The Gymnastics many “News” Providers Do with Verifiable Facts

Journalism is not merely about providing the facts. There are so many ways to manipulate, censor and palter even though one is using verifiable facts. This is an excellent post by Michael Nayna:

There are three information filters that allow journalists to bend reality using verifiable facts.

#1 – Story selection. Each day offers thousands of stories, and editors typically highlight those that align with an ideological perspective. Politically inconvenient events can be ignored or buried with minimal coverage.

#2 – Fact selection within stories. The amount of details within a particular event is massive, and a journalist needs to choose which ones are relevant. I once worked with a journalist who had been covering a series of attacks on Indian students on public transport. The outlet’s interest was in the racial angle, but an interviewee mentioned other victims. She asked about their nationality, then chose not to pursue those attacks in detail because the victims were Australian. A single vague line made the final cut, and the piece implied racial motive when it couldn’t have been.

#3 – Framing facts with emotive conjugation. For instance, if I’m covering someone I don’t like, he’s cheap; if I’m neutral, he’s frugal; if I like him, he’s thrifty. Someone can be passionate, emotional, or hysterical; careful, hesitant, or cowardly; they can glisten, perspire, or sweat. This is subtle, but once you notice it, you’ll find that even though there’s better and worse news, none of it is purely objective.

Continue ReadingThe Gymnastics many “News” Providers Do with Verifiable Facts

J.K. Rowling’s Individual Points Regarding Gender Ideology

Speaking of assassinations, J.K. Rowling occasionally posts some of the many death threats she receives. They are shocking in their intensity and details. What has she done to deserve these threats? She recently took the time to spell out her positions on gender ideology. I follow these issues closely and I largely agree with her on these issues (though I have other opinions too and some of my view are more nuanced). This makes me wonder. Instead of framing the issue broadly as one of "gender ideology," I wonder how people would respond to the individual points that Rowling raises below? Or, at least, how would they respond if they could vote by secret ballot, without any fear that someone would harm or kill them? I assume that almost all people would agree with many or most of her positions. I would like to see the data.

Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:

Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:

As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

Here's a good way to end this post, with Rowlings' post from yesterday:

If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.

If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.

If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.

If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.

Continue ReadingJ.K. Rowling’s Individual Points Regarding Gender Ideology

Nellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

Nellie Bowles, at TGIF:

Here’s MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd shortly after Charlie was shot: “I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” And: “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.” And also: “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, we have no idea.” That makes more sense, right? A right-wing gun nut pointing a gun directly at the guy talking and pulling the trigger to celebrate him—that is definitely the most likely scenario. Later, facing outrage for its coverage, MSNBC apologized for these comments and ended Dowd’s contract.

Well, that’s MSNBC. But CNN? Within a few hours of Charlie’s slaughter, CNN anchor Abby Phillip was calling for the video to be censored, and did her best to do so from her pulpit. “The degree to which the algorithm on this platform is pushing video of the shooting is incredibly disturbing. There has to be some human that can turn the dial down in a situation like this.” Odd how reporters want much, much less reporting. Funny how she didn’t say that about a situation like, I don’t know, George Floyd’s killing. It’s almost like it’s political. ...

And then came the New York Times obituary. A classic. The headline: “Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Provocateur and Close Ally of Trump, Dies at 31.” Right-wing provocateur. A person trying to provoke, if you think about it. As though there’s no belief system behind it. Just a provocateur. For the sake of it. In the mainstream media worldview, there are two kinds of people: those fighting for left-wing causes, who are described as people of conviction, activists for justice, deep believers in equality. And then there are those fighting for right-wing causes, who are described as provocateurs, cynics, racists, and shills. Archconservatives. They eventually changed the headline. But here’s the New York Times’ obituary: “He was so vocal in his willingness to spread unsupported claims and outright lies—he said that the drug hydroxychloroquine was ‘100 percent effective’ in treating the virus, which it is not—that Twitter temporarily barred him in early March 2020. But that move only added to his notoriety and seemed to support his claim that he was being muzzled by a liberal elite.” Fascinating. A man is murdered in public, in the middle of the day, while practicing his First Amendment rights, and the paper of record decides this must be the perfect moment to do fact-checking about hydroxychloroquine.

What you need to know from this: If your politics are that of a standard normie conservative man, your New York Times obituary will find the various things you said that weren’t exactly right (he got into hydroxychloroquine in 2020! Can you believe that?) and they’ll paint them in the sky. My politics are lib centrist, and these people would certainly celebrate my death, highlight my many errors, and refer to my defense of the SAT as my “repeated advocacy for a return to slavery” or something. What I’m saying is: Just try to stay alive because when you die, a New York Times reporter gets to juice your corpse for likes on Bluesky. MSNBC will invite talking heads on the air to suggest that the shooter could have been your mom who forgot to turn the safety on, we simply don’t know."

Nellie's TGIF column at The Free Press is one of my favorite parts of every week. I highly recommend it.

Continue ReadingNellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

Ubiquitous “News” Based on Classified Leaks

Well stated by Green Lives Matter and Tulsi Gabbard:

Tulsi Gabbard explains how the intelligence community uses leaks from "anonymous sources" to usurp the President of the United States and undermine the will of the people.

Coincidentally, The New York Times just published an article that cites "unidentified sources" from an alleged classified operation in North Korea that could tarnish Trump's relationship with Kim Jong Un and further diminish his image.

It's the same exact playbook every single time. Listen to Tulsi explain:

These people have gotten away with these kinds of activities for so long because they're protected by an entire system that is built to shield their nefarious activities. They do this with the assistance of the deep state and the propaganda media... This happens frequently.

Someone in the intelligence community leaks classified intelligence to their friends in the propaganda media. Those individuals in the media eagerly print this classified intelligence from "unnamed sources" then we see other people in the media talk about this "classified" intelligence. No one has verified it. No one has done any kind of vetting. No one has done any basic journalist work.

And then we see politicians repeating and talking about what was leaked to the media. We've seen how this tried and true playbook that is used over and over again to smear their opponents and, in President Trump's case, to be used as a basis for FBI raids on his home, lawfare, impeachments, endless investigations, and so forth. . . . 

This is what we are talking about when we talk about the deep state. It's not some grand conspiracy theory; it is a conspiracy to undermine the Constitution, but this is the reality we are operating in. It is important to be clear-eyed about it so we can combat it with the truth. This is why exposing the truth is so important to bring about that real transparency and accountability.

People have become well aware of the insidious nature of the mainstream media and the playbooks they use. Far more awake than ever before.

Continue ReadingUbiquitous “News” Based on Classified Leaks