Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

Media bias

Coulter: Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, and the Case Against Mob Justice

by Leave a Comment

One of the main arguments being advanced by Eric Nelson, sole defense attorney for Derek Chauvin in his trial for the murder of George Floyd, is that the hostile crowd itself prevented the officers from attempting to perform CPR in the last minutes of Floyd’s life.

Even the prosecution’s “use of force” experts admitted repeatedly on cross-examination that a hostile crowd would justify Chauvin keeping Floyd restrained until an ambulance arrived. An officer’s duty to provide care is overridden by his duty to keep himself, the suspect and the bystanders safe.

As was evident from the videos (and admitted to by the bystander witnesses), they were shouting obscenities at the police, threatening them with bodily harm and, in a few instances, had to be held back from rushing the officers.

And of course, because of the presence of the angry crowd, the EMTs themselves did not stick around to provide care, but did a “load and scoot,” heaving Floyd into the back of the ambulance and driving three blocks to get away from the mob on the street. They didn’t even want to work inside an ambulance near this feisty group.

As it becomes increasingly obvious that the belligerent onlookers themselves may have gotten George Floyd killed by creating a dangerous situation for the officers, media commentators leap in to do backup work for the prosecutors by sneering at the idea that the officers might have felt threatened by a few rowdy teenagers.

Oh, the big pansies! So, a few teenagers yelled at the officers. Show me just ONE example of disaffected urban youth going from agitation to brawling!

Here’s one! One recent Saturday morning in May 2019, six teens beat the crap out of an off-duty firefighter on the Upper East Side because he stepped in to defend an elderly couple from the youths’ harassment.

And here’s another: A mob in Chicago attacked an older white man in 2016 for voting for Trump.

This one is outside a church in Memphis in 2016 after services. The instigating event is entirely unknown.

But the police were armed! Yeah, what are they going to do if one of the bystanders rushed them? Shoot him? Shoot them all?

Here’s a video of (armed) cops making an arrest in the middle of a crowd of rowdy teenagers at a carnival two years ago.

And here’s a 2019 video of a mob of students surrounding an (armed) police officer restraining a student. One student kicked him in the face.

Here’s a brawl that broke out in 2017 after a woman on a bus was bumped with a book bag. The mayhem continued with an attack on (armed) police officers called to the scene, who were bitten and spit upon. One boy tried to take an officer’s gun.

So, yes, I see your point, MSNBC, it’s completely crazy for the officers to have felt threatened by the agitated crowd of urban youth hurling epithets at them.

At least we can count on our media to report fairly on any case of a black man dying in police custody.

No, my mistake! For important news about America, we turn to the British press. It seems that Floyd had a long list of criminal convictions, including holding a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly during a home invasion robbery in Texas. (See here.)

You won’t read about that in the New York Times! The Times briefly mentioned a “home invasion” in a single article about Floyd last June (27th paragraph – seriously). I guess they didn’t have space to mention Floyd’s pistol-whipping a pregnant woman.

Even the Texas Monthly’s major retrospective of Floyd’s life skimmed past the violent home invasion in a few sentences about his period of “struggle”: “In 2009, Floyd went to prison after pleading guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.”

That was it, in a deep dive article on Floyd’s life that was 1,500 words long.

It seems like an intriguing story to me. How about an interview with the victim, media? Anyone interested?Nah, let’s get to the story on Officer Chauvin’s taxes!

Yes, the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Oakdale Police Department have done their part for BLM by poring over Officer Chauvin’s state tax returns and are now charging him with “tax fraud.” They claim that, over the past five years, Chauvin and his wife underpaid the State of Minnesota about $21,000 in taxes. There’s a real clickbait story!

There have been hundreds of news stories on Chauvin’s alleged tax fraud. (George Floyd, I assume, was always punctilious about his taxes. Probably an early filer.)

Rioting is good for ratings. Don’t expect the media to report the truth.

COPYRIGHT 2021 ANN COULTER

Project Veritas: CNN Director Admits, 'Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out of Office'

by Leave a Comment

A Project Veritas undercover investigation published Tuesday revealed CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester acknowledging his company’s focus on removing President Donald Trump from the White House.

In a montage of surreptitiously recorded video, Chester made many remarks about CNN’s partisan political mission and deceptive conduct. He also credited CNN as an essential tool in the ousting of Trump,

“Look what we did, we got Trump out. I am 100 percent going to say it, and I 100 percent believe that if it wasn’t for CNN, I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out. … I came to CNN because I wanted to be a part of that,” Chester stated.

CNN invited “medical people” to undermine public confidence in Trump’s health via innuendo and speculation, Chester admitted.

He said, “[Trump’s] hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to tell a story that was all speculation that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it. He’s unfit to, you know, whatever. We were creating a story there that we didn’t know anything about. That’s what, I think that’s propaganda.”

Chester noted that CNN simultaneously sought to present then-presidential candidate Joe Biden as vital and in good health despite the former vice president’s cognitive decline and medical history of brain aneurysms.

“We would always show shots of  [Biden] jogging and that [he’s] healthy, you know, and him in aviator shades,” he remarked. “Like you paint him as a young geriatric.”

Chester stated CNN plans to frame “climate change” — a narrative framing human consumption of fossil fuels as a driver of a warming planet — as “the next COVID thing for CNN” with the ethos “fear sells.”

He forecasted, “[COVID] will taper off to a point that it’s not a problem, anymore. Climate change can take years, so [CNN will] probably be able to milk that quite a bit. … Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN. … Fear sells.”

“I think there’s a COVID fatigue,” he added. “So, like whenever a new story comes up, [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They’ve already announced in our office that once the public is — will be open to it — we’re going to start focusing mainly on climate.”

“[Climate change] is going to be our focus,” he predicted. “Like our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that’s what it was, right? So, our next thing is going to be for climate change awareness.”

CNN previously branded itself “The Most Trusted Name In News.” It markets itself as a politically objective and non-partisan news media outlet.

Scientific American to begin using term 'climate emergency,' says it 'agreed with major news outlets worldwide' to do so

by Leave a Comment

Scientific American — the longtime publication that covers the “intersection of science and society” — announced Monday that it will begin using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change.

In publishing the op-ed “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So,” senior editor Mark Fischetti called attention to the magazine’s decision, which insists that “this is a statement of science, not politics.”

A Scientific American tweet added that it “agreed with major news outlets worldwide” in enacting the “climate emergency” terminology:

What else does Scientific American have to say?

The magazine said that adopting the term “climate emergency” is “not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground.”

The op-ed went on to cite a January article from its pages that noted “more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9, another 2,100 had signed on.”

The magazine, further citing the article, said that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Fischetti wrote that “journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here.”

What does the magazine’s statement say?

The op-ed included Scientific American’s formal statement:

April 12, 2021


From Covering Climate Now, Scientific American, Columbia Journalism Review, the Nation, the Guardian, Noticias Telemundo, Al Jazeera, Asahi Shimbun and La Repubblica:

The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here.


This is a statement of science, not politics. Thousands of scientists—including James Hansen, the NASA scientist who put the problem on the public agenda in 1988, and David King and Hans Schellnhuber, former science advisers to the British and German governments, respectively—have said humanity faces a “climate emergency.”


Why “emergency”? Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires and ice melt of 2020 routine and could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned the January Scientific American article.


The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting [sic] impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).


We need the same commitment to the climate story. As partners in Covering Climate Now, a global consortium of hundreds of news outlets, we will present coverage in the lead-up to Earth Day, April 22, 2021, around the theme “Living Through the Climate Emergency.” We invite journalists everywhere to join us.

How did folks react?

The response to Scientific American’s announcement on Twitter that it will begin using the term “climate emergency” was a mixed bag. Some commenters heartily agreed with the magazine, while others did not.

One user wrote “this is so scary; you can blame the Republicans for destroying our planet,” while another commenter replied, “Please do explain how that is? Also any peer reviewed papers you’ve written on the subject of how a political party is responsible for the climate of Earth.” Another user quipped, “Still waiting for Al Gore’s predictions to come true.”

CNN's Brian Stelter complains that Fox News hosts aren't sharing 'vaccine selfies'

by Leave a Comment

CNN host Brian Stelter complained Sunday that Fox News hosts are not sharing “vaccine selfies” to help promote the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Current data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that about 22% of the American population is fully vaccinated, and 187 million doses of vaccine have been administered as of Monday morning.

What did Stelter say?

Despite millions of vaccine dose administrations per day in the United States, Stelter claimed that “it is important to see all of the TV anchors, personalities showing themselves getting the shot.”

Then he turned to the alleged importance of “vaccine selfies.”

“We’ve seen a lot of vaccine selfies from lots of folks at lots of different networks. It’s been really inspiring to see,” Stelter said. “The ‘Today’ show even brought the co-hosts outside for a live group vaccination this week.”

Citing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who vocalized fears about receiving the vaccine but did so anyway, Stelter questioned why Fox News hosts are not following their mainstream media counterparts.

“So, I say all of that to make the following point: Where are Tucker [Carlson] and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham? Where is Ainsley Earhardt and Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade? Where are the biggest stars on Fox getting vaccinated?” Stelter complained.

“I get it is a personal choice between the hosts and their health care provider,” he continued. “But everybody else is doing it … all across television, all of those anchors are rolling up their sleeves.”

In response, Media Matters senior fellow Matt Gertz said “Fox has a really unique responsibility here.”

In fact, Gertz asserted that by not being more vocal about COVID-19 vaccination, Fox News hosts “are raising questions about its effectiveness, raising questions about whether it is dangerous. That does a lot of damage.”

“Steve Doocy should get vaccinated live on ‘Fox and Friends,'” Gertz suggested, to which Stelter replied, “Absolutely.”

Anything else?

Despite their concerns with Fox News hosts, many top Democrats sowed distrust in COVID-19 vaccine last year when they were being developed under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.

Vice President Kamala Harris suggested last September that she would not receive the vaccine because she believed Trump would rush the development process to bolster support among voters.

“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump, and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about,” Harris said. “I will not take his word for it.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) also sowed distrust about the vaccine because of Trump.

“I’m not that confident, but my opinion doesn’t matter. I don’t believe the American people are that confident,” Cuomo said last October. “You’re going to say to the American people now, ‘Here’s a vaccine, it was new, it was done quickly, but trust this federal administration and their health administration that it’s safe’? We’re not 100 percent sure of the consequences? I think it’s going to be a very skeptical American public about taking the vaccine, and they should be!”

Twitter suspends Maxim journalist for allegedly impersonating … herself?

by Leave a Comment

On the first of April, Zeynep Yenisey received an email from Twitter and thought she was being pranked.

Yenisey, a journalist who writes for Maxim magazine covering lifestyle, travel, and men’s style, was unceremoniously informed that her Twitter account was in violation of Twitter Rules and had been suspended. She was told it will not be restored.

The violation?

Twitter accused Yenisey of impersonating herself.

“It has come to our attention that your Twitter account is in violation of the Twitter Rules, specifically the policy on impersonation,” Twitter wrote to Yenisey. “Impersonation is pretending to be another entity in order to deceive, and is strictly prohibited.”

Provided by Zeynep Yenisey

This accusation was understandably confusing for a journalist who has bylines in Maxim, NBC, Cosmopolitan, and Dr. Oz and who shared her personal email in her Twitter bio. The account is demonstrably her own and she was willing to work with Twitter to correct what appears to be a preposterous error.

But Yenisey told TheBlaze in an interview that Twitter ignored her repeated attempts to appeal the decision.

“They just nuked me without any warning or explanation,” Yenisey said. “I’ve never even gotten a temporary suspension or ever been asked to delete any tweets in the ten years I’ve been on Twitter. I thought they normally give you a slap on the wrist if you go into the no-no zone and temporarily lock your account if their useless A.I. decides it doesn’t like you. But no, they just went right ahead and permanently suspended me without any explanation and without giving me an opportunity to verify my identity.”

Yenisey says she attempted to contact Twitter and appeal her account’s suspension at least 10 times, but Twitter “ghosted me like a bad date.”

“The only time they responded was after the first appeal to tell me they’re confident I’m impersonating myself,” Yenisey said. “It’s like yelling at a brick wall.”

Reached for comment, Twitter did not respond to multiple requests from TheBlaze asking for an explanation for Yenisey’s account suspension.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has previously committed to making his company’s content moderation policies more transparent amid accusations of censorship from conservatives, but his company has a frustrating habit of taking enforcement actions against users without explaining how or why their accounts violated the rules.

Yenisey is among those frustrated. Because she couldn’t log into her personal account, she created a new account with the joking handle “ThisIsNotZeynep,” but she says Twitter gave her second account a temporary suspension for impersonation and prevented her followers from seeing her tweets.

In a blog post on her personal website, Yenisey speculated that her account was suspended for ulterior reasons, noting that she was banned “after one of my tweets that softly went against the tightly controlled narrative went viral and got the attention and follows of the likes of Dr. Sebastian Gorka, master CRT-destroyer James Lindsay, and Ian Miles Cheong.”

Yenisey’s March 29 tweet, which was retweeted over 10,000 times, raised concerns about being asked to take an “experimental vaccine” when she is young, healthy, and at relatively low-risk of contracting a life-threatening case of COVID-19.

Provided by Zeynep Yenisey

“It’s blindingly obvious that my suspension was entirely political,” Yenisey wrote.

She elaborated on this point to TheBlaze, accusing Twitter of censoring free speech in a way that’s “stupid and messed up to the point it’s comical.”

“Even if the Twitter overlords say they made a mistake and give me my account back, I think we can all agree that it wasn’t a mistake. I mean, come on. That’s just gaslighting. They even temporarily suspended and then heavily restricted my new account. It’s almost as if someone at Twitter has a personal vendetta against me,” Yenisey said.

“There was that recent NYU study that said social media platforms aren’t biased against conservatives, but anyone who has two brain cells to rub together knows that’s a lie,” she added, referring to a February report published by researchers at New York University that asserted claims that social media companies like Facebook and Twitter censor conservative points of view are false.

The study challenged claims that conservative points of view are suppressed against by reviewing evidence that shows news stories published by conservative media and shared by right-leaning influencers are heavily engaged with on social media on levels comparable or exceeding mainstream media content. The study also claimed that facts don’t support charges against Twitter that it disproportionately suspends or bans conservative accounts, but it did acknowledge “pinning down precise proportions is impossible because Twitter doesn’t release sufficient data.”

The researchers recommended that social media companies share more data with third parties for transparency and so they could be held accountable for their actions.

“Something needs to be done to regulate Big Tech’s corrupt, overwhelming power,” Yenisey told TheBlaze. “A handful of awful people are able to silence and disappear anyone they want in the blink of an eye, and they’re not even being subtle about it. No reasonable person can think this is fine. Censorship isn’t something to be applauded, and currently, it’s out of control.”