The New York Times Admits They Are Biased Against Trump...And They Say They Have Duty To Be
Balance, Fairness and a Proudly Provocative Presidential Candidate
New York Times ^ | August 7, 2016 | Jim Rutenberg
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist
I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?
Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on Fox News Sunday that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.
And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
The irony is that the New York Times is talking about being objective and nonbiased while saying the above. They ask how are they supposed to be nonbiased all the while they are going on a biased premise.
The NYT can’t prove that Trump is a racist. The man was in the public eye for 69 years before he decided to run for President. He was never referred to as racist until he got on a Republican ticket for President. An FYI to the NYT, Mexican is not a race, it’s a nationality. Muslim is not a race, it’s a religion.
The NYT then goes with that line about him cozying up to dictators. This line of argument was directly from a Hillary Clinton press release. Her toadies from every media outlet wrote a story on that after. Addressed here:
Then they say, and this is purely based on bias, that Trump would be a threat as he would set off a nuclear bomb. They have no proof of that (minus the claim of Joe Scarborough later in the article which Trump denies and still doesn’t prove he will use nuclear weapons as anything other than a last resort), and in fact, Trump’s America first foreign policy has us less likely to get into wars than Hillary Clinton.
If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
This is absolutely laughable. Move closer than ever “to being oppositional?” “Uncomfortable and unchartered territory?” Really?!! The New York Times acts like they are forced to be unfair this time as though they’ve always been nonbiased when it comes to Republicans and Trump is the exception? They’re delusional!
The New York Times next admits that covering Trump thoroughly and negatively “threatens” to give Hillary Clinton an advantage. They say they would give Hillary more scrutiny and negative coverage, but they can’t because, alas, Trump is a dangerous man who must be opposed.
And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.
Hahahahahahahahahaha! This is from the same people who have fawned over Obama for the last 8 years. They were really balanced with McCain and Romney, right?
No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies,
Yes, because our politicians are stupid. I didn’t even know that these people weren’t paying their fair share and were mooching off the U.S. until Trump. How in the world can it be okay for these people to expect us to foot the cost, not pay their fair share, and then demand we potentially get into WW III for them?
openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier,
There really wasn’t much of a fight. Trump asked why the mother did not speak ,and he said Hillary might have written part of his speech. I said that he should apologize for that matter. Trump then put out a statement acknowledging the son was a hero, explaining his policy that the father attacked, and saying the father has no right to say he hasn’t read the Constitution. Trump didn’t mean “no right” literally in terms of the father wasn’t allowed to speak. It’s just an expression. If the father falsely accused him of never having read the Constitution if he has, then of course a lie would make him mad. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from countries compromised by terrorism, and there is nothing unconstitutional about enforcing immigration laws and building a wall. Trump also pointed out that the family was viciously attacking them.
Kahn has been (although it’s finally starting to settle down) on an interview bonanza, going after Trump every chance he can get. Kahn told Trump to give back a Purple Heart given to him by a soldier. Kahn did an interview the other day where he said that Allah is making Trump make mistakes as retribution. Again, I said he should have apologized to the mother, but this is hardly the massive fight the media has made it out to be.
Hillary essentially called the Gold Star Mom a liar, but no one in the media even cared.
or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media failed to get).
Whether it was or it wasn’t a joke is not the question because it doesn’t matter.
1. I would presume that the server that Trump supposedly wanted hacked has been destroyed.
2. Hillary Clinton used this private server in lieu of a government one. Is hacking a private server espionage? (again, server likely dead).
3. Hillary Clinton says that what was on that server was not classified and was about weddings, yoga, etc. Thirty three thousand emails about that in fact. If that is all that was on the server, then why in the world would it be espionage or threatening to this country in anyway if they read them? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe that Hillary was lying.
4. The FBI says the emails are gone and our government doesn’t have them. Okay. How can it be espionage to hack into Hillary’s deceased server or the government server looking for emails that the government says that it doesn’t have? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe the government was lying.
5. The emails, if they are out there, are already out there. They either have them or they don’t. The U.S. says they don’t have them.
6. Is it normal for someone committing espionage to tell people to alert the press and the FBI and turn over the emails, which is what Trump did?
overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States
The platform is for countries compromised by terrorism. The problem is that there is a contingent of radical Islamic terrorists or people who want to implement Sharia law that have to be kept out. A very good vetting process needs to be in place.
or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.
I have dealt with that and will repost the information:
That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to is a political group:
SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this through two vehicles; it’s Political Affairs Committee and it’s Political Action Committee.
The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of Directors to oversee all aspects of the Association’s political efforts. The Political Affairs Committee has led the Association’s efforts to push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system, has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino Elected Official’s 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.
The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all aspects of the Association’s lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions on how to contribute the PAC’s money to support candidates and causes that are aligned with the Association’s mission and values.
http://sdlrla.com/about-our-work/
They make endorsements:
http://sdlrla.com/endorsements/
On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is pro-illegal immigrant:
http://www.borderangels.org/faq/
The Daily Caller lists these organizations:
Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’
The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.
“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement.
However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.
The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.”
(Snip)
Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.”
However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.
MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is
MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.
Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a recent post on their site is, “Latinos allege excessive policing after Trump protests.” Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of Obama’s executive actions providing amnesty.
Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because “it is not humane, as it would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the wall.”
San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with deportation raids from the Obama administration. “San Diego will NOT stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of families#StopTheHate #HereToStay,” the group wrote on May 27.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/#ixzz4FGyw5b5Q
The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:
Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]
United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/#ixzz4FGztz085
Finally:
Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trump’s Businesses
Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.
The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his announcement speech.
The press release stated the organization’s mission to target Trump’s “business interests,” according to the Conservative Treehouse.
“By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong,” the press release states. “His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.”
The press release adds:
The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/07/report-trump-university-judge-linked-group-calls-boycott-trumps-businesses/
The NY Times lists all that is wrong with Trump and then says:
“It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.”
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Here’s an article from a public editor the New York Times that actually says that some liberals think the Times is too biased, their inbox is filled with letters from angry conservatives, and that over 65% of their readership are leftists (seems like it would be higher):
Why Readers See The Times as Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=1
“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”
Bull! Some of these “controversies” were either media contrived or drawn out far beyond what they should have been. Media contrived ones include things like the sheriff’s star, the baby, the Russia emails, and the Iran plane. Others drawn out so long are the Heidi retweet (without including the other side of the story that led to that), the judge (without including reasons why the judge would be biased as posted in post 2), and this Kahn story. Newsbusters has illustrated the disparity in coverage like with Hillary lying to Chris Wallace
vs. Trump’s controversies.
The New York Times goes on to say that we know what a Hillary Presidency would look like; we don’t know what a Trump Presidency would look like, they say.
”And to say she hasn’t been amply scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates” affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate — than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.”
Hillary’s “gates” are minor compared to Trump’s “gates”, right, NY Times? I wish someone had a list of the number of negative articles this campaign against Trump vs. Hillary.
The New York Times says Trump is not as truthful as Hillary and then cites the leftwing Politifact, a project of the Tampa Bay Tribune, which endorsed Hillary Clinton.
By the way, there is a site out there called Politifact Bias which serves to counter some of the things on Politifact.
The NY Times says, ”It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”
Like they did with Obama as they carried his water?
It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.
In other words, the “facts” are liberal talking points. Journalists think they have a “job” to make the news. They don’t just want to report it. They believe that they have a duty to bring about change through their writing and make what they believe to be a positive difference in the world so that they can be seen as positively impacting history. I suppose this will depend on who writes history too. What they believe positively impacts history is moving the country in a leftward “progressive” direction. Someone who is opposed to that, is moving the country in the “wrong” direction and therefore deserves more scrutiny or negative coverage. The only problem is, perhaps this liberal agenda they are trumpeting doesn’t work. The history that they sought to be judged by may turn out to judge them in a negative manner because their utopian vision was a failure. History will see their bias demonstrated and blame the media for the hand it played, and that could be “untenable.”
New York Times ^ | August 7, 2016 | Jim Rutenberg
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist
I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?
Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on Fox News Sunday that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.
And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
The irony is that the New York Times is talking about being objective and nonbiased while saying the above. They ask how are they supposed to be nonbiased all the while they are going on a biased premise.
The NYT can’t prove that Trump is a racist. The man was in the public eye for 69 years before he decided to run for President. He was never referred to as racist until he got on a Republican ticket for President. An FYI to the NYT, Mexican is not a race, it’s a nationality. Muslim is not a race, it’s a religion.
The NYT then goes with that line about him cozying up to dictators. This line of argument was directly from a Hillary Clinton press release. Her toadies from every media outlet wrote a story on that after. Addressed here:
Then they say, and this is purely based on bias, that Trump would be a threat as he would set off a nuclear bomb. They have no proof of that (minus the claim of Joe Scarborough later in the article which Trump denies and still doesn’t prove he will use nuclear weapons as anything other than a last resort), and in fact, Trump’s America first foreign policy has us less likely to get into wars than Hillary Clinton.
If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
This is absolutely laughable. Move closer than ever “to being oppositional?” “Uncomfortable and unchartered territory?” Really?!! The New York Times acts like they are forced to be unfair this time as though they’ve always been nonbiased when it comes to Republicans and Trump is the exception? They’re delusional!
The New York Times next admits that covering Trump thoroughly and negatively “threatens” to give Hillary Clinton an advantage. They say they would give Hillary more scrutiny and negative coverage, but they can’t because, alas, Trump is a dangerous man who must be opposed.
And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.
Hahahahahahahahahaha! This is from the same people who have fawned over Obama for the last 8 years. They were really balanced with McCain and Romney, right?
No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies,
Yes, because our politicians are stupid. I didn’t even know that these people weren’t paying their fair share and were mooching off the U.S. until Trump. How in the world can it be okay for these people to expect us to foot the cost, not pay their fair share, and then demand we potentially get into WW III for them?
openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier,
There really wasn’t much of a fight. Trump asked why the mother did not speak ,and he said Hillary might have written part of his speech. I said that he should apologize for that matter. Trump then put out a statement acknowledging the son was a hero, explaining his policy that the father attacked, and saying the father has no right to say he hasn’t read the Constitution. Trump didn’t mean “no right” literally in terms of the father wasn’t allowed to speak. It’s just an expression. If the father falsely accused him of never having read the Constitution if he has, then of course a lie would make him mad. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from countries compromised by terrorism, and there is nothing unconstitutional about enforcing immigration laws and building a wall. Trump also pointed out that the family was viciously attacking them.
Kahn has been (although it’s finally starting to settle down) on an interview bonanza, going after Trump every chance he can get. Kahn told Trump to give back a Purple Heart given to him by a soldier. Kahn did an interview the other day where he said that Allah is making Trump make mistakes as retribution. Again, I said he should have apologized to the mother, but this is hardly the massive fight the media has made it out to be.
Hillary essentially called the Gold Star Mom a liar, but no one in the media even cared.
or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media failed to get).
Whether it was or it wasn’t a joke is not the question because it doesn’t matter.
1. I would presume that the server that Trump supposedly wanted hacked has been destroyed.
2. Hillary Clinton used this private server in lieu of a government one. Is hacking a private server espionage? (again, server likely dead).
3. Hillary Clinton says that what was on that server was not classified and was about weddings, yoga, etc. Thirty three thousand emails about that in fact. If that is all that was on the server, then why in the world would it be espionage or threatening to this country in anyway if they read them? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe that Hillary was lying.
4. The FBI says the emails are gone and our government doesn’t have them. Okay. How can it be espionage to hack into Hillary’s deceased server or the government server looking for emails that the government says that it doesn’t have? That is, unless the NY Times and its media allies believe the government was lying.
5. The emails, if they are out there, are already out there. They either have them or they don’t. The U.S. says they don’t have them.
6. Is it normal for someone committing espionage to tell people to alert the press and the FBI and turn over the emails, which is what Trump did?
overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States
The platform is for countries compromised by terrorism. The problem is that there is a contingent of radical Islamic terrorists or people who want to implement Sharia law that have to be kept out. A very good vetting process needs to be in place.
or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.
I have dealt with that and will repost the information:
That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to is a political group:
SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this through two vehicles; it’s Political Affairs Committee and it’s Political Action Committee.
The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of Directors to oversee all aspects of the Association’s political efforts. The Political Affairs Committee has led the Association’s efforts to push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system, has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino Elected Official’s 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.
The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all aspects of the Association’s lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions on how to contribute the PAC’s money to support candidates and causes that are aligned with the Association’s mission and values.
http://sdlrla.com/about-our-work/
They make endorsements:
http://sdlrla.com/endorsements/
On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is pro-illegal immigrant:
http://www.borderangels.org/faq/
The Daily Caller lists these organizations:
Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’
The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.
“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement.
However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.
The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.”
(Snip)
Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.”
However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.
MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is
MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.
Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a recent post on their site is, “Latinos allege excessive policing after Trump protests.” Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of Obama’s executive actions providing amnesty.
Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because “it is not humane, as it would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the wall.”
San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with deportation raids from the Obama administration. “San Diego will NOT stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of families#StopTheHate #HereToStay,” the group wrote on May 27.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/#ixzz4FGyw5b5Q
The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:
Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]
United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/#ixzz4FGztz085
Finally:
Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trump’s Businesses
Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.
The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his announcement speech.
The press release stated the organization’s mission to target Trump’s “business interests,” according to the Conservative Treehouse.
“By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong,” the press release states. “His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.”
The press release adds:
The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/07/report-trump-university-judge-linked-group-calls-boycott-trumps-businesses/
The NY Times lists all that is wrong with Trump and then says:
“It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.”
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Here’s an article from a public editor the New York Times that actually says that some liberals think the Times is too biased, their inbox is filled with letters from angry conservatives, and that over 65% of their readership are leftists (seems like it would be higher):
Why Readers See The Times as Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=1
“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”
Bull! Some of these “controversies” were either media contrived or drawn out far beyond what they should have been. Media contrived ones include things like the sheriff’s star, the baby, the Russia emails, and the Iran plane. Others drawn out so long are the Heidi retweet (without including the other side of the story that led to that), the judge (without including reasons why the judge would be biased as posted in post 2), and this Kahn story. Newsbusters has illustrated the disparity in coverage like with Hillary lying to Chris Wallace
vs. Trump’s controversies.
The New York Times goes on to say that we know what a Hillary Presidency would look like; we don’t know what a Trump Presidency would look like, they say.
”And to say she hasn’t been amply scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates” affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate — than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.”
Hillary’s “gates” are minor compared to Trump’s “gates”, right, NY Times? I wish someone had a list of the number of negative articles this campaign against Trump vs. Hillary.
The New York Times says Trump is not as truthful as Hillary and then cites the leftwing Politifact, a project of the Tampa Bay Tribune, which endorsed Hillary Clinton.
By the way, there is a site out there called Politifact Bias which serves to counter some of the things on Politifact.
The NY Times says, ”It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”
Like they did with Obama as they carried his water?
It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.
In other words, the “facts” are liberal talking points. Journalists think they have a “job” to make the news. They don’t just want to report it. They believe that they have a duty to bring about change through their writing and make what they believe to be a positive difference in the world so that they can be seen as positively impacting history. I suppose this will depend on who writes history too. What they believe positively impacts history is moving the country in a leftward “progressive” direction. Someone who is opposed to that, is moving the country in the “wrong” direction and therefore deserves more scrutiny or negative coverage. The only problem is, perhaps this liberal agenda they are trumpeting doesn’t work. The history that they sought to be judged by may turn out to judge them in a negative manner because their utopian vision was a failure. History will see their bias demonstrated and blame the media for the hand it played, and that could be “untenable.”
Comments
Post a Comment