Tuesday, the press focused on whether Mevlut Mert Altintas, who assassinated Andrei Karlov, Russia's ambassador to Turkey on Monday in Ankara, acted alone or was, in the words of Russia's Vladimir Putin, "directed." There will almost certainly be similar speculation over the driver of the "truck that mowed down the crowd on Monday, killing at least 12 people" in Berlin, Germany, if and when he is captured.
Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been with NewsBusters since December 2005. Along the way, he's had a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development.
News travels slowly into the Kansas City metropolitan area — or at least into the newsroom at the Kansas City Star.
On Friday, the paper's Dave Helling produced a 950-word writeup on Monday's Electoral College voting. With all of the widely published news about Republican electors receiving death threats, all Helling had to report was a rumor: "One spouse of a Missouri elector claimed to know of death threats to electors in other parts of the country." The folks at the Star really need to check the reliability of their Internet connections.
On December 5, the New York Times published an op-ed column by Republican Texas Elector Christopher Suprun entitled "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump." The Times celebrated Suprun's "courageous stand" in a December 6 editorial.
In that op-ed, Suprun claimed that "Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation." The paper's description of Suprun says he "works as a paramedic." Neither the Times, which has published nine other items containing Suprun's name since his op-ed, or the Associated Press, which has published three, have noted that those two statements have been exposed as at best highly questionable, and at worst opportunistically fraudulent.
Thursday evening, Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show. In a disgraceful performance which has to be seen to be believed, the obviously battle-prepped Eichenwald made an utter fool of himself. Apparently aware (or made aware) of how awful he was, he attempted to defend himself later Thursday in a 40-plus tweetstorm. It didn't help matters; the tweets were gone by 10 p.m.
The day after Election Day, Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner met with President Barack Obama. The primary takeaway from that interview, published in late November, was, as Tim Graham at NewsBusters noted, how Obama partly blamed Hillary Clinton's election loss to Donald Trump on “Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.” Additionally, Wenner, in what seemed at the time to be a crybaby throwaway line, suggested that "the news business and the newspaper industry, which is being destroyed by Facebook, needs a subsidy so we can maintain a free press." Unfortunately, New York Times President and CEO Mark Thompson shares both Wenner's lament and his suggested remedy. Thursday, establishment press pressure on Facebook brought about potentially ugly results.
Tuesday on CNBC, Microsoft co-founder and multibillionaire Bill Gates recounted a conversation he had with Donald Trump a couple of weeks ago. He had fairly nice things to say about both the conversation and the potential of the incoming Trump administration. Naturally, neither the Associated Press nor the New York Times found these elements of the CNBC interview to be newsworthy.
At the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell, alarmed by an alleged "police state" on Fifth Avenue in New York City and alleged "costs to commerce and property values," wants to have the city to "use eminent domain to seize Trump Tower." Unfortunately, the President-Elect does have a blind spot when it comes to the government taking someone's property and conveying it to someone else for supposed "economic development," but Rampell's arguments for the move are ridiculous, and betray an immature, deep-seated desire for some form of vengeance.
Though the press apparently wants everyone to forget about it, the fact is that barely two weeks ago, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Obama administration told the world, apparently only through the New York Times, its designated mouthpiece, that "we stand behind our (nation's) election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people."
The statement was "issued" to the Times on Friday, November 25, and was provided, according to the paper, "on the condition that it be attributable only to a senior official." Just 14 days later, on Friday evening, December 9, the Washington Post published its claim of "a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency." Why should anyone believe that the intelligence landscape concerning Russia's actions changed so quickly in two weeks?
Sunday afternoon, Eric Shawn of Fox News interviewed former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. By his reactions to what Bolton said near the interview's beginning, Shawn misunderstood the meaning of "false flag operation," apparently believing that every such effort has to be originated by the government leveling a charge of nefarious behavior against another, in this case the U.S. against Russia. That's not what it means. Though Bolton clarified his statement later in the interview, news outlets which should know better and opportunistic lefty bloggers have seized the opening to contend that Bolton has directly accused the Obama administration of conducting the "false flag operation." That's not what he said.
At the end of the panel discussion on the most recent Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked the Associated Press's Julie Pace how big of a deal she thought President-Elect Donald Trump's "transparency" in moving away from direct involvement in his business interests would be.
Her answer came across to me as self-important, given that she basically said that the she and the press were going to consistently report on it "whether they (the public) care about it or not." Wallace appeared to react similarly. His response to her answer was delicious, especially because it ended the segment: "I think Donald Trump's going to determine his own interests, not Julie Pace." Ouch.
Well, that didn't take long. The morning after the Washington Post's Friday evening story that a "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House," a "deeply disturbed" Bob Baer, appearing on CNN Newsroom, when questioned as to whether "we should have another election," said that if it's true, "I don’t see any other way than to vote again."
The unsolicited "Step away from your Twitter account" advice Donald Trump is constantly receiving needs to be turned around on certain members of the media. One such person would be Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek — except, as will be seen later, the magazine apparently lets him intemperately and obsessively tweet at will. In claiming that Donald Trump's victory rally audience in Iowa began booing at the mention of John Glenn, the first American astronaut to orbit the earth who died on Thursday.
Now that President Obama has officially joined the crowd which wants America to believe that it's Russia's fault that Donald Trump won the presidential election, it's quite timely to revisit an item published in the Boston Globe during the week before Thanksgiving.
The competition was fierce, but there's little doubt that the New York Daily News was in the upper echelon of publications which came down with a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome during the presidential election campaign.
We can now say with confidence that a major contributor to that posture at the Daily News was now-departed executive editor Rich O'Malley. On his way out the door, O'Malley, who had been with the paper for 11 years, posted 23 tweets. The first eight were classy expressions of gratitude. Boy, did it ever go downhill from there.
Some Democratic Party politicians who are searching for any and every possible reason to have a problem with President-Elect Donald Trump's cabinet appointments have latched on to the supposedly troubling fact that it thus far contains three retired generals out of 15 ultimate appointments. Naturally, their allies in the establishment press are amplifying these petty concerns.
The Associated Press's Lolita C. Baldor was a relatively early adopter, claiming a week ago, with alternating bouts of hyperventilation and hostility, that "Congress and others" are struggling with "a broader worry about an increased militarization of American policy" because of Trump's "move to pack his administration with military brass." Baldor has been an AP reporter for 11 years, covering matters relating to the Pentagon, counterterrorism and national security, so there's no excuse for her not recalling recent history which refutes her concern.
On November 24, as many of us were enjoying sumptuous Thanksgiving repasts and family time, the Washington Post published Craig Timberg's turkey of a report about how "a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online" to discredit Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.
Very recently, probably sometime Wednesday, the Post appended an "Editor's Note" to Craig Timberg's original dispatch attempting to distance itself from its own work product. It should satisfy no one.
Readers who have spent any time reading economic dispatches from the establishment press since the presidential election have likely noticed that its business journalists have taken to praising the alleged wonders of the economy President Barack Obama is passing on to President-Elect Donald Trump. Current reality renders the praise completely undeserved, but of course that's not stopping them from engaging in it.
At the New York Times on Friday, Amanda Hess regaled readers over how the "spontaneous" and "chance" sightings of Hillary Clinton since Election Day have made Mrs. Clinton "a new folk hero." Her virtual hagiography even made it to Page C1 of the paper's Saturday print edition. There's more sap in Hess's writeup than one could likely collect from all of the trees in the wooded areas in which Mrs. Clinton has "unexpectedly" appeared.
No review of the reactions of leftists and the establishment press (but I repeat myself) to the death of Fidel Castro would be complete without seeing what the wonderful, caring people at Black Lives Matter wrote after the Cuban dictator died.
BLM's reaction is posted at a website called Medium.com. Since that post doesn't link elsewhere, it was possible to hope that the content there doesn't officially reflect the group's views. Alas, that isn't so. The press's failure to mention BLM's sanctioned outrageous and offensive reaction to Castro's death, as well as its failure to even try to get comments from Democrats who would (hopefully, but who knows any more?) denounce and renounce the poison contained therein, up to and including President Barack Obama, is sadly typical and irresponsible.
A funny thing happened on the way to delivering Fidel Castro's ashes to their final resting place. According to an Associated Press photo caption, soldiers had to "push the jeep and trailer carrying the ashes of the late Fidel Castro after the jeep briefly stopped working during Castro’s funeral procession near Moncada Fort in Santiago, Cuba."
FoxNews.com had a sense of the symbolism: "The breakdown of the jeep in the midst of adoring crowds chanting 'Long live Fidel!' was symbolic of the dual nature of Castro's Cuba." AP news reports did not. They were too busy being awestruck by the "near-religious farewell to the man who ruled the country for nearly 50 years" to mention such a contradictory detail.