Imagine what it felt like to be on the ground during a World War II era bombing raid. Well, that is an apt metaphor for what several of the country’s Spanish-language television networks submit their viewers to in their coverage of practically everything related to President Trump: one story after another fully loaded with bias, exploding with content that lacks accuracy, fairness and often, even common sense. Do they truly believe their viewers are that gullible or all share the same liberal hate agenda?
Friday’s Morning Joe was still devoting a substantial portion of its news coverage to discussing President Trump’s Wednesday morning retweets of three anti-Muslim videos originally posted by one of the leaders of the far-right UK political party Britain First. Not happy with just criticizing Trump for drawing attention to a group like Britain First or pointing out that one of the videos that Trump retweeted does not appear to depict a Muslim migrant attacking a Dutch boy (as the accompanying tweet claimed), host Joe Scarborough and MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilemann instead accused Trump of deliberately trying to “incite hatred” so that his followers would kill or otherwise harm Muslims.
On Tuesday's New Day, the CNN studio was acting as a glass house while stones were being thrown as comedian D.L. was welcomed onto the show to share his views on President Donald Trump making a crack about Pocahontas and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren during a ceremony honoring Native-American veterans. After Hughley had spent most of the segment complaining that too many Americans have been tolerating racism from Trump -- even claiming that most Presidents have been "racist" so Trump is both "racist" and "retro" -- Hughley ended up making a joke about blacks and Mexicans only spending time together in prison riots, inspiring host Chris Cuomo to laugh.
In a Wednesday morning tweet, Matthew Dowd of ABC News, the network's chief political analyst, demonstrated once again that he can be counted on to cling to views diametrically opposed to common sense, as he for all practical purposes resurrected the dishonest defense Democrats used to save Bill Clinton's presidency in the late-1990s. Dowd's version, tweeted today in reaction to sex harassment and assault scandals which are predominantly affecting DC Democrats, predominantly liberal establishment media icons, and predominantly liberal Hollywood celebrities, is that "there is a difference between those who are flawed who work for the common good and those who are flawed who could care less about the common good."
The New York Times jabbed at Christians and conservatives in two articles Saturday related to museum exhibitions. Emily Cochrane nitpicked the new Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., while an art critic looking at a Paris exhibit on the history of Christians in the Middle East suggested the French populist Marine Le Pen was as bad as the jihadists of ISIS.
In a piece on CNN.com, titled, "Air Force Academy hoax doesn't change overall picture on hate crimes," CNN contributor Frida Ghitis (identified as a "former CNN producer and correspondent") used the revelation that an infamous incident of racist harassment against Air Force Academy cadets was actually a hoax as a springboard to attack "bigots" and "racists" on the "far right" who were too glad that the troubling incident turned out not to be a bonafide example of a racially motivated hate crime.
The New York Times is still finding ways to stay on the snobbish losing side against the popular movement for national sovereignty known as Brexit, by relating any violent crime against an immigrant or Muslim to the U.K’s June 2016 vote to withdraw from the European Union. Reporter David Kirkpatrick made Saturday’s front page by tying Brexit to “Islamophobia” in a sympathetic profile of a mosque in the London suburb of Barking under an overheated headline: “They’re Loathed as Outcasts, but This Is Home.” The subhead is “Losing London – A Backlash Against Muslims.” Two other recent articles played the Brexit card, blaming the vote for hate crimes and causing political controversy in general.
On Sunday and early Monday after word broke of the church shootings in Sutherland Springs, Texas, NBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin took to Twitter and sounded like a liberal activist as he tweeted out several comments suggesting that U.S. government agencies discriminate against Muslims in applying the word "terrorism" to so many acts of mass violence by Muslims, but not so much with white non-Muslim men.
ABC’s Scandal is continuing down the path of bringing social justice issues into the primetime slot though it is admittedly trailing fellow ABC show Designated Survivor. To save face, it looks like the show crams several PC elements into one plot by introducing the lesbian Muslim university student striving to be the next Gloria Steinem. Can we get anymore to the left at this point?
Yes, you are reading the headline correctly. On Thursday’s Deadline: White House, Wall Street Journal White House reporter Eli Stokols was very upset that President Trump called for the death penalty to be imposed on the terrorist who just killed eight people in New York City because – wait for it – Trump didn’t also call for the execution of the Las Vegas mass shooter. No one bothered to tell Eli that Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock already killed himself.
"Shout 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers." Who knew hijacker Mohammed Atta's parting words, discovered in his journal after the 9/11 attacks, would become a national punchline? The louder and more frequently jihadists around the globe shriek their signature battle cry, the more fervently multicultural apologists deny its meaning. They've transformed the Islamic supremacists' obvious and explicit call for violence into a bland utterance of peace as indiscernible and nonsensical as "Aloha Snackbar."
The terrorist truck attack in Manhattan by an Uzbekistan national, inspired by ISIS propaganda, was the ostensible subject of Max Fisher and Amanda Taub’s “The Interpreter” column in Thursday’s New York Times. But it was more of an exercise in trying to weaken the link between “terrorism” and radical Islam. The authors gain revealed their liberal priorities by fretting over even labeling such attacks by radical Islamists as terrorism: “This Time Was Terror. What About Las Vegas?” And a front-page story downplayed, in typical Times fashion, the Islamic connection, asserting "there is no single reason" someone would commit such an act, blaming "monsters inside" him.