Study: 77% of Trump Press Coverage Negative

Negative media coverage of Donald Trump was 77 percent during the general election, according to a study released Wednesday by the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
Trump complained during the campaign that the media was biased against him in favor of Democrat Hillary Clinton. The study found that while Clinton also received more negative coverage than positive, it was only 64 percent negative in the general election.

When it came to questions of the candidates' fitness for office, Clinton and Trump each had equally high negative numbers: 87 percent.
"Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?" the study's author, Thomas Patterson, a Bradlee professor of Government and the Press at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote. "It's a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign."
Still, The Washington Post announced in early May it was assigning 20 reporters specifically to look into Trump's past. The Post's Bob Woodward said at the time it also was working to get to the "essence" of Clinton, but did not say whether the paper had assigned 20 reporters to her case.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/negative-media-coverage-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/2016/12/07/id/762783/?hl=1&noRedirect=1 

How to Answer a False Accusation of Racism

Yesterday, a student contacted me with a concern that is common among those taking courses in the social sciences and humanities. This particular student is enrolled in an online criminology class taught by a leftist professor. During a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement, one of the more conservative students in her class used the phrase “all lives matter.” Predictably, the leftist professor objected. But he went even further by repeatedly accusing the student of racism. To make matters worse, the ad hominem attacks were made in front of all the students enrolled in the course. It was part of an online class “discussion.”
Although the student who contacted me was not the one attacked, she wanted to know how to confront the professor who was so clearly out of line. She was understandably reticent to express her own views after seeing a fellow student attacked in the middle of class discussion. Given the importance of the issue, I am printing my response to the student to help other students who are similarly attacked or intimidated in the classroom:
Dear Amber: The first thing to remember about responding to a false accuser is what not to do. Above all, you must resist the temptation to accuse the professor of harassment or of breaking the campus speech code. That is what leftists do and it is wrong. The best way to respond to bad speech is with better speech, not censorship.
Furthermore, you need to respond to accusations of racism with questions rather than assertions. Here are the three questions you need to ask. William Wilbanks, author of The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, inspired the first two questions. Greg Koukl, author of the book Tactics, inspired the third:

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/12/09/how-to-answer-a-false-accusation-of-racism-n2257095 

Trump's EPA pick will make Obama regret his environmental overreach

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s nomination for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is as clear a signal as the incoming administration can send with regard to its environmental policies. 

It is also a sign that the administration is far more meticulous, internally consistent and thorough than its detractors have thought, and that it is on a clear mission not just to stop, but to reverse many of the actions of Obama’s EPA.

It is noteworthy that global warming was the second action item mentioned in President Obama’s 2009 inaugural, and that a mere 90 days later, the administration had issued a “preliminary finding of endangerment” from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions.

Under their interpretation of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 climate change ruling, Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, such a finding not only permitted the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1992, it compelled the agency to do so.

Seven years ago, on Pearl Harbor Day 2009, the administration announced its final Endangerment Finding. By March, Pruitt and 15 other state AG’s joined in a combined suit against it, which was ultimately not successful.  

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309484-trumps-epa-pick-will-make-obama-regret-his

Homeland Security tied to attempted hack of Georgia's election database

An attempted hack into Georgia's voter registration database was traced back to the Department of Homeland Security, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

A third-party security firm working for the state detected the unsuccessful breach and linked it to an IP address associated with DHS, the report said. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp reportedly sent a letter to Homeland Security asking the department to confirm whether an attempt was made.
In his letter, The Wall Street Journal reported, Kemp asked the department to confirm whether a scan attempt was made, who authorized the scan and whether the department was scanning other state systems without authorization.

Leading up to the election, questions were raised about the security of state computer systems that protect voting data. Homeland Security reportedly considered declaring election systems as "critical infrastructure," which would have given the federal agency the authority to protect the systems. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to the publication's request for comment.
 
Read the full report from The Wall Street Journal here.

At Last: A New Social Security Reform Plan

Social Security has been a quiet subject for Republicans since the collapse of President Bush’s reform efforts in 2005. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Republican Members of Congress were seemingly lining up to present new plans to fix Social Security’s long-term funding shortfall, currently estimated at over $11 trillion. Since Bush’s plan failed to pass even a Republican-led Congress, however, many in the GOP have left the field to progressives who seek to expand Social Security benefits, even at the cost of the program’s solvency.
Today, however, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), the chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, has introduced a Social Security plan that would address solvency concerns while also taking steps to make the program work better for participants. It’s a complex plan, so it might be easiest to explain by breaking it down into its functional components.
Solvency: While there’s more to Social Security reform than simply keeping the system from going broke, a program that can’t pay what it promises isn’t much good to people. To address the solvency side of the problem Johnson’s plan takes a number of steps. First, the plan would gradually increase the normal retirement age, reaching 69 for people born in 1968, who will retire in the mid-2030s. Second, the plan alters the basic Social Security benefit formula in such a way that benefits are progressively and gradually reduced for roughly the top half of retirees.  Third, the plan would base Cost of Living Adjustments on the so-called “chain-weighted CPI.” On top of this, high income retirees – singles with retirement incomes above $85,000 and couples above $170,000 – would not receive a COLA. Fourth, the plan would limit the size of spousal benefits for higher-income retirees. Currently, the non-working spouse of a high-earning retiree can receive a higher monthly benefit than a low-income person who worked and contributed to the program all their life. Together, these changes would be sufficient to make Social Security solvent for 75 years and beyond.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2016/12/08/at-last-a-new-social-security-reform-plan/#7fe495428d1d 

Trump’s Impact on the Global Economy

Yes. Yes. Trump won. There is still a little shock left in the world, but for the most part liberals are finally falling in line and preparing to deal with the regime change. We have examined a number of impacts the election alone has had, noting some of the largest economic shifts of the year, despite the fact that absolutely no policy can change before mid-January.
Continuing that trend, this letter will focus on what the short-term impacts of the election has had on the global economy and use those numbers to predict where that will push everything over the next four years.
Currency
The USD is currently at a 13-year high. This run is built entirely on anticipation of new policies. As it becomes more likely that Trump will be able to push infrastructure spending and at least some tax cuts, expectations for a surge in U.S. GDP growth make the greenback a safe bet.
On top of those expectations, a stronger U.S. economy is sure to be accompanied by a Fed hike, and that only bolsters the value of U.S. treasuries farther. When value makes a large shift like this, the redirected money has to come from somewhere, and in this case, it is coming out of emerging markets. Malaysia, Indonesia and Mexico are all experiencing steep drops in the value of their currency. The Yuan continues to be floated by the People’s Bank, but the long-term outlook is the same.
Ultimately, emerging markets are quickly becoming risky investments. This will probably strengthen Trump’s position on repatriating U.S. cash and renegotiating trade deals, which we’ll look at in more detail in a minute.
The other important note is that even the most stable currencies, namely the Euro, are falling to the dollar. This isn’t inherently good or bad, but the trend will help frame the other shifts that have happened, and it will help us anticipate changes to come.

http://www.wealthauthority.com/articles/trumps-impact-on-the-global-economy/ 

What About The "Fake News" Phenomenon?

This item is very interesting. It examines what "fake news" really is.    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/understanding_fake_news.html

Another interesting item.  Not exactly about "fake news" but it is, I think, related.  Quote: "The stark contrast between the scholarly duty to consider all possible explanations before reaching a conclusion and the inability of so many academics to think through their own assumptions, much less defend them, demonstrates fundamental corruption. The very legitimacy of higher education is in peril, particularly the humanities and social sciences.  When there is no possibility of a bridge falling down, and when similarly leftist colleagues are the sole judges of academic merit, a cultural spiral toward the extreme probably is inevitable.  It’s how you get attention from a like-minded crowd.  Unless people like deBoer can yank the leftists out of their political trance, they will be digging their own political graves. At least 70% of the country laughs at the extremes of campus leftists. Political strategies based on a shared fantasy have a poor chance of success."    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/a_fascinating_peek_into_the_mentality_of_the_liberal_bubble.html

This is a most interesting TED Talk given by Sharyl Attkisson dealing with propaganda techniques which end up being fake news.  It is about 10 minutes long.    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/the_new_age_of_propaganda.html

This is also a very interesting item.  It is an assessment of the "fake news" industry, its techniques and intentions.  Quote: "Being a former therapist and instructor in the realm of sociology, psychology, research methods and statistics, I became keenly aware of how frighteningly effective the brainwashing and psyops techniques had become. These techniques are insidious, yet amazingly covert. One, has to be fully educated in these psychological techniques to recognize the subtleties related to the implementation of these practices against the American public."    http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/11/19/the-psychology-behind-fake-news-in-america/   

Much has be said and written about "fake news."  It is established that the mainstream media has been long engaged in the practice.  However, you may be surprised at who is called out in this piece as the biggest perpetrator.   Quote: "The Government’s Been Deploying Propaganda On U.S. Soil for Many Years."     http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/whos-biggest-peddler-fake-news.html?

Mainstream media say they are not the problem.  But,  Quote: "Your must-read for the day, if you have not read it already, is a piece by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled The Necessity of Credibility. It thoroughly exposes many examples of “fake news” by Big Media — including their claims that conservatives are routinely engaged in spreading “fake news.”"   http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/12/08/fake-news-complaints-big-media-fake/?

During a meeting on 22 Nov 16 between mainstream media heavy weights and Trump, several topics were covered.  This item covers two of them and they highlight the liberty the media takes to write what they want rather than what was said.  They serve as examples of the liberal media's practice of producing "fake news".   http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/11/24/trump-climate-change-fake-news-cartel/?  

This is a sobering assessment of the currently hot fake news issue. Quote: "Journalists cannot be simple messengers of information. It is within the realm of their responsibilities to investigate and understand what is behind hidden agendas and to convey that information in the best way possible to the readers and viewers, but that does not include lying to the public in an effort to push a political candidate, a political agenda or a specific plan or policy, neither from corporations nor from governments."  And, "As explained by Stephen J. Lendman in his article NYT Urges Internet Censorship, “along with other media scoundrels, it long ago lost credibility, which is why alternative sources of news, information and analysis are growing at their expense.” It has become a key feature of the outlets like the New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, among others, to “misinform, distort, distract and lie, vital hard truths banished from their reporting – fake news their specialty,” adds Lendman."  http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/make-news-credible/

Another good example of fake news.   http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/12/08/real-fake-news-n2256433?

This is interesting.  Liberal media outlet NPR believes it has found the source of the fake news phenomenon.  It is a liberal outfit.   http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/24/npr-finds-fake-news-company-run-liberal-democrat/ 

At least some fake news really is fake.   https://thehornnews.com/sorry-liberals-wapos-fake-news-story-faked/

The media got it all wrong.  Quote: "The representatives of that media have already begun to look inward, wondering if they caused this to happen with all the free coverage they gave Trump back in the primaries.  But while they have correctly identified the “culprit,” they have missed the target when it comes to what they did wrong. It wasn’t the quantity of the coverage; it was the quality of it. They demonized Donald Trump beyond all reason, writing spooky articles about Adolf Hitler without the slightest hint of irony. And with every new exaggeration and every ridiculous lie, they pushed him closer to the White House.  The REAL Donald Trump isn’t New York’s answer to Ted Cruz. He isn’t Barry Goldwater. He isn’t Rush Limbaugh.  He is an entirely new beast of American politics, and he won because he took on a tired, outdated Republican model. His ideology certainly isn’t liberalism, but it isn’t quite conservatism, either. It’s summed up by those two powerful words: America First.  And if he governs with that principle, we are in for a fantastic four years."    http://www.restoreamericanglory.com/freedoms/all-americans-won-tuesday-whether-they-know-it-or-not/

More on the fake news phenomenon.  http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/fake-news-judge-for-yourself-who-faker-is/  And yet more.  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_war_on_fake_news.html   More here.  https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/11/22/trumping-the-media/?singlepage=true

This is good advice for all of us.  It deals with more than fake news.   http://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2016/12/08/electoral-college-fake-news-exhausting-years/?

This is an example of currently produced mainstream media fake news.  Quote: "What’s happening here is that the establishment media is attempting to do the same thing to Trump voters it was doing before the election: Painting a false picture of his intentions in order to strip away his support. The why should be obvious – because the propaganda division for the Democratic Party hates the fact that he won and will do everything in its (diminishing) power to undermine him throughout his term(s) in office."      http://newstarget.com/2016-11-25-dont-let-the-conniving-mainstream-media-convince-you-that-trump-isnt-the-man-you-voted-for-he-is.html

Here is another example of fake news.  Quote: "The establishment media, which is pretty much the propaganda division for the Democratic Party, is so livid that it could not help its self-anointed candidate, "crooked" Hillary Clinton, defeat a billionaire businessman and reality TV star, that it is grasping at any straw possible to explain it.  One of the most implausible of all explanations is that Clinton was done in by a bunch of "fake news" spread by "fake news sites." No doubt ours is high on the lib media's list."  http://www.naturalnews.com/056161_fake_news_mainstream_media_vaccines.html   Another slam by a mainstream media outlet that seems committed to continuing its fake news tendencies.  Continuing along this path is not a good idea.  http://www.naturalnews.com/056160_Washington_Post_fake_news_Russia_conspiracy.html 

Interesting observation about the mainstream media and Muslims.   https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/12/07/mainstream-media-still-omits-uncomfortable-truth-about-muslim-grievances/

This is a blunt but sobering piece.  Quote: "This election also proved once again that Barack Obama is a fiction created by the media, as his enthusiastic campaigning for Hillary brought yet another embarrassing rejection of both him and his policies. If there was any doubt about what Americans thought of his “accomplishments,” they were shattered by the results of this election. For the third time in six years, BHO campaigned hard for Dirty Dem candidates— this time with a life-and-death fervor of someone running for a third term, which he was — and once again got his bloated ego handed to him on a platter."  and, "Listen up: Neither Barack Obama nor anyone else on the radical left has any intention of working with either Trump or the Republican Congress. Perhaps a goodly number of Republican Trump haters will timidly get on board the Trump Train in order to protect their own careers, as was evidenced in Paul Ryan’s Save-My-Ass speech Wednesday morning, but Ryan’s after-the-fact overture to Trump was precisely the kind of thing that has long disgusted voters. It was a last minute about-face in the hopes that Trump would keep him on as Speaker of the House, which he almost certainly will.  It would be a tragedy if Trump fell victim to kingitis and lost control of the very movement he led. The millions of enthusiastic people who voted for him did not do so in the hopes that he would “work with” those who are trying to, and succeeding at, destroying America. They voted for him in the belief that he would totally oppose their anti-American agenda and bring down the entrenched and corrupt system of the political class."    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/robert-ringer/nothing-trump-presidency-will-peaceful/

Contrast the mainstream media's treatment of a brutal dictator and an American president elect.    http://freebeacon.com/culture/fidel-castro-media-darling/?    What does that say about their obvious left leaning bias?

George Burns