A new survey has revealed the political bias behind “misinformation experts.”
Published by Harvard’s Misinformation Review, the report highlights how political affiliation impacts the analysis of a misinformation expert. 83% of the 150 experts polled lean left-of-center, while only 15 identified as centrist. No participants identified themselves as “fairly or very right.”
As part of the survey, the experts were divided into subgroups. Psychologists, for example, were more likely to view misinformation as a key factor in the 2016 U.S. election, while political scientists, often more moderate, were skeptical of its impact.
The findings come amid a heightened focus on “misinformation” – a term often used instead of “fake news” by the left. Concerns over Kamala Harris’ faltering campaign has prompted some media outlets to join the attack on Donald Trump surrounded by an army of “fact-checkers” and experts with left-wing viewpoints.
It does raise questions as to whether a correlation between the political leanings of the federal government and fact-checkers is somewhat Orwellian.
In July of 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter took to the airwaves to address the nation about a threat that he believed “strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” Carter called it a “nearly invisible threat” that in many ways goes unnoticed. Carter dubbed it “a crisis of confidence.”
We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
But, even during his own trying times, Carter dismissed out of hand the idea that the soul of America was at stake during his “crisis of confidence,” stating, “I do not mean our political and civil liberties.”
“They will endure.”
Forty-five years later, I fear I cannot say the same, as I firmly believe that America faces a new “crisis of confidence” threatening to destroy our social and political fabric.
Ten years ago, you might have dismissed my opinion as conspiratorial nonsense. Yes, we have a growing partisan divide. But no one would dare weaponize the levers of power in government to lord over political rivals.
Anyone paying attention to politics since President Donald Trump shocked the political establishment to its core in 2016 would laugh at our naivete.
When Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of an entrenched political legacy and the poster child of Washington “swamp” culture, a “fight or flight” reflex activated in partisans on the left, breaking a détente which Carter most likely imagined would endure; a silent agreement to never weaponize the powers entrusted to the federal government by We The People against a political rival.
I need not remind you of the myriad ways an unholy union of government power brokers, mainstream media, big tech social media platforms, and government bureaucracy behaved during the Trump years. Merely invoking the name “Hunter Biden” should be sufficient shorthand summarizing the left’s amplification (to the point of absurdity) of “Orange Man Bad” and the suppression of credible facts and circumstance that ran counter to their skewed narrative. From this manipulation spawned a form of fanatical tribalism that saw many politicians crossing lines that Carter took for granted.
Which brings us to the current political climate. It is a climate where it has become commonplace to call fellow Americans a “threat to democracy,” “vicious,” “dangerous,” or “extreme.” It’s a political climate where odious individuals go on national television and say, “They’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.”
And wouldn’t you know it? After nearly a decade of ratcheting up the temperature to a boiling point, someone tried to do just that.
Actually, two somebodies.
In the wake of this climate and the two assassination attempts that followed, it would be malpractice to not question what the hell is going on in the federal government. It would also not be unreasonable to debate whether government Is this incompetent or whether the near decade of political tribalism has taken its toll on essential government functions, like the protection of a political rival.
But that is where we are at. In the fallout of these assassination attempts, the latest of which prompted Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to state that “it is not in the best interests of our state and nation to have the same federal agencies seeking to prosecute Trump leading this investigation.”
It is not just partisans on the right like DeSantis expressing a lack of confidence in the federal government. Even the staunchest voices on the left who are investigating cannot help but to criticize the Biden administration – of which they’re part of – because they too want to know how a shooter got onto a rooftop with a rifle and was able to get off multiple shots killing civilians in what should have been one of the most safe places anyone should have been.
Voices like Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the chair of the panel charged by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee – who is no friend of Donald Trump – has expressed his dismay with the federal government failures as well as his opinion that our government has been less than forthcoming with relevant information:
I think the American people are going to be shocked and appalled by our findings as to the lapses and failures — on that day, at that site, but also more deep seeded — still plaguing the Secret Service, And I think the American people are also going to be deeply disappointed in the Department of Homeland Security, not just in the lapses In performance, but also in its resistance to providing information.
Those are pretty disturbing sentiments, made even more terrifying knowing that a second attempt happened weeks later. Same target. Same agency. Same lapses.
If partisans on both sides of the aisle are so brazenly questioning the effectiveness of the federal government to do its job, how can we not openly do the same?
Back in April an NPR reporter and editor did something no one expected. Uri Berliner wrote an exposé on the hard-left political bias at his own organization. It wasn’t that anyone was surprised to find out that National Public Radio had a pronounced left-progressive-Democrat bias. Anyone who has tuned in to the public broadcaster for the past few decades knows that. In fact, NPR has always been biased to the left since its founding in 1970.
But that’s been true of most mainstream broadcasters. Those of us old enough to remember when most Americans got their news from three broadcast networks and a few newspapers know that all of them have been at least tilted toward the left side of the spectrum. Yet it used to be possible for these news organizations to do at least an adequate job disclosing factual truth, and they used to at least make an effort to represent the conservative point of view.
That must seem quaint, even Pollyanna-ish to read in 2024. How quickly the media devolved into a house organ for the Democrat party and its colorful, merry band of blue-haired misfits over the past 10 years. This Time Magazine cover from 2014 was a harbinger. It depicts a male actor named “Laverne Cox” who tells the entire world he’s transgender “woman,” and he got more than his 15 minutes of fame starring in a show about a women’s prison.
It’s not that Time covered the topic of transgenderism. It’s that Time asserted, editorially, that there is such a thing as a transgender “civil rights frontier.” The implication was clear: get on board or you’re not the kind of American who deserves a say.
Then, of course, Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign the next year and that put the final knife in the heart of American journalism’s pretense to objectivity. Every single mainstream outlet became rabidly opposed to Trump. Every scurrilous rumor from extramarital affairs to working with the Kremlin to hiring prostitutes to urinate on, they printed them all breathlessly.
Let’s go back to NPR’s Uri Berliner from above. What was shocking about Berliner’s targeting of his own employer (yes, he was fired) was just how bad the bias at NPR really was:
“Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.” —Uri Berliner in The Free Press
Not a single conservative working in the Washington, D.C. office of the nation’s publicly funded radio station.
Again, this is no longer shocking, so no one will be surprised at some interesting data from Syracuse University examining the political leanings of American journalists from 1971 to 2022.
Those who said they were Republican in 1971 made up about 26 percent of newsrooms. By 2022, that was down to less than five percent. And notice also how the share of self-identified Democrats rose from about 28 percent in 2013 to about 36 percent in 2022. It’s anyone’s guess what the real sentiments are for the rising share who call themselves independent. There are likely Democrats and Republicans in that group who don’t want to show their true colors.
Users on X (Twitter) had plenty to say about this chart.
A damning affidavit by an alleged whistleblower regarding the ABC News presidential debate has emerged on social media.
The six-page affidavit was reportedly filed in New York on Monday, Sept. 9 – one day before Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ televised debate. The anonymous whistleblower, who said they did not endorse the former president, claims to have been an employee for over ten years.
It alleges that “many employees” of ABC questioned the fairness of the debate given the “common knowledge” that both moderators “are well known not to support Donald Trump,” adding that assurances were given to ensure a balanced broadcast.
Section four, pertaining to debate fairness, is the most damning. The affidavit claims the Harris campaign “received particular accommodations” such as a smaller podium for the shorter candidate as well as “assurances regarding split-screen television views” to favorably impact the Vice President.
The document also claims that Trump would be subjected to fact-checking throughout the debate while “Harris would not face comparable scrutiny.” It also alleges that the Democrat’s campaign was provided with sample questions after it imposed restrictions on questions relating to President Joe Biden’s health and Harris’ tenure as San Francisco Attorney General.
You can read the affidavit for yourself below:
Social media users were divided over the affidavit, with many finding the claims “interesting”.
Others, however, were less convinced by its authenticity.
Neither ABC, Trump’s nor Harris’ campaigns are yet to respond to the document.
Kamala Harris’ 2019 presidential campaign was so left-wing that even liberals in 2024 are struggling to believe her previous policy pledges – and some legitimately think Donald Trump was making them up when he criticized them.
Harris’ first attempt at the White House capitulated in 2019 with her campaign’s suspension paving the way for Joe Biden to secure the Democratic nomination and later the presidency.
Her second effort has contained a renewed focus while simultaneously ditching the most left-wing policies she once (publicly) stood for in an attempt to pretend to move to the center to make it easier to get elected. Harris’ far-left policies are so crazy that they’re surprising leftists – including leftist New Yorker writer Susan Glasser who penned an article criticizing Trump for supposedly making up Harris’ policy positions.
“[Trump’s] line about how the Vice-President ‘wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison’ was pretty memorable,” wrote Glasser. “What the hell was he talking about? No one knows, which was, of course, exactly Harris’s point.”
Fortunately, community notes came to the rescue. Harris did indeed support transgender operations for detainees.
In response to a questionnaire from the American Civil Liberties Union, Harris said, “I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained.”
Conservatives on social media gave Glasser’s article the ridicule it deserves.
“She actually said she supported that?” Burnett asked CNN colleague when he explained her support for “taxpayer-funded gender care and transition surgeries for detained migrants.” Kaczynski confirmed that this was true – and that she supported it for federal prisoners too.
The Seattle Times contradicted its own reporting when attacking Donald Trump, leading to an astounding community note regarding 2020 protests in the Washington city.
The liberal publication shared an article on X relating to Trump’s comments about the protests in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter riots. During the presidential debate on Tuesday, Trump was asked if he had any regrets over the events of January 6, 2021.
He correctly replied in the negative, adding; “When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in Seattle? They went into Seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of Seattle. When are those people going to be prosecuted?”
The Times attempted to claim Trump’s comments relating to the size of the Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest area were false, claiming Trump was false to suggest that protesters took over part of Seattle in 2020.
Trumo was clearly speaking about the the Capitol Hill Organized Protest/Zone (CHOP/CHAZ), which spanned around six blocks in the heart of the city from June 2020 before being disbanded due to ongoing violence. (As mentioned in the community note) so widely reported on was this that the Seattle Times themselves covered it (approvingly, of course) and sent a reporter it it when it was still a thing.
Amazingly, the CHAZ was less than two blocks from the Times’ offices.
But now the Times is playing dumb… while also actually being dumb.
Many on social media slammed the publication’s contradictory reporting which led to the eventual community note.
A local resident was particularly irate with the Times.
Another highlighted that the publication seemed to contradict its own reporting within the same article.
A column in the Los Angeles Times which sought to blame California’s recurring problems on the Republican Party was subject to widespread ridicule – which is truly the only response.
After a short history lesson from the California native, Lopez claims the decades-long homelessness crisis dating back to Ronald Reagan’s Governorship of the state (it doesn’t). Acknowledging that the Democrats have effectively controlled the state since the 1990s (actor Arnold Schwarzenegger being the last Republican to hold a statewide office in January 2011), Lopez proceeds to blame the GOP for allowing the Democrats into power.
“None of them [GOP candidates] has offered winning solutions to deep-seated problems, and it might be too late for a party resurgence because as the electorate has grown more diverse, GOP voter registration has dwindled to roughly 25%,” writes Lopez. “You can’t blame Democrats for that.”
So let’s try to follow this. Lopez is a leftist doesn’t like Republicans, but blames them for not having enough power to enact their policies to fix things… which Lopez opposes and doesn’t actually think will fix anything. And Lopez himself will continue voting Democrat, further denying Republicans and additional control in California, which further implodes his own arguments.
It’s an interesting perspective, but one which seems desperate to blame the GOP. While Proposition 187 may have turned California’s Latino and Asian American population against the Republican Party, the Democrats have enjoyed some 30 years to address the issues within the state which only seem to be getting worse rather than better.
Oh, hypocrisy. Where would modern politics be without you?
You’ve probably heard about the furor over Donald Trump’s recent visit to Arlington Cemetery. It’s hard to avoid because the leftist media and politicians will not stop shrieking about how “disrespectful” Trump was to pose for photographs with the families of military servicemen killed in Afghanistan… who invited him.
CNN is lying and calling Trump’s appearance at the cemetery a “campaign event” to make it seem like Bull In A China Shop Vulgar Trump exploited grieving military families to bolster his ego and election chances. You can see the network lying right in their own story.
What actually happened is quite different. A group of Gold Star families held a memorial ceremony at Arlington last week in remembrance of the 13 American soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan during the disastrous withdrawal in 2021, presided over by Joe Biden.
Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, Cackler in Chief, got on social media over the past weekend to accuse Trump of staging a political event and shaming military families. But the families invited Donald Trump themselves because neither Joe Biden nor Harris would even respond to their invitation, let alone show up.
Many of these families present released videos defending Trump and criticizing the Biden-Harris administration for ignoring their responsibility for the deaths of their family members and not even bothering to respond to an invitation to a remembrance gather. Mark Schmitz, father of Jared Schmitz, one of the 13 killed during the withdrawal, said they invited Trump to the gathering because “we wanted a leader.”
But the left will stop at nothing, even stooping to insulting the families of war dead, in order to get Bad Orange Man.
Now CNN’s Natasha Bertrand thinks she’s got a major scoop about the son of the late Senator John McCain. Jimmy McCain confirmed that he has switched to the Democrat party so that he can vote for Kamala Harris. Jimmy was feeling quite righteous, calling Trump’s appearance with the Gold Star Families a “violation.”
But there’s one little problem – his father *actually* used Arlington to campaign.
You can watch the ad for yourself below:
That’s right. Jimmy’s own father was rebuked in 1999 by Arlington Cemetery staff for actually filming a political ad at the graveyard without permission.
Good God—what is it with these people?
Here’s what the internet had to say.
You’ve got to feel for this guy, who quaintly believes the truth still matters.
This user pointed out that Natasha Bertrand of CNN quickly modified her X/Twitter post to turn off comments. These people do NOT like being talked back to.
Bet Jimmy McCain won’t like this one bit.
Don’t know if this claim is true, but it is interesting:
Amazon’s Alexa provides strikingly different responses to enquiries about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, many social media users have found.
Alexa is an artificial intelligence model created by the Jeff Bezos-founded company. Through their Echo range, Amazon sells home devices which can assist in everyday living.
Although mostly used for music and radio listening, Alexa can also try to answer questions using artificial intelligence (AI) it’s asked about countless issues, including the presidential election.
When asked, “Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?”, the AI responded with “many reasons to vote for” the Vice President. “The most significant, maybe, is that she is a strong candidate with a proven track record of accomplishment,” Alexa said. “As the first female vice president, Harris has already broken down the major gender barrier, and her career in politics has been characterized on a commitment to progressive ideals and a focus on helping disenfranchised communities.”
When asked the same question about Trump, the device responded, “I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.”
See for yourself:
Many on social media accused Amazon of election interference – and countless others had the same experience.
𝕏 users are outraged to find that @amazon 's Alexa was taking part in what many are calling "election interference". Alexa would refuse to give reason why to vote for Trump yet give reason to vote for #KamalaHarris2024. Amazon, now, admits error made Alexa provide differing… pic.twitter.com/oke7WjiiCH
In addition to only listing reasons to vote for Kamala and not Trump, Amazon’s Alexa was also claiming Trump wasn’t shot at. Jeff Bezos should have to answer for this election interference. pic.twitter.com/EMnVDjceJH
Donald Trump sat down with Lex Fridman in his latest interview with an online personality.
The Republican nominee has taken a different approach to tackling the media in his third successive presidential campaign. In addition to mainstream media outlets, Trump has taken to digital media and engaged in hour-long discussions with popular online personalities.
This different approach was the theme for the beginning of the discussion, where Trump said Democratic rival Kamala Harris performed “very poorly” in an interview with CNN at the end of August.
In an explosive interview with Lex Fridman that’s quickly going viral, Donald Trump delivered several headline-making soundbites.
The first topic that grabbed viewers’ attention was Trump’s reaction to Kamala’s train-wreck interview with CNN, saying he “can’t believe” how “very… pic.twitter.com/OzRUGXYJAz
Afterwards, Trump highlighted the issue of mass migration and migrant crime. He said that countries such as Venezuela had witnessed a reduction in crime rates as criminals flock to America.
The conversation then shifted to the issue of mass migration, sparked by reports of Venezuelan gangs taking over buildings in Colorado.
Trump said that countries like Venezuela are dumping their prisoners into America, noting that crime is down in those countries for a reason.… pic.twitter.com/Job8fDCK1Z
Foreign policy was also a subject of discussion. The former president praised his administration’s handling of foreign affairs and noted that President Joe Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal led to 13 U.S. soldiers losing their lives.
The discussion pivoted to foreign policy, where Trump touted his approach to keeping the peace in Afghanistan during his tenure.
Crediting “The Stick,” he argued that his tough stance was why there were no U.S. casualties for 18 months before Biden’s chaotic withdrawal.
Trump denied any association with Project 2025 – a Heritage Foundation policy playbook for a second Trump presidency.
“I’ve heard about things that are in there that I don’t like, and there are some things in there that everybody would like,” Trump said. “But there are things that I don’t like at all. And I think it’s unfortunate that they put it out, but it doesn’t mean anything because it has nothing to do with me. Project 2025 has absolutely nothing to do with me.”
As the conversation continued, Trump dismissed any association with Project 2025, insisting that the Democrats know it has nothing to do with him, yet they continue to link him to it anyway.
“Project 2025 has absolutely nothing to do with me,” Trump stressed, adding that he… pic.twitter.com/9CE0k14Qu4
Amid Trump’s tour of podcasts, many have speculated over a possible appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience. He denied any tension following Rogan’s support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., adding that he hadn’t been asked to appear on the UFC commentator’s podcast.
Lex Fridman didn’t shy away from pressing Trump on what he called “tension” with Joe Rogan, challenging him to go on Rogan’s podcast after saying some “not-so-nice things” about him.
Trump played it cool, denying any real tension, saying, “I guess I’d do it, but I haven’t been… pic.twitter.com/5E6GJM1ldi
The issue of political convictions cropped up during the hour-long discussion with Trump claiming Hillary Clinton was “lucky” that he chose not to pursue any legal action.
The interview took another interesting turn when Trump reflected on his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, saying, “She’s so lucky I didn’t do anything.”
Trump added that he “could have done a big number on Hillary Clinton,” but the reason he decided not to was because… pic.twitter.com/lJtsipPMbW
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
