<$BlogRSDUrl$>
Be sure to follow me on Twitter @leftiblog

Friday, January 24, 2020


 

Headlines for Jan. 24, 2020




Click here to listen to this week's segment on Loud & Clear Radio.  
Headlines with an * are the ones we managed to fit in in our allotted time slot.

Worst, Most Misleading & Funniest Headlines for Jan. 24, 2020


*Biden charges Sanders camp ‘doctored video’ to attack him
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/18/joe-biden-falsely-attacks-bernie-sanders-100811
"Joe Biden accused Bernie Sanders’ campaign Saturday of issuing a “doctored video” to attack him over Social Security, a false claim that ratcheted up the tension between the two campaigns in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses…the video in question…was not doctored."
Even in the article, the word "falsely" should be the third word. Not "Joe Biden accused…" but "Joe Biden falsely accused…". Because the story is precisely that. Not that Biden accused Sanders, but that Biden *falsely* accused Sanders.

*CNN poll: Bernie Sanders surges to join Biden atop Democratic presidential pack
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/cnn-poll-sanders-biden-january-national/index.html
Sanders 27, Biden 24. Accurate headline would be: "Bernie Sanders surges past Biden".

*The real story: OPCW investigator testifies at UN that no chemical attack took place in Douma, Syria
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/
*“Mainstream” coverage, UK version: Russia accused of misinformation over claim Syrian chemical attack was faked
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-accused-of-misinformation-over-claim-syrian-chemical-attack-was-faked-870rfbb27
Is this better or worse than the total absence of coverage in US mainstream media?
*“Mainstream” coverage, US version: 
Yes, absolutely nothing. Not a word. A United Nations Security Council meeting convened to assess inconsistencies within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report on alleged chemical attacks in Douma, Syria. A former OPCW specialist, Ian Henderson, who was part of the Douma investigation, had his application for a visa denied, but still spoke on video. The meeting received zero coverage in U.S. media. Zero.

*Schiff warns of Russian attack on US mainland, as Day 2 of Trump's Senate impeachment trial concludes
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-senate-impeachment-trial-schiff-russia-attack
I couldn't even find a reference to Schiff's important but also insane remark in other mainstream sources, much less a headline. Although WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/15/impeachment-managers-senate-trial/
in an article on "who are the impeachment managers", notes this almost identical quote as Rep. Jason Crow's "big moment": "We help our partner fight Russia over there, so we don’t have to fight Russia here."

And speaking of insane:
*What if Trump Gave Alaska to Putin?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/trump-trial-impeachment.html
In which Nick Kristof approvingly quotes Alan Dershowitz, who wrote in 2018: “Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory.” [For the record, the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867; Russia has no claim to it, legitimate or otherwise.

As Protests in South America Surged, So Did Russian Trolls on Twitter, U.S. Finds
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/south-america-russian-twitter.html
So much wrong with this. For starters, "finds" in the headline should be "claims"; the article presents only claims by anonymous officials, not actual evidence. In the first few paragraphs, we find references to "Twitter accounts that had a high certainty of being linked to Russia" and "Russia-linked accounts", but note that in the headline, it was just "Russian Trolls", not "Russia-linked trolls" or "Trolls that had a high certainty of being linked to Russia" (not Russian, just "being linked to Russia"). And, although it doesn't figure directly in the headline, the whole thrust of this article, repeated many times, is about "disinformation", e.g., "The Spanish-language arms of two news organizations in Russia have been accused of spreading disinformation, conspiracy theories and, in some cases, outright falsehoods to undermine liberal democratic policies, mostly in the West." But NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of "disinformation, conspiracy theories, or outright falsehoods" is provided, and the last few words of that sentence tell the real story: "to undermine liberal democratic policies". In other words, it wasn't disinformation, but rather information which contradicted the U.S. "line".

Iran Admits Firing 2 Missiles at Jet and Says It’s Studying Effect
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-missiles.html
Iran confirms two Russian-made missiles hit Ukrainian airliner
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-confirms-two-russian-made-missiles-hit-doomed-ukrainian-airliner/2020/01/21/3d20bc66-3c4d-11ea-afe2-090eb37b60b1_story.html
There is absolutely no reason for the “Russian-made” in this headline other than to promote hostility towards Russia (and in turn justify the trillion dollar war budget).

Poll: Most Americans want Trump removed from office by Senate
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-poll-impeachment-101245
Remember last week's abortion story when 99% of women who say they made the right decision became "most women". Now what is actually "a bare majority" of Americans, 51%, is now also "most Americans".



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media