Misleading NLMSM

Again.  On 22 Jun, CNN published, as part of its pseudo-journalism series on alleged ties between President Donald Trump and his associates and Russia, a claim that Anthony Scaramucci, an informal advisor to President Donald Trump, was tied to the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a sovereign fund of the Russian government and led by Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, with whom readers might have a passing familiarity.  The fund has been sanctioned by the US government (by the Obama administration; although it’s not under Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, then or now, another of CNN‘s false claims), hence the nefariousness of Scaramucci’s alleged association and the depth of CNN‘s smear against him.

After Breitbart, et al., exposed the misleading, anonymous, single-source rumor nature of CNN‘s hit piece, CNN further assaulted the public’s ability to know by deleting the piece from the Internet, rather than merely admitting it was false and retracting it.  CNN with this move has chosen to censor the news in addition to making it up.

But that’s not all.  CNNMoney Executive Editor Rich Barbieri sent a memo to CNN staff requiring that, henceforth,

No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [VP of Premium Content Video Farkas] first.

There’s less to that, though, than meets the eye.  The editors now demanding pre-publication review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published in the first place.  These are the same editors who set that standard in the beginning. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that “review” be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? They’ll just get a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?

There’s more to it, too, than meets the eye.  CNN is adding some seeming scapegoats to its “corrections:”

CNN announced late Monday that Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris have left the network.
Frank wrote the story. Lichtblau edited the piece, and Haris oversaw the CNN department, which is a new investigative unit.

More importantly, there’s still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those “anonymous” sources’ claims.

Nothing is changing at CNN.

Just Whose Side Are They On?

The New York City Council is at it this time.

A new bill would require the New York Police Department to disclose and describe all “surveillance technology,” which it defines as “equipment, software, or system capable of, or used or designed for, collecting, retaining, processing, or sharing audio, video, location, thermal, biometric, or similar information.” The cops would have to post this information online annually and respond to public comments.

Naturally, the ACLU thinks this is a good idea, too.

Yeah.  It is a good idea to tell criminals and terrorists just how they’re being identified and might be preempted.  Sure.

The Mueller Investigation

Is Robert Mueller running a legitimate investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign or officials in it and Russia?

Robert Mueller hasn’t decided whether to actually investigate Trump: Report

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials, Hinting at Inquiry of Trump

Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner’s business dealings

It isn’t possible for the Mueller investigation to be legitimate with all of these leaks about his investigation and its status and findings that he’s permitting to occur.  Or that, Comey-esque, he’s doing himself.

He’s plainly not investigating his leaks, else that would have been leaked, too.

Pseudo-Science

I got an email ad over the weekend, inviting me to join the American Association for the Advancement of Science—AAAS, which used to be a respectable organization.  The ad said in part,

Organizations that have propelled us forward—NIH, NOAA, and the EPA, just to name a few—are facing major funding cuts.

Because fraud, waste, and abuse are important only when it’s the other guy’s FWA.  We wouldn’t been involved with any of that.  Not us.

No, even were these organizations sound, their spending can be tightened, and they can absorb budget cuts.  They can do the same amount of work, or more, did they only spend with efficiency rather than profligacy.

On the other hand, not all of these organizations are sound.  NOAA, for instance, has been caught more than once falsifying climate data and altering its climate data bases.  NOAA does not even follow its own protocols, as one ex-NOAA scientist put it, in the way its data are handled, documented, and stored.  EPA’s abuse of its authority and its dependence on false science (plant food is atmospheric pollution?  Ignoring the fact that atmospheric CO2 lags planetary warming by 800-1,800 years?  Really?) are widely documented.

Of course the men and women managing the AAAS know this.  And their knowledge makes their claims all the more disingenuous.

And this in that ad:

President Trump has begun the process of pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, putting us in the company of only two other nations to reject this planet-saving agreement.

Science by political consensus.  Sure.

Too, the men and women minding the AAAS store know full well that the “Accord” bound no one to any performance whatsoever.  Further, the non-binding “bindings” left the People’s Republic of China free to continue to expand its emissions into the 2030s, and only from that peak to start reducing.  If it felt like it.  In addition, the Accord’s non-binding “binding” left India free to refuse to do anything at all until it was paid the $3 trillion or more vig that it is demanding.

Such pseudo-science is most assuredly to be done away with.

Foolish

The Justice Department is clashing with career site Glassdoor Inc over the company’s refusal to identify users who posted anonymous employee reviews of a veterans health-care company under federal investigation.

That’s been fought over in civil courts, but this is a first for a potentially criminal matter.  The Federal government is the one making the demand this time because the Feds want witnesses for a grand jury investigation into Glassdoor.

Whatever the parameters of any possible criminal case involved here, there are some questions that need careful consideration.  Leave aside 1st Amendment questions regarding a right, especially but not necessarily limited to political discourse, to discourse anonymously.

Forcing a potential witness to come forward and testify in open court seems counterproductive.  How credible, indeed, how objectively accurate, would a witness be who’s forced to testify?  Might such a witness say what his government forcer wants him to say?  Might such a witness’ memory become faulty?  Might such a witness’ testimony, however well he tries for accuracy, be slanted by…fear of consequences, frustration at being forced, other factors, factors that wouldn’t be present with voluntary testimony?

How would a court tell whether impacts from these factors are large or small in a particular case?  How would a court even recognize the presence of these factors?  Given presence, how would a court control for that presence?