“U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate” John Kerry was interviewed by BBC Arabic and considering the usual death and collateral damage that comes with war, he made one of the most tone deaf statements to date, and that’s saying a lot given a Biden administration that was widely praised by the corporate media for bringing back the “adults” in U.S. politics….

Of course, when it comes to anything the public obviously took the wrong way, the administration explained how we all should have understood what we heard.

Secretary Kerry strongly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces. On Monday prior to the attack, he was asked about the climate implications of a potential future conflict.
— State Department spokesman

Yeah, he was and perhaps he spoke a tad too much again.

Kerry excoriated for hoping Putin will focus on climate change amid Ukraine invasion
Kerry is slammed for saying he hopes Putin stays ‘on track’ to fight CLIMATE CHANGE as Russia prepared to invade Ukraine
John Kerry and the Adults Who Weren’t

At least, that’s how it was taken by those who chose to report it.

One such example occurred on so-called “BBC Comedy” where a stand up comic by the name of Sophie Duker dryly joked about killing white people, just to have the program’s host Frankie Boyle and other white guest uncomfortably laugh and/or nod along… because we all know what could have happen should they dare question the Black Lives Matter concept.

It must be nice to tear down a welcoming society that allows an immigrant to use her college education to become a stand-up comic.

Duker was born in London to first-generation immigrants from West Africa. Her mother is from Cameroon and her father is from Ghana. She studied French and English at Wadham College, Oxford. She joined the Oxford Imps in her first year at university.
— Wikipedia

Maybe evil white people should think twice before allowing immigrants from The Shithole World to enter and breed ignorant, ungrateful, privileged offspring in their countries.

“Kill white people”.

Now, that’s gratitude and shame on Frankie Boyle and so-called comedienne Sara Pascoe for laughing along. When the mob comes for them at their homes, we’ll see how funny they think it is.

During a segment aired on the BBC, the video creator appears to have come down with a case of they-all-look-alike-itis as footage of LeBron James was inserted with footage of Bryant. Even though there were slight hints of a difference between the players, the error wasn’t caught and allowed to air.

…

A BBC spokesman said: ‘In tonight’s coverage of the death of Kobe Bryant on BBC News at Ten we mistakenly used pictures of LeBron James in one section of the report.

‘We apologise for this human error which fell below our usual standards on the programme.’
— Daily Mail, 1/26/20

Human error? No shit. But let’s talk about the BBC’s “usual standards”.

Both players are black. Whew, at least they got that right.

Despite the perception in the BBC production wing and the possible politically correct practice of not dwelling on appearances, they don’t look alike.

Another slight hint as to the difference between the two players, Bryant was #24 and not #23.

The ability to read and comprehend also appears to be an issue here as this was to be a clip about Kobe Bryant, with the name Bryant on the back of his jersey, spelled B-R-Y-A-N-T, not J-A-M-E-S.

Obviously whomever was tasked with putting the package together obviously knew nothing about American basketball as there would be zero confusion about the players. This should have been caught by multiple eyes before airing and yet it got by them all. Was this a case of ignorant women or context-challenged millennials or those who could care less about sports being tasked to create a very short memoriam of one of the greatest players in Los Angeles Lakers history, if not the National Basketball Association?

But this just illustrated (again) what’s wrong with today’s media; a profession where writing about that which they don’t know has its perils and we see the results almost every day.

On December 3-4, you can endure slow-talking Al Gore and his eighth annual 24 Hours of Reality: Protect Our Planet, Protect Ourselves, complete with certified has-beens, never-really-weres and on-the-way-outs like Sting & Shaggy, Moby, Jeff Goldblum & the Mildred Snitzer Orchestra, Bob Weir and Wolf Bros, the Goo Goo Dolls, David Crosby, Jaden Smith, Bill Nye, Téa Leoni, Claire Danes, Mandy Patinkin, and a bunch of sanctimonious bureaucrats lecturing on what YOU should do to “save the planet”… things they exempt themselves of.

or…

You can spend an hour and 15 minutes watching one of all-time best, unapologetic, widely-attacked, yet most informative video productions on the topic; complete with experts; not emotional, funding-dependent academics and activists.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is still one the most controversial documentaries on the topic. Check out as much as you wish of Al Gore’s talk-a-thon and see which position on “climate change” and the dangers of C02 makes more sense to you.

Oh, and while they claim this is all about a “discussion”, Al Gore’s live YouTube stream has “disabled” chats AND comments.

This is no surprise.

See how much concern (or lack thereof) Gore shows for the plight of poor African nations he happily denies the opportunity to develop while his privileged Western neophyte devotees stream his live production on their iPhones.

In listening to the hysterics of the climate change believers, it’s not an acceptance of even the remote possibility that there may be other explanations for the change in the climate. It’s more the arrogant denial that, heaven forbid, there is even the slightest possibility that they may have been suckered and are thus, very wrong.

Texas church mass shooting leads to calls for prayer — and gun control
It’s Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control
Lax Texas Gun Laws, the NRA and Another Horrendous Deadly Mass Shooting
Murphy: ‘No one is safe’ until Congress acts on gun violence

While it literally took minutes for the left to politicize the Sutherland Springs shooting, they were also the first to demand we NOT publicize the New York City truck attack due to the profile of the perpetrator.

NY officials decry politicization of terror attack
Is Trump politicizing the New York City terror attack?
Schumer Blasts Trump For Politicizing NYC Terror Attack: “Where Is Your Leadership?”

There was a particular posting from October 4th that came across the radar that peaked attention because despite the carnage that happens daily in Democrat, gun-controlled meccas like Chicago (which mainly involves politically insignificant black people), the BBC highlighted the fact that most “mass” shootings are mostly carried out by “white” men.

BTW — As of October 31, there were 569 deaths in Chicago; a death toll mostly involving black-on-black violence Democrats and their media ignore, as the symptoms leading to inner city crime is intentional neglect that can be used for vapid reelection themes and liberal nonprofit and government services growth.

Since 9/11, approximately 110 people have been killed and 495 wounded in the United States by a group not-white and suspiciously omitted by the BCC list with numbers said to be obtained by the FBI and Mother Jones.

Anyone want to take a guess at what that group is?

Muslims have carried out horrific attacks all over the world in concert venues, restaurants, media offices, on the streets, and we NEVER hear Democrats call them out, demanding gun, knife, hatchet, machete, or vehicle control. Instead, attacks are lamented, reasons are found to excuse the motives of the attacker, and they lay blame at anything else, like online recruitment, instead of religion-fueled murderous hate.

Liberal Democrats want to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans and veterans (with PTSD for starters), highlighting the race and possible political beliefs of the shooter (providing he isn’t a Bernie supporter) is fair game, but whenever a Muslim commits mass carnage, Americans are reminded who the real victims are….

While “backlash” against Muslims after an attack is something yet to be enumerated, aside from the hysterics coming from Council on American-Islamic Relations or the Southern Poverty Law Center, the major contribution of Muslims on our society since our 9/11 awareness has been increased screening inconvenience at airports, ugly barriers on streets and on sidewalks, not to mention the “special treatment” instead of the equal treatment they demand.

The assertion that gun violence is a “white male” problem is misleading at best, a blatant political lie at worst. Deliberately omitting the statistics of those suffering from gun violence in poor Democrat districts as well as those they consider a protected minority is what we’ve unfortunately come to expect from the media, both in the United States and abroad.

Race has long been an unsettling undercurrent of the 2016 presidential race. But this week, the two major candidates forced that debate into the open with Hillary Clinton’s speech linking Donald Trump to the “alt-right” movement, and Trump’s new charge that the former secretary of state is “a bigot” who has pandered to minorities with feckless policies as part of a calculated quest for votes.
— CNN, 8/26/16

Racism’s been a consistent club used to bash Trump, especially after Breitbart’s Steve Bannon was picked to be an advisor within his administration. Breitbart.com is no more a white supremacist website than is any liberal media site, but Democrats are never hesitant to slander anyone or anything they deem a threat.

The “alt-right” narrative was explored during a group interview on the BBC, and the following is an excerpt of that discussion.

If a film or video is created and presents a particular point of view, the producer’s accuracy and motivations are appropriately scrutinized. However, when a film or video is self-labeled a “documentary”, it’s enjoys the immediate assumption of being an absolute truth which is why they permeate grade schools, colleges and are delivered to online platforms aimed at the impressionable.

Yoni Appelbaum, Washington Bureau Chief at The Atlantic, got all butt-hurt when Bob dared challenge their “journalism” and accused The Atlantic of selective editing in their so-called “documentary” clip of The National Policy Institute’s Richard Spencer speech. While Applebaum said the entire video is “available online”, The Atlantic has provided no link to their original post to this day.

The full radio segment, America’s ‘Alt-right’, can be found on the BBC’s website.

Donald Trump, at a news conference in New York City, being pulled (kicking and screaming) to respond to media demands on where he put millions of dollars raised for veteran charities. Of course, aside from his begrudgingly answering their questions, the media had to endure the multiple indignities of having their profession and integrity being attacked, and those attacks were directed and taken very personally.

CNN: Trump launches all-out attack on the press
Washington Post: Donald Trump declares war on the press
Yahoo: Trump showboats attacks on ‘dishonest’ US media
NBC News: Trump Lashes Out At Media While Detailing Vets Fundraiser
US News & World Report: Trump Lambasts the Media
PBS: Trump attacks media for questioning his donations to vets
UK Daily Mail: Trump showboats attacks on ‘dishonest’ US media
The Hill: Trump’s press feud boils over
BBC: Trump lambasts media for questioning veteran donations
NY Times: Donald Trump Lashes Out at Media While Detailing Gifts to Veterans
USA Today: Donald Trump’s attacks on the news media: A not-so-short history

The skin is quite thin within the media elite and it’s going to take a long time for the ego bruises to heal.

Does anyone know of ONE media outlet that’s asked if Hillary Clinton has donated one dollar to a veteran cause or is it okay for her to only be on the receiving end?

Over the years, the media has gone out-of-their-way to attack the political, financial, and personal lives of whomever they’ve wished. Most of the time, those who’ve been victims of the pressure have little recourse because of the media’s 1st Amendment privilege, and you can clearly hear the worry by some that they may actually have to be careful of what they present to the people as “news” because someone is finally pointing the finger back at them!

Trump was not “bullying” these people because they demanded answers on his vet donations. He was not “avoiding scrutiny.” He answered their questions. He’s got these 27-year-old young journalists out there, and all he was pointing out is, “Where is the scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton? Where is the same scrutiny of Democrat candidates?” That’s one of the many things that I heard in that press conference.
— Rush Limbaugh, 6/1/15

The problem is the media has arrogantly gone about their “business” for years, selectively applying scrutiny, creative and deceptive editing, repeating false narratives that Republicans had to spend valuable time and expense disproving, bias by omission, and this is no new phenomenon that just arose with the candidacy of Donald Trump.

There are websites devoted exclusively to media bias and errors, exposing partisan, false information routinely disseminated to the general public for decades.

Whether we’re talking about the Friday-before-the-election 2000 Bush DUI effort, the “fake but accurate” standard set by Dan Rather, the selective editing of 911 calls, journalists running interference for their preferred candidate during debates, some rape reporting requiring less fact-checking while some rapists are vigorously defended, sometimes the media asks “where’s the money” while other times not appearing to care, and there are dozens more national examples while we have no idea of how bad the problem is on the local end. We’ve had “journalists” lie to our faces on numerous occasions and they’re STILL working, but yet they’re all so sensitive when THEIR integrity is oh-so-viciously questioned by Donald Trump.

When does the media get to determine what the proper timeline is to hand out money to a charity? When does the media get to determine what the right and wrong thing to do is on anything? Who are they? Are they the arbiters of virtue? Have they never made a misstep? It’s the thing that’s always bugged me. These people get to sit in total judgment on everybody else. You try to turn it around on them. “You can’t do that, we’re journalists.”

Yeah, why is that any different? We can’t look at your past, find out how many illegitimate kids you might have had, how many DUIs you’ve got, how many women you might have had knocked up in college, we’re not allowed to find that out? “No, you’re not, I’m a journalist. My life is irrelevant. It’s not part of the story.” Well, it ought to be. You’re out there making claims on everybody else’s misbehaving. If you’re gonna set yourself up as the arbiter of propriety and morality and goodness and decency and all this stuff, let’s see how you fall into it. But they don’t want any part of it.
— Rush Limbaugh, 6/1/16

High-and-mighty “journalists” insist they’re objective: an assertion we’ve laughed at many times before because you can’t objectively report news while your objective is to “make a difference”.

Unfortunately, their biases are reflected in their reporting and Trump’s warning that they may have to get used to being called out publicly means that many in the media may have a greater incentive to help Hillary Clinton (who has yet to have a press conference in 2016) get elected so they won’t have to be subjected to such harsh disrespect.

The media can dish it but can’t take it. You think that’s a weakness Donald Trump is going to exploit as long as it’s dangling in front of him… and with a fair amount of glee?