May 22, 2017

Reporters Falsely Claim Ivanka Trump Will Control World Bank Entrepreneurs Fund

When it comes to “news” which might discredit Donald Trump or a member of his family, the modus operandi for too many in the press is, “Tweet and report first, ask questions later (if at all).” On Sunday, several media members couldn’t resist falsely tweeting that Ivanka Trump will somehow control $100 million pledged by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to a World Bank fund for women entrepreneurs, thus dishonestly opening the door to utterly false parallels to the Clinton family-controlled Clinton Foundation.


One of the the Best Treatments of ‘The Russians Did It’ Fiasco …

… is at the left-wing site Counterpunch (HT Doug Ross).

To me, that’s not a surprise. Recall that in 2010, Counterpunch published a piece by Ron Wilkins, a professor at Cal State University. Wilkins, possibly at great personal and professional risk, in “The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod,” exposed Sherrod and her husband, the supposedly aggrieved representatives of black farmers poorly treated by the USDA during previous decades, as a couple who “exploited and abused” workers at their New Communities Inc. farming enterprise “during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s.”

Wilkins should know, because “I was one of those workers at NCI.”

It’s rare, but there are outlets on the left with a history and tradition of good and challenging work. Counterpunch is one of them.

As to its current story on the Russia-Wikileaks-Seth Rich situation, here is Mike Whitney’s opening:

Why is it a “conspiracy theory” to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?


Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?

That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News (DC) report, when– for the last 10 months– they’ve showed absolutely zero interest in Rich’s death at all?

Whitney proceeds to rip “the intelligence community,” the media, and the “behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals” to shreds.

Read the whole thing.

Analysis: True

Filed under: Business Moves — Tom @ 10:38 am


Elton John: MTV Era Produced Many Untalented Musicians

I would start naming them, but I don’t have all week. Oh, but their videos were (supposedly) cool. Blech.

And these untalented musicians produced a lot of mediocre music — which explains why so many people who weren’t even born then like the music of the mid-1960s, late-1960s and 1970s so much.

UPDATE: For comparative purposes —

The 1980s reads like the minor leagues compared to the 1970s.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (052217)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.

Positivity: RIP, Roger Ailes

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:55 am

Shepard Smith’s moving eulogy (HT Weasel Zippers):

CNN’s Berman Picks Wrong Data From Harvard Media Study to Falsely Taint Fox

Thursday morning, Harvard Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy issued a report which confirmed what the Media Research Center, the parent of NewsBusters, reported in April, namely that President Donald Trump “has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.” On Sunday, CNN’s John Berman tried to cast Fox News as a conservatively biased outlier — as opposed to the relatively fair and balanced entity it has actually been during the Trump administration’s early months — by selecting results of one tiny element of the Shorenstein report and presenting it as if it was the study’s comprehensive conclusion.