The media’s war on “fake news” will destroy them. Here’s why

When Journalists took sides in the election and let Hillary Clinton dictate their campaign coverage they began to self-destruct.  Here’s why their war on fake news will finish them off.

In a piece for Market Watch by Darrell Delamaide, just days before the election predicted their implosion:  “Newspapers have long since been doomed by the digital revolution and the collapse of their economic model. New waves of buyouts and layoffs recently announced by the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal mark another step by print media toward extinction.

Broadcast networks, too, face severe difficulties as new technologies and changes in viewing habits transform the television industry and bring new challenges to news operations.

But it is the bias of the establishment media so blatantly in favor of the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, that may strip these news organizations of their last claim to value — as an objective and authoritative source of information — and hasten their demise.”

You would think when the media was outed as biased and dishonest they would changed their ways.  As Frank Luntz said, “After Election Day, the media promised to improve substantive reporting and focus on real issues. They have learned nothing.”

benghazi-massacre-blog-copy1 (1)

Their mental disconnect is stunning.  Derek Hunter said, “You hear it all the time – MSNBC and CNN hosts and pundits can’t fathom the concept of their policies being unwanted any more than they can accept that they don’t work. Their losses have to be caused by other factors.

Since the election, Democrats have blamed everything but a comet, a plague and the death of Prince for the GOP winning the White House and holding Congress. A couple more appearances by Howard Dean on TV, and you probably will start to hear about comets and plagues.”

If being in the tank for Hillary began their doom…here is what will seal it: THEIR WAR AGAINST “FAKE NEWS.”  Back in October, Obama—flush with overconfidence that Hillary would win—said “there is no way to rig the election.”  Now he believes the election has been rigged.  The media agrees and they are pushing the fake news narrative.

What they are purporting boggles the mind:  Wikileaks was more powerful than all the liberal media!

Think about it…the left just levelled the greatest insult ever to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all the other legacy news media.  How weak are you when your combined influence is less than one lonely website? But it gets even more mind-numbing.

The Gallup poll says 68% of all Americans say the liberal media fakes the news, yet they have started a crusade against fake news.  Hypocrisy does not begin to cover this. This is irrational.

charade

Irrational people will not listen to reason. They don’t care about rational explanations. They want to fulfill a need right away.  The media will behave irrationally until that need is fulfilled.  The media needs to be right but America says they are wrong.  America is telling them that if you do not want to tell the truth we will not buy your product.

A sane person or company would heed that warning.  The fact that the media is pushing the fake news narrative—which is astoundingly embarrassing and without merit—proves they would rather die than admit they are wrong.  Sadly, they will get their wish.

However, this opens a gigantic door for the Gospel in America.  This is because the message of Jesus was a prime target of the media.  Being the mouthpiece of secular progressives and Hillary meant they had to discredit and lie about Christianity.

The media called the Gospel sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-science, anti-immigrant and on and on.   Christian values became the all-purpose thing to be offended by.  It was the last legal prejudice.  But something has changed!

I tested this fact by saying deliberately saying Merry Christmas to someone I knew didn’t like it.  At first, they gave me a scowl.  Then they caught themselves.  I could see it in their eyes.  That moment of recognition.  Thinking this wonderful gesture is a symbol of oppression is a silly thing of the past.

But it goes much deeper than that.  People tried to protest churches for supporting Trump.  That is gone.  The insults have gone.  The late-night comedians feel the fatigue of a public that is sick of leftist rants.  It is not funny anymore.  Teachers don’t get away with class rants against God and America anymore.

College students—millennial snowflakes who whimper, cry foul at anything Christian and run to safe spaces look real pathetic to the public.  Something has changed.  The shift is unmistakable.

4

A door to share the love and power of Jesus has opened.  But it will not stay open long.  We have this golden moment of opportunity for a handful of years.

The left will come back like a rash.  They will regroup and once again try to control the nation.  They cannot help themselves.  In the meantime, we must preach the Good News without apology or hesitation.  Revival–heaven sent true revival–will build a new nation under God that will stand the test of time.

 

NY Times’ whitewash of Benghazi attack aids Hillary Clinton in 2016.

hillary (1)

NY Times’ whitewash of Benghazi attack aids Hillary Clinton in 2016 

By Ben Wolfgang

The Washington Times

Sunday, December 29, 2013

One of the biggest hurdles in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s potential path to the White House may have become easier to clear.

An extensive report Sunday in The New York Times casts doubt on Republican claims that al Qaeda played a key role in last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The article lends badly needed credence to the White House version of events and might remove some of the blame from the former secretary of state’s shoulders as she gears up for a 2016 presidential run.

A top House Republican went so far Sunday as to suggest that there may be a coordinated effort to help Mrs. Clinton — who is widely thought to be seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and leads her Republican counterparts in most polls — escape the shadow of Benghazi.

“I find the timing odd,” Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said of The New York Times piece and its political ramifications during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Although he wouldn’t go much further, Mr. Rogers said, “I find it interesting that there is this rollout of stories” related to Benghazi.

obama_hillary_cash-thumb

The New York Times report says al Qaeda did not infiltrate Benghazi and backed up the initial White House claim that the event largely was spontaneous, wasn’t planned by al Qaeda’s central leaders and was fueled at least in part by outrage over anti-Islamic videos produced in the U.S.

The piece makes clear that the facts on the ground in Benghazi were murkier than what has been portrayed by both sides, and that neither Republicans’ nor the administration’s account is entirely accurate.

Democrats quickly used the report to dispute Mr. RogersRep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and others who have cited Benghazi as evidence that President Obama has not dismantled al Qaeda to the degree he claimed en route to winning re-election last year.

“I hope Chairman Issa and others have learned a lesson from this. Chairman Issa and members of that committee crusaded for over a year on what was really a fairy tale, claiming that the administration knew all along al Qaeda was involved and wouldn’t admit it,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, Texas Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services CommitteeMr. Castro appeared on NBC’s“Meet the Press” on Sunday.

As secretary of state at the time of the assault that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Mrs. Clinton has been a key target of Republicans who accuse the administration of failing to secure American assets and personnel in Benghazi and willfully hiding the truth for their own political benefit.

The reporting, to some degree, could shield Mrs. Clinton from charges that she participated in what critics have called a cover-up.

While not targeting Mrs. Clinton by name, Republicans on Sunday said parts of the article conflict directly with information in other reports and the sworn testimony of Americans on the ground in Benghazi.

“People from this administration, career professionals, have said under oath there was no evidence of any kind of reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That’s the evidence we have,” Mr. Issa said on “Meet the Press,” referring to testimony from U.S. diplomats who described the anti-Islamic video as a nonevent in Libya at the time.

Other Republicans also disputed the notion that al Qaeda wasn’t involved. They noted that terrorist groups with clear connections to al Qaeda took part in the assault.

Even some lawmakers sympathetic to the administration say it’s misleading to suggest that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the incident.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

 

Intelligence indicates al Qaeda was involved,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat and a member of the House intelligence committee.

Despite the latest report, Mr. Schiff said, he does not believe the State Department and Mrs. Clinton specifically are entirely absolved.

“I don’t think The New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable,” he said in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”