The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts

Friday, June 23, 2017

The New York Times: "Trump Lies" Year-To-Date Lies



The New York Times publishedd a historic piece of journalism.  We will see this archived list of Trump lies for the remainder of our lives, and pass it on to those who follow.

Trump's   Lies

Excerpt

The Public’s Mistrust of Trump Grows
Trump has retained the support of most of his voters as well as the Republican leadership in Congress. But he has still paid some price for his lies. Nearly 60 percent of Americans say the president is not honest, polls show, up from about 53 percent when he took office.
.
Read the historic piece linked via the title above.
StumbleUpon

Thursday, May 18, 2017

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Trumpism (Hannity, Vicente Fox, Maddow, The New York Times)




As I watched the Rachel Maddow /show last night, and as you may have watched, she interrupted the planned flow of her show for a breaking segment. The New York times reported last night that Mike Flynn told Trump and company he was under FBI investigation before Trump appointed Flynn to head the NNational Security Council.

Here is the post-commercial break segment. It is less than three minutes in duration as I am certain MSNBC producers chose to restrict their comment and reporting to what the New York Times reported. 




Earlier in the day, Trump literally hijacked a US Coast Guard commencement service with classic Trump narcissism and defensive posturing. How very crass!  

The New York Times


WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn told President Trump’s transition team weeks before the inauguration that he was under federal investigation for secretly working as a paid lobbyist for Turkey during the campaign, according to two people familiar with the case.
Despite this warning, which came about a month after the Justice Department notified Mr. Flynn of the inquiry, Mr. Trump made Mr. Flynn his national security adviser. The job gave Mr. Flynn access to the president and nearly every secret held by American intelligence agencies.
Mr. Flynn’s disclosure, on Jan. 4, was first made to the transition team’s chief lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, who is now the White House counsel. That conversation, and another one two days later between Mr. Flynn’s lawyer and transition lawyers, shows that the Trump team knew about the investigation of Mr. Flynn far earlier than has been previously reported.
Read more linked above

Though somewhat unrelated, I cannot help but involved a few items related to Trumpism. First, Jake Tapper's on-camera retort toTrumps silly whine of yesterday. One item is from the former President of Mexico; the other item is from the nation's number one Trump radio and TV mouthpiece Sean (fake video) Hannity.

CNN's Jake Tapper offered a pretty good response to Trump's childish whining.




He whined like a sleepy toddler upset about dropping his pacifier from his won mouth.

Lying Hannity


Vincente Fox
The Trump reality show is providing far more entertainment for his sycophant supporters than they could have imagined.

StumbleUpon

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The CNN Host and The Trump Presstitute

We start with a basic example of deductive reasoning (AKA Syllogism). We are aware you know the basics of the syllogism, but allow me to refresh, remind or inform (if necessary).


syl·lo·gism
ˈsiləˌjizəm/
noun
  1. an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
    • deductive reasoning as distinct from induction.

      "logic is rules or syllogism"

Now, to the main point of the post. Yes, Donald Trump and his "presstitutes" are the central focus of this piece. The syllogism:


Donald Trump lies 90% of the time
Chronic liars are more comfortable around liars
Thus Trump would have lying as a central trait of any hired"presstitute"


Logic dictates the chronic liar would have to employ like liars if for no other reason but to cover his or her lies. Also, recognize the chronic liar is more comfortable around people who understand his/her need to first in terms of the lie. We cold refer to it as a form of "I'm OK, You're OK" among comrade chronic liars?

While Reince Priebus, Trump's White House Chief of Staff, and Spicer, Trump's Press Secretary, fulfill his wishes, as well as anyone, could imagine, think about the life and lies of his chief public on-camera presstitute: Kelly Anne Conway.




Watch as CNN's Jake Tapper twisted Conway into a bundle of rambling gibberish.

The New York Times and a You Tube CNN video segment.



How about a quick piece on how her boss is dealing with US broadcast? No, this is not normal.  What follows seems to be cut right from the annuls of international fascism.

StumbleUpon

Friday, July 31, 2015

The New York Times Scandal, US Congressman, And An Email Scandal



When the false prophet performs a case of clairvoyance new professionals should pay attention.

O'Reilly laments that the standards of journalism


Deprecation without self-reflection and who would have thought prophetic regarding the New York Times. ''


Hillary Clinton Was Asked About Email 2 Years Ago - The ... www.nytimes.com/.../hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-...Apr 14, 2015  The New York Times 
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept ...www.nytimes.com/.../hillary-clintons-use-of-privat...March 2, 2105 The New York Times
Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton's Use of Email - The New...www.nytimes.com/.../criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hi... July 23, 2015 The New York Times



Embed in the July 23rd piece we find a clip of Clinton's position of email requests with reference committee Co-chair, Cummings, comments of reporting inaccuracies regarding what the GOP hopes is a nomination killing scandal.

Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to new accusations involving the private email account she used when she was secretary of state. Watch in Times Video »
Days later and on consecutive days, the Times posted corrections to the July 23 article. The corrections clearly point to the Time's failure in verifying information it received from what is being referred to as anonymous sources.   (Linked: to comply with NYT copyright notices, also linked : July 23, 2015 above)
Now let's go back to March 2015 and watch MSNBC's morning conservative crew attempt to corner David Brock, Media Matters founder, regarding the New York Times "story." Arch conservative Bob Woodward, even attempted to label the story "a good story."

After Brzezinski stated. "I am not sure what planet I am one," the interview came to a fairly non-productive end. But the segment was not broadcast for issues resolution talk. It was broadcast to do exactly what it accomplished, feeding the minds and psyches of MSNBC morning conservative viewers.

Brzezinski should probably seek more often to determine what planet "she is on."

The Independent Journal finished their online report as follows.
Brock said The New York Times was hoodwinked by the ‘dying’ Benghazi scandal, and that Congress wanted a ‘fishing expedition’ into Mrs. Clinton’s email:
“The New York Times got snookered by the Benghazi folks.”
Now jump forward to July 23rd and the current revelations of New York Times reporting as flawed and inaccurate. Why would an alleged storied print publication fail in its chartered mission to provide news and related information tot he public?  

Media Matters

Vox's Jonathan Allen Implicates Trey Gowdy In The NY Times Botched Clinton Emails Story

››› NICHOLAS ROGERS
Vox's Jonathan Allen suggested that House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy knew about the request to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton's email practices "at least a day" before The New York Times published its botched story relying on anonymous sources that "had it wrong" according to "a top-ranking editor directly involved" with the report.
On July 23, the Times published a report headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email" which stated that "[t]wo inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state." The Times has since issued two corrections, acknowledging that the referral in question was not criminal and did not specifically request an investigation into Clinton herself. They have yet to correct the piece's remaining error to indicate that the referral was actually made by only one inspector general.
Read more 


While March Morning Joe segment and the eventually revelations about the New York Times being "snookered", appears as very different issues, we do not feel as such and we find the continuing efforts to derail Hillary Clinton's candidacy a typical GOP operative issues replete with potential leaks from "high government" officials who happen to be Republican.

Two final points. The issue of Clinton's use of a private emails server isn't an issue we will stand tall and argue in defense, as we feel she should not have maintained the serve at her home. We admit to reticence regarding Clinton's decision to store information outside of government computer systems. However, we note White House systems have recently suffered Russian hacks as well as a year long Chinese intrusion via the  into  OPM computer systems. Are US government computers systems actually more secure the the serve Clinton used?  We have no evidence it was hacked or violated via international adversaries. 

The last point. We hope someone will offer Mika Brzezinski an opportunity to "phone home" from that planet on which see seems to inhabit.


StumbleUpon

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Obama 2016 Budget Vs. Republican Budget



Embedded image permalink 


In 2011, as John Boehner and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, perpetrated their contributions to anti-Obama obstruction the commonly referred to "Grand Bargain" occupied the news comparable to far too often pictures of Kim Kardashian. The "Grand Bargain" negotiations served no real purpose and factually led to Standard & Poor's lowering the US Long-Tern Credit rating from Triple AA to doble AA. The credit rating remains same which is a testament to longstanding perception by S&P as follows.


  • We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
  • We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from Credit Watch negative.
  • The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
  • More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
  • Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
  • The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

After the "Grand Bargain" fell apart (and mere days before the credit rating was lowered for the first tie in US History), Boehner remarked: "I got 98% of what I wanted."


Political obstruction coupled with blind subservience to dark money brokers, yields incompetent-money directed elected stooges who work against the good of the people. If you find my posit a bit off the mark, set your eye on the latest congressional budget from Boehner's House of Representatives. 

The 2016 House Budget is the unquestionable proof of GOP maximum devotion to governance "not of the people." It has been decades since the GOP controlled both Houses of the US Congress. A budget is a budget; not a proposal that involves passing a law. The fiscal exercise is critical to federal governance as it sets fiscal priorities while providing insight into the soul of the the Executive and Legislative Branches of government.

The Republican Budgets read as gifts to the nations Top 20% (ers) and US corporatists.


The White House Budget includes additional spending, but it excludes Social Security vouchers, it excludes cuts to Medicare and it excludes deep cuts to Food Stamp programs. We must not forget food stamp programs predominantly feed children. On a secondary basis the programs benefit the elderly; on a tertiary basis the unemployed (short and long term).

The Washington Times offers a graphic that indicates the Budget proposals are not far apart. 

The Washington Times


The New York Times published a Budget to Budget comparison that includes the Senate Proposal (e.g. The Republican Proposal): linked here

Herewith is a snippet of the link, you may have chosen to ignore.
The president’s budget increases taxes, while the Republicans are calling for an overhaul of the tax code. 
The president wants to increase domestic and military spending, while Republicans want to cut spending. 
The president’s budget flattens out deficits, while Republicans want to eliminate them entirely. 
The president’s plan flattens out the nation’s debt, while the Republican plans cut it by a quarter.
The second item above is as craftily written as I hae seen in years. The Republicans are proposing heavy increases in military spending while cutting Human Services programs by the billions.


US media at its most facilitating........a picture that may be strategically unbalanced. What about issues important to Americans that seem to go unnoticed via the GOP. Or, should I say "seems to meet the Hand" from the GOP.  


In 2012 SLATE, published an easy to discern graphic that (in 2012) pinpointed public polling fiscal concern. As you view the two year old graphic, retain a couple of thoughts. First, can you envision the data points showing even more progressively since 2012. Next, consider of US corporatist data points would show on the graphic. 

Budget Puzzle Poll Results source https://survey-us.yougov.com/v3DF6MBsYWHBq8


Did you notice public sentiment regarding "Reducing Military Spending?"  

Now, consider the following meme and do a point by point look-up at the 2012 graphic. 




Image by Occupy Democrats.

Yet, the GOP goes about the business of governance for the few: cash customers! If you skipped the link nearest this sentence you may have missed corporate contribution to progressive candidates. However it is important to note, the DEMS are not cutting human services programs


Regardless of your affinity, or lack there of, for Al Sharpton, his (March 18, 2015) 9:45 minute segment is point on regarding the GOP Budget proposal. If you do not have time or a lack of interest in the full segment, the 1:16 minute mark through the 2:00 mark is fairly representative and relevant.
StumbleUpon

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Sunday News Shows: The Media Home Of The GOP And Conservative America


        
  

 

You and me already know the Sunday Morning news shows are the domain of the GOP and, or, conservative talking  heads. Have you ever noticed McCain and Boehner literally breakout in hives about comments from the Left on Sunday Morning? I recall McCain distinctly complaining with a twisted face full of contempt about alleged Benghazi lies (cover-up) on the "Sunday News shows." 

You might recall a Rachel Maddow segment in November 2013 with McCain in full blossom against the UN Ambassador Susan Rice's appearance on the "Sunday New Shows." Watch as Maddow completely delineates McCain's asininity and the fallacy of Meet The Press's slants towards conservative dogma. If you decide to skip through the segment consider start your viewing at the 2:37 minute mark.

For those who prefer the straight-out video.

When politicians exhibit more consternation with Rice's appearance on a Sunday news show than concern for the unemployed and the poor, you know the middle class is no longer a constituent. Yet, Republican politicians are not singularly responsible for the Sunday Morning news pollution. Network and cable news executives and producers are also responsible for your "Sunday morning exclusive GOP news" diet. As ratings gophers and ideology ministers they are responsible for nurturing anti-administration derangement while moving your social and political paradigm to the Right. In fact, new producers are as over-the-top with conservative dogma as they low-keyed seriously coverage of the Bush debacle. Or at least, low key until Bush and GOP policy took all international markets to the brink of a world-wide depression.

We heard scant concerns about anything Bush/Cheney political malfeasance on the Sunday news show.  Do you recall piston-like Sunday reports of the following:


How about your recall at hearing any Sunday news host discuss this reality until the Obama second term?


Basically, the Sunday producers leverage GOP mantra and talking points as a revenue stream. A steam that feeds billions USD to major shareholders and millions in compensation to the hosts who deliver our (Sunday news) poison.  Pew Research reported in 2010 Americans 18 and older get out news from television.

Is there any doubt why news producers stack shows with conservative fodder for insatiable appetites? 

This past Friday The New York Times, The Upshot ran a piece from Derek Willis with a reminder of the poli/social conservative slant of Sunday News shows.
Conservative members of the current Congress have appeared more often on the network talk shows than their liberal counterparts. Senators and representatives from the conservative end of the ideological spectrum have made 57 percent of the appearances, compared with 42 percent for liberals, according to an Upshot analysis of data collected by American University.
Facts are pesky things! All read well up to the last word of that sentences: "University." Willis keyboarded farther with what read like rationale for the major right lean to cable and network news guest appearances, especially on Sunday morning. His message is as clear as the adverbs and adjectives he chose to make his point: "...slightly lopsided distribution." I am comfortable in my opine that a 57-42 separation for 50% is a far cry from "slightly lopsided." The separation is 15 points, not a seven (7) point Right; eight (8) Left separation for 50 percent.
This slightly lopsided distribution is primarily the result of three Republican senators’ frequent visits to the network shows: John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. Because of the Republican Party’s control of the House during the past three years, its leaders and committee chairmen are presented with more opportunities to discuss the latest political news. 
Participants in the 2008 and 2012 presidential nominating contests also helped boost conservative representation: Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who was the G.O.P.‘s 2012 vice-presidential nominee, made 46 appearances between early January 2009 and Aug. 3 this year.
The behind the booking reality is stark, regardless of the "thoughtful" suggested explanation for the very lopsided separation. Let's think of the "stark" reality in the form of a question. "Why not offset with equal time to politicians or talking heads with counter views?" The reality of providing a "no cost" platform to the GOP is a disservice as it fails to remind how the GOP has failed to govern with concern for common.  

The heavily slanted bookings represents an irrefutable fact the GOP legislates and administers for constituents at the top layers of America's economic income distribution. Network and cable producers work just as you and me, at the bequest and orders of their bosses. The boss works at the direction of her/his executive directors who up the corporate hierarchy serve at the whims of the CEO. Ultimately, the corporate "rock star" CEO fulfills the mission handed down from Boards of Directors. 

The deliverable from all of the cycle above? Conservative dogma, reinforced on a weekly basis, eventually delivers  votes.  If you think the GOP isn't aware of the cycle, you might also still feel Saddam Hussein actually possessed WMD. 

If you have any doubt about the medias partnership with US conservationism, we will finish this piece like this.

meet-the-press-chuck-todd


Additional information: Media Matters


New York Times Analysis Finds Sunday News Shows Favor Conservative Guests

Report Underscores Ideological Imbalance On Sunday News Shows

StumbleUpon

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Lawrence O'Donnell And The Shame Of The New York Times. Also "I Will F_ _king Kill You."

The video segment below is a must view. If you read or view nothing beyond the Lawrence O'Donnell segment, that is your choice. If you fail to give O'Donnell a viewing you are enabling both bad police work and you will miss a classic example of "media by the authorities."  The articles referenced by O'Donnell isn't worthy of linking on the TPI. The level of unprofessional reporting and slanted "copy" would not pass the scrutiny of Journalism students at a Junior College in a town of 5,000. Yet editors at the New York Times passed the article on for publish and "salting" the minds of those who do not question US media. 

Bad Reporting via a Storied International Newspaper. 

http://on.msnbc.com/1sW3Mut

I could spend an hour writing in opine about the O'Donnell piece. There is little need to opine beyond what follows. When one of the world's most storied newspapers settles of diminutive reporting on the execution style killing of Mike Brown, you have to know the nation is in deep trouble.

I find it impossible to believe the wanton murder of a non-minority 18 year would receive the level of "almost apologetic" coverage as that delivered via the New York Times. 

UPDATE: Margaret Sullivan, NYT Public Editor's Journal, screeds on the New York Times "Fumble." Linked here
_______________________________

Act II of police gone bad! 

Mike Brown's spirit is showing the extent to which cops have no regard for decency inherent in people they are charged with corralling or herding about. 

Ray Albers 

'I Will F**king Kill You' 

                     
A little icing on the cop abuse cake!
Embedded image permalink
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

A Tea Party Media Operative and Performer Challenged Via Facts


Rick Santelli, open mouth yell the lies
One month after Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th President of the United States, Rick Santelli CBNC floor reporter on the Chicago Board of Trade, performed the Mother of conservative rants on the CBT trading floor. His performance was possibly the first visual manifestation of what was to come via the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity tea party movement.

If you have never seen the rant, spend five minutes or skip through the performance. 

 I have read headlines with a moniker of "Rant of the Year (2009)."  
The New York Times published a piece the day after the Santeilli rant. The piece included conservative support for the rant and comment from people who earn a living via media scrutiny and posit about our financial markets.
The New York Times, February 20, 2009
Yesterday Rick Santelli, who reports from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade the for CNBC, unleashed a rant against Obama’s newly announced housing bailout plan, intended to help some homeowners refinance mortgages and avoid foreclosure. The clip was quickly linked to and embedded in Web sites everywhere, and provoked intense reaction that pretty much broke along partisan lines.
Read more including the aforementioned comments

Santelli's rant was an awfully well crafted display of emotion against Obama Administration plan to assist people who were victims of the Bush sub-prime crash and the 2008 collapse of the US economy. Crooks and Liars editors must also have felt Santelli's 2009 rant was staged to provide impetus for the Koch tea party movement; linked here.

The well crafted visual,  replete with staged carnival barking, led to a movement that inspired high-end baby boomers to protest. Sales of the American flag surely quadrupled. Lawn chair sales sky-rocketed.  It is possible the mobile restroom company revenues went over the top to accommodate aging prostrates, bladders and urinary tracts.

NoTaxesNever before had America experienced protests from its high-end baby Boomers. It was a movement of movements for the early 21st Century and it was a major facade. "No Taxes" was the mantra; winning the US House and Senate was the underlying mission.

It was a movement that provided energy and inertia for conservative victories in the 2010 mid-term elections. The tea party capture and infestation of the US House of Representatives has become a major contributor to the current do nothing Congress, credit rating downgrades, government shutdowns and the (so-called) "Sequester." President Obama referred to the 2010 tea party victory as a "shellacking" for the Democrats. It was an existential "shellacking" for the nation, we simply had no idea at the time.

Apparently, Santelli embarked on another rant this week. Santell's target this week: Federal reserve policy. He was met head-on with a panel who placed credibility over rhetoric and performance.

Steve Liesman Destroys Rick Santelli 


A final question, because we need not comment beyond the video above.

Why do people on the Right (media in particular) to the person deploy wide-open mouth yelling and screaming when challenged or cornered? 
StumbleUpon