Posted tagged ‘Media and DNC’

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election

January 17, 2017

CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, January 17, 2017

(UPDATE: This post has been removed by the author and replaced with a different analysis of the poll. The replacement article now states that “A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters followed the controversy but 58 percent doubt that the hacking influenced the outcome of the election. [This posting was updated]”– DM)


 Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.


The Democratic establishment has been pushing hard on a new narrative that Hillary Clinton lost not because of her record negatives polling going back years on truthfulness or the desire of the voters for a non-establishment candidate or the baggage carried by Clinton into the election.  Rather, it was the hacking by the Russians with a bit of help from FBI Director James Comey, according to this universal spin.  The media has assisted to a degree by referring to the “Russian hacking of the election,” which is obviously not true.  The election was not hacked. No voting machines or tallies were hacked.  Emails were hacked and none of those emails appear to have been altered. They were real emails showing highly dishonest conduct by key players.  Despite the virtual mantra from Washington, voters are clearly not buying it.  A new CNN/ORC poll shows roughly 8 out of 10 voters do not believe that the hacking changed the outcome of the election.

The number included not just 72 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of independents but a surprising 84 percent of Democrats.

I have previously discussed the difficult sell that Democrats would have to make on the hacking spin.  As revealed by the intelligence report, the emails were not false or tampered with as claimed by Donna Brazile (who appears immune for media follow ups).  The Democrats are trying ton trigger outrage among citizens that the hacking revealed true and disturbing emails of lying and vicious dealing by insiders in Washington. It did not work during the campaign and is clearly not working now.  That does not mean that citizens are not concerned with Russian hacking. However, citizens have been hearing for years of our own hacking and surveillance of our allies, let alone opposing governments.  More importantly, (while ignored by the Democratic leadership at their own peril), voters were in an anti-establishment mood and many relished the fact that establishment figures were exposed like Brazile for things like feeding questions to the Clinton campaign.  Of course, there was clearly a selective release of such emails against Democrats and that is a valid objection. However, it takes a lot to get the public upset about being told how insiders lied to them or tried to rig the primary for Clinton.

What is interesting is the the Democrats are continuing this full-court press on the same hacking line despite the polls — a repeat of the strategies from the election.  There is no question that the hacking should focus all Americans on the vulnerability of our system and the constant threat from hostile powers like Russia.  Yet, the DNC was aware of that danger before the election and yet had a laughable security system.  In combination with Clinton’s reckless use of a personal server at Secretary of State, it shows a level of negligence and recklessness that was surprising given years of hacking cases.  Ironically, in the end, the emails showed the public that the establishment in Washington is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as they thought.  It was only the messenger not the message that came as a surprise.

The Trump Nail in the Media Coffin

December 22, 2016

The Trump Nail in the Media Coffin, Town HallVictor Davis Hanson, December 22, 2016


News outlets such as The New York Times and NBC have no more credibility than most websites or the National Enquirer.

Is it any surprise that we are witnessing the funeral for traditional journalism as we once knew it?


President-elect Donald Trump probably will not often communicate with the nation via traditional press conferences. Nor will Trump likely field many questions from New York/Washington journalists.

What we know as “the media” never imagined a Trump victory. It has become unhinged at the reality of a Trump presidency.

No wonder the fading establishment media is now distrusted by a majority of the public, according to Gallup — and becoming irrelevant even among progressives.

Once upon a time in the 1960s, all the iconic news anchors, from Walter Cronkite to David Brinkley, were liberal. But they at least hid their inherent biases behind a professional veneer that allowed them to filter stories through left-wing lenses without much pushback.

When Cronkite returned from Vietnam after the 1968 Tet Offensive and declared the war stalemated and unwinnable, no one dared to offer the dissenting viewpoint that Tet was actually a decisive American victory.

The mainstream-media narrative in 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald, the Castroite, communist assassin of President John F. Kennedy, was a product of right-wing Texas hatred was completely crazy — but largely unquestioned.

That old monopoly over the news, despite the advent of cable television and the internet, still lingered until 2016. Even in recent years, Ivy League journalism degrees and well-known media brand names seemed to suggest better reporting than what was offered by bloggers and websites.

Soft-spoken liberal hosts on public TV and radio superficially sounded more news-like than their gravelly-voiced populist counterparts on commercial radio and cable news.

Yet the thinning veneer of circumspection that had supposedly characterized the elite liberal successors to Cronkite and Brinkley was finally ripped off completely by a media meltdown over Trump.

Journalists such as Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times and Christiane Amanpour of CNN said that they could not — and should not — be neutral reporters, given their low opinion of Trump.

When the press is unashamedly slanted, even its benefactors want even more partiality — media heartthrob Barack Obama included.

In his last press conference as president, Obama attacked pet journalists for reporting on WikiLeaks’ release of John Podesta’s emails, supposedly at the expense of his own legacy and Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments.

The WikiLeaks trove certainly proved another disaster to the media — but only because it revealed that mainstream journalists conspired with the Clinton campaign.

CNN’s Donna Brazile leaked possible debate questions to Clinton. One op-ed columnist, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, even asked Clintonites for research to help him attack Trump.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush sent a story to the Clinton campaign team to be audited before publication. He begged to keep his collusion quiet and admitted that he had become a “hack” for such journalistic impropriety. Thrush may have been rewarded for his predictable left-wing bias, recently being hired by the New York Times as a White House correspondent.

Last week, New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman grotesquely suggested via Twitter that Trump might welcome another 9/11-like attack, given that such a human catastrophe supposedly helped win support for George W. Bush.

Recently, another Politico reporter, Julia Ioffe, used Twitter to relay a news story about the possibility that Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, would get an office at the White House. In her tweet, Joffe suggested that Trump was either having incestuous relations with his daughter or skirting nepotism laws.

Politico fired Ioffe — sort of. She had already announced that she was moving from Politico to the Atlantic.

Yet the Atlantic announced that it would not rescind her hire — suggesting that her political bias, despite the accompanying unprofessionalism and uncouthness, could almost be interpreted as a plus.

In today’s media, all of this progressive distortion serves as an insurance policy for lapses of personal integrity like those of Thrush and Joffe.

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams sermonized about the so-called “fake news” epidemic. Williams failed to remind us that he was removed as NBC’s evening news anchor for serving up all sorts of fake details about his supposedly brave trips abroad in search of edgy news stories.

After the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the co-hosts of the show “CNN Newsroom” collectively put up their hands in “hands up, don’t shoot” solidarity — echoing a narrative of police murder later proved to be completely false by a lengthy federal investigation.

Decades-long journalistic one-sidedness was apparently tolerable when there were no other news alternatives. Mainstream-media monopolies once were also highly profitable, and long-ago liberal news people were at least well-mannered.

All of those assumptions are no longer true. News outlets such as The New York Times and NBC have no more credibility than most websites or the National Enquirer.

Is it any surprise that we are witnessing the funeral for traditional journalism as we once knew it?

Even if the Russians Did Hack the Emails, So What?

December 21, 2016

Even if the Russians Did Hack the Emails, So What? American ThinkerSelwyn Duke, December 21, 2016

What was actually revealed by Wikileaks and what effect it had are being conflated with the matter of who revealed it, as if the messenger somehow changes the message.


“The Russians hacked the election!” say Democrats trying to discredit Donald Trump’s presidency. Of course, their statement is deceptive, referring only to the theory that the Russians provided Wikileaks with the campaign season’s revelatory Democrat emails.

Not surprisingly, the Fake (establishment) Media has embraced the theory, which is probably the best argument for its falsity. In addition, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange denies Russian involvement. So does Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who said “I’ve met the person who leaked them [the emails]” and that the individual is an “insider” representing Democrats angry over “the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Senator Bernie Sanders.” Moreover, both FBI director James Comey and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said there’s “no credible evidence” Russia influenced Nov. 8’s outcome, according to reporter Ed Klein. Yet whatever the truth, the more important matter is that the issue is being used as a distraction and a tool for disruption.

What was actually revealed by Wikileaks and what effect it had are being conflated with the matter of who revealed it, as if the messenger somehow changes the message. Consider an analogy: Imagine it came to light that a Capitol Hill restaurant’s kitchen was filthy and vermin-infested. Would the health department’s course of action be dictated by whether the information came from a disgruntled employee or an investigative reporter who illegally gained access to the kitchen? If the latter, would Washington Democrats still eat there?

As a reminder, the Wikileaks emails contained damning information showing direct collusion between the mainstream media and the Hillary Clinton campaign, including evidence that a CNN figure gave Clinton debate questions ahead of time, thus disadvantaging primary-season opponent Sanders. They contained other dirt on the Democrats as well. Is anyone but Clinton and her apologists upset these truths came to light?

Of course, our systems must be made safe from intrusion by foreign actors, but this gets at an important point: it will reflect better on the Democrats if the Wikileaks source is a leaker. After all, whose systems were supposedly hacked and under whose watch would it have occurred?

Answers: the Democrats’ systems and the Obama administration.

The New York Times recently ran a painfully long article about how “how Russian cyberpower invaded the U.S.,” calling it “The Perfect weapon.” But the piece mainly illustrates how Democrat and administration entities exhibited the perfect storm of incompetence. The Times writes of how its examination “based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.”

In contrast, there reportedly was also a hacking attempt by Russia on the Republicans. It apparently didn’t work, however, because they actually secured their systems.

So here’s the Democrat complaint, translated: “We were too incompetent to secure our systems — or react promptly to a perceived threat by a hostile foreign actor — and as a result damning truths about us were revealed. We’re such victims!”

Taking the above together with Hillary Clinton’s use of a “home brew” server to send classified emails, and that the FBI stated there appeared to be hacking attempts on it, a question is raised:

Were these people ever qualified to be at the nation’s helm, in charge of national security?

In the 1997 film Liar Liar, Jim Carrey plays a shyster lawyer who, after a birthday wish made by his son comes true, is suddenly incapable of telling a lie. Objecting to the opposing counsel’s argument in court but robbed of his verbal legerdemain, he responds to the judge’s question as to why he objected by saying, with the only argument he could honestly muster, “Because it’s devastating to my case!”


That is essentially the Democrats’ gripe regarding the quite true Wikileaks revelations. Objection overruled.

RIGHT ANGLE: “Like a F—ing Firing Squad!”

November 24, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: “Like a F—ing Firing Squad!” Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, November 23, 2016

Cartoons of the Day

July 30, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

chump change


finish the job


H/t Vermont Loon Watch



H/t Power Line





more change


feel the bern


hate crime


The Associated Press Plays the Race Card

July 27, 2016

The Associated Press Plays the Race Card, Power LineJOHN HINDERAKER, July 26, 2016

The Democrats’ campaign against Donald Trump consists mostly of branding him a bigot. Thus, they have sent out many emails like this one:

dnc race card

Stop bigotry! No details are necessary.

The Associated Press was once a straightforward, relatively nonpolitical news source, but those days are long gone. Now some of the most hard-core Democratic Party advocacy comes from the AP. Thus, it is no surprise that the AP is trying to advance the Democrats’ narrative that Trump is a bigot.

On July 22, the AP headlined: “Critics: Trump speech signals shift to coded race language.” This is an old trick–make a “news story” out of what critics say. The occasion was Trump’s convention acceptance speech. And, of course, talking about “coded” language allows reporters to impute to politicians things they never said, based on their enemies’ fantasies.

[S]ome observers say he’s turning to code words to gin up racial animosity and fear among America’s white voters.

Is that assertion true? The AP takes no responsibility, it is just what “some observers say.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for an article from the AP about the Democrats ginning up racial animosity and fear among African-Americans. That would actually make a good news story, but you won’t be seeing it any time soon.

Trump “didn’t get on stage and issue a bunch of racial epithets,” said Emory University political scientist Andra Gillespie, who watched his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. “We didn’t hear the N-word, and we didn’t hear other words that may offend many people. But just because he didn’t use racial slurs doesn’t mean he didn’t frame issues in a way that people in racial and ethnic groups find problematic.”

What does that mean? I have absolutely no idea. The AP didn’t inquire, and doesn’t tell us.

Ian Haney Lopez, author of “Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class,” went further, saying Trump’s speech surpassed even the coded racial language of Richard Nixon in 1968.

“Coded racial language” is big on the left, but note that so far, the AP hasn’t quoted a single word that Donald Trump actually said. Not one. The AP goes on in the same vein, quoting Trump’s far-left critics, but never citing any of Trump’s own words. Except for a stray phrase or two, like this:

Some have pointed out that Trump’s slogan “America First” was also the slogan of the America First Committee, an isolationist, anti-Semitic group whose primary goal was to keep the United States from joining Britain in the fight against Nazi Germany. The group opposed the acceptance of shiploads of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution.

Flawed messaging on Trump’s part? Perhaps. But these days, anti-Semitism exists almost exclusively in the Democratic Party, not the Republican. And however the phrase may have been used 80 years ago, today “America first” is a perfectly straightforward way of expressing the proposition that America’s government should put the interests of its own citizens ahead of all others–a proposition with which the Democratic Party will not argue, but neither will it agree.

There is much more along the same lines; read it for yourself if you like. The next day, July 23, the AP came out with another anti-Trump racial smear: “Energized white supremacists cheer Trump convention message.” It is more of the same: Trump doesn’t actually say anything about race, but we liberals will tell you what he really means.

They don’t like to be called white supremacists.

The well-dressed men who gathered in Cleveland’s Ritz-Carlton bar after Donald Trump’s speech accepting the Republican nomination for president prefer the term “Europeanists,” “alt-right,” or even “white nationalists.” They are also die-hard Trump supporters.

Sure. And tomorrow, the AP will run a story on how Communists and Socialists are cheering for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They won’t do that, of course, because fringe people are of interest only if they support Republicans. It’s just another day in the lives of liberal journalists who are devoted to advancing the interests of their party.

Leaked DNC email: Democrats delighted that news coverage exaggerated anti-Trump protest size

July 27, 2016

Leaked DNC email: Democrats delighted that news coverage exaggerated anti-Trump protest size, Sharyl, July 26, 2016

Last May, when Donald Trump met with House Speaker Paul Ryan at Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington D.C., anti-Trump protesters “swarmed” the area.

Well, maybe not so much. It turns out news reports at the time seem to have exaggerated the truth.

That’s one thing we learned from newly-leaked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. Democrats had tried to organize a much larger turnout but failed. They were surprised and delighted by reporters’ mischaracterizations of the event.

“Tv coverage of protest great” declared DNC communications official T.J. Helmstetter in an email to DNC National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 12, 2016.

“Shockingly good coverage despite abysmal turnout. CNN and MSNBC using prominently.”

Miranda responds: “Yes, but going forward, when our allies screw up and don’t deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it.. we don’t want to own a bad picture.”

“The Hill” published a story by a writer named Harper Neidig that made it sound like the area was crawling with Trump opponents and supporters. The story was accompanied by a photo showing four anti-Trump protesters holding signs.

“The Washington Post” published a story by a writer named Elise Tieback that also implied Trump’s presence had created unprecedented disruption, particularly by drawing a large group of protesters. She declared, “In each successive visit to the RNC, Trump is attracting bigger crowds, bigger protests, bigger media attention. Everyone crams into the small two-block area that surrounds the RNC building, many people just taking in the spectacle. Thursday’s meeting between Trump and Ryan (R-Wis.) was no exception.”

“Abysmal turnout” but “great” news coverage.

Read the DNC email

Below is a YouTube video that shows the size of the anti-Trump crowd compared to the collection of news media.