A bundle of important stories

Conservative media fabrication revealed. This should be so big. Fox News fell for a peddled fake story about (murdered) Seth Rich and Wikileaks. Now there's a suit, and the papers filed contain a wealth of evidence about how the lies got on the air. Update 8/2/18. The suit was dismissed by the judge for not being egregious enough--not rising to the necessary standard of 'intentional infliction of emotional distress.'

CNN skews its reporting. "Federal investigators ... seized on Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia as one of the most fertile avenues for moving their probe forward... The web of financial ties could offer a more concrete path toward potential prosecution than the broader and murkier questions of collusion..." This is supposed to be an investigation, not a fishing expedition bent on prosecution. CNN seems to have forgotten that.

Sessions skews his condemnation of leaks. Great story with analysis of a logical trick that Sessions uses. He probably does it knowingly.

Lies are the family business. Donald jr. lied about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. Well, lied at first and then told the truth. It turns out Donald sr. lied about it too. Is anyone surprised?

Stats about the cost of tax deduction. This is important hard information. What costs the government more: mortgage interest deduction, 401K's, or the earned income tax credit? It didn't know, and I was a bit surprised.

Trump the wimp. Putin is disrespecting America, and what is Donald doing about it? Why?

Image: thecoldplayer.deviantart.com

Another roundup of links

What to do about North Korea. This is very tricky, until you realize that the answer from history is obvious. Sometime last year I spent many hours listening to a podcast detailing the history of nuclear strategy. From that I learned that you don't go crazy and make a pre-emptive strike. You sit down and sanely wait things out. That's how the least number of people will die--hopefully none will die. A friend from South Korea was relieved to find an American who gets it. Here's a great article that explains most of the situation, and it only takes minutes to read. As someone who has spent hours and days reflecting, I endorse the article. As my friend says, a pre-emptive strike would mean the destruction of all of Korea. I vote for a waiting stance, and hoping no one fires the first missile.

Black Lives Matter. A good but painful article by Jamelle Bouie on the acquittal of a police officer who shot a black man. Bouie explains that there is fear, and fear will be considered a valid reason. Makes me wonder if there's any way out.

Meme goes viral and then the shit really hits the fan. Trump tweeted out a tasteless meme of himself beating up a CNN logo. A freelance journalist identified the original creator. The journalist is pelted with violent threats. There's pushback against CNN for threatening to out the creator and extorting an apology from him. (I'm sure about the ethics of CNN threatening to out him, but his apology reads like actual, honest, well-deserved contrition.) Finally, there is the Daily Stormer, laughing at the journalist and all the threats leveled at him. Basically, they act like threats are completely justified. That should be enough of this slimy underbelly of American culture.

Real assessment of fake news - retractions. Finally, a believable story of what CNN and other MSM have gotten wrong in the Russia megastory. It should come with a reminder of what they got right, like Flynn lying, Sessions lying, Russia hacking here, there, there, and there...

Voter fraud that looks for real. Here's a report on voter fraud in Virginia. Unfortunately, it's written for outrage instead of clarity. However, it looks like Virginia has had several thousand illegal votes in the past seven years, perhaps more.

How to punk Trump. This is a guide for Putin on how to fool our foolish president. I'm not overly worried because Donald doesn't stand by his promises, so any promises he foolishly makes to Putin won't matter.

Important ACA factoid. This is an important nugget. The medical risk profile of people in the individual market isn't getting worse. That means healthier people aren't being driven out--if this report is true. No death spiral yet. We will have to see how it pans out.

Image: speedwealthy.com

Media bias check using Powell email hack

So, here was a great opportunity for a quick check on media bias. Colin Powell's emails were leaked this afternoon. Who is reporting what? I did a quick survey of six sources.

1. Drudge Report. Just one link:

Colin Powell Urged Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal

2. Fox News. Just one link:

Powell warned Clinton not to make him fall guy over email scandal, leaked messages reveal

3. Breitbart. Two links:

Hacked Colin Powell Email: Bohemian Grove Attendees Will Vote Against Trump, Some Support Third Party Candidate

Colin Powell Mocks Clintons: Hillary ‘Greedy’ — Bill Home With ’Bimbos’ 

4. NPR. Just one link:

Powell: Trump A 'National Disgrace'; Clinton 'Screws Up' Everything 'With Hubris' 

5. ABC News. Just one link:

Colin Powell Is Not a Fan of Either Presidential Candidate, Hacked Emails Show

6. CNN. Two links:

Powell: Trump is 'an international pariah'

Colin Powell calls Benghazi a 'stupid witch hunt' in DCleaks emails 

So, three out of three conservative sources have skewed links. Two out of three MSM sources have balanced stories, and one is skewed. Which looks more biased, conservative media or MSM?

Image: wikiquote.org

Chamberlain capitulates to the mullahs

I was quite happy to hear that Iran, the US, and five other countries had come to a deal to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It seems like a win-win situation to me:

• Iran gets to move away from its prideful but destabilizing nuclear program.
• Nuclear worries are cooled.
• Iran gets to start trading again and get out of its spiraling poverty.

My biggest worry is that it could be a whitewash. Iran is eager for looser sanctions, but will it continue its program and give the world a nuclear surprise a la Pakistan or North Korea?

News Source - National Review

When I start my reading with National Review, I find out that this is the biggest mistake since blah, blah, blah, something with Hitler. Sorry, as everyone knows, it's the Munich accords with Hitler, which allowed Hitler to take over a large piece of Czechoslovakia.

Wow, if John Kerry and Obama, not to mention the other countries, have done a Munich-like agreement, why would they have big announcements? Maybe I should find out what's in this horrible agreement. So I google, and find this handy list of the provisions from CNN. It's too long to repeat, but it seems pretty good.

Iran's going to de-enrich its 20% enriched uranium and allow daily inspections. Most of the sanctions stay in place while the enforcer nations see if Iran fulfills its part of the bargain. As a carrot, there is some easing of sanctions. That sounds really good!!! ... as well it should because the list is taken from the White House press release.

Nonetheless, National Review is sorely lacking in its own list of what's wrong with the deal. In the list wars, the White House has won hands-down. That may not be a good way to judge, but the WH provided a damn good list and NRO provided article after article of warmed-over Hitler comparisons. Fourteen articles in all, and no list! Come on, tell me some solid reasons why this is a repeat of the accord that gave free rein to Hitler.

Evaluation Sorely Lacking

I didn't find a strong critique of the deal, so I'm left hoping that it's as good as it sounds. But it's not just me. One commenter reports that the Israeli stock market is soaring! WAY TO GO!!!!

What I didn't realize that the sanctions weren't meant to convince Iran to give up nuclear weapons programs. Instead, they were meant to collapse the Iranian government:

"Realists knew that the sanctions were good for only one purpose: to weaken the regime to the point where it would collapse or be overthrown."--National Review

Stupid me. Regime change was so good in Iraq and Afghanistan that we want it for the even more populous country of Iran. What a plan! That won't destabilize the mideast at all. No wonder the Israeli stock market is cheering.

[Apology: I didn't mean to turn this post into a rant. I honestly wanted to find out more about this agreement. Something in me got wound up by those 14 stories in NRO. I didn't get to chill out because among the Google top news for the US, the Iran story didn't even make an appearance.]

Image: jihadwatch.org

Extras. A more balanced piece in National Review. It reports that Iran's concessions will set its enrichment program back only a few months, with some checkable details. Fareed Zakaria tries to sort it out. George Will declares that Iran will get the bomb for sure now.

Some typical "Munich" rhetoric with an ironic kicker:

"There is not a good record, from Philip of Macedon to Hitler to Stalin in the 1940s to Carter and the Soviets in the 1970s to radical Islamists in the 1990s, of expecting authoritarians and thugs to listen to reason, cool their aggression, and appreciate democracies’ sober and judicious appeal to logic — once they sense in the West greater eagerness to announce new, rather than to enforce old, agreements."--National Review

But wait, didn't the Soviets do just that, cool their aggression, and change their ways without a massive war? Nah, it couldn't ever work that way again.

Image: youviewed.com

Post-election: The demographic surprise

The biggest surprise of the election was the demographics, with blacks and Latinos increasing their participation over the record turnout in the historic election of 2008.

According to conservative pundits, this wasn't supposed to happen. Well, too bad for those pundits and too bad for the GOP. Perhaps there is no surer way of increasing the vote of a group than trying to suppress it or vilify it. This is just desserts for those who passed voter ID laws or tried to change voting schedules to disadvantage Dem voting blocs.

The changes in demographics is the major issue conservatives will have to grapple with if they want electoral success in the Senate and the presidency (that is, beyond Congressional districts subject to gerrymandering). As I wrote earlier, some conservatives are doing a better job than others to start this work.

I actually wish them well because competition creates improvement in many areas, including political ideas. A Democratic party that can count on a huge proportion of minority votes is likely to be a corrupt or hackish party.

Here are some sources for demographic data: CNN, WaPo, and FoxNews.

Image: cnn.com

Extras. Is Fox News already trying to nudge conservatives into acceptance and strategic engagement with the new demographics? Beautiful graphical representations of demographics and electoral choices from the NYT. Brief, pointed discussion of demographics and get-out-the-vote in Ohio.

Last outpost of crazy: The Donald again

Is Donald Trump going off the deep end with his birther nonsense and yelling at Wolf Blitzer? No. Trump's territory has generally been the deep end, so this isn't new for him.

In my professional work, I've observed people "going off the deep end," or more specifically, spiraling into a manic episode. It doesn't look quite like this, as there is a definite change in behavior and increased feverishness. In my opinion, this is Donald being the self-important, grandiose Donald. Pay no attention.

Pinkish gray dude vs. orange dude

Photo: djbobbytrends.com

Funny quote of the day - Guess who again

"I assume it's because Murdoch at some point said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney.' "

"In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact." -- Newt Gingrich

Gingrich keeps pumping the hot air into his colossal bladder of an ego. He's the arbiter of media fairness, and weigher and final authority on factuality.

And, of course, it's not just him. It's Mr. and Mrs. American, him and Callista, the wife he should have had all along. Somehow I don't think her ego is as big as his. Otherwise, they couldn't fit in the same house, car, plane, or state.

After all this time, is he really shocked, SHOCKED! to discover that Fox News isn't fair and balanced? I can't stop snickering. What luscious just desserts.

Oops, the liberal media wasn't the only enemy.

Photo credit: deathandtaxesmag.com

Tribalism as a reflex

I've been following the Trayvon Martin case since it went national. I don't see it as primarily a racial issue, though it definitely has racial tones in it, and I can easily see why blacks are roused to demonstrate. Anyone could be roused, but the case is going to have particular resonance for people who feel targeted for suspicion.

The Beginning

If I remember correctly, the national coverage started on Monday, March 19. By Friday, it was the biggest national story. Demonstrations had been organized. Al Sharpton was down in Florida. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all commented on the case. In general, they each said it was a tragedy that should be investigated thoroughly. For the life of me, I can't see anything wrong or offensive or even partisan in such a sentiment. It seems logical to me--someone dead by gunshot, therefore a need to investigate how and why and to determine if there was a crime.

Getting Nasty

How did we go from that logical sentiment to the conservative media circling the wagons? I can try to trace all the steps: Gingrich criticizing Obama for noting that Trayvon and he were could have been family (read: were the same race without saying 'race' or 'black'); the stupid hoodie comments by Geraldo Rivera. But then the reaction on the outer right seemed to go crazy. (Note: I'm not even going to touch the comments on various blogs because people are always trying to outdo one another in outrageous statements.)

Some conservative blogs, including some within the conservative mainstream, started trying to portray Trayvon as a thug, which is hard to do when he'd never been arrested. In lieu of an arrest record, they used his posed gangsta photos, his suspensions from school, and the braggadocio on his twitter account.

In the meantime, CNN was reporting all the developments regardless of whether they tended to support Zimmerman or the Martin family. They reported the statement from the unnamed neighbor who saw Trayvon over Zimmerman on the grass. They reported about the demonstrations, they displayed the video of Zimmerman in the police station and the picture of Trayvon with the gangsta-style gold tooth ornament. The only information they didn't pass on were the hacked emails (many of which weren't authentic) and the tweets.

It's not clear to me why part of the conservative media went so negative on Trayvon Martin. It was known that he was unarmed, so why is it important to show Trayvon was a thug?

When You Don't Know Why

I don't have a logical answer to this, so I have to reach for an emotional reason. This story got a lot of traction, and it fits many points that Democrats/liberals/progressives make: there is racial profiling that hurts blacks, even resulting in death; police don't fully investigate the deaths of young black males; black males are presumed to be guilty of something; assailants, even when known, can get away scot-free with killing a young black male. A new concern is that Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law will result in even more deaths of young blacks that aren't investigated or prosecuted.

The story works so well for Democratic/liberal/progressive narrative that conservatives are left grasping at anything they can to lessen the impact of the story. Not all conservatives have felt this need. Many are treating this as largely a legal and police procedural matter where the state investigators and the courts will have to determine if Zimmerman was justified or not. These sane conservatives haven't felt the need to defeat the story.

The others, however, tried to shred the story, criticizing the media (of course, a favorite target), black spokesmen, Obama, Hispanic organizations (for not tribally supporting Zimmerman), the special investigator, and most cravenly, the dead boy.

Why is it so important to defeat the story rather than letting it play out? Is all news a zero-sum game, where the points your opponents can make should be blocked whenever possible, no matter how?

For some partisans, this is undoubtedly true. But why can't some, who have more responsibility because of their roles on news sites, let go of the competition and let the Democrats win those points? Instead, in their unwavering, single-minded tribalism, they try to smear whomever they can, and just end looking like the foul sewer floaters that they have become.

Battle lines

 Photo credit: cleftintherock.org

Extras.

• Measured response by HotAir, Morning Joe, Allen West.
• Examples of needless attacks: at Karen Finney, Daily Caller, more Daily Caller, wagist, Nice Deb, National Review, and Christian News.
• Perhaps the first national reporting of the incident and its significance.
• Critique of local coverage.
• Detailed CNN coverage.
• Minute-by-minute timeline, with contradictions and uncertainties.
• Detailed account of Trayvon's family's actions in the first two weeks afterward. 

Disclosure: I lived in New York at the time of the Tawana Brawley case. I haven't forgiven Sharpton, and there is no way I can be fair or neutral about him.

Updates. There are too many to mention. Click on the label "Trayvon Martin" to see more.

Funny moments in conservative media bias

This is Jon Stewart territory. Anyone who watches Fox News needs to watch Jon Stewart too. Only then can they see the bias so exposed. CNN watchers should check out Jon Stewart too. He does it better than I ever could.

The truth about media bias

Media bias is:
A)  a figment of the right's imagination.
B) everywhere but on Fox.
C) in the eye of the beholder.
D) everywhere.

I've been an observer of media bias for 20+ years. It started in the mid 80"s when a co-worker recommended Insight, a newsweekly put out by the Washington Times. I subscribed and noticed something odd-- their profiles of "interesting people" didn't fit the norm I was used to from the NYT magazine or New York magazine. I felt a vague difference, and reread the Insight profiles many times for clues. Finally, I realized what the difference was. NYT and New York did profiles of people who would be heroes to liberals. Insight did profiles of people who fit the conservative hero mold.

It's a big moment when you realize your perfect friend or hero or parent isn't perfect. It was a big moment for me to realize that the supposed objectivity of news was a whitewash. You could shade your reporting so easily by which stories you covered. You never had to be obvious like the communist propaganda we analyzed in 11th grade Civics class. In fact, that exercise was an anti-lesson, reducing the probability that I'd notice bias, instead of increasing awareness.

After this epiphany, I never read news in the same way. I always assume there's bias, and that objectivity is as impossible at completeness. You can never know or report everything, and you can never do it completely objectively. People don't think, write, communicate, or even read that way.

So what can you do as a journalist or as a reader? Give coverage to more opinions, seek many more viewpoints, read more widely. That's only the first step. You need to understand why a story is significant to one group or another, and what values that story reflects. Until you understand that, you haven't moved beyond your own biases.

Everyone should watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, network news, and TRY REALLY HARD to understand the message, not as a lie, but as a truth one believer is trying to impart to another believer. Start by thinking it could be true. If so, is there objective supporting evidence? What does it mean to a believer? And what values of the believer does it resonate with? If you can do this well, you can understand other viewpoints, and the world stops seeming quite so impenetrable, people stop being sheeple (or libtards or rethugs).

Luckily, it's just an exercise. You don't have to start believing everything, because a lot is tripe or blaming or demonization. But the exercise allows you to understand other opinions better, and understand other people  better. Hopefully, you'll be more respectful and more open to other ideas. And you'll know why you believe what you believe. That's powerful knowledge.

I stopped reading Insight magazine after a couple years. I realized that I admired many of the people they profiled, and I was more cynical of the the NYT/NY mag profiles. It was a very important step in my political evolution. Yours too, I hope.

Answer to the quiz question: Media bias is D) everywhere. It is often invisible to the reader or the writer, etc., but glaring to an opponent.

** If you like this post, be sure to read the Funny Moments in ___ Media Bias posts.

Bias in identifying bias

Image: mohammed-ali-ben-marcus.blogspot.com