The Jury Talks Back

2/3/2017

Big Media’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 11:30 am

Big Media had a really bad day yesterday — even for them — and I thought a brief roundup of just some of the freakouts they had to immediately retract would be useful. Not that I think it will actually shame the worst of them . . . but maybe some of the better ones, looking at all these things in one place, will start to stage an intervention with the rest.

In this post I will list four different absurd, patently ridiculous stories that could have been avoided with even a modicum of skepticism:

TRUMP ADMINISTRAITON CHANGES SANCTIONS TO BENEFIT FSB

Culprit: Peter Alexander, NBC News

This one was spotted by Becket Adams. and covered by Joe Cunningham in this post.It speaks for itself; just read the two tweets:

Peter Alexander

Note how the truth of the second tweet is just lacing up its shoes while the first, false tweet has already raced around the world.

GORSUCH SUPPOSEDLY FOUNDING “FASCISM FOREVER” CLUB

Culprit: Alana Goodman at DailyMail.com

Alana Goodman at the Daily Mail Web site was responsible for the claim that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch had founded a club in high school called “Fascism Forever.” She based her bogus story on a single yearbook entry.

Just one problem: Other journalists actually conducted interviews and applied common sense, and revealed that there had been no such club. It was a wry joke by Gorsuch in the yearbook, made in reaction to over-the-top accusations by lefties.

TRUMP RENAMING BLACK HISTORY MONTH AS THE SAME THING IT WAS ALWAYS CALLED

Culprit: John Haltiwanger at Elite Daily

Charles C.W. Cooke called this “a story in four parts.” Once again, it’s self-explanatory. Just read the tweets in order.

Haltiwanger 1

Haltiwanger 2

Haltiwanger 3

Haltiwanger 4

Joe Cunningham covered this in this post, showing how it spread throughout Big Media.

GORSUCH OP-ED CRITICIZED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE

Culprit: Corky Siemaszko of NBC News

Corky Siemaszko of NBC News was responsible for trumpeting an op-ed supposedly written by Gorsuch in which (Siemaszko claimed) Gorsuch “opposed military recruiting on campus precisely because it discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

Just one problem: It was someone else’s op-ed. Two op-eds had begun on page 6, one by Gorsuch, and one by another student who was a considerably inferior intellect and writer. When the pieces jumped to page 9, the names were reversed for the continuation. Does that let the reporter off the hook? Not at all. Not only were the subject matter, writing style, and tone different after the jump, but the sentence made no sense whatsoever. If the reporter had actually read the op-ed, as opposed to scanning it for stuff he could rush out to embarrass Gorsuch, the reporter would have noticed this.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Yesterday, Allahpundit at Hot Air — writing about another bogus media freakout, having to do with President Trump’s call with the Australian Prime Minister — had this important observation:

American politics increasingly feels like a novel whose events are retold by two unreliable narrators, Trump being one and the media being the other. The truth, or something close to it, is in there somewhere between the two of them.

I am immediately skeptical of anything coming out of the Trump administration, headed as it is by one of the least honest individuals in politics during my lifetime. And I realize that it has been a goal of the Trump administration to delegitimize the media, which would make it easier for their own false narratives to be accepted by the citizenry.

But damned if Big Media isn’t doing a hell of a job walking directly into that trap.

I am not going to write off all big media journalists because of this type of irresponsible reporting. It would be unfair to write off, for example, ABC’s Jan Crawford — a solid reporter who had the scoop on the Gorsuch nomination for days while the rest of Big Media was chasing its collective tail — because of these stories yesterday, written by other so-called journalists. In the same vein, it would be unfair to reject me or other RedState writers because we publish our posts in the same medium as the fact-challenged, exclamation-point-loving, Trump-approved propagandist Jim Hoft.

Therefore, my approach will be to pay attention to who the offenders are. To name them and shame them. I hope this post helps contribute to that effort.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

65 Comments »

  1. This is the first I’ve heard about the ridiculous “African American History Month” controversy.

    Among my friends on the left, the complaint was more about the substance of President Trump’s speech, which suggested (by inappropriate use of the present tense) that he actually has no idea who Frederick Douglass was.

    Comment by aphrael — 2/3/2017 @ 11:48 am

  2. Week 2, I am pleasantly surprised promises are being kept by Trump and the left wing is showing how shallow and violent they really are.
    The scales of honesty are tipped in Trumps favor at the moment.

    Comment by gbear — 2/3/2017 @ 12:49 pm

  3. It’s just remarkable how often this happens with Big Media.

    Of course it happens with the Trump administration too.

    Ah, well. One side will admit one problem and the other will admit the other. That’s how we do it these days.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 5:31 pm

  4. “… just some of the freakouts they had to immediately retract would be useful.”

    A freakout can travel half-way around the world while a rectraction is still putting on its shoes …. All of those English teachers who told us to avoid using cliches in writing were fools. There are reasons they became cliches. The trick is finding just the right one at just the right moment.

    Comment by Quibus Vigilius — 2/3/2017 @ 5:32 pm

  5. A freakout can travel half-way around the world while a rectraction is still putting on its shoes …. All of those English teachers who told us to avoid using cliches in writing were fools. There are reasons they became cliches. The trick is finding just the right one at just the right moment.

    Glad you caught the allusion in the post!

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:07 pm

  6. Can federal judge impose a nationwide ban?

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 6:14 pm

  7. Ban on what, narciso?

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:25 pm

  8. On the executive order bard on the mcva

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 6:29 pm

  9. Yes, he can, like the one in Texas did with Obama’s amnesty order. But Washington and Minnesota businesses losing money from reduced Muslim customers is not a good reason I think.

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2017 @ 6:32 pm

  10. If the question is whether a judge can issue a nationwide injunction, the answer is yes.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:34 pm

  11. Testing

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:40 pm

  12. That was pursuant to an eo that had no statutory authority,

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 6:42 pm

  13. I had to deleted shipwreckedcrew’s comment from the other site because (due to the Recent Comments mixup) it was posted on the wrong thread. It belongs here, and I hereby cut and paste it below:

    [Comment by shipwreckedcrew:]

    District judges all over the country issuing contradictory orders. But everyone interested shud read the 12 page written order from Boston that has the advantage of analysis and case law. No injunction because no standing for aliens not on US soil. No rights conferred by visa.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:49 pm

  14. Also narciso said thanks to SWC and I had to trash that comment too.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 6:56 pm

  15. No injunction because no standing for aliens not on US soil. No rights conferred by visa.

    That was my first analysis, too.

    But now, Washington and Minnesota got a Seattle judge to give them standing because they’re alleging that their states’ businesses are losing money by losing customers from the proscribed countries. (Don’t tell me this judge didn’t get his appointment because of how much money he bundled for the President’s party. The Shrub, in this instance.)

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2017 @ 7:00 pm

  16. Its nit that surprising considering the judges previous statements and rulings

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 7:00 pm

  17. You’d think the media would have learned how Trump could trigger and manipulate people during the GOP primary. The Democrats seem to have a clue, given their apparent decision not to oppose Gorsuch, but the media is still clueless.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:02 pm

  18. A lot of former Trump opponents on Twitter are now declaring that they are open to him based on how absurd the media is being.

    I think that’s a dumb reason to accept Trump. A good reason to accept him is if he is doing a good job, which in many ways he is, so far. I’m not approving of this attitude, just reporting it.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:04 pm

  19. Binary choices always seem to benefit Trump.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:09 pm

  20. Ha. Good point.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:11 pm

  21. nk, there are apparently a lot of Somalis in Minnesota.

    Among the nefarious types caught by the ban: Norwegian prime ministers
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

    Comment by Kishnevi — 2/3/2017 @ 7:11 pm

  22. Yes, instead of accepting this modest pause, they dial to eleven, and this is a dangerous thing.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 7:12 pm

  23. Among the nefarious types caught by the ban: Norwegian prime ministers
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

    Looks pretty suspicious to me…

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:13 pm

  24. When did it become acceptable journalism to “discover” something after publication that undermines the report? I thought that was called a Correction. Does Twitter mean corrections are no longer needed?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:14 pm

  25. TRO here:

    https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446169/Robart-Order-20170203.pdf

    I’m no lawyer, but this is laughable.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 7:14 pm

  26. Standing? Because!
    Prevail on merits? Sure, whatever they are.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 7:15 pm

  27. I think that’s a dumb reason to accept Trump. A good reason to accept him is if he is doing a good job, which in many ways he is, so far. I’m not approving of this attitude, just reporting it.

    The enemy of my enemy…

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 7:16 pm

  28. Well, I’d love it if Trump got Congress to stomp on the Judiciary by amending both Section 1182 and the Judiciary Act. But he won’t.

    What he will do is things that motivate his base to keep sending money to his “2020 re-election campaign”, so he can keep his loyals on some kind of payroll, and pay for the otherwise dead space on his properties that he’s leasing to it.

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2017 @ 7:17 pm

  29. When did it become acceptable journalism to “discover” something after publication that undermines the report? I thought that was called a Correction. Does Twitter mean corrections are no longer needed?

    It seems completely standard now, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:18 pm

  30. “The Democrats seem to have a clue, given their apparent decision not to oppose Gorsuch, but the media is still clueless.” – DRJ

    It may be more accurate to say it’s their apparent decision to let the media carry the water in trying to find reasons to oppose Gorsuch. That way, they can claim to have open minds while reliable allies do the leg work. If nothing comes up, they lose nothing. If some disqualifying information arises, they can latch onto it, thanking the press for dutifully keeping America informed, etc. Of course, if they didn’t have such friends in such places ….

    Comment by Quibus Vigilius — 2/3/2017 @ 7:19 pm

  31. I am a lawyer, Kevin, and it makes me want to cry that such a judge has power over the life, liberty and property of other people.

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2017 @ 7:19 pm

  32. On the plus side, the Democrats are reinvigorating States’ rights and the 10th Amendment.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:22 pm

  33. Quibus, that’s probably true but the more the media does this, the more Trump can make the media his focus. I don’t think that helps the Democrats oppose him.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:25 pm

  34. But that guardian piece admitted the underlying authority, which is more than 80% of publications including the journal has dine.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 7:27 pm

  35. I will reiterate my suspicion that at least some of the heavy handed enforcement was done to embarrass Trump and/or retard implementation of the EO down the road. One can assume that all the lower level staffing, the ones who actually probe and grope, got their jobs before 1/20/17.

    Comment by Kishnevi — 2/3/2017 @ 7:35 pm

  36. I don’t recall previously seeing a court grant standing based on parens patriae and harm to State residents. It certainly could have happened but it’s surprising to me.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:35 pm

  37. Quibus, that’s probably true but the more the media does this, the more Trump can make the media his focus

    The media won’t do this forever. They have businesses to run and if they have to choose between their stockholders and the Democrats, they’ll choose the stockholders.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 7:38 pm

  38. Probably he dismissed or demoted ragsdale, who was likely the ringleader,

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 7:40 pm

  39. Here is a parens patriae-standing case involving Puerto Rico.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:41 pm

  40. DRJ:

    Based on law I am seeing here and here, the key case in this area is Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982).

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:43 pm

  41. Ha! Doing the same research at the same time…

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:43 pm

  42. I hope so, Kevin, but some of these media organizations seem intent on bankrupting themselves.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:43 pm

  43. So everyone is talking about this. I guess I should post about it, huh?

    Comment by Patterico — 2/3/2017 @ 7:44 pm

  44. We are!

    I’m not sure the Seattle Judge has met the Snapp standard. It seems like the harm to the State economy has to be more significant.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:47 pm

  45. I’m interested in it. This is an unusual area of the law.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 7:49 pm

  46. The decision is about grounds for an injunction, not the underlying issue I’m guessing he didn’t think it lived up to snap standard. Was thAT due to a simple google search?

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 7:53 pm

  47. It seems like the harm to the State economy has to be more significant.

    There’s an old joke post from Usenet about someone posting a long off-topic rant about light bulbs on alt.physics (or whatever) and having it defended as relevant because “we all use light bulbs.”

    The judge’s reasoning about the state economy being affected because a few immigrants don’t arrive is about as silly.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 7:59 pm

  48. Also, some people are sad.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 8:00 pm

  49. Congress could pass a law saying that Section 1152 does not apply to national security matters and be done with it.

    Comment by Kevin M — 2/3/2017 @ 8:02 pm

  50. You would think Massachusetts v us, or a similar Hawaiian case would be more on point, instead it reads like a term paper full of filler.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 8:04 pm

  51. Even the 9th circuit might find that a silly argument

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 8:09 pm

  52. I thought the Administration had allowed green card holders and legal residents to enter the US, so the only people who are banned are refugees and other immigrants without visas. How can the State assert parens patriae authority over aliens who are not legal residents of the State?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:11 pm

  53. A good question, this suggests the judge hasn’t kept up with re went developments.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 8:13 pm

  54. It’s possible many immigrants (including legal residents) have been detained and/or affected by this order, so that may be one basis.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:15 pm

  55. Recent developments, or he relied on a poor amicus brief.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 8:16 pm

  56. I would guess the state is pointing to families and businesses in the state already. Like the Somali community in Minnesota.

    Comment by Kishnevi — 2/3/2017 @ 8:17 pm

  57. But if legal residents were initially detained due to poor implementation of the order but that has been resolved, then it seems unlikely the State could make a showing of future success for the purpose of a TRO.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:17 pm

  58. How are they subject to this order if they are legal residents, kishnevi?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:18 pm

  59. And if they are not legal residents, can the State assert a parens patriae interest over them?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:19 pm

  60. The underlying legislation where the administration determined these seven countries one of which the Ohio state bomber came from, and the risk of letting someone through.

    Comment by narciso — 2/3/2017 @ 8:23 pm

  61. I should have said immigrants with visas in comment 52.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:28 pm

  62. A terrorist attack would generate a great deal of revenue for Seattle’s or Minneapolis’ hospitals and funeral parlors, DRJ. Trump is stealing the food from their children’s mouths with this executive order, that’s what he’s doing.

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2017 @ 8:31 pm

  63. There is some
    evidence
    that 60,000-100,000 immigrants have been affected by Trump’s order. That is a significant number. But to me the question is how many of them were already US residents?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:31 pm

  64. What a kidder you are, nk! Seriously, though, I bet you know more about the parens patriae doctrine than I do. This is probably affecting immigrants on work or travel visas. Might they be considered State residents for the purpose of this doctrine?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/3/2017 @ 8:36 pm

  65. “They have businesses to run and if they have to choose between their stockholders and the Democrats, they’ll choose the stockholders.” – Kevin M

    Tell that to the stockholders of Newsweek. But yes, your logic is unavoidable, in the long run. Only question is how much longer a run some of these businesses will have.

    Comment by Quibus Vigilius — 2/3/2017 @ 9:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.