Tag: media

international affairs media and media people

Words Not to Use

“Today, I confess, I am proud — proud of my profession.”

Sky News host Andrew Bolt was referencing the tough questions posed to Xiao Qian, China’s ambassador to Australia, following the ambassador’s speech last week to journalists at the nation’s Press Club.

After Xiao talked about “a possible opportunity to reset the relationship between our two countries,” what with a new Australian administration — and complained that media coverage of China was “mostly not positive”— the questions began.

The ambassador was asked first about the arrest, imprisonment and secret court proceedings against journalist Cheng Lei, an Australian citizen. Next, he was questioned on whether China might consider ending trade embargoes imposed after Australian officials requested an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic. Ambassador Xiao evaded answers on both matters.

Then came the issue of China’s threat to invade Taiwan. “I’d rather not use the word ‘invasion,’” offered Xiao, “when we talk about China and Taiwan.”

Asked if 24 million Taiwanese shouldn’t get to choose their own path, the ambassador replied, “The future of Taiwan will be decided by 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

“In fact, that’s not even true,” explained Bolt. “It is going to be determined by the Chinese dictatorship,” he added, noting the complete lack of any democracy under Chinese Communist Party rule.

Citing a recent statement by the Chinese ambassador to France that China would “re-educate” the Taiwanese after a military takeover, Ben Packham with The Australian requested a comment.

“There may be a process for the people of Taiwan to have a correct understanding of China,” Xiao acknowledged.

“Along the lines of the camps you have in Xinjiang?” Packham inquired. “That’s a re-education process isn’t it?”

“I’d rather not use the word ‘re-education,’” offered Xiao.

Words scare the genocidal totalitarians running China.

Speak up.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration done with assist from DALL‑E (artificial intelligence that turns text prompts into completely original art)

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags China, media, Taiwan

ideological culture national politics & policies social media

Receding From the Facts

Thesis: we’re entering recession, but the Biden administration disagrees.

For political reasons.

May we discuss?

Sure, here in Common Sense. (We’ve yet to censor or flag ourselves.) Big Tech social media is a different story.

Loath to preside over an officially designated recession, the Biden administration suggests that when you look at all the data in just the right light, it’s “unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this year — even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter — indicates a recession.”

Others disagree, saying the familiar definition cannot be so summarily dispatched. On Instagram, poster Graham Allen cheekily asked Siri how we know it’s a recession. Her reply: “two consecutive quarters of negative growth.”

Not a sacrosanct indicator, but standard.

Enter the Guardians of Discourse.

Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) has flagged Allen’s post as “false information” and in some cases prevented viewers from seeing it.

The “independent” fact checker on duty was Politifact, which warned Web surfers it just ain’t so that “the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession.”

This is where we’re at. Discussion of political motives at the White House has become so hazardous that the People of the Fact Check must rush to repudiate any intimation that any assiduous politics is going on. It’s all just assiduous data comparison.

Well, reality check: “fact checks” can be biased too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags fact check, inflation, media, recession

ideological culture partisanship

Ultra-Dumb

A turn in rhetoric caught the attention of the attention-catchers.

On Friday, USA Today explained “Why Biden is blasting the ‘ultra MAGA’ agenda, not Donald Trump, in his midterm push.” The paper explained that Biden, seeking “to avert a midterm disaster that would all but end his domestic agenda,” is pointedly not mentioning the name of his predecessor in office.

“Instead, the White House works aggressively to paint Republicans and their policies as an ‘ultra MAGA agenda’ in a push to overcome the president’s brutal approval ratings and voters’ frustration with high inflation to help Democrats maintain control of Congress.”

Jenn Psaki, on the way out as the president’s press secretary, attributed the “ultra MAGA” epithet to none other than that genius specimen of Homo politicus himself, Joe Biden. But, as reported in the Washington Post, that’s just another whopper for the cameras and the gullible.

Actually, the Post didn’t put it like that. “The attack line followed months of testing from the Center for American Progress Action Fund,” writes USA Today, summarizing the Post’s reportage. “Democrats believe ‘ultra MAGA’ tells a story of a movement that’s no longer just about Trump.”

Democrats are right … in that “ultra MAGA” does tell a story.

Democrats are wrong … to imagine it could dissuade Republicans. Many conservatives now embrace the epithet, mocking Democrats for thinking they’ve found the key to unlocking Democratic success in the upcoming mid-terms.

While I won’t be embracing Ultra for my messaging — is Ultra Freedom or Ultra Responsibility or Ultra Accountability on the menu? No? Then: no! — I can join conservatives in shaking my head at rule by focus group.

And President Biden’s calling MAGA “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history?”

The charge — coming from the party of riots, lockdowns, shortages, and inflation — seems ultra-suspect.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Democratic Party, MAGA, media, propaganda, Republican Party

media and media people partisanship

Telling Us Clearly

“While everyone in America gets to cast a ballot on Election Day,” Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon, Jr., explains, “in reality rich people, corporations, foundations, politicians and other elite individuals and organizations have outsize power.”

Ah, the Washington perspective … but don’t worry, Bacon adds, “The media that those people consume is telling them clearly that the current Republican Party is a threat to the nation’s future.”

Notice he does not use the term “informing” or “educating.”

America’s major media is a pit of partisan vipers more interested in how they can spin the news to turn votes their way, than on what you, as a citizen of a democratic constitutional republic, need to know to make informed decisions your way.

Mr. Bacon remains convinced, however, that the press “still doesn’t go far enough.”

He decries that “GOP radicalization and democracy erosion isn’t being covered extensively or aggressively by a big, important chunk of the media — the morning and nightly news shows of the big broadcast channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) …”

Can’t be serious, can he?

The columnist, like so much of the national press corps, believes in “an emboldened media.”

In fact, he is mightily disappointed that more news coverage “doesn’t implicate the GOP.” Bacon justifies the thumb on the scale because “in most cases,” he asserts, “the GOP’s behavior is far worse than the Democrats’.”

I think we’re supposed to take his word for that … or maybe already suspect as much — if well-lectured in the right universities.

Bacon’s column is headlined, “The rise of pro-democracy media.”

Close in letters, but what he and other “journalists” are calling for is Pro-Democrat Media.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags establishment media, fake news, media, media bias, progressivism

crime and punishment media and media people

Antifa Goons Give Up

Melissa Lewis and Morgan Grace, antifa, suit, copyright

Attorney Harmeet Dhillon of the Center for American Liberty congenially tweets: “A meet and confer that yielded an efficient result!”

The Center represents Andy Ngo, author of Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. Andy has been extensively covering the riots and related violence perpetrated by Antifa activists.

He’s doing the job that many purported reporters can’t bother with, even when onsite. (“Mostly peaceful protest,” was a standard refrain in summer 2020, even if flames dominated the screen as the reporter intoned those words.)

Ngo has been a victim of Antifa rioters’ physical violence in retaliation for covering their doings in detail; more recently, a target of their attempted judicial violence.

The anti-Andy lawsuit was launched by Antifa thugs Melissa Lewis and Morgan Grace — I mean, alleged thugs. They accused him of retweeting a video of rioting that they’d posted to Twitter as a way of saying “Yay! Look at our wonderful rioting!”

The retweeting infringed their copyright, they claimed.

Uh, guilty? Not the copyright-infringement part. The retweeting part. Which everybody does all the time on Twitter. It’s how Twitter works.

So why did the Antifa thugs then decide to quit so easily?

Probably, opposing counsel Ron Coleman, Dhillon’s colleague, explained things very slowly and clearly. Then, probably, Lewis and Grace’s own lawyer took them aside and explained things.

“The more this drags on,” I hear them advise, “the more attention the video itself will get. The video with the criminal activity you’re implicitly endorsing. Think it through . . . .”

Call it Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Andy Ngo, Antifa, lawsuit, media, riots

ideological culture

Cosmic or Merely Comic?

Jussie Smollett, woke, victim, progressivism

A number of important criminal trials are bunching up together at the moment. The Rittenhouse acquittal came first, but the Coffee and Arbery verdicts, along with it, also qualified as major milestones. Looming over our heads is perhaps the headiest of all, the Ghislaine Maxwell honey pot case. But for the wildest comedy, there’s Jussie Smollett’s.

The story is such a travesty it is hard not to laugh — especially if you have heard comedian Dave Chappelle’s bit about “the French actor, Juicy Smolliet.”

Eddie Scarry, writing in The Federalist, provides a less humorous take: “Smollett wasn’t engaging in a hoax. He was perpetuating a scam and that scam has a name. It’s called ‘social justice.’”

Scarry makes a case for Smollett’s rationality: “It’s not like Smollett is a demonstrable sociopath who told an aimless lie about being attacked by Trump supporters in 2019 for the sake of it.” When he hired two Nigerians to fake a racist, homophobic attack on him, he did so with a purpose: to parlay rampant “woke” sentiment to gain fame and fortune. “This is what our entire culture is teaching now — that the quickest way to advance is to claim victimhood on account of race, sex, or sexual identity — ideally, some combination of all three.”

While the scam element is obvious in Smollett’s greed, social justice itself is not a scam. It is an ideology of constant revolution, always to re-make the world over to correct for cosmic injustices.

And it’s more: Social justice is open-source psychological warfare. It doesn’t need centralized control — though it has some, in the form of the insider elitists — because its strength comes from the distributed acceptance and performances of its hapless criminal pushers.

Thankfully, comic criminality may undermine its allure.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts