Tag Archives: responsibilities

Again, I Ask

Posted on by
Reply

A canonical example of the journalism guild’s view of what constitutes honest reporting is this from CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell and CBS News‘ response to the outcry over her…error. She emitted a tweet regarding the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, claiming

NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump’s passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.

This was shown later to be obviously wrong; the FBI returned three of Trump’s passports, which of course they could not have done had they not “been in position” of them in the first place.

Notice: O’Donnell claimed to be citing a DOJ official (emphasis mine).

Regarding that,

CBS News protocol is to confirm news with at least two people before reporting it as fact.

Two people.

It used to be the case that journalists were required to cite two on-the-record sources to corroborate an anonymous source’s claim. The journalism guild has long since walked away from that requirement.

And so I ask again.

Why have journalists chosen to walk away from that standard of integrity?

What concrete, measurable standard of integrity do journalists use today in lieu of that one?

Deflection, or Not Understanding?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, following the FBI’s raid on former President Donald Trump’s (R) Mar-a-Lago home, a reporter asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about the possibility of his agents planting evidence. This is, after all, the same FBI that falsified evidence in order to support FISA court warrants that would be used against Trump supporters. This also is the same FBI that refused to allow Trump’s lawyers to watch the FBI as it searched Trump’s home during that raid, even forcing those lawyers present to leave. This is the same FBI that, on the conclusion of its raid and removal of a number of boxes of…somethings…refused to leave behind a receipt for the items confiscated, or even an unsigned list.

Hence the reporter’s question [my corrections to grammar, spelling, and Close Captioning’s misunderstanding of isolated words]:

Former President Trump is raising the prospect of agents planting evidence in the FBI search of his residence in Mar-a-Lago, saying his lawyer’s team is not allowed to observe this search. Can you address that, particularly as many of Mr Trump’s supporters online vision of call to arms and threats against your agents?

Wray responded by expressing his own concern regarding the safety of his agents; however, the kicker is his response to the first part of the reporter’s question regarding evidence:

Well, as I’m sure you can appreciate, that’s not something I can talk about, so I’d refer you to the department.

Here’s the Director of the “department” directing the reporter to his department for her answer regarding his department’s behavior. Last I checked, the Director of the FBI was the head of his “department.”

Christopher Wray is a man who is, clearly, in over his head. He needs to be replaced.

Lies of the Progressive-Democratic Party Politicians

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and President Joe Biden (D) tout the just passed (I ass-u-me; I’m writing this on Sunday morning) Build Reduced Back Act as not raising taxes on Americans with incomes less than $400k per year. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) agrees with that by her relative silence on the matter.

However, their very own Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates the lie of that claim.

Just the News aggregated those data:

Federal taxes will increase by $1.9 billion on those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and by $10.8 billion on those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 in 2023.
Overall average tax rates would increase from 20.3% to 20.6% in 2023 alone, according to the analysis.

A three-tenths of a percentage point increase might seem like chump change to those politicians, but they need to explain that increase to the large fraction—majority?—of Americans who already live paycheck to paycheck and now will have that “chump change” taken out of their pockets in addition to the taxes they already pay, along with the rising costs of the food, energy, and housing with which they’re already confronted.

The Manchin Tax Increase

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) continues to…misunderstand…the situation that would be created by his agreement to the Manchin-Schumer Build Back Reduced bill.

People should be paying their fair share, especially the largest corporations in America that have a billion dollars of value or greater.

Manchin—along with his Progressive-Democratic Party cronies—continue to not say what anyone’s “fair share” is. That forces us to conclude that their view of “fair share” is “more.”

And

Can’t they pay at least 15%, so that we can move forward and be the leader of the world and the superpower that we are?

Umm, we became the leader of the world some while ago, well before this 15% minimum tax was dreamed up. It wasn’t necessary then, and it’s destructive to our economy now.

Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

Or outright dishonesty.

Ukraine is asking the US for long-range, armed drones to give the Ukrainian forces improved chances against the barbarian invader.

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration won’t send them.

More than two months ago, Ukrainian officials requested four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones, US officials said. The Biden administration was reluctant to approve the request, the officials said, citing a number of concerns, ranging from the potential loss of advanced technology from the battlefield to the need to train Ukrainians to operate the drones.

The need to train Ukrainians? They’d be trained up by now if the request had been honored those two months ago.

The American technology would be given over to the barbarian via battlefield losses? The enemy always gets its adversary’s technology from battlefield losses. The only way to prevent that is to not go onto the battlefield at all. And then surrender the technology, anyway, when the adversary is peacefully conquered due to its decision not to fight.

…highly-sensitive technology could wind up in Russian hands if Ukrainian forces are overwhelmed.

This is a cynical, if not deliberately dishonest, sham rationale, creating, as it does, the vicious circle: the Ukrainians might lose a battle and give up the tech, so we won’t supply the tech, thereby vastly increasing the likelihood that the Ukrainians not only lose a battle, but lose the entire war.

All because the Biden administration is so…risk averse…that they refuse the risks involved in actively helping a sovereign nation, and a potential ally if not friend, defeat a barbarian’s invasion and drive the barbarian back out.

It’s disgusting, and Ukraine might not survive until January 2025, and even if it does, vastly more Ukrainian women and children will be butchered between now and then, all for the convenience of Biden’s risk aversion.