Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Russian women don’t need your help Amanda Foreman. But let’s examine the UK’s liberal, feminist value system that you find so righteous and peace loving

The UK’s Sunday Times published a truly astonishing, hateful piece of garbage. Extraordinary even by Western standards, mocking Russian women, labelling the country as misogynistic, and trashing the Christian Orthodox faith. We could not let this post fly without a response.

Published

on

0 Views

Amanda Foreman’s article for UK’s The Sunday Times, entitled, “A view from afar: Chest-beating Putin aims his vilest weapon at the West — misogyny” is disturbingly misogynistic. It is also extremely misandrist and openly racists towards Russian and Orthodox Christians.

Their are 3 probable and logical explanations as to why someone of Ms. Foreman’s reputation would pen such a hateful and poorly researched piece.

1. She is simply folding into the Western MSM party line…writing yet another propaganda hit piece against Russia and it’s President, in order to move the needle one inch closer towards division, conflict and war. Maybe she will be rewarded for her loyalty by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal sociopaths behind the curtain.

2. She is an angry and jealous women filled with sadness and envy after visiting Russia. What she saw was a society where the neo-liberal value system did not stick, and they were happier for it. Seeing a country proud in its tradition, leadership, religion and history shook up the author…and in order to compensate for those feelings, this post was born.

3. Is a trick. Yeah that’s right. Her post all about fooling western women into believing they are happy (when study after study suggests they are not…please google it and you will see what I mean), and tricking Russian women into believing they should behave like their western neighbours. Don’t fall for it. Russian society and Russian women are on the right path towards a better, more fulfilling life. Don’t let people like Ms. Foreman fool you into thinking their Western cat filled, Kim Kardashian, bar hopping days are enviable. It’s a path to debt, over consumption and emptiness.

I tend to believe that all three of the above reasons influenced, and eventually drove Ms. Foreman into writing her Sunday Times attack piece. What is remarkable about the entire rant, aside from how factually off the entire article is, is how hypocritical and racist this women comes out looking.

First some of the facts, for which Ms. Foreman should have done some very basic research into before making the claims she made in her post:

As for the article itself, it should be read as a case study in Russophobia rather than as a discussion of the position of women in Russia. We do not recognize reality in the article’s descriptions of Russia, Putin or Russian women and men (even the article admits that “boys and girls receive the same education and the same access to healthcare. There are no legal barriers to women owning property, having bank accounts or participating in the economy”).

As a matter of historical record many Bolsheviks were early feminists including the feminist pioneer and Soviet minister and diplomat Alexandra Kollontai and Russian women obtained and fully exercised rights of divorce and abortion long before most western women did.

Today there are many successful women in business, the arts and politics including the Chairman of the Russian Parliament’s Upper House, Valentina Matveyenko, and the Head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina. Incidentally the Judge who tried Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina (interviewed by the author) was also a woman.

Oh and just for the record, Victoria Nuland is indeed married to historian Robert Kagan. What Ms. Foreman forgot to mention is that Mr. Kagan is much more than a historian, he is a chief neo-con from a family of neo-cons (does the PNAC ring a bell?), directly responsible, not only for the Maidan coup, but also for the US – Iraq invasion of 2003…more on that later.

KAGAN-PNAC-FAMILY

Now the hypocrisy, oh the hypocrisy, where do I begin.

Amanda Foreman begins her post stating she has “visited a fair number of countries this year in the course of filming a documentary series on the history of women.” Well we suggest Ms. Foreman get on a plane and visit some countries that it appears she might have missed…or maybe she visited these places but was simply to wrapped up in her western ‘exceptionalism’ that she did not take time to notice the suffering of women and children, committed by her beloved neo-liberal value system.

Maybe Ms. Foreman should go to Iraq and speak to the millions of families torn apart by the US and UK ‘bombs of peace’  that have claimed the lives of 1,455,590 people. How many women died in Iraq? How many women lost their sons, daughters, husbands, fathers and mothers in Iraq? How many women’s hearts did your UK neo-liberal values break in Iraq?

Maybe Ms. Foreman should travel to Serbia. She should speak to the wives, mothers, and daughters who lost everything in NATO airstrikes that lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. How many women suffered, in the heart of Europe, so your neo-liberal values could flex their muscles, and ethnically cleanse thousands of Orthodox Christians. How many women’s heart did you break in Serbia?

How about Ms. Foreman visits Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and see the devastation, destruction and death that results from her neo-liberal dogma she champions so much.

Tired of the death your brand of feminism and social justice brings. Then Ms. Foreman should take a quick trip to Eurozone countries Greece, Spain, Italy, or Cyprus and see all the broken, homeless women pillaging through rubbish for something to eat…a direct result of European neo-liberal austerity.

Finally, let’s give Ms. Foreman a ticket to the Donbass, so she can live in a basement, in the dark with no heat, food or water…like the mothers and daughters of Novorussia do right now. Their homes get shelled day and night by this guy (below), who champions and kills in the name of Ms Foreman’s ‘European value system.’

After Donbass, Ms. Foreman can travel to Crimea and see a society that avoided the bloodshed her lovely Mrs. Nuland instigated, and bear witness to what real human rights and democracy look like…not one human life, not one women was killed thanks to Putin’s decision to protect Crimea.

Ms. Foreman’s path for women’s liberation is a path of death, debt and enslavement. If that is not misogyny, than I don’t know what is.

Ms. Foreman’s post is not only misogynistic, it is racist. It offends Orthodox Christians and Slavic people. Was it not enough to bomb Serbia to kingdom come, now you have to ethnically cleanse Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ukraine as well.

Tell us all Ms. Foreman, what is so wrong with a country wanting to embrace its history and religion, is this a crime. Last time I checked the UK was also a Christian country at its heart. What scares Ms. Foreman so much about ‘traditional’ religion? Is it because it gives people hope, love and inspiration…all qualities that the neo-liberal feminist despises, and can do without.

Why doesn’t Ms Foreman go to Saudi Arabia, or UAE, Indonesia or Turkey and explain to the Muslim population in those countries to do away with the teachings of Islam? I was under the impression that neo-liberal values were about acceptance and tolerance…unless of course you are of Orthodox faith, then in that case you either need to submit to western rule or be wiped out.

Be careful Ms. Foreman because Russians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and many more people subscribe to the Christian Orthodox faith, and when pushed, they will push back with a mighty force.

So next time, when Pussy Riot considers sticking rubber chickens in their vaginas, while inside the beautiful and sacred St. Basil’s cathedral, tell them to go to the Great Mosque at Mecca or The Wailing Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem and let’s see what fate will await them. Or maybe Pussy Riot can perform inside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in front of 10 year old children, how would that make you feel.

In Cameronstan, Pussy Riot may not be sent to prison for such actions, but in Cameronstan everyone is under the watchful eye of the NSA, fearful of what trumped up charge might await them if they step out of line, or fight for truth and justice. Just ask Julian Assange how his quest for freedom and truth is going behind the protection of the Ecuadoran Embassy, in the 51st state of the U.S.A.

Ms. Foreman, stay away from Russia and stay away from Orthodoxy. Russia doesn’t need more snake oil saleswomen. Keep your reality TV shows that degrade women to yourself. They make UK women look like sexual toys, waiting for a beer drenched man to play with, as they twerk for the attention of a random penis.

Russian women prefer the entertainment of the greats, like Nikolay Gogol, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, and Aleksandr Pushkin.

Contrary to your article, Russian women are not mindless bimbos, easily fooled by Western caricatures of an ‘evil Putin.’ Only Facebook zombies in your neck of the woods believe such nonsense.

Vladimir Putin was democratically voted into office, and is internationally recognised as the President of the Russian Federation. He represents the people of Russia, and has an approval rating above 85%. That’s a mandate Cameron could only dream of in his wettest of dreams.

Russian women have agency, they can judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Your post mocks the women of Russia and paints them as fools, who are too stupid to understand the politics at play, and now need the ‘all-wise British feminist’ to save them from the evils of their country, culture, and leadership.

Russian women do not need saving, they are stronger than you could ever imagine. Russian women are intelligent, capable and independent. They know how to survive, they have strong souls, full of passion, and can easily judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

And yes, much to your dismay, Russian women are full of beauty, culture, tradition, and femininity. While you are glued to the ‘Tele’ watching the Voice, they are at the Bolshoi or the Hermitage.

You want to change Russian women for the worst, take away their beauty, their brains, and their power, so that you can subjugate them to your rule. It will never happen. Russian women, hell all of Russia, is on to your game. So take your Russophobia, your Orthodoxphobia, your misogyny, and your misandry, and keep it away from MOTHER Russia.

P.S. Vladimir Putin will stop poking fun at Hillary Clinton when she stops calling Putin the new Hitler. Over twenty-five million Russians died in WW2 in order to defeat Hitler, and his Nazi army, so you and Hillary can enjoy the freedoms you take for granted…show some respect and learn some history.

References:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/article1483931.ece

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
22 Comments

22
Leave a Reply

avatar
22 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
xfwmrt5gzngfw5wtrjfgxe85mrwfqdcm59x4ctxckw54mtdfsgw9j5nwmtxm845wctfkdijtfdhskdsftrg83yrerxt5m8ct4ykwk7rdywx8t54w5ctxsdfmxdgecn5tbbn7w4bvt7xwn3554c5yt Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
johnpalissy
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Russian women don’t need your help Amanda Foreman. But let’s examine UK’s liberal, feminist value system http://t.co/tzoS…

redpilltimes
Guest

A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http://t.co/tzoSh1ugib

PaulywarlyNews
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

paulsmith031158
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

Kupesa1
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

StephenFenton88
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

protivfachizma
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

LunaChavista
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

duncanmacmartin
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

MaartendeVries2
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

MaartendeVries2
Guest

@redpilltimes Hded by USA since 1948, ca 350 million human sacrifices, Violence of KKKapitalistic “Cannibalism” 2 quote many thru’ the Ages.

claugotz
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

bogomirbogolov
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

sasha031
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

trackback

[…] Yes, Russian women have it rough without the vicissitudes of feminism. If only they lived in the more advanced and civilized United States, they could give up their maternity leave benefits. In fact, the United States is so far ahead of the curve in their lack of same that they are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not guarantee paid maternity leave for new mothers. […]

trackback

ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb

[…]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[…]

trackback

3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bc

[…]one of our guests recently encouraged the following website[…]

trackback

Title

[…]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine several unrelated data, nonetheless genuinely really worth taking a appear, whoa did one study about Mid East has got far more problerms at the same time […]

trackback

Title

[…]usually posts some very fascinating stuff like this. If you are new to this site[…]

trackback

Title

[…]very few web-sites that transpire to become comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly effectively worth checking out[…]

trackback

Title

[…]Here is a superb Weblog You might Obtain Interesting that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

Title

[…]here are some links to web sites that we link to due to the fact we assume they are worth visiting[…]

Latest

Covington attorney sues Washington Post for dangerously fake news

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that the newspaper plans to try to defend itself, when its fake reporting endangered minors’ lives.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:  A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;  A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes, Ch 3:1-8)

And in that context, there is a time to sue. So it goes with the attorneys represented the seriously, and nationally, maligned students of Covington Catholic High School in Lexington, Kentucky, as they filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Washington Post on Tuesday.

The Post, in an amazing display of denial and delusion, told Fox News in an email that the paper was “reviewing a copy of the lawsuit, and we plan to mount a vigorous defense.”

While the court of public opinion must not be brought to bear against The Washington Post, it still seems very surreal that the newspaper would even dare to discuss defending itself when its own articles are available as evidence of its wrongdoing.

The Washington Post was the paper that took down President Nixon. Keep in mind that this happened through carefully researched, triple-checked sourcing, but now, the paper has degraded to a mere propaganda hit journal while trying to claim otherwise.

The full text of the lawsuit is available for viewing through this linked text. We have chosen some excerpts, hopefully without altering the overall tone and direction of the full document, which we recommend for thorough reading:

For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Today, Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry filed their first lawsuit on behalf of Nicholas Sandmann against The Washington Post. The lawsuit filed is included below. The suit seeks $250 million in both compensatory and punitive damages. Lin and Todd will continue to bring wrongdoers before the court to seek damages in compensation for the harm so many have done to the Sandmann family. This is only the beginning.

NOW COMES Nicholas Sandmann, by and through his parents and natural guardians, Ted Sandmann and Julie Sandmann, and by and through his counsel, states his Complaint against Defendant, WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post (“the Post”) as follows (the numbering is different in the actual document but we enumerate here for ease of reading):

  1. The Post is a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. which is credited with inventing the term “McCarthyism” in an editorial cartoon published in 1950. Depicting buckets of tar, the cartoon made fun of then United States Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s “tarring” tactics of engaging in smear campaigns and character assassination against citizens whose political views made them targets of his accusations.
  2. In a span of three (3) days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Postengaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), an innocent secondary school child.
  3. The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”).
  4. In targeting and bullying Nicholas by falsely accusing him of instigating the January 18 incident, the Post conveyed that Nicholas engaged in acts of racism by “swarming” Phillips, “blocking” his exit away from the students, and otherwise engaging in racist misconduct.

In the lawsuit claim specific note is made to the fact that The Washington Post published no fewer than seven defamatory articles, all alleging racist actions taken by the Covington students, most notably slandering Nicholas Sandmann.

And every single one of these news pieces was proven false.

The case presented by the attorneys makes many more points, such as these that follow (emphases added):

  1. The Post’s campaign to target Nicholas in furtherance of its political agenda was carried out by using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to Phillips and other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the President.
  2. Unlike the Post’s abuse of the profession of journalism, Plaintiffs do not bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda. This lawsuit is brought against the Post to seek legal redress for its negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks on Nicholas which caused permanent damage to his life and reputation.
  3. The Post bullied an innocent child with an absolute disregard for the pain and destruction its attacks would cause to his life.

Far from the usual nonsense offered in such cases of “pain and suffering”, these news pieces and others like them, plus the viral nature of social media posts, caused very real danger to the health and well-being of Mr. Sandmann and his family as well as the other students and their families. Calls for “doxxing” were proclaimed by public figures, such as Nathaniel Friedman of GQ Magazine and Kathy Griffin, the “comedienne” who presented President Trump’s bloody decapitated head in effigy… as a joke.

Doxxing is mob violence that makes use of the internet and social media to find out where a targeted individual is, and then attack them physically. The Duran has knowledge of one such individual who suffered such an attack in Colorado Springs very recently. He was nearly killed in the attack. He was not an instigator but he was personally dedicated to Christian living and he was a known Trump supporter. Black Lives Matter was the group that doxxed him.

We make that point to emphasize that The Washington Post engaged willfully in an act that could have (and may yet still) cost the lives of the kids who were slandered. The paper has not made any effort to fully apologize, nor has it made any general statement about journalistic malpractice that was involved here. This, when other papers that also picked up the false story, such as The New York Times, DID at least acknowledge that their initial reporting was wrong.

This is beyond political opposition journalism. This is an attempt to incite violence, using the awesome power of the press, against people who were innocent. The court of public opinion doesn’t ascribe to “innocent until proven guilty”, either. It ascribes, “you are guilty no matter what the truth is, and we will pound you into the ground because it suits us to do so.”

Certainly political writing can be fiery and hotly argued. This is the nature of politics, right or wrong. People have their opinions and they cling to them rather passionately. This applies to everyone, and the statement is not directed at any particular party or ideology here.

But when such malign fury begins to attack the innocent, and especially, children, then it has gone much too far. No one can buy a life back if a person gets killed by a mob. $250 million will not raise the dead.

Seen in the true light of how severe this is, the attorneys are going very light on the Post

But the fact that they even brought this suit does say something about the power of regular people to stand against this sort of action and insist that it be stopped. The attorneys make no bones about saying what they want, so we continue to quote them here:

In order to fully compensate Nicholas for his damages and to punish, deter, and teach the Post a lesson it will never forget, this action seeks money damages in excess of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00) – the amount Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid in cash for the Post when his company, Nash Holdings, purchased the newspaper in 2013.

THE POST PUBLISHED NEGLIGENTLY AND WITH ACTUAL MALICE

The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.

As one of the world’s leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations against a minor child prior to publication.

The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.

WHEREFORE, Nicholas respectfully prays:

  • That judgment be entered against the Post for substantial compensatory damages in an amount not less than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00);
  • That judgment be entered against the Post for punitive damages in an amount not less than Two Hundred Million Dollars ($200,000,000.00)
  • That Nicholas recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Post;
  • That all costs of this action be taxed to Post; and
  • That the Court grant all such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper, including equitable relief.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of February, 2019.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The mainstream media does not want you to think [Video]

It is difficult to tell if recent reports like this really represent a realization for the media, but this interview rings true nonetheless.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Several recent stories on Fox, Breitbart, and here on The Duran all address the increasingly obvious bias of the mainstream media with regard to news reporting. We discussed on The Duran how Chris Wallace of Fox News refused to hear details from White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller about why the recently declared National Emergency is in fact legitimate.

This piece revealed that the media is very actively trying to control and direct what information they want the public to hear, rather than truly reporting the news, or interviewing people to get their takes on things, and to perhaps fully interview all sides in a controversy and then let the American public decide for themselves what to think.

This used to exist in more gentlemanly debate programs in some fashion, such as with the TV debate program Point Counterpoint, but now, the bias of the reporter or of the network is the primary operator in determining the outcome of the interview, rather than the information that is available about the story.

This has helped create a news and information culture in the United States that is truly insane. As examples, consider these paraphrased headlines, all occurring within the last few years:

All of these are probably familiar to most readers. Many of them are still repeated and acted on as if they were real. But the articles we linked to behind most of these ledes are examples of the disproof, usually 100% disproof, of these. They are hoaxes, or reports built on circumstantial evidence without any proof, or in the worst cases, pure slander and propaganda.

One reporter for CBS news, 60 Minutes anchor Lara Logan, discussed this in an interview with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, for his own podcast program, which was picked up by the MediaIte website. The video of her interview is quite lengthy but starting at about 02:14:00 there is a particular segment that the MediaIte writers called to attention. We include this segment in the video.

PARENTAL ADVISORY: The video is unrestricted in regards to language and there is some profanity. Parents, please listen first before letting your children watch this video.

A major point Mrs Logan makes here is that 85% of the employ of the mainstream media in the USA consist of registered Democrats. She also speaks forcefully against the use of stereotypes, and suggests the best place to start is actual facts. This means that most journalists are coming into this work with a bias, which is not set aside for the sake of the facts of the story.

Probably the most key point comes at 2:18:20 in the video is how Lara Logan is taught the way to discern whether or not someone in journalism is lying to you:

“Someone very smart told me a long time ago, that, ‘how do you know you are being lied to?’, ‘how do you know you are being manipulated?’, ‘how do you know there is something not right with the coverage?’, when they simplify it all, and there is no gray. There is no gray. It’s all one way.

“Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it is probably not. Something is wrong.”

Lara Logan then pointed out the comparison of the mainstream media’s constant negative coverage of President Trump against the reality of his work, that, regardless of one’s own personal bias, it does not match that everything the President does is bad. She also highlighted the point that one’s personal views should not come into how to report a news story.

Yet in our days, it not only comes into the story, it drives the narrative for which the story just becomes an example of “proof” that the narrative is “true.” 

Tucker Carlson talked vividly about the same characteristic on his program Monday night on Fox News.

He points out that the 3,000 yearly shooting in Chicago get very little news coverage, but that is because these are not as “useful” as the Jussie Smollett story is.

This is an example of using an event or a person’s actions to satisfy a politically biased propaganda narrative, rather than report the news.

This is not occasional, as the list of news headlines given above show. This is a constant practice across most of the mainstream media. Probably no one who gives interviews on the major networks is exempt, for even Mr. Carlson often resorts to cornering tactics when interviewing liberals in an apparent attempt to make the liberal look ridiculous and the point of view he espouses to look vindicated through that ridiculousness.

While this is emotionally invigorating for the Carlson fan who wants to see him “eviscerate” the liberal, it is very bad journalism. In fact, it is not journalism at all; it is sensationalism in a nasty sense.

It also insults the viewer, perhaps without them knowing it, because such reporting is the same as telling the viewer “WE ARE IN CONTROL!” and that the viewer must simply go along with the narrative given.

It is very bad when what should be information reporting, policy discussion, or debate becomes infected with this. Ideas, the product of (hopefully) rational and discursive reasoning, are pushed aside by pure emotion and mass sensationalism. Put metaphorically, it is the new look of bread and circuses, keeping the masses entertained while anything else might be happening.

Sometimes the motive for this is not so sinister. After all, we have a 24 hour news cycle now. In the 1970’s we didn’t. And in those times, the calibre of news reported was much higher. Reporting was far more careful. The Pulitzer Prize winners  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did their incredible exposé on the doings of President Richard Nixon under the directorship of the Washington Post editor, which demanded triple-checking of everything, making sure that all information was factual, accurate and genuine. While the story was indeed sensational, more importantly, it was true.

Now we have a lot of sensation, but very little to zero truth. As an example, every one of the ledes linked above is not proven to be true, in fact the truth in many of these stories is the opposite of what the headline says.

This would not be much of a problem if the media lies were not absorbed and reacted on by their readers, listeners and viewers. But the fact is that there are a significant number of consumers of mainstream media news that do react to it. The Covington High School incident showed this in perhaps the most frightening way, with open calls for violence against teenagers and high school students, requested by professionals, people that are supposed to be adults, such as Kathy Griffin, Reza Aslan, and GQ writer Nathaniel Friedman, who called for these kids to be “doxxed”, which as we reported, is an action that can be deadly.

We are in the times where the love of many has gone cold, and all is about expediency and selfishness. While there are a few outlets and a few journalists that still retain interest in recording and disseminating the truth, the reality is that most of what is out there is tainted by the drive for attention and sensationalism.

The media that engages in such behavior is actually hurting people, rather than informing and helping them.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Honest liberal says he is NOT INTERESTED in policy explanation [Video]

When news anchors try to act like prosecuting attorneys instead of actually interviewing people, we all lose.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One characteristic of modern-day television “news reporting” is that the political news is not truly reported. Rather, if the interviewer disagrees with the one being interviewed, the session turns into interviewer grandstanding. Regrettably, this tactic is used by liberal and conservative journalists alike. However, it is usually not admitted, as the interviewer usually chooses to say things like “I want the truth” when he or she really wants to force the other person to admit the correctness of the interviewer.

Over the weekend, Fox News’ Chris Wallace grandstanded against White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. However, Chris Wallace at least was honest about his wish:

STEPHEN MILLER: … At a fundamental level, we could go down into the details, and you know, Chris, I can go down into details as much as you want to, but the bottom line is this…

CHRIS WALLACE: Please don’t! (laughs)

This is a big problem. The responsibility of any good journalist is to get full and accurate information about a given topic. Isn’t it?

Not in the press of our day. Chris Wallace is a valued personality for the Fox News Channel. As a former CBS anchor for 60 Minutes, Wallace brings a well-known face and voice of the mainstream media to Fox, even though he is quite liberal politically, as are many in the entertainment and information professions.

The problem is that the topic here, the facts justifying President Trump’s National Emergency declaration on Friday over the still permeable US-Mexico border, are present in abundance. But Mr. Wallace did not want to know these facts, or perhaps worse, he did not want to let his viewing audience know this information, so he tried to prevent Mr. Miller from talking about those details.

Stephen Miller, thankfully, was not having it. He insisted on giving a full and informed response to Mr. Wallace’s questions, even though Wallace did not want to hear any information.

The rest of the interview is comprised of Mr. Miller trying to dissemimate information and Mr. Wallace trying to block it and refuse it in order to sustain his own preferred narrative.

Chris Wallace’ point of view is that the President called a National Emergency for no good reason, and that President Trump is breaking the law by appropriating money for the Border Wall, something which only the House of Representatives can do, legislatively.

However, the point of view expressed by Mr. Wallace and President Trump is that as Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President is responsible to preserve the country from invasion. For the President, the never-ending waves of illegals coming into the country and not being deported, but rather, released into the US pending trials that they often never attend years later, amounts to a slow invasion.

Strictly speaking, President Trump is correct. The illegals are not (usually) armed representatives of a foreign power, but neither do they become American citizens. Many of them take advantage of generous provisions and loopholes in the law (Mexico teaches them how to do this!) and they therefore earn money but usurp the country of resources.

It has been exceedingly difficult to move the level of interest in stopping illegal immigration in the US. Rush Limbaugh rightly stated in his program on Friday, February 15, what the problem is, and we include some of the details (as we should) for why Mr. Limbaugh says what he says here:

There is a limit on a number of detainees. There is limit on how much of border and fence can be built. There’s a limit on what kind can be built. There’s a limit on modernization. This bill is filled with congressional edicts telling the president of the United States what he cannot do. Now, it authorizes $23 billion for Homeland Security, but it specifies $1.375 billion for fencing and bordering.

But there are so many limits on this as to make this practically irrelevant — by design and on purpose, because I firmly believe that what members of Congress (both parties) actually want with this bill is to send a message that nothing is ever gonna happen as long as Donald Trump is President. The attempt in this budget deal is to send a message to you Trump voters that it’s worthless voting for him, that it is a waste of time supporting him, because they are demonstrating that he can’t get anything done.

This is Pelosi in the House and Schumer in the Senate getting together, because they know when it comes to illegal immigration, these parties are unified, folks. For the most part, the Republicans and Democrats are for open borders. There are exceptions on the Republican side. But there are a lot of Republicans that don’t want Trump to succeed even now. There are a lot of Republicans just after he was inaugurated who don’t want him to succeed. So they come up with a piece of legislation here that is outrageous.

It is outrageous in its denial of the existence of a genuine emergency at the border. They don’t care. They will deal with whatever mess they create. They don’t care how bad it gets because in their world, the only mess is Donald Trump — and since the Russian effort and the Mueller effort and everything else related to that has failed to get his approval numbers down (and that has been the objective from the get-go), this is the latest effort, and it won’t be long… You mark my words on this.

There is an emergency at the US-Mexico border. Last year almost half a million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol and ICE. Many, if not most, though, are still in the United States. They were not all sent back. Some were, and some of them probably have come back in yet again. The fact that our nation’s borders are unrestricted in this manner is absolute folly.

The more American people know the details about what is actually happening at the border, the more they support the wall’s construction and President Trump’s policies. We have seen evidence for this in polling even by liberal network outlets. President Trump managed to call attention to this topic and bring it into the center of the discussion of US domestic policy. Rasmussen reported that the level of approval of Trump’s work to close the border is high – at 59 percent, with only 33 percent disapproving.

The President made this an issue. Chris Wallace tried in his own program to deflect and dissuade information from being brought to the attention of the American viewers who watch his program.

This is not journalism. It is reinforcement of propaganda on Mr. Wallace’s part, defense against facts, and an unwillingness to let the American people have information and therefore to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, such practices are not limited to Mr. Wallace. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and others all utilize this form of questioning, and it is a shame, because the news reporter no longer reports the news. When a talking head on TV or radio places himself or herself as the Gatekeeper to allow or prevent information from reaching the American people, this is highly presumptuous, ego driven and almost always, dishonest.

Worse, such an approach reinforces this message to American people: “You cannot think for yourself. It is too hard, so we will do your thinking for you. Trust us!”

This style of journalism became more and more popular over, under the “appearance” of “tough questioning.” However the usual course of “tough questioning” is ideologically aligned with whatever the journalist thinks, and not at all about what is actually important. Chris Wallace is notorious for doing this with conservatives, and he does aggravate them, but he reduces interviews to an argument between the journalist and the person interviewed.

And usually, this is not the story. This was made absolutely clear in the interview with Stephen Miller, even to the point that Mr. Wallace actually voiced the request, “please don’t (give us all the specifics of this issue.)” 

Good journalism respects the fact that different people have different points of view. Agreement or disagreement with these points is what Op-Ed writing is for. But when Op-Ed is treated as hard fact journalism, we all lose.

We included the whole interview video from the beginning here so that the viewer can take in the whole course of this discussion. It is well worth watching. And as it is well-worth watching, it is also well-worth each person’s own personal consideration. People are smarter than the media would like us to be.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending