Archive for the ‘mainstream media’ Category

The Final Nail in the Mainstream TV News Coffin: Fox News Ratings Plummet to 17 Year Low

May 26, 2017 1 comment

The only news channel, at least in the US, that still commands solid ratings is Fox News

The Final Nail in the Mainstream TV News Coffin: Fox News Ratings Plummet to 17 Year Low

The mainstream media has been fighting a losing battle against independent news outlets (AKA fake news) ever since the internet took hold in our society. Countless newspapers have filed for bankruptcy, and news channels have faced dwindling ratings.

The only news channel, at least in the US, that still commands solid ratings is Fox News. Unfortunately for Fox, the average age of their viewers is 68, which isn’t exactly a profitable age group for advertisers. And more importantly, that statistic suggests that the company’s viewership is literally dying out.

Still, Fox has been wiping the floor with every other news channel for years. Just a few months ago their ratings were better than CNN and MSNBC combined. Fox is without a doubt, the last bastion of successful mainstream news.

That’s not the case anymore. For the first time in 17 years, Fox’s ratings among a key demographic, fell behind both CNN and MSNBC.

For the week of May 15-19, Fox News averaged just 497,000 viewers in the advertiser-coveted key demo of adults 25-54 during primetime hours, compared to CNN’s 589,00 and MSNBC’s 611,000, according to the Hollywood Reporter, which cited data from ratings tracker Nielsen…

…Flagship shows such as CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show performed particularly well, while Fox has seemingly struggled with the loss of Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor, which had consistently led all cable news programs in the ratings for the better part of two decades. O’Reilly departed the network last month following a report that he had allegedly settled multiple claims of sexual harassment with high-dollar payouts.

If a juggernaut like Fox News is struggling, then you know the mainstream media is near death. It may not look like it, since CNN and MSNBC are making up for it with stronger ratings. However, those ratings are only being fueled by people who hate Trump. That’s not a very good business model because he’s not going to be around forever.

And in any case, the ratings for these channels are pretty intermittent. Liberals are tuning in when they think Trump is going to be impeached, and then dropping out when nothing comes of his controversies. So what little success these channels have now, doesn’t have any staying power.

The bottom line is this: The only mainstream news channel that was consistently successful has been knocked down, and it probably won’t be the last time this happens. Fox is now reaching the same popularity levels as CNN and MSNBC, which have been a ratings joke for years. These channels are now in a battle for survival, as they compete for dwindling ratings that are routinely dwarfed by internet cat videos. The establishment mouthpieces are officially on death’s door, and it’s only a matter of time before they become completely irrelevant.

Harvard Study: Mainstream Media Is 93 Percent Biased Against Trump

Harvard study reveals 93 percent of media is biased against President Trump

A major Harvard University study has revealed that the mainstream media in the United States is overwhelmingly biased against President Donald Trump.

Researchers at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy looked at news coverage from TV and print outlets during Trump’s first 100 days in office reports: They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

Mainstream Media Propaganda, from Khalidi Tape to ‘Nut Job’

Friday’s supposed “bombshell” stories follow the same pattern

Mainstream Media Propaganda, from Khalidi Tape to 'Nut Job'

The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Poststories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.

Friday’s supposed “bombshell” stories follow the same pattern. The Times reports that Trump told the visiting Russians that former FBI director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that firing him had eased “pressure” in his ability to conduct foreign policy — though the Times takes Trump to mean the legal pressure of the investigation. (That spin makes no sense: firing Comey created more pressure, which was so obvious the Russians joked about it.)

The Times describes its source as “a document summarizing the meeting” that was “circulated” (it does not say by whom). The Times does not have the document. An “American official” simply “read quotations” to the Times.

The Post‘s story, which reports that the probe into potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign has reached “someone close to the president,” cites “people familiar with the matter.” That does not prove the story is untrue, but the sources are so flimsy that there is no way to have confidence in what the Post calls its “revelation.”

Read more

Mainstream Media Banned From Reporting On German Court’s MMR Vaccine Ruling

Judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that the measles virus " does not exist."

Judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that the measles virus “does not exist.”

The shock ruling came after biologist and vaccine skeptic Dr. Stefan Lanka bet €100,000 that nobody could provide scientific proof that the measles virus is a real virus.

Mainstream media in the U.S. reported on the case, misinforming their audience that Dr. Lanka’s position had been proved wrong and he had been ordered to pay €100,000.

Considering the fact mainstream media in the U.S. is heavily bankrolled by Big Pharma, their rush to produce articles condemning Dr. Lanka as a “sloppy and disreputable publicity seeker” and a “crank” is par for the course.


As the LA Times gleefully reported:

The challenge was taken up by David Bardens, a German doctor who compiled evidence from medical journals proving the disease’s viral cause. When Lanka rejected the evidence, Bardens sued. Last week a German court found Bardens’ evidence persuasive and ordered Lanka to pay.

But the story didn’t end there. Dr. Lanka took the case to a highest court in Germany and the top judges in the country reviewed the case. Their verdict? There was no scientific evidence that proved the measles virus actually exists.

It turned out that the “proof” provided was a composite of several different electron microscope images. And the composite involved different components of damaged cells. The composite could not be duplicated. The German Federal Supreme Court confirmed that there was not enough evidence to prove the existence of the measles virus.

Did mainstream media update their audience with the new information that Dr. Lanka had been vindicated by the highest court in the land? Of course not. Big Pharma wouldn’t allow them to broadcast or publish that kind of inflammatory truth.

Writing about the landmark ruling, Dr Lanka explained his scientific position: “In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognized laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

“Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.”

Dr. Lanka also explained that his findings may explain why the measles vaccine causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other vaccinations.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

“Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

“In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.”

Liberal Hate? Times, CNN, and Fox News Sued for Racial Discrimination

April 29, 2017 Leave a comment

Source: New American

Perhaps it’s evidence of how liberals project their own behaviors onto others when leveling accusations. Or maybe it’s just nonsense. What’s for sure is that hard left-wing New York Times and CNN, along with more moderate Fox News, are being sued for it: racial discrimination.

CNN has raised the most hackles of the three, with up to 175 present and former employees interested in joining a class-action racial-discrimination suit against the network. The Times case was filed last year on behalf of two black female employees by New York attorney Douglas Wigdor. Wigdor, apparently a very busy man, is also representing a total of 13 employees in two separate lawsuits against Fox.

The Times suit alleges that CEO Mark Thompson created an office culture of “deplorable discrimination” based on race, sex, and age. The plaintiffs claim the paper favors young, white, single staffers over older black and female employees.

As the Guardian reported last year, “‘Unbeknownst to the world at large, not only does the Times have an ideal customer (young, white, wealthy), but also an ideal staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family) to draw that purported ideal customer,’ the lawsuit, which the women’s lawyer said could be extended to up to 50 similar alleged victims, states. ‘In furtherance of these discriminatory goals, the Times has created a workplace rife with disparities.’”

As for the lawsuit against CNN, it alleges that “the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” the New York Post informs.

The paper continues, “Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as ‘It’s hard to manage black people’ and ‘Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?’” according to two ex-workers.

The first Fox lawsuit is a “class-action complaint by 11 employees who accuse the network of ‘abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination.’ … The second was brought by black ex-payroll employees Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright. They say their boss, who eventually was fired, trafficked in ugly stereotypes, including implying that black men were ‘women beaters,’” the Post also tells us.

It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if the leftist Times and CNN were preaching but not practicing, a common “progressive” phenomenon illustrated well in “Don’t listen to the liberals — Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” Nor would it be a shock to learn the plaintiffs are paranoid, are opportunists, and/or are seeking revenge. Yet our response should regardless be the same.

Who cares?

This isn’t to say ugly discrimination isn’t just that or that it may not warrant remedial scorn and ostracism, only that we’ve forgotten a simple principle that, if adhered to, would eliminate all these expensive lawsuits: freedom of association.

It’s not hard to argue for and is as American as apple pie. Consider: We would agree that you can include in, or exclude from, your home whomever you wish for any reason you please, whether it because he’s male, black, white, thin, boring, a coffee drinker, or simply because you don’t like his face.

Why should you lose that right merely because you decide to erect a retail façade and sell food, cakes, flowers, or photographic or wedding-planning services?

It’s still your property, paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. To say that, somehow, you lose your rights because you want to use it to engage in commerce is tyrannical and a sort of economic blackmail: “If you want to earn a living, you have to accept rules based on Big Brother’s ideology.”

There is no sound moral argument against this, only a shallow legal one: Some judges decades ago rationalized that business are “public accommodations.” Of course, this doesn’t bring us all the way to Marxism’s abolition of private property, but it does blur the distinction between the public and private.

It’s a slippery slope, too. With freedom of association held in contempt today, we’ve not only seen American businesses forced to accommodate Islamic norms, but Christian businessmen persecuted — and sometimes put out of business — for refusing to service events (faux marriages) they find morally objectionable.

Moreover, through all the regulation, lawsuits, government fines, and billions poured into lawyers’ coffers, a simple question is seldom asked: Is all this tyrannical government intrusion worth it just to stop one percent of the population from engaging in unjust commercial-arena discrimination?

In reality, such private-sector trespasses are what private-sector remedies (e.g., market and social pressure) are for. An example is baseball, whose 1940s racial integration occurred completely absent government coercion.

Complicating this matter is that racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination is sometimes justifiable. As I wrote in 2015:

How is the government qualified to determine what constitutes unjust discrimination? One may say that the racial variety is an open-and-shut case, but is this really true? Consider that a German or West Indian restaurant might wish to hire, respectively, only white or only black waitstaff for the purposes of authenticity. Some might object, saying that the establishment should retain the first qualified person who comes along. But what constitutes qualifications?

I know of a female gynecologist who will only hire a woman assistant because she assumes this will make her exclusively female patients more comfortable. It’s also conceivable that daycare centers might prefer hiring women. And the top 10 female fashion models earned 10 times as much in 2013 as did their male counterparts. Unjust? The ignoring of qualifications?

Maybe not. A model’s qualifications involve far more than the ability to parade up and down a runway. The job actually involves attracting and pleasing a market. This is why being attractive, and not ugly, is a qualification. And given that women models obviously have a more lucrative market, it’s why “being female” is integral to maximizing modeling success. Likewise, if male staff members make customers less likely to frequent a gynecological office or daycare center, are they as “qualified” for that role as female staff?

Now, what of having waitstaff of the “wrong race” in a restaurant? If the reduction in authenticity diminishes business, isn’t being of the relevant race integral to the job qualifications?

And, of course, such judgments are often tolerated, as no one takes up the cudgels for men who might apply for jobs in daycare centers or gynecological offices. It’s only politically incorrect racial and sex discrimination that gets attention.

I don’t know if the Times’ alleged hiring standard (“young, white, unencumbered with a family”) has any basis in market realities. The paper would be better served if it just started reporting the truth. But this brings up another point: If it’s illegal to discriminate based on age and race, why is it legal (federally and in half the states) to discriminate based on marital status?

Because the government hasn’t ended “discrimination,” an impossible task since it simply means choosing one or some from among many (also known as “hiring”). It has merely decided what type of discrimination will be allowed, as it creates “protected classes” and, by extension, essentially “unprotected classes.”

In other words, it discriminates among discrimination.

The only good news in this story is that, after years of playing the race card and promoting political correctness, the New York Times and CNN are being hoisted on their own petards. What goes around comes around — and sometimes that’s a beautiful thing.

CNN Caught Wagging The Dog In Syria

April 15, 2017 Leave a comment

Once again CNN is exposed for lying to their audience

CNN has been caught lying to their audience so many times that we made a compilation of the most cringeworthy reports.

Top national news organizations increase security for employees

March 29, 2017 Leave a comment

— SCOOP: NEWSROOMS UP SECURITY — Some national news organizations have recently increased their security for employees as tensions continue to run hot toward the media. In recent months, the Washington Post has increased security at its downtown D.C. HQ, with both more security at the door and more security guards walking around the newsroom during the day. In the past few weeks, McClatchy Newspapers’ DC bureau has begun requiring employees to swipe their key cards to access their floor in their downtown D.C. building (which also houses the WSJ) — they also have locked the doors to get into the newsroom once people reach their floor, according to a source familiar with the building.

“We upgraded security from essentially nothing to something consistent with other news organizations in Washington. It wasn’t in response to a specific threat. It’s simply general acknowledgement of the environment in which we all work,” Kristin Roberts, executive editor of McClatchy Washington, told us. CNN, which had already ramped up security after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, has stepped up its security following an increasing number of threats against reporters and anchors, according to a source familiar with the network’s plans. WaPo and CNN declined to comment.

The security concerns haven’t just affected national news organizations. One general manager for a top Florida TV station told us that accusations of bias, some of which are threats, have increased tenfold since the election. To increase security, the manager last year ordered the building of a fence around their perimeter that didn’t exist before, has changed the station’s protocol for visitors and has prohibited drop-ins from unannounced visitors.

Local TV stations have always been targets for people like stalkers (especially of female anchors), conspiracy theorists and other disturbed individuals. But the top-20 Florida station’s television executive said there’s an “environment of hostility from anti-government groups and our government” has led to many more “accusations that TV stations are either carrying the water for the liberals, giving Trump too much press coverage or being part of a fake news apparatus.”

%d bloggers like this: