Tag: liberal media

Don’t Fall for the Hypocrisy of Jim Acosta

By Nick Hamilton | United States

The time has finally come. CNN’s Jim Acosta has crossed the line and had his press credentials revoked by President Trump. I wrote an article back in September about this, which you can read here. I’m honestly a little surprised this actually happened. However, it was the right thing to do.

Acosta and the Press Conference

At Wednesday’s press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked a question about the migrant caravan and tried to lecture President Trump on why he thinks this caravan isn’t an invasion. President Trump simply stated after that that they had a difference of opinion on the matter and that Acosta should let him run the country. Seems reasonable, right? After that, President Trump proceeded to call on another reporter, however, Acosta just wasn’t finished. Even after President Trump called on another reporter, Acosta still tried to ask questions. When a White House intern tried to take the microphone away from Acosta, he proceeded to grab onto the mic and forcefully push down on her arm.

Nevertheless, the media is portraying this incident as nothing more than an attempt for President Trump to dodge a tough question from Acosta. That is a blatant lie. Trump had already called on another reporter. There were a lot of reporters at this press conference, and I’m sure Trump wanted to get to as many as he could.

However, when Acosta wouldn’t give up the mic, the President did something that the media hated. First of all, he answered the bogus question about the Russia investigation. He then took a couple of seconds to walk away from the podium. President Trump also proceeded to, as he has done before, turn off the mic of Jim Acosta.

A Rude Reporter

“CNN should be ashamed of itself to have you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. The way you treat Sarah Sanders is horrible. The way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.”  -Trump to Acosta

Trump isn’t wrong. As I have outlined, Jim Acosta is one of the rudest reporters in the liberal media. He consistently thinks he has the right to overpower other reporters. People don’t just lash out at him for no reason; they do so because of his lack of respect for the industry. Mark Dice, a conservative YouTube commentator, put together a short compilation of his most unprofessional moments that justify Trump’s outburst. You can view it here. CNN has claimed that Acosta is just trying to ask questions that the American people want answers to. My question to CNN, however, is that if that’s truly the case, why won’t another reporter ask them? If it is truly an important question, then Acosta is not the only person capable of asking it.

Other Media Attacks

Acosta is not the only reporter Trump has attacked this week. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin had a few choice words for the President in her daily show on CNN. Yamiche Alcindor, a journalist for PBS, tried to question Trump’s rhetoric of calling himself a nationalist at a recent Houston rally, linking him with white nationalism. I was very privileged to be able to attend that rally, and it was quite clear he was speaking only of United States nationalism; there was no mention of race or any discriminatory language. Trump has denounced the KKK and Alt-Right nationalists on many occasions. Thus, it is not surprising that such questions annoy him.

Later in the press conference, April Ryan, a CNN contributor, had the same problem Jim Acosta did; she tried to ask a question during another reporter’s time. Trump told her to “sit down,” because he was answering a question from another reporter. Nonetheless, she kept interrupting.

Then, on November 9th, as Trump was leaving the White House, reporters swarmed him. Many asked him about April Ryan: why he chose to call her “nasty” and “a loser” because of her reporting. Then, Abby Phillip, another reporter, asked Trump about Whitaker’s involvement with the Russia investigation. Trump couldn’t answer that, and said: “It’s up to him.” But then, Phillip responded by saying, “Do you want him to rein in Robert Muller?”

“What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, and you ask a lot of stupid questions,” replied Trump.

Attacks Against Black Women?

Now, of course, Baldwin had something to say about this. But what did she choose to say? She chose to try and say that Trump was wrong for these attacks. But read closely. He was wrong to say this because they were black women. She didn’t even acknowledge what happened with Jim Acosta, a white male, who got it worse than all three of thee reporters. Why is it only bad when Trump negatively targets black female reporters?

Now, if he only ever criticized black women, then perhaps her accusations would make more sense. But, this is not the case: Trump regularly slams people of all races, removing any likelihood of racist intent.

Baldwin, thus, appears to be playing the race card. If we want to truly live in a society free of racism, it starts with Brooke Baldwin. It starts with The View and Jimmy Kimmel, who have also employed this narrativeThe color of someone’s skin and someone’s gender are completely irrelevant to their journalistic ability. If you believe otherwise, then you’re part of the problem. Baldwin is trying to say that just because they’re black women, they are immune to criticism. This is true for neither them nor Acosta.

The Tucker Carlson Incident

On the contrary, let’s talk about a real attack on a journalist. This week, Antifa protesters swarmed the house of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. His wife had to hide in the pantry, and everyone on the right was angry. Why aren’t Brooke Baldwin and Jim Acosta upset with this?

Sally Kohn, a writer for CNN, did publish an article saying that the protest went too far. She deserves credit for that, as it was quite an admirable thing to do. But to Acosta and Baldwin: why are attacks only worth criticizing when they are against you? This shows a clear double standard: one that does not represent good moral faith.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Being a Victim Does Not Make You a Policy Expert

By James Sweet III | USA

Valentine’s Day is supposed to be a day all about love and enjoying those that are close to you. It’s not supposed to be a day of survival. Not a single person at Stoneman Douglas High School expected to be hiding and praying for survival that day. Yet, Nikolas Cruz decided to kill seventeen students and staff, while also injuring fourteen more.

The deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook was bound to spark an endless debate, and indeed did a gun control debate begin. This time, however, the charge for gun control was not being led by career politicians, but by victims of the shooting. Mainstream media, the left, and other groups have been revolving their efforts around these students, gaining large support from the masses. What makes these students, as well as their followers, believe that they’re experts on the matter they are debating over?

Recently, CNN held a town hall over the gun control debate currently raging in the country. Victims of the Parkland shooting, parents of victims, Senators Marco Rubio (R) and Bill Nelson (D), Representative Ted Deutch (D), Sheriff Scott Israel, and an NRA spokeswoman, Dana Loesch, participated in an intense discussion over the future of the nation’s gun culture. At the town hall, Ryan Schacter, a senior at Stoneman Douglas High whose 14-year-old brother, Alex, died in the shooting, asked Representative Deutch:

“My friends and I are worried that we are going to be murdered in our classrooms. What reassurances can you give me and what specifically are you going to do to make sure that we can’t have this fear?” The representative responded with, “What am I going to do? Well, as a starter, next week when we go back to Washington, we’re going to introduce legislation to make sure that assault weapons are illegal in every part of this country.”

 You would think this would answer the question Ryan Schacter asked, and that the next sentences that came out of the representative’s mouth would explain how this would help quell the fears the students held. The exact opposite happened when Representative Deutch said:

“But, that’s not going to help you when you go back to school and all I can tell you is that we stand with law enforcement in Broward County. We stand with the administration and the teachers in your school to provide as much security, as much comfort, as much as can make you feel that you’re in a safe place.” 

Is this the same Broward County whose deputies failed to enter the school when the gunshots rang out? Certainly, the victims of the shooting, as well as their congressional representative, wouldn’t support a policy that would do nothing, right?

Wrong.

That response was met with applause.

Solutions are, evidently, not being provided, yet they’re being supported by many, with the sentiments of the victims being used as reasoning for these policies. Don’t believe me? Just read CNN’s article on letting younger kids vote, using the student activists as examples of kids that should be able to vote. Still think that doesn’t mean anything? How about an article titled “Adults should stop attacking young people over gun control”? The advocates of gun control want to use the social status of the young victims to their advantage, disregarding any that attack the students because the students are younger and throwing away any legitimate argument due to the fact that the students are also victims.

David Hogg, a leading activist in the #NeverAgain movement, who also happens to be a victim of the Parkland shooting, has been touted around by gun control advocates as a perfect example of a young adult who has been speaking out. It is true that he is causing waves in American society, but why is that? Is it because he is correct, or because we are told not to refute a young person over their beliefs? I mean, after all, he supported the cowardice of the Broward County deputies and their choice not to enter the school during the shooting. Hogg advocates for a ban on assault weapons as well, while also supporting those that abandoned their duties, letting seventeen innocent students and staff die.

Proper refutations have been provided by the gun rights advocates, yet they are disregarded for the silly reasons previously mentioned. If you go back to the town hall hosted by CNN, you can see a perfect example of these refutations. Senator Marco Rubio was answering a question from Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter died in the tragedy. Guttenberg described “assault weapons” as “weapons of war” and “weapons of choice”. Senator Rubio proceeded to state:

“I want to explain to you for a moment the problem with the law that they call the Assault Weapon’s Ban. And if you’ll give me — and indulge me for a minute to explain to you the problem. First you have to define what it is. If you look at the law and it’s definition, it basically bans 200 models of gun – – about 220 specific models of gun…  it allows legal 2,000 other types of gun that are identical. Identical, in the way that they function and how fast they fire and the type of caliber that they fire and the way they perform. They’re indistinguishable from the ones that become illegal. And the only thing that separates the two types – – the only thing that separates the two types is, if you put a plastic handle grip on one it becomes banned, if it doesn’t have a plastic handle it does not become banned.”

Do you want to know what Mr. Guttenberg said?

“Good. Good.”

Cheers. Applause. The crowd went wild.

They are trying to ban our guns, and these kids are exploiting their status as victims in an attempt to get their agenda across. Not only are they exploiting their own status, but gun control advocates are exploiting it as well. They refuse to listen to anyone that’s not on their side, regardless if legitimate points are brought up or not.

The truth of the matter: no matter what you go through, the facts do not care about your status in society. They do not care if you were the victim or the aggressor. These students are not the only activists, and the media needs to stop acting like it.

 

Dear CNN, Harassing People And Censoring Discussions Isn’t Okay

By Nick Hamilton | United States

If it seemed as if the left wing news organization, CNN, couldn’t get any less trustworthy and credible, then you haven’t been paying attention. This week, their coverage of the mass shootings in Florida has caused major outrage from people who don’t like their fake news spoon-fed.

Earlier this week, CNN’s Drew Griffin visited Florida and performed a “gotcha” style interview with Florine Guren Goldfarb, a Trump supporter, outside her home. He bombarded her with questions about her alleged efforts to collude with Russia during the 2016 Presidential Election. Alleged by who, you ask? CNN themselves. They belabored an argument insinuating direct involvement with the Kremlin to sway the election although Goldfarb testified she knew all her people and that they were “all Trump supporters.”

The segment starts off with Anderson Cooper mentioning the Mueller indictment, saying that the Russians only helped President Donald Trump, (which in itself is fake news, the indictment also mentions Russians staging Anti-Trump protests) and saying that a Facebook group called “Being Patriotic” was sharing Pro-Trump messages, and this lady shared one of their posts on Facebook. So rather than doing the rational thing, and asking her to appear on an interview or exchanging courteous and civil emails, like a respected news outlet should, they showed up at her house and started to harass her.

What you’ll see in this video is frankly disgusting, but if you wish to see this for yourself, you can view the video here. However, that’s not the only screw up that CNN has had this week.

Of course, it seems as if everything mentioned in this article done by CNN is absolutely disgusting. But CNN is now using children as puppets to push their agenda. You may be wondering how one could come to such a conclusion. Here’s how.

Colton Haab, one of the survivors of the shooting last week, appeared on a local news station, WPLG, last night after the debate. (View a video here, courtesy of Mark Dice) Haab stayed home because he wasn’t allowed to ask his question. Now you may think his question may have been inappropriate. Apparently, a valid question about hiring retired veterans who are unable to find work is inappropriate by CNN standards in a discussion about protecting the safety of our children. They told this teen to ask one of their “scripted questions.” 

This is absolutely outrageous. CNN is manipulating the victims of the Florida shooting with a clear intent to push their own political agenda. Someone who survived a tragedy was discouraged to attend a discussion because CNN decided that their own political agenda was more important than the ideas and thoughts of a survivor himself. This is not only a disgrace to media outlets, this is a disgrace to the United States democracy. of course, CNN is denying doing so because apparently they’re just so perfect, and can’t own up to things when they screw up, like adults.

These disgusting acts by CNN shouldn’t be tolerated. Their ratings are falling and I’d love to see that keep happening. CNN is becoming less trustworthy every single day, and frankly, society has accepted it. I’m calling on Drew Griffin and CNN to issue an apology to the lady they harassed. I’m also calling on whoever’s bright idea it was to use children as a political puppet to apologize to the family of Colton Haab, and I encourage anyone else who suffered those same consequences to speak out as well. And my message to CNN: If you’re going to be biased, at least try and act like you’re an impartial network. At least act like adults over there. Because bullying people because of their beliefs is an elementary school move, and censoring certain views from being shared is, again, a threat to our democracy.


Image from CNN.

The Danger of Fake News

By Michael Kay | USA

In a world where 57% of the US gets its news through the television and other mainstream news sources (CNN, Fox, Breitbart, BuzzFeed), it becomes critically important that the information is accurate. However, with the rise of Donald Trump, the media has to make a decision: Will it be the messenger of facts, or will it be a political tool?

First, some background.

In Charlottesville, Virginia, a controversial statue of Robert E Lee, the infamous Confederate leader stood. The state of Virginia (or municipality of Charlottesville) elected to remove this statue, on the basis that it gave honor to a horrible person who fought on the wrong side of history. However, as is usually the case, there was opposition to this, in this case coming in the form of neo-Nazi white nationalists. They decided to protest this statue’s removal by protesting with tiki torches late at night, and then proceeding the very next day to assemble in a rally, complete with flags with swastikas, and shouting obscenities such as “Jews will not replace us”. The problems with this kind of rhetoric are obvious, but none the less, technically legal under free speech laws. In addition, however, an anti-fascist group known as Antifa showed up in counterprotest. The showed up wearing all black, with ski masks, pepper spray, and other tools for a riot.

What followed was one of the scariest riots in the last decade. People were pushing, shoving, throwing rocks, hitting each other with flags, and of course spraying pepper spray. At the peak of the riot, (insert car driver’s name), a neo-Nazi, drove a car into the crowd, injuring 19 and killing one.

However, it’s important to recognize that these aren’t random occurrences. These events are fueled by a fire of emotions, and those emotions are controlled by the media. I think that both sides are to blame for this. On the right, organizations such as Breitbart, Fox, and Infowars, all organizations who have the potential to be truly informative sources, and who, for the most part, are honest media sources, often demonized, and exaggerate certain political ideas, and opponents. The right isn’t alone in this, though, as the left is just as bad, if not worse. Media organizations such as NBC, ABC, and CNN, who used to be credited as great, honest sources, now have turned into 24-hour news corporations, who will overblow any story in order to fill some time. But this is also exacerbated by social media sites like Facebook, which trap us into echo chambers where we only hear views which we identify with, and agree with.

This obviously seems theoretically harmful, given that we value truth and honesty in society (or at least we say we do), but there are also real-world impacts of the polarization of the mass media. In most healthy democracies, but also in productive discussion, opposing ideas are disagreed with (obviously) but treated with respect, and at least some legitimacy. However, increasingly, as a result of the polarization of media, we see opposition ideas being misconstrued as opposing individuals, and those individuals being viewed as an existential threat. This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum, and most major media outlets are equally to blame. But moreover, this makes it incredibly difficult for the average person to be moderate, which has its own set of political consequences. For a highly intelligent person (as I’m assuming most of you reading this are), critical thinking, comes easy, and so we don’t take the media as the single truth. However, the average American has an IQ of about 98, and then you must consider that half of those people are even dumber than that. So for many people, we cannot assume they will dismiss news as “fake” even when the information being received has no logical background. If I simply take information from CNN, to be honest, and more importantly accurate, I then must reject information from Fox as lies treachery. But even if I wouldn’t normally do that, a great amount of the mass media, such as the Daily Show with Trevor Noah and The Colbert Report, depicts a large amount of the opposition (to their ideas) as bigoted, and wrong, which pushes viewers into a position where they can only agree(and hate the opposition), or disagree (in which case they feel targeted, and often become bigoted). If a person feels like a major establishment is demonizing values which they identify with (such as coming from a Southern state), they are much less likely to truly engage with the opinions of the media, which would start a potentially fruitful discussion, and more likely to instead go on the defensive, and reject all notions that the “left” (or in the case of FOX, the right) is in fact bigoted, and the enemy.

So why do we actually want more moderates? This question is best answered by characterizing why someone IS a moderate. We don’t actually need the person to identify as moderate, but rather we want people to at least listen to the opinions of others, in order to fully consider all options. I don’t mind someone who is radical if they are able to engage in productive discussion with the opposition, but unfortunately, in practice this in incredibly rare, and we instead end up with many bigots.

In terms of solutions, I think they are relatively simple. First, balance production staff, with people all over the political spectrum, that way there in input from all sides. At 71 Republic, despite openly calling ourselves a news site directed towards libertarians and moderate conservatives, we have a proud Democrat as one of the executives. If the intention of a given site is to propagate a specific opinion, that’s fine too, but A) make it explicitly clear that that’s what your intentions are (so that people know to also look elsewhere if they want a balanced approach) or B) From time to time feature commentators with opposing view in order to at least give your viewers/readers a taste of opposition that isn’t written by someone who is actually from the opposition.

At the end of the day, this is an incredibly complex issue, but I think that for the average reader, the best thing to take out of this article is that you will never hurt yourself looking through opposition news and that often it will actually make your opinions and arguments stronger, now that you truly understand what the opposition looks like.

Left Media is Lying to You About Gun Statistics

By Colin Louis | USA

The mainstream media has been caught lying to you again. This time about gun control and mass shootings.

ABC news recently pushed the false narrative that there have been 274 mass shootings this year. These inflated statistics aren’t uncommon to be put up by the mainstream media. In January a VICE news reporter claimed to have been “tracking mass shootings” and found that were 370 mass shootings in 2016. These statistics along with others typically come from the website massshootingtracker.org.

What isn’t mentioned is that most of these “mass shootings” have no deaths at all. The website constitutes a mass shooting as “a single burst of violence in which four or more people are shot.” The term “mass shooting” has always been somewhat loose. But a definition is one that the federal government used, stating a mass shooting has to have four or more victims killed in order for it to be a mass shooting.

What’s also important is the context that many of the shootings are put into. It is no surprise that the mainstream media uses these shootings for political purposes. Numbers like “370 mass shootings this year” are used to argue that we need more gun control. What’s not mentioned is that in shootings like Las Vegas nothing could have been prevented by gun control, for the shooter had passed all mental health standards. Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the most liberal anti-gun senators said that, “no laws could have stopped the Vegas gunman.”

The point is that the media has been lying to you. They twist and bend facts beyond a point of reason. Even if they didn’t the context that they put it in is very unreasonable. In order to fit their political agenda the media is willing to lie to you. You should always fact check so you can catch dishonesty like this.