Mainstream media

Twitter, Twitter on the wall who should we shutdown after all?

F3570C69-B33D-4BA2-B56F-39A01CEA5DAD.jpeg

Black conservative Candace Owens gets a 12-hr Twitter ban for replacing the words of Sarah Jeong from “white” to ”black” or “Jewish”. Good to see the consistency in double standards from The Left. Of course Jeong suffered no such fate.

Candace Owens is an extremely articulate and intelligent person in her own right. Good to see more hypocrisy called out by her. If only Jeong could get as many likes or retweets. Perhaps Ann Coulter said it best, “Luckily for Jeong, the way “white men” saw the world in the 50s was that South Korea should be free.

#CancelIdentityPolitics

The NY Times lectures Americans about child rearing

7AABD4A6-F25B-4A70-BFFA-4619267685C4.jpeg

Ahh, The New York Times. No sooner had it justified the hiring of a white/male/cop hating (torn asunder if one should be all three) and newly discovered NYT loathing editor in Sarah Jeong, it went out to lecture Americans on the importance of enforcing morals when raising children.

Should we pay attention when the openly homophobic NYT, a paper whose masthead endorses everything it claims it isn’t, points fingers? So who in its view would it prefer as a role model to have American parents instill such virtues in their kids? As opinion writer/photographer Damon Winter wrote, “What is it like to see young people exposed to so much anger? Heartbreaking.

While the tear-jerking article is best read to a sorrowful violin, let’s see some of the positive role models and people of integrity the paper rarely calls into question. Those from the left which the NYT might champion as possessing the higher moral code somewhat missing in Trump voters. Here are 15 options they may consider…

1. Sarah Jeong – white, male, police, NYT hating racist ? As a NYT employee she’s been vetted.

2. Peter Fonda – who thought Barron Trump should be locked in a cage with pedophiles?

3. Samantha Bee – who is comfortable calling Ivanka a feckless c*nt who should sit in a short skirt on her daddy’s lap to change his policy?

4. Johnny Depp  – who said it’s been a while since an actor assassinated a president?

5. Madonna – who threatened to blow up the White House?

6. Michelle Wolf – who thinks its funny to celebrate abortion or characterise Sarah Huckabee Sanders (SHS) as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women? Say what happened to being PC?

7. Kathy Griffin – who held a bloodied decapitated head of Trump and then complained it was unfair that Trump ruined her career? Apologised, retracted it and complained again that she wanted pay equality despite her self inflicted stupidity causing her career to be in the dumps.

8. Maxine Waters – who suggested Americans should openly attack Trump admin officials in public after SHS was kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant?

9. Snoop Dogg – who shot POTUS in a music video?

10. Robert DeNiro – who wants to punch Trump in the face? Or the standing ovation he received for saying “F*ck Trump

11. Joy Behar – who is comfortable suggesting devout Christians are mentally ill?

12. Whoopi Goldberg – for supposedly calling Jeannine Pirro a “sand n*gger”?

13. Jim Acosta – CNN reporter who can’t take a fraction of what he dishes out and expects SHS to apologize for someone else’s beliefs? Or for asking inappropriate and irrelevant questions during the Kim summit?

14. Joe Biden – former VP who threatened to punch Trump behind the school shed?

15. Or perhaps put forward all the Hollywood celebrities who threatened if Trump became president to leave America but never did?

There is no question there are some highly unsavory characters on both sides of partisan politics. Yet to sandbag all 63mn who voted for The Donald as racist, bigoted and uneducated deplorables with questionable child raising children abilities re-inforces why liberals will have such a hard time convincing people they actually stand for something. If the Dems lose the mid-terms then it must be Russian meddling again, not their unhinged lunacy.

Until the left acknowledge they have a major problem with their image (especially as they go ever more socialist) they’ll struggle to convert many to their side. Last week even Maduro in Venezuela said socialism has been a massive failure.

There is a certain hollowness to Trump celebrating  his 50% approval rating (higher than Obama’s at the same stage). Reality is that Macron, May, Merkel, Trudeau and Turnbull dwindle in the mid 20-30s.

Despite such constant overwhelmingly negative media bias dished out to POTUS, just how badly can the mainstream media be misreading the mood of the people? The more negatives they hurl, the higher his support. The more effusive praise breathed on other world leaders, the more damage is done to their popularity. What gives?

It isn’t that Damon Winter doesn’t make a valid point about the importance of teaching all children good manners and ethics, it is a bit rich coming from a paper that has virtually no moral compass whatsoever. When The NY Times walks the talk it maybe worth paying attention.

No reason why it shouldn’t convert from a broadsheet to a tabloid to keep up with its new found image of ignoring every aspect of ethics it so willingly pushes on the rest of us.

High Time The NY Times believed or changed its own self-prescribed S&E code

5D09A335-3C02-4A34-96B5-D4AC6C587448.jpeg

Integrity is a must in journalism. Rarely do we see it. It seems that the white hating “fab new editor” Sarah Jeong also hates men and cops. If we forgive her hatred because others baited such that she was just giving it back, is there any evidence police mistreated her? Could it be a question of pulling her over for a traffic violation that they were doing their job, not deserved of “f*ck the police.” ?

44740AE6-D60D-4E2A-9384-A2F544A4D921.png

Although not on Jeong’s watch, isn’t the hypocrisy telling? Several weeks before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki the NYT was championing LGBT Pride Week. Post the summit, the paper proudly displayed a homophobic cartoon to disparage the two presidents. How is it that the champions of identity politics can’t even get their own self determined playing field equal?

In terms of integrity, fairness and truth the paper fails on all counts. Let’s see for ourselves. A quick referral to The NY Times own Standards & Ethics page we find:

Integrity

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.  At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

Under Fairness it prescribes:

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news department and editorial page staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

And Truth

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.

As CM mentioned yesterday, there is no call for a boycott of the NYT or a movement to fire Sarah Jeong. CM wants these people at the NYT to walk the talk. If there is a code that the paper lives and dies by, stand by it or change it to reflect the unhinged nature the once reputable paper has become. Once again free markets will ultimately decide the paper’s fate. If it’s subscriber ranks swell then all power to it reading the mood of the public. Not even the return of the remains of gallant Korean War veterans who fought for their freedom remains worthy front page news. No just more anti-Trump noise.

The irony is that all the Jeong saga has exposed is that standards only apply conditionally. Just like those Hollywood actors who threatened to leave the US if Trump was elected. Pretty much all of them are still here.

The NY Times no longer hides the fact that it breaches all of it’s own self-imposed governance. That racism can be defended (even if it is not condoned) and because the paper is  so proud of its new hire it publicly announced an apology on Jeong’s behalf. Oh the sincerity! Surely if she is sorry for her racist outbursts, she could openly apologize herself? Perhaps the S&E code is still in transit to her home in Portland!

Imagine if the police decided to deprioritise a distress call from Jeong? It is highly likely they wouldn’t. There is a difference in those who put their lives on the line and a Harvard trust-fund baby that tweets from the safety of the very security those she accuses provide her.

NYT hires fab new editor who hates “dumbass f*cking white people”

123DD437-73A8-4D02-9052-E57A1CAD00A8.jpeg

Zerohedge reports that The NY Times has hired a fab new addition in Sarah Jeong to the ranks of the board of editors. It has been unearthed that 48 months ago Jeong said some pretty incendiary things about white people. From a personal standpoint as a white person, CM is not in the least bit impacted or offended by her statements. Alas it is just words and free speech. On the contrary the tweets say more about Jeong than any dumbass f*cking white people.

Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.

Lucky for The NY Times, Jeong will remain in Portland meaning should they choose to uphold the highest levels of integrity the paper won’t be required to fork out her relocation costs. CM had higher hopes for the paper. When it hired a conservative columnist in Bret Stevens there was hope that there was an attempt to seek some balance. He spoke of the vile hatred of the left in his first column. Read it here. The outcome of Jeong will speak more about The NY Times defending the side rather than the principle.

Coles comes to its senses that the consumer is always right

3755BD83-2DFF-4198-AE38-6845C82AC437.jpeg

What rubbish! Literally! The plastic bag ban in supermarkets in Australia was only ever a sop to green madness based on spurious science. Coles and Woolworths didn’t consult customers as much as they claim they did. If they did, why has Coles started to provide them for free again? Could it be a consumer backlash? Let’s see how much more business Coles does as a result!

The idea of a spontaneous shop on the way home from work. Perhaps the sick wife has asked her husband to buy milk, bread, a sack of oranges and ice cream. People want convenience. That doesn’t absolve them of being responsible stewards in their disposal. CM reuses the bags for disposing rubbish. Why should CM be punished for the laziness of others?

In a nutshell it is further evidence of the true colors of the majority of consumers with respect to environmentalism. Just like people that buy SUVs and fly overseas on holidays. Most want others to do the “save the planet” thing on their behalf. Just ask Leo DiCaprio or Cate Blanchett. They’ll preach about our need to do our bit but are the first to board a private jet to go to the next film festival.

This Coles news made it to the Japanese press. Supermarket chain ‘OK Store’ charges ¥6 for a plastic bag or you can make a box from all of the packing the food arrives in which costs nothing. After packing your box you can recycle the cardboard in the paper bin. Simple.

Yet what is this constant penchant to boycott everything. A sort of collectivist pitchfork movement.  Why not just let consumers express their free choice? If Coles see consumers reject the restoration of plastic bags they’ll take them away just as quickly. Tired husbands forced to do an emergency shop for a sick wife don’t require social justice warriors to give evil glances on the bus.

For CM, the next shop WILL be at Coles.

 

But only after you told us…

CC1A3E06-C401-4AB3-992C-0C1EA65FD952.jpeg

Once upon a time FB thought our data was its BFF. So one could question the advertising campaign from the social media giant as a sop to the regulators. Where was Zuckerberg telling big government that he is not to blame for the FAANG giant’s users voluntarily giving all their information and broadcasting it to the world. While the group may not have asked for express permission, if one’s privacy really mattered that much one wouldn’t be so active in screaming from the mountain tops what, where, how and with who they were active with.

Still better to seek forgiveness, right?

Fair facts about Fairfax

2B03F9D5-E4A0-445B-8DF6-A240FFFEEBD1.jpeg

Freedom of the press. A beautiful thing. By all means, the 177-yo Sydney Morning Hearld (SMH) executed full autonomy over what it published. In the end, the public didn’t buy it. For the staff to seek the union to block the Nine Network’s takeover of Fairfax Media smacks of the identical numb-skulled action that has brought them to this predicament. If the paper decided to listen to what the audience wanted to read (the mood) as opposed to telling them they “don’t get it” it might have retained its independence. Take a look at the pictograph above – 20 anti Trump articles in one day. Overkill?

Last year the SMH had to take two massive rounds of lay-offs inside of 12 months because the product wasn’t reaching. The SMH staff took a vote to strike because their evil overlords put profit ahead of people. Welcome to the free market. When one journalist at the SMH became a scab (because he admitted the paper’s journalism was the  problem) he was vilified by his fellow workers. Instead of opening their minds that they maybe the root cause, they protested. Finger on the pulse?

It certainly makes a strong case for how the diminishing readership base (i.e. the free market) viewed the content. Not very highly. It is why The Guardian now asks its readers for charity so it can stay alive? Could it be that media jobs don’t exist to serve the journalists needs but that of their audience? The Fairfax scribes might reflect on the fact that the taxpayer funded ABC – which produces identical product – was not the friendly ally it believed it was but the mortal enemy who ended it. As an audience, if we’re not offered a differentiated product where the same content  is free to consume, who would pay for the one that costs?

Yet the sale of Fairfax was obvious. Digging a bit deeper into the stats of the ABC reveals its biased left leaning journalism has dwindling popularity. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 it is clear that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Good to see taxpayer dollars openly championed with enhanced levels of mediocrity. Yet the ABC screams for more funding.

Throwing more money won’t fix the problems. The ABC’s wage bill is 50% of revenue while its multicultural sister station SBS runs on 31% of revenue for salaries. Why hasn’t the ABC got superior economies of scale? On a global basis, the UK’s BBC spends 22.7% of its revenues on salaries. How can Nine Network survive on advertising revenues? Could it be audience numbers allow advertisers to make rational decisions to tap them?

Criticise Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian for right wing media bias but at the very least he serves a market who is willing to pay for the content. Simple. It is no difference overseas. Fox has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. Don’t belt Fox viewers for following “Faux News” but question what is it about their offering that they’re missing? At what point do the likes of Fairfax or Time Warner realize the problem lies within.

In Fairfax’s case we have the answer – market forces.