The NAACP’s Fomenters Of Fear

Twitter/HuffPost BlackVoices

They just can’t help themselves — and their agenda-driven media enablers never, ever learn.

This week, the NAACP made national front-page headlines with a local press release demanding that the feds investigate the hanging death of a local man in Port Gibson, Miss. Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP Mississippi State Conference, immediately invoked the specter of a “hate crime.” In response, the Obama Justice Department flooded the zone with a whopping 30 federal agents.

News outlets grabbed the bait. USA Today asked ominously, “Was it a lynching?” The discovery of ex-con Otis Byrd’s body swinging from a tree by a bed sheet “brought back unpleasant memories of America’s violent, racially charged past,” the paper’s video reporter asserted. Voice of America similarly intoned, “Mississippi hanging death raises lynching specter.” The Los Angeles Times leaped into the fray with, “Why this story haunts the nation.”

Whoa there, teeth-gnashing Nellies. Didn’t we just recently witness the implosion of an NAACP-incited non-hate crime with the same exact narrative? Why, yes. Yes, we did.

As I reported in January, the group was here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs hyping a so-called “bombing” at the city’s chapter office. Local, state, and federal NAACP leaders, amplified by political and media sympathizers, claimed the alleged hate crime “remind(ed) me of another period” (Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis); “undermines years of progress” (Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee); “harkens to bad old days” (MSNBC); and “evokes memories of civil rights strife” (Time Magazine).

But the allegedly racist perpetrator of the “NAACP bombing” turned out to be a disgruntled client of a now-deceased tax accountant who once worked in the same office complex. The financially troubled suspect had unsuccessfully tried to contact the tax preparer for years to obtain past tax returns. But unbeknownst to the “bomber,” who set off a pathetic improvised explosive device on the opposite side of the NAACP office, the accountant had been sent to prison for bilking other clients — and had passed away several years ago.

Confirming what only a few of us in the media dared to theorize out loud, race had absolutely nothing to do with the wildly inflated and cynically exploited incident in Colorado Springs. Zip, zero, nada.

None of this appears to have chastened the journalists who reflexively empower the NAACP agitators who reflexively cry racism. Just weeks after the not-NAACP bombing, here they are stoking fears of a probably-not-racist-not-lynching. Despite law enforcement reports that Byrd’s hands were unbound, despite warnings from the local sheriff (who happens to be black) not to jump to conclusions, and despite the very real possibility that Byrd committed suicide, the papers and airwaves disseminated Blame Whitey and Blame Righty talking points without thinking twice.

The incident indeed “brought back memories” for me — memories of the embarrassing 1996 media malpractice of former USA Today reporter Gary Fields, who manufactured a purported epidemic of racist church-burnings in the South with 61 hysterical stories. A typical and familiar headline: “Arson at Black Church Echoes Bigotry of the Past.” The NAACP jumped onboard and demanded that then-Attorney General Janet Reno investigate. President Clinton fanned the flames; panels were formed; federal spending programs were passed. But a year later, Fields’ own paper was forced to admit that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Several of the crimes had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the black churches were in fact white churches; and the Chicken Littles had obscured numerous complex motives including mental illness, vandalism, and concealment of theft.

Same old, same old. Then, as now, for publicity and profit, the race hustlers stoke the very societal divisiveness they claim to abhor — and knee-jerk journalists suffering institutional amnesia aid and abet them.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberal Commentator Makes News For Admitting The Truth About Ferguson

Flickr/Center for American Progress (cropped)

You know the standards of the media have hit rock bottom when a liberal commentator makes news for telling the truth. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and MSNBC has become a media star for his belated recognition of the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie out of Ferguson, Missouri. Better late than never, except for the fact that this liberal narrative was always in dispute. There was never any legitimate reason to believe that Police Officer Darren Wilson had simply fired on Michael Brown for no reason.

The appropriate reaction to Capehart’s Damascus Road conversion to the truth should be: What took you so long? And what will you do to make sure you never fall for such a vicious lie again?

Don Irvine, the chairman of Accuracy in Media, notes in his blog on the AIM website that Capehart admitted the narrative was wrong after the Department of Justice found Wilson’s side of the story to be true. Capehart said, “What DOJ found made me ill.” Irvine commented, “I would be ill too if I had helped push a false narrative that gave fuel to the riots in Ferguson that have cost businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars, and ruined the career of Officer Wilson.”

The people who should be ill are those who depend on Capehart and others like him for the truth. Capehart is just trying to recover some of the credibility he never had in the first place.

Those of us who don’t take Capehart and his ilk seriously as arbiters of truth are watching this celebration of his one-time truth-telling as an example of how, for much of the media, lies and distortions are the standard fare. Otherwise, why would telling the truth be so controversial?

But this case is much more than a few liberal commentators like Capehart taking the side of dishonesty and then waking up, months later, to what actually happened.

Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.

“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.”

“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.

Flaherty adds, “The racial grievance industry and their beards in the press put on and took off each lie like a cheap suit. Cute kids made viral videos with the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ pose, and reminded white people of their relentless racism. Members of Congress followed from the floor of the House.

“The President talked about racists in Ferguson at the United Nations. The parents of Michael Brown were honored guests at the gala dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus. The President greeted them from the podium during his keynote speech to extended applause. Then he talked about Ferguson racism.

“The Attorney General travelled to Ferguson and made [a] ‘personal promise’ that he would stand with the people of Ferguson. As long as those people were not cops.”

Flaherty goes on: “Entire cable networks repeated the lie day after day, guest after guest, promo after promo. Death. Murder. White racism. How could we not see it? Were we so blind, so immersed in white privilege, like a fish unaware of the water?”

It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.

The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.

Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.

The media moved on to another issue, without bothering to emphasize how wrong they had been in the months before. This is the performance of a media that promotes and even prefers lies over the truth. The lies, after all, gin up racial controversy and ratings.

Flaherty asks, What about the CNN anchors who were holding the “Hands up, don’t shoot” signs on the air?

That’s a good question indeed. These included what we called a prominent example of the “fake conservatives” in the media, such as when Margaret Hoover joined her fellow CNN panelists in a “Hands up, don’t shoot” display based on the fiction that Brown was surrendering to the police when he was shot.

Hoover has written a book titled, American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party. This self-described conservative thinks she has the answer to saving the Republican Party. She engaged in that display despite the fact that she said the narrative had been discredited because of witness testimony from the grand jury.

So Hoover engages in something she knows to be untrue, simply because it is the fashionable thing to do. What does this say about her ethical standards? “As a reform Republican, who works for the GOP to broaden its base and reach new constituencies, I see no contradiction between supporting law enforcement and the policy solutions highlighted by these protesters,” Hoover says.

The “protesters” were not highlighting “policy solutions,” but a deadly and false narrative about alleged police violence. She could have told the truth. Instead, she participated on the air in a display of a false narrative.

Why doesn’t she have the decency to apologize? Why doesn’t CNN apologize?

Flaherty also wonders why, after the hoax was exposed, we didn’t hear one apology from the media. It’s because our media have no standards of ethical behavior and conduct. Instead, the media went on with their business, acting as if traffic tickets “justified all the rioting, vandalism, fire-bombing, looting, assaulting, attacks on police, gunfire and other mayhem in and out of Ferguson.”

The praise for Capehart for eventually telling the truth may be one way the media can attempt to atone for their sins in this coverage. But it’s not good enough.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

MSNBC’s Brzezinski Defends Hillary Clinton Criticism Amidst Email Scandal

Mika Brzezinski

Amidst the criticism (mostly from conservatives and Republicans) aimed at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her involvement in housing a private email server, one critic stands out from the rest: MSNBC’s own Mika Brzezinski.

She opened up on Wednesday’s episode of Morning Joe, exposing fellow Democrats’ hypocrisy.

“If this were Dick Cheney, and he said ‘I have my own server and I deleted emails I wanted to delete and you guys get the ones I give you,’ I’m sorry,” she began. “… If this were Dick Cheney I would certainly be ferociously asking the questions, if this were Elizabeth Warren, I would be asking the questions.”

“I wouldn’t understand it. I don’t understand why this is okay,” she added.

She went on to explain that this isn’t just “partisan-driven media coverage”; it’s an example of journalists finally seeking answers to questions.

h/t: IJReview

Share this on Facebook if you agree that ALL of the media ought to hold EVERYONE accountable.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Ed Schultz: ‘If You Really Want Change,’ Disarm The Police

Ed Schultz

Ferguson, Missouri, has been the center of a lot of the media’s attention ever since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer last August. On Wednesday, the day after the Ferguson Police Chief stepped down, two Ferguson officers were shot and wounded during a protest.

Over at MSNBC, Ed Schultz on The ED Show suggested just hours before the shooting, that if the American people want “real change,” they should orchestrate a “social engineering project” and disarm the police–and then supply them only with nightsticks.

“It would take a brave person to do something like that,” he said. “There are places on the face of this earth, that there are police officers that don’t carry firearms.”

“I know the right-wing is going to think I’m crazy for saying that, but if you really want change, you have to institutionally show it to the people that you want to do this,” he added.

Twitter jumped all over Schultz for his comments:

Twitter/ Larry DePreta

Twitter/ Larry DePreta

Twitter/ Richard Pfeiffer

Twitter/ Richard Pfeiffer

Twitter/ Blue State Snooze

Twitter/ Blue State Snooze

Twitter/ OF-109. 55,000 lies

Twitter/ OF-109. 55,000 lies

Twitter/ George Pearson

Twitter/ George Pearson

h/t: Right Scoop

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberal Media Commentators Weigh In On Hillary’s Latest Debacle

morningjoeclintonemails

Hillary Clinton, who desperately wants to be the next president, hit a serious speed bump yesterday with the revelation that she never had an official State Department email account while she was Secretary of State. Instead, she used an unsecured private email account to conduct official business, in violation of government record-keeping laws.

While the use of a private email account isn’t unusual for a Secretary of State, they should only be used for official business when the State Department servers are not working. Even then, the emails should be retained for government record-keeping purposes. Instead, Clinton exclusively used a private email account that is only accessible by her staff, and not by government employees.

This has predictably raised hackles from conservatives and Republicans, but it has also left liberals searching for an explanation as to how an experienced politician like Hillary could do this with a presidential race in her future.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said there is a “real question” as to who is making the decisions about what records to release from Clinton’s tenure at the State Department. Her colleague, Lawrence O’Donnell, had stronger words, calling Clinton’s actions a “stunning breach of security” for Secretary of State.

Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski said it was “ridiculous,” and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the Today show’s Matt Lauer that he couldn’t honestly give him one good reason as to why Clinton did that, and said it was “highly unusual.”

Trying to do some damage control, Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill released the following statement today:

Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.

Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State’s request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here. As the Department stated, it is in the process of updating its record preservation policies to bring them in line with its retention responsibilities.

So just because she emailed people to their government accounts, she’s covered? I don’t think so.

Coming on the heels of the revelations that the Clinton Foundation has been accepting money from foreign governments and routinely approved Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements without putting them through an ethical review, this only adds to the woes of a campaign that hasn’t been officially announced, but may now be mortally wounded.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom