Media Defamation Monitor
The Lite Version of Fake News from the Daily News
Next Post

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


The Lite Version of Fake News from the Daily News


ALABAMA - April 4, 2019

American right-wing activist and co-founder of American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America Pamela Geller organized a rally on May 25, 2017 against the City University of New York (CUNY) which had invited Islamic activist Linda Sarsour to conduct a public conversation  (according to Pamela Geller, Sarsour is “pro-terror” and a “Jew-hater”).

The well-known American newspaper Daily News put out a false report on the rally, calling the clash of two leftists with the audience a “wild brawl” and published an image of two women protesters, calling them “alt-right forces.” We note that they were, in fact, a Jew and an Egyptian who do not share common views. In particular, the Daily News reported that one girl was beaten up by thugs chanting, “Make America Great Again.” Perhaps she was merely traumatized by the words.

“A raucous rally against CUNY’s School of Public Health’s commencement speaker ended in violence Thursday when demonstrators clashed with counter-protesters.

“The scuffle broke out after an unlikely band of protesters — including conservative provocateur Pam Geller, Assemblyman Dov Hikind and alt-right bad boy Milo Yiannopoulos — blasted CUNY’s decision to select civil-rights activist Linda Sarsour.

“A small group of demonstrators chanting ‘Make America Great Again’ surrounded and roughed up 19-year-old counter-protester Heather Morris,” the article stated.

“They tried hitting me with their fists, their sticks, whatever they found,” Morris said after the fracas on E. 42nd St. at Second Ave.

According to official data, which Daily News apparently was not familiar with, the rally was a huge success, a triumph with hundreds turning out to protest the monstrous invitation to a monster. As it turns out, only two arrests were made, while the Daily News says otherwise.

“They’re a bunch of Nazis...They probably targeted me because I’m young and I’m brown, too.

No arrests were made.”

Another low for the New York Daily News was the dishonest claim that Trump called immigrants “animals.”

If we started with light news, then we’ll continue with a more serious dish, with Trump’s accusations of inhumanity against MS-13 gang members. Trump’s ongoing struggle against illegal immigrants causes a strong storm of emotions among certain sectors of the population and the media, which serves the influential elites who are also influential in the political life in the US and other countries.

Trump is still objectionable to many elites. And yet, who is this secret figure? Melissa Mackenzie, an American publisher of the American Spectator called to Admit It: Donald Trump Is Exceeding Your Expectations. Such a high-profile article was released in 2017 when the active confrontation between Trump, Democrats, and the highest elites began.

“If one believes the feverish Evan McMullin’s Twitter feed as God’s own truth, Donald Trump is Vlad Putin’s foot soldier and an evil, evil, EVIL man about to ruin the world, the country, and rend the fabric of nature itself. That may yet happen.

In the meantime, there are whispers in polite society that President Donald J. Trump is doing decently. This acknowledgement is usually coupled with a mystified shoulder shrug and multiple caveats and stipulations,” the article stated.

Is it possible that the so-called polite society began to get lost in conjecture about who Trump is and why he is so famous? Yes, it is. It is clear why Trump was chosen by the same elites when they considered him tougher than Hillary Clinton in foreign policy as the fight against anyone who gets in the way of the United States and internal policy among the population and officials.

Washington, along with the main nest of global corporations, felt it was a good time to press in the outside all those who are still moving, including China. Not to mention the more rigid EU subordination. Not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. Trump himself, in fact, did not hide his rigidity, constantly talking about the need for further America strengthening, but for some reason, few people attached any importance to his words.

Only a few thought that in just a few years Trump would bypass even the elite who supported him in 2016. It’s hard to call Trump a strong president of the new times but he is clearly stronger than many previous ones.

A year later, we see gradual presidential oppression in the form of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign’s connections to Russia, or the active struggle of the two active Republican and Democrat Parties on many issues, including the notorious wall on the US-Mexico border. Many believe it is fake though we see that it dials an internal conflict before the upcoming 2020 elections. Trump has ceased to obey, and the elites need his full loyalty or resignation from the presidency, one way or another.

This, as we see it, is in addition to the total deepest political crisis, which is fraught with the possibility of plunging into the whole world crisis. The world is already familiar with this and knows that the internal problems of one country can affect destabilization everywhere. The current example is Trump’s politics and his fight between several clans.

What Do We See Now: a Course Change Or a Tactical Retreat?

Is President Trump ready to change his political course with a view to the next presidential election? Can a speech on the situation of the country add Donald Trump supporters? Is the American elite mistaken in the assessment of President Trump? Will the socialism threat become an effective tool of Donald Trump?

You can talk a lot about Trump’s speech to Congress on February 6 with a report on the situation in the country but one thing is clear, this time the President’s words were more influential than ever before.

The annual state of the union has long been a routine event. The president reports on what has been done and what will be done in an exceptionally solemn setting, but what is said is usually quickly forgotten. It is rare that the speech remains in the popular memory.

The president, who has turned public attacks on opponents into his trademark, who until now seemed to value victory over political opponents above all else, who did not like the word compromise, suddenly changed his policy tone. And not just this. Reporting on the success of his first two years, the main point being strong economic growth, increasing employment and the income growth of Americans, he offered Democrats to cooperate and even a few ideas that could be close to them, such as paid parental leave or a ten-year victory over AIDS, or funding for the fight against childhood cancer. The atmosphere during Trump's speech was also amazing.

It included the newly-elected legislators who won under anti-Trump slogans. The meeting with the president was new for some of them. Fearing that the determined newcomers would do something unexpected, the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi demanded that they keep within the bounds of congressional decency. The concern was in vain. These legislators jumped up from their seats with cheers and started hugging after Trump spoke about the progress made by women over the two years of his presidency. The president was hardly referring to the record number of women Democrats’ victories in the Congressional elections, yet the atmosphere when Democrats were welcoming Trump’s words, and he the Democrats, had little to do with the image of a hopelessly divided society.

The next day, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that Trump’s State of the Union changed history. Commentators close to the Democrats saw in the President's speech nothing but, by and large, demagoguery. But, according to polls, Americans met the speech well, giving it a 76% approval rating: 97% among Republicans, more than 80% among independents, and more than 30% among Democrats.

“This speech was designed to move toward unity and bipartisanship — and 56 percent of the viewers thought it will ‘do more to unite the country’ … On immigration, speech watchers agreed with Trump by 72 percent to 28 percent. On American troops and the Middle East strategy, speech watchers were with Trump by 74 percent to 26 percent. An amazing 71 percent of the speech-watchers agreed with the president that there was a crisis on the southern border … When the president explained the upcoming second meeting with Kim Jong Un, 78 percent of the watchers thought it was a good idea. Even 43 percent of the Democrats liked the idea of the meeting,” a Fox News article concluded.

The question, however, coming from both the left and the right, is whether Trump really intends to change course in the middle of his first term, fearing a loss in the next election, a little more than a year and a half away.

The whole scheme of Donald Trump's victory, as we can imagine, is very similar to Brexit. On the eve of the 2016 summer referendum on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, everyone shouted that it was impossible, that opinion polls show in favor of united Europe supporters. The result was that the majority voted for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. The same model is now seen with Trump. And this suggests that we are not dealing with an accident, but with a rather cunning strategy in which the enemy is first taught to strike from the left, and then suddenly hits from the right and wins! However, you don’t win by a knockout, but on points, and with a slight advantage. However, the result is a victory either way.

There is a cross-section of four events here: the Crimean 2014-2015 events, the migration crisis in Europe, Brexit, and then, finally, Trump’s victory. This clearly works for a certain part of the world elite that doesn’t want financial globalization and doesn’t want the US to eat Western Europe. And America itself has a certain part of the ruling class that’s not seeking isolationism as such (which is impossible for such a world power anyways), but respite: The US has overreached and needs a respite.

The respite is for parts of both the American and world elite, whose interests, along with those of the white middle class, over which the waves of global financial progress are about to crash, coincided at this point, and the result was Trump’s victory.

This is the system we see now. Now Trump truly has an influential resource among not only elites or parties, but also the people. Even if Trump is opposed by a cluster of those who are not interested in that American banks and corporations will destroy Western Europe and will do with it the same that Western Europe did in the 1990s with Eastern Europe, and this is in solidarity with them and the Windsor (it’s no accident the British Queen advocated the withdrawal from the European Union), and many European aristocracy, especially the Guelph family (Guelph, unlike Ghibellines, always focused on the Pope) from southern Germany and Northern Italy, and the Vatican. They’re much better off with America minding its own business. As a result, there is a tactical Alliance between a certain part of the American establishment and part of the Western European elites.

Trump, at the head of the third cluster, in contradiction to the first two, confidently gains their favor and will head for a complete victory in the 2020 elections.

We have now roughly dealt with Trump’s position in big politics, so now back to how the media is gradually lobbying for the interests of their customers. There is no such media if not bloggers or so-called free journalists, who are free. There’s a simple explanation. If “independent media” means those outlets that don’t belong to the state or big business and always give balanced, multipolar points of view, then such media can only exist in a vacuum. Even if the media itself is somehow independent of big money, it still employs people whose opinions are always subjective and subject to influence. Umberto Eco’s seventh and the last “Numero Zero” novel colorfully shows how out of the traditional standard of three points of view on one event, the author can express one, the desired position.

There is another observation: The very principles that we usually put into the concept of “independent media” are outdated today, along with the classical canons of journalism. Today, no one needs dry weighed news — you won’t get much traffic with such content, and you won’t pull ahead of competitors. The audience is interested in opinions, explanations, personal experience — that is why columnism is so popular today.

The BBC and the Japanese NHK site are often cited as examples of independent media. Both of these giants exist on taxpayer money. They all have TV so they all have to pay. This money is collected with no small difficult. Haruki Murakami's novel 1Q84 calls the profession of collecting taxes for NHK one of the “most paradoxical and ungrateful in modern Japan.” At the same time, corporations of this scale simply cannot survive without long-term budget planning, without connections and insight in the highest power echelons ... So, of course, the BBC and NHK are closely linked to the state. It means a priori they become unfree.

And if there is no free media, there is no free society. The international non-governmental organization Reporters Without Borders published the results of another study, “Freedom in the World 2019,” which assessed the situation with freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in 180 countries around the world. According to the report, the freest media remains in Europe, in Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. The most unfavourable situation with freedom of speech and media is in Central Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The authors note also “in 2018, Freedom in the World recorded the 13th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. The reversal has spanned a variety of countries in every region, from long-standing democracies like the United States to consolidated authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. The overall losses are still shallow compared with the gains of the late 20th century, but the pattern is consistent and ominous. Democracy is in retreat.”

It’s difficult to say how objective the Reporters Without Borders data is, however, it is known to be based on several reports of non-governmental organizations like Freedom House and others. Not to say that their data is definitely 100% true, but they are the closest to the truth that no one government will say. They are based on a number of expert surveys and more or less objectively reflect information in these countries. The sequential number of the country more or less corresponds to the actual state of freedom of speech in this country. But you can’t take it literally. For example, if the United States, relatively speaking, moved from 33rd to 45th place, we cannot say there was some explosion of democracy. The same applies to Syria, if it moves from the last position to 9 from the end and will enter the final ten. Of course, there is some element of subjectivity here.

By the way, in general, it can fairly be said that this rating cannot be entirely true at least for the simple reason that the United States could not break away from Russia or at least Mexico. By the way, the UK is 23rd. It has overtaken the United States by as many as 10 points but as it is known, Western countries are not inferior to America, especially when it comes to freedom of speech and the media. The authors of the report don't think so. At the time, this position was confirmed by the Secretary General of the European Federation of Journalists Ricardo Gutierrez which annually investigates media freedom and also represents numerous violations in this area. He has repeatedly said that journalism as a profession is gradually dying but still editors are afraid to do anything to change the situation. They are in the shackles of their customers who lead including huge influential structures up to the whole governments.

Despite the criticism of such ratings, at first, it is definitely worth saying that the world is so different that it is not quite correct to directly compare an information-rich country with fairly advanced information technologies, such as China, for example, with Somalia, which is actually happening in this ranking. Although, if we talk about the level of freedom, then objectively China is really somewhere at the level of Somalia.

In fact, the main problem of many such countries is strict censorship and the same monstrous level of media dependent on states and corporations. The problem is the lack of pluralism at the federal level. The problem is the persecution of journalists. These four points remain the main ones in the overall bleak picture of the world.

Back to the media’s eternal accusations against Trump, it is not surprising that the medias act in such a framework. This is the norm in which modern man has to live. It is unlikely that any of us can change the situation. The problem is much deeper than it seems. The problem is not in some media that are forced to write what they write; the problem is in the overall governmental system. It is no secret that journalism was originally created to promote interests.

Author: USA Really