https://www.westernjournal.com/things-get-ugly-msnbcs-maddow-forced-defend-russi...

Things Get Ugly as MSNBC's Maddow Forced To Defend Russia Collusion Lies in Court

By C. Douglas Golden
Published December 4, 2019 at 9:29am
When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow uses the word “literally,” she doesn’t really mean “literally.” That’s especially true when she’s accusing conservative news outlets of colluding with the Kremlin. Got that?

That’s at least her defense for saying that conservative cable network One America News was “literally … paid Russian propaganda” after a Daily Beast report claimed one of OAN’s reporters worked for Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik.

The whole thing began with a July 22 Daily Beast report titled, “Trump’s New Favorite Channel Employs Kremlin-Paid Journalist.”

That article noted that Kristian Brunovich Rouz, who reported on U.S. politics for the channel — a favorite of President Trump’s — also worked for Sputnik at the same time.

This is not, of course, an endorsement of OAN’s editorial decision in the matter, which seems problematic.

I’m not saying working for Sputnik should permanently disqualify you from work in American media, but you shouldn’t be working for any American publication at the same time you’re writing for what’s ostensibly a Russian disinformation outlet.

I wasn’t there when that employment decision was made, so I can’t speak to whether it was the correct one — but I can tell you what my take on Rouz’s employment would have been.

That being said, employing one journalist who works for a Russian disinformation outlet doesn’t make you a Russian disinformation outlet. I would think this is pretty much common sense. In fact, claiming otherwise would probably qualify you for a defamation suit.

So, you can probably guess why Maddow is now in court dealing with a $10 million legal action from OAN.

Meanwhile Michael Bloomberg, billionaire and news mogul has entered the race.

"Bloomberg News will not investigate Mike Bloomberg or his Democratic rivals during primary

    Bloomberg News will refrain from investigating Mike Bloomberg or his Democratic rivals in the primaries, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.

    Mike Bloomberg officially entered the 2020 Democratic presidential race Sunday.

    Bloomberg News’ investigations into President Trump will proceed."


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-investigate-mike-bloombe...

Can you say "conflict of interest"?

Or perhaps something more believable -

"Bloomberg news service under fire for ban on investigating owner "

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomberg-news-service-inv...

Karnal wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 12:18pm:


I don't think you'll get an answer, the dear one will likely be too busy fantasising about her male parts again...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/the-gateway-pundit-and-epoch-times-bann...

The Gateway Pundit and Epoch Times Banned by Wikipedia Over Truthful Reporting on Ukraine and Russia Hoax

by Jim Hoft December 20



T. D. Adler at Breitbart News today reported the Wikipedia blacklists now include The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit for our truthful reporting on Russiagate.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gatew...

China critics the Epoch Times and conservative outlet the Gateway Pundit have been banned from use as reliable sources on Wikipedia in the latest cases of news outlets that support President Trump being banned from the online encyclopedia. The Epoch Times ban proposal cited NBC’s hit piece on the site over its coverage of improprieties in the Russia investigation, commonly called Spygate, which prompted smear efforts against the outlet on Wikipedia. Gateway Pundit was proposed for a ban shortly after Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times Wikipedia ban proposal was apparently prompted by one of its articles being cited on the Wikipedia page for Joseph Mifsud, a key controversial figure in the origins of the discredited Russia investigation. Gateway Pundit’s ban was in response to the outlet being cited for past media silence over Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

Over the past year, Wikipedia editors have been on a banning spree targeting conservative news sources. Having previously banned the Daily Mail as a source, the following year marked the beginning of an acceleration of the process. Since then, editors have imposed similar bans on fifteen other sites aside from Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit. While some data-focused sites and state-owned outlets in Venezuela and Iran have also been banned, the bulk of the sites banned have been conservative-leaning news outlets. Breitbart News was blacklisted as a “reliable source” on Wikipedia in 2018…

…Gateway Pundit’s ban came from a proposal soon after the proposed ban for Epoch Times. The ban proposal came in response to editor “BullRangifer” removing a 2017 piece criticizing media silence on Ukraine colluding with Democrats to influence the 2016 election. The article was originally added to frame Gateway Pundit as “fueling conspiracy theories” related to the impeachment inquiry over Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In fact, the piece correctly noted Politico’s coverage of DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa soliciting Ukrainian interference and then-Democratic minority leader of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff expressing concerns about the reported interference.

Criticism of Gateway Pundit was harsher during the ban discussion, though still predominantly from left-wing editors. Some regarded the outlet as unreliable, but argued against a full sourcing ban as they believed some legitimate uses may exist. In addition to Simonm223, who also voted for the ban, editors advocating a ban included “Snooganssnoogans” and “Volunteer Marek” who each have a history of smearing the outlet on Wikipedia.

Editor “Snoogansnoogans” previously added a description to Gateway Pundit’s Wikipedia article stating the site “is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.” Marek a year later labeled the outlet a “fake news website” and each description persists to this day in some way despite initially not being based on any sources considered “reliable” on Wikipedia. However, those labels and descriptions subsequently made their way to major media outlets. Those outlets were later cited to back up the material on Wikipedia, in an apparent “citogenesis” case, referring to a form of circular sourcing.