CNN’s ‘Journalist of the Year’ Fraudster Smeared Trump’s Rural America

Claas Relotius - the CNN 'Journalist of the Year' exposed as a lying fraud - smeared small-town American Trump voters as backward, gun-toting hicks in one of his fake news articles for the German magazine Der Spiegel.
Screenshot

Audio version.

Claas Relotius – the CNN ‘Journalist of the Year’ exposed as a lying fraud – smeared small-town American Trump voters as backward, gun-toting hicks in one of his fake news articles for the German magazine Der Spiegel.
In Medium, Michele Anderson from Fergus Falls, Minnesota, describes how Relotius visited her town on a three-week investigation into Trump’s America – and then misrepresented it with a pack of lies.

What happened is beyond what I could have ever imagined: An article titled “Where they pray for Trump on Sundays,” and endless pages of an insulting, if not hilarious, excuse for journalism.

Not only did Relotius’ “exposé” on Fergus Falls make unrecognizable movie-like characters out of the people in my town that I interact with on a daily basis, but its very basic lack of truth and its bizarrely bleak portrayal of the place I love left a very sick, unsettled feeling in the pit of my stomach.

There’s really nothing like this feeling — knowing that people in another country have read about the place I call home and are shaking their heads over their coffee in disgust, sharing the article on Facebook and Twitter, and making comments on the online article like “creepy,” and “these are the people who don’t believe electricity exists.”

Relotius has received accolades for his daring quest to live among us for several weeks. And yet, he reported on very little actual truth about Fergus Falls life. In 7,300 words he really only got our town’s population and average annual temperature correct, and a few other basic things, like the names of businesses and public figures, things that a child could figure out in a Google search. The rest is uninhibited fiction (even as sloppy as citing an incorrect figure of citywide 70.4% electoral support for Trump, when the actual number was 62.6%), which begs the question of why Der Spiegel even invested in Relotius’ three week trip to the U.S., whether they should demand their money back from him, and what kind of institutional breakdown led to the supposedly world-class Der Spiegel fact-checking team completely dropping the ball on this one.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Trump’s Anti-Censorship Tweets Just Reminded Us Why He Is the Greatest…

US President Donald Trump gives the thumbs-up as he awaits the arrival of South Korea's President Moon Jae-in outside of the West Wing of the White House on May 22, 2018 in Washington, DC. - Donald Trump welcomed South Korea's president to the White House Tuesday, a high stakes and …
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty

President Trump has taken his time before weighing in on Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives. But it was worth the wait…

We’re told by liberals and Never Trumpers that Trump shouldn’t be on Twitter because he’s crass, embarrassing, unpresidential. But when did you last read an op-ed which summed up the key points of the censorship debate as simply, articulately and directly as Trump just did in those tweets?

Read the rest on Breitbart.

#CNNBlackmail Is the Best Thing Since Trump Got Elected

trump cnn
#CNNBlackmail is the best thing to have happened to the world since the election of Donald Trump. Indeed, it may be one of the greatest moments in the history of the internet.

Sure, on one level it resulted in weapons-grade trolling and a few deliciously funny memes; but in bigger picture terms it was something much more significant than that – a pivotal moment in the Culture Wars akin to the Persian defeat at Salamis or the German defeat at Stalingrad or the French defeat at Trafalgar.

Or maybe a better analogy would be the one I used on Sirius XM: the moment during the Second World War when, under the command of the brilliant Bill Slim, the ill-equipped, neglected British Fourteenth Army realized that the only way to beat the Japanese was to fight with the same aggression, cunning, and mobility of the Japanese. In other words, to use the enemy’s tactics against them.

Just like CNN, just like Antifa, just like the left generally, the Japanese were a horrible enemy to fight: utterly without scruples, fanatically convinced of the justice of their wicked cause, terrifying in the swiftness with which they swarmed and overran your position. By the time you knew what had hit you, you’d either be dead — if you were lucky — or tied, wounded, to a tree while the enemy got ready to use you for bayonet practice.

In the early stages of the war, the British and their fellow Allies were invariably on the back foot: how could they possibly defeat an enemy that didn’t play by the rules, that showed no weakness, that seemed more demonic than human?

Anyone who has ever seen action against the SJWs will know the feeling.

They hunt in packs; they swarm; they move as one as if controlled by some sinister hive mind; they are immune to reason; they are completely without mercy.

I give you, as but one example among many, the case of poor Sir Tim Hunt — the Nobel-prize-winning scientist whose career was all but destroyed for no better reason than the SJW hive mind demanded fresh blood.

The truth (that Hunt was the victim of outrageous misreporting by a dodgy hack pursuing a militant feminist agenda) was no defense. Nor were any mitigating circumstances taken into account — like, say, the fact that this alleged sexist Prof ha, in fact, spent his entire career bending over backward to help and encourage female scientists. Nor was the fact that he apologized for his non-crime.

All that mattered as far as the SJWs were concerned was that here was another scalp for the taking. So take it they did.

To experience these terror tactics is a demoralizing and frightening thing.

Too often the response of the right has been to feel a bit sorry for itself because it’s all so unfair. And then persuade itself that if only it keeps on making the same arguments as before then eventually logic and truth will prevail because, after all, the facts of life are conservative.

There’s at least one major problem with this response: the left isn’t interested in logic and facts — and hasn’t been for quite some time.

That was what James O’Keefe recently uncovered — not that we couldn’t have guessed anyway — with his recent sting on CNN. Here is an organization which affects the demeanor of a responsible, politically-neutral, internationally-respected news outlet with reporters and newscasters who look exactly like real ones on grown up TV channels. But underneath, its entire raison d’etre and business model is churning out leftist fake news propaganda.

If conservative media outlets like Breitbart took the same liberties with the truth as leftist media outlets like CNN (and Vox and Slate and Salon and Huffpost and the rest…) they would be crucified. But it’s no use bleating about this: we just have to accept that this is the way the world works and just get on with the business of winning.

#CNNBlackmail, make no mistake, was a pivotal #winning moment.

Why and how did we win? Partly by using the enemy’s tactics against them; partly by exploiting a few strengths of our own.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

CNN Just Got Hit by a Massive Truth Bomb–The Facts of Life Are Conservative

zucker
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty

“Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now.”

And there you have it, a CNN producer, caught on camera, frankly admitting that “fake news” isn’t some regrettable accident of the 24-hour news cycle.

“Fake news” is CNN’s entire business model. (The business model of quite a few other liberal MSM outlets too, if the tantalizing hints being dropped by James O’Keefe are to be believed…)

As a fellow human being I feel sorry for the poor guy caught on camera by Project Veritas admitting this stuff — because he’s probably going to lose his job.

But as a fellow journalist I feel about as much sympathy for him as I do for all those idiot jihadists who go out to fight in Raqqa and Mosul, lured by the cool videos of the beards, black flags, and AKs with the wailing soundtrack. Did they seriously imagine when they joined ISIS/CNN that it was all just going to be about the glamour and the hot chicks and the purity of the noble cause?

And I’m really not being high minded here. It just seems to me that one of the most basic, entry-level precepts that any serious news organization ought to be observe – and that CNN most patently never has observed, or not for a very, very long time – is this:

Facts are sacred. The truth always makes the best story. You do not make shit up.

Not only ought this stuff to be obvious, but it ought to come instinctively. Isn’t the whole attraction of joining an unglamorous, overworked, underpaid trade like journalism that you want to discover the truth about the world: all the stuff that they would rather you didn’t know?

That’s certainly been my own experience in the last few years covering the climate change/enviro-lunacy beat. I’ve never much enjoyed all the flak I’ve got from the left-wing media; still less have I liked being rejected by so many friends. But the thing that has kept me going through the hard times is that I know I’m doing good and making a real difference: there are some devious bastards out there doing terrible stuff and I’m exposing their knavery and holding them to account.

For any self-respecting journalist, I’d call that “job done.”

Sometimes I get asked by people on the other side of the argument: “What if you’re wrong?”

Here’s the first thing I’ll do if I’m wrong about climate change. I’ll write a big piece explaining why I’m wrong. Then I’ll find someone who is prepared to pay me for writing the opposite of what I do now.

This isn’t because I’m a moral paragon. It’s because I’m lazy and because I prefer the easier life: writing journalism where you have to keep making up your “facts” is much, much harder than doing what I do now, which is basically, copying out true facts and then adding a few nice adjectives and thinking up a snarky final sentence.

That said, I would have to concede that this is much easier to do if you’re politically on the right rather than on the left.

Margaret Thatcher once said “The facts of life are conservative.” And as in so many things, she was absolutely spot on. This, as you can imagine, makes life very, very difficult for people in the overcrowded left-wing media. (It’s overcrowded because so many journalists think they’re left wing).

Every day, they wake up to a world where: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East with the best human rights record; socialism is failing everywhere it is being tried from Venezuela to North Korea; the worst, most fascistic acts of violence and intolerance are being committed by left-wing people calling themselves “anti-fascists”; Islam is not a “religion of peace”; Trump is doing a great job as president — way, way better than his predecessor Obama; man-made climate change is the biggest scam in the history of science, politics, or economics…

And somehow they’ve got to construct stories demonstrating the opposite because it’s what their dumb-assed audiences want to hear.

How, if you’re running a left-wing media organization, do you reconcile this yawning gulf between the facts on the ground and your preferred political narrative?

Simple: you remake the world so that black is white and white is black; you create your own facts.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Memo to Jimmy Wales – ‘Fake News’ Is Fake News

wales
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is opening a unicorn reserve where he will breed baby unicorns with rainbow coloured fur to spread peace and love around the world.

Oh no, wait. My bad. He’s launching a new website called Wikitribune whose main purpose is to combat “fake news”.

So, just like unicorn farming, then, only a bit more fantastical, naive, and ludicrous.

If “fake news” were a thing – that is, if it were the major threat to the quality of public discourse that progressives claim it is – then clearly Wales’s project might be a worthwhile venture.

But “fake news” is fake news.

Sure there might be one or two young entrepreneurs in Macedonia who somehow make a living out of selling fake news stories. Which is huge if true because it’s difficult enough to make a living these days selling true news stories – so if they’re really swinging it, these guys deserve all the money they get.

Easily the main reason, though, why we hear about “fake news” so much these days is that it’s the liberal-left’s favourite excuse as to why they lost Brexit and why they lost the U.S. presidential election. Apparently, if it hadn’t been for all the completely “fake news” claiming that Hillary Clinton was a lying, scheming, cheating, email-hiding crook with blood on her hands, not a single person would have been stupid enough to vote Trump.

Ditto Brexit: it was all to do with “fake news” stories like the £350 million figure on the side of the bus which literally everyone who voted Brexit thought was going straight to the NHS – otherwise, of course, they would all have done the sensible thing and voted to remain shackled to a failing, democratically unaccountable, incompetent, corrupt, socialist superstate currently run by a rude drunkard and a bunch of fascistic technocrats. Fake news made all the difference. Not.

When I explained all this in a panel discussion on the media at Chatham House in London a few weeks ago, the senior editor from The New York Times and the senior editor from CNN were aghast.

They were too polite to say what I’m sure they wanted to say which is that – as most liberals do – they mentally include Breitbart in the fake news category.

But they both very much believed that “fake news” was a thing and that it posed a significant threat to the kind of fair and balanced and scrupulously accurate news that their own organisations produced.

At this moment I realised something extraordinary: liberals actually believe this shit.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Of All the Bad Things about France’s Burkini Ban, This Is the Worst…

One, is that they inevitably lead to ugly, embarrassing, unhelpful stories like this one involving a hapless Muslim woman being fined on the beach and forced by uniformed officers to expose her arms. You can see why locals might feel very strongly about Islam after the Islamic-State-inspired massacre of 85 innocents in the Bastille Day truck attack. But unfortunately it has the doubly negative effect of making the local authorities look petty, vindictive and helpless, while serving to exacerbate local Muslims’ sense of grievance, alienation and victimhood.

Another – as Douglas Murray eloquently argues here – is that it’s just a silly distraction from the real issues. Burkinis don’t pose a public safety threat – unlike, say, a burka you can’t hide an AK 47 under them because they’re too tight fitting. Picking on an item of clothing enables the authorities to give the false impression that they’re really getting tough when actually they’re brushing the real problems (mass immigration; Saudi-funded Wahabist indoctrination etc) under the carpet.

But easily the worst is that it gives progressive blowhards like James O’Brien the chance to demonstrate how inclusive and caring and unIslamophobic they are with virtue-signalling analogies like the one he inflicted today on listeners to his whiny-bitch LBC radio show.

O’Brien, a privately educated leftist with a fake-proletarian accent, brow furrowed permanently in a state of baffled rage and righteous concern, had this to say on his show:

“How would you feel if a nun at gunpoint was told to take off her habit?”
“Sister Mary Frances was my headmistress when I was six years old. I would find that so outrageous, so absolutely outrageous that Sister Mary Frances would be told to take off her habit when she took us on a school trip to Wales. How would you feel, hand on heart if nuns were being told in France to take off their habit on beaches?”

Yes, of course we can all see the flaws in his argument. (You only have to ask yourself who you think should get more scrutiny at an airport check in: a nun or a woman in a burka). At the same time, though, O’Brien does have a point.

Read the rest at Breitbart.