New York Times Apologizes for Fake News

Published on Apr 20, 2017

In a surprising move, the New York Times has apologized for publishing Fake News in an attempt to make President Trump look bad. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. Copyright © 2017 – Subscribe now for more videos every day!


“tolerant” democrats, “peaceful” islamists.
† Masterhp †

Stephen Colbert, the stupid clown who has his hands in his pockets all the time, has also spread this fake news.
Curtis Coutts

Sports announcers moving into the idiot zone, for zero points, well done making themselves look as stupid as they look hahahaha
Scott Eb

Angela McHugh Fuck Max Kellerman. Just another liberal douche bag on TV who has no fucking clue
C. Galindo

as soon as I see CNN or Washington Post and some others I immediately ignore it. sometimes I look at it for fun, to laugh to know just how stupid they’re still being. but never never believe

Fake news = Anti – American , .. CNN and The Joo York Times = 100% Anti – American.
Charles Smith

The funny thing is that this whole situation makes Trump look good because Obama put people on the steps so it could look like more people were there in order to feed his ego. LMAO
K Clark

Well, I guess the New England Patriots are bigoted, homophobic, sexist white supremacists now.
John 17

Stuff like this is just going to get Trump in office in 2020.

Rachel Maddow Exploiting Russian Hysteria for HUGE Ratings Boost

Published on Apr 19, 2017

Reinvoking Soviet, red scare-era hysteria hasn’t just been the Democratic Party’s go-to method for attacking President Trump, it’s a strategy shared by the media as well. Rachel Maddow has cashed in on this story and seen a large ratings boost since dedicating more time to the Trump-Russia story, and in a quantitative analysis conducted by The Intercept, the extent that she’s actually covering Russia is mind-boggling.

Anna Deetz

2016 had a huge benefit. It showed peoples true colors. Maddow is a money grubbing loon.

Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid are two of the most garbage pundits on MSNBC.

I can’t believe this claims about Rachel Maddow I’ve heard. Some people calling her progressive! Outrageous!!
colleen swiggum

If putin wanted to influence american politics he could have just donated to hillary.
Pol Commentary

I’m tired of the Russia crap. I wish all of these fake news outlets would talk about things that people actually give a shit about.
Bob Anderson

Rachel Maddow is a Stark raving lunatic, not to mention a corporate establishment Democratic shill.

UGHHHHHH. Can’t stand this bitch. No, we don’t like Hillary because shes disgusting. End of.
Father OfTheCorn

There’s a new book out “Shattered : Inside Hillary Clintons Doomed Campaign” pretty much concludes Hillary fucked up her campaign!! Not right wing propaganda either – getting quotes from DNC insiders, etc…

MSNBC terrorism analyst nominates Trump property for ‘ISIS suicide bombing’


MSNBC terrorism analyst Malcolm Nance has deleted a tweet that appeared to call for a terrorist attack against Trump Towers in Istanbul.

“This is my nominee for the first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property,” the former intelligence officer tweeted Tuesday afternoon, according to a screenshot circulated online and highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon.

Mr. Nance was responding to a tweet by writer Dustin Giebel, claiming that Mr. Trump’s congratulatory call to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for winning Sunday’s referendum was motivated by reasons tied to the property.

Mr. Nance has since deleted the tweet but has yet to apologize.

The author and counterterrorism expert has made inflammatory remarks about Mr. Trump and the Islamic State terrorist group in the past. Last July, Mr. Nance referred to the then-Republican nominee as the ISIS candidate.”

“He inflames the passions of people in the West to perform Islamophobia, to draw recruits to them, to make them say, ‘This is what America is,’” he said at the time.

Mr. Nance also suggested that the San Bernardino terrorist attack may have been “a hybrid act of terrorism/workplace violence,” and that the Pulse nightclub terrorist, Omar Mateen, was motivated by a “psycho sexual problem” rather than ISIS, Newsbusters reported.

STUDY: 89% of Media Negative Towards President…


By Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella | April 19, 2017

As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant.


Methodology: Our measure of spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan politics. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements from the networks’ own reporters.

Using these criteria, MRC analysts tallied 1,687 evaluative statements about the Trump administration, of which 1,501 (89%) were negative vs. a mere 186 (11%) which were positive.

The networks spent 223 minutes on the battle over the President’s executive orders aimed at temporarily banning immigration from seven (later reduced to six) countries that are either failed states or otherwise safe havens for Islamic terrorism. All three networks showed their disdain by filling their newscasts with soundbites from those distressed by the order. “I feel ashamed to be living in this country now,” one traveler was shown saying on CBS’s January 28 broadcast, while ABC weekend anchor Cecilia Vega said the order had created “chaos, confusion and fear.”

“It feels like a nightmare,” a Syrian resident of Pennsylvania told NBC two days later, after his relatives arrival was delayed by the order. There was no balance to this debate, with our analysts tallying 287 negative statements on this topic vs. a mere 21 positive, which computes to an astounding 93% negative spin.

The next-most-covered item (222 minutes) was the continuing probe of Russia’s presumed role in last year’s hacks of Democratic e-mails, and whether individuals connected to the Trump campaign may have participated in the scheme. While this topic generated only about half as many evaluative statements as the travel ban, an overwhelming 97% (153 out of 157) were critical of President Trump and his associates.

The GOP effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare received 152 minutes of evening news coverage, with a ridiculously lopsided 94% hostile spin (193 negative vs. 12 positive statements). The Trump administration’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration, including increased deportations, an end to sanctuary cities, and a border wall, received 120 minutes of network coverage, 93% of which was negative (117 negative vs. 9 positive statements).


And the President’s March 4 claim that Trump Tower was “wiretapped” by President Obama drew 97 minutes of coverage, an astronomical 99.5% of which was negative: 189 negative statements, vs. only a single soundbite in support of the President — a man at a pro-Trump rally shown on ABC’s World News Tonight on March 5, saying, “I think there’s some validity in Mr. Trump’s comments.”

Network anchors used the flap to brand the President as an incorrigible liar. “After a string of unproven claims, will this President struggle to keep the trust of the American public?” NBC’s Lester Holt intoned on his March 20 newscast.

Earlier, on March 8, CBS’s Scott Pelley suggested President Trump had psychological problems, asking longtime Democratic official Leon Panetta: “Is it appropriate to ask whether the President is having difficulty with rationality?”

Other topics, ostensibly far more important to voters, were pushed far down the network news agenda. The entire process, from nomination to confirmation, of new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch received just 69 minutes of network evening news coverage. The ongoing war against ISIS, including the tragic raid in Yemen that killed a Navy SEAL, was given just 57 minutes of coverage.

Eight years ago, the networks’ treatment of President Obama’s first 100 days was very different. Back then, the networks delivered most of their coverage to Obama’s key policy priorities, topped by the nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” package (150 stories, or 15% of the total). The network spin for that legislation: 58% positive, vs. 42% negative.

As MRC analysts calculated at the time, the networks also doled mostly positive coverage for Obama’s intervention in the housing market (59% positive), his decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive), as well as his push for more government action on global warming (78% positive).

“The President’s first seven weeks have been a whirlwind, with often dramatic movement in all directions, on all fronts: the economy, health care, two wars and today education reform,” then-anchor Brian Williams marveled on the March 10, 2009 NBC Nightly News.

On World News, March 1, 2009, ABC’s medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, gushed after a forum on health care: “I was blown away by President Obama’s grasp of the subject, how he connected the dots, how he answered the questions without any script.”

The networks also broadcast dozens of stories that treated Obama and his family as pop culture celebrities. “From the moment the Obamas landed in Britain, hand in hand, many here were already star-struck,” NBC’s Dawna Friesen enthused on the April 1, 2009 Nightly News. Covering a European leaders summit a few days later, ABC’s David Muir warmly referred to Obama as “the cool kid in the class.”

Needless to say, President Trump and his family have received no such positive reviews. Instead, the media’s reaction this President has been unremittingly hostile, with aggressively negative coverage of both the new administration’s policy agenda as well as his character.

When the President shares the media’s liberal mindset, journalists are willing to be seen as cheerleaders, shaking their pom-poms on behalf of the White House. But when voters select a President who challenges the liberal establishment, those cheerleaders morph into unleashed pitbulls, ferociously attacking both the President and his agenda.

Video: Paul Joseph Watson Debunks Buzzfeed Fake News

Published on Apr 19, 2017

The latest attack on Trump? That he didn’t give a hat back to a teen who gave it to him to sign. The only problem is there’s video proof that Trump threw the hat back to him and we’re sure he’s now proudly wearing it.


I’m so SICK of STUPID Liberals, it’s a disease that is spreading across the world!!!!!
The Fat man

Trump signed a kid hat! Omfg literally hitler!!
Friendly Faucet

no swire the liberals love it when you throw people out of buildings! they love islam so much
Dante B

Buzzfeed made a fake news article claiming that Trump was pissed on by Russian hookers at Trump Tower, even got a lawsuit over it, and people are still taking them seriously?
Thomas Pozsonyi

These idiots are talking about a hat when we are on the brink of war! it shows how stupid they have become and how petty they are, bring us what matters don’t waste our time with this BS! !!
Dank Pepto

allahu Akbar doesn’t even mean God is great. it means Allah is Greater (Than Your God).
Amy Dunlap

I’m seriously thinking buzz moron feed is owned by George Soros, Oscar least funded by it.




The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move.

The Murdochs’ decision to dump O’Reilly shocked many Fox News staffers I’ve spoken to in recent days. Late last week, the feeling inside the company was that Rupert Murdoch would prevail over his son James, who lobbied to jettison the embattled host. It’s still unclear exactly how the tide turned. According to one source, Lachlan Murdoch’s wife helped convince her husband that O’Reilly needed to go, which moved Lachlan into James’s corner. The source added that senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire have complained that if O’Reilly’s allegations had happened to anyone else at their companies, that person would be gone already.

Spokespersons for 21st Century Fox and Fox News did not respond to requests for comment, nor did O’Reilly’s agent, Carole Cooper.

Sources: The Murdochs Are Turning Against Bill O’Reilly