Hello Poynter Institute!  It’s your turn on my own version of the popular game show “What’s My Line!?

A self-stated goal of MrEricksonRules.com is to “challenge hypocrisy and media bias, while dragging them out into the sunlight.”

Well, Poynter Institute…, consider yourself dragged!poynter 2

I had not even been aware of The Poynter Institute before reading an article by Liam Quinn of Fox News about The Poynter Institute being forced to scrap an “unreliable news” list which targeted conservative news outlets.

Well, I’m aware of it now, and you soon will be as well.

According to the article, “A journalism watchdog has been forced to scrap a list of ‘unreliable’ news sources because, as it turns out, the list wasn’t reliable.”

Just a helpful interjection here…, in the past, when an organization was described as a “watchdog,” that was perceived as a positive and a noble thing, looking out for the good of everyday people.

The term “watchdog” has since been co-opted by liberal organizations everywhere to somehow try and give the impression of a fair and just operation…, which of course they aren’t.  The only ones these people are looking out for is themselves.

“The Poynter Institute, a journalism nonprofit organization, initially released a list of more than 500 ‘unreliable’ news outlets purportedly ‘built from pre-existing databases compiled by journalists, fact-checkers and researchers around the country.’”

“But a number of prominent conservative-leaning outlets were included in the ‘unreliable’ category, including The Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, Daily Caller and other publications that employ scores of journalists covering Congress, elections, the White House and more.”

poynter 6

“The index was created with the help of an employee for the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Ohhhh…, well why didn’t you reference the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the first place?!  Please refer to some of my prior blogs about the gold ole’ SPLC and its astonishing disingenuousness.

Anyway…, the article continues, “Poynter’s managing editor, Barbara Allen, posted a mea culpa [An acknowledgment of one’s fault or error, or as in this case, an elaborate excuse that disseminates the blame.] Thursday as the backlash built.”

‘“On Tuesday, April 30, Poynter posted a list of 515 “unreliable” news websites, built from pre-existing databases compiled by journalists, fact-checkers and researchers around the country. Our aim was to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming,’ the statement read.”

Translation: We just posted a list of conservative websites and resources that liberal media sheep everywhere already were aware of.  Our aim was to try and expand the users of our “hit list” to the public in general.

‘“Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology.’”

Translation: Soon after we did this we got busted.  Being a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization (just like The Southern Poverty Law Center by the way), we are supposed to be nonpartisan, so we have to make sure we keep up the appearance of being nonpartisan even though we’re not.  So we pretended like we carefully reviewed our list, then came up with some lame excuses as to why the lists seemed to be partisan.

‘“We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.’”

Translation: We are now going to just straight up lie in an effort to make an excuse for ourselves.

poynter 7

“It continued: ‘Therefore, we are removing this “unreliable sites list” until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria. The list was intended to be a starting place for readers and journalists to learn more about the veracity of websites that purported to offer news; it was not intended to be definitive or all encompassing.”

Translation: We were not able to get away with putting our list out there this time, but we’ll do a better job of making it available next time, while getting away with it somehow.

‘“We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication. We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards.’”

Translation: We are very sorry and disappointed we got caught, and we pledge to make a better effort to not get caught next time.  Not getting caught is the highest of our high standards here at The Poynter Institute.

There…, was that helpful?  I hope it was.

So, now what exactly is The Poynter Institute?

Again…, let’s hear about The Poynter Institute in their own words, according to their own website, with a little interpretation by myself.

“The Poynter Institute has grown from a storefront in sunny St. Petersburg, Florida, to the world’s most influential school for journalists.”

(Ahhh, the old rags to riches story.  How inspiring!  But they didn’t do it alone.  The list of major contributors is a virtual “who’s who” of liberal foundations, funds and trusts.  Trying to control “the media” and brainwash “journalists” everywhere does not come cheap.  Oh, by the way, The Poynter Institute is designated as a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization, but they say they own The Tampa Bay Times newspaper.  How does that work?  Just sayin’.)

poynter 3

(Pretty nice digs for a non-profit, huh?)

poynter 4

“Poynter is an instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens. We serve not only 21st-century democracies, but those in corners of the globe where people who honor freedom and self-government struggle against tyrants and autocrats.”

(We want to enlist you and guide you through our liberal propaganda program.)

“By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.”

(Poynter champions freedom of expression, except when that expression does not agree with their expression, and we prepare our fascists in training to attack conservatives at every turn and to try and dictate our socialist narrative on everyone.)

“Poynter’s Brands:”

(Poynter’s associated liberal indoctrination services:)

“News University – Poynter’s News University brings Poynter training to users around the world with the world’s largest online journalism curriculum.”

(Our way of spreading our liberal and socialist agenda to budding propagandists everywhere!)

“International Fact-checking Network – The International Fact-Checking Network brings together more than 60 fact-checkers worldwide, promoting best practices and exchanges.”

(This network makes sure no one deviates from the prescribed liberal talking points or narratives, and attempts to spin “facts” in favor of liberals, liberal politicians and liberal causes everywhere.)

“MediaWise – aims to teach 1 million teenagers how to sort fact from fiction through social media and our teen fact-checking network.”

(This particularly insidious resource targets teenagers with the “proper” indoctrination of liberal thought.)

“PolitiFact – is the largest political fact-checking news organization in the United States and winner of the Pulitzer Prize. It has published more than 16,000 fact-checks on its Truth-O-Meter.”

(PolitiFact is the lone resource they can point to as being anywhere near legitimate and somewhat fair.)

“As public trust in the media dissipates, we are increasingly expanding our mission to reach out to communities and have conversations about finding the truth. We must be relevant to journalists and non-journalists alike and hold our staff and other media accountable.”

(As public trust in the media dissipates…?  But how could this be?  How could the public trust in the media be dissipating with all of the valiant and noble efforts of the Poynter Institute?  I guess “the public” is smarter than you gives us credit for, huh?)

“Each year, Poynter trains over 100,000 journalists from more than 70 countries in person and online. Since the start of our online education initiative in 2005, we’ve taught journalists in virtually every country in the world.”

(God help us all.)

poynter 8

Their “code of ethics” is quite extensive, but obviously not worth the paper it’s printed on.

One of their highlighted taglines on their website says, “Poynter teaches journalists to tell stories the world needs to hear.”  Which in essence means that Poynter teaches its media minions to spread their approved liberal propaganda everywhere.

Well…, there you have it!

The Poynter Institute in all of its “liberal propaganda machine” glory!

Remember…, stay thirsty my friends…, but don’t drink the liberal Kool Aide!  Especially the Kool-Aide The Poynter Institute is serving up!

poynter 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

The hypocrisy of “the left” knows no bounds!

According to Paul Farhi of The Washington Post, “The Democrat National Committee (DNC) has decided to exclude Fox News Channel from televising any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle …”

Is this even legal?  Isn’t this a violation of the freedom of the press?  It surely is at least un-American.

You can’t say the democrats aren’t consistent.

Consistently hypocritical.

Consistently unconstitutional.

“In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump’s agenda. The article, titled ‘The Making of the Fox News White House,’ suggested that the news network had become a ‘propaganda’ vehicle for Trump.”

(Please see my other blog today on this very topic.)

“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” said Perez in his statement to The Washington Post.

Soooo you “expand” your electorate “and reach all voters” by excluding certain news coverage?  You “expand” the reach of your party by excluding the most watched cable news channel on TV?  Is this what they call liberal common sense?  It sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You’re a democrat alright!

‘“That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News.  Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates,’ Perez added.”

Oh, you mean they won’t be fair and neutral and allow the DNC to provide debate questions to your candidate of choice before the debate, like what happened last time at a CNN debate?

tom perez and brazile

We are all also painfully aware of how “fair and neutral” the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is towards President Trump and the virtually 100% negative reporting around the clock.

But that’s okay?

It sure is okay…, in the whacky world of irrational and hypocritical democrats.

“Hours later, Trump responded to the decision by suggesting he might seek to retaliate.”

“Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate,” he said in a tweet Wednesday night. “Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!”

Nice retaliatory strike Mr. President!  The DNC obviously didn’t consider what the repercussions of their “stupidness” would be.  That’s what happens when all of these idiots get together in a room and bounce dumb ideas off of each other.

“Numerous networks, including Fox, have submitted proposals to the DNC to televise one of the 12 scheduled debates, which will start in June.”

12 debates?!  And that’s only amongst the democrats!  By the time we get to the twelfth debate there won’t be anything left that the democrats and their socialist government can give away “free” that the democrat candidates will be able to promote.

“So far, the organization has only awarded rights to the first two, to NBC (along with sister networks MSNBC and Telemundo) and to CNN.”

Telemundo?!  Really?

Well, I suppose the DNC does have to be careful to consider the tens of millions of illegal immigrant voters who can’t speak English.

I’m sorry…, I’m bad…, I know it…, but I just couldn’t help myself.

“In a statement, Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said: ‘We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democrat presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters.’”

We shouldn’t be surprised by these turn of events.  The DNC is just the logical extension of the liberal fascists we see all of the time attempting to silence conservative voices on college campuses around our country and at other public events and public protests.

We are well aware of their “playbook” by now.

In the Socialist democrat world, the freedom of speech only applies to those who believe like they do.  Everyone else must be shouted down, silenced and labeled as racists, misogynists, homophobes and Nazis.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

tom-perez-35030444

I’d love to be able to “regulate the content of speech.”  If it wasn’t for that darn Constitution!

The U.S. Representative for California’s 33rd congressional district (in the Los Angeles area), democrat, Ted Lieu, said he would “love to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, but he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

That darn old Constitution!

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing during an interview with CNN host Brianna Keilar.

“… I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech.  The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” Congressman Lieu continued.

I’m glad you feel that way congressman; since that is what allows you and your liberal friends to say the stupid things you do, not to mention you took an oath to uphold and protect The Constitution as an elected representative of the people.

Lieu added that, “Private companies should self-regulate their platforms and the government shouldn’t interfere.”

Stop the presses!  This would be the first thing that a democrat felt the government shouldn’t interfere with!  Although this statement does not seem consistent with his prior statements.

I think what he means is private companies, run by liberals, should be able to self-regulate their own platforms, as long as they are attacking conservatives.

Yes…, I’m sure that’s it.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for tyranny.”

Lieu, of course, then had to tell us what we should have understood him to say, as he insisted that he was actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

Oh I get it!  So it was like “opposite day” or something!

Maybe we should have interpreters standing alongside these liberals, translating what they really mean, like we have people translating their words into sign language for those who are hearing impaired!

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech,” Lieu added.

I really haven’t heard about any government officials wanting to regulate speech other than you, Mr. Lieu, and of course former President Obama regarding Fox News!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Lieu has become somewhat of a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.”

“He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign.  He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ok.  Well, that paints a clearer picture of Congressman Lieu now.

So what we have here is your typically confused and inept, liberal politician.

A year and a half ago, Lieu tweeted at President Trump, saying: “President” @realDonaldTrump: You truly are an evil man. Your job is to help Americans. Not intentionally try to destroy their lives. https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

This was in response to President Trump’s tweet about Obamacare which said:

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

There we go again.  When liberals can’t win an argument intellectually, they resort to name calling and labeling.  Who the “evil one” is and who was trying to “destroy lives,” is definitely a matter of opinion.

Congressman Lieu then tweeted:

Mr. “President”: Art II of Constitution requires you to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. Subverting #Obamacare violates your Oath https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

Excuse me Congressman Lieu, but wasn’t it President Obama who chose to ignore our immigration laws, and change the Obamacare law as he saw fit on the run?

I don’t recall you pointing out Article II of The Constitution to President Obama, or did I just miss that?

“Even earlier this year, Lieu started printing asterisks next to Trump’s name in his official press releases, leading to a footnote that reminds readers of his failure to capture the popular vote and of allegations of Russian influence,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News Insider pointed out that, “Lieu also started a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which counts the days, hours and minutes that Trump has allegedly been in conflict with a section of the Constitution that governs the likelihood of interference by foreign business interests.”

“Trump is not making America first, he’s making America second,” Lieu said.

It’s not that hard Mr. Lieu.  Really.

Repeat after me, President is “making America great again” by “putting America first.”

I would really like to see a study about the IQ scores for people in your district, Mr. Lieu.  Something tells me the average score would be somewhere south of barely functional.

Is your district anywhere near Maxine Waters’ district?  I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is “yes.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

freedom of speech

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑