First of all, to report that I am continuing to have problems trying to post comments on the Internet, at least at some particular sites. This time it has been on the Rick Wells site. A number of his articles either won’t take posts from me or won’t post for me altogether. Something’s up…anyway, one that I failed to be able to post there:
from rickwells.us: ‘Dems Threaten - If Trump Tries To Stop Impeachment Coup, They’ll Impeach Him’ - Rick Wells - June 17/18
(The Dems in Congress are rallying around their boy in the Trump camp, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Rick concludes his comment with the call that “the duplicitous Deputy AG…should be given his walking papers now, along with Mueller”.)
(me - June 17-gone 18)
No more Mr. Nice Guy. It's war to the NWO gang; it needs to be war to us patriots too. Intelligent war on our part, of course. Not like the fiasco being mounted by those characters on the Left. Who are a shame to the former party of Jefferson and Jackson. Which are names that are foreign to these 'Democrat' characters these days. Those names having been replaced by those of Marx and Lenin in their lexicon.
And another example of the atrocious crap going on these post-Trumped days on the part of the Left. This one puts even the appalling example of ’selective vision’ employed by the court that upheld the unconstitutionality of Trump’s E.O. on a temporary hold on visas from terrorist-riddled countries to shame.* Here’s the story, from thedailysignal.com: ‘This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News’ - Merrie Spaeth - June 9; posted here on June 17:
“Fake news” has become a widespread accusation, but what does it actually mean?
Is it something that’s been invented out of whole cloth, like H.G. Wells’ planetary invaders?
Different definitions abound, but I submit that fake news, at its core, is reporting in which the journalist selectively chooses and ignores facts, and interprets or paraphrases those facts to reach an unwarranted conclusion that conveniently validates his own views.
It goes to the heart of how many reporters see their job these days.
Readers may have seen the recent “news” about a physical fracas on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives, which reported that Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi confronted a Democrat and engaged in aggressive verbal back-and-forth.
The report said the altercation came to a climax when Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head” to the “the Democrat he alleged was menacing,” in the words of the Dallas Morning News account.
For context, this was the last day of the legislative session, and a large and boisterous group of self-described illegal immigrants were holding signs that read, “Illegal and Here to Stay.”
It was in response to this protest that Rinaldi, according to the original report, said to the protesters he was calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement—prompting a physical tussle between Rinaldi and Rep. Poncho Nevarez and then the “bullet in your head” threat.
Media outlets around the country carried this report.
But what actually happened here, and which part was “fake”?
We now know that the demonstration, which was indeed loud and noisy, took place inside the Capitol building and spilled onto the floor of the Legislature, which is highly unusual and not allowed.
The “demonstrators”—or more accurately, the provocateurs—quickly outnumbered and overpowered the legislative security forces. That’s what caused Rinaldi to say, “I’m calling ICE.” (For the record, they never showed up.)
Protesters filed into the Texas Capitol chamber on May 29 to protest S.B. 4, which passed and now bans sanctuary cities in the state. (Photo: Sandra Dahdah/Zuma Press/Newscom)
Next, the alleged altercation.
Cellphone video, which appears to have been taken by multiple people and released in the aftermath of the fracas, shows the demonstrators pushing and shoving Rinaldi, who kept his arms to his chest or at his side.
The audio only reveals grunting and the typical sounds of a physical engagement, punctuated by semi-coherent cries of “stop that.”
In the immediate aftermath, Nevarez came up to Rinaldi, got in his face, and said, “When you leave, I’ll get you.” Within minutes, he again came up and said, “You have to leave sometime, and I know where your car is parked and I’ll get you.”
At that point, Rinaldi said something like, “I’m armed and I’ll defend myself.”
Rep. Jonathan Strickland, R-Bedford, was one of two representatives who personally witnessed this and confirmed it by email. Neither is a personal acquaintance, but it wouldn’t have been very difficult to confirm Rinaldi’s version of the story.
But what did the Dallas Morning News report?
Initially, it noted that Rinaldi did tell it that Nevarez did say he would “come get” him, with just “come get” in quotation marks.
It left out the much more provocative and threatening phrases, “You’ll have to leave sometime,” and “I know where your car is,” plus the fact that Nevarez approached him twice.
Moreover, this sentence was buried in the body of the text.
The allegation that Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” came from another Democratic representative, Justin Rodriguez, who admittedly “didn’t witness the initial altercation” and only later said he heard Rinaldi make the comment.
This allegation was also disputed by a number of representatives who were present.
Despite these discrepancies, the Dallas Morning News ran a bold headline quoting the inflammatory words: “’I’ll put a bullet in your head’: Fistfight nearly erupts on final day of contentious legislative session.”
It should be noted that “nearly” is not the same as “did,” and the word “fistfight” overshadows the qualifier “nearly” enough to obliterate it.
Later, Rinaldi issued a statement noting that Nevarez had approached and threatened him, and that he had responded to Nevarez saying he would “shoot him in self-defense.” That’s not exactly what Rinaldi remembers saying, but he let his public statement stand.
Several of Rinaldi’s staff members contacted the Dallas Morning News after the initial story was posted and asked it to change the headline, which they felt was incorrect and misleading.
According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the reporter replied, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it,” adding that because Rodriguez claimed Rinaldi had said it, this was sufficient to justify the headline. The headline remains online today.
In the hours and days that followed, dozens of media outlets picked up the “bullet in your head” quote. When the cellphone video came out, several publications did amend their stories to remove allegations that Rinaldi had assaulted Rodriguez or other representatives.
The conservative media, most notably Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, allotted six minutes to report the entire story, complete with video and images of the red-shirted demonstrators swarming the legislators on the floor. Cavuto carefully reviewed the timeline of who said what, and when.
Yet even this past weekend, the Dallas Morning News was still parsing the event and reporting that “Rinaldi acknowledged on his Facebook page that he told Democratic State Rep. Poncho Nevarez of Eagle Pass that he ‘would shoot him in self-defense.’”
There was no mention of Nevarez’s repeated threats (“You have to leave sometime.”).
In addition, the Dallas Morning News was still collecting expert quotes responding to its own description of what happened, rather than what really happened.
One quote was from Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson, who said, “In Asia, in places like South Korea and Taiwan, you do have lawmakers with their hands around each other’s throats and fisticuffs. But you don’t usually see that in American politics.”
But as noted above, there was no actual fighting.
Calling Out What’s Fake
This story is tainted by a number of errors.
First and foremost, the quotation, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” which came from a clearly partisan source, should have been verified and immediately corrected upon learning that it didn’t come from the mouth of Rinaldi.
Next, the original story downplayed or omitted a key part of the story—the initial threats from Nevarez. The comments from Rinaldi were provoked and came in response to aggression from Nevarez. While the Dallas Morning News did include a tweet from Rinaldi mentioning Nevarez’s behavior, there was no mention in the body of the piece about it.
Additionally, the report painted a far more benign picture of the scene on the floor of the Legislature that (sic) was accurate. The participants were clearly organized and aiming to provoke a physical response.
Finally, and most “fake” of all, the reporter defended the “bullet in your head” quote of Rinaldi by saying, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it.”
If that’s the standard for journalism today—saying something happened because there’s no proof it didn’t happen—we’ve truly entered the land of the news novella.
What’s the lesson here for ordinary citizens?
Years ago, Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progressive magazine, penned an article titled, “Knoll’s Law of Accuracy in Media.” In that piece, Knoll said: “Everything you read in the press is absolutely true. Except the rare event of which you have personal knowledge.”
That statement proved especially salient in this case, where diving deeper into the evidence makes all the difference.
The lesson for American news consumers is to be skeptical of what you read in all media and take the time to give the facts a second look.
And there’s an additional lesson: Urge journalists to employ a little more self-examination to make sure they don’t cherry-pick the “facts,” quotes, and experts that simply ratify their predetermined conclusions.
And when they do, we should call them on it.
* In that one, an ACLU lawyer actually admitted before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that Trump’s E.O. ban “could be constitutional” if it had been issued by Hillary! - and that Court sided with him on his perverted thinking!! The rationale being that Trump’s E.O. was unconstitutional based on off-the-cuff statements Trump made on the campaign trail (before he more clearly qualified such statements, as to ‘banning Muslims until’ better vetting procedures could be put in place). “As if the Constitution had a motives clause,” as an article in the current issue of TNA artfully describes the matter. (‘Hypocrisy - Thy Name Is Leftist’ - by Selwn Duke; TNA of June 19.)
‘But your honors, it’s not what is actually in the Executive Order that matters. Trump was thinking in an unconstitutional way while he was composing it.’
‘Oh. We see your argument. Well, okay - we’ll accept that.’
We are not amused.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that we are in the twilight stages of this nation. It means that the Left has become completely ideological, with a Saul Alinsky-type philosophy that the end justifies the means - any and all means. (‘Whatever It Takes…By Any Means Necessary’.) It means that we are being exposed to the Soviet Union-era equivalent tactic of ‘airbrushing’ - eliminating from the historical record the images of those Soviet Union leaders who fall afoul of the regime. It is 1984 writ large. And all of it is happening right here, on good ol’ American soil.
It’s an outrageous state of affairs.
I am disgusted with the media that has allowed this sort of crap to infect its once-hallowed grounds, of a free country's (necessary) free press reporting the news fairly and honestly, and leaving the opinions to the Op-Ed pages. I am disgusted with the philosophy that there are no absolutes, that all is relative, including how you report things - that the only thing that matters is getting your angle across. Your spin. Your ideological take on things. To further your (in this case totalitarian) cause.
I would have no compunctions in taking you down. You have allowed the likes of pedophilia to befoul and become epidemical in this country.
To hell with you.
What do I mean, precisely?
I mean that the public airwaves in this country are not going to be used to carry deceitful and disgusting material.
When we return to our roots.
Before we go
And start living in
the Real Thing.
Not the Illusion any longer.
Our kindergarten days over.
For those who can make the grade.