liberal media

STUDY: The CNN Search Engine — Google Search Results Overwhelmingly Favor Mainstream Media

According to data compiled by Northwestern University, Google search results overwhelmingly favor CNN compared to other news sources, followed by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Of the top 20 news sources promoted by Google in its “top stories”, the top results on its News Search feature, just one was somewhat right-wing, Fox News. But Fox accounted for just three percent of the stories that appeared in “top stories,” compared to 10.9 percent for CNN, 6.5 percent for the New York Times, and 5.6 percent for the Washington Post. Other mainstream or left-wing media sources which represented the top 20 sources include ABC, CBS, NPR, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, BBC, The Verge, Al Jazeera, Politico, and the LA Times. 86 percent of all results in Google’s “top stories” came from the top 20. Of those, all but the three percent of Fox results came from left-wing or establishment news sources. Even mainstream media sources with a reputation for a right-of-center editorial line, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post do not appear in the top 20.

Gee..  What a shocker.  Soo..  To be VERY clear..  If you Google anything, the top 20 results you’ll get will be links to sources from the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  And to think Dems in the House and in the Senate have actually been suggesting that “big tech” is in bed with Republicans.  This study more than suggests it’s just the exact opposite.  And, keep in mind, Northwester University near Chicago is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.  For more, click on the text above.

Opinion/Analysis: Rachel Maddow’s 17 Most Audacious and Paranoid Russia Hoax Lies

This list of Rachel Maddow’s most audacious, reckless, and dangerous lies surrounding the Russia Collusion Hoax was compiled by the Nation’s Aaron Maté. This is his work, his effort, and well worth your time if you want to understand just how recklessly Maddow deliberately misled her audience for two years and why her ratings have now collapsed by double digits. Because MSNBC is an openly left-wing news out, basically leftist talk radio with pictures, I don’t spend much energy critiquing it. If you are open about your biases and personal beliefs, go with God, let’s have a debate. The toxic poison in our media ecosystem comes from outlets like CNN, the Washington Post, NBC News, and the New York Times… Outlets that pose as objective when they are actually to the left of MSNBC. This Maddow thing, though, is something altogether different. Bias is fine — lying, deceiving, misleading, fear-mongering with fake news, and abusing your perch on a major cable news network is not okay. I’m a big fan of openly partisan news outlets, but who in their right mind would continue to watch or listen to someone who lied with such shameless abandon? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not the top guys on radio (and in Hannity’s case, the top guy on cable news) because they tell us what we want to hear. We trust them. They do not lie to us. And if they get something wrong (which is not very often), it is always a mistake made in good faith and it is always corrected. But as you will see below, Maddow did not just spend the last two years spreading serial lies and paranoia, she is now lying about her lying. For instance, even though we have the video to prove otherwise, a couple of weeks ago Maddow tried to gaslight her audience into believing she “refused to let myself think about” the compromising video tapes (that don’t exist) we were told Putin had of President Trump. Maté backs up each item on his list with devastating video … and I do mean devastating. Rachel Maddow makes Sen. Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin sound like Plato. Click here to continue…

Wow..  If you watch MSNBC, and especially Rachel Maddow, you really need to click on the above and watch these videos..  Rachel is total garbage.  No wonder her ratings are dropping by double digits.  People, even the most rabid anti-Trump liberals suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, are slowly realizing their trust in her reporting has been misplaced.

Racial bias claims hit Southern Poverty Law Center’s status as arbiter of hate

As the Southern Poverty Law Center implodes over accusations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment, its legion of critics wants answers and a swift burial of the embattled organization’s status as the nation’s judge and jury on hate. Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, took the lead with a letter to the Internal Revenue Service requesting an investigation into the tax-exempt status of the incongruously wealthy nonprofit group, which he blasted as a “racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation.” “I’ve long been troubled by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s activities, which are centered on serial defamation of its opponents, not on civil rights litigation, as its founding charter says,” Mr. Cotton told The Washington Times. “Obviously, the revelations that the Southern Poverty Law Center has engaged in systematic racial discrimination and sexual harassment at the highest levels is very troubling as well,” he said. “I think it bears on whether they should have tax-exempt status under our laws and benefit from the taxpayer subsidy.” In addition, 60 of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s favorite center-right targets called in an open letter Wednesday for the organization to release emails reportedly from fed-up staffers in a revolt that led to the toppling last month of the progressive monolith’s entrenched leadership. The letter also asked media outlets and corporations once again to quit relying uncritically on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate” designations…

It’s about time!  The SPLC has for decades been the go-to “expert” source for talking about “hate” in the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  For CNN, MSNBC, NPR/PBS, NBC and others, the SPLC has been the arbiter of who is a “hate group.”  And yet, all they are is an agenda-driven, extreme liberal advocacy group which targets center-right political groups, as well as Christian organizations….and calls them “hate groups”…while giving passes to liberal groups who truly are “hate groups” like CAIR and the New Black Panther party.  It’s about time someone held them to account.  Kudos to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) for his efforts.  For more, click on the text above.

Opinion: Gutfeld on MSNBC saying Trump is guilty of workplace violence

According to the hair-on-fire media out there chasing ambulances down Pennsylvania Avenue, there’s been a report of workplace violence in a large white residence. Commenting on President Trump firing officials at the Homeland Security Department, a guest on MSNBC said: “What we talked about was a possible analogy between what we’re seeing in the president and studies of violence and acting out, particularly workplace violence…. The question we have to ask ourselves, from a behavioral sense, is are we watching a president essentially on his way to what we call a flash point, and are we beginning to see him act out in the form of purging and mass firing and completely not listening to any logic? “Are we essentially watching a workplace violence incident play out at the highest level of our government, and is he acting out now, and where does this go if I’m right about that?” That might be the most insane thing ever said on MSNBC – and they employ Chris Matthews. You wonder why America thinks the media is less trustworthy than lawn darts? It’s because the media seriously entertain ideas like that. Firing someone is now workplace violence. Maybe it feels like that for nonskilled people in the media, who know they can’t be employed anywhere else, except maybe a carnival dunk tank. They never get fired, they only fail up the primetime lineup. Until they get jobs running CNN. Yet these are the same clowns who lied that President Trump called immigrants “animals,” when he was talking about the MS-13 criminal gang. How predictable: these goofs were more offended over calling killer thugs “animals” than by the acts by the gangs themselves. But that’s the media’s way of operating. Everything is a crisis, except the actual crisis. We’ve all had a friend who – when the booze ran out at a party – would drink from abandoned cups and polish off the Listerine. That’s the media. With the collusion keg empty, they’re now desperately looking for anything to numb the pain. So we’re back to President Trump’s personality. He’s mean! Unstable! When he doesn’t like a situation, he changes it! Did you hear? He fires people! I once worked for somebody like that. In fact, she fired me. But that’s what bosses do in the real world. The real world. The media should check it out sometime. It’s really the only show in town and they can’t stand it, because they wouldn’t last a minute.

Agreed..  You really can’t make this stuff up, folks.  I saw the video clips of these morons on MSNBC actually saying this.  Unreal..  The above was adapted from Greg Gutfeld’s monologue on “The Five” on April 9, 2019.

John Lott: Media exaggerate impact of US-Mexico border closure

Let’s hope that President Trump’s “one-year warning” issued to Mexico Thursday to halt the flood of illegal drugs and migrants entering the U.S. – or face a border closure and new tariffs – will influence Mexico to make some real changes. Unfortunately, the media’s continual exaggerations of the dangers of closing the border may give Mexico the idea that the U.S. lacks the willpower to carry through on the president’s threat. If Mexican leaders conclude Trump is bluffing, there will be little reason for them to change their behavior. Take the headline this week in the Washington Post, sternly warning: “U.S. would run out of avocados in 3 weeks if border is closed.” USA Today, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, and many other media outlets have run virtually identical headlines. The stories all paint a simple picture: we would soon have no avocados to eat unless we keep getting them from Mexico. After all, avocados can’t be stored for more than three weeks, and nearly 90 percent of our current imports come from Mexico. No more guacamole. No more avocado toast. The news media are hyping avocados the most because they think that will strike close to home with people. But despite the certainty of these news stories, avocados wouldn’t disappear even if the border was closed for months. The economics are straightforward. Mexico grows about 34 percent of the world’s avocados, and they account for almost half the exports. But other major producers include the Dominican Republic, Peru, Colombia and Chile. The United States imports fewer avocados than the European Union, Canada and Japan combined. If the U.S.-Mexico border is closed, avocados that would have shipped to these other countries would be shipped to the U.S., while the avocados that Mexico normally sends to the U.S. would now go to other countries. The price of avocados could go up a little, since it’s more costly to ship from South America. But we wouldn’t run out of avocados or any other foods. The U.S. imports about $26 billion in food from Mexico each year. That’s just a small fraction of the $1.62 trillion that Americans spent on food and beverages in 2017. The No. 1 food and beverage import from Mexico is beer, with a value of $3.3 billion annually. But plenty of substitutes are brewed in the U.S., which annually spends $35 billion on beer. There are places along the border with Mexico that would bear a disproportionate burden from a shutdown. But the news media are exaggerating the costs to the U.S. What about the costs of continuing to have a porous border through which illegal immigrants can cross? Take just the costs of education. The average per-pupil cost of public schooling (including the costs of facilities) is over $13,200 per year. Conservatively, approximately 540,000 school-age illegal immigrants (ages 5 to 17) live in the U.S., along with another 2.54 million U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Their schooling costs taxpayers at least $41 billion a year. That figure increases if these students go on to public colleges. President Trump is rightly concerned that a porous border is hazardous to national safety. The Crime Prevention Research Center, of which I am president, recently found that illegal immigrants in Arizona are at least 142 percent more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. These crimes tend to be more serious, and illegal immigrants are 45 percent more likely to be gang members than prison inmates who are American citizens. If illegal immigrants in the rest of the U.S. commit crimes at the same rate as illegal immigrants in Arizona, a nationwide population of 11.3 million illegal immigrants would mean an additional 1,647 murders each year. That means the murder count would be 11 percent higher than it otherwise would be. There would also be 8,900 more rapes, 20,000 more robberies, and 53,000 more aggravated assaults. Should President Trump eventually decide to close the border, his economic advisers want to keep the freight lanes open so commerce would continue unabated. If the president does so and closes the border to people, the economic costs of a shutdown would be much smaller. Still, it might not ever be necessary to close the border at all. The threat alone has already started moving Mexico in the right direction to stop the throngs of Central Americans who travel through the country up to the U.S. It is not obvious what Mexico stands to gain from Central Americans traveling to our country. After all, these aren’t Mexican citizens. The problem of illegal drugs is much more difficult to solve. Trade benefits both the United States and Mexico. There would be real costs from closing the border, but the news media’s dire predictions wouldn’t come true.

Of course they wouldn’t..  Thanks to John R. Lott, Jr. for that outstanding analysis, and calling the “fake news” media out for their ridiculous lies and exaggerations.  John is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including “More Guns, Less Crime.” His latest book is “The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on Twitter @johnrlottjr.

Joe Bastardi: Climate change agenda is being driven by hysteria, not facts

Throughout my 40 year career as a meteorologist, I have tried to live up to the responsibility I inherited from my predecessors. I was taught to strive for objective truth, irrespective of where the data would lead. Science is not a belief system based on feelings or subjective motives. It is about facts, evidence, theories and experimentation in search of a conclusion. The impassioned speech by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to Congress last week revealed volumes about the intent and commitment of those pushing the Green New Deal. I can’t help but question if their positions are based on facts. Ocasio-Cortez’s statements about adverse climate effects and policy proposals reflect a lack of knowledge about energy policy and the geopolitical and financial impacts of abandoning fossil fuels in a quick and reckless manner. “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she said earlier this year – a statement clearly designed to elicit panic but hardly based on fact. In this age of political hysteria, we must all educate ourselves on the facts – the actual science. Unfortunately, there seems to be a total lack of awareness about important issues that scientists like myself – who aren’t paid by research grants – are concerned about. Instead, climate science is being used as a political weapon, and the voices of scientists like me are being ignored or even vilified. I was under the impression that in the United States, all voices and arguments should be heard. Climate science is not settled science. If it was, why would there be a continuous flow of money to research it? For example, is AOC aware that in the fossil fuel era, in spite of a four-fold increase in population, deaths have plummeted? Or that personal GDP and life expectancy – true measurements of progress – have dramatically increased? Or that world prosperity is rising while poverty is falling? And does AOC know that in the geological history of the Earth, there is no apparent direct link between carbon dioxide and temperature? AOC is trying to capture the imagination of young people to exact a specific result – the adoption of policies that cripple our way of life and push us towards socialism. But the charts above are only a few examples of data that should cause us to pause and ask questions about the direction that the Green New Deal wants America to go in. We should also ask why there is such a hurry to get there. For every current event that is used to whip up hysteria, there has been a past event that was even worse, but that people either ignore or are ignorant about in the first place. Extreme weather has always occurred and will inevitably continue. If climate alarmists do not know about the many arguments that question the credibility of their ideas, how is it even possible for their ideas to be seriously considered? Much of what is being proposed in the Green New Deal should not only cause skepticism, but should be considered draconian and even geopolitically dangerous. The migration towards cleaner, alternative energy needs to be done in a methodical, sustainable and intelligent way, otherwise, the consequences could be far worse than anyone can imagine. Perhaps we should pause and consider why none of the global warming models from two decades ago have come to fruition. Perhaps we should slow down and think about the consequences of allowing our adversaries to supply the world with cheap energy, because one thing is for sure – wind farms and solar panels won’t get the job done. The objective reader should examine all sides of the climate debate and should ask himself: Are the consequences of acting hastily worse than not acting at all? I think many are skeptical of rushing forward. We must rein in the political hysteria and fear-mongering that is driving the climate change agenda.

Agreed!!  And well said, Joe.  Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting and the chief meteorologist at weatherbell.com. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others.”       🙂

Rachel Maddow’s ratings suffer after Mueller report determined no collusion

MSNBC’s biggest star, Rachel Maddow, has been flailing in viewership since Special Counsel Robert Mueller officially concluded his investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Maddow had seen a rating surge since President Trump took office, offering extensive coverage on the Russia investigation for the past two years. However, her viewership has taken a dive since Mueller handed his report to the Department of Justice last Friday. The report, according to a letter to Congress released on Sunday by Attorney General Bill Barr, concluded that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. “The Rachel Maddow Show” saw an average 13 percent decrease in viewership comparing her ratings Monday through Wednesday this week versus last week — Maddow lost nearly a whopping 500,000 viewers on Monday’s show following the release of Barr’s letter compared to her previous Monday show. She also saw a 15 percent decrease in the 25-52 demo audience. The MSNBC primetime lineup suffered as a whole this week, averaging 2.46 million viewers versus the 2.83 million from last week. President Trump took to Twitter on Thursday morning to mock MSNBC and CNN for their ratings struggle this week. “Wow, ratings for ‘Morning Joe,’ which were really bad in the first place, just ‘tanked’ with the release of the Mueller report. Likewise, other shows on MSNBC and CNN have gone down by as much as 50%. Just shows, Fake News never wins!” Trump tweeted. Meanwhile, Fox News Channel has seen a substantial ratings increase since the findings of the Mueller report were publicized. “Hannity” received over 4 million viewers on Monday, which was more than 1 million additional viewers than the previous Monday. Hannity has successfully held onto his momentum, earning 4.3 million viewers on Wednesday night, when he also received a 32 percent increase in the demo from last week. FNC’s other primetime hosts, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, have also benefited since the Mueller report was issued, averaging a 25 percent increase in viewership during primetime this week. They averaged 3.58 million viewers versus last week’s average of 2.72 million viewers.

One word…karma. Rachel Maddow, for over two years has been pounding the drum of Russia collusion with Trump. And, she’s done it with her self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, elitist, smarmy attitude. What’s ironic is she thinks she’s so smart, and yet she’s spectacularly stupid. And, people are starting to put 2+2 together and see her for who she is.