While President Trump calls the media the “enemy of the people”, journalists insist he’s the liar and they’re way too important to take this lying down… that is until we find out yet another award-winning, partisan “journalist” has been caught fabricating for not just one story, but many.

Europe faces its largest journalistic scandal in years after Der Spiegel, the continent’s biggest-selling news magazine, said one of its star reporters fabricated facts in his articles for years. The magazine’s disclosure, which came after a colleague raised concerns about a recent piece on supporters of President Trump in rural America, was made as Europe’s established media faces attacks by populist forces at home and abroad.

Claas Relotius, an award-winning journalist, resigned from the magazine last week after admitting to making up parts of his reporting in the past decade, Der Spiegel said late Wednesday.

Mr. Relotius couldn’t be reached for comment.
— Wall Street Journal, 12/20/18

Don’t be all impressed by that “award-winning journalist” cover as The People never get a vote. It’s always within their little elitist circle jerk and their backpatting is supposed to impress us into a trance state of adoration and blind respect.

The arrogance is ever present and when they’re caught, their self-reflection is full of the genuine disbelief that they were actually capable of such deliberate malfeasance. Or maybe it was that they were publicly busted….

“We must see what control mechanisms failed, whether they did or whether we were negligent,” Steffen Klusmann, who will become the magazine’s editor in chief next year, said in a video interview posted on the magazine’s website.

Stefan Niggemeier, an independent media blogger in Berlin and a former Spiegel journalist, said some of the articles at issue appeared to confirm certain German stereotypes about Trump voters, asking “was this possible because of an ideological bias?“

Nah… can’t see where anyone would get THAT impression.

What busted them was this very anti-Trump liberal bias at Der Spiegel as they published 33-year-old Relotius’ account without even a sniff of a desire to verify: you know, Journalism 1.01.

In February 2017, my husband and I attended a concert at our local theater, and were sipping some wine in the lobby before the show started. Several people came up to us at separate times excitedly, and asked, “did you meet the German guy yet?!” I hadn’t, but my spider senses perked up when I heard that he worked for Der Spiegel, a magazine based in Hamburg, and that he was writing about the state of rural America in the wake of Trump’s presidency.

What happened is beyond what I could have ever imagined: An article titled “Where they pray for Trump on Sundays,” and endless pages of an insulting, if not hilarious, excuse for journalism.

There are so many lies here, that my friend Jake and I had to narrow them down to top 11 most absurd lies (we couldn’t do just 10) for the purpose of this article. We’ve been working on it since the article came out in spring of 2017, but had to set it aside to attend to our lives (raising a family, managing a nonprofit organization, etc.)before coming back to it this fall, and finally wrapped things up a few weeks ago, just in time to hear today that Relotius was fired when he was exposed for fabricating many of his articles.
— Michele Anderson and Jake Krohn, 12/19/18

It’s not clear, and that’s probably for a reason, what really triggered the eventual investigation into Relotius’ body of work. Der Spiegel would probably have us all believe it was all about their crack, fact-checking mechanism doing their job. I believe it was the very public piece written by Anderson and Krohn that forced Der Spiegel’s hands that made sweeping this under the rug impossible, which is usually what happens when liberals are stone cold busted.

The upside for Relotius is that liberals are a very forgiving lot when it comes to their hate for conservatives, and as long has his fabrications didn’t smear women, Muslims, illegal aliens, abortion clinics, gays, environmentalists, etc., there are always (depending on his fluency in English) positions at MSNBC where plagiarists and fabricators feel right at home.

And he’s also got that white privilege thing going for him. Minority fabricator/plagiarists very seldom get second chances.

This reinforces what has been said here many times on many different occasions: the media and activists need division for selling ads and soliciting donations. People getting along, minding their own business is NOT good for their business and if they have to create controversy, they have and they will. Relotius’ fantasy hit piece on Fergus Falls is a prime example that should be required reading in that what-not-to-do column. But we know this “journalism” is going on now, has been going on for who knows how long, and we need to wait and see who’s next to be forcibly outed.

Der Spiegel will issue faux mea culpas, assuring their consumers that is was an anomaly and fairness and accuracy is and has always been their mission. That is, before their next Trump cover comes out.

The 5Ws of journalism
Note how a journalism professor talks about the “5Ws”, clearly can’t explain the “why” and throws in an H that includes “opinions”.

In reality, the news should only be about the “who, where, and when”, despite how it’s being commonly taught and practiced.

WHO

You need to know who the news story is about. No brainer.

WHERE

You need to know where a news incident occurred. Again, a no brainer.

WHEN

It can make a difference if the reader knows when an incident occurred for timeline context and follow-ups.

Now here’s where things can become blurry, intentionally or not.

WHAT

If you already know the “who, where and when” then determining “what” happened is only something one would know if they were actually there to witness the incident. “What” denotes a narrative that can only be composed in speculation, again, if you weren’t there as a witness.

This becomes dangerous if whomever is reporting has an agenda, personal or activist. The “what” can include adjectives that can either elevate or denigrate a subject, thus leading the consumer to a conclusion which shouldn’t be the role or a true journalist.

If you competently explain where something happened, when it happened, and who it might’ve happened to, that should let someone with reasonable intelligence deduce “what” may have happened.

WHY

Again, unless the reporter witnessed the incident, determining why something happened is pure speculation.

Even if a news story includes the quotes of eyewitnesses, said reporter is left in that murky zone where the word of a spectator is either considered credible or not. There have been many stories over the years that have had to be retracted because witnesses either embellished or outright lied about what they claimed to have either seen or what they claimed happened to them.

Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Friday.
— St. Louis Post Dispatch, 12/19/14

That’s why news organizations need to be very careful upon who they quote; not give any kind of certification on that person’s integrity and remind the news consumer that this is a witness account and not the definitive on what actually happened just because they said so.

If you competently explain where something happened, when it happened, and who it might’ve happened to, that should again let someone with reasonable intelligence deduce “why” it happened.

HOW

If a journalist wasn’t there to witness the incident in question, he or she can’t honestly report on “how” something happened unless that person speculates or totally believes as truth the word of witnesses.

Back in the day, any reporter handing a story to an editor with sources whose quotes couldn’t be verified was as essentially handing in a resignation letter.

The most important professional possession of journalists is credibility. If the news consumers don’t have faith that the stories they are reading or watching are accurate and fair, if they suspect information attributed to an anonymous source has been made up, then the journalists are as useful as a parka at the equator.
— Society of Professional Journalists

Editors understood that people exaggerate and sometimes lie and to publish mistruths could open up a newspaper or television station to legal action, not to mention a loss of credibility. With that, you can understand the look a reporter would get from an editor after receiving a story with anonymous sources.

The media should be in the business of distributing the news. Commentary is a separate entity.

But you can see that the “what”, “why” and “how” can be considered pure speculation that has no business in a news story. That is, if it is all about the true dissemination of news. If an agenda is something a news organization wishes to distribute, you’ll receive misleading news stories, not to mention hours-upon-hours of so-called journalists and self-important pundits on cable news and radio telling you “what” they think and “why” you need to see and repeat things their way.

Sound familiar?

“Who, what, where, when and why” can apply to many other intellectual exercises but it shouldn’t apply to journalism.

Ever.

We’re thrilled to announce that Ali Watkins of Politico is joining the Washington Bureau as a national security reporter.

Ali, who covers intelligence and national security for Politico, has had a series of important scoops. She broke news that Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, met with a Russian spy in 2013. She also had exclusive new details on China’s harassment of American spies. Last month, she was the first to reveal the name of the Russian woman, Olga Vinogradova, who met with the former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos during the 2016 campaign.

Ali arrived in Washington in 2013 as an intern covering national security for McClatchy, where she was part of a Pulitzer-finalist team that uncovered the C.I.A.’s spying on Senate Intelligence Committee computers.

After McClatchy, Ali covered national security for The Huffington Post and then Buzzfeed before going to Politico.
— New York Times, 12/5/17

Ever since the Harvey Weinstein saga broke, we’ve argued that some women were willing to cozy up to a pig in order to have a shot at a lucrative career in Hollywood. However, you’re only as good as your professional talent and when some of the careers didn’t blossom as desired, many of these women are now screaming rape.

The template’s not been thrown out the window altogether….

What is known today is that in December 2013, the Temple University intern had begun a romantic relationship with James A. Wolfe, a man 30 years her senior. He happened to sit amid a flow of juicy information as director of security for the same Senate committee. The reporter-source romance would last four years. Then the FBI intervened.

From McClatchy, she went on to land jobs in quick succession at HuffPost, BuzzFeed, Politico and finally the New York Times, where she resides today at the Washington bureau.
— Washington Times, 6/9/18

That’s not to say everyone in high-profile journalism screwed their way to the top, but many did, and it prompted us to do some digging on their qualifications to occupy the most prominent positions in the profession; qualifications that can legitimately be questioned.

In most professions, one needs to at least have an educational background, if not a degree, in that chosen profession. However that doesn’t seem to apply to those who work in the highest seats of broadcast journalism.

For some, nepotism and/or sexual favoritism didn’t hurt either.
— On-Air ‘Journalists’ Are Lib-Trained, Poli-Sci Hacks

Of course, this is not to imply that ALL women, especially now millennial women who occupy a growing number of very influential positions in the media and in-and-around Capitol Hill, screwed their way to jobs that they’re relatively inexperienced to have acquired. It does show lazy journalism on Ali Watkins’ part as she found a shortcut to doing her job instead of that “shoe leather” journalism; a shortcut she was rewarded for.

Worked out for some people, and for Ali, once was not enough.

The New York Times published a damaging feature about its own reporter, revealing new details of Ali Watkins’ affair with former Senate Intelligence Committee aide James A. Wolfe.

“Last fall, after Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe had broken up and while she was still reporting on the intelligence committee for Politico, she briefly dated another staff member at the committee, friends said. That relationship, which has not been previously reported, ended when the two decided not to pursue something more serious,” the Times wrote.
— Fox News, 6/25/18

“Dated”…? Fucked.

Will we see Ali Watkins being stripped of her co-Pulitzer Prize as quickly as Bill Cosby was of his many recognitions? Probably not because women are always the victim. She simply did what she had to do in a man’s profession, even though the numbers are narrowing.

And like a federal government agency, Watkins was not fired for wrongdoing but… reassigned.

The New York Times demoted a reporter who acknowledged a romantic relationship with a Senate staffer who is suspected of leaking information to journalists. Times editor Dean Baquet said Tuesday he would reassign the reporter, Ali Watkins from the paper’s Washington bureau to New York in the wake of revelations that she had been involved with James Wolfe, the former head of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Watkins covered the committee for a number of publications, although not the Times.

In a staff memo on Tuesday, Baquet said Watkins would be reassigned to an unspecified position in New York “where she will be closely supervised and have a senior mentor.”
— New York Times “Style” section, 7/3/18

Thanks to Ms. Watkins, all women (especially younger women) will be looked at with that “What did she do to get there?” There was a time when you had to pay dues that required years, if not decades of hard work, to get the attention of the big house on the hill. If you’re a young woman, no matter how much she’ll commiserate with the #MeToo screamers, all it takes is spread your legs.

There are takers and rewards.

Over the years, we’ve attempted to share our content on FreeRepublic.com, a conservative online forum with huge reach. However, their members are at times extremely hostile to anyone sharing their content for the sake of gaining hits (which is the ultimate goal of any online entity), and they demand a full cut-and-paste version of other people’s content, thus draining hits from the original source, because it would appear some who frequent that forum are just too lazy to have to go from one website to another.

Despite their being sued by the Las Vegas Review-Journal for repeated cut-and-pasting of full columns, FreeRepublic users continue to lift entire pieces for others who could be bothered to click on a link.

A conservative news-sharing website with plenty of experience in dealing with copyright issues has been sued for copyright infringement after Las Vegas Review-Journal stories allegedly were posted on its site. Free Republic LLC, James C. Robinson and John Robinson, who are associated with the website www.freerepublic.com in Fresno, Calif., were sued in federal court in Las Vegas on Monday over the postings.

These postings amount to copyright infringement, charges the lawsuit filed by Righthaven LLC, which has partnered with the Review-Journal to sue website operators around the country. The suit seeks damages of $75,000. The site also includes a long list of newspapers that have requested the site not post their stories, or post only excerpts and links.
— Las Vegas Sun, 7/20/10

Cognizant of their users’ practice, FreeRepublic issued the following.

Concerning copyrights, the website says: “Free Republic has settled the alleged copyright infringement suit brought by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post and has agreed not to post full text articles from their publications or any of their related subsidiaries and affiliates. Please do not post full text from these sources.“

Translation: everyone else’s content is still fair game.

One such example is our post, The Democrat Race Lie, cut and pasted in its entirety on FreeRepublic, and the user was repeatedly thanked for stealing the entire piece.

Obviously B&R’s content is good enough to steal and inspire others to donate for that content… to FreeRepublic!

At the top of his entry, this “scottfactor” claims I gave him permission to post The Democrat Race Lie on his blog. I believe I would have let him link to it, but not repost it whole, and his posting the whole article on FreeRepublic was certainly something I wouldn’t authorize.

As we’ve said before, everything people create and offer the public has a monetary value because of the time it takes to create and people choose to consume. FreeRepublic is a forum that offers a service and they have consistently successful fundraisers where they haul in over $80,000 per quarter.

One could rightfully argue that by their users cutting-and-pasting entire articles, revenue is being siphoned from the rightful creators.

Sites “Marginize” and “FreedomWorks Connector” have also found ways to capture The Democrat Race Lie and keep thousands of hits for themselves. Someone at Straight Pale Christian Republicans cut-and-pasted the entire Democrat Race Lie AND Dixiecrat Myth posts.

The uber-leftist Daily Kos also linked to The Democrat Race Lie, and they surprisingly did so properly. They presented a short segment, linked back to the original, and their readers actually seemed to learn something about the history of the Democrat Party, which is the ultimate goal of B&R and B&B Media….

We have sites that do nothing but bleed our content, like “Dude With An Attitude” who even created a category called “Black & Right” and the theft was automated.

After being publicly called out on Facebook, “Dude” deleted the hundreds of our posts he stole.

The Democrat Race Lie has also been stolen by sites and it ranks very high on search engines coming from those sites as well.

It’s been cut-and-pasted by John Malcolm (who calls himself a “Christian”) in its entirety on Before It’s News…

In its entirety on the Romantic Poet…

And Wayne Dupree, who used the title while only cutting-and pasting the first few paragraphs, gave all appearances as if those words were his. Incidentally, Dupree “earned” the honor of CPAC 2015 Blogger of the Year.

Makes one wonder how many of his posts were ripped whole from others and passed off as his own original works.

Obviously, B&R’s content is good enough to steal and we’d hope it’s also worthy of donations as well. While $88,000 a quarter would enable us to do wonderful things, less than $50 per month we DO receive is appreciated. The theft of our content certainly doesn’t help.

NOTE: This post was linked to on FreeRepublic. I was just informed in less than an hour it was removed. So much for principled “conservatives”….