Republican privilege has a couple of main points (at bottom of post), but overriding everything is their efforts to discredit facts and the people who use them. Especially with idiotic contradictory attacks. These tactics may work on low information Trumpian droolers, but for everyone else, they're just insulting.
I came across this tweet conversation that clearly shows you what we're up against. It's not like conservatives weren't using self-serving "facts" to align their own political interests:
Additionally, here are a few other important conservative characteristics I've been wrangling with: 1. They're not bound by any guiding principles, finding convenient exceptions so they can flip flop on an issue or platform; 2. And they like to play the role of the disciplinary daddy, to easily take control away from Americans who believe and count on government, claiming citizens cheat, need to be penalized, and can't be trusted with government. It's the elites, Republican elites. Father knows best.
After getting one right wing news site link after another from my conservative friend in Milwaukee, I think it's time we develop a media literacy class that teaches kids how to identify fake news:
PBS: How can teachers help students tell fact from media fiction? Educators and media literacy advocates in Washington state are working together with legislators to address the problem.
Wasting no time in "shaking things up," Trump wants to throw everyone off balance, especially the press. The Guardian:
coming soon....
Talk radio hosts and bloggers could be given greater access to official White House press briefings once the Trump administration takes office, under a highly irregular proposal being floated that may also remove briefings from the West Wing. White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the proposal would mean “you can involve more people, be more transparent, have more accessibility. There’s a lot of talk radio and bloggers and people that can’t fit in right now and maybe don’t have a permanency because they’re not part of the Washington elite media, but to allow them an opportunity to ask the press secretary or the president a question is a positive thing. It’s more democratic.”
But how many liberal bloggers and radio hosts will be there? But oh wait...
"They are the opposition party. I want 'em out of the building, we're taking back the press room."
Here's the story. Check out the Colbert clip that looks at the how a Trump press briefing might look pretty damn soon:
The question should be, did anyone worry about leaked "fake news," or even irrelevant news about Hillary Clinton or John Podesta? Why is this different, especially when you consider Trump's penchant for flagrant lying?
Press Conference Circus: Trump's version of Goebbels, double speak press secretary and media mangler Sean Spicer came out first to diffuse the unsubstantiated Buzzfeed story about Trump's "golden shower" Russian hotel romp, but his push back appeared desperate and preemptive.
This may or may not be fake news, but still, why did Trump trolls try to cover Trump's ass right away? Just in case?:
Trump supporters started a misinformation campaign about the dossier, circulating images on 4chan and Reddit that include passages not contained in the original document. They claim the entire dossier is made up and that it was sent to a Republican strategist, Rick Wilson, last year. Wilson denied being the source of the leak. He has been involved in a long-running battle with Internet trolls after he called Trump supporters “childless single men who masturbate to anime” last January.
Trump again took it out on a CNN reporter, calling the network fake news:
But Trump loves fake news, as explained here:
MSNBC's correspondent in Moscow gives us their reaction:
Of course Trump calling out those in the intelligence community Nazi's was a first by an American president, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out:
Trump's attorney came out with their reinterpretation of the Constitution and ridiculous and tortured workaround's so Trump would continue to make money:
For those unfamiliar with the story, as I was until I decided to post this....
CNN reported only that a two-page summary of the report “was presented last week to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump [and] included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” The story began making the rounds at Washington dinner parties late last summer: Donald Trump had been caught in a compromising sexual position by Russian intelligence agents during a business trip to Moscow. According to one version, told by a high-ranking Obama administration diplomat, Russian intelligence services, acting on Trump’s well-known obsession with sex, had arranged an evening for him with a bevy of hookers, with hidden cameras and microphones recording all the action. The jaw-dropping detail that topped the story? Trump had somehow engaged in “golden showers,” sex acts involving urine. Russian security agents watched Trump engaging in “perverted sexual acts” that were “arranged/monitored by the FSB,” the Kremlin’s leading spy agency. The FSB, it said, “employed a number of prostitutes to perform a golden showers (urination) show in front of him.” The veracity of the report and its sourcing have not been verified. The report also detailed Moscow’s interest in the Clintons. Reports on Hillary Clinton were “collated” by Directorate K of the FSB spy agency “for many years,” it said, “dating back to her husband Bill's presidency.” But not much was found by bugging Clinton’s hotel rooms, the sources said: The spies recorded no “golden showers” or “unorthodox or embarrassing behavior” from countless hours of eavesdropping on Clinton and her retinue. The best they could come up with was ”things she had said which contradicted her current position on various issues.”
It's almost crazy the way the "right" is trying to steal away and use "fake news" as a weapon against the opposition party. Used to describe outlets like Breitbart, Townhall, Red State, and the MacIver Institute, fake news is now being used broadly against the real news media.
MSNBC's Ari Melber took a look at how quickly Republicans have latched onto fake news, as a sledge hammer against the media, and now as a "legitimate" source supporting their purely ideological fake world vision. In the video below, watch former Senator and leader of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint laugh and call estimates by the Congressional Budget Office fake news.
The Washington Post's Paul Farhi made a few great points as well:
Farhi: "The term has now been weaponized, it's been politicized...If we can't in a society, at least agree on some facts, we've got nothing to talk about. You're talking about chaos."
NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen has written a paper on how the press must now change the way they cover the news under Trump, the king of fake news.
Rosen: "A man in power untroubled by contradictions and comfortable in the confusion he creates cannot be held accountable by normal means...a Trump presidency is likely to be constructed on a propaganda model in which fomenting confusion is not a drag on the Administration's agenda, but a sign that it's working."
The most troubling development is Trump's plan to reform and pare down the US intelligence agency, after trashing it and saying that it's bloated and politicized. When the incoming president has more faith in intelligence pushed by Putin and Julian Assange, well you get the picture.
Here's Ari with former independent candidate Evan McMullin, and Wisconsin's Charlie Sykes:
McMullin: "It is absolutely textbook for a "strongman" to come in and attack not only the media, they do that, but also intelligence and security services. Try to weaken them, try to consolidate power within them...I mean it's absolutely textbook and I have to say as a former intelligence officer myself, seeing his attacks on the press and in reading this report tonight really has me greatly concerned, perhaps more concerned than I been all along." Sykes: "I see the pattern here of Donald Trump trying to delegitimize any institution that might be a check on him, whether it is the news media or intelligence community...he does not want these independent agencies who might actually be a truth detector on his administration."
And these latest developments only add to the urgency:
Daily Beast: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on
Thursday that Russia cyberattacking campaigns are “multi-faceted” and also
include fake news. “This was a multi-faceted campaign,” Clapper said at a
Senate hearing on Thursday morning. “So the hacking was only one part of it,
and it also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news.”
Clapper’s testimony confirms suspicions that, in addition to hacking into U.S.
political institutions like the Democratic National Committee, Russia helped
propagate and spread fake news online as part of its purported goal of helping
to elect Donald Trump. Asked whether Russia’s campaign is continuing, Clapper
said simply: “Yes.” Daily Beast:Russians Who Hit DNC Are Using Fake News to
Hack U.S.: Some of the Russian hackers blamed for infiltrating the DNC
are using bogus news to get inside the networks of the unsuspecting. James
Scott, a senior fellow at the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology,
told The Daily Beast in an email. “News or Fake News are both effective lures because the
targets feel compelled to open the email or link in order to be informed [or]
to be vindicated.”
When House Republican authoritarian leaders decided to free themselves any of the moral or ethical responsibility that comes with complete power, the nation gasped:
House Republicans scrapped plans to weaken an independent
ethics watchdog on the first day of the 115th Congress after a backlash from
President-elect Donald Trump and others, as a new period of Republican-led
governance started on a tumultuous note.
Trump took to Twitter to slam House
Republicans...
“Slam?” Not quite. Suggesting that maybe it wasn't the number one priority...isn't slamming anyone:
My favorite down the rabbit hole response? Well, it doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the beauty of reading Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway's position:
"I don’t want your viewers to be left with the impression that there’s no
mechanism to investigate ethics complaints. Particularly ethics complaints that
come from constituents, which the former office has been entertaining.
They have many mechanisms in place where you can effectuate
the kind of hypothetical you're putting fourth. But I don't want people to feel
like ethics is gone. There are many ways for constituents particularly to make
their voices heard."
And your job is to find out what they are. Happy hunting. The Democratic response got to the point:
Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
reacted angrily, "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new
Republican Congress."
Fake news site Breitbart, in another juvenile "I know you are but what am I" moment, accused everyone else of writing fake news:
The story qualifies as “fake news,” and the fact that it is being repeated by so many outlets does not make the it any less fake … (the) complaint is that leaks from the OCE, or statements about its investigations, tarnished the reputations of those it was investigating. Those initiating the investigation could remain anonymous, meaning that it was possible, at least theoretically, for entirely facetious charges to be made against a political target without any opportunity for the accused to question their accusers.
I thought this response in the comment section fine tuned the message:
Bill • 6 hours ago: Sadly it seems many people don't understand the definition of fake news. Fake news is a story a "media source" creates without any source or evidence - it is known to be a lie when it is published. That is the only definition. Fake news is not news one doesn't like, news that one feels is slanted (which apparently is what Joel is objecting to),or news that is derived from sources believed to be accurate that turns out be a lie. You're welcome.
The merry “fellows” at the MacIver Institute need a little self-awareness
training, or should at the least pick up a newspaper from time to time.
Making their list of “under-reported stories” for 2016, was
this amazingly ironic rant about the supposed free speech rights of climate change
deniers. Aw, poor babies, can’t take a little criticism or responsibility?
The Left's War on Free Speech: ...Democratic attorneys general banded together to intimidate climate change skeptics, including attempting to illegally seize private documents from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Then in July, 19 Senate Democrats took to the floor of the U.S. Senate in a fascist attempt to publicly intimidate and silence groups opposed to their policy positions. In response, the MacIver Institute joined ALEC ... in co-signing a letter fiercely defending the fundamental right to free speech ... Joe McCarthy would've been proud of Senate Democrats for their Putin-like tactics.
The ironic use of Trump’s puppet master, Putin, in making their case is amusing enough, but MacIver can’t hide what they’re really doing; protecting the reliable fossil fuel funding of right wing groups. Note: As usual, MacIver supplies no links in their post to explain or make their case.
The 19 Senate Democrats simply called out by name the big oil players and “urged...”
...fossil fuel companies and allied organizations to cooperate with active or future investigations into—(A) their climate-change related activities; (B) what they knew about climate change and when they knew that information; (C) what they knew about the harmful effects of fossil fuels on the climate; and (D) any activities to mislead the public about climate change.
Never mind that…
…Exxon seeks to separate itself from past public relations campaigns and statements questioning climate change research. Lately, the company has offered support for a carbon tax to account for the environmental cost of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Wanna talk about "free
speech?" The MacIver Institute must have missed or decided to ignore the Republican government censorship
of climate change science in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin...
1. President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy to compile a list of all the employees and contractors who worked on a number of different initiatives related to climate change, sparking fears of witch hunts and drawing parallels to McCarthyism. (Trump backtracked, but you get the idea.) 2. Scott Walker dismantled Wisconsin’s environmental legacy … Since taking office in 2011 Walker has moved to reduce the role of science in environmental policy making and to silence discussion of controversial subjects, including climate change, by state employees. 3. Discussing climatechange is out of bounds for workers at a state agency in Wisconsin. So is any work related to climate change—even responding to e-mails about the topic … Wisconsin’s Board of Commissioners of Public Lands enacted the staff ban on climate change. State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk, a Republican who ran on the pledge to eliminate his position and sits on the board said … “I would prefer that we didn’t have to prohibit stuff (NY Times) like this. We live in Wisconsin and we don't need a subscription to this publication. It just seems silly that we would have to. But I’m not the one that’s been engaging on this topic (climate change) for years.”
4. In 2008 before he was governor, Walker, Sen. Ron Johnson, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Sean Duffy, Reid Ribble, state Sens. Leah Vukmir, Alberta Darling, Rep. Glenn Grothman and Mary Lazich, and state Reps. Dale Kooyenga, Don Pridemore, Jim Ott and Bill Kramer and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch signed the Koch-backed “No Climate Tax Pledge,” vowing to oppose any climate legislation. 5. NY Times: For Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, there is language promising that no trade deals can compel the United States to address climate change.
Political Environment writer James Rowen reported on Monday that the Walker administration had advanced their war on science by scrubbing information about climate change from a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website that was dedicated to explaining how the agency would deal with a warming planet.
Fake news is getting a lot headlines lately, because it sucks. I've been thrown off a few times only to find out the stories came from political humorists and web sites.
But one guy takes the cake. Heard the one about paid protesters at Trump rallies? This guy made that up and much, much more:
WaPo Reporter: "Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral? Paul Horner: "Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist." Reporter: "Why? I mean — why would you even write that?" Paul Horner: "Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it. I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad]. Reporter: "Why didn’t you stop? Why keep writing?" Paul Horner: "I didn’t think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn’t messing them up as much as I wanted — but I never thought he’d actually get elected. I didn’t even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should’ve seen this coming — everyone assumed Hillary [Clinton] would just get in. But she didn’t, and Trump is president."
How low will Republicans go to win it all? Dana Milbank explains:
Republicans are learning to embrace their
phoniness: The Republican Party finally has admitted what has been
fairly obvious for much of the past six years: It produces fake news … it's an
important step for the party to embrace the phoniness. "NRCC launches fake news sites to attack Democratic
candidates" was a headline in the National Journal on Tuesday. As Shane
Goldmacher reported, "The National Republican Congressional Committee,
which came under fire earlier this year for a deceptive series of fake
Democratic candidate websites that it later changed after public outcry, has
launched a new set of deceptive websites, this time designed to look like local
news sources." These two dozen sites, with names such as "North County
Update" and "Central Valley Update" look like political
fact-checking sites. An NRCC official told me the sites are legal because, if you
scroll all the way to the bottom, you'll find, "Paid for by the National
Republican Congressional Committee" in small print. "They're not fake
websites," the official said. "These are real attack websites." Real
attacks, but fake news: This is a fairly accurate summary of what the GOP's
scandalmongers have been purveying during the Obama years. Fast and Furious? No evidence was found. Money for Solyndra
to pay the president's political cronies. Didn't happen that way. Obamacare
would bring about the collapse of the American health-care system and replace
it with socialized medicine and death panels. No such thing has occurred. The
IRS scandal? Nope. And now, we have the Benghazi exoneration. The actual truth of the allegations doesn't matter. Each one
sullied President Obama's name. That's why fake news works: Falsehoods can
drive a president's approval rating into the cellar while the truth still is
getting out of bed.
