CNN, you have no idea what you’ve done

After squealing like a stuck pig for days about Trump “encouraging violence” because of a silly wrestling meme, CNN decided to up the ante and attack the redditor who was believed to have posted it in the first place:

How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF

The Reddit user who initially claimed credit for President Donald Trump’s tweet that showed Trump tackling CNN issued an apology Tuesday for the video and other offensive content he posted — one day after CNN identified the man behind the account and attempted to make contact with him.

Reddit user “HanA**holeSolo” first shared the GIF last Wednesday of Trump pummeling a wrestler with CNN’s logo imposed on his face. CNN could find no earlier instance of the GIF. The GIF was later edited into a video with sound and tweeted by the President on Sunday.

On Reddit, “HanA**holeSolo” took credit for inspiring the tweet. Soon after, “HanA**holeSolo’s” other posts on Reddit, some of which included racist and anti-Semitic imagery, quickly circulated on social media.

Now the user is apologizing, writing in a lengthy post on Reddit that he does not advocate violence against the press and expressing remorse there and in an interview with CNN for other posts he made that were racist and anti-Semitic.

The apology came after CNN’s KFile identified the man behind “HanA**holeSolo.” Using identifying information that “HanA**holeSolo” posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man’s name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.

On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, “HanA**holeSolo” posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
***
The user further apologized for calls for violence against the press in his statement on Reddit.

“The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation,” he wrote. “I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it and then have it put up on the President’s Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President’s feed showed was not the original post that was posted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news.”

The apology has since been taken down by the moderators of /The_Donald subreddit.

After posting his apology, “HanA**holeSolo” called CNN’s KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, “HanA**holeSolo” sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.  So they doxxed someone and are threatening to expose him if he doesn’t behave the way they want.  And they did this on the 4th of July.

Oddly enough this hasn’t gone over so well with the rest of the internet.

Julian Assange says they’ve actually broken the law by doing so.

/pol/ has declared war.

Weaponized autists protect their own.  CNN has no idea what kind of ants’ nest they just kicked.

Bring the meme war.

#CNNblackmail

Media Speculation and Amnesia

Back in 2005 Michael Crichton had a talk on media speculation and what’s wrong with it:

Do we all agree that nobody knows what the future holds? Or do I have to prove it to you? I ask this because there are some well-studied media effects which suggest that simply appearing in media provides credibility. There was a well-known series of excellent studies by Stanford researchers that have shown, for example, that children take media literally. If you show them a bag of popcorn on a television set and ask them what will happen if you turn the TV upside down, the children say the popcorn will fall out of the bag. This result would be amusing if it were confined to children. But the studies show that no one is exempt. All human beings are subject to this media effect, including those of us who think we are self-aware and hip and knowledgeable.

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

So one problem with speculation is that it piggybacks on the Gell-Mann effect of unwarranted credibility, making the speculation look more useful than it is.

It’s a very dangerous combination.

The Left’s Counter Attack

If the Left was routed in the last election, they haven’t given up the fight.  They’re intent of fighting tooth and claw against Trump and all that his voters stand for and want for the US.  I thought this summary by the Family Research Council of how the Left is trying to undermine Trump and up the ante in the culture war sounded accurate (though not complete):

The Left is pulling out the stops to destroy President Trump and to stop conservatives any way they can.

Here are five ways the “Progressives” have intensified the war on your values and freedoms:

1) Igniting an explosion of propaganda sold to Americans as “news.” The mainstream media are overwhelmingly committed to undermining President Trump and the conservative cause. We now know that many supposedly nonpartisan journalists were heavily — even financially — committed to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president.

2) Destroying public trust and spreading confusion. The media are hard at work in supporting the leftist agitators by spewing “fake news” and sounding the alarm about nonexistent crises virtually every day — dutifully affirmed and repeated by liberals in Congress and statehouses across the nation — all designed to deceive the American people.

3) Unleashing lawless radicals in the streets and town meetings. It’s now evident that Barack Obama is behind the mobilization of tens of thousands of radical agitators to shout down conservative members of Congress when they hold town meetings back in their districts and states.

4) Maintaining a shadow government working against the American government. Obama appointees who are still serving as unelected bureaucrats inside the federal government are now working against the Trump White House, essentially operating as a sort of “shadow government” from within the government itself. A torrent of suspicious leaks, some of them endangering our national security, as well as several other outrages, have made it painfully clear that enemies of America are at work inside the federal bureaucracy.

5) Coordinating and unifying the falsehood and disruption. The Left is obviously unified in its anti-Trump messaging, and its attacks are clearly coordinated across the entire spectrum of liberal media platforms and organizations.

White peeps just won’t stop being racist

Mommy blogger turned alt right poster girl: Mormon mom-of-six causes outrage by urging her thousands of followers to back her ‘white baby challenge’ and have children to stop ‘black ghetto culture’

Racist alt right blogger, who only goes by the name Ayla online, claims her Mormon religion is under attack by ‘black ghetto culture’

The mother-of-six issued a ‘white baby challenge’ to encourage white families to have as many as or more children as her

And that’s all you need to read of the article to see where it’s going.  The first word is “racist.”  This couldn’t possibly be a hit piece.  Wife with a Purpose says white people should have babies and Mormons shouldn’t be pushing multiculturalism.  Daily Mail says OMG Mormonism has racists!  Awful bad!  I say it’s nice to know that Mormons aren’t all cucked.

Racism nowadays really means nothing more than white people are evil.  People of every other color are told told that their existence makes them wonderful, their cultures should be spread and celebrated.  White people are all trash, their history is violence and oppression, and they ought to all die.  Of course the cute thing is, if any white person complains that this is what they’re being told, they’re immediately dogpiled by people saying “no one says that!”  Y’know like this:

As an African-American woman, it is getting old to keep hearing the psychotic rantings of some white people who have somehow gotten it un their minds that the white race is somehow under attack and that there is somr type of conspiracy among people of color to “outbreed” the white race. Well last time I checked the white race still owned and controlled most of the world’s wealth. So what is holding them back from making little white babies if they feel so threatened? I dont understand this way of thinking. As I sit here writing this post, white men are flying in from all over the planet to take advantage of California’s billion-dollar marijuana industry. I dont know of any black persons being “invited” to the party and none are making money in Silicon Valley, Tesla or Uber. The few who work there have to put up with a sh-tload of racism. And by the way “black ghetto culture” is a microcosm of white American culture which derives from the lowest classes of European culture.

>White people are psychotic for thinking they’re under attack
>White people are awful bad racists
>Attack
>Attack
>Attack

Black ghetto culture is…. white?!  Oh, man, if that’s not proof that white people are evil, I don’t know what is.

Trump’s Speech to Congress

One thing that struck me about the speech was that if we tweaked a few things (perhaps omitted a couple?) and simply changed that R to a D, the democrats could have applauded the whole speech.  Some did clap at points, but often the Dems sat sullenly while the GOP side erupted in applause, frequently rising to their feet.  There were plenty of causes championed by the Left that got a nod from Trump: black history month, women entrepreneurs, paid family leave, even women’s health.  A democrat probably could have given exactly the same speech a decade ago and been praised by his party.

Surprisingly, many of the reactions, even on the Left, were positive or at least not all-out-attack mode (to which we’ve become accustomed).  Here’s one response:

Liberal CNN commentator Van Jones was blown away by President Trump’s tribute to slain Navy SEAL Ryan Owens and his widow during Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday night.

“He became President of the United States in that moment, period,” Jones said. “There are a lot of people who have a lot of reasons to be frustrated with him, to be fearful of him, to be mad at him. But that was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period.

“And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment. For people who have been hoping that he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little bit worried tonight,” Jones added. “Because that thing you just saw him do–if he can find a way to do that over and over again, he’s going to be there for eight years.”

More responses:

Media Praise For President Trump’s First Address To Congress Rolls In

How the US press reacted to Trump’s Congress speech

Commenders of Chief: Lib Media Hails Trump Speech

And from CBS, “How did world leaders react to Trump’s speech to Congress?” — a somewhat comical article due to it’s rather limited coverage of “world leaders” and that they felt the need to bring up Russia as “a country … the intelligence community believes hacked the 2016 U.S. election to aid Mr. Trump.”

Considering the more-positive-than-expected reactions, it’s interesting that supposedly “fewer people watched President Trump address Congress for the first time than tuned in to see Barack Obama do the same in 2009.”  While Mainstream Networks were rather down in their numbers, Fox did have the highest ratings among them.  But do these numbers say more about the networks losing viewers than they do about interest in the president’s speech?

Lower viewing numbers may have more to do with where people are watching than how many actually watched.  The past 8 years have made a real difference in where folks are getting their news and watching “TV.”  It’s called the internet people.  I know I didn’t watch the speech on tv.  Nielsen’s ratings isn’t bothering to try to calculate numbers for all the people who’ve watched online (is that even possible?); so it seems the rating are rather meaningless for making comparisons.

But considering that a viewing of the speech on youtube leads to multiple recommendations of negative leftist reactions, I can’t help but think the development of alternative platforms are needed now more than ever.  Here’s hoping the non-liberal techies out there are hard at work.

Update: here’s a transcript of the speech

Presidential-Media Relations

There’s been a lot of fussing lately about President Trump’s treatment of the media.  Oh my, he’s been “combative” and called them “fake news!”  He’s called them out on their negative reporting and spinning of what he says and does — how dare he?!  But as PragerU put it, “Americans should prefer a president who fights with the press than gets in bed with it.”

A year ago (Jan. 3, 2016), the New York Times reported on Obama’s “off-record” meetings with journalists in Calculated Candor Inside Obama’s Off-the-Record Briefings:

What none of the journalists told readers, because they had promised the White House that they would not, was that their attempts to portray the president’s intentions had followed a lengthy and secret meeting with Mr. Obama the day he delivered the speech.

Technically off the record, the president’s extended conversation in the Roosevelt Room that afternoon with 18 prominent columnists was part of a White House tradition aimed at influencing Washington thought leaders without leaving fingerprints — and without fear that an offhand comment from the commander in chief would spark the latest social media firestorm.

These presidential briefings are “a way for people to be able to set aside the urgency of supplying the latest quote from the president of the United States and sit back and listen to the broader argument,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. He declined to comment on the participants or the content of the discussions.

Mr. Earnest said the unannounced sessions with the president allowed Mr. Obama to speak more candidly than he can in public, especially about issues that defy easy answers. Columnists who have attended one of the more than a dozen private meetings with the president in the last seven years are directed not to quote him, disclose what was discussed or use the information they gleaned in further reporting. The attendees are not allowed to even acknowledge that the discussion took place.

But those restrictions, if followed literally, would serve little purpose for the president and his aides, who are eager to make sure his views are written about with what they consider the proper depth and context.

And so the most Washington of games goes on: Columnists, including several who write for The New York Times, get to describe the president’s thinking with confidence and authority, while Mr. Obama can hold forth at length with deniability. The White House holds far fewer private presidential briefings for news reporters who cover the White House.

***

The current White House is not unique in using secret presidential face time to try to influence coverage. Previous presidents of both parties regularly invited columnists to the White House for off-the-record sessions. But Mr. Obama is the first president to publish White House visitor logs that document who attends the discussions. It is now possible to match up the columnist briefings with the columns that result.

***

Liberal-leaning columnists from newspapers tend to dominate at Mr. Obama’s secret sessions, but the White House has invited some new-media journalists, and prominent conservatives have attended as well. In 2013, Mr. Obama invited five conservatives to a Roosevelt Room discussion.

If They’re Effective, Destroy Them

It’s pretty high praise what the MSM and SJWs have been trying to do to Milo Yiannopoulos.  The more effective a person is the more important it is to shut them up.  They couldn’t make the white-nationalist, Nazi, alt-right narratives to stick.  Violent riots couldn’t stop him.  Every sneer and nasty name just makes him smile.  So they’ve really pulled out the stops this time: he’s a pedophile apologist.

They got him disinvited from CPAC and are trying to get him fired from Breitbart.  The real low blow is canceling his book.  And of course anything Milo says to defend himself isn’t good enough.

Now, let me be the first to say that if Milo really is condoning pedophilia, then we should burn him at the stake, but considering what a good job he’s been doing on college campus across the country, his book sales, and the amount of attention he’s been getting lately, it seems to be more likely that this is just a media hatchet job.  Plus consider how quick they were to jump on these accusations when they call anyone who even considers Pizzagate a tinfoil hat nutjob.  Milo says a couple ill considered things and that’s cause for public execution, but James Alfantis can tape children to tables and talk about “chicken lovers” in the caption for a picture of a baby on Instagram and no one bats an eye.  Double standard much?

I don’t particularly care about CPAC so whatever.  If Breitbart fires him… well, I started reading Breitbart because of Milo’s coverage of Gamergate.  If Milo goes, then so do I.  And Simon & Schuster, just waiting for a reason to drop it, were you?  I want my Milo book.  I want my Milo audio book.  I had better get it, and I hope however Milo ends up publishing it, he makes ten times the amount he was going to from those bastards.