Howie Carr: Smirking media bias against GOP couldn’t be clearer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Have you ever noticed how differently Republicans are treated in the media than Democrats?
Every newsroom in the country used to have what was called the “AP Stylebook” to use in writing news stories.
Now you need two AP stylebooks, one for Democrats, about whom seldom is heard a discouraging word, and a second for the GOP, with a hundred different pejoratives.
Two parties, two vocabularies. One positive, one negative — very bad, evil in fact.
Consider the testimony by Michael Cohen last week in front of various Congressional committees.
For example, since he worked for Donald Trump, Cohen was described about a million times as a “fixer.” Democrats, on the other hand, have lawyers.
To prevent the release of embarrassing information, Democrats’ lawyers negotiate NDA’s — nondisclosure agreements. Republican fixers’ NDAs are “hush money,” or “bribes.”
Hillary Clinton paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat operatives who then bought or made up false Russian dirt on Trump — that was opposition research. Republicans, on the other hand, “collude!”
Republicans lie, Democrats misspeak.
Democrats plan, Republicans scheme.
Republicans hire lobbyists, Democrats use advocates. Republicans employ operatives or hired guns, Democrats prefer community activists.
If a Democrat changes his or her position on an issue, they have evolved … grown. Republicans “flip-flop.”
Whenever an unfamiliar politician is ensnared in some scandal, you naturally wonder which party he or she is a member of. If the “embattled” pol is a Republican, affiliation is usually noted in the headline, or at the very latest in the first paragraph.
If, however, you reach the third paragraph of the story without his party being identified, you can be absolutely certain you are reading about a Democrat miscreant.
Likewise, accusers are handled differently depending on who exactly they’re accusing. Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was almost derailed by the not particularly credible “Dr.” Christine Blasey Ford. One of the women who’s accused Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of Virginia of sexual assault likewise has a Ph.D., but how often does the alt-left media refer to “Dr. Vanessa Tyson.” Fairfax, you see, is a Democrat.
Was Jussie Smollett’s fake hate crime ever referred to as “alleged?” Of course not. But all the real, documented, videotaped attacks on conservatives — invariably they are alleged, or “according to police reports.”
A Republican tax cut is a “corporate giveaway” for the rich, a boon to “one percenters” that the government “can’t afford.”
A Democrat-proposed tax increase, though, is an “investment in the future.” It’s for the children.
When there’s bad news about Republicans, Democrats “react.” But Republicans “pounce” or “seize.” Often, in fact, the only way any Democrat woes get mentioned at all in the media is when Republicans seize and pounce, not to mention “weaponize” Democrat scandals.
Let’s talk about legislation. When a Democrat solon finds a way to stop some GOP initiative, it’s because the brilliant parliamentarian (Nancy Pelosi?) has come up with a master stroke.
But when a Republican, say Mitch McConnell, does exactly the same thing, he is invariably called an obstructionist, relying on “arcane” tricks to produce “gridlock” and overturn centuries of “Congressional tradition.”
When Democrats in Congress hold oversight hearings, they are never less than “historic” “explosive,” full of “bombshells.” The Cohen hearings were so explosive, in fact, that I was expecting to see footage Wednesday night of the Capitol in smoking ruins.
Republican-run Congressional hearings are always described as grandstanding, sideshows, overreach and a total waste of taxpayer money.
Finally, the word of the day is “smirk.” Remember January’s first big fake-news hoax — the Covington Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial. The kid in the Make America Great Again hat that day was Nicholas Sandmann, and he’s now suing the Washington Post for $250 million.
Every Social Justice Warrior on Twitter said the 16-year-old had it coming because of the “smirk” on his face. That was the smart word of the day — smirk.
So last week the illegal immigrant from Brazil who assaulted — allegedly — the 23-year-old MAGA-hat- wearing American in the bar in Falmouth was grabbed by ICE for being in the country illegally for 25 years. She got a big-time lawyer and he said, basically, that after getting boozed up, the illegal immigrant went all Third World on the American taxpayer because of his “smirk.”
So now apparently it’s OK to assault anyone wearing a MAGA hat … if they’re “smirking.”
No wonder half of America is beyond smirking at the alt-left media’s agitprop on behalf of the Democrats. The deplorables aren’t smirking anymore, they’re sneering.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
“Was Jussie Smollett’s fake hate crime ever referred to as “alleged?” Of course not. But all the real, documented, videotaped attacks on conservatives — invariably they are alleged, or “according to police reports.”
A Republican tax cut is a “corporate giveaway” for the rich, a boon to “one percenters” that the government “can’t afford.”
A Democrat-proposed tax increase, though, is an “investment in the future.” It’s for the children.
When there’s bad news about Republicans, Democrats “react.” But Republicans “pounce” or “seize.” Often, in fact, the only way any Democrat woes get mentioned at all in the media is when Republicans seize and pounce, not to mention “weaponize” Democrat scandals.
Let’s talk about legislation. When a Democrat solon finds a way to stop some GOP initiative, it’s because the brilliant parliamentarian (Nancy Pelosi?) has come up with a master stroke.
But when a Republican, say Mitch McConnell, does exactly the same thing, he is invariably called an obstructionist, relying on “arcane” tricks to produce “gridlock” and overturn centuries of “Congressional tradition.”
When Democrats in Congress hold oversight hearings, they are never less than “historic” “explosive,” full of “bombshells.” The Cohen hearings were so explosive, in fact, that I was expecting to see footage Wednesday night of the Capitol in smoking ruins.
Republican-run Congressional hearings are always described as grandstanding, sideshows, overreach and a total waste of taxpayer money.”
[deleted]
I’m stating facts about real media bias and double standards. I will never stop pointing out the pro liberal bias of the mainstream media, their so called fact checkers, and the social media platforms on line. I’m just glad the President is going to cut federal funding for universities receiving federal $ who deplatform speakers and alternative media because of their point of view. The seeded article is right on in its documentation of lamestream media double standards.
You never fail to attempt to do so by posting pro conservative hacks.
The author of your seed states:
I'm sure that Trump's sycophantic minions lap that bullshit up with zeal.
First of all, the AP Stylebook doesn't have a 'news' section.
Secondly, the AP Stylebook is at it's base, a grammar and punctuation guide. It is utterly apolitical, which belies the authors inference that there needs to be 2 versions now.
Similarly, the author of your seed pretends that the terms he decries are somehow NEW. The term 'fixer' has been used for lawyers like Cohen LONG before Trump, as are the plethora of other terms that the author pretends are used 'unfairly'.
This long used canard of the media being left wing is ridiculous. The 90% of the media in the US is owned by 6 multinational corporations and NONE of them are 'left wing'. Their ONLY agenda is PROFIT.
The author of your seed pretends that we somehow need 2 AP Stylebooks when what he's actually talking about it a politically based thesaurus.
An irony here is that the GOP are the ones that hired professional wordsmith Frank Luntz to 'create language' for the Party.
Another is that Limbaugh has decried that Luntz was trying to 'dumbing down' the conservative message.
Now, suddenly, conservatives are whining about the crafting of words.
It drips with hypocrisy.
Are you?
Good article! I not false statement anywhere in it.
I agree and I’m glad that you liked the seeded article.
[No Value]
"who then bought or made up false Russian dirt on Trump"
Oh, you missed a lie there. There is zero evidence anything in the dossier was "made up". Much has been verified, none of it has been debunked.
"Cohen was described about a million times as a “fixer.” Democrats, on the other hand, have lawyers. To prevent the release of embarrassing information, Democrats’ lawyers negotiate NDA’s — nondisclosure agreements. Republican fixers’ NDAs are “hush money,” or “bribes.”
There is a HUGE difference between an attorney doing legal work and a mob fixer like Cohen who was there to threaten, intimidate, lie cheat and steal to keep Donald Trump protected. It's why the judge ruled attorney client privilege didn't apply and thus couldn't be used as a defense in Cohen's case.
"Republicans lie, Democrats misspeak."
[Sweeping Gen]
"No wonder half of America is beyond smirking at the alt-left media’s agitprop on behalf of the Democrats. The deplorables aren’t smirking anymore, they’re sneering."
Another lie. It's only about a third of Americans who support this douche-nozzle of a President. [Removed]
Those who continue to doubt the dossier have always doubted the dossier, the rest of us have been waiting for it to be debunked as Trumps defenders claim it will, but that hasn't happened yet. The only thing Republicans have to claim it's false is the funding coming from Democrats, that's it. We get it, Republicans claim anything that was ever touched by a Democrat as inadmissible. Strangely they don't feel the same way in regards to things tainted by Republican hands.
Prove it. Provide links with evidence backing you claims. Not unsubstantiated bullshit from unnamed sources in government.
The main "spy" the dossier outed was Carter Page- who to this date has had 0 charges filed against him. Page is the man the FBI/CIA claim is main reason behind the FISA request for wire taps of Trump Tower. But no charges, nothing, nada, zip. He is the forgotten man in Mueller's investigation. You would think that he would be the first person brought in for questioning, and have charges filed against him. They have all of this "evidence" against him.
Instead Page is the one suing the Democratic Party for it's paid for hit piece; and demanding proof. Funny how the government, nor Steele, or providing it.
"Unnamed sources" say you should do some research before making baseless claims.
Glen Simpson's testimony was released long ago. DO try to keep up...
The Steele dossier is a collection of raw data. It wasn't mean to 'prove' anything, it was raw intelligence. Some has been corroborated and some hasn't (yet). Here is more information. (By the way, nothing has been disproven yet.)
Huh? Are there multiple testimonies? His August 2017 testimony was released in January of 2018...
Please show us what has been verified!
There are a slew of x-FBI officials who wish they had such verification.
Which ex-FBI officials are those Vic?
The only information that has been "verified" was already public information at the time Steele wrote it.
His actual sourced information has proven false (Cohen went to Prague!) or not proven.
As the reporter who published Steele's allegations before the election recently stated, "you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
People who claim the Steele dossier have been verified either aren't familiar with his actual allegations or are dishonestly trying to bolster his credibility by giving him credit for including material that was available in newspapers with the false propaganda he got from Russians.
Link?
Link?
From the same interview:
Read the dossier.
, that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections
Was publicly being claimed before Steele wrote the dossier. Wikileaks had already announced weeks earlier they had Clinton emails. Even the Clinton campaign was publicly alleging it before the dossier entry was created.
Um-Hum....
The dossier doesn't confirm or refute YOUR claim does it Sean. Why the deflection?
Links?
"By autumn 2015, the FBI knew that the DNC servers had been hacked and that Russian operatives were surely the culprit. The Times reported as much on December 13, 2016 ."
That shows that the first of the dossier's claims was actually written in to the report after and only AFTER it became known.
Where did you come up with that quote Vic? It sure as hell isn't from the link you posted, which says nothing of the sort.
You'll have to answer my question before that can be accepted.
The dossier and a basic a knowledge of current events does, in fact, confirm my claim.
One aspect is explored by McCarthy in the link provided by Vic.
So you've got nothing...
You mean the link connected to the fake quote?
ou mean the link connected to the fake quote?
Why do you say things that aren't true?
Oh but my comment IS true Sean. I asked where the quote came from and received no reply. As I said, the quoted statement is NOT included in the link article.
It would behoove you to check your facts before you make FALSE allegations about me.
Because the article was linked to. Don't ask to be continuously spoon fed information if you can't even be bothered to read the provided links.
Does playing these silly little games seem like a productive use of time to you?
How do you release August 2017 testimony in Jan. 2017?
It’s what some liberals generally do on conservatives seeds. Par for the course.
Your question should be why Grassley delayed the release.
The article doesn't contain the statement that Vic quoted, does it Sean?
Don't pretend that information exists when it does NOT. I READ the fucking article which is why I can state unequivocally that it does NOT contain Vic's quote.
Deflect all you want but neither of you has provided a link to what Vic quoted. Instead, you devolve into personal comments, as seems to be a conservative go to of late.
It just takes a quick second to check his links to confirm he meant January 2018. But good for you catching the typo. Care to try actually refuting his comment and links?
Why would you be waiting for that to be made public MUVA?
Conservatives aren’t the ones making things personal in this country during ideological and political discussions.
nationalreview is a far right wing propaganda site that spews nothing but lies and innuendo.
Are you claiming that Sean isn't a conservative Xx?
Mueller being the only one of significance. Since he was the former head of the FBI and is the one conducting the investigation that has not turned up any real evidence of what has been claimed so far. He has made indictments against Russians for interfering in our elections; but has not made any connections between Trump and Russians during the 2016 campaign. Almost every American that has been indicted and/or plead guilty to crimes were to crimes that were WHOLELY UNRELATED to the basic investigation. These crimes range from lying on tax returns to not registering as a foreign lobbyist all BEFORE the 2016 election cycle. The only one whom was indicted and plead guilty to a charge somewhat related to the investigation was Flynn for lying to investigators and even the investigators at the time didn't think he actually was lying to them.
I'm pretty sure Mueller has confirmed everything he needs to by now...
Flynn indictment was related and so is Stone's.
Y'all keep saying that BS. Flynn thought he was lying and Flynn pled guilty to lying. Just STOP.
BTW, Flynn's indictment was totally related to the Russian investigation.
If he has confirmed everything, why hasn't his final report been submitted and his team disbanded?
[deleted]
Did I say all the indictments or guilty pleas were for wholly unrelated charges? I did not, I said almost all were. I was not saying any BS. Congressional testimony stated that the agents that interviewed Flynn thought he wasn't lying to them.
[deleted]
In relation to the dossier, he's confirmed all he needs to. As for the rest, Mueller still has testimony to present to the Grand Jury and documents to obtain.
You really have an issue with lashing out with personal comments tom.
I never inferred that you did. Perhaps it is you that should READ MORE CAREFULLY.
Yet that alleged testimony was NEVER released, was it tom. So all we have is Nunes saying that Comey said that. You may take Nunes @ his word, I don't.
Then you again devolved to making a personal comment. Why is that tom?
National Review is a Conservative publication which was founded in 1955 by the great William F Buckley. Part of the reason for it's launching was to respond to what some Conservatives saw as the shortcomings of a Republican administration at that time. Today it offers a good perspective on America's state of affairs. It is allowed as a source here and I will be using it as I see fit.
Oh, I have. I said that his testimony was released long ago and now you post an article that is over a YEAR old stating just that like it's some kind of trophy.
So again, WTF are you waiting for MUVA?
Oh goody, a response !!!!!!
How very interesting......at the top of the page where in would normally have the date,
it says
DOSSIER
a year agoDemocrats Release Fusion GPS Testimony on Trump and Russia
Should I highlight it for you?
( a year ago )
It was REPUBLISHED the other day
big difference between "released" and "republished"
Don't you think it would be on FOX and the dreaded MSM 24/7 if it was fresh meat?
If, when you open the actual 32 page document from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the date on the document is August 22, 2017......
From the top of your link:
Here are multiple sources with DATES for that event:
Even fucking breitbart posted it in Jan. 2018.
Oh BTW:
Have you ever noticed how differently Republicans are treated in the media than Democrats?
I sure have. They behave as larger arseholes than the Dems, therefore they are portrayed as such, though during Mr. Cohens testimony they played themselves quite nicely.
The GOP has been wrongly treated by the msm
This, for sure. One of the more exasperating aspects of Trump coverage for me has been the characterization of perfectly ordinary (and common) behavior as unusual or even illegal.
Short memory? Remember John Edwards? I used to like the guy and may have considered voting for him. Until I heard about his true character. I didn't excuse him because of his party (not belonging to a party makes it easier to hold politicians accountable). Conservatives are the ones who don't care about the values they espoused just 5 minutes ago. Remember when lying was impeachable? Remember when no investigation was too small or went on too long? Even after nothing was found and reported? They just kept going. So stop whining, its pathetic. Just sit back and reap the karma.
Nothing you just wrote has any connection to anything I wrote. Why pretend you are replying to me when it would be more appropriate to just start your own thread?
Jesus, this seed is about MEDIA COVERAGE and how they are always bad on conservatives and easy on democrats. I just posted a rebuke of that notion. And there is NOTHING ordinary or common about Trump and his behavior. Maybe you need to stop thinking is such small bites if you can't see the link. (And there is nothing normal about the NDA's Trump forces everyone to sign in office either.)
Really Tacos!? Can you name another Administration that had PRIVATE NDA's with WH staff?
How about WH staff being required to swear personal loyalty to the President, his children and his businesses? Got another example of that?
BTW, isn't there a Constitutional thingy about free speech and Federal laws and regulations about whistleblowers that make retaliation 'illegal'?
Please explain your exasperation.
Now, if Trump had an NDA with Stormy Daniels (which is what I was thinking about) then it wouldn't have anything to do with any "Administration" or "WH staff." A "private NDA" would be - or at least should be - ummm . . . private.
However government NDAs are pretty common. The scope of them is probably a longer conversation, but they certainly have existed for years.
Here's a notice on that from when Obama was president: Nondisclosure Agreements Notice
Here is the one Hillary Clinton signed to join the State Department: Clinton — Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement
Here is one required when being hired by the FBI: FBI Employment Agreement
Can the president limit what people say after they leave the White House? Maybe. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama put limits on their employees regarding lobbying that lasted a few years after they left the WH. Were they legal? I'm not sure they were challenged.
Fortunately, it's a free and just country. If you don't like the NDA, you don't have to take the job and if you do, afterward you can always challenge the thing in court.
NDAs are common in both the public and private sectors. They're also perfectly legal, so calling them "hush money" or "bribes" is pretty inappropriate.
Perhaps you missed the word 'PRIVATE' in my question? NONE of the above deflection has ANYTHING to do with 'PRIVATE' NDA's.
FALSE. Previous administrations recognized that Executive Branch employees worked for the GOVERNMENT of the US, NOT the President.
Secondly comparing a restriction on lobbying to a PRIVATE NDA is a False equivalency, as you well know.
More deflection.
So your exasperation is based on conflating NDA's with 'hush money' and 'bribes'. That's easy to dispel. Since an NDA does not inherently come with a payoff, just recognize them as the separate issues that they are.
No, I talked about "private" quite a bit. Honesty, it's like you're not really reading.
Don't imagine that I make claims I can't back up.
Clinton Reverses 5-Year Ban On Lobbying by Appointees
How Obama failed to shut Washington's revolving door
What's kind of funny about it is that back then, the Left was actually critical of Obama for not doing a better job of controlling the speech of people who used to work for him. Imagine that.
Yes. You can tell because I quoted that in my very comment. It's literally what I'm talking about.
It's just inaccurate and unhelpful to try to characterize all possible examples of a contract as the same. An NDA is a contract, the terms of which could be almost unlimited. Compensation for performance (or refraining from a certain performance) is a standard feature of a contract. Terms like "hush money" and "bribes" clearly imply some kind of illegal activity. Paying your mistress to keep her mouth shut about your affair is not illegal. Treating it like it is is dishonest. That's the whole point. I hope that clears things up for you.
You can't back up your claim because you keep demanding that we pretend, along with you, that Executive Branch employees are the Presidents employees. They are NOT.
Again, a restriction on lobbying has NOTHING to do with an NDA restricting an Executive Branch employee from speaking ABOUT Trump, his kids and his company. STOP trying to insult my intelligence by conflating the two.
It is if it a part of a conspiracy to deny the electorate what they need to make an informed decision.
So it's not dishonest to be dishonest about the payoff?
Again, some day one of y'all are going to have to explain WHY Trump keeps lying about what you insist he need not lie about...
Is it now? Which statute declares that a candidate for president has to tell the public about all the people he's ever slept with?
Sure, but it's not a crime unless he's dishonest under oath.
Yes, READ Cohen's charging documents.
There is none. Yet any thinking person knows that this issue isn't about who Trump slept with...
Well SOMEONE was dishonest under oath since Trump's campaign finance filings didn't document the illegal contributions by Cohen and Pecker. SOMEONE signed off on those filings in Trump's name [under oath].
BTW, that SOMEONE is MR. BRADLEY CRATE of Red Curve Solutions and it's on him to tell us whether he was informed of the donations. If he wasn't, only Trump can tell us why he withheld that information.
Since the conservatives here insist that Obama is responsible for the infractions made by his campaign, only hypocrites would claim that Trump isn't responsible for the infractions of his campaign.
So the only question now is, were the donations intentionally and willfully omitted from the financial filings and WHO caused that omission.
Cohen has already pled guilty of intentionally and willfully making or facilitating donations that he KNEW were illegal. We will have to wait to find out in full what Weissleberg and Pecker testified to in front of the Grand Jury for the proof that Trump intentionally and willfully conspired to violate Campaign finance laws. Their testimony is what nailed Cohen and it can easily nail Trump.
Trump insists that Cohen did NOT break Campaign finance law and shouldn't have pled guilty. One can only wonder why Trump is defending Cohen on those charges and those charges ONLY.
Not used the way Trump does. Even interns? Trump, as usual takes his authority and pushes it to the point of abuse. If only that was the worst thing he did or does. Can barely summon the outrage because its so expected.
What staff that Trump has left, who care for him, beg him not to testify for that very reason.
Trump is insane and can't help what he says. He lies out of a long-standing con-man habit.
Sure, but it's not a crime unless he's dishonest under oath.
What a very low bar you set for the liar and chief. He tells lies everyday and will never testify under oath because every word he would say would be perjury.
I'm not setting a bar. That's simply the context of the conversation. If you want to just talk generally about right and wrong, that's a different conversation.
How often do you have your lawyer surreptitiously set up an LLC so you can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep your illicit affairs with porn stars and playboy playmates quiet during an election you're running in? How is any of that "perfectly ordinary"? It's definitely illegal as one of the parties has already been convicted on one count of unlawful corporate contributions and one count of excessive campaign contributions that have maximum 5 year prison sentences each and Trump is the "unindicted co-conspirator" in that case. So how is the supposed "msm" misreporting this? How are they supposedly "fake news" in regards to how they report about Republicans who break the law?
GOP wrongly treated by the media? How could that possibly be? Perhaps it is because the TGOP of the Trump has branded the media as unamerican, an enemy of the people and a purveyor of fake news.
It is apparent that 'the media' has yet to get with the Trumpian program. After all, the infallibility of the Trump is...…………..sent to us by gawd, the Pillow Guy said so. This can't be that hard to figure out, can it?
Well gee Sean, let's look. This is what Vic quoted, note the quotation marks:
Here's the 4th paragraph:
So WHERE is it Sean?
I think that your 'It's right fucking there' comments only qualifies as feeding me FALSE information Sean.
One more than you've spent failing to supply a link to what Vic quoted.
I'm starting to think that he made that shit up, what do you think?
I'll say it again...
Because the article was linked to. Don't ask to be continuously spoon fed information if you can't even be bothered to read the provided links.
Does playing these silly little games seem like a productive use of time to you?
So WHERE is it Sean?
Linked to by Vic in comment 3.2.13.
Which merely makes it MORE obtuse.
I can't help but wonder why y'all think that making demonstrably false statements, over and over again, adds anything to the discussion.
Does playing these silly little games seem like a productive use of time to you?
Even after being spoon fed the link, you still can't engage substantively. Sad.
We have similar experience here
It should be apparent by now that 'The Goebbels Philosophy' does have its merit and success---especially with the guidance and tutoring of advanced Russian propaganda on an American population somewhat populated by a percentage which takes actual pride in membership of 'the weak and insipid' class.
More condescending arrogance directed at those who dare to presume to disagree with a progressive.