Tomi Lahren is sick of the mainstream media and the failed Democratic Party blaming fake news for the election of Donald Trump. She accepts there is fake news on Facebook, but that’s not why Trump was elected.
“We already know Facebook is in the business of censoring and de-prioritizing conservative leaning posts. The American people don’t trust the mainstream media anymore and why the hell should we?”
To see more from Tomi, visit her channel on TheBlaze and watch full episodes of “Tomi” live weekdays 7–8pm ET or anytime on-demand at TheBlaze TV.
Last night (October 25, 2016) Megyn Kelly lost my vote. I considered her one of the best journalists on the national scene. Always, objective; always digging deeper to get the underlying story. And with great wit. Then, she interviewed Newt Gingrich. She showed how thin skinned she really is.
Firstly, let me say, I'm not a fan of either Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump. But I am a supporter of good journalism, which I define as objective, fair, and balanced. I have taught media studies at the university level for over 35 years. I would like to define two concepts from my teaching of journalism: framing and narrative.
Framing theory is the notion that "the media focuses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning." The problem with framing is that the journalist provides meaning and context to the event, rather than the audience. Also, "television determines what we believe to be important issues largely by paying attention to some problems and ignoring or paying minimal attention to others" (London, 1993).
In addition to framing, journalists often create a narrative or story that is supposed to provide context, but also may create falsehoods, thus the name false narrative. The false narrative fashions an image that is not true. In fact, it may be based on red herrings and straw men designed to take attention from the truth. Once created the narrative is hard to shake or change.
In the Gingrich interview on October 25, Kelly created a frame and narrative by her choice of words. In one instance, she said "if he is a sexual predator" (referring to Trump). The choice of words calls up all sorts of images beyond the real story, framing the story as about sexual abuse, not false accusations.
Suggesting the narrative also offers the possibility that Kelly may believe it. She tries to support the claim by mentioning Trump's 10 accusers. Gingrich taunts Kelly. He says she is fascinated with sex. He tells her to say what she thinks. At that point, I think she losses her "cool," realizing she may no longer be in control of the interview.
Kelly stays safely hidden behind her narrative. She carefully chooses her words but through her words frames the story and creates a narrative that may not be true.
"Sexual predator" is an extreme along a continuum where "flirt" might be at the other end. She could have just as easily said Trumps actions are flirtatious. Flirt creates a totally different narrative and has a different meaning. You can see how narratives are formed.
In the other instance, in the last words of the interview, where Kelly has the final say, she suggests Newt Gingrich needs anger management. She accuses him of becoming angry, when in fact it appears that she lost her composure. as proved by her rude and snide remark at the end of the interview. As a journalist and interviewer, she was in a position of power - and she abused her power.
Both instances prove to me Kelly is not the good journalist I once thought she was. Hard hitting - yes - but not fair or objective.
April 21, 2015 -- Monday, April 20, marked the deadline for companies and organizations to file their 2015 first quarter federal lobbying disclosure reports. Below is a list of the top ten organizations and how much they spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015.
DATA: MapLight analysis of the money spent by companies and organizations lobbying Congress and federal agencies between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015, on all issues. Data Source: Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Lobbying Organization
Amount Spent on Lobbying
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.
$13,800,000
National Association of Realtors
$7,700,000
American Medical Association
$6,720,000
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
$5,720,000
Google, Inc.
$5,470,000
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
$5,440,000
General Electric Company
$4,750,000
National Association of Broadcasters
$4,720,000
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and affiliated corporations
$4,685,670
American Hospital Association
$4,630,000
The top spender, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spent $13.8 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies during the first quarter of 2015.
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce, spent another $5.7 million on lobbying.
Google spent $5.5 million on lobbying during the first quarter of 2015, the most it has ever spent in one quarter.
To see how much each company has spent on lobbying since 2008, please click here to viewMapLight's Federal Lobbying Database.
Lobbying Methodology:MapLight analysis of federal lobbying disclosure filings from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015. Lobbying totals represent money paid by an organization to each lobbying firm for services on all issues. Organizations report total lobbying expenses as a lump sum, which includes both in-house lobbying expenses and amounts paid to (and reported by) lobbying firms that they employ. MapLight calculates a given organization's in-house lobbying expenses by subtracting the total income reported by the lobbying firms that it employs from the company's total reported expenses. In general, filers may round their spending and expenses to the nearest $10,000, and we treat the designation of "Less than $5,000" as a value of $0. MapLight updates its lobbying database daily to capture amendments. Full reports are due on the 20th day of January, April, July, and October.
Editor's note: Please cite MapLight if you use data from this analysis, "A MapLight analysis of federal lobbying disclosure filings show.." (or something similar - thank you!) A link to this report can be foundhere.
MapLight is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan research organization that tracks money's influence on politics.
November 4, 2014 -- American Beverage Association California PAC is spending millions of dollars to defeat sugar tax initiatives in both San Francisco and Berkeley, California this election. MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in politics, conducted an analysis of California Secretary of State data that shows how much money soda companies have contributed to American Beverage Association California PAC over the past *election cycle:
AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION CA PACTOP CONTRIBUTORS
AMOUNT
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
$5,840,940
PEPSICO INCORPORATED AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES
$4,416,235
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC./MOTT'S LLP
$1,871,594
RED BULL NORTH AMERICA
$139,669
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY
$39,303
Daniel G. Newman, the President and Co-founder of MapLight, said,
"when one side has 10 times more resources than the other, it makes a mockery of what our democracy is supposed to be like. The side that has 10 times more money can send more mailers, hire high powered political and marketing consultants, advertising agencies, and people to walk door to door to deliver their message to voters. It creates distorted conditions for voters to effectively make decisions about laws they want and ultimately have to live by."
Daniel Newman is available for interviews throughout the evening and all day tomorrow to provide commentary on Measure D in Berkeley and Measure E in San Francisco. Note: MapLight is based in California, PST.
Methodology:
MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the American Beverage Association California PAC, a 501(c)6, from The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico Incorporated and Affiliated Entities, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. / Mott's LLP, Red Bull North America, Sunny Delight Beverages Company from *January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. Data source: California Secretary of State
"Apology is the most complex and perhaps controversial of the crisis response strategies. It is critical to differentiate between full and partial apologies. A full apology must acknowledge the crisis, accept responsibility, include a promise not to repeat the crisis, and express concern and regret (Kellerman, 2006). A partial apology is typically just an expression of concern and regret. Why the split? The answer is legal liability. Accepting responsibility results in organizations losing lawsuits related to the crisis. If an organization says it is responsible, it must pay in court. As noted earlier, the expression of concern or regret does not carry the same liabilities (Cohen, 2002). A person must be careful when using the term apology. That is why full apology is specified and treated as separate from an expression of concern."
Source: W. Timothy Coombs. (2012). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Advocates Seek Balance Currently Missing in Deficit Debate Coverage
Contrary to the headlines and soundbites coming from America's newsrooms, Social Security and Medicare aren't to blame for our nation's fiscal woes or our deficit. In fact, without these vital programs our economy would be in even worse shape and millions more American families would be threatened with economic insecurity. Why do so many journalists and news/talk-show hosts ignore the facts in favor of one-sided propaganda? Why won't they allow all sides to weigh on these important issues? Whatever the reasons, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare believes the public deserves more balanced research and discussion. The truth about our nation's most successful and revered programs deserves EQUAL TIME.
Our new project, EQUAL TIME, will bust through the myths and misleading statements in the news about Social Security and Medicare. We will find and correct the factual errors and politically charged perspectives. We'll use social media like Facebook and Twitter to inform the reporters, pundits and anchors when they've been the subject of an EQUAL TIME correction. In this way, we hope to influence the mainstream media to use facts, not fiction, in their coverage of these important programs. An online form will also provide an easy way for advocates and citizens nationwide to submit news stories in which the media got it wrong and NCPSSM will track it down to provide the truth about Social Security and Medicare.
EQUAL TIME is at http://www.ncpssm.org/equaltime
Here is an example of an Equal Time post:
Quote: “Entitlements are squeezing out public investments”
“This shift in public resources is dramatic and growing. While
14 cents of every federal dollar not going to interest was spent on entitlement
programs in 1962, the amount is 47 cents today, and it will reach 61 cents by
2030, according to an analysis of government data by Third Way, a
centrist-Democratic think tank.”
Source: The Associated Press, Entitlement Programs Thrive
Amid Gridlock, Shifting Money from Younger Generations to Older
Reporter: Charles Babington
Date: May 10, 2013
Correction:
This Associated Press story reads like a news release written
by the multi-million dollar austerity lobby offering readers zero balance, zero
analysis, zero context and plenty of factual errors.
Social Security is an earned benefit paid for with the FICA
contributions of generations of American workers. Suggesting that repaying the Social Security
Trust Fund for the trillions of dollars in contributions already made by those
workers is a “shift in public resources” or that it squeezes “out public
investments” shows a complete lack of understanding of how the Trust Fund
works. It’s also the core message in a
Wall-street funded intergenerational warfare propaganda campaign which attempts
to pit young versus old while ignoring the real challenges facing young people
– income inequity, joblessness and a stagnant economy. The fact that more
benefits will be paid to the large baby boom generation (who also built up the
$2.7 trillion—and growing -- trust fund to pay for it) than to a smaller
retiree cohort in 1962 is the classic case of how to manipulate the truth with statistics.
Had this reporter talked to just one Social Security or
Medicare expert, he would have seen the fallacy of the propaganda offered by
Wall Street backed groups, like the Third Way, which advocate for cuts to
Social Security and Medicare to pay down the deficit.
