The Next Big Media Lie Is Here

Cruz Calls It ‘The Corrupt Politicians Act.’

Words have meanings that matter. And our media uses words deceptively and manipulatively.

We’ll get to the latest example, after laying some groundwork.

You remember those “mostly peaceful protests;” the ones with fireballs in the background and looters like ants at a picnic rummaging local stores through smashed-out windows and doorways? The final tally was more than two dozen deaths, assaults on police officers, damages galore, and a lot of bankrupt businesses.

Of course, there was the “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. That’s when flag-waving Trump supporters wanted to show their disgust over a rigged election. And they came armed, as Nancy Pelosi will tell you, not mentioning that the arms amounted to pepper spray, batons, their flagpoles, of course, and assortment of other items that might have been requisitioned from a junk drawer.

Joe Biden, playing president, told the world after meeting with Vladimir Putin a week ago that at the Capitol on January 6 “a mob rushed in and killed a police officer.” Somebody please insert into Biden’s teleprompter the inconvenient truth: that myth was dispelled at least a month ago.

The only person killed at the Capitol January 6 was an apparent Trump supporter, and who shot Ashli Babbitt in defiance of standard police training is being kept secret.

A great recent article in Law Enforcement Today, citing heavily the exemplary work of Revolver News, provides a lot more detail, as does the reporting of Julie Kelly at American Greatness.

It Doesn’t Quack Like a Duck

But we’re told Jan. 6 was an insurrection, in contrast to those mostly peaceful protests, without any indictments yet for sedition and an interruption of government activities for only a few hours. Charging documents also reference a number of “unindicted co-conspirators,” which has led some to speculate that the FBI may have infiltrated these groups and helped incite what violent acts occurred. Again, that latter point is speculative but worth investigating.

It’s curious also that about 10,000 hours of surveillance video is being kept private. Are we not to see an insurrection or is there not an insurrection to see? Could’ve just been a mostly peaceful – and patriotic – protest.

This is not a defense of trespassers and rioters. It’s an indictment of the media for misuse of terminology.

Another Disgrace

Local Atlanta News, the night of June 22, 2021, informed viewers that a “voting rights bill” had failed to overcome the Senate filibuster, and thus would not become federal law. Being in Atlanta, a WSB TV reporter rushed out to Ebeneezer Baptist Church to wake up the echoes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The only problem is that the legislation that failed to surmount the filibuster had nothing to do with voting rights directly. It dealt with election management. It was, essentially, the federal government’s attempt to usurp each state’s authority to conduction elections. That would make it about the 500^th abuse of the 10^th amendment.

Given the euphemistic titles customarily bestowed upon legislative proposals, this one didn’t lie about itself to the extent the TV news reporter did. It was titled the “For the People” act, not a voting rights bill.

This same station newscast typically refers to recent Georgia election security legislation as a “restrictive voting bill.” Hopefully, it restricts our elections to a compilation of one vote per U.S. Citizen who is registered to vote. It would also restore faith in our democracy if votes were counted cleanly, continuously, and accurately.

This is overly drastic, but Hitler used to call his gas chambers “freedom camps.” Words form impressions and, if you’re unaware of their inaccuracy, those are wrong impressions.

A few weeks back we delineated strategies for identifying fake news. Assessing the terminology that’s presented can stand as a seventh defense mechanism.

False Premises

When George Zimmerman was acquitted of charges in the death of Trayvon Martin, many were shocked because of how the tragic event had been covered in the mainstream media. I thought it was nonsense that anyone would think somebody would call the police and then murder the suspicious individual he was reporting, as if he wanted police to witness his crime.

So I looked at everything I could find about the case. Instead of reciting the particulars here, I’ve posted an old blog about it, but there was no injustice done to Trayvon Martin.

With the unfortunate police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, charges against a local police officer were dropped at the grand jury level. There isn’t much evidence available for public scrutiny, but it was reported that six witnesses who happened to be black refuted claims that Brown had his hands up asking the officer not to shoot.

The Justice Department, then led by Eric Holder, descended upon Ferguson but never filed any charges either.

The point of injecting these incidents into a post about misleading news reports is that precision communication doesn’t matter to grievance mongers. You regularly hear Martin’s and Brown’s names in a list of alleged systemic racism victims. President Obama would routine reference “what happened in Ferguson,” clearly implying some wrongdoing.

I haven’t the resources to review every deadly outcome of a black person resisting arrest. It happens more frequently with whites than blacks, but gets no news coverage. There are cases that result in convictions of officers, such as George Floyd, but convictions don’t seem to satisfy the grievance mongers that the system is working.

You have to figure there are many disciples of Saul Alinsky, who compiled Rules for Radicals, and taught his followers that “the wicked tend to win. And they do so because they have a huge advantage over the good: they are willing to act with the darkest ingenuity and cunning to further their cause. They are not held back by those rigid opponents of change: principles.”

Inflaming Passions

In his report, the Atlanta reporter pandering news of a failed “voting rights” bill recorded reaction from Martin Luther King, III, son of the legendary civil rights champion. While MLK III didn’t seem as bothered as the reporter probably wanted him to be, the next day it was announced that King and the Rev. Al Sharpton are organizing a nationwide “March On For Voting Rights” on August 28, the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington.

Might it trigger some more mostly peaceful protests?

With the media asserting – fraudulently – that voting rights have been denied, Democrats are likely to end the Senate filibuster. Heck, they’ll have to do so in order to provide voting rights!

See how this game works? Notice the distortion and demagoguery? It’s all about power.

The books highlighted on this page provide much greater insight, particularly of all that’s beneath the surface.