Well, What Do We Have Here? The FCC, CBS and Kamala Harris

Is this sort of like a James Comey moment when he had just a small shred of integrity in 2016 when he announced just days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, supposedly on the merits?

Oh wait. No. It wasn't that at all. He was sure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump, and he thought releasing that information would offer him some cover, just in case he was wrong about that. You see, if you remember, Trump had some very serious questions about Comey's actions, even suggesting some of them may be criminal, and if Trump would have control of the Justice Department, that could present some issues for Comey.

Well, that and his thought that if the information were to come out after Clinton was elected, she'd be considered an illegitimate president. According to Hillary, she contended that Comey's announcement, which came on October 28th, 11 days before the November 8th election, was part of the reason she lost.

Now we have a formal complaint filed with the FCC by the Center for American Rights regarding the recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that was found to be edited in a way that could be an effort to mislead the American people.

A serious accusation, by the way, and one that the FCC may have to also take seriously. But it also opens a broader speculation, which has always been clear to some people, but now may wind up being clearer to more people similar to Comey's announcement.

"Maybe Clinton did actually do something bad here. And even something very illegal."

"When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself," said Daniel Suhr, who is the president of the Center for American Rights. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media."

It's one thing to believe that the media has it "in the bag" for Kamala Harris. It's entirely another for it to be glaringly obvious and irrefutable. On top of that, it's dangerous that certain details be kept from the public in an obvious attempt to protect her.

When she was asked about American-Israeli relations, in the aired interview she answered, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." What she actually said was, "Well Bill, the work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in that region."

As Suhr put it, it's not about editorial considerations in the news media. It's about distorting the news, which falsely represents a candidate or otherwise causes people to potentially have a different view.

Gosh, where has he been in the past decade or so regarding Trump news coverage? But I digress.

The thing is that, and not that it's all that big a surprise, the news media is covering for Kamala Harris and have been for a long time, just like they were covering for Joe Biden. It's simply wrong. It's not the media's job to campaign for or provide cover for candidates. It's their job to report the truth, fair and simple. They owe it to the American people to do that because every time we turn on the news, we are supposed to trust them to give it to us straight, and that trust has been eroding for a very long time. Things like this just serve to speed up that erosion.

There's a bit of a deeper question here as well. So, that clip was found. Or was it leaked? Perhaps by someone within CBS who is not favorable to Harris? Hey, they can't all be die-hard liberals, can they? The clip came out before the "edited" interview aired. But unlike other interviews, CBS has thus far refused to release the transcripts of the full interview.

The question is why? What other answers were edited? Were there some word salads in there that someone thought, "Oh, we probably don't want to show that?" Or, worse, some worse answers that would cause some people to cringe a little bit at the thought of her being in the White House?

Because we know how she talks. We've seen it too many times to count in the past. And we know that she's had great cover since she was announced as the Democratic nominee, making a concerted effort to keep her well on script to reign her in as much as possible.

Whether or not the FCC does anything with the complaint is to be seen. But perhaps there may be some political considerations in acting or not acting similar to political considerations Comey made in 2016. Either way, the filing is in the news. People are going to know about it. Will this revelation of an edited interview have any impact in November? That's to be seen.

I mean, I do think we are reaching a tipping point of some sort here when it comes to the media. From wall-to-wall negative Trump coverage to the cover up of Joe Biden's health and hiding policy positions Harris had before she was the nominee and making her seem like an entirely different person than she was.

I think consumers of news are becoming a bit fatigued and are tired of the lies and misleading coverage.

What the FCC has to decide now is whether they want to ensure they have some cover no matter who wins in November. Because this kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and Trump wins and he might direct the FCC to do something, or Harris wins, and they have to look like they are acting in an actual regulatory manner as opposed to doing the bidding of a political party.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

It Happens to the Best of Us, It Happened to the Media

There is a saying some people like to use all the time that says, "It happens to the best of us." While the saying applies mostly to otherwise good, honest people caught in a simple mistake, I will allow the news media to have the saying at least for now.

I am fully admitting it's hard to call the media "good people."

For one thing, and this is no secret mind you, they lie. The media. And if they're not lying, they're shaping narratives that are caught somewhere between a lie and a half-truth.

It's been a long 8 or so years, folks. From the moment Donald J. Trump came down that escalator at Trump Tower to announce he was running for president to now, with Joe Biden as the sitting president. It's been one thing after the other, and constant.

If they weren't bashing Trump, or aren't bashing Trump now, they were giving praise after praise for Joe Biden—and outright lying to us about his health and fitness to be president. The untold lies about his record of successes notwithstanding.

Reality often hits the fan, so to speak. It happens to the best of us. And the media has finally come to terms with the idea that they simply cannot continue the lie about Joe Biden's health or fitness to be president anymore. The gig is up. It's simply undeniable after what can only be labeled as a complete disaster of a performance by Joe Biden on the debate stage.

There's a point when one can at least "get away" with the lie. Not that it makes it okay to tell the lie, but there's no real consequence for telling it. People will still afford you some level of credibility, and when you're in the media credentials are everything, right?

Regardless of whether you are telling the truth or not, you still have to appear intelligent and informed to a degree. Sort of like a salesman when you think about it. He might be completely full of shit, but you still feel like he mostly knows what he's talking about. He needs that. He needs you to feel that.

In the case of Biden and his debate performance, what was widely suspected to be, and that he was long-time accused of became so glaringly obvious it was simply impossible to ignore it. If this would have been a spin-room in a sales office, that performance would have been a firm acknowledgement, "There's just no way we can sell this anymore other than for what it actually is."

The media now has no other option, in order to maintain any sense of credibility, but to be honest. Joe Biden is just not fit to be president.

You saw it first, immediately following the debate from the panel on CNN. And instead of their initial thoughts quieting down, they are doubling down on the idea that Joe Biden cannot win, and especially that he shouldn't even be running at all.

Take the George Stephanopoulos interview, which was a one-on-one with Joe Biden recently. It was hard knocks. These were very direct and tough questions. I'd say probably some of the toughest questions ever posed to a sitting president, let alone a Democrat one.

There was no room in this one to sit back in one's chair contemplatively and ask the president what his favorite flavor of ice cream happened to be.

This is about the future of America, and everyone gets that.

There's also no foreseeable turnaround that's going to happen here either. I am not sure Biden gets that, or his team for that matter. The news media is not going to suddenly change their mind. Even if Biden somehow manages to pull off a good debate performance in September, I think it will be too little too late.

Suddenly all eyes will turn back to the State of the Union address, and the media will have to wonder—like so many of us already wondered before they ever would—what was he on? What did they give him? It's a rouse!

No one is going to buy it that if the president was a rambling mess on Monday through Saturday, but all put together well on Sunday, that it wasn't because of some reason. The reality is that the reality simply can no longer be ignored or brushed aside.

Why would the media turn their backs on their guy and not defend him to the hilt no matter what? Again, it's because they need to be at least somewhat credible. America is watching, and they are watching very closely. They are seeing what they are seeing, and there's no way to sell the story any other way than what's right in front of their eyes.

Granted, it doesn't mean we will start getting the whole truth from them. Come on. Get real. Look at how they continue to report on Trump. When Trump wins in November, and I think that's easier to predict now that he actually will, they're not going to give up on bashing him and telling lie after lie about him.

But see, the difference is they can still get away with the Trump lies. They cannot get away with the Biden ones. In an ironic sense, it means that what the American people at least get in the meantime is the truth we need within the other lies they'll tell. 

The lies about Trump, in other words, don't matter as much as the truth about Biden does. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The News Will Claim American Express As An Example of Trump Failure

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN NEARLY ALL BUT SILENT IN REPORTING THOSE MULTITUDES OF COMPANIES WHO HAVE REPORTED EMPLOYEE BONUSES AND WAGE INCREASES DUE TO THE TRUMP TAX CUTS. But you can bet there is one story that will make their news all day, and probably for a week or more, and that's American Express announcing that due to a $2.6 billion increased charge in taxes due to the Trump tax cuts, they will be suspending their share buyback program.

I say this even though in the eyes of liberals those share buybacks are just for the greedy shareholders anyway—that's not why they'll hit this one full force.

It's a negative story in their eyes, and they'll want to point this out as the leading example that they are right and the GOP is wrong that the tax cuts will benefit anyone. Even though STILL American Express has also said that they feel the tax cuts are a benefit in the long term, good for the company, and good for America.

The news media will assuredly leave that part out, or not highlight it nearly as much. It's what they always do.

Just another reason to make sure that when you are following any news source, it is not the only news source. And you also have to make sure to cut through the smoke to get to the real truth of the matter. Why is American Express incurring the extra charges? In a nutshell it is related to how they were dealing with accounting under the old tax laws—and as a result their capital ratios changed.

What else will not be reported? Invariably and assuredly the fact that they will also be making incremental contributions to their employee profit sharing plans to adjust for the differences. In other words...

American Express is eating the expense and NOT putting the burden on the backs of the people who work for them.

There is really nothing at all negative about this story at all. No one is getting hurt. Not really. But I bet you the news will not tell you that. I'd be willing to wager a bet in fact. Just watch, wait, and see. It'll be all they can talk about and point to when they get their panels gathered to talk about the evil corporations and the "Armageddon" Nancy Pelosi warned us about.

Clint Eastwood Attacked By The Left

If I said, "Here we go again," would I sound too cliché? But here we go again. We are living in a time when the left can pretty much say whatever it wants to. Bill Maher can openly attack Sarah Palin and her family and make terrible off color jokes and get away with it. Nigh time talkies like Jay Leno and David Letterman (now both retired incidentally) can say horrible things about conservatives. But whenever a conservative or republican has anything to say, it's lights out and full attack mode on.

And such was the case at the Spike TV awards where Clint Eastwood made a joke about Bruce Jenner, calling him "Caitlyn Somebody," that has the left calling for Eastwood to never see any stage again, and of course the joke will be removed the airing of the awards show.

Notice I said Bruce Jenner and him.

Quite frankly I don't give a rats ass what parts you have surgically removed or altered, your DNA is your DNA and it doesn't lie. Bruce Jenner is a man no matter what he wants to be, and calling him a hero and courageous for being someone who is essentially mentally ill is just stupid.

I refuse to be politically correct about this.

I am tired of the glorification of progressive ideology. Actually, not so much being able to talk about progressive issues. Fine. It's a free country and free speech is free speech. Everyone is entitled to it. But rather what bothers me is the in-your-face ramming down the throat progressive ideology and shutting down anyone else who happens to have an opinion that differs.

You cannot do that. It is unconstitutional.

It is high time that the American people begin to wake up and realize that their thoughts are being controlled by the media, and by the left that controls it. It needs to be realized that the people nodding their heads and agreeing with shutting down the speech of guys like Clint Eastwood, Vince Vaughan, and Rush Limbaugh are simply not paying attention  to what's really going on. They are allowing themselves to be lap dogs and slaves to an ideology they probably don't even fully understand. They are allowing themselves to be lead by the hand to a world in which there is no gray area, and where only the speech of the left is allowed or acceptable, even when it is as downright cruel as some of the things said on the right.

Clint Eastwood has an opinion. He is entitled to it. His joke is no worse than any other joke that has been said by lefties on the stage of similar ceremonies that don't get banned or cut out or ridiculed or attacked.

It's just sickening to me that we continue to allow the media to have their say with a leftist agenda in mind, and so few people call it out for what it truly is. Really folks what we are dealing with is the worst form of censorship. I call this...

A load of bullshit!