#FakeNews Fake News / Disinformation

[Luke]

Study after study shows the right-wing has the most engagement on social media like Facebook, as well as radio, yet the snowflakes keep screaming censorship.

Democrats attack fake news, and Republicans cry foul
Years of Democratic complaints about falsehoods and conspiracy theories on social media are evolving into scrutiny of conservative news outlets. But GOP lawmakers say they're going too far.
By JOHN HENDEL 02/24/2021 07:50 PM EST

Democrats are morphing their scrutiny of online falsehoods into a broader campaign against misinformation on right-leaning television outlets — a development that Republicans and some media organizations are calling a government attack on the First Amendment. The Democratic efforts include a House hearing Wednesday where lawmakers lambasted conservative-leaning broadcasters and cable channels as sources of dangerous conspiracy theories about the pandemic and the November election. Two House Democrats also sent letters to cable, satellite and streaming providers on Monday asking why they carry Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network, all of which had spent months echoing President Donald Trump's baseless claims of election fraud. Outside D.C., New York mayoral candidate Andrew Yang has called for the Federal Communications Commission to revive its long-discarded Fairness Doctrine, which he inaccurately suggested required balanced coverage on cable news.

Democrats, who have spent years pounding online companies like Facebook and Twitter for spreading misinformation, say it's just as important to scrutinize falsehoods by media outlets whose coverage reaches tens of millions of Americans. Their questions also reflect the blurring lines between the broadcasting and online realms, as more televisions are hooked to the internet and more video-streaming platforms begin to resemble traditional cable TV. The Democratic lawmakers also cited the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol as a major reason for their inquiries. “Freedom of speech encourages us to ask tough questions about what is going on in the media, what is motivating the tidal wave of disinformation that is putting the lives of so many Americans and ultimately our democracy at risk,” said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), who leads the House Energy and Commerce telecom subcommittee that held Wednesday's hearing. But Republicans said Democrats are steering their misinformation crusade in a dangerous direction by wielding the government’s powers against the editorial decisions of news outlets and television providers. "Condemning the Jan. 6 attack and upholding truth and facts is a shared, bipartisan goal. But that is not what this hearing is about," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the committee’s top Republican, said at Wednesday's hearing. "If the majority was interested in meaningful change, you would not schedule a hyperpartisan hearing to shame and blame. You certainly would not send letters pressuring companies to block conservative media outlets. I am not only disappointed in this hearing, I am deeply troubled by it."

Media organizations and Republicans had even sharper reactions to the letters that Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, two California Democrats on the committee, sent Monday to a dozen TV carriers, ranging from cable and broadband giants like Comcast and AT&T to streaming services like Roku and Hulu. The letters asked what “moral or ethical” principles the companies apply when deciding what channels to host, and specifically asked if they are “planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN." "This is a rank abuse of their political power," former Bush-era Federal Election Commission Chair Bradley Smith, who now heads a deregulatory nonprofit called the Institute for Free Speech, told reporters before Wednesday’s hearing. The Media Institute, a nonprofit with ties to some of the media companies that host the channels, condemned the letters as “an affront on the First Amendment." Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr accused Democrats of trying “to censor newsrooms.”

Republicans on the committee even likened the letters to Chinese-style censorship, while Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said during Wednesday’s hearing that Democrats are “doubling down on the ‘cancel culture’ of the left.” Democrats defended their inquiry as entirely appropriate, saying rampant misinformation contributed to the Jan. 6 assault and the United States’ 500,000-plus deaths from Covid-19. “The spread of disinformation poses a grave threat to our democracy,” McNerney and Eshoo said in a joint statement to POLITICO. “As Members of Congress, we have a duty to examine how the perpetuation of these falsehoods impacts the American public — from the effect on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to undermining our elections and culminating in a violent insurrection on the United States Capitol.”The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service saw no "First Amendment red flags" in the letter, Eshoo told her colleagues during the hearing.

Democrats also accused the Republicans of hypocrisy when it comes to government power and companies’ free-speech rights, given their efforts under Trump to impose legal repercussions for online platforms that allegedly discriminate against conservative viewpoints. At the time, critics likened the GOP proposals to a new Fairness Doctrine for social media. Trump also threatened more than once to pull the licenses of TV networks he accused of covering him unfairly. And in 2016, as a member of House Energy and Commerce, now-Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) unsuccessfully pushed the panel to hold a hearing on media companies’ alleged left-leaning biases. Questioning misinformation spread by television outlets is also no different in principle from scrutinizing Silicon Valley’s content practices, said Gigi Sohn, a former senior FCC official during the Obama years. “Why is it OK to have a bunch of hearings and bring in [Twitter CEO] Jack Dorsey and [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and whoever else to talk about disinformation or content moderation on online platforms, that’s OK, but it’s not OK to talk about it on cable and broadcast?” Sohn, who’s now a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy, said in an interview. “I don’t think it’s beyond the pale for Congress to look at the spread of misinformation and disinformation on those [media] platforms.”

Democrats’ unhappiness with misinformation has also inspired interest among some progressives in the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that for decades required television and radio broadcasters to grant balanced treatment to controversies. The commission killed it in 1987, a move that among other things fueled an explosion of right-wing talk radio. “If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now,” Yang tweeted about the doctrine on the day after the Capitol riots. He inaccurately suggested the doctrine could apply to cable news, when in fact it never did. Now the issue is emerging as a potential headache for President Joe Biden’s appointees, even as left-leaning figures like Sohn dismiss fears of a Fairness Doctrine revival as a "bugaboo of the right" with limited prospects in Washington. On Wednesday, 13 House Republicans led by McMorris Rodgers peppered FCC acting Chair Jessica Rosenworcel with questions about the Democrats’ misinformation efforts, pressing her to “publicly express your opposition to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine immediately.” They added, “We also request that you denounce the recent attacks on the First Amendment by House Democrats.” Rosenworcel had been an outspoken critic of Trump’s quest to punish social media bias, accusing his administration of seeking to turn the FCC “into the President's speech police.” She didn’t immediately comment on the Republicans’ latest questions, but FCC staff are reviewing the letter, a commission spokesperson said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/2 ... ews-471486

[John Thomas8]

Maybe this ain't the right place, but this satire hits home fairly hard:

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-a ... unist-rule

I AM A DISAPPOINTED BIDEN VOTER WHO WAS TOLD HE’D IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT COMMUNIST RULE

Well, they say you should never trust a politician, and it seems I’ve been duped.

I consider myself to be a high-information voter. I follow a variety of sources — FOX News, One America News Network, Newsmax, the Epoch Times, Dan Bongino’s Parler feed, and whatever I overhear construction workers talking about on my morning commute.

Throughout the 2020 election cycle, I kept getting told the same thing: “Joe Biden wants to defund the police,” “Joe Biden is a socialist.” “Joe Biden loves Antifa,” “Joe Biden wants to take the money from defunding the police and equally distribute it among all Antifa members.”

When I heard those accusations, as an active member of a Brooklyn-based Marxist commune, I thought, Finally! So I proudly cast my vote for the Biden-Harris ticket, kicked back, and waited for our kleptocratic capitalist system to instantly crumble upon his inauguration.

[AndyinPA]

I'm starting to remember fondly when it was just faux noise.

[Volkonski]

Yashar Ali Elephant
@yashar
NEWS (as unsurprising as it may be)

@kayleighmcenany
is joining Fox News media as an on-air commentator.

I've lost count. Will she be Fox News blonde number 11 or 12?

[LM K]

Yashar Ali Elephant
@yashar
NEWS (as unsurprising as it may be)

@kayleighmcenany
is joining Fox News media as an on-air commentator.

I've lost count. Will she be Fox News blonde number 11 or 12?

And how short will her skirts be?

[Volkonski]

Newsmax Loses More Than Half Its Audience Since Post-Election Ratings Surge

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/newsmax-los ... ngs-surge/

Following its post-election ratings surge, right-wing network Newsmax has seen its ratings drop, losing more than half of its total day audience, according to data from Nielsen.

In December, Newsmax made headlines when it topped a Fox News show in the key demographic of viewers age 25-54: on Dec. 7, at 7 p.m., Greg Kelly Reports had 229,000 viewers in the demo, beating Fox’s The Story With Martha MacCallum, which had 203,000 viewers in the demo. Martha MacCallum still topped Greg Kelly in total viewership that day, with 1.59 million total viewers to Kelly’s 949,000, but the demo upset was a shock for a network that long touted its position as the top-rated one in cable news.

In the weeks following the election, Newsmax saw ratings highs as viewers, disappointed by Donald Trump’s loss to President Joe Biden, turned to Newsmax for comfort, as the network continued to perpetuate baseless claims of voter fraud. (Newsmax did eventually accept Trump’s defeat – well, mostly – but in February, the network allowed Trump to push the false election claims during a phone interview.)

Newsmax has also had its share of controversies since the election. In December, facing the threat of a lawsuit, the network ran a fact-check of its own reporting on baseless voter fraud allegation. In February, anchor Bob Sellers literally walked out of an interview with MyPillow founder and vocal Trump supporter Mike Lindell, who has continued to push baseless claims of voter fraud (and has since been sued for it). Viewers called for a boycott, and the next day, Sellers returned with an apology to Lindell.

[raison de arizona]

Kayleigh McEnany on FoxNews??? That’s shocking, I mean, who could have seen that coming? So left field.

[AndyinPA]

https://newsthud.com/my-sister-is-pathe ... n-twitter/

Curtis Ingraham, the brother of Fox News host Laura Ingraham, is not a fan of his sister’s politics and has taken to Twitter to let everyone know it.

In response to Ingraham referring to Dr. Fauci as “Dr. Doom,” Curtis tweeted “My sister is pathetic! Criticizing Dr. Fauci?! What is your expertise exactly Laura beyond spinning lies and conspiracies? ”

[Kendra]

I popped into the last bits of a segment on Fox and Friends ranting about Biden and Covid, et al. I forget the exact words, but the almost as vile as Hegseth, Brian Kilmeade, complained about China unleashing the China virus on the world. Nice way to incite more potential violence against Asian Americans

[Lani]

Perhaps Fox should apologize for the "American viruses"? Nah.

Screenshot_2021-03-12 Human viruses discovery and emergence.png (110.54 KiB) Viewed 4377 times

[noblepa]

I've lost count. Will she be Fox News blonde number 11 or 12?

That depends. Are you counting only natural blondes or those from a a bottle?

Kayleigh McEnany on FoxNews??? That’s shocking, I mean, who could have seen that coming? So left field.

Don't you mean RIGHT field?

OT: That reminds me of one of my favorite songs. Here's a clip of Willie Welch playing a medley of his hit, "Right Field".

[Luke]

Project Veritas grifting email:

FAKE NEWS New York Times will PAY for lies about Project Veritas
Inbox
James O'Keefe <info@projectveritas.com> 3:00 PM (5 hours ago) to me

Dear Orlylicious,

We are suing the New York Times. Already, our lawsuit exposed The Times for printing fake news and relying on Wikipedia as a source.

I need YOUR HELP to expose The Times.

Simply put, I have to spend $325,000 A MONTH for the best lawyers in the business to fight our legal battles.

It’s an incredibly steep price to pay, but one that is worth every penny because not only are we fighting for our reputation, but we are fighting for all of you as well.

Project Veritas is an organization you can count on to go on offense and expose the truth.

Our enemies know this, and they have spent years coming after us with coordinated lawsuits.

We’ve defeated them, and now we are fighting back. It is the right thing to do.

Sometimes, the right thing to do costs you everything.

When The New York Times prints fake news, they don’t disclose it until forced to by litigation or public ridicule.

That is why The New York Times is so worried that we are fighting back and their legal team is trying everything to get our lawsuit dismissed.

Our lawsuit is forcing them to answer our questions, and The New York Times’ answers are embarrassing.

At Project Veritas, we do not accuse anyone of anything. We let our subjects speak for themselves – we expose them using their own words.

Our litigation is no different. It is rare that The Times is challenged by any subject, let alone by a subject willing to do the one thing they fear the most: take their depositions.

When thrown in court, The Times has and will readily admit their reporting can fall far short of journalistic standards, let alone the truth.

This is how we make them pay: we force them to tell the truth. And in that sense, they WILL pay for saying Veritas is “deceptive” and “coordinated disinformation.”

Litigation is not cheap, but our reputation for reporting the truth is at stake and it is something on which I cannot compromise.

I am humbly asking you to support us in our goal of raising $125,000 right now to help Veritas meet our legal budget and not negatively impact current undercover operations into Big Tech, Government, Hollywood, Mainstream Media, and more.

Thanks to the encouraging support of one of our largest donors, your contributions will be matched 100% up to $125,000.

If you want to see The New York Times exposed in court, take a stand and make a fully tax-deductible donation right now.

By making a $50, $100, $200, or larger donation right now you can say that you helped Project Veritas expose The New York Times once and for all.

Your contribution will be matched 100% up to $125,000!

$100 = $200
$200 = $400
$500 = $1,000
$1,000 = $2,000

With your incredible support, they will NEVER forget the day they lied about Project Veritas.

Be Brave,

James

P.S. Don’t forget that we are a 501c3 non-profit organization and ALL donations to support Project Veritas are entirely TAX-DEDUCTIBLE!


Project Veritas
1214 W. Boston Post Rd #148
Mamaroneck, NY 10543

Project Veritas Privacy Policy: https://www.projectveritas.com/privacy/

Project Veritas Is Recognized As a Tax Exempt Organization Under Section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Your Donations Are Tax Deductible As Allowed by Federal Law and the Laws of Various States.

73 page Complaint: https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxcl ... plaint.pdf

Background:

ADAM KLASFELD Oct 30th, 2020, 7:55 pm

Project Veritas, whose well-documented history of disseminating selectively edited or surreptitiously recorded videos has on a number of occasions landed its founder James O’Keefe in court, sued the New York Times on Friday. The plaintiff alleged that it was defamatory of the Times to call the group “deceptive.” “The Times’ newsroom was incensed at what it viewed as Project Veritas stealing its thunder,” the outfit insisted in a 73-page complaint filed Friday in Westchester County Supreme Court.

The lawsuit takes aim at journalist Maggie Astor’s article in the Times on Sept. 29 titled “Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say,” reporting that Stanford University and the University of Washington researchers found that the group’s video accusing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) of voter fraud was a “concerted disinformation campaign.” Researchers at those elite academic institutions reached the conclusions that the Times reported.

“The video made several falsifiable claims that have either been debunked by subsequent reporting or are without any factual support,” the report stated in its opening paragraph. “As the video calls into question the integrity of the election using misleading or inaccurate information, we determined this video to be a form of election disinformation.”

Project Veritas’s objections to the Times report began with the second word of the article: “deceptive.” The plaintiff noted that, later in the same sentence, the Times used the words “unidentified sources and with no verifiable evidence.” Stylistically, the group also took issue with the alleged “vitriolic disdain” the Times showed founder O’Keefe, who is described in the article as “little more than a ‘conservative activist,’ not a bona fide journalist.” After the Times story published, Project Veritas says it demanded a retraction and threatened a lawsuit if one was not granted.

The Times’s media reporter Tiffany Hsu then followed up the next month on Oct. 25 in a story titled “Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation.” The article added Harvard’s heft to the chorus of academic experts warning about a pattern of amplifying false claims about mail-in ballots. Ivy League researchers called that pattern a “propaganda feedback loop.” The second Times article continued to describe Project Veritas’s video as “deceptive.” Project Veritas leveled multiple defamation counts at the Times and their reporters seeking what they call a “narrowly tailored injunction prohibiting the re-publication” of the articles, an apparent call for prior restraint of the press. They are represented by Scarsdale, New York-based lawyer Amy Bellantoni.

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/project ... deceptive/

NYT filed a MTD. Grifting for litigation (again).

[Kendra]

Progressive PAC VoteVets is going after Tucker Carlson.

"This is the U.S. military. The men and women who defend your freedom, something a prep school boy like you will never understand."

[Kendra]

.
@

TuckerCarlson
"wouldn't know a [military] deployment from a trip to Nantucket; or a rocket launcher from a lacrosse stick." -
@brikeilarcnn

[pipistrelle]

I’m fed up with the fake news crap.

[AndyinPA]

.
@

TuckerCarlson
"wouldn't know a [military] deployment from a trip to Nantucket; or a rocket launcher from a lacrosse stick." -
@brikeilarcnn

I saw that this afternoon. I love her rants!

[p0rtia]

YEAH THAT

Briana Keiler is my new mad pash. She's a great mix of stone face (and I'm a Buster Keaton fan from birth) and attack dog. Focused and fact-based too. And way cool about it.

She does a lot of general CNN-type bland reporting of the news, but regularly unleashes with a set piece as above. I'm interested to see where she goes from here.

[much ado]

Yeah, she is good.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

A guy in Twitter asked what Carlson said in this video that was racist.

I asked him how it could be more obvious.

He asked for a quote of what I thought was racist. I told he heard what I heard and if he didn't think it was racist, I couldn't help him. I knew whatever quote I gave him wouldn't fit his narrow definition and he's just move the goalposts. He was making a bad faith argument.

He said I was too lazy to find a quote that proves my point and I knew I couldn't back it up.

Then I blocked him.

Should I have been able to give him a quote.

Someone else did the same thing with the Jan. 6 insurrection, asking me what, exactly Trump said that invited it. My answer was the same, he heard what I heard. If it didn't sound like incitement, he was willfully ignorant.

But, I'm lazy, right?

[sugar magnolia]

Why are you asking us? You can either engage with him and give him your own thoughts, or you can move on and ignore him. You don't need our input for either of those options. But yes, in the context you presented it, your response comes across as lazy.

[Slim Cognito]

I've been in situations where I've provided such quotes or resources only to have the trumper refuse to read it, telling me she's not going to fall for my "spin." You can't reason with the unreasonable.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

Why are you asking us? You can either engage with him and give him your own thoughts, or you can move on and ignore him. You don't need our input for either of those options. But yes, in the context you presented it, your response comes across as lazy.

Considering that the chances of the guy saying "OK, you're right. Now I see it" are just about nil, why should I bother?

[sugar magnolia]

Why are you asking us? You can either engage with him and give him your own thoughts, or you can move on and ignore him. You don't need our input for either of those options. But yes, in the context you presented it, your response comes across as lazy.

Considering that the chances of the guy saying "OK, you're right. Now I see it" are just about nil, why should I bother?

And yet you did by asking him how it could be more obvious, instead of giving an actual answer. Just because someone throws some stupid shit out doesn't mean you have to step in it. If you're determined to engage with them, the least you can do is answer their question and see where it goes from there. Otherwise, just scroll on by.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

I did answer. I told him he heard what I heard.