for the Council on Foreign Relations-controlled media that she works for, either directly or indirectly. Because as you get lost in her words, your attention is taken away from the real problems and that is the intent. This piece is typical feel good, solutionless media garbage that only detracts non-thinking humans, that is, those who can put down their cell phones long enough to read anything worthwhile.

There is a lesson here, but a rare few will learn it, a large number won’t get it and the majority won’t care or know anything about its existence.

Noonan wants to blame the problems in Washington on selfishness.

There isn’t a staffer on the Hill who won’t tell you 90% of members are driven by their own needs, wants and interests, not America’s.

Is she wrong? No, of course not. Selfishness in any person is a destructive instrument. But why are so many people selfish? If you read this article, there’s nothing to suggest the root cause or even any cure. It is laced with saying all the right things, that is those things many Americans love to give lip service to but let’s face it, they are parroting what someone like Ms. Noonan said and she, in turns, reparrots, what the parrots said because she understands they like the sound of it and it pays the bills.

Notice also that the intimation of any “blame” is never directed at anyone or specific area; it’s just Washington or politicians. A well-paid and well-CFR-controlled media echo operates no differently than the lying politicians she calls selfish. All politicians, when answering media’s questions, will refer to “Washington”, as some entity that the politician being interviewed is not a part of. This is a comfortable move because the media person is not going to ask the obvious question because they both work for the same ruling establishment that is much responsible for Peggy Noonan saying public servants are selfish. It’s a vicious loop, designed to not allow anyone else inside.

The cure is simple actually. Selfishness is only a symptom of the real larger problem. Our society today, is the result of years of mind control and brainwashing. Few people know how to think. We are very good at believing and doing what we are told. That’s why Noonan offers no cure, only to point out what those of us who are not party to the nonsense already understand. The cure would end the existence of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, Knights of Malta, Freemasonry and all those “secret” clubs directed by Satan himself through the Church of Rome and the Black Pope. Then a Peggy Noonan would be free to write anything that was really on her mind without fear of retribution should she overstep her boundaries.

We have become worshipers of men, of earthly objects and of earth itself. We worship the creation and not the Creator. We are told from birth that we can be anything, that we can even be like god and in some cases a god. What more can epitomize selfishness than that? Selfishness is a sin and is not of God.

Today, this country honors (worships in some cases) Martin Luther King, Jr. As a people we honor (worship) many people and things and yet this same society has bred the likes of God the Almighty, Yehwah, our Creator, out of all that we do. In short, we have turned our backs on the One who created us all. Everything outside of that is anti Christ, and against our God and Creator of Earth. And with it breeds selfishness.

It is much from the planned efforts of media and education, that we are what we have become and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We allowed it. Noonan and most all others offer nothing. Their words are an echo chamber and yet we listen and then repeat. You read her words and go away believing everyone else is selfish, with no hope for the future. What is the point?

There is a solution. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a man who has turned from God to understand the mess he has put himself in.

Share

Global Warming Irony?

Oh, I think not! At least not in this piece of propaganda nonsense, disguised as journalism or some kind of “ism.”

This video epitomizes all that is wrong in this country….by design. No really, but you can’t see it if, 1). you don’t want to, and 2). you are a heavy “True Believer” on one side or the other. “Come out of her!” That means get your head out of your astronomically large air raid shelter and use it for something besides a hat rack.

The video contains one lie after the other, and not because you think I think one “side” is right and the other is wrong. There is virtually nothing spoken in this video that is the truth…..nothing, by any one on either “side.” And yet it is designed, as it always has been, to convince each of us, individually, to fall into a one “side” or the other “side” paradigm. This works marvelously to deflect attention away from what is actually occurring.

But if you watch and watch closely, you will see some of what is really happening but it isn’t presented that way. It is presented as a lie by? You guessed it. The other “side.”

You are in the middle. THEY know this and the game is to get you to take a side….not because you have done your own investigating but because one “side” said or did something your manipulated mind likes the sound of. And, who wins?

Remember, the foundation (corrupt extortion of money from unsuspecting people) of “global warming” is based on the premise that whatever is happening with weather and climate IS BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. That’s like a UCMJ Article 134 or The Coach’s Rule (1. The coach is always right. 2. See Rule 1)

It’s totally laughable to watch this guy talk of how the “right” is trying to use a research ship stuck in the ice in the Antarctic to promote their position as “deniers.” Gosh, the Algorites, never did anything like that before.

And to give you an example of ignorance (remember, this isn’t about fact. It’s only about making one side or the other look correct. I mean both “sides” can’t be right or wrong…..can they?), check out the video where the narrator claims that the “Right Wing”, the “Deniers”, have spent as much as $1 billion dollars to convince people that global warming isn’t real. And then in the next series of frames it talks of how “science” has spent in excess of $100 billion dollars to “prove” man-caused global warming. But, if you are a “True Believer” that’s a good investment because the planet will be saved.

I’m still laughing my frozen ass off!

Share

Drudge Headline Page Reads Like We Live In Gestapoland

Just now I went to Drudge to catch the latest headlines. Upon scanning most of them on the home page, I wondered in what country I was actually living in and under whose regime I am a subject of.

WTH? Is this a true reflection of life in America now? Or, is Drudge embellishing stories with trumped up and misleading headlines to sell copy and/or to perpetuate the chaos and hatred among the masses?

I was especially drawn to the main headline that, “Nations Turn to UN.”

Leave thoughts below in comment section if you wish to reply.

DRUDGE REPORT 2014® 2013-10-25 11-27-40

Share

Media Hypocrisy or Planned Events?

We know that the U.S. Constitution only matters in this country when things written in it happen to support a specific narrative conjured by some special interest. The comparison below, which always pits republicans against democrats, i.e. right/left, liberal/conservative, etc., shows that fake laws, created by fake government can easily be rendered useless simply by voting to not fund the administration of that law.

The Media, controlled and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, then goes to work to influence public opinion, while carrying out their bigger agenda of people control and destruction of individualism and independence – all things that threaten the ruling establishment.

hypocrisy

Share

Don’t Sensationalize Bear Behavior

I’ve beaten this dead horse about to death. While I am spending countless hours and writing countless articles attempting to properly educate people on black bear behavior, and other wild animal behavior, we then get letters to the editors showing how effective the brainwashing by environmentalist, animal worshipers has become.

What’s most amusing about the letter is that the author blames the state fish and game departments, along with the media, for spreading wrong information about bears.

This is groundless fearmongering, something the media uses instead of proper reporting. And, sadly, something that our wildlife agencies encourage.

We can agree on one thing; It’s the fault of fish and game and media, and they are not engaging in “proper” reporting, but for mostly complete opposite reasons.

Fear-mongering never works when attempting to educate people. The biggest obstacle is breaking down the years and years of brainwashing, and figuring out how to hack into the minds of people programmed to not think but only to follow authority……blindly……without question.

Beyond that insurmountable task, is then to properly teach people about animal behavior so that THINKING people can decide for themselves what risks they are willing to take.

Share

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: The Lynching

Share