Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Media”

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Spreads Malicious Lies about Ukraine and the United States

In his zeal to vilify Ukraine and malign the United States, Carlson betrays an appalling ignorance of the politics and history of both countries. 

Is Tucker Carlson a knowing Putin propagandist or historically obtuse and ignorant?

It’s hard to tell, but that is the inescapable conclusion one must draw after listening to his myriad commentaries trying to portray Ukraine in the worst possible light, while saying little or nothing critical of Putin and Russia.

Most recently (Dec. 7, 2022), Carlson declared that Ukrainian President Zelensky is a Lenin-like dictator who is using American tax dollars to stamp out opposition parties and religious liberty in Ukraine.

Zelensky is a “dangerous authoritarian” who “has no interest in freedom and democracy,” Carlson intoned. And, for this reason, any comparison to World War II, the proverbial “good war” for freedom and democracy, is wrongheaded.

American support for Ukraine today does not mirror American support for Britain at the outset of World War II. No, Sir, said Carlson.

The Biden administration “baited” Russia into invading Ukraine: by “telling Zelensky to join NATO, which they, [the Biden administration], knew was a Russian red line. They, [the Biden administration], wanted this war,” Carlson said.

Russia Threats. Carlson then brought left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald on air to tell viewers that the U.S. government “actually doesn’t care about spreading democracy.” That is a “fairy tale,” Greenwald said.

Russia, he scoffed, is no threat to the United States. Russia is not our enemy. Presidents Obama and Trump didn’t see Russia as an enemy and neither should we. Only crazy left-wing Democrats who still cling to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax think that, Greenwald said.

As Luke Coffey observes, “Tucker would make a fantastic spokesman for the Kremlin.” And, in fact, as The Guardian points out:

Carlson’s commentaries on the Ukraine war generally reflect Putin’s speeches and claims. Russian television then plays back the monologues as evidence that Putin is right because the same is being said by “the most popular television presenter in America”.

But while Americans of all political stripes do not accept the lies spewed by a Russian dictator, American conservatives are inclined to accept the falsehoods spouted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, and therein lies the problem.

Carlson is opposed to U.S. aid to Ukraine, which is a legitimate, albeit wrongheaded position.

What is illegitimate is deliberately lying about the United States and Ukraine, and deliberately defaming and demonizing these two great countries, to try and make your case for cutting off American aid dollars.

Zelensky v. Lenin. First, to compare Zelensky to Lenin is obviously idiotic and slanderous. Lenin seized power in a violent Communist revolution and was guided by dictatorial Communist ideology. Zelensky was elected president peacefully and democratically, and is guided by the broad-based concerns of the Ukrainian people.

As for religious liberty, it is guaranteed in the Ukrainian Constitution, and it is, in the main, respected and protected. However, because Putin has weaponized the Orthodox Church and manipulated the church to try and conquer and subdue Ukraine, matters are considerably more complicated than Carlson acknowledges.

Ukraine is fighting for its very survival and has a legitimate interest in rooting out spies, traitors, and saboteurs.

Perhaps Zelensky and his government have overreached. But if that is the case, they did so as a wartime exigency and not out of any ideological desire to stamp out legitimate democratic opposition and dissent.

Let us remember: the United States, too, has sometimes stifled dissent and infringed upon liberty while at war.

Lincoln. During the Civil War, for instance, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to ensure that Union commanders could arrest and detain people seen as a threat to military operations. Yet, only the historically illiterate would suggest that, because of this, Lincoln was a “dangerous authoritarian” opposed to democracy.

Instead, historians understand that Lincoln was a wartime leader trying to preserve the union and save his country.

This doesn’t meant that Lincoln was right to suspend habeas corpus. That is a legitimate historical argument to have. But any fair-minded historian will place Lincoln’s suspension of the writ into historical context to arrive at a judicious and fair-minded conclusion regardless of whether he thinks what Lincoln did was right or wrong.

So, too, with Zelensky. Political and wartime context is required to understand his actions vis-a-vis the Orthodox Church. Yet, Carlson eschews such context precisely in order to demonize Zelensky and portray him as a cartoonish political villain.

Ukraine. What is beyond dispute and debate is that Ukraine is a burgeoning democracy that aspires to be part of the West. The Ukrainians wish to share in our political and cultural patrimony. They wish to be a free, sovereign, and independent country.

Russia, by contrast, wants to dominate and subjugate Ukraine. They want to isolate Ukraine from the West and make it dependent upon and subservient to Russia. And, more ominously, in so doing, they want to wipe Ukraine off the map and destroy its culture and its nationhood.

American support for Ukraine is thus morally just and righteous and something all Americans ought to be proud of—Carlson and Greenwald to the contrary notwithstanding.

But make no mistake: America supports Ukraine not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it serves the American national interest.

Russia. Again, Russia is an avowed enemy of the United States that has spent the better part of two decades undermining American national security interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. So any opportunity to bloody and weaken Russia is a good and welcome opportunity for the United States.

This doesn’t mean that the United States baited or lured Russia into waging war on Ukraine, as Carlson and Greenwald idiotically assert. To the contrary: the United States and its European allies went to great pains for many years to allay Russian concerns.

The problem is that Putin has been hellbent on resurrecting a new Russian empire and could not be assuaged by anything less than utter appeasement and surrender.

Putin launched a war on Ukraine not because of anything the United States or NATO did or did not do. He launched a war on Ukraine because he wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine.

The United States is supporting Ukraine because it recognizes that Russia success there will threaten peace and stability throughout Europe, while inspiring dictators worldwide to redraw national boundaries and rewrite the wold map.

In other words, American support for democracy is no fairy tale; it is reality, hard-headed realism in a dangerous world. And the only lies being told are those by Carlson and Greenwald, who portray an illiberal, authoritarian Ukraine that doesn’t exist.

The bottom line: Ukraine is a good country and its president, Zelensky, is a great wartime leader, despite whatever mistakes he might have made and, undoubtedly, will make in the future.

Ukraine and Zelensky, in fact, can be compared, favorably, to Great Britain and Winston Churchill as they heroically fought back against Nazi Germany at the onset of World War II.

Russia, by contrast, is a bad country and its dictator, Vladimir Putin, is a bad man. Russia and Putin can be compared, unfavorably, to Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler as they savagely tried to conquer Europe during World War II.

And then, as now, the United States is doing the Lord’s work in supporting the forces of freedom and democracy. May it always be so.

Feature photo credit: Fox News’ host Tucker Carlson and left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald, courtesy of a Fox News screenshot.

Is Fox News’s LTC Daniel L. Davis (Ret.) on Putin’s Payroll?

It’s not just Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. Fox’s pro-Putin appeasers include a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel named Daniel Davis.

There has been a lot of criticism of Fox News primetime hosts Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson for their jarring pro-Putin, anti-Ukraine commentary.

This criticism is well-deserved. But retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a featured Fox News military commentator, is a far worse Putin shill or stooge.

And, alarmingly, insofar as I have seen, Davis’s pro-Putin propaganda on Fox goes unchallenged by the network’s anchors and reporters:

I report and truth decides. Here is Davis on Fox News, Feb. 24, 2022:

Davis: I think that we’re really misreading what’s going on with Putin here. I don’t think that he’s after trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. I think he means what he’s been saying for 15 years: that NATO and Ukraine is a redline that he will fight to prevent. And he proved it in 2008 with Georgia.

He proved it in 2014 with Crimea. And even as recently as last December, he was saying, “You guys just aren’t believing me. I was serious about this. This is a redline.” And then when he started building up these forces, he was showing us.

We [the United States] had every opportunity to just acknowledge reality and we should have pulled the NATO offer off the table for Ukraine.

That could probably have been the one thing that might have prevented this war entirely. But instead, we wanted to hold with principles and stuff and now the people of Ukraine are paying for that.

Now, let me be very clear: Nobody is responsible for the blood except for Vladimir Putin. Nobody. But we could have mitigated this. We could have.

Fox News Anchor Trace Gallagher: And, you know, Tulsi Gabbard kind of echoed that, Colonel, if you will. She was saying, you know, maybe somebody should have listened at least a little bit to what the President of Russia was saying.

Because if you were saying: Listen, I don’t want weapons. I don’t want NATO weapons that close to my country.

And you know, an example somebody gave tonight was: listen, the United States didn’t want Cuba to have NATO weapons [sic] that close to their country. So, you know, countries are very territorial and they don’t want that.

So, nobody is letting Putin off the hook by any stretch here, Colonel. But what you’re saying is that there might have been a pathway to resolve, earlier in this diplomatic debate.

Davis: One-hundred percent. I’ve been saying for months on this network that that very thing right there: that we had a shot to deescalate this and remove Vladimir Putin’s reason for actually launching an invasion.

Notice: Davis gives a quick and obligatory, pro forma denunciation of Putin as the person responsible for the Russian war against Ukraine. However, the thrust of his commentary is altogether different.

NATO Expansion. The thrust of Davis’s commentary is that America and NATO could have stoped Putin from invading Ukraine if they had simply recognized his “red line” concerning NATO membership.

But this is patently untrue, and we know it is untrue because Putin himself has explicitly said that his concern about Ukraine extends far beyond NATO. Putin views Ukraine as an allegedly lost Russia territory whose sovereignty and independence must be destroyed regardless of what becomes of NATO.

As I’ve explained here and in the Wall Street Journal, NATO’s expansion after the Cold War resulted from Russian threats and aggression; it did not cause Russian threats and aggression.

For Putin,

NATO expansion was always a convenient pretext, but never the reason, for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine… NATO [moreover], saved Europe from Russian military domination, and it would have deterred Russia this time had Ukraine been a NATO member.

Yet, despite this clear and unambiguous history, Gallagher adds insult to injury by agreeing with Davis (!) and saying “somebody should have listened at least a little bit to what the President of Russia was saying.”

Cuba. Gallagher then references Cuba and says, essentially, that when, back in 1962, the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, the United States took this as a hostile act. So of course, he argues, Russia views NATO encroachment in its near abroad as a hostile act.

Finally, Davis chimes in:

We have to acknowledge that if Russia was trying to have a military alliance with Mexico, and they were gonna put Russian troops on the ground there, there is no way we would ever be satisfied and okay with that.

And it is unrealistic for us to expect Putin to have the exact same thing on his border and be okay with it.

What Davis and Gallagher conveniently ignore: NATO is a defensive alliance of free, sovereign, and independent states.

Putin knows full well that Poland and other NATO countries have absolutely zero intention of ever invading Russia. Nor do non-NATO countries, such as Ukraine, have any interest in invading Russia or acting as a platform for a NATO invasion of Russia—and again, Putin knows this.

Historically speaking, in fact, the East European countries have never threatened Russia; Russia has threatened them, and that remains true today.

The Soviet Union, by contrast, was bent on world domination, which is why President Kennedy, in 1962, acted to ensure that Russian missiles were removed from Cuba.

So no, NATO in Europe near Russia today is not at all the equivalent of the Soviet Union in the Western hemisphere near the United States at the height of the Cold War. This is an utterly false equivalence.

Nor does Mexico have reason to fear an American invasion, which is why there never will be any Russian troops in Mexico. Again, this is a ludicrous analogy divorced from all political and historical reality.

Davis goes on:

All we have to do is just treat Russia the way we did all during the Cold War… We cooperated with them and we had an understanding: We wouldn’t get into their territory and they wouldn’t get into ours, and that was that balance there.

We have to now recognize that this is not 1994 anymore, and we can’t just tell them what is gonna happen, or we’re gonna have an even worse situation than we have now.

Again, this is factually and historically inaccurate and it is the counsel of appeasement. Seldom has so much disinformation and blatant pro-Putin propaganda been crammed into so few words.

What Davis euphemistically calls “cooperation” is appeasement, and that is not what guided American and NATO policy during the Cold War.

Instead, the United States and NATO checked the Soviets—in Greece, Turkey, Korea, Berlin, Cuba, Africa, Asia, Central America, and around the globe. And it is because we checked the Soviets that the Cold War ended and Eastern Europe was freed of Russian domination.

Yet, Davis says that Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, is “their territory,” meaning Russian territory. Putin, of course, agrees; but this is a lie. The countries of Eastern Europe—including Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine—are free and sovereign states, not “Russian territory” that ought to be ruled by Moscow.

So I ask you: is Daniel Davis a Russian stooge? Is he on Putin’s payroll? Or is he simply too historically illiterate and ill-informed to separate fact from fiction?

More to the point, why does Fox continue to feature Davis as a military commentator when he spouts such blatantly pro-Putin, anti-America propaganda? Does this enrich the public dialogue and debate? Is this fair and balanced?

Feature photo credit: Fox News military commentator Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (L) and Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher (R), captured via screen shots of a Fox News broadcast, Feb. 24, 2022.

Tuberville: Wrong about Some Things, but Right about the Nazis Being Socialists

The media think they caught Senator-Elect Tuberville speaking idiocy, but the real idiots are in the media.

When a politician misspeaks or says something that appears to be egregiously wrong, one of two things happens, and for two distinct reasons:

One. The remarks are mostly ignored and downplayed. The media recognize that the politician misspoke, or got something wrong, but don’t think his remarks are indicative of some larger and more important truth about the politician.

Everyone, after all, misspeaks and gets things wrong from time to time—even (and perhaps especially?) President-Elect Biden! It’s no big deal; there’s nothing to see here. Let’s move on.

Two. However, if the media believes that the misspoken or erroneous remarks reflect some larger truth about the politician—i.e., that he is ignorant and stupid—then his remarks are publicized and played up.

So it is that the media have castigated Senator-Elect Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) for making remarks that they believe are obviously ignorant and boneheaded during a recent interview with the Alabama Daily News.

As the New York Times reports, Tuberville

misidentified the three branches of the federal government, claimed erroneously that World War II was a battle against socialism, and wrongly asserted that former Vice President Al Gore was president-elect for 30 days.

Tuberville is a former football coach at Auburn University. He defeated former Republican Senator and Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions during the GOP primary.

Conservatives warned Alabama voters about Tuberville. He is “amazingly ignorant on national issues,” reported Quin Hillyer in the Washington Examiner.

“The national media,” he added, “will have a field day with Coach Tuberville.”

So this is no doubt the first of many Tuberville comments that the media will hold up as an example of Republican ignorance and stupidity.

Unfair enough. Despite the glaring double standard, if Tuberville or any other politician makes a boneheaded comment, they should be flagged and called out.

Of course, it would be nice for a change if Democratic politicians also were flagged and called out when they misspeak or say something stupid.

Errors. Be that as it may, Tuberville obviously erred when he referred to the House, the Senate, and the executive branch as the three branches of the federal government.

In fact, the three branches of the federal government are the executive branch or the presidency, the legislative branch (Senate and House), and the judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court.

The separation of powers, moreover, was designed to keep any one branch of government from having too much power; it was not designed to prevent any one political party from monopolizing the three branches of government.

And no, Al Gore was not President-Elect for 30 days before the Supreme Court intervened to stop a partial and selective recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

Still, Tuberville’s larger-scale point about allowing the political and legal processes to exhaust themselves before declaring a winner in the 2020 presidential election is perfectly sound and legitimate.

World War II. As for his claim that World War II was a fight against socialism, well, that, too, is not exactly right. There were many self-avowed socialists, after all, who were passionately anti-fascist, and who eagerly took up arms against Hitler.

It would be more precise to say that World War II (in Europe) was a fight against German Nazi imperialism, genocide, and tyranny.

With that obvious acknowledgment or caveat, let it also be said: Tuberville is not completely wrong. He makes a legitimate point.

The Nazis, after all, called themselves the National Socialist German Workers’ Party for a reason: As Jonah Goldberg observes, “they were socialists.

National Socialists or Nazis. Goldberg knows of what he speaks. He has written the definitive book, Liberal Fascism, on the collectivist or socialist roots of American progressivism, Russian communism, Italian Fascism, and German Nazism.

As the Amazon writeup for Liberal Fascism explains:

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”).

They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education.

They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life.

The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control.

They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage.

These are indisputable political and historical facts. So yes, in a very real sense, Tuberville is absolutely right:

His dad did, indeed, fight in World War II to free Europe of socialism—a particularly virulent and genocidal strain or variant of socialism, to be sure, but socialism nonetheless.

Media Ignorance. Yet, this hasn’t stopped clueless media types from smugly berating Tuberville for his supposed ignorance about World War II.

But in truth, it is they who are ignorant, not Tuberville. They are ignorant of the collectivist or socialist nature of German fascism or Nazism.

Conclusion. It is perfectly fine to criticize Tuberville if or when he makes genuinely stupid and erroneous remarks; however, people in glass houses really should not throw stones.

The truth is that many journalists and wordsmiths are guilty of the same sins—political and historical ignorance and a gross lack of understanding—for which they so smugly castigate Tuberville.

They could use—we all could use—a little more humility, introspection, and learning before casting stones.

Feature photo credit: Senator-Elect Tommy Tuberville, courtesy of Al.com.

Fake News Reported by the Washington Post: Trump’s Estimate of 60,000 Coronavirus Deaths

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes that President Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, has been too optimistic, and differs from the estimate given by one of his chief medical advisers, Deborah Birx, M.D.

Another instance of Trump ignoring the medical and scientific experts because he doesn’t want to hear bad and politically inconvenient truths?

That, of course, is what “progressive” journalists would have us believe. However, the facts in this particular case don’t support the left-wing narrative.

As Blake reports, in recent weeks, Trump has said there would be between 50,000 and 60,000 deaths. Yet, yesterday (May 3, 2020), on Fox News Sunday, Birx “told Chris Wallace:

“Our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 America lives lost, and that’s with full mitigation and us learning from each other of how to social distance.”

“That contradicts what Trump said,” Blake notes—“and even what he went on to say later in the day.

“The president hasn’t just offered a more optimistic tone on the death toll; on April 20, he suggested 50,000 to 60,000 deaths had actually replaced the previous 100,000-to-240,000 goal that he had said would constitute a successful response.”

“We are at over 66,000 deaths, with little sign in recent weeks of any significant downturn,” Blake notes.

Fauci’s Estimate. OK, but here’s the problem with Blake’s (left-wing) narrative: Trump didn’t just pull his estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 coronavirus deaths out of thin air.

Instead, he was given that estimate from another prominent medical adviser, one Anthony Fucci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

How do I know this? Because I reported it here at ResCon1 back on April 9 when referencing an April 9, 2020, report by National Public Radio.

The title of that NPR report: “Fauci Says U.S. Coronavirus Deaths May ‘Be More Like 60,000’; Antibody Tests on Way.”

National Public Radio, I wrote,

reports that, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “the final toll currently ‘looks more like 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000’ that U.S. officials previously estimated.”

NPR’s Bill Chappell:

Fauci, America’s leading expert on infectious diseases and a key member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, also said that antibody tests have been developed and will be available “very soon.”

[…]

The new projection sharply undercuts an estimate Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made just 11 days ago. In late March, he said “between 100,000 and 200,000” people in the U.S. could die from COVID-19.

The 60,000 figure is reflected in a new projection by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, or IHME, a research center at the University of Washington.

The estimate predicts the U.S. death toll through early August; it also predicts that COVID-19 deaths will peak in this country on April 11.

Dr. Birx may believe that “our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 American lives lost” to the coronavirus; but that’s not what her Trump administration colleague, Dr. Fauci, told the president. 

Unfair Criticism. It is fair and reasonable to hold Trump accountable for his erratic and undisciplined remarks. However, it is unfair and unreasonable to blame him for relying on information given to him by one medical adviser (Dr. Fauci) that contradicts the information given to him by another medical adviser (Dr. Birx).

Moreover, while Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, this is more a reflection of changing circumstances than deliberate or willful lying, distortion, and exaggeration.

Scientists and researchers, in fact, have revised, and continue to revise, their estimates as they learn more about the coronavirus. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Facts are stubborn things. They don’t always comport with left-wing journalists’ prefabricated, anti-Trump narrative. Give the president his due—and hold his medical advisers, Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci, to account.

Feature photo credit: Internewscast.

A Lesson in Left-Wing Media Bias: the NYT Obits of Sen. Tom Coburn and Fidel Castro

The media lean overwhelmingly to the left. This should be obvious to anyone who is a serious consumer of news and information. But here’s a very timely and illustrative example of this bias, courtesy of eagle-eyed John Tabin.

It concerns the New York Times’ coverage of former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), a highly principled conservative who, sadly, passed away Saturday at the age of 72 due to complications with prostate cancer.

Coburn was always “direct, thoughtful, and principled,” tweets Washington Examiner executive editor Philip Klein. “He will be sorely missed. RIP.”

He “was one of the finest public servants of my lifetime,” adds Klein’s colleague, Washington Examiner columnist Quin Hillyer:

[A] practicing obstetrician, [Coburn] combined fierce devotion to principle with rigorous intellectual integrity and tremendous personal decency.

One of the most hard-line conservatives in first the House and then the Senate, he nonetheless enjoyed the respect and friendship of many liberal Democrats.

Not the least of these was President Barack Obama, with whom he reportedly spoke in private, as a friend and sounding board, almost weekly throughout Obama’s White House tenure…

When Coburn arrived on Capitol Hill in the “Gingrich Revolution” Republican class of 1994, he was an unyielding ideologue.

Even then, though, there was a difference: Whereas some super-hard-liners are full of sound and fury without much thoughtfulness, Coburn obviously had depth and intellect…

Rather than being a gadfly, Coburn became an effective leader, without ever doing the “go-along to get-along” kind of games.

He began publishing an annual Wastebook highlighting absurd government spending and also a weekly “pork report” listing egregious examples of wasteful projects from almost every federal agency.

He took the lead in opposing Obamacare while pushing real healthcare reforms of a conservative variety, some of which have gone into law piecemeal over the years even without passage in a single, comprehensive bill.

And, often working with Democrats, he became a leader in providing effective congressional oversight and insisting that government operate with public transparency.

As Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan put it, Coburn was “tough, fearless, and more interested in facts than politics.”

Yet, the lead sentence of the New York Times obituary of Coburn describes him as an “ultraconservative” “crusader” and legislative obstructionist whom “frustrated legislators” called “Dr. No.”

In other words, Coburn wasn’t a very pleasant fellow. He was ornery and disagreeable, and he was always blocking and obstructing legislative progress. Boo!

By contrast, the lead sentence of the New York Times obituary of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro describes him as

the fiery apostle of revolution who brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere in 1959 and then defied the United States for nearly half a century as Cuba’s maximum leader, bedeviling 11 American presidents and briefly pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war, died on Friday. 

The Times’ obit is accompanied by a glamorous photo of Fidel smoking a cigar and looking cool, thoughtful, and contemplative. Castro must have been an interesting and colorful character! the reader is lead to believe.

I mean, who is this “fiery apostle of revolution” who, almost miraculously, outfoxed the United States decade after decade?!

In fact, Castro was a sadistic dictator who authorized the murder of tens of thousands of Cubans, while forcing the island into a decades-long immiseration that continues to this day.

People streamed out of the country, if they were able,” recalled National Review

Over the years of the Castro regime, one million Cubans have gone into exile. Some Cubans have been shot in the water, in their attempts to flee.

On one day—July 13, 1994—there was an infamous massacre, the Tugboat Massacre: Castro’s forces killed 37 would-be escapees, most of them children and their mothers.

What kind of regime does this? What kind of regime would rather kill people, in cold blood, than see them leave? Than see them have a free life?

The Castro regime, and it has been very popular, though not in Cuba.

This is how the media’s left-wing bias works. It’s not that they report outright lies and falsehoods, or blatantly “fake news.” That would be too egregious and noticeable.

Instead, it is that they use language and prose that shows real sympathy, understanding, and indulgence toward political figures on the left, but considerable skepticism and hostility toward political figures on the right.

And that is how and why the New York Times—one of the greatest newspapers in history and one of the greatest newspapers still even today—can write admiringly of a vicious tyrant like Fidel Castro, while writing critically of a dedicated family man and patriot like Tom Coburn.

Don’t call it fake news. Call it twisted and distorted news.

Feature post credit: Poynter.