Media Defamation Monitor
Bloomberg's False Truth. Part 1
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: aboutmanchester.co.uk/PrtSc

Bloomberg's False Truth. Part 1

12616

WASHINGTON – March 12, 2019

As for Bloomberg, it's very simple. Every outlet in the world knows how to embellish. As we previously reported, Forbes and the Washington Post outright lie, while Bloomberg rather slightly embellishes.

On November 19, 2016, Bloomberg quoted a supposed Trump tweet that simply didn’t exist.

"I settled, the Trump University cheated more than 6,000 students with false promises of teaching them my real estate secrets," Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg editor Ros Krasny literally invented a tweet she attributed to the president-elect in an article discussing the Hamilton musical controversy, at which Vice President-Elect Mike Pence was booed.

Here's what Trump actually said:

In another case, Bloomberg misquoted the famous comic artist Scott Adams, throwing out parts and replacing them with ellipses. Note that Adams is also known for his pro-Trump position.

It was in March 2017 when a Bloomberg reporter turned to the artist for an interview about Trump, and in general about the artist’s life.

As Adams said, the reporter was immediately bitter towards him and the President, but he did not refuse.

"The reporter was open about being deeply frightened of Trump, believing him to be a racist, sexist, homophobic monster," Adams later wrote on his blog.

Here's the original article. Here is what Adams later wrote about this article (here is only part of the general text):

- The article and headline used my old phrasing “master wizard” instead of the updated “Master Persuader” that I used in 95% of my work. That was an intentional choice by the editor to create the KKK association in your mind, or at least to make it all seem silly.

- The headline suggests I am somehow, maybe, in favor of genocide. Obviously I’m not in favor of genocide, and the article later weakly explains that. But by then, the damage is done. Your brain is most influenced by what you read first, especially if it is in a headline.

- The headline says Trump hypnotized me. I would accept that as a hypothesis, but the article doesn’t address the point at all. The implication is that I’m a gullible nut-job, as opposed to one of the few people who predicted Trump’s win and provided lots of cognitive-science-backed reasons for the prediction.

- The article was initiated before the election and was originally intended for publication about then. But a funny thing happened that ruined everything for Bloomberg. Trump won, and in so doing, he made me look like less of a nut. My accurate predictions, against all odds, would have been the headline in any article that wasn’t designed to be hostile.

- The writer asked me what would happen for me personally if Trump won. I talked about the good and the bad of it. She picked only the following words to make me look like a douche bag: “If Trump gets elected, my profile will go through the roof, because I’m in a very small group of people who publicly said he would win in a landslide … ‘I’ll be very popular,’ he said, with satisfaction.”

“Notice the three dots before “I’ll be very popular.” That is your signal for a manufactured quote. They assembled it from bits of what I said and left out the context that would have rendered it un-douche-baggy.”

And so on. But what is most interesting in this, Adams further received a call from a third-party Bloomberg organization to conduct fact-checking on the questions in the interview. The list of issues that the artist later published in his blog was not discussed during the conversation with an organization representative.

Another important factor that hurt Adams after the interview was the use of bad photos of him by Bloomberg and other outlets.

Let's go on. Back to the Kavanaugh scandal, many outlets, including the Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, HuffPost, and finally Bloomberg published that United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley allegedly resigned because of Kavanaugh.

"On Tuesday, while seated with President Trump in the Oval Office, Haley announced she would be leaving her post at the end of the year. She added that she had no intention of challenging Trump for the presidency in 2020. She added that she would be campaigning for Trump re-election," the outlets wrote.

The information was confirmed only by "sources close to the White House." As we well understand, the source in the White House can be a journalist who came up with a good story or can be a left-wing representative who benefits from such news. But no journalist thought that the information could quickly come out.

By the way, Bloomberg explained its article saying, "No, we're just reporting it."

The idea that Haley would resign in some sort of feminist huff over Kavanaugh is preposterous. The allegations of sexual misconduct against the now-Supreme Court Justice were nearly 40 years old. What’s more, they were all debunked.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who is much more moderate and closely aligned with the feminist movement than Haley, voted to confirm him, as did four other female Senators.

As of now, there are no single women within the Republican establishment who believe Trump and the Senate put a man on the Supreme Court guilty of anything other than liking beer as a teenager.

Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the one Republican who voted against Kavanaugh, said he was a good man. Her issue was temperament, not lechery.

They actually think we are idiots, Americans wrote in response. And they right. What a great journalistic standard. And there is nothing surprising when the media makes reference to so-called "close sources in the White House" or even the President himself says it to them. To create an attractive agenda, the media has to lie and come up with something that never happened.

Absurdity in an academic package

Finally, a more global theme is climate change. Bloomberg repeatedly wrote various pieces where some said that climate change is healthy and others that people should give up meat in favor of improving the climate, and others that humans are the only ones who will remain on earth after global climate change.

One of the articles says if we want to preserve a livable climate on Earth, the way we eat is going to have to change. The rationale for this is a study led by Marco Springmann of Oxford University (and including Jessica Fanzo). According to the scientists, Bloomberg cites, "more than two-thirds of those food-related emissions come from meat production. Hence, their critical recommendation: Consumers, especially those living in certain high-income countries where meat is a significant part of the daily diet, are going to have cut back and adopt a more plant-based ‘flexitarian’ diet." The UN intergovernmental commission unconditionally supported the scientists’ position.

thedailybeast.com/PrtSc

The reasons you know — animals releasing more gases that create a greenhouse effect than anyone or anything else; volcanoes  that release one and a half times more apparently don't count. Thousands and millions of factories don't count also.

This is not surprising, especially in light of how actively scientists are now involved in this trend, proving the benefits of vegetarianism. It can be expected that in this case the conclusions are made in line with the approved ideological guidelines, such as: "Meat and dairy products are not the only candidates for exclusion from the menu of environmentally conscious citizens" (the authors also propose chocolate and coffee again because of "environmental awareness").

Instead, scientists offer their alternative option to replace meat — meat "from a test tube." Makes sense, doesn't it? What is worse: natural meat without additives or cultured organic products?

nplus1.ru/PrtSc

But here humanity is incredibly lucky, whereas all the same scientists have found that “with continuously high global meat consumption (25 kilograms per person per year — N+1), artificial meat first creates less warming, but this gap decreases over time, and in some scenarios, livestock creates a much smaller increase in temperature, since methane emissions, unlike carbon dioxide emissions, do not accumulate in the atmosphere (methane "lives" in the atmosphere for only about 12 years, the authors of the article specify).

We then modeled the decline in meat consumption and showed that although the peak emissions from livestock are higher, their impact is gradually reduced and stabilized, while carbon dioxide from the production of artificial meat is stored in the atmosphere and accumulates, and thus meat "from the tube" bypasses livestock again. We have concluded that artificial meat in itself is no better than animal husbandry in terms of climate.” It seems that artificial meat will not be the main product.

nplus1.ru/PrtSc

Another common way to influence climate change in the media is the child factor. The latest high-profile case says the girl Greta Thunberg started a "school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her. Classmates declined to join. Passersby expressed pity and bemusement at the sight of the then unknown 15-year-old sitting on the cobblestones with a hand-painted banner."

Eight months on, the picture could not be more different. The pigtailed teenager is feted across the world as a model of determination, inspiration and positive action. National presidents and corporate executives line up to be criticized by her, face to face. Her “skolstrejk för klimatet” (school strike for climate) banner has been translated into dozens of languages. And, most striking of all, the loner is now anything but alone.

One of the oldest and most well-known ways to influence a person is to put the problems of children or adolescents on display to increase the importance of a particular issue. This is why we often see the pain of war through pictures of children and why many so-called charities use children as an example of an unhappy life. It’s the same here. People are looking for good ratings from alleged child diversity from climate change. Hundreds and thousands of people have already supported this absurd project.

Author: USA Really