… It’s a spiritual memoir, called Finding Magic, that … outs herself as a believer in the occult and as an erstwhile practitioner of voodoo, and she packs the book with moments that have made anxious friends wonder: Are you sure you want to share that?
… (in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) From her perch atop the establishment, Quinn positioned herself as public arbiter of the town’s social mores. She began dispensing advice to incoming Presidents and other luminaries about how to get along with the natives. When someone violated establishment norms—or snubbed her invitations—she was quick to scold, often in acutely personal terms. Her flogging of President Clinton for “fouling the nest” with Monica Lewinsky remains the stuff of local legend.
… this book is Quinn’s coming-out as an ardent believer in the supernatural. For the longest time, she declares, “I had been afraid to discuss my occultism for fear people would think I was crazy, and then I was reluctant to discuss my blossoming faith for fear my friends would think I had gone over the edge.” But now Quinn is going all in. She recounts numerous moments that she sees as brushes with the divine—moments as prosaic as noticing the splendor of a pine tree and as psychedelic as, while yachting as a teenager, experiencing “flash-forwards” in which “[m]y whole emotional future passed before me.”
… Quinn has consulted psychics for years and, until recently, would conduct readings herself for family and friends. “When I first met Sally and Ben, it was right after Watergate,” recalls ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz, who was once married to Quinn’s stepson Ben Bradlee Jr. “She took out the tarot cards, and I was like, ‘What the heck is she talking about?’”
… Ouija boards, astrological charts, palm reading, talismans—Quinn embraces it all. And yes, she has been in contact with her husband since his passing. Through a medium. Repeatedly.
… She reveals that, in her less mellow days, she put hexes on three people who promptly wound up having their lives ruined, or ended.
The first, cast in 1969, was spurred by old-fashioned jealousy. Some exotic beauty at a Halloween party inspired lust in Quinn’s beau at the time—and then killed herself just days after Sally cast her spell.
Her second victim was Clay Felker, the longtime editor of New York magazine who oversaw a brutal profile of Quinn in 1973, just before her catastrophic debut on the CBS Morning News. Quinn hexed Felker not long after flaming out at CBS and returning to Washington. “Some time afterward, Rupert Murdoch bought New York magazine in a hostile takeover, and Felker was out,” she writes. “Clay never recovered professionally. Worse, he got cancer, which ultimately caused his death.”
Target number three: a shady psychic who, the autumn after Quinn Bradlee was born, ran afoul of Sally’s maternal instincts. The woman dropped dead before year’s end.
Now and again, Quinn stresses that she doesn’t take her psychic abilities too seriously. …
But the denials ring hollow. The book is awash in tales of Quinn’s occult prowess—she wants people to take this seriously, or at least to believe she takes this seriously. At the very least, she scared herself so badly when her third curse hit its mark—prompting a panic that her previous hexes had been karmically responsible for her son’s illness—that she vowed never to dabble in the dark arts again. Period.
Which is probably for the best in these overheated political times. “You can’t imagine the number of people who have asked me to put a hex on Donald Trump—I mean, I have got friends lined up,” she says. “This is my biggest restraint now.”
Since Donald Trump began his run for President in June 2015, parts of the dominant liberal media have repeatedly parroted the incorrect claim that, in 1989, Trump ran a newspaper ad in which he urged the execution of a group of young black and Hispanic teens who ended up eventually being proven “innocent” in spite of confessing to the infamous rape and beating of a Central Park jogger that year.
In fact, the ad in question did not specify that the Central Park Five should be executed as it came at a time when the death penalty was illegal in New York. There had been a push for the state legislature to enact a new law to reinstate capital punishment which would require overriding the veto of then-Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo — who had vetoed a death penalty bill a month before the attack.
The defendants could not have been sentenced to capital punishment since it was not an option at the time of the crime.
Additionally, when Trump was asked about the ad in May 1989 on Larry King Live, CNN claims he stated that he only supported the death penalty for adults — which would have excluded the Central Park Five because they were all between the ages of 14 and 16.
In the repeated smearing of Trump as someone who advocated executing a group of children whose convictions were eventually vacated after they had served their sentences, the media have also simplistically portrayed the defendants as having been “exonerated” or proven completely “innocent” by DNA testing without informing viewers that even their defense attorneys admitted that they were “beating up other people” on the night of the Central Park attack.
In the film, The Central Park Five, as far-left film maker Ken Burns pushed a sympathetic view of the five teens, the documentary actually admitted that their defense attorneys had considered arguing that they could not have committed the attack on the jogger because they were busy “beating up other people” at the time. Their defense attorneys presumably had conceded that they were part of a group of dozens of teens who attacked as many as eight different random people in the park on the same night, including one man who received a skull fracture.
Also of note, as some have pushed the angle that, because the Central Park jogger was a white woman while the defendants were minorities, Trump was motivated by racism — but what has been overlooked is that he also came to the defense of a black woman in Brooklyn who was raped and thrown from a four-story building a couple of weeks after the Central Park attack, and right after the death penalty ads ran in May of that year.
One columnist credited Trump with drawing attention to the Brooklyn victim’s ordeal as he visited her in the hospital, spoke publicly of her case, and offered to pay her medical bills. According to Nexis, in the Herald Sun article, “Our Odd Reactions to Rape,” dated January 31, 1990, author P. Wilson recalled: “Most of the publicity about the case arose from the fact that Donald Trump, a wealthy developer, agreed to pay her medical costs.”
Trump also spoke of the Brooklyn attack in his May 1989 interview with Larry King.
As for the issue of the Central Park Five being “exonerated” or proven “innocent,” with some accounts even asserting that they were “acquitted,” such claims are an overstatement given that, after another man — convicted serial rapist Matias Reyes — in 2002 confessed to attacking the jogger in 1989 and claimed that he did it alone, there was never another trial to determine their guilt. After DNA testing linked Reyes to the crime, the city’s prosecution chose to vacate the convictions for all five.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Since there really is a phenomenon that people sometimes confess to offenses they did not commit, it would seem feasible either that the Central Park Five were pressured into confessing to a crime they did not commit, or that Reyes — who apparently had nothing to lose by confessing — falsely claimed that he was the only assailant who took part in the attack.
It is possible that a jury would have found them not guilty if they had had the benefit of Reyes’s testimony at the time, but, as they had already served their sentences, they were not tried again, and the sentences were simply vacated.
As for the significance of DNA testing, the DNA samples found at the scene confirmed that Reyes was at least one of the attackers, but it did not on its own prove that others could not have been involved in the attack. The testimony by Reyes that he was the lone attacker was what raised doubts about the Central Park Five conviction. Some media accounts have misleadingly suggested that DNA testing “proved” that the Central Park Five were “innocent.”
Media accounts have also mostly excluded the views of figures like former New York City prosecutor Linda Fairstein and Michael Armstrong — an attorney who headed an investigation into how the NYPD handled the Central Park Five case. During the lawsuit that the Central Park Five brought against the city over their imprisonment, Fairstein complained that prosecutors in the case were under a gag order, making them unable to speak freely to the media about their views of the case.
Additionally, Armstrong complained about film maker Burns not including his views on the case in his documentary which misleadingly notes in a disclaimer that prosecutors declined to participate. His investigation had concluded that the NYPD had acted appropriatedly in its handling the Central Park rape case, and promoted the theory that the Central Park Five were part of the attack on the jogger.
Also not given much attention was the argument that Mayor Bill Di Blasio made a political decision to push for a generous settlement for the Central Park Five against the advice of the city’s attorneys, casting doubt on whether the large payout was deserved.
Much of the dominant media — especially on MSNBC and CNN — have repeatedly brought up the issue — even more so over the past year and in the weeks after the Charlottesville violence. And in the past week, MSNBC hosts and regular guests have been revisiting the topic again — including hosts Chris Hayes and Al Sharpton, and frequent guest Karine Jean-Pierre of MoveOn.org.
Football is suddenly facing a tremendous amount of scrutiny for its potential to cause irreparable damage to players. While any number of injuries are associated with such a heavy-duty contact sport, football stands alone in its potential for irreversible brain damage; many players have suffered from traumatic brain injuries, concussions, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gherig’s disease) and CTE — or chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Post-mortem research lead by the National Institutes of Health recently showed that 110 out of 111 former NFL players had signs of CTE, only furthering the increasing concerns about the safety of football and the long-term effects it may have on brain health.
While there are very real concerns about the safety of football, it’s hard not to wonder why this topic has gained so much attention while other potentially brain-damaging things — like the mercury still present in vaccines — seem to fly under the radar. Perhaps it’s just because football is a nationally acclaimed sport, or because it’s so much easier to connect the dots between tackling and brain damage. But either way, it’s a sad state of affairs. People so readily accept one narrative, while vehemently rejecting another — even though there’s plenty of evidence for both.
Indeed, there is still mercury in vaccines — even though the FDA and other major media outlets and health establishments would like for you to believe otherwise. As Trace Amounts explains, thimerosal is 49.55 percent mercury by weight. Thus, the average flu shot contains about 25 micrograms of mercury, and a child would need to weigh approximately 550 pounds for that seemingly small amount of mercury to be safe. While most everyone knows mercury is toxic, it is still astounding how very little of this heavy metal is actually needed to be damaging. Trace Amounts reports:
The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.
Yet, we are constantly assured that thimerosal is safe and that we shouldn’t be concerned with its presence in any number of vaccines a child may receive. Further, as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) explains, many vaccines still used in third-world countries are still mercury-containing and do not meet safety standards for use in the United States.
But even here in the U.S., infants are routinely given flu vaccines, which often still contain the hazardous ingredient in amounts that can be damaging. Further, if a child were to receive all recommended vaccines from birth to age 18, they would actually be exposed to more mercury now than in the past. The fact that the dangers of mercury and its continued presence in vaccines continues to be swept under the rug is simply reprehensible. The mainstream media continues to purport that all vaccines are 100 percent safe, but even water is dangerous in the wrong amounts — how can anyone honestly say that there is no danger in injecting infants, toddlers and children with 25 micrograms of mercury?
Even if a vaccine is formulated without thimerosal, you can be sure there are other hazardous compounds lurking inside that injection. Aluminium adjuvants are one example; aluminum has been linked to causing Alzheimer’s disease, among other health problems. But you can be that there are plenty more.
Stay up to date on the latest stories on inoculations and all their perils at Vaccines.news
Sources for this article include:
The term “Spirit Cooking” made occult rituals mainstream for a brief period last year after WikiLeaks released a trove of emails from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. While a number of celebrities and media moguls were tied to occult practices at the time, recent revelations have added more media royalty to the list.
The name Ben Bradlee may sound familiar, as he was good friends with former President John F. Kennedy, and executive editor of the Washington Post from 1968 to 1991. Bradlee and his wife, Sally Quinn, were often in the spotlight, and after Kennedy was assassinated, they were even referred to as the “New Camelot.”
While Bradlee died in 2014, Quinn has since taken the time to give insight into the glamorous life lived by the media’s royal couple. However, some of the practices she describes are ones that would normally be written off as crazy conspiracy theories by outlets such as their beloved Washington Post.
However, WaPost actually praised it.
In her latest publication titled, “Finding Magic: A Spiritual Memoir,” Quinn reveals that she believes she has killed at least three people in her lifetime. She claims that while she did not harm anyone physically, she believes strongly in the occult, and has used hexes on people who got on her bad side.
According to a WaPo report on the contents of the memoir, Quinn began believing in spirits, magic and the occult as a child, and she said it stemmed from what she was taught by her mother and other maternal relatives. She claimed her mother used hexes on people who angered her immensely, such as a veterinarian who would not help their sick dog and an Army doctor who did not provide accurate care for Quinn. In both cases, Quinn wrote that her mother yelled, “I hope you drop dead!” and within days, they did.
“Like mother, like daughter. In some of the most troubling passages of this book, she describes casting hexes on people who later died. One was an attractive young woman who flirted with one of Quinn’s earlier boyfriends. ‘I won’t say exactly what I did—even now I think that would be bad luck for me—but I practiced what I learned and observed. I worked on the hex for several days until I felt that it would have some effect.’
It did, she claims. The woman committed suicide. Quinn vowed never to cast a hex on someone else—a promise she did not keep. When New York magazine wrote an unfavorable profile of her, she ‘decided to put a hex’ on the magazine’s editor, Clay Felker. He later died of cancer.”
Quinn claimed that her third and latest hex was targeted at a psychic who gave her a “devastatingly brutal” reading regarding her son. “I vowed once again never to put another hex on anyone,” she wrote after the woman died of a cerebral hemorrhage. “Believe me, I haven’t, though I have to admit to being sorely tempted on occasion.”
She wrote that she “became more open to certain moments of transcendence” when she was 13 years old and she had a “spiritual experience” that she claims let her see her own future:
“I had the oddest sensation. As if I were watching flashbacks of my life, except I was seeing flash-forwards. My whole emotional future passed before me. . . . It was a true psychic experience. From then on, everything that has happened to me has been something that, no matter how joyful or painful, I have somehow anticipated. Since then, I haven’t had an emotional experience that did not seem already familiar to me.”
The revelations in Quinn’s memoir are incredibly important because of the influence she and her husband had on the media and on the elite society for years. Whether or not the use of a “hex” was responsible for killing all of the victims Quinn mentioned, is irrelevant. The fact is that the practice is tied to the occult, and the idea—held by someone with such a massive level of societal influence—that the appropriate way to deal with someone who wrongs you is to sentence them to death, should raise some serious questions.
As The Free Thought Project has reported, there are other questionable Occult rituals that go beyond Podesta’s “Spirit Cooking.” In fact, one ritual where adults ingest the blood of the young in order to “increase longevity” is now an actual business in the United States that has attracted the attention of the elite.
As failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began making the media rounds promoting her new book titled, “What Happened,” many Amazon users were asking the same questions after their 1-star reviews of the memoir were mysteriously deleted.
As a report from ZeroHedge noted, Amazon did not just delete a few reviews—it deleted over 1,000 reviews. As of 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, there were 445 reviews remaining. Out of those, 97 percent were 5-star reviews, 438 contained positive comments, and only seven reviews were critical.
While the idea that Amazon would delete negative reviews of Clinton’s book might be treated as another crazy Clinton conspiracy if it were to receive any mainstream media coverage, the opposite is true in this case. Instead, the story did receive its share of media coverage—with the MSM defending the website’s actions.
An Amazon spokesperson told Fortune that the reviews were deleted because they were about Hillary Clinton the politician, not specifically about the contents of the book itself.
“In the case of a memoir, the subject of the book is the author and their views,” the spokesperson said. “It’s not our role to decide what a customer would view as helpful or unhelpful in making their decision. We do however have mechanisms in place to ensure that the voices of many do not drown out the voices of a few and we remove customer reviews that violate our community guidelines.”
In a story titled, “The Anti-Hillary Clinton Camp Has Already Hijacked Amazon Reviews of Her New Book,” Fortune put the blame on the Amazon users who dared to leave a critical review of Clinton’s latest publication.
“Given the current political climate and the venomous nature of the 2016 race, it’s probably no surprise that critics of Clinton have used one-star reviews to further communicate their dislike of the former first lady, or in some cases, peddle conspiracy theories about Clinton and husband Bill,” the story from Fortune claimed.
While the story noted that only some of the negative reviews were from users who had a “verified purchase” label—meaning that they purchased the book from Amazon—it should be noted that buying a product from Amazon is not a prerequisite for leaving a review about that product.
The Telegraph insisted that Hillary Clinton is not the only the only one who has received special treatment from Amazon—it also deleted negative reviews from Trump supporters who left 1-star reviews and negative comments on a book authored by former Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly.
Every time Hillary Clinton has appeared in the media in recent months, she seems to have a new excuse as to why she lost the 2016 election. However, she never seems to have the time to talk about the corruption within her own party, or to honestly address the allegations that have been made by WikiLeaks.
It is important to note that even though the reviews were deleted because they may not have been verified, it is also notable that the 5-star reviews—which were also not verified, remained.
The problem with Amazon’s decision to delete negative reviews of Clinton’s book is that while Amazon is a private company with the right to control the content that appears on its site, the idea that it would delete nearly 70 percent of the reviews on a product, raises concerns for the countless Amazon customers who chose products based entirely on the reviews they find.
One theme of Hillary Clinton’s book tour is that news media bias helped tip the election in favor of Donald Trump. “I personally believe that our press, which is such an essential part of our country, our democracy, has to take some hard look at how it covered what was the first reality TV candidate,” Clinton lectured NBC’s Matt Lauer on Wednesday.
Excerpts of Clinton’s book, What Happened, published earlier this week by The Hill, flesh out her theory of how the media helped cost her the election:
“Many in the political media don’t want to hear about how these things happened and how these things tipped the election in the final days. They say their beef is that I’m not taking responsibility for my mistakes — but I have and I do again throughout this book,” she wrote.
“Their real problem is they can’t bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump, from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people’s lives combined.”
“If it’s all my fault, then the media doesn’t need to do any soul searching,” she wrote. “Republicans can say Putin’s meddling had no consequences. Democrats don’t need to question their own assumptions and prescriptions. Everyone can just move on. I wish it were that easy but it’s not.”
The belief that Clinton’s personal e-mail scandal was given more coverage than Trump’s controversies has been a common complaint since November, but it’s just not true. Last year, MRC analysts looked at all campaign coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts — the best proxy for a manageable examination of all campaign news from important national sources.
Looking at the entire campaign year (January 1 to November 7), the broadcast evening newscasts spent much more time on Trump’s campaign (2,437 minutes of airtime) than Clinton’s (1,504). But a much greater share of Trump’s coverage was devoted to embarrassing controversies (1,032 minutes, or more than 42% of his total airtime) than on similar stories involving Clinton (488 minutes, or 32% of her airtime).
The networks spent 245 minutes on Clinton’s e-mail scandal, more than any individual Trump controversy, and about one-sixth of her total coverage. But the large number of Trump controversies given heavy coverage by the networks collectively dwarfed coverage of her e-mails.
A quick review of the network airtime spent on some of the many Trump stories that enraptured the liberal media last year: violence by Trump supporters/Trump allegedly inciting violence (24 minutes of evening news coverage); the proposed ban on Muslims coming to the U.S. (24 minutes); Trump’s claim that the November election was rigged (25 minutes); Trump’s feud with the Khan family (25 minutes); Melania Trump’s convention speech borrowing from Michelle Obama’s (26 minutes); Trump’s allegedly sexist rhetoric (27 minutes); accusations of sexual harassment or assault (30 minutes); Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns (32 minutes); Trump’s criticism of a federal judge of Mexican descent (33 minutes); the Access Hollywood tape from 2005 (51 minutes).
Total coverage for just these top ten controversies sums to 297 minutes — more than the Clinton e-mail scandal (245 minutes), but by themselves less than one-third of the total airtime spent on all Trump controversies last year (1,032 minutes). The remaining 735 minutes was split among scores of other controversies (such as Trump’s comments about Pope Francis, or his suggestion that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination) that came and went over the course of the campaign.
[And note that these totals reflect just coverage in 2016; some, such as the proposed Muslim ban, earned considerable coverage in 2015 as well.]
We also examined the spin of campaign news from the end of the conventions (July 29) through the end of the campaign (November 7). Our analysts found 244 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 69 positive statements (28%) vs. 175 negative (72%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump (820), 88 percent of which (726) were negative vs. just 12 percent positive (94).
During the final days of the campaign, when Clinton claims the coverage of the re-opened e-mail probe cost her votes, evaluative statements of the Democratic nominee skewed the most positive of the fall election — 50 percent positive vs. 50 percent negative, compared to a 21-79 split in the previous twelve weeks we previously reported.
(Trump’s press was also better at the end — 23 percent positive vs. 77 percent negative — although still far more hostile than Clinton’s.)
Hillary Clinton was not the media darling that Barack Obama was in 2008, but no reasonable person could suggest that political reporters created a landscape more favorable to Donald Trump than to her. And it’s just silly of her to say the news media, which detests Trump, was one of the causes of her defeat.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
The broadcast network evening newscasts remain as hostile as ever towards President Trump and his agenda, although the networks appear to be easing up on their obsessive wall-to-wall coverage of the administration.
Since Inauguration Day (January 20), Media Research Center analysts have reviewed every mention of President Trump and top administration officials on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, including weekends. As of August 31, coverage of the administration has totaled nearly 74 hours (4,418 minutes) of airtime, or about 39 percent of all evening news coverage.
For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015 and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two years as President.
Analyzing the networks’ spin makes it clear that the goal of all of this heavy coverage is not to promote the President, but to punish him. In June, July and August, broadcast evening news coverage of Trump was 91 percent negative — worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated during the first three months of the administration, usually a traditional honeymoon period for new presidents.
Methodology: Our measure of spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan politics. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements from the networks’ own reporters.
Using these criteria, MRC analysts tallied 1,567 evaluative statements about the Trump administration in June, July and August, of which 1,422 (91%) were negative vs. a mere 145 (9%) which were positive. Since Trump took office on January 20, there have been 4,144 such evaluative statements, of which 3,712 (90%) were negative, vs. 432 (10%) which were positive.
The networks’s aggressive anti-Trump spin has been constant throughout 2017, as it was during the presidential campaign last year. The closest the evening newscasts came to achieving balanced coverage was in April, when a few reporters and analysts praised the President’s use of cruise missiles to punish the Syrian regime for a chemical weapons attack. Yet network coverage that month was still skewed against Trump by a greater than four-to-one ratio (82% negative, vs. 18% positive).
The rate of TV coverage has been intense. Early in the year, the networks focused on the Trump presidency as if it were a national crisis, with White House news consuming almost half (49%) of all evening news airtime in January, February and March. That rate subsided in April and May (see chart), and has averaged 32 percent over the past three months — more than triple the rate of coverage of the last two years of the Obama administration (10%), but a significant decline compared to the earliest days of the administration.
It remains to be seen whether this drop in Trump presidential coverage is permanent, or merely reflects the traditional decline in political news during the summer months.
Four topics consumed more than half (53%) of all Trump news from June to August. The networks’ favorite topic was the ongoing Russia investigation, which consumed 415 minutes of airtime (27% of all Trump news) during the past three months. But the frenzied coverage of late spring has abated. In June, the three evening newscasts devoted 236 minutes to the probe; that fell to 140 minutes in July and just 40 minutes in August.
The failed attempt to repeal ObamaCare was the second-most frequent topic, with 176 minutes of coverage this summer. During these same months, Trump’s handling of the crisis with North Korea was the focus of 136 minutes of coverage, while his response to the violence in Charlottesville drew 97 minutes of coverage.
The Russia investigation was also the source of most of the negative comments about Team Trump — 322 negative vs. 21 positive statements, yielding a 94% bad press score. Evening news coverage of the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare was just as negative as the President’s much-maligned statements about the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. There were slightly more negative statements about the GOP health care replacement bill (240) than the comments about Charlottesville (213), with virtually no positive statements on either topic, for a matching score of 97% bad press.
A key difference, of course, is that the ObamaCare coverage unfolded over the course of the spring and summer, while the Charlottesville coverage was contained in an intense week of coverage in mid-August.
There was far less media spin regarding President’s handling of the showdown with North Korea, with only 57 negative statements and nine positive ones, for an 86% bad press score. Most of the coverage has actually been neutral, with the negative press clustered around Trump’s “fire and fury” threat to the North in early August.
The networks’ aggression in covering Trump contrasts with their docile, often adoring coverage of President Obama. Both Presidents are, of course, highly controversial — the key difference is that Obama’s policies matched the liberal media’s preferences, while Trump’s agenda clearly clashes with the establishment media’s world view.
On Friday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin gave the game away when he admitted that Trump “will get good coverage, if he works with Democrats, for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a lot of people in the media like.” All Presidents deserve critical news coverage from time to time, but the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump has seen thus far is as much a reflection of the media’s ideological bias as anything else.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
When the Syrian War began, the United States claimed to only be concerned about the innocent civilians. Now, as the war comes to an end, the ones who have suffered the most are the innocent civilians, and the victor is the same “tyrannical dictator” the U.S. has spent years trying to overthrow.
— Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo) September 7, 2017
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed that according to a leaked cable from William Roebuck, U.S. Ambassador for Bahrain, the United States began plotting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2006—which happens to be the same year Assad’s government dropped the U.S. Dollar.
“That plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear there’s a coup,” Assange said. “So in theory it says ‘We have a problem with Islamic extremists crossing over the border with Iraq, and we’re taking actions against them to take this information and make the Syrian government look weak, the fact that it is dealing with Islamic extremists at all.’”
Syria’s President & First Lady warmly received by the Syriac Orthodox Church in Saidnaya.
Something that you’ll never see in Saudi Arabia. pic.twitter.com/31jLOXCqKf
— Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo) September 8, 2017
The U.S. began openly pushing for the overthrow of Assad in 2013, after he was accused of using chemical weapons on his own people. Before an investigation could be conducted into whether Assad was, in fact, responsible for the crimes he was being accused of, President Obama went to Congress to ask for its approval to launch an airstrike directed towards Syrian government forces. When Congress refused, the administration’s strategy changed.
The same “Islamic extremists” Assange mentioned came into play with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria, a group of radicals who seemed to come out of nowhere, yet were well-equipped with weapons, technology and expertise. Their rise coincided with the United States’ decision to pour massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into arming and training “moderate Syrian rebels.” Leaked documents later revealed that the strategy of pushing to overthrow Assad by supporting the groups in his country who opposed him was done despite concerns that many of those groups were made up of radical extremists.
As the war against Assad shifted to a war against ISIS, the U.S. was named in report after report that appeared to show it was helping the same terrorist group it claimed to be defeating. In October 2014, the Pentagon admitted that the U.S. airdropped weapons to ISIS, and blamed “the wind” for the fact that those weapons were not delivered to Kurdish fighters in Kobani.
In October 2016, the Pentagon was caught paying a PR firm $540 million to create fake terrorist videos—much like the ones purported to show ISIS militants beheading innocent civilians. Then in a 2016 audit, the Department of Defense admitted that it could not account for $1 billion in weapons and equipment that was meant for forces in Syria, but likely ended up in the hands of ISIS.
In 2017, Assad’s government is regaining ground in Syria and ISIS is suffering crucial defeats and losing strategic strongholds. Recently, after the Syrian government regained control of Deir ez-Zor, “dozens of Isis members have fled to towns and villages along the Euphrates valley” in preparation for a “last stand.”
While the United States has celebrated and will continue to celebrate the defeat of ISIS—as it blatantly ignores evidence of its attempts to help the group wreak havoc and stay in power—it is refusing to acknowledge the main goal that got the U.S. into the War in Syria in the first place.
The same “tyrannical dictator” the U.S. sought to overthrow four years ago is regaining power, and the areas under his control look like paradise compared to the war-torn cities that have received more than their fair share of “freedom” from the U.S.
In addition to losing their homes and being forced to evacuate from their cities, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed by the United States and the groups it funds in recent years. While the Obama Administration’s offensive against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria resulted in an average of 80 civilian deaths each month, which led to a total of 2,300 civilian deaths, the Trump Administration has increased the civilian death toll to an average of 360 per month, which is around 12 killed per day. In just six months, Trump’s war against ISIS has resulted in 2,200 civilian deaths.
While the war in Syria may be coming to an end, it is important to remember that it has impacted countless innocent civilians, wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and the original mission of the U.S. was never accomplished, raising serious questions about how United States–Syria relations will look in the future.
Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/syrian-war-end-assad-still-power/
As of late Sunday afternoon, the Associated Press’s coverage of potential contamination resulting from Hurricane Irma in Florida, certainly a legitimate issue, was remarkably measured.
That dispatch’s tone starkly contrasted with how the AP, without genuine basis, went after the U.S. EPA after Hurricane Harvey in Texas, and how childishly it reacted when the EPA pushed back hard against the wire service and reporter Michael Biesecker, who had not only filed a fake news story about Trump administration EPA head Scott Pruitt in late June, but who also appears to have a personal vendetta against Pruitt.
Here are the most relevant paragraphs from the AP’s Sunday afternoon story by Tamara Lush and Jason Dearen (bolds are mine throughout this post):
IRMA BRINGS FEARS OF SURGE, SEWERS AND TOXINS TO TAMPA AREA
… Toxic waste sites in the Tampa Bay region also pose risks to public health if they are flooded or damaged.
Florida has the nation’s largest phosphorus mining industry, and it’s based in the area. A byproduct of the industry is 27 hill-sized piles of waste containing low levels of radiation and other toxins, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Some of the piles are 500 feet tall.
… The region is also home to more than half of Florida’s 51 Superfund sites … Many are old chemical or oil storage facilities that left behind a legacy of dangerous contamination in soil and groundwater. State and federal government agencies have been working to clean them up for decades.
Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection said it would be testing groundwater as soon as it’s safe to do so after the storm. EPA said it will also be on the ground after the storm.
EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham said in an email that “these facilities will be properly assessed to ensure there are no potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment.”
Note that the AP included a comment from the U.S. EPA.
In earlier, unexcerpted text, the reporters also included a quote from a company which saw millions of gallons of its contaminated mine wastewater flow into the Floridan Aquifer last year after a sinkhole occurred. The company involved stated its belief that its “efforts to reinforce and strengthen the [sinkhole] seal in anticipation of the hurricane are proving effective.”
This is not how the AP went about its business earlier this month in Texas, when it all but told its readers and subscribing outlets that the EPA was asleep at the switch in Harvey’s aftermath.
The wire service’s original September 2 report (since revised) did not include a comment from the EPA. But AP ambushers, I mean reporters, Dearen and Michael Biesecker went ahead and decided to accuse the EPA of negligence anyway, as they “breathlessly claimed: “Toxic waste Superfund sites near Houston flooded, EPA not on scene”:
Floodwaters have inundated at least seven highly contaminated toxic waste sites near Houston, raising concerns that the pollution there might spread.
The Associated Press visited the sites this past week, some of them still only accessible by boat.
… On Saturday, hours after the AP published its first report, the EPA said it had reviewed aerial imagery confirming that 13 of the 41 Superfund sites in Texas were flooded by Harvey and were “experiencing possible damage” due to the storm.
The statement confirmed the AP’s reporting that the EPA had not yet been able to physically visit the Houston-area sites, saying the sites had “not been accessible by response personnel.”
Leaving aside the issue of how reporters can claim to have genuinely “visited” places that are fenced in with “No Trespassing” signs (as seen here), the AP reporters seem to have forgotten that aerial photography, conscientiously performed and reviewed, can often reveal quite a bit about an underwater contaminated site’s condition and the degree of water pollution that may be occurring. It’s also a lot less dangerous than sending officials out in motorboats in waters containing all sorts of items which might clog the engines or run them aground.
We should also recall that two years ago, the EPA was in the process of “cleaning up” a toxic site and made a “mistake” which turned the Animas River in Colorado and New Mexico bright orange with a million gallons of toxic waste. Poking around in a Superfund site which is currently flooded intuitively seems like a bad idea. If so, what’s the point in having EPA officials take boats to these sites in dangerous conditions when high-resolution, zoom-in aerial photography is available?
On Sunday, September 3, the Trump administration’s EPA struck back hard in a press release, in the process reminding AP that individual reporters living in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones:
EPA Response To The AP’s Misleading Story
Yesterday, the Associated Press’ Michael Biesecker wrote an incredibly misleading story about toxic land sites that are under water.
Despite reporting from the comfort of Washington, Biesecker had the audacity to imply that agencies aren’t being responsive to the devastating effects of Hurricane Harvey. Not only is this inaccurate, but it creates panic and politicizes the hard work of first responders who are actually in the affected area.
Here’s the truth: through aerial imaging, EPA has already conducted initial assessments at 41 Superfund sites – 28 of those sites show no damage, and 13 have experienced flooding. This was left out of the original story, along with the fact that EPA and state agencies worked with responsible parties to secure Superfund sites before the hurricane hit. Leaving out this critical information is misleading.
Administrator Pruitt already visited Southeast Texas and is in constant contact with local, state and county officials. And EPA, has a team of experts imbedded with other local, state and federal authorities, on the ground responding to Harvey – none of which Biesecker included in his story.
Then the EPA got personal:
Unfortunately, the Associated Press’ Michael Biesecker has a history of not letting the facts get in the way of his story. Earlier this summer, he made-up a meeting that Administrator Pruitt had, and then deliberately discarded information that refuted his inaccurate story – ultimately prompting a nation-wide correction.
More background on Biesecker’s made-up meeting is here. This was a major botch on Biesecker’s part, and the AP’s correction came off as blaming EPA more than its own sloppiness and poor follow-through.
The EPA is absolutely right in stating that Biesecker was perched in Washington for the Texas dispatch. The fact that Dearen and/or perhaps other AP photographers were “on the scene” questionably claiming to have made genuine “visits” doesn’t change that fact.
Much of the press, including the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, took serious offense at the EPA’s conduct after the AP’s story appeared. But after Wemple recited a litany of the agency’s experiences with Biesecker, I would suggest that objective observers would argue that the EPA’s response was perfectly defensible.
In addition to the meeting that didn’t happen described above:
- In June, Biesecker and another AP reporter posted a story about how (quoting from that story) “Pruitt coordinated with fossil fuel companies while serving as Oklahoma’s state attorney general, a position in which he frequently sued to block federal efforts to curb planet-warming carbon emissions.” Imagine that. As an editorial in The Oklahoman noted at the time: “The fact Pruitt regularly corresponded and dealt with energy industry officials as attorney general of a state where energy is the No. 1 industry should not be surprising nor should it, by itself, be considered nefarious.”
- (Quoting Wemple) “In June, Biesecker forwarded to the EPA press office a news release from Investigative Reporters and Editors announcing that Pruitt had won the organization’s ‘Golden Padlock’ award ‘recognizing the most secretive U.S. agency or individual.’ Noted the EPA official via email, ‘this unnecessary email reiterates his dislike for Mr. Pruitt.'” The EPA official is correct. This isn’t “reporting” (as if Pruitt didn’t know about the “award” already, or that he would have cared if he didn’t know). This is flat-out harassment and trolling by a supposedly “objective” journalist.
After episodes such as these, why should anyone be surprised that, as Wemple reports, “the EPA pulled Biesecker from its master email list” while keeping dozens of other AP reporters on it? An even better question is how Biesecker has managed to avoid visible negative consequences to his career as a result of his conduct.
Wemple is offended, likely along with many of his colleagues in the press, that the EPA went after not only “a news outlet, but a specific reporter. With attitude too.” He will only admit that the original AP headline noted earlier (later changed to “Toxic waste sites flooded in Houston area,” according to Wemple) “was a touch on the harsh side.” No, Erik. It was bogus.
Of course, as CBS News has reported, “The AP is standing by its story and its reporters.” Biesecker tweeted the AP’s full response, but EPA Associate Administrator Lisa Bowman had the best take on all of this in the final paragraph of the agency’s September 3 press release:
“Once again, in an attempt to mislead Americans, the Associated Press is cherry-picking facts, as EPA is monitoring Superfund sites around Houston and we have a team of experts on the ground working with our state and local counterparts responding to Hurricane Harvey. Anything to the contrary is yellow journalism.”
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
The Associated Press, many of its reporters, including Michael Biesecker, and many of the wire service’s colleagues at other press outlets are coming off as extraordinarily determined bullies who instantly morph into childish whiners when they’re on the receiving end of legitimate and justifiably harsh criticism.
The more measured AP report from Florida mentioned in this post’s introduction could be a sign that the wire service has learned something. We’ll see. Readers are advised not to get their hopes up.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Today Dr. Duke had British author and activist Mark Collett as his guest for the hour. They talked about the hurricane-like attack on our movement from the Zionist establishment that includes everything from the (((financial industry))) depriving us of credit card settlement services to (((Google))) stealing domain names and shutting down YouTube sites.
Mark Collett raised the example of the EU taking actions to force economic migrants posing as refugees on the nations of Poland, the Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, despite the fact that these countries don’t want to accept the migrants and the migrants don’t want to go to these countries. The only purpose is to destroy the racial homogeneity of these countries.
This was another great show.
Please keep us on the air and on-line. Please visit our contribution page or send your contribution to:
P.O. Box 188, Mandeville, LA 70470
This is an entertaining and informative show that you will want to spread widely.
Click here and look for the show dated 9-8-17.
Our show is aired live at 11 am replayed at ET 4pm Eastern
This is a must watch video of David Duke on the murder of policemen in Dallas by a Black Lives Matter supporter.
Here is Mark Collett’s latest video: