November links, including a bit of rioting

 These are non-election-related links. Not many of them, but the election didn't manage to wipe out everything.

Another shooting by police. Again my initial response is that victims largely caused the incident. But my opinion changed somewhat. Parents were having a quiet moment in their car, not breaking any laws, and the police interrupted them to ask or serve a warrant. Are there better way to handle warrants? How big a problem are warrants? I'm no longer assuming that warrants are synonymous with people of low-character. 

A great article about the New York Times. It's facing a dramatic generational shift from the boomers/GenX to the millenials. 

This is election-related, but outside of the main topic which the scramble over electoral votes. Saturday after the election (Nov. 7), street parties erupted as people decided Biden had won and they took to the streets to celebrate. A week later, Trump supporters organized a rally in Washington DC. It was supposed to be a Million MAGA March, but was tens of thousands. There were also counterprotesters, and the Proud Boys organized a showing of one or two hundred. The Proud Boys got their wish and had a few fist fights and skirmishes, but not that much. Antifa was possibly the aggressor of one incident, of fireworks used against an outdoors restaurant where Trump supporters were dining, though the fireworks were directed at empty tables. A video touted as showing violent Antifa against an old man showed only part of the story, neglecting where he attacked numerous people beforehand. 

Also election related. A Democrat has to distance himself from the socialists in the Democratic party. The level of socialism hurt a lot of Dems, but not Biden. 

Conspiracy theories. Some software research group has put together a tool and model, and it looks good. And let's just review Pizzagate in depth. 

Image: businessinsider.com

Update 10/17/2024. From Just Security, an assessment on how dangerous the Proud Boys are. 

A third case of conservative distortion: The Attorney General

Benjamin Wittes, who writes for Lawfare and lately also for The Atlantic, rakes Bill Barr (the new Attorney General) over the coals. Barr is the successor to Trump's previous punching bag, Jeff Sessions. Incidentally, maybe no cabinet officer received such shabby treatment as did Sessions.

Wittes' complaint is that Barr misrepresents what Mueller's meticulous investigation found. A more concise version is also available from the New York Times. Both are worth reading. The NYT version has direct comparison of Barr's statements versus what Mueller reported. It's quite scathing, even though the author doesn't call Barr a liar. The author does highlight phrases from Mueller, and shows how Barr distorted them. Barr did it so shamelessly that he comes out looking horrible.

Wittes' takedown is more complete, pointing out precisely the twists and turns in Barr's distortions. For example, Wittes shows how Barr claims there was no collusion, when in fact Mueller found evidence of interactions between Russia and Trump's campaign. How is that nothing? Because there wasn't enough evidence to make charges with confidence of a conviction.

The conservative site Washington Examiner methodically rips Barr apart. Or moreso, it rips apart the idea that Trump should be the judge of whether he is being investigated unfairly:

"No man, not even the president, should be allowed to adjudge his own case... The very notion of such power runs counter to the entire basis of America’s constitutionally limited government... "

That is a simple, elegant explanation. Even the president has to allow an investigation to go forth. It's not for him to declare his innocence and shut down the process.

McGahn, the White House counsel during much of the investigation, is quite a contrast to Barr. He would push back against Trump, refused to fire Mueller, gave 30 hours of testimony to Mueller if I remember correctly. He also consulted with his chief of staff, who made written notes of McGahn's meetings with Trump. It sounds as though Trump didn't want notes taken, which hampers clear instructions and the ability to review what's been decided. McGahn has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress. I certainly hope he does. I'd like to hear some of what Mueller's investigators heard, directly from the source. But McGahn may not be willing to discuss private and privileged conversations. 

Image: foxnews.com

Extras. Reviewing how the Congressional response when Mueller was appointed from three sources (one, two, three). More wrangling over the Mueller report, this time by the lawyers for Roger Stone. They are trying to say "No collusion, so there was no cover-up, and obviously no lying to Congress." But maybe there was lying to Congress, and maybe some cover-up, and perhaps a wisp of collusion.

Update 6/7/19. Another good article showing precisely what the lies are.

Two cases of conservative distortions

Double header!! First up is an article from WaPo detailing how Fox News distorted one news story from January 2018. The New York Times reported that Trump had told the White House counsel (McGahn) to have Mueller fired. The rumor that Trump wanted to fire him was going around like crazy, largely because Trump regularly fed the impression. Also Trump was known for firing people, including the head of the FBI, his chief of staff, communications director, and assorted others. Oh yes, he fired people on his reality show too.

But the NYT doesn't report the odd rumor, and it had details. Fox, however, exists in a separate universe and doesn't believe the stinking NYT, even though they have a much better track record for accuracy.

Trump claimed it was fake news. Hannity repeated that. Then Hannity had to back down as actual news operations at Fox confirmed the report. Then spin took over. Trump has the right... This was six months ago... Who cares anyway. Immigration is more important...

The Mueller report confirmed this, by the way. Eye roll for Fox News.

Fox News Spins DOJ Letters

Fox News, as the defender of the Almighty, Protector of the Faith, etc. had an article on an official letter from the White House counsel complaining about the Mueller report. This was perhaps counterprogramming against a letter from Mueller leaked on 4/30/19 where Mueller complains that summaries of his report are inaccurate so the summaries he wrote himself should be released. (They were leaked.)

The letter from the White House counsel complains that Mueller didn't draw conclusions, and he should have. However, the arguments there completely ignore what the rationale that Mueller plainly gave in his report, which was that DOJ policy didn't allow him to make an indictment against the president, so he was doing what he could legally and ethically do considering those restriction. Mueller cites OLC in the first page of Volume II, concerning obstruction of justice inquiries. The White House counsel just ignores that. Plus it veers into an addition Trump probably requested complaining about leaks and claiming Trump is the highest official in the country so blah blah blah he gets to decide everything within the executive branch -- as though conflict-of-interest doesn't happen.

This isn't exactly a legal clown car because there is some coherence. However, it doesn't touch on the most important points, so the goal of the letter seems to be to blow smoke. Sad.

... but it was true.

Image: thedailybeast.com

Lies, damned lies, and GOP lies

The Mueller report is finally out. As I wrote earlier, there weren't many surprises. Most of the information had been revealed either in the press or in indictments. As I noted, the MSM has been fairly accurate and good at self-correction, at least from what I've seen and how I've interpreted it. Maybe when I read hyperbolic speculation, I shake my head and move on, not remembering MSM declarations that Trump worked with Russia. My impression was that most reporters and most left-of-center folks were waiting for Mueller to sort it out. Of the regular commenters I knew on Bloomberg, only two were declaring that Trump had conspired. That leaves most of them not expressing that opinion.

The GOPers/conservatives were usually exaggerating what others said, and they were definitely still doing it as the report was released. They accused others of being WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, while failing to notice what others had actually said. Frankly, I don't know how often talking heads on CNN or MSNBC declared that Russia owned Trump. My guess would be that they hedged. I asked my sweetie, who is more left than me. My sweetie expected about 50% chance of a conspiracy where there was enough evidence to indict. So maybe I'm not in touch with those further left without being the looney left.

1. So the first GOP lie is that all of the left prejudged Trump as guilty and are now pretending that they didn't do this. <------- LIE

Another GOP lie is that the MSM hasn't been reporting the facts. In fact, the MSM has been out front on this. I recall the NYT reporting on the Trump Tower meeting. Reporting a bit, waiting for the Trump team to respond, which it did usually with a cover story replete with lies. Then the NYT would release a bit more, and finally it released the emails of Trump Jr. that showed what was going down.

Now I expect a certain amount of spin from the presidency, but a news org should be as honest as it can be (an idealistic hope). However, there is no comparison. The MSM was telling the truth here, and the administration was lying. This was repeated over and over. That's one reason why I wasn't surprised by the Mueller report - because I followed the news, mainly through online MSM sources, and they were very accurate.

2. The MSM spread FAKE NEWS about the investigation. <------- LIE

Should I move on to some of the crazier lies? Maybe so, and turn the rest of this post into a rant against the lies.

3. All the Russian contacts were entrapment attempts by the deep state FBI/CIA. Cue the search for rumors that each contact actually was aligned with the deep state, not the Russians.

4. The Steele dossier was believed by the left. (No, it was labeled from the very beginning as unverified in screaming letters.)

5. The left took over the CIA, NSA, FBI, State Department, and God knows what else.

6. They all conspired to create this Russian hoax and try to overthrow Trump.

7. The coup was orchestrated by Clinton, Obama and their minions all over government and the MSM.

7.1 Obama didn't do anything about the Russian hacking and interference while it was happening, and instead spied on Trump's campaign.

8. Clinton, Obama, et al are going to jail in a streak of rightful payback.

9. Mueller is part of the deep state and hired Cllinton lackeys to help with the frame job.

10. The Mueller report found there was NO COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION AND NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING by the Trump campaign.

11. The Dems are going to continue with the hoax because the coup attempt can't stop.

12. The real enemies of America are the Dems. Russians are preferable to them.

Image: twitter@Rob_Rogers

Extras. The FBI warned Trump about contacts with Russians. GOP liars deny this.

Update 4/23/19. I just found an example of GOP lies. Here's an article full of speculation, but it's not labeled as speculation. It's not attributed to unnamed sources (presumably vetted), which news organizations with ethics use. Instead, it's presented as ... um, fact? The big assumption in the article is that the woman Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was working for FusionGPS to entrap Trump campaign leaders. They also state (wrongly, if I'm not mistaken) that the Trump Tower meeting was used as evidence to secure a FISA warrant. I've looked at the redacted copy of the FISA warrant and didn't see anything about the Trump Tower meeting. I suspect that the author was making it up or repeated unsubstantiated rumors floating around Wingnutlandia.

Update 6/14/19. Trump had an interview with ABC news and he flat out lied about telling McGahn to fire Mueller. Read his lying words.

Trump administration in disarray - Not news

Trump got a double-whammy last week. A new book by Bob Woodward was leaked. It detailed many cases when Trump's advisers got fed up with his egotism and lack of focus on important national and international issues. Also, an adviser went to the New York Times with similar stories. The NYT allowed the person to write an anonymous editorial.

None of this is new. There have been leaks about Trump not understanding issues from the beginning of his presidency, when Pence (possibly) had to tell Trump that Mike Flynn was compromised and had to be fired. Trump seemed to think he could shut down the investigation into his campaign's connections to Russia, but found out he doesn't have the power to stop investigations.

So, really, it's not news that Trump is frequently at odds with his advisers. We don't need a recitation of the scores of episodes. Vox has a fascinating discussion about who leaked to Bob Woodward, based on clues from the book itself. His main sources are all former advisers with the exception of Linsday Graham, the senator.

It seemed likely that  Trump would blow a gasket over the twin strikes on his credibility. However, Trump actually handled it pretty well (except for his reaction in the first 24 hours). He took the stand that the NYT is steeped in fake news, and he's actually doing very well as president if you look at economics and policy initiatives like trade. He said that with seeming confidence, as though he was prepared with a strong defense that he found believable.

The motivation behind the anonymous NYT editorial is muddy. If you have to sneak around to stop Trump for doing stupid actions, why would you tell him and the entire country? Trump isn't strongly going after the leaker in his midst. No high profile lie detector tests. No one claiming to be the leaker, no one blowing the whistle on a fellow adviser. I think this leaker may not be identified. If so, he'll just be one of many leakers. Can't name them all, and definitely can't fire them all. Got to live with them.

Image: washingtontimes.com

Extras. Trump's advisers didn't know what White House counsel Don McGahn (a public employee, not a private lawyer) told Mueller in extensive interviews. Oh, more disarray. Surprised?

Late July links

Manafort's trial will bare Putin's methods. Excellent article that clarifies the issues and the importance of Manafort's trial. It will reveal how Putin buys influence. See it with Manafort and multiply by hundreds.

Russian trolls still active. Facebook uncovers some. Same sort of tricks. No, it's not a hoax perpetrated by the deep state. Details here--screen after screen after screen.

Russia timeline. I'm parking the link because I may want to look at this again. Seems fairly complete, but I didn't look all that closely.

Socialists in the Dems. What they want now and in the future. Their hopes for the future include an end to capitalism. Yep, they are communists and want to nationalize the oil companies. Maybe communists-lite. Like Venezuela.

Scary loners. A detailed look at online groups for men angry that they aren't getting laid. They blame women, blame society, blame other men, and fantasize about horrific actions. These men are called 'incels' for involuntary celibates. Portrait of a scare loner/mass shooter. The Las Vegas police released their report on their invetigation into the man who killed 58 people using his arsenal in a hotel room. This is good, readable summary. In his case, there weren't enough warning signs.

Yet another conspiracy group. Yawn. This one is called QAnon. I'm not going to waste my time on a summary, but again Dems are running pedophile rings.

How to assess Trump. Ignore him, ignore what he says. Look only at what gets done. I kind of agree with this. Trump is trying to capture attention, but it's pretty useless to look at what he says. So I agree. Ignore him. Stay educated about what he's saying, but put no stock in it. Ignore the distraction and home in on what actually happens. A good read, and solid advice... for now.

Journalist survives her tweets. A controversial hire by the New York Times won't be fired even though she lashed out at white people. Good. Context is important, and so is putting the matter into perspective.

Image: pinterest.com

Antifa and the MSM

I don't remember what month I first heard of Antifa, which is a loosely organized anti-fascist organization. I do remember how I heard of it. It was mentioned by some right-wing commenters. They implied Antifa were leftists, so I looked up what Antifa was. I thought it was probably some imaginary conspiracy group, like the elitist pedophile ring Hillary runs.

It turns out that Antifa isn't a figment of a nutjob's imagination. It's real, and my usual news sources (Google News with occasionally visits to American Conservative, National Review, Fox News, and Breitbart) had failed me.

I'm not sure why the MSM had barely reported on Antifa until August. It's not that Antifa didn't make appearances. They were involved in the Berkeley riots, and I was certainly aware of those. They were also involved in property destruction on Inauguration Day, and various other demonstrations.

However, the MSM wasn't mentioning that Antifa was a group, and wasn't emphasizing how protesters were violent and coordinated in dress and action. Was the MSM giving cover to Antifa? We probably won't find out unless reporters and/or editors talk about either their lack of knowledge or their suppression of information.

I've been able to confirm the lack of coverage by the MSM through a Google search. From December 2016 to March 2017, the top mentions of Antifa USA are by (in order): Al-Jazeera,  The Guardian, the BBC, The Nation, and Hot Press. In contrast, the top mentions of Antifa USA today are by: USA Today, Facebook, Wikipedia, CNN, The Daily Wire, and The Atlantic. It's definitely a failure by the MSM that the media sources of right-wingers are faster on the information than the MSM is.

It's not that Antifa was totally unknown in the MSM. Here's an article from the New York Times dated 2/2/17 that reports on Antifa. Yet Antifa wasn't referenced in this WaPo article. I recall arguments about whether the violent protesters were students or not, whether they were outsiders who took an opportunity to vandalize. News organizations didn't seem to know... or perhaps a few reporters did, but the information didn't percolate up to the top editor and anchors.

Right wing media perhaps wanted to pretend the violence was by typical leftists, not a violent fringe. Left wing media perhaps wanted to pretend that it wasn't an organized group of violent anti-fascist protesters. Nor were there organized, violent groups who tried to close down Trump rallies. Those anti-Trumpers were individuals who were concerned about Trump's rhetoric, not an organized violent fringe.

Now Antifa is too well known. The MSM still isn't investigating its ties with BLM organizations. They don't delve too far into their communist views, or how they fight violently even when confronting non-violent opponents, or how they're happy to destroy corporate property. Conservative media is pretending Soros, Antifa, and BLM are all one and all violent. Who can you trust? No one.

By the way, this may be the closest thing to the Antifa motto:

You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.

They do seem to emphasize the fighting. Let's enjoy some violence for a noble cause... or close enough.

Image: redspark.nu

Extras. According to this video, a lot of Antifa are sociology majors who want to be heroes but don't know much about fighting. That fits with what I've seen. Antifa disrupt a peaceful rally in Berkeley.

Punks everywhere

A few weeks ago, before Trump started his slide, he punked the national media by saying that he was going to make a statement about Obama's birth certificate. Media outlets gave him live coverage as he walked around his new Washington DC hotels and pointed out its wonderful features. Eventually he got to the statement where (naturally) he took credit for ended the controversy.

Then Trump was punked when someone sent three pages of his 1995 tax return to the New York Times, which revealed that Trump has nearly $1 billion loss and probably didn't have to pay federal income tax for 18 years (the moocher).

Then conservatives were punked when Julian Assange corrected their impression that he was going to provide an October surprise that would deeply wound Hillary. There actually was a release, which was a nothingburger ... unless you're under the impression that Hillary is usually extremely candid in all her speeches, avoiding all spin.

Then it was Trump's turn to be punked again, as his favorite journalist at the Washington Post received a video of Trump talking about going after women sexually, "Grab them by the pussy" may be the most famous words in this campaign. Trump had a very rocky weekend after that Friday news story. Even his VP choice, Mike Pence, announced that he was suspending his appearances.

However, NBC was also punked because they had copies of the video, but were letting the lawyers figure out how to handle it (according to the New York Times).

In lesser punk news, the Russian passed on some erroneous information supposedly showing Hillary ally Sidney Blumenthal did something that was just awful (if you're in the conservative media bubble) or inconsequential and hard to follow if you're a normal person. And though Donald didn't melt down during the second debate, he was still punked by Hillary who knows more and fabricates less than he does.

Not the only girl he touched

Image: thehollywoodgossip.com

Extras. Three options for the GOP after Trump loses. None are rosy. Report of some friction inside the Clinton foundation. Sounds like a soap opera. The Wall Street Journal complaining that Clinton has "no core" as though the core of Trump isn't a sewage pipe of epic proportions. Nothing new in their reporting, just as there's nothing unexpected in all the reports of Trump being a handsy lecher. Some conservative media is trying to make a lot about the internal comments about Catholicism being conservative and backward of gender relations (nothing new there either unless you are outraged that people have opinions). Politico on today's crop of charges of inappropriate touching by Trump--again no surprise. From Vox, a survey of conservative media.

Update 10/14/16. Via Sarah Posner, the NYT lawyer, in response of Trump's claim of being defamed, essentially says "You've made your own reputation as lecherous scum. There is no reputation to ruin."

Funny moments in liberal media bias

#1. Terry Gross vs. Bill O'Reilly

Terry Gross invites Bill O'Reilly onto to Fresh Air and, surprisingly, he accepts. She thinks that she's going to be able to pummel him with all these "tough" questions about his perhaps inflated claims of winning journalism awards.

So, she's going in for the kill, and he turns the tables so deftly. He asks her (inexact paraphase), "Is this how you treated Al Franken when he was on your show?" Awkward silence, followed by ums, followed by sheepish concession of the point. Too bad this incident isn't on YouTube for all media hawks to review.

How did Bill O'Reilly do this? Because he's aware of how media bias works. He's a master practitioner. He knows when he's doing it, why he's doing it, how he's doing it, how others do it. Terry Gross, she's blind to her own bias. That's how O'Reilly did it.

#2. Jon Stewart vs. Chris Wallace

Jon Stewart says on Chris Wallace's Fox News Show: "[The New York Times] bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's toward a liberal agenda."

Jon, it is sad for someone, who so exquisitely skewers blatant bias and foolishness, to give a pass to the New York Times. OK, half a pass. Most media in this country is lazy and sensational. That is so absurdly evident I won't even provide proof beyond one name --Lindsay Lohan. But it's also true that the NYT has a liberal bias.

Stewart conceded as much earlier in the interview: "I think they are to a certain extent... Do I think they are relentlessly activist? No." Most of Jon Stewart's criticism is right on target, but that was a miss. However, Chris Wallace had the worst of it when he had to eat crow for accidentally admitting that Fox News told "the other side of the story."  Overall score: Stewart: 80,000; Fox News 1.

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