DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: January 29, 2017, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=8899.msg122640#msg122640
date=1485730620]
You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and Trump
is cracking eggs. Family first, then friends, then everyone
else. There is nothing wrong with that mantra.
Recent American political leaders inverted this fundamental
equation of human existence considering themselves not to be
Americans but elite citizens of the world and they have treated
the American people horribly as they prospered their own class
with stratospheric riches by their seizure and transfer overseas
of American treasure. They expanded their empire and ruined the
domestic economy. Trump is standing the existing order on its
head. Overpopulation is leading to collapse and if the number
of immigrants who dilute my citizenship one at a time is cut to
zero let it be so. When America has no poor and we are taking
care of all our own and every American has a decent job at a
decent wage let us ask if there is room for anyone else but
until then a pox on those arrogant enough to think they have the
right be bestow citizenship on anyone they please. Right now
America has too many resource hogs and we don't need any more.
You may not like Trump. You may hate Trump and you may disagree
with his attitudes but Trump is the first politician we have had
who has had anything but a childish inkling about how the world
works for a long time. Trump understands the world will not run
on magic. Trump may still be wrong about how he thinks the
world works in almost every way but the path America has been on
so far has been going at a hundred straight for a cliff. Just
about anything else is an improvement, for the path we have been
on was certain ruin. Trump in his bumblings is forcing change
and a badly needed examination of the national character.
[/quote]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png[/img][/center]<br
/>
The truth finally comes out. K-dog LIED when he said he did not
vote for Trump.
K-Dog is a hopelessly biased TRUMPER!
YOU do not have the remotest idea of how the world works. ALL
you can come up with is clever witticisms to ridicule those who
see what a POS POTUS Trumplethinskin is in your pathetic
attempts to appear objective, while you CONSISTENTLY DEFEND
every Fascist move Trump makes.
;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>You don't fool ANYBODY. [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png[/img]Keep<br
/>talkin' about cracking eggs when you REALLY want Fascist Trump
to crack HUMAN minority heads, TRUMPER!
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3734/9445947716_c44e36c2b1_z.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]The Trump omelet K-Dog wants us to EAT
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 6526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: February 20, 2017, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200217115745.png[/img][/center]
Agelbert NOTE: Trump Team reaction to the above: [img
width=70]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif[/img]
[img
width=90]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif[/img]
#Post#: 6618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: March 4, 2017, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]What to Do with
Latinos
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014182447.gif:<br
/>Get Used to Them
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif[/center]
Mar 3, 2017
By Fred Reed
“Information Clearing House” – Following Mr. Trump’s
kaleidosopically shifting policies isn’t easy. He was going to
declare China a currency manipulator on day one, but didn’t,
going to impose a forty-five percent tariff on Chinese goods but
apparently won’t, was going to shift the embassy from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem but isn’t, going to tear up the Iran treaty but
hasn’t, going to end the wars but isn’t, and going to rid the
country of illegal aliens within two years. Now it seems he has
backed off this too, and there is in the air the merest whiff
of…amnesty? ??? ;D
Oh well. Mass deportation was a loony idea to begin with.
Consider:
For years there have been said to be 11 million illegals, a
number having a suspicious stability. Foes of immigration have
put it at thirteen or fourteen. Call it at least 12 million. To
deport them in two years, Trump would have to deport 500,000 a
month. For twenty-four months. To deport a tenth as many, he
would need to expel 50,000 a month.
Is the man crazy? Does he just shoot from the lip on crucial
policies without thinking? Can’t do arithmetic? Or lies in the
normal manner of politicians?
His promised expulsion would rank among history’s most awful
humanitarian disasters. Mexico could not possibly absorb such a
huge tsunami of returnees. They would have nowhere to stay,
nothing to eat, no jobs.
The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like
Vdare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and
welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty
unevolved human flatworms. The bastards came illegally, so to
hell with them. But, I think, not enough of the country will buy
it. Stopping the influx will probably fly. The Wall? Maybe, but
I wouldn’t bet on it. We seem to hear less about it. Criminals?
Most would favor deporting them.
But twelve million? Or anything resembling it? For many reasons,
both charitable and self-interested, too many groups aren’t up
for mass arrests and deportations. Not businessmen, who want the
cheap labor, nor the Democratic Party that wants the votes, nor
academia, nor the media, nor sanctuary cities, nor many of the
young, nor liberals. Nor…California.
The question is not whether it was a good idea to encourage
illegals to come. It wasn’t. The question is not even whether it
would be good for the country to run them out. Doing it would be
too ugly to gain support from the public. Too many illegals have
been in the country for five, ten, fifteen years, speak English,
have employers who value them, have children who are citizens
and sometimes do not speak Spanish.
[center]
[img
width=400]
HTML http://funnyfactsss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/genie.gif[/img][/center]
[center]The Hispanic Genie is out of the bottle.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif[/center]
The Hispanic genie is out of the bottle. It is a done deal.
Trump can’t do much about it. Neither can anyone else. Deporting
a few hundred thousand of 56 million would not make a dent. A
million would constitute less than two percent of the Latino
population.
In any event, running out the illegals would leave 44 million
legal Latinos. Or, increasingly, sort of Latinos. Is Rosa
Gutierrez, nineteen, born and raised in California, whose
English she speaks flawlessly–a Latina? Quite possibly she has
never been to Mexico. She thinks that she is an American. Why
isn’t she?
Worse, Rosa is pretty and feminine. If Pew is to be believed,
the intermarriage rate is at 26 percent. This horrifies white
nationalists
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
[img width=60]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif[/img],<br
/>gratifies assimilationists, but neither horror nor gratificati
on
is going to change things.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Will Rosa’s children, had in conjunction with her husband Robert
Williams, be Latinos? They won’t think so. And you cannot deport
American citizens.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
Much of the hostility, though expressed in practical terms of
lost jobs and so on, is in fact racial, and therefore incurable.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://dd2d9j2i66w9u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/25150000/header_anti-hispanic1.png[/img][/center]
Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate
squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences
being polluted by oozing dark sludge. Well, as you will. There
are reasons why this view isn’t going to prevail. See below.
"Oozing dark sludge".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Young Anglo men may
not see her exactly that way.
[center] [img
width=100]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
Since huge numbers of Latinos are in the country, and are not
going to leave, the intelligent question–yes, I know this is a
political column, but we can try a little eccentricity here–is:
Can they be part of America? Well, let’s see.
They are approximately Christian, though like all Christians
they don’t always remember the parts about adultery and
fornication. They don’t do terrorism. Brown Lives Matter doesn’t
burn malls and loot shoe stores, in part because it doesn’t
exist. They don’t genitally mutilate their daughters, forbid
them schooling, or make them wear funny black bags. They do not
yell “Pancho-hu akbar” and stab people .An estimated million
Americans including your scribe live amicably in Mexico. If it
were such a horrible experience, you might expect us to notice.
Wherever I have been in the US–LA, San Fran, New York, San
Antonio, Houston, Laredo, Chicago, Washington–they have seemed
integrated, working in restaurants, doctrine’s offices, what
have you and both learning English and, often, forgetting
Spanish.
There are down sides. While very few Mexicans are involved in
the drug trade, a high proportion of those involved in the drug
trade are Mexicans. Another is that if government can turn them
into welfare dependents, it will.
What the white nationalists can do, perhaps, is to alienate
white from brown and split the country into three mutually
hostile groups, white, black and Latino. The constant
disparagement of Latinos by Trump and the anti-immigrant
enthusiasts appears aimed at just that. Strictly speaking, Trump
might respond that he is not against Latin Americans ;) but only
against criminals and illegals, but it certain sounds as though
he hates Mexicans. The racialist sites post endless stories, not
infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime,
shiftlessness, and vile behavior. Mexicans, rightly or wrongly,
conclude that they are hated. This does not encourage
assimilation–assimilation being of course the last thing that
white nationalists want. To endorse assimilation would be to
grant legitimacy to the assimilated.
This attitude will prove unfortunate, since assimilation is the
only hope of not having the United States become an ethnic
disaster.
White nationalists tend to believe, and obviously hope, that
Latin Americans are genetically criminal and incapable of of
fitting into nations of the First World. This allows a
comforting faith that mixing should be prevented at any cost.
Yet those who have traveled in the world will have seen that
economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular,
as people move into the middle class, crime and fertility
decline sharply and interest in education rises.
Just so, here. The Mexican middle class is no more violent than
anyone else’s. (From which we derive genetically fascinating
conclusions. Apparently the presence of a refrigerator and
indoor plumbing alter the genetic makeup of those near them.
Weird Kelvinator rays, one supposes.) Another observation
readily made around the planet is that middle classes usually
get along well with each other. All of this would suggest that
encouraging immigrants to move into the middle class might be a
Real Good Idea.
Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would
intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious
bodily essences. Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want
anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances.
Thus they have no policy other than getting rid of people most
of whom cannot be gotten rid of.
In particular they furiously oppose amnesty for illegals. This
would be a rational position if there were a possibility that
Mr. Trump could chase them out of the country–which he can’t do
in significant numbers, which would mean many millions. At that
point keeping them illegal amounts to preventing their economic
rise and creating another permanent underclass.
Gosh, what a swell idea.
Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a disorganized past, has worked
on staff for Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune,
Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times.
HTML http://fredoneverything.org
HTML http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf
o/46581.htm
#Post#: 6621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: March 5, 2017, 9:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png
[center]Real News Doesn't Side with Russian or American
Oligarchs[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/htYnzi7ZB9k[/center]
Published on Mar 4, 2017
Kim Brown and Paul Jay discuss TRNN's approach to covering Jeff
Sessions and the Trump-Russia connection controversy
Help support The Real News by making a donation today:
HTML http://therealnews.com/donate
#Post#: 6770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: March 29, 2017, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"I've heard this before, and, just to be clear, there's
no social science to support your position on that," Carlson
said. "There are no actual studies that show a sanctuary city is
safer. Sorry."
Alex did not let that comment go unchallenged.
"I disagree with you, Tucker," Alex responded.
Tucker tried to have the last word.
"There's no disagreement -- there haven't been studies done on
that that show it," Tucker said.
Alex did not cower as he responded. More importantly, in
addition to pointing out the increased safety of these cities,
he included some economic realities.
"Let me just correct you there," Alex said. "I can talk about
it right now. The most comprehensive study to date is the
University of California study done by Ted Wong. It basically
looked at sanctuary cities across the country, and it said that
there are 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 in sanctuary
cities than non-sanctuary cities. It also said it's even better
in smaller municipalities. And, importantly, sanctuary cities
have stronger economies, lower poverty rates, lower uninsured
rates --"
Tucker had no comeback, so he had to resort to the connection,
causation, and speculation argument. Of course, Republicans
usually depend on much less as corroboration of their
ill-advised policies.
[/quote]
[center]Tucker Carlson
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif<br
/>falls apart as guest confronts him with university study on
sanctuary cities ;D [/center]
Tuesday Mar 28, 2017
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/28/1648123/-Tucker-Carlson-falls-apart-as-guest-confronts-him-with-university-study-on-sanctuary-cities
#Post#: 6772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: March 29, 2017, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/huX1bmfdkyA[/center]
[center]
Al Gore slams Trump in statement & mocks him in new documentary
'An Inconvenient Sequel' [/center]
By Leslie Salzillo
Wednesday Mar 29, 2017 · 12:38 AM EDT
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/28/1648224/-Al-Gore-releases-An-Inconvenient-Sequel-says-no-one-man-can-stop-us-in-this-climate-crisis-battle
#Post#: 6790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: April 1, 2017, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center] [center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif[/img][/center][/center]
[center]As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes
more silent[/center]
[center]
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 [/center]
[center][img
width=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif[/img]
[img
width=100]
HTML http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375371542_tumblr_m7jevgcaFm1qzqdem.gif[/img][/center]
[font=times new roman]Mediamatters.org,[/font] March 17, 2017
In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and
NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday,
collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by
66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of
important climate-related stories, including the announcement of
2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris
climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather
events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover,
and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power
Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate
change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the
networks also failed to devote significant coverage to
climate-related policies, but they still found the time to
uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came
from now-President Donald Trump and his team.
Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016
Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday
Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample
Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and
Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50
minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news
programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of
about 66 percent.
*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program
As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate
coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about
seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks
also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous
year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in
2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015
to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27
minutes in 2016).
Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016.
Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks
had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The
New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a
prominence it has never before had in a presidential general
election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’
views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long
track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues,
including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and
the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump
pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and
Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities
transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host
of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016,
including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like
Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding
in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the
worst natural disaster to strike the United States since
Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement
and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official
announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far;
and investigations by state attorneys general into whether
ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate
change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The
Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media
Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post,
4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The
New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related
Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The
Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a
single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate
change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or
Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a
significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25
segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of
a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of
these segments aired after the election. Examples of
post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about
Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial
and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment
about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA
transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s
promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions
on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News,
11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]
**We included citations of specific shows when we described the
content of a segment. We did not include show citations for
general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available
online but listed only the date for those that were not.
PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications
Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS
NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what
impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on
climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the
September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William
Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might
mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’
Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a
September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump
presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff
interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump
would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour,
9/22/16, 9/7/16]
***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air
for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a
week and is a half hour longer.
Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues
Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the
broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed
election-related issues coverage on the major networks’
weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to
climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report
defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a
public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be
addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and
proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The
Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report,
10/25/16]
Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage
After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November
8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about
climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the
networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately
seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per
week.
Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National
Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health
Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants
And Wildlife.
Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National
Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have
sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national
security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National
Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence
community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are
likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the
United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And
following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of
defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s
transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to
consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,”
E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of
climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate
coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American,
11/15/16]
PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate
Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic
impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s
carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and
October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of
the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s
shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii
because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on
the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William
Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to
the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords
and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy
puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16,
10/20/16, 11/17/16]
Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public
Health.
The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all
concluded that climate change has a significant influence on
human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread
of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate
Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human
exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in
the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing
the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.”
However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the
link between climate change and public health -- no other
network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the
spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers
are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing
certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report
about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in
Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The
debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth,
but scientists say there are many factors including population
growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed
3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment,
accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News,
1/18/16, 7/4/16]
CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather,
While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages
of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with
Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires
-- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to
climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven
states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in
Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst
natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm
Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate
change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments
and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour
aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate
change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media
Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central,
11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]
PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On
Plants And Wildlife.
PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and
wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments
each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting
included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about
how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain
gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less
predictable and forcing human populations searching for water
into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how
Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food
sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated
by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment
reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related
pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a
range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change
to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News,
5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]
Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage
Outside Of PBS
The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday
Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The
broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power
Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to
eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the
first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants
and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet
the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris
agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a
climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which
Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the
Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how
“environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic
Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in
the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls
conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a
majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue
and favor government action to address it. On nightly news
shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a
climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered
the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS
Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two
segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15;
The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media
Matters, 11/29/16]
PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement
And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the
signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195
nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing
the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy
policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris
climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York
Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments,
PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the
U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing
so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC
aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16;
The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16;
BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times,
11/23/16]
CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone
XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All.
During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing
positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which
would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than
average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and
other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S.
Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s
link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just
one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC
and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored
Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional
non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider,
9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]
Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In
A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native
American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested
against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016,
citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of
oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the
sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate
context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host
Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by
saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he
stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial
break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple
specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate
agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to
reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access
pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied
that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would
“have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota
Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments,
respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate
change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News
Sunday, 12/11/16]
Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story.
Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times
revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early
1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet
Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the
causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became
known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the
attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to
each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits
from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of
Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these
developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16;
InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In
2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included
Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or
Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and
Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled
audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News
Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In
every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting
denial.
• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent
Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26
presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that
climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think
it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do
not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that
climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the
veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax.
[CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]
• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on
world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory,
correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is
America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has
called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years
to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in
place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which
Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17
edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated,
“Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate
change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of
global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to
make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he
wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither
instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are
at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is
real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]
• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in
which he stated that he had an “open mind”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
on climate change and
the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace
asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how
flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus
answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the
only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about
it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his
default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk
[img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/>but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus the
n
moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as
defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And
during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition
of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows”
whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace
didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the
consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that
human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause
of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News
Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]
Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included
Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those
Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate
Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also
included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these
statements were at odds with established climate science.
• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee
to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8
edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt
is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues,
including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing
in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far
from settled. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of
global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree
that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which
underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will
refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas
emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour,
Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director
for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect
still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the
science behind climate change is still not settled, in other
words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely
correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on
human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands
that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but
the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is
something there is some dispute about within the community, not
just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16,
12/14/16]
• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of
climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team
featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,”
followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect
Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue
of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the
production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And
his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading
climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees
with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the
driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil
fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]
• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured
footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying
climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that
the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the
scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced
Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official
continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s
World News Tonight, 11/14/16]
Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the
statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science,
they were not counted as denial in our study.
Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News
Tonight … Again
For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did
Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s
World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its
climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC
Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six
scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.
Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In
Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists
over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows
featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in
2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of
all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with
the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their
climate-related coverage.
PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related
Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS
and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of
segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that
they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments
on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that
featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on
wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS
Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research,
including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who
discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic
Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments
on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired
just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on
climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS
Evening News, 3/4/16]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://i.imgur.com/9DqiHlb.png[/img][/center]
Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent
Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate
Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of
coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’
climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of
coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year
time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw
significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading
the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by
NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four
minutes).
Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As
Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday
show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought
up climate change significantly more often than the hosts
themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s
Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts
brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up
climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows.
Because our study counted only those segments where a media
figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments
were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.
Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As
Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015
NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased
Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network
Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC
collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately
73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of
46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate
coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS
Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes.
ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate
coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again
continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly
seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes
in 2016.
For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than
All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second
consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing
climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS
NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five),
CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related
nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage
decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related
segments.
CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage
In Early Months Of 2017 [img
width=50]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> ::)
In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than
Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In
the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired
about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes
less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening
News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all
of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a
series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its
“Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]
In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired
Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016.
In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired
about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as
much as the show aired for all of 2016.
[font=times new roman]Methodology [/font]
This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global
warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four
Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's
Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and
four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS
Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis
transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does
not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable
channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network
nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week,
compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows
(PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one
instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention
"climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate
change; because the segment provided other clear indications
that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To
identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone
XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms
Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.
Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as
well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a
news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure)
about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not
include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate
change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless
the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We
defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and
recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include
teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same
program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them
generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was
related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news
segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change
briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage.
However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related
to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech
about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and
outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that
discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows,
which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics,
we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All
coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute.
Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other
networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our
analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other
nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and
number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.
Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to
this study.
HTML https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/23/how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-change-2016/215718
Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist
Wrecking Crew
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
is in such a
hurry to DEFUND PBS. [img
width=70]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/be/bead363502f8e7564038c7072c490cfc0da55bf30c42bb1f04983157e9ae7125.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 6908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: April 19, 2017, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RE link=topic=9416.msg129730#msg129730
date=1492631242]
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. :icon_sunny:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
RE
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-is-officially-out-at-fox-news/2017/04/19/74ebdc94-2476-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.42b9305ab48c
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-is-officially-out-at-fox-news/2017/04/19/74ebdc94-2476-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.42b9305ab48c
Bill O’Reilly is officially out at Fox News
[center]Bill O'Reilly let go from Fox News Channel amid sexual
harassment claims[/center]
Bill O'Reilly, longtime host of Fox News's top-rated show,
“The O'Reilly Factor,” will not return to the network.
His departure comes after six women alleged he sexually harassed
them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
By Paul Farhi April 19 at 2:41 PM
Fox News has ended its association with Bill O’Reilly, the
combative TV host and commentator who has ruled cable-news
ratings for nearly two decades and was the signature figure in
the network’s rise as a powerful political player.
The conservative-leaning host’s downfall was swift and
steep, set in motion less than three weeks ago by revelations of
a string of harassment complaints against him. The questions
about his conduct represented yet another black eye to Fox,
which had dealt with a sexual harassment scandal involving its
co-founder and then-chairman Roger Ailes, just last summer.
[The fall of Roger Ailes: He made Fox News his ‘locker
room’ ]
“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations,
the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill
O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News
Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the news channel’s parent
company, said in a statement Wednesday.
After Ailes’s departure, Fox and 21st Century Fox —
both controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his family — had
vowed then to clean up an apparent culture of harassment at the
news network. Instead, the allegations kept coming —
against Ailes, O’Reilly and some of the remaining senior
executives that Ailes had hired.
Bill O’Reilly is out at Fox News. (Richard Drew/AP)
Fox has also lost popular hosts Greta Van Susteren and Megyn
Kelly since the turmoil began last summer. The network, however,
continued to roll in record ratings, driven in part by viewer
interest in Donald Trump, a longtime friend of Ailes, Murdoch
and O’Reilly and a frequent interview guest for years.
The loss of O’Reilly, however, is of a different magnitude:
His program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” has been the
network’s flagship show for nearly 20 years, and in many
ways has embodied its conservative-oriented spirit.
[How much turmoil can Fox News handle?]
It was just last month that Fox re-signed O’Reilly to a
multimillion dollar, three-year contract, fully aware of the
long history of complaints against him.
He still seemed to be at the peak of his popularity and prestige
only three weeks ago. His 8 p.m. program, which mixes discussion
segments with O’Reilly’s pugnacious commentary, drew
an average of 4 million viewers each night during the first
three months of the year, the most ever for a cable-news
program. His popularity, in turn, helped drive Fox News to
record ratings and profits. O’Reilly was also the co-author
of two books that were at the top of the bestseller lists in
April.
But the fuse was lit for his career detonation when the New York
Times disclosed that O’Reilly and Fox had settled a series
of harassment complaints lodged against him by women he’d
worked with at Fox over the years.
The newspaper found that O’Reilly and Fox had settled five
such allegations since 2002, paying out some $13 million in
exchange for the women’s silence. Two of the settlements,
including one for $9 million in 2004, were widely reported. But
the others had been kept secret by O’Reilly, Fox and the
women involved.
In addition, a sixth woman, a former “O’Reilly
Factor” guest named Wendy Walsh, alleged that O’Reilly
had harassed her in 2013. Although Walsh never sued or sought
compensation, she spoke against him in public, drawing more
negative attention to Fox and O’Reilly over the past few
weeks. A seventh, still anonymous woman filed a complaint with
the company on Tuesday, alleging that he had made disparaging
racial and sexual remarks to her while she was employed at Fox
in 2008.
O’Reilly has never acknowledged that he harassed anyone. In
his only public statement about the matter in early April, he
said his fame made him a target of lawsuits and that he settled
the harassment claims against him to spare his children negative
publicity.
After the revelations, Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan,
were forced to decide whether the economic and reputational
fallout from the O’Reilly scandal were irreversible.
O’Reilly had previously survived several controversies
during his 21 years at Fox, including a lurid sexual harassment
case in 2004 that was fodder for New York’s tabloid
newspapers. He also beat back a wave of headlines in 2015, when
reporters examined his claims about his days as a young reporter
and found them to be dubious. All the while,
O’Reilly’s audience not only stuck with him, but
continued to grow.
But this time, the intense media coverage surrounding
O’Reilly led to a stampede of advertisers away from
O’Reilly’s program, leaving it almost without
sponsorship over the past two weeks. Various organizations,
including the National Organization for Women, called for
O’Reilly’s firing, and intermittent protests began
outside Fox News’ headquarters in New York. Morale among
employees at the network reportedly was suffering, too.
The Murdochs also had more than just O’Reilly’s TV
career to consider: The O’Reilly controversy was casting a
shadow over 21st Century’s $14 billion bid to win the
British government’s approval to buy Sky TV, the British
satellite service. Leaving O’Reilly in place would likely
have been a public-relations nightmare for James and Lachlan
Murdoch, the sons who head 21st Century Fox, Fox News’
parent.
The Murdoch family abandoned a 2011 offer for Sky amid another
scandal, the phone-hacking conspiracy perpetrated by employees
of the Murdoch-owned News of the World tabloid in London. A
parliamentary panel later declared Rupert and James Murdoch to
be “unfit” to run a public company — a
description they hoped would not be revived by regulators with
the O’Reilly matter hanging over them.
In the wake of the Ailes scandal last summer, the Murdoch
brothers vowed to clean up a workplace environment that women at
Fox had described as hostile under Ailes. In one of their few
public statements on the matter, they said at the time, “We
continue our commitment to maintaining a work environment based
on trust and respect.”
But those efforts have seemed unavailing, and at times have even
seemed hypocritical. Since the Ailes scandal, the company has
continued to employ almost all of the senior managers who were
in charge when Ailes’ was allegedly harassing employees,
including Bill Shine, currently Fox’s co-president. Shine
was accused of enabling Ailes’ retaliatory efforts against
an accuser, Fox contributor Julie Roginsky, in a
sexual-harrassment lawsuit Roginsky filed earlier this month.
The external and internal pressure left the Murdochs with a
dilemma: Keep the networks’ most valuable asset and hope to
ride out the storm around him, or cut him loose and end the
drama.
In the end, even an endorsement from President Trump
couldn’t save O’Reilly: In an interview with Times
reporters on April 5, Trump called O’Reilly “a good
person” and said he shouldn’t have settled the
complaints made against him. “I don’t think Bill did
anything wrong,” Trump said.
Fox said that Tucker Carlson, host of a discussion-program now
airing at 9 p.m., will take over O’Reilly’s 8 p.m.
timeslot. “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” in turn, will be
replaced at 9 p.m. by Fox’s 5 p.m. show, “The
Five,” starting on Monday. “The O’Reilly
Factor” will continue for the remainder of the week, with
guest hosts Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. Martha MacCallum and
Sean Hannity will remain in their current spots at 7 p.m and 10
p.m,, respectively, and the 5 p.m. hour will be occupied by a
new show, hosted by Eric Bolling, starting May 1.
[/quote]
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=9416.msg129732#msg129732
date=1492632541]
F u c k ing prick.
Like Ailes, he's so rich he won't miss the job. Fox will just
find some other right-wing A-hole to be head cheerleader for
austerity and military interventionism.
[/quote]
Now THAT is good news.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif
I hope his pal pervert Trump will soon get the same treatment
from his current "job" wrecking the government.
At any rate FOX News, on behalf of the plutocratic BASTARDS at
the top, is a serial Propaganda Pushing LIAR on anything that is
of importance for we-the-people .
[center]A truthful image from the UCS about Media
propaganda.[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/ucsfox.jpg[/img][/center]
It's an OLD STORY in the USA:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050515144418.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 8013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: September 27, 2017, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.ragingpencils.com/2011/10-24-11-the-one-percent.gif[/img][/center]
[center]Is Identifying With The Billionaire Class [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>a Form of Stockholm Syndrome? ???[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/ojj21YeXrrY[/center]
Sep. 26, 2017 4:30 pm
Thom takes your calls discussing how people who identify with
the Billionaire Class might have a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
What do you think, are the temporarily displaced millionaires of
America really identifying with their captors?
[center] [img
width=400]
HTML https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/30/b3/8b30b31e87dddef823ce634725ac42d3.jpg[/img][/center]
Agelbert NOTE: Republicans LIE almost continuously (and the
Democrats do next to nothing to call them on their lies.) >:(.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170317122516.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]
[img
width=240]
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IPZX1n_gnIM/TBxKST8wgBI/AAAAAAAAFxM/52D2UaemhQE/s400/Gas-Oil-Petroleum385.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230117172434.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://washingtonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/americansdon27ttrust.jpg[/img][/center]
[move][font=courier]Enough People Couldn't Vote To PREVENT
Republicans from "winning" the Election, Just like they Planned
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
[/font][/move]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/2XHxObprRnU[/center]
Sep. 26, 2017 5:00 pm
[quote]
Thom talks on the population who was actively discouraged from
voting through conservative intimidation and just how great such
an effect really was. The election wasn't rigged, it was stolen.
[/quote]
#Post#: 8345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: November 9, 2017, 9:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Below, please find, another attempt at
distracting propaganda by one of the Right wingers at the
Doomstead Diner. Surly made clear it was baloney (CFS is an
acronym for Common Fu ck ing Sense). I made it even more clear.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif
[quote author=azozeo link=topic=10369.msg140649#msg140649
date=1510010270]
*YOUR BUSTED***Podesta arrested, Hillary to turn herself in...
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,10369.msg140649.html#msg140649
HTML https://www.therussophile.org/rumor-or-fact-trying-to-confirm-tony-podesta-arrested-arrest-warrants-issued-for-hillary-clinton-john-podestamainstream-media-blackout-as-key.html/]
[/quote]
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
[/center]
[quote author=azozeo link=topic=10369.msg140835#msg140835
date=1510263396]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=10369.msg140828#msg140828
date=1510258169]
[quote author=Surly1 link=topic=10369.msg140788#msg140788
date=1510226016]
[quote author=azozeo link=topic=10369.msg140786#msg140786
date=1510225669]
Sounds like someone is lacking in their shadow work.
Of all people, you should know journalism releases karma.
[/quote]
Someone is lacking in their CFS. If this is journalism:
[quote]President Trump is very good. He’s very smart. He knows
exactly what’s going on here and is using a military strategy to
trap the enemy. You surround them and take down their walls and
then they have nowhere to go.
[/quote]
... then I am the rightful king of France.
This is nothing more than fan fiction and far-right wishful
thinking. 4chan as a source? Oh, my sides....
[/quote]
HTML http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif
[img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017143841.jpeg[/img]Az,<br
/>you are pegging the meter reading with that "You're Busted"
post.
[center][img
width=350]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121829.png[/img][/center]
Shame on you.
[/quote]
Hey,
While I got you here as a hostage, I have a quick question ?
Since you were involved in commercial air travel could you give
me and any other
of the diners here a quick rundown on that SKYKING alert system.
[/quote]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://orig02.deviantart.net/bc20/f/2009/176/a/c/look_a_distraction_design_by_eecomics.jpg[/img][/center]
The country is going to hell in a Trump fascist handbasket and
you want to talk about the SKYKING alert system?
[img width=200
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
You just do not get it, Az.
What part of THIS do you not understand?
[center]Department of the Interior, or Ministry of Doublespeak?
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/interior-zinke-priorities-2507823925.html[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/picture/2367113/84688966.jpg[/img][/center]
We had a quaint acronym saying back when I was controlling air
traffic: DNHMS. That stands for, "Does Not Hit My Shift",
snarkily used when some big military exercise or a lot of bad
weather or certain hours during the busy season were NOT part of
our schedule.
It was wishful thinking then because working airplanes is like
Russian roulette; you never can count on a guaranteed easy day.
Well, too many (usually white) WISHFUL THINKERS in the USA have
this amazing DNHMS mentality in regard to Trump. The racists
think they are gonna do jes fine under Herr Trump, as do the
Capitalism loving greedballs and assorted con and bullshit
artists, some who post here regularly.
They
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
will have a VERY
rude awakening, VERY SOON. Stupid is as stupid does.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page