Michael Ejercito
2024-08-09 14:25:19 UTC
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/09/another-day-another-fact-free-anti-trump-smear-from-the-axis/#more-130814
Another Day, Another Fact-Free Anti-Trump Smear From The Axis
August 9, 2024 / Jack Marshall
One can safely add Yahoo! and the Los Angeles Times to the massive list
of media organs that are ethically estopped from calling Donald Trump a
habitual liar, since they habitually lie about him.
The most recent example comes from the Times uncritically and
deceptively reporting on a series of hyper-partisan, hysterical rants by
LGTBQ+ Democrats in San Francisco (well, its San Francisco). Yahoo! then
circulated the propaganda under its own banner online. Like the good
little Axis of Unethical Conduct members they are, the LA Times and
Yahoo! dutifully reported pure Trump Derangement fiction as news, and it
was biased, dishonest, unethical journalism from the headline to the finish.
Which, ironically, is not news either. This is how the news media has
been operating where Trump is involved for ten years. This is how it
plans on winning the Presidency for the Democrats again.
The headline is “‘Our lives are on the line’: Why many LGBTQ+ people
hope for a Harris win.” Not one LGBTQ+ American’s “life is on the line”
in this election by any stretch of the imagination. Trump does not
oppose gay rights or same sex marriage. He has made it clear that he
believes in treating such citizens as anyone else should be treated.
Believing, as most conservatives, Republicans and people who haven’t
been brainwashed or bullied do, that LGBTQ+ lifestyle propaganda does
not belong in public school classes does not endanger LGBTQ+ rights or
lives.
But the Times (and then Yahoo!) lied, because that’s what progressive
journalism does now. It begins,
“At a recent celebration of San Francisco’s vibrant transgender past,
one speaker after another directed the crowd’s attention to a worrisome
future, casting November’s presidential election as a turning point for
the LGBTQ+ community and the nation as a whole.”
What’s a “vibrant transgender past”? That’s not journalism, that’s hype,
and a competent editor would red-pencil it. The fact that a group of
hard-core, leftist activists see a “worrisome” future doesn’t make it
ethical for the Times to report that assessment as fact. “Directed the
crowd’s attention to what they believe is a worrisome future” is
reporting, journalism. The way the Times stated it is advocacy.
“This election will determine our fate,” said Sofía Sabina Ríos
Dorantes, deputy director of El/La Para TransLatinas, a local advocacy
organization. “It will determine whether we continue to face
discrimination and marginalization at [a] disproportionate rate, or
whether we can continue walking toward the recognition and respect we
deserve.”
There is literally no basis for any of that claim, and a news outlet is
obligated to say so. How will this election do any of that? There is
less discrimination against gays and same sex couples now than at any
time in our history. Trump doesn’t mention gay rights and gay marriage.
The sole matters of contention that do occupy the attention of
conservatives are 1) the strange, anti-female obsession of parts of the
radical Left with allowing trans athletes to compete against girls and
women in sports where size and strength is an advantage, and 2) the fad
of imposing “gender-affirming care” on minors who have become confused
about their gender identity in the midst of an indoctrination campaign.
Opposing the first is not advocating “discrimination and
marginalization,” just fairness and common sense. Opposing the second is
expressing legitimate concern for the health of children whose lives are
at risk of being distorted by politics.
If the Times were interested in journalism rather than allying with
activists, it would not use the intentionally deceptive cover-phrase
“gender affirming care” to mean “giving children puberty blockers,
steroids and irreversible unnecessary surgical procedures because they
have been convinced that they are the ‘wrong’ sex.”
Trump’s decision to ban transsexuals from military service is the only
substantive policy that LGBTQ+ can point to as having an arguably
adverse effect on a small component of their group’s rights. How many
people are we talking about here? Since the only purpose of the military
is national defense, the determination that including this tiny,
inherently confusing and arguably emotionally disturbed minority in our
armed forces is unwise is hardly constitutes an existential threat to
the entire LGBTQ+ community or their rights.
The lying is flagrant: The Times hops on the contrived “Project 25”
hysteria, but gets truly deceptive in its links. “Dangerous” links to a
story about Republicans opposing the extreme trans agenda. How is
disagreement over allowing children to decide to be permanently altered
“dangerous” to the LGBTQ community? (Any dissent from leftist cant is
“dangerous.” I get it.)
I checked the last two links in this paragraph:
“In three months, Americans will choose between Vice President Kamala
Harris, who is a Bay Area native and longtime LGBTQ+ ally, and former
President Trump, who has a long record of attacking queer rights and has
aligned himself with some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBTQ+
political groups.”
Trump’s “record” of attacking LGBTQ rights linked to a story about Trump
criticizing Biden’s obnoxious decision to salute the (already absurd)
“Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter. There is no “right” to have
your group recognized by the President on Easter. And, as in the rest of
the Times hit piece, by “LGBTQ” the Times only meant the “T.” Solidarity
is admirable, but lying and deceit are not. Challenging an extreme trans
agenda does not threaten LGBTQ rights. It is the illogical equivalent of
claiming that the extreme pit bull breed bans in many cities “endanger
all dogs.”
“Aligned himself‘ is worse. Trump has accepted the endorsement of
religious groups and evangelicals who follow moral imperatives in their
faiths that gays don’t like—-as if the Democrats wouldn’t love to have
the endorsements of any of these groups. Accepting the endorsement of a
group does not mean a candidate accepts all the positions of that group,
and the Times knows that. Nonetheless, it intentionally deceives its
readers because its Axis allies do.
This is how the mainstream media is attempting to rig the election—well,
one of many ways.
Another Day, Another Fact-Free Anti-Trump Smear From The Axis
August 9, 2024 / Jack Marshall
One can safely add Yahoo! and the Los Angeles Times to the massive list
of media organs that are ethically estopped from calling Donald Trump a
habitual liar, since they habitually lie about him.
The most recent example comes from the Times uncritically and
deceptively reporting on a series of hyper-partisan, hysterical rants by
LGTBQ+ Democrats in San Francisco (well, its San Francisco). Yahoo! then
circulated the propaganda under its own banner online. Like the good
little Axis of Unethical Conduct members they are, the LA Times and
Yahoo! dutifully reported pure Trump Derangement fiction as news, and it
was biased, dishonest, unethical journalism from the headline to the finish.
Which, ironically, is not news either. This is how the news media has
been operating where Trump is involved for ten years. This is how it
plans on winning the Presidency for the Democrats again.
The headline is “‘Our lives are on the line’: Why many LGBTQ+ people
hope for a Harris win.” Not one LGBTQ+ American’s “life is on the line”
in this election by any stretch of the imagination. Trump does not
oppose gay rights or same sex marriage. He has made it clear that he
believes in treating such citizens as anyone else should be treated.
Believing, as most conservatives, Republicans and people who haven’t
been brainwashed or bullied do, that LGBTQ+ lifestyle propaganda does
not belong in public school classes does not endanger LGBTQ+ rights or
lives.
But the Times (and then Yahoo!) lied, because that’s what progressive
journalism does now. It begins,
“At a recent celebration of San Francisco’s vibrant transgender past,
one speaker after another directed the crowd’s attention to a worrisome
future, casting November’s presidential election as a turning point for
the LGBTQ+ community and the nation as a whole.”
What’s a “vibrant transgender past”? That’s not journalism, that’s hype,
and a competent editor would red-pencil it. The fact that a group of
hard-core, leftist activists see a “worrisome” future doesn’t make it
ethical for the Times to report that assessment as fact. “Directed the
crowd’s attention to what they believe is a worrisome future” is
reporting, journalism. The way the Times stated it is advocacy.
“This election will determine our fate,” said Sofía Sabina Ríos
Dorantes, deputy director of El/La Para TransLatinas, a local advocacy
organization. “It will determine whether we continue to face
discrimination and marginalization at [a] disproportionate rate, or
whether we can continue walking toward the recognition and respect we
deserve.”
There is literally no basis for any of that claim, and a news outlet is
obligated to say so. How will this election do any of that? There is
less discrimination against gays and same sex couples now than at any
time in our history. Trump doesn’t mention gay rights and gay marriage.
The sole matters of contention that do occupy the attention of
conservatives are 1) the strange, anti-female obsession of parts of the
radical Left with allowing trans athletes to compete against girls and
women in sports where size and strength is an advantage, and 2) the fad
of imposing “gender-affirming care” on minors who have become confused
about their gender identity in the midst of an indoctrination campaign.
Opposing the first is not advocating “discrimination and
marginalization,” just fairness and common sense. Opposing the second is
expressing legitimate concern for the health of children whose lives are
at risk of being distorted by politics.
If the Times were interested in journalism rather than allying with
activists, it would not use the intentionally deceptive cover-phrase
“gender affirming care” to mean “giving children puberty blockers,
steroids and irreversible unnecessary surgical procedures because they
have been convinced that they are the ‘wrong’ sex.”
Trump’s decision to ban transsexuals from military service is the only
substantive policy that LGBTQ+ can point to as having an arguably
adverse effect on a small component of their group’s rights. How many
people are we talking about here? Since the only purpose of the military
is national defense, the determination that including this tiny,
inherently confusing and arguably emotionally disturbed minority in our
armed forces is unwise is hardly constitutes an existential threat to
the entire LGBTQ+ community or their rights.
The lying is flagrant: The Times hops on the contrived “Project 25”
hysteria, but gets truly deceptive in its links. “Dangerous” links to a
story about Republicans opposing the extreme trans agenda. How is
disagreement over allowing children to decide to be permanently altered
“dangerous” to the LGBTQ community? (Any dissent from leftist cant is
“dangerous.” I get it.)
I checked the last two links in this paragraph:
“In three months, Americans will choose between Vice President Kamala
Harris, who is a Bay Area native and longtime LGBTQ+ ally, and former
President Trump, who has a long record of attacking queer rights and has
aligned himself with some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBTQ+
political groups.”
Trump’s “record” of attacking LGBTQ rights linked to a story about Trump
criticizing Biden’s obnoxious decision to salute the (already absurd)
“Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter. There is no “right” to have
your group recognized by the President on Easter. And, as in the rest of
the Times hit piece, by “LGBTQ” the Times only meant the “T.” Solidarity
is admirable, but lying and deceit are not. Challenging an extreme trans
agenda does not threaten LGBTQ rights. It is the illogical equivalent of
claiming that the extreme pit bull breed bans in many cities “endanger
all dogs.”
“Aligned himself‘ is worse. Trump has accepted the endorsement of
religious groups and evangelicals who follow moral imperatives in their
faiths that gays don’t like—-as if the Democrats wouldn’t love to have
the endorsements of any of these groups. Accepting the endorsement of a
group does not mean a candidate accepts all the positions of that group,
and the Times knows that. Nonetheless, it intentionally deceives its
readers because its Axis allies do.
This is how the mainstream media is attempting to rig the election—well,
one of many ways.