Media Eating Their Own

 You want to talk about political cannibalism its happening.
The New York Times of all media put out a positive headline back on August 6 favoring President Trump in reference to the recent and extremely violent mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas.
 Well the left went absolutely nuts over it and as expected the NYT caved in and changed it.

A Times Headline About Trump Stoked Anger. A Top Editor Explains.

A deputy managing editor addresses a front-page headline about President Trump that readers criticized for lacking important context.

A print headline on Tuesday’s front page for an article about President Trump’s statement addressing last weekend’s mass shootings has added to a continuing debate over how news organizations cover his administration.

Times editors were concerned that the initial headline — “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” — did not contextualize Mr. Trump’s message on Monday and decided to change it for later editions to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.”

Many readers, including Democratic politicians and other critics of the president, condemned the first headline on Twitter.

Headlines like this ignore all the context of #Trump’s actions and past remarks, make him suddenly look presidential,” Jerry Lanson, a professor emeritus of journalism at Emerson College, tweeted
. “The Times should know better.”

We asked Matt Purdy, a deputy managing editor, to address the criticism and offer insight into our editorial process:

We needed to deliver a nuanced message in a very small space under tight deadlines, and unfortunately, our first attempt at that did not hit it right.

When a group of top editors received an email with the first edition of the front page last night, we saw the headline, realized that it was not a good one and decided to change it. It’s not uncommon for our masthead editors to adjust headlines as we go.

As this conversation was happening among Times editors, readers began discussing the initial headline on Twitter. They rightly pointed out that the initial headline didn’t reflect the story accurately.

We are very proud of the great work our reporters and editors have done on last weekend’s mass shootings, and on Mr. Trump and race. But we agree that headlines are extremely important, and in this case, we should have done better.

NYT Bait And Switch Editorial

                     

Editorial

1320 × 1056 - josephkanon.com

   Well talk about HYPOCRISY from the New York Times editorial board and I mean HYPOCRISY big time.
   This paper never attacks their buddies on the left side of the asile for debt spending but now they blame the GOP.
  The title of their lead OPED this morning "The Republicans have become the party of debt."
 It begins in attack mode "So much for all that sanctimony about fiscal responsibility. Forever and always, it can now be said that Republican lawmakers care about the federal deficit only when they want to use it to bash Democratic presidents.
 Correction it was the domestic spending from the Democrats (what the left wanted) as part of the 2 year budget.
 More lies "After embracing $1.5 trillion in debt by slashing taxes on corporations and wealthy families in December, the Republican leaders in Congress pushed through a two-year budget deal on Friday that will increase spending by nearly $400 billion. While a lot of that money will be spent on important priorities like disaster relief, infrastructure and education, a big chunk of it will go to an excessive and unnecessary military buildup. Contrast this with the parsimony Republican lawmakers displayed in 2011 when they refused to raise the federal debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to deep cuts to government programs.“If you were against President Obama’s deficits, and now you’re for the Republican deficits, isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy?” Senator Rand Paul said as he held up passage of the budget bill for a few hours — perhaps until he realized that the definition fit him, too, since he had voted for the tax cuts that will blow up the deficit.
 In purple bold type Umm no NYT you are the HYPERHYPERHYPERCRATS you assholes and you know it.
 More lies "Deficit spending can be an indispensable tool — to revive an ailing economy, invest in productive infrastructure, rebuild after natural disasters and pay for unavoidable wars. And it was vital for the government to run large deficits after the financial crisis, when the country was tumbling into the worst recession since the Depression.But the Republican leaders who opposed stimulus spending in 2011 and 2012, when many Americans were struggling to find jobs and the economy was in the doldrums, are now making the absurd argument that the government ought to do more to fuel the economy at a time when the unemployment rate is about half what it was back then and corporate profits have soared.
 First in the red bold type the economy went south because of the stimulus spending which down the road saw the emergence of the TEA PARTY movement in 2010.
Now the green bold type the GOP opposed the stimulus because all the $$ went to the jack booted left waste of $$$$.
  It goes on "Even with the economy growing at a decent clip, the government should raise spending on domestic programs that were slashed when Republicans demanded deep cuts. Nondefense spending relative to the economy is the lowest it has been since 1961 — 3.1 percent of gross domestic product, far below the long-term average of 3.8 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
 Dilapidated roads, bridges, railways and water systems need to be upgraded and repaired.
 Hold on in gold bold type all that was supposedly taken care of with the SHOVEL READY JOBS  as Obama promised us. More bullshit lies.
  Puerto Rico, Texas and Florida still need help recovering from last year’s hurricanes and making themselves more resilient to future storms. Lawmakers also must spend more to end the opioid epidemic and increase access to substance abuse treatment. The budget bill only partly addresses many of these and other needs.
 More lies in green bold type.
  It goes on UH "But the deal Mr. Trump approved on Friday also includes a $165 billion increase in military spending over two years, more than the Trump administration had even requested. Military spending will jump to $716 billion in 2019, from $634 billion in 2017. In inflation-adjusted terms, that would put the Pentagon’s budget well above the Reagan buildup of the 1980s and nearly as high as in 2010 — the peak of military spending since World War II — when more than 200,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even before this latest increase, the Pentagon’s budget exceeded the combined military spending of the next eight biggest defense spenders globally — a list that includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India.Some of the defense increases are understandable. The cost per active service member grew by 61 percent from 2001 to 2012, after adjusting for inflation, because of new and expanded benefits such as incentive bonuses, raises and increased health care expenses. But other increases arose from a dysfunctional budget process manipulated by a defense industry that woos Congress with unneeded or extravagant weapons. These include the F-35 fighter jet, missile defense programs that are plagued with problems, and a plan to modernize the nuclear arsenal over a period of 30 years at a cost of more than $1 trillion.Democrats went along with this budget. They’re the minority party and have limited leverage, and at the moment they are not deploying it very effectively, as has been demonstrated by their failure thus far to clarify their priorities or win protection from deportation for the Dreamers, young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.The true culprits are the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Both are self-proclaimed deficit hawks. “In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time,” Mr. Ryan declared in 2012. But recent actions have revealed that the real game is to cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy, and use the resulting deficits as a pretext for cutting programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that benefit the poor and the middle class.
 In purple bold type the military spending was needed because Obama Administration let it become a dilapidated military. I know the truth hurts Left wingers out there.
 It finally ends "President Trump has been a bystander in this whole process. He signed the bill, though it ignores many of the administration’s requests by, for example, increasing spending on the National Institutes of Health rather than cutting it.All told, the Republican tax cuts and the budget deal will nearly double the federal deficit to $1.19 trillion in 2019. While no credible analyst doubts that the federal government, which spends about $4 trillion a year, can make its debt payments, the growing deficit will make it harder for the government to respond to future recessions or to make responsible spending decisions. It’s a sure bet that, were the economy to tank, Mr. Ryan and his ilk would argue that the country couldn’t afford to increase government spending to get it going again because the deficit was already too large.
 Ending in red type because of the 2011-2012 Obama administration bullshit frivolous stimulus package and SHOVEL ready jobs excuse.

NYT Our President Does Care About Women's Safety

                                                   



                                   

1320 × 1056 - commons.wikimedia.org

               

                                                             Editorial


 
   Where was the New York Times editorial board when Harvey Weinstein the famous left wing piece of shit Hollywood producer was sexually harassing women?
   Hypocrites now they go on about President Trump not caring about women's safety.
   Their bullshit piece from the other day entitled "What if Donald Trump cared about women's safety?"
  It begins "The White House ousted a top aide, Rob Porter, after it was reported that he had physically and verbally abused two ex-wives. President Trump was “very saddened” by the reports, a spokesman, Raj Shah, said at Thursday’s news briefing. Mr. Shah added that the White House does “take violence against women and these types of allegations very seriously.”Those are the sorts of sentiments you’d want to hear from the president and his staff after such revelations. Of course, it’d be easier to take them at face value if his chief of staff, John Kelly, hadn’t reportedly known about the allegations against Mr. Porter since the fall, and if Mr. Trump’s first wife hadn’t accused him of rape and if more than a dozen women hadn’t said he sexually molested, assaulted and harassed them. That’s not to mention his own taped admission of grabbing women by the genitals.It would be even easier to take seriously the official White House line about Mr. Porter if officials there had shown any appetite to fight violence against women. If they become interested in doing more than talk, here are some ideas Name a White House adviser on violence against women, a position created during the Obama administration that has gone unfilled for the past year. Likewise, the Trump administration has not appointed anyone to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women, nor to be the State Department’s ambassador at large for global women’s issues.
   Advocate full funding of the Violence Against Women Act
, which is the principal tool for focusing federal attention on domestic abuse. The law, passed in 1994, has directed billions of dollars toward policing and prosecuting offenders as well as providing legal and other services to victims. Cases of domestic violence in the United States have dropped precipitously as a result. And yet, since Mr. Trump was elected, its proponents have lived in constant fear of funding cuts. Beyond declaring it a funding priority, the Justice Department should be directed to make enforcing the law a priority, too.
 Push for more federal research dollars toward preventing domestic violence. Family abuse is a massive public health problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four women and one in nine men are the victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Yet significantly more research is needed on what drives batterers to abuse their partners and how best to prevent this particular form of domestic terror.
 Urge Congress to close loopholes in gun prohibitions for domestic abusers. Nearly half of women and girls killed in the United States are the victims of a current or former romantic partner, and in most cases, the weapon is a gun. Congress, in 1996, passed legislation to keep guns out of the hands of people who commit domestic violence, but over time, clear loopholes have emerged. Addressing those gaps could save thousands of lives every year. For example, a 20-year-old law prohibits those convicted in the assault of a spouse or a child from owning or buying guns. But it doesn’t apply to boyfriends, girlfriends, other family members or stalkers. That must change. Nyt trying to involve the gun issue in this is bullshit.
It finally ends "But first and foremost, the White House needs to find out, and tell the public, which administration officials knew about the allegations against Mr. Porter and when they learned that information. A president who really wants to signal that he is serious about respecting women would fire every official who protected or defended Mr. Porter after they learned of the abuse allegations.
 So NYT here's your lesson look in the mirror and go after sexual predators that are your politically correct allies before you look at our President

NYT OPED Contributor Dead Wrong On Memo

OPED CONTRIBUTOR

  

         Now people who are running for a respective states Attorney General is getting involved in the MEMO business it seems by the Opinion/Editorial Contributor to the New York Times this morning entitled "The Memo Doesn’t Vindicate Trump. It’s More Proof of Obstruction." By Illinois Attorney General Democrat of course RENATO MARIOTTI.

        It begins "For weeks, allies of President Trump ratcheted up pressure to “release the memo.” The impact, according to supporters, would be monumental: It would shake the F.B.I. “to its core” (Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina) or it would reveal abuses “100 times bigger” than what incited the American Revolution (Sebastian Gorka, a former White House official).

The president himself said, after the memo’s release on Friday, that it “vindicates” him in the probe.

But it does no such thing. The memo from House Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes, fell well short of the hype. Its main argument is that when the Justice Department sought a warrant to wiretap the former Trump adviser Carter Page, it did not reveal that Christopher Steele — the author of a controversial opposition-research dossier — was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign through a law firm.

     Again all so called hype more liberal bullshit.

     It goes on "This is actually a fairly common — and rarely effective — argument made by defendants who seek to suppress evidence obtained by a warrant.What might be the lasting legacy of the Nunes memo is how President Trump reacted to it. According to reports, Mr. Trump suggested “the memo might give him the justification to fire [the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein] — something about which Trump has privately mused — or make other changes at the Justice Department, which he had complained was not sufficiently loyal to him.”

In fact, Mr. Trump’s approval of the release of the memo and his comments that releasing it could make it easier for him to fire Mr. Rosenstein could help Robert Mueller, the special counsel, prove that Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, with a “corrupt” intent — in other words, the intent to wrongfully impede the administration of justice — as the law requires.

After all, Mr. Trump is now aware that he is under investigation for obstruction, and he knows that Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump wanted “loyalty” from him. Mr. Mueller could argue that the president’s comments that Mr. Rosenstein was not “loyal” and his desire to fire Mr. Rosenstein suggest Mr. Trump’s unlawful intent when he fired Mr. Comey.

The memo also offers the outlines of a broader probable cause case against Mr. Page. The Nunes memo suggests that there was substantial additional evidence, even though it avoids discussing that evidence. The memo indicates that the investigation of Mr. Page began well before the warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was sought, and that the Russia investigation was initiated because of the statements of George Papadopoulos.

The warrant was issued and then renewed three separate times. Each time, as is standard in seeking a FISA warrant, a judge reviewed extensive information before issuing it. The fact that the warrant was renewed three times indicates that the F.B.I. obtained useful intelligence each time — a judge wouldn’t have approved a renewal if the prior warrant came up empty. That suggests that once the warrants were issued, they revealed important evidence.

   Funny no mention about the bullshit dossier.

      It ends finally "In addition, the timeline set forth in the memo indicates that the FISA warrants were submitted by both the Obama and Trump administrations. The initial surveillance began before Mr. Rosenstein was deputy attorney general, and by the time he was at the Justice Department, he approved renewal applications that were based on the intelligence gathered from the earlier surveillance — not the dossier.

On the issue of bias, whenever the Justice Department seeks a warrant, they must present extensive evidence to a judge, who decides whether to issue the warrant based on that evidence. After the fact, defendants can challenge warrants by arguing that the government recklessly excluded information that would have caused the judge not to sign the warrant.

Courts have repeatedly held that even when the government omitted the criminal history of the informant or the fact that the informant was paid, it didn’t matter unless the omitted information would have caused the judge not to sign the warrant.The Nunes memo claims to show that the warrant was obtained unlawfully, but there is no way of knowing that without examining the extensive evidence submitted in conjunction with the warrant, which the memo does not do. Given that Mr. Steele was a former intelligence officer, not a flipper with an extensive criminal history, it will be hard to show that a judge would have believed he was lying if the source of his funding was included in the application.

Given how little substance there is to the Nunes memo, the Republicans made a misstep by pushing through its release in a partisan manner. The specter of an unreleased memo was more menacing than the thin allegations revealed in the memo itself, which are hotly disputed by congressional Democrats

Although at least one Republican maintains that the memo shows that Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Comey and others committed “treason,” the memo itself does not allege that the F.B.I. or Department of Justice knowingly used false information or even that the information they used was false. Because the allegations in the memo are legally irrelevant, I would be surprised if the memo was more than a short-lived publicity stunt.

This is not the result Mr. Nunes expected when his staff wrote the memo, but that could be its lasting impact.

 

              Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti), a former federal prosecutor, is a Democratic candidate for attorney general in Illinois.

Oh yes it does implicate Hillary DNC and the rest of the assholes

NYT Don't Change The Subject

Editorial

  Well hey New York Times now that your buddies on the left are in a world of shit due to the President releasing the memo they now want to change the political subject. An editorial in yesterdays NYT shows it "We’ve Got the Memo. Now What About Trump’s Tax Returns?"

  Let the spin begin "Seriously? That’s all they’ve got?

The four-page memo that promised to reveal the biggest political scandal in a generation has finally been released. For all the pregame hype, the memo looks less like the next Watergate and more like the next “unmasking”-gate, the 2017 pseudo-scandal that alleged — wrongly — that Obama administration officials had mishandled classified information. That dust-up was orchestrated, coincidentally, by Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee and whose staff prepared the document released on Friday.

The memo opens darkly, raising “concerns with the legitimacy and legality” of Justice Department and F.B.I. interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What sort of illegality are they talking about? The memo doesn’t say.

 Blame the Republicans shit begins pregame hype my ass.

 It goes on "Its central assertion appears to be that investigators who sought and received a warrant from the intelligence court to surveil the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page misled the court by failing to reveal the biased evidence they were relying on. First, they included in their warrant application a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, without telling the court that Mr. Steele’s research was partly funded by the Clinton campaign. Second, they did not reveal that Mr. Steele had told a Justice Department official that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”

The memo also notes that Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the F.B.I. who stepped down this week, testified to the Intelligence Committee in December that investigators would not have sought the warrant without the information contained in the dossier.

 Yeah the bullshit Christopher Steele Hillary campaign? DNC paid dossier on Trump.

  Spin cycle continues "This is all potentially interesting information. How significant is it in context? For starters, what other evidence did the intelligence court rely on in finding probable cause to issue the warrant? The memo doesn’t say. What about the court’s rationale for issuing three separate extensions, each of which required investigators to present new evidence beyond the dossier? The memo doesn’t say. Was any significant piece of information in the dossier found to be inaccurate? The memo doesn’t say. Did the court assume bias on the part of Mr. Steele or the funders of his research, as courts regularly do when considering evidence supporting a request for a warrant? The memo doesn’t say.You know what would help to answer questions like these? Even more transparency. It would be useful, for instance, if we could see all of the supporting evidence in the warrant application — with necessary redactions, of course, to protect sources and methods. Also helpful would be the 10-page response memo prepared by Representative Adam Schiff, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who, unlike Mr. Nunes, has actually seen the intelligence underlying the application. (The response memo reportedly explains, among other things, that investigators did in fact tell the court that the dossier was politically motivated.)

 NYT you obviously didn't read the memo maybe the full of shit House Minority memo.

 It ends "Surely Mr. Nunes, House Speaker Paul Ryan and the other Republicans who, in the days leading up to the memo’s release, expressed a newfound enthusiasm for transparency in government would support releasing this information, wouldn’t they? Transparency in government is the lifeblood of a democracy, after all — the bulwark against abuses of power by public officials. As Mr. Ryan said on Tuesday in defending the House’s decision to release the memo, “Transparency can reign supreme.”

Since the Republicans are now on board with greater transparency, they will no doubt push President Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major-party presidential nominee has done for the past four decades, won’t they?

How about the White House visitor logs, which the Trump administration started hiding from the public last year? Or, say, the names of all foreign governments and officials who have stayed — at their own or at American taxpayers’ expense — at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida or at his golf courses and his other businesses since he became president? Or the names of every foreign business with which the Trump Organization has a financial relationship, especially in countries where America has sensitive foreign policy interests, like China, India, Russia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia?

And, of course, Americans should have complete confidence now that congressional Republicans will demand complete transparency from all members of the president’s campaign, transition team and administration in describing their dealings with representatives of a foreign power that tried to swing our election — as well as from the special counsel who is investigating those efforts.

The party that demanded the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a central plank of the 2016 presidential campaign must support all of this and more, right?

  I love it now the NYT editorial board wants Trump to release his tax returns whats this got to to with the MEMO release?