This is grotesque.

I never imagined that I would ever see the press advocate censorship, but apparently their fear about competition and ideological meltdown has turned the former guardians of free speech into another corrupt guild bent on using government power to stifle competition.

Or could they be desperately trying to stifle a pedophile scandal from being exposed?

//White House press secretary Josh Earnest was forced to remind the press corps the federal government can’t censor news because of the First Amendment, in a bizarre exchange during a White House press briefing Monday.

“Obviously, there are some important First Amendment issues that come into play when we’re having this discussion,” Earnest said, rebuffing a call for the White House to work toward censoring “fake news” on social media. He brought up the constitutional prohibition on censorship three more times before the conversation ended.

New York Times White House correspondent Gardiner Harris had asked Earnest whether the administration treats threats based on “fake news” — such as the man who recently entered a Washington, D.C., pizza shop with a gun to investigate something he read online — the same as it treats terror threats. The implication was that the White House should get Facebook to censor “fake news” the same way it has pushed Facebook to censor these terrorists.

You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“I’ve never heard you talk about what the administration is doing, even not just on a law enforcement basis but a policy basis, reaching out to these Silicon Valley companies,” he said to Earnest. “I mean, the President has recently been discussing the problem of fake news on Facebook. Why hasn’t there been a concern — a growing concern on the part of the administration about what seems to be a growing amount of vitriol directed at a variety of people, sometimes violent vitriol, within the United States?”//

There's "fake news" and then there's news that Americans aren't permitted to hear by the news media that decides what's news.

Given the documented violence and the incitement of hatred against Trump supporters, does anyone really doubt that these things happened?

//At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn’t publish the results in its report on Trump-related “hate crimes.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 million mostly Democratic members. The survey was sent out to K-12 teachers and administrators who subscribe to its “Teaching Tolerance” newsletter.

The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.”

The takeaway was that Trump-supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation’s schools. And SPLC’s schools report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump-inspired hate crimes — “Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election” — sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media.

The reports also triggered a statement Friday from the US Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed “deep concern” that “prejudice has reared its ugly head in public elementary and secondary schools.” The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute “hate crimes.”

But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”

Bokenkamp did not provide an explanation for the absence of such a substantial metric — at least 2,000 bias-related incidents against white students — from the report, which focuses instead on “anti-immigrant sentiment,” “anti-Muslim sentiment” and “slurs about students of color” related to the election.

“They left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative,” former Education Department civil rights attorney Hans Bader said. “It was deemed an inconvenient truth.”

The scourge of fake news.

This truly qualifies as fake news and it is the reason that Americans have such contempt for the media. Please read the article and notice that the reporters has steadfastly failed to identify the party affiliation of the "faithless electors."

//At least six electors — members of the Electoral College whose votes actually elect the President — have vowed to cast ballots that don't align with the popular vote results of their states, Politico reported Tuesday.

If they carry out their intentions — in effect, becoming "faithless electors" — they would narrow Donald Trump's margin-of-victory in the Electoral College over Hillary Clinton.

One elector, Michael Baca said in a statement that he wouldn’t vote for Trump.//

Wow!!!

That sounds bad.....except that Michael Baca is an elector from Colorado, which Hillary won.  For those of us without an investment in "fake news" that means that Baca is a Hillary-elector. He was never going to vote Trump and if he votes for someone other than the person he was selected to vote for, then Hillary's Electoral College vote goes down and Trump's margin goes up.


Here is Michael Baca - apparently it was too difficult for the NY Daily News to find this information, which identifies Baca as a Democrat.


The other faithless elector mentioned in the article - Bret Chiafalo -  is from Washington, i.e. another Hillary state and another Hillary elector.

So, the truth is the opposite of what the article presents - these electors are increasing Trump's margin, not reducing it.

So, is this fake news?

Why don't Americans trust the media?

Stuff like this.

ABC stages live shot crime scene.