Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, December 12, 2024
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post

The most damning journalistic sin committed by the media during the era of Russia collusion is one that could easily be repeated.

Though no credentialed member of that industry will ever say as much, there’s a very good reason why that story—a conspiracy theory that had former president Donald Trump working with Russians to steal the 2016 election—was ever given life.

Simply stated, the media wanted Russia collusion to be true.

A similar fiasco could most certainly play out again involving anything having to do with Trump again sans hardly any effort at all from the press.

All it would take is a willingness to ignore facts, lack curiosity, and be hell-bent on taking narrative creation to places never seen before.

In other words, it could happen—guaranteed—if the media does exactly what it began doing immediately following Trump’s shock win back in 2016. 

That was when members of that industry took to convincing themselves that there was simply no way that an uncouth reality TV braggart with lousy table manners could’ve legitimately won the presidency. 

As far as those supposed champions of democracy were concerned, something—something sinister—had to have been at play.

There was never anything to reporters, commentators, news anchors, and editors believing and cheering on anything to do with Russia collusion.

Pushing a convoluted Russian plot concocted in the “Steele dossier” for over two-years starting in January of 2017 was really no trouble for any of them at all.

In short, that farce theorized that Trump was a longtime Russian asset—a Kremlin stooge—working at the pleasure of Vladimir Putin.  

The two of them—Russia’s president and then candidate Trump—somehow conspired— “colluded”—to rob Hillary Clinton of a turn at leading the free world.

Quite curiously, once leaks from anonymous sources began circulating throughout the media when federal investigations into collusion went full throttle, many who spent their entire careers reporting could no longer spot hearsay and innuendo.  

Worse than that, few in the media were ever curious to learn how a conspiracy between Russia and Trump could somehow manage to go completely unnoticed by U.S. intelligence.  

Anyone that closely followed the media’s Russian fantasy knows that “Crossfire Hurricane”—the FBI’s code name for its investigation into Trump 2016 campaign activity—was only launched after the world’s premier law enforcement agency received a tip from an Australian diplomat claiming to have heard a Trump campaign hanger-on making mentions of Russia in a downtown London bar.

In addition to that, the much-hyped Steele dossier turned out to be a Democrat Party funded political opposition research product drafted by a former British MI-6 intelligence service spy doing contract work for an American firm that passed it on to the FBI. 

Why do points about U.K. bar conversation and Democrat chicanery even matter?

Quite simply, they blow everything about Russia collusion right out of the water.

To get down to brass tacks, believing in Trump collusion with Russia knowing that U.S. intelligence wasn’t already all over it—red hot—prior to receiving a couple unsolicited assists from some very suspect actors would be believing that America has the sorriest intelligence capabilities on the planet. 

The fact that no one in the media ever wanted to have that widely known and understood isn’t surprising.

That industry had no incentive to stop benefitting off a bogus narrative.

Despite being some of the most mediocre fiction ever imagined, there’s no questioning that Russia collusion reignited the American public’s interest
in news.  

New subscriptions to print outlets were record-breaking when stories covering that hoax regularly appeared on front pages.  

Web traffic on media sites was off-the-charts, as were the ratings over on broadcast and cable news networks.  

What about the fact that Russia collusion was never true for a single second, according to the official findings of two Department of Justice special counsel investigations?

At this point, that’s inconsequential. 

The media has already moved on.

Everyone in that industry is busy gearing up to ace an assortment of other Trump-related stories that will tackle alleged espionage and catastrophic damages done to national security over the next few months.

Trump’s recent reveal of having received a DOJ target letter, related to an ongoing special counsel investigation probing events on January 6, 2021, suggest that an indictment potentially charging sedition is also likely forthcoming.  

Many ready to hit it hard couldn’t be happier going in thinking that the worst allegations being leveled against Trump are all undoubtedly true.

What could possibly go wrong?

The most damning journalistic sin committed by

Crowd of people walking the city streets while wearing masks during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Crowd of people walking the city streets while wearing masks during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The first ecological study of mask mandates in U.S. states released by the University of Louisville finds mask mandates were not effective at slowing the spread of coronavirus (Covid-19), meaning they did not work. The results challenge the prevailing wisdom of pandemic policy that continues to dominate corporate media narrative and policy-makers.

Damian D. Guerra (Biology at University of Louisville) and Daniel J. Guerra (Biochemistry at VerEvMed, Clarkston) hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use would be “associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates” in the U.S. However, after calculating total COVID-19 case growth and mask use, the authors of the study entitled “Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment” stated “case growth was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal.”

“Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges,” the study concluded. “Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies.”

Rich Baris, editor of data journalism at People’s Pundit Daily and host of Inside The Numbers With the People’s Pundit, reviewed similar data during an episode in April 2021. Using a similar but slightly different methodology than the authors of the study, he concluded the ineffectiveness of mask mandates was not limited to the U.S.

“There is no statistical correlation between mask mandates and a reduction in infections, or ‘slowing the spread’, which turned into ‘stopping the spread’, altogether,” Baris stated. “There isn’t a state or a nation that you can point to”, he added, citing myriad reasons why it is not statistically sound for proponents of mandates to use Japan as their “go-to” example.

The first ecological study finds mask mandates

On “What Are the Odds?” Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris slam big tech for arbitrary social media bans, noting Collusion Hoaxers and Hamas have more free speech rights than Donald Trump.

Watch Full — Barnes and Baris Episode 32: What Are the Odds?
https://youtu.be/yzbZM9KPjCA

Support Locals Communities

Viva Barnes Law Community: https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/

People’s Pundit Community: https://peoplespundit.locals.com/

On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert

American flag and U.S. dollar financial and economy concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)
American flag and U.S. dollar financial and economy concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Washington, D.C. (PPD) — Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in February, roughly the consensus forecast, while consumer spending was weaker than expected. Personal outlays fell by $141.5 billion in February.

Forecasts for personal income ranged from a low of -8.0% to a high of 2.8%, with the consensus -7.1%. The decline was largely the result of distortions from the stimulus payments that artificially drove up the upwardly revised 10.1% figure for January.

Disposable personal income (DPI) declined $1,532.3 billion (8.0%) and personal consumption expenditures (PCE), better known as consumer spending, was down more than expected by $149.0 billion (1.0%). Forecasts for PCE ranged from a low of -1.2% to a high of 0.6%, with the consensus -0.7%.

Personal saving was $2.41 trillion in February and the personal saving rate — defined as personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 13.6%.

Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in

Data on Reinfection Risk from SARS-CoV-2 Variants Profoundly Impacts Mask-Wearing Debate

Crowd of people walking the city streets while wearing masks during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Crowd of people walking the city streets while wearing masks during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. (Photo: AdobeStock)

New research finds individuals previously infected by or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes coronavirus (Covid-19) — are not at risk of reinfection from common variants of the virus. The results raise numerous questions about whether certain guidelines are current and up to date, to include mask-wearing for certain individuals in public.

The scientists obtained serum samples from three groups and compared the neutralizing-antibody response to four variants in both infected and vaccinated individuals. That includes the variant B.1.1.7 (SARS-CoV-2/human/USA/CA_CDC_5574/2020 ), which was originally identified in the United Kingdom (UK) and drew more concern due to increased transmissibility.

“This study found neutralizing activity of infection- and vaccine-elicited antibodies against 4 SARS-CoV-2 variants, including B.1, B.1.1.7, and N501Y,” the discussion stated of the results. While the authors of the study recommend monitoring neutralizing-antibody responses after infection and vaccination when additional variants emerge, the findings “suggest that infection- and vaccine-induced immunity may be retained against the B.1.1.7 variant.”

The findings of the research have profound implications on a number of pandemic issues currently being debated, to include the fear of reinfection and mask-wearing in public.

During a hearing on March 18, Senator Rand Paul, R-Kty., clashed with Dr. Anthony Fauci over prior studies also indicating those who have been vaccinated or have recovered from Covid-19 are unlikely to transmit Covid-19 and therefore don’t need to wear a mask. In January prior to the wide administration of the vaccine, only about 31 cases of confirmed reinfection were recorded. That’s a small and admittedly dubious number given both the fraction of total infections it represents and the issues with testing regimes.

This new research — Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants After Infection and Vaccination — was published just one day after the exchange between Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci, and supports the argument made by the former, who consequently, is also a doctor. Interestingly, one of the three groups of individuals from which serum samples were obtained for the study came from the National Institute of Health (NIH).

It’s unclear whether Dr. Fauci was unaware of this research, though it strains credulity to think he was not made aware, given his capacity as a key member of the administration’s pandemic response and his association with the NIH.

The authors of the research paper are Venkata Viswanadh Edara, PhD at Emory University Department of Pediatrics in Atlanta, Georgia; William H. Hudson, PhD at Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta, Georgia; and Xuping Xie, PhD at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Research finds those previously infected by or

Closeup view of a business man cutting a piece of paper with the word jobs written on it, concept for job cut reports. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Closeup view of a business man cutting a piece of paper with the word jobs written on it, concept for job cut reports. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Washington, D.C. (PPD) — The U.S. Labor Department (DOL) reported initial jobless claims continued to rise for the week ending March 13 by 45,000 to a seasonally adjusted 770,000. The previous week was also revised higher by 13,000 from 759,000 to 762,250.

Forecasts ranged from a low of 675,000 to a high of 733,000. The consensus forecast was 700,000. The 4-week moving average was 746,250, a decrease from the upwardly revised prior week’s average of 762,250.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate rose to 3.0% for the week ending March 6. That’s a gain of 0.1 from the previous week’s unrevised rate.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending February 27 were in Pennsylvania (6.1), Alaska (5.6), Nevada (5.4), the Virgin Islands (5.1), Connecticut (5.0), New York (4.7), Rhode Island (4.5), Illinois (4.4), Massachusetts (4.4), and California (4.2).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending March 6 were in California (+17,793), Ohio (+7,686), Massachusetts (+2,200), Alabama (+1,968), and Virginia (+1,581), while the largest decreases were in New York (-11,906), Illinois (-10,628), Mississippi (-10,549), Texas (-6,932), and Kentucky (-4,580).

All 50 states and the District of Columbia reported continued weekly claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits, totaling 7,615,386. Further, all 50 states and D.C. reported 4,815,348 continued claims for Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits.

Initial jobless claims rose again for the

Current Conditions Improved Consumer Confidence, But Short-Term Outlook Deteriorates

Consumer confidence 3D gear graphic reporting the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index.
Consumer confidence 3D gear graphic reporting the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) rose modestly in February after months of a post-election decline driven by a more negative view of the future. The Index now stands at 91.3 (1985=100), an increase from a slightly upwardly revised 88.9 reading for January.

The Present Situation Index — based on consumers’ assessment of current business and labor market conditions — rose from 85.5 to 92.0. The percentage saying conditions are “good” rose from 15.8% to 16.5%, while the proportion claiming business conditions are “bad” fell from 42.4% to 39.9%.

But the Expectations Index — based on consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions — fell again, from 91.2 last month to 90.8 in February. The percentage expecting conditions to improve over the next six months fell from 34.1% to 31.0%, while those expecting to worsen also declined, from 19.0% to 17.7%.

“After three months of consecutive declines in the Present Situation Index, consumers’ assessment of current conditions improved in February,” said Lynn Franco, Senior Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “This course reversal suggests economic growth has not slowed further.”

Regardless of the modest overall increase and pandemic aside, these post-election months have produced the lowest consumer confidence readings since May 2016, and the first in the 90s since a month before the election in November 2016.

The Consumer Confidence Survey (CCI) is based on a probability-design random sample and is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was February 11.

As People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously reported, a slew of key economic indicators took a turn for the worse following the election and inauguration of Joseph R. Biden. It’s a stark reversal from the historically positive trends that followed the election and inauguration of Donald J. Trump, and the recovery after the height of pandemic-induced lockdown.

The Confidence Index (CCI) rose modestly in

Democratic Legislation ‘More a Payback for Teachers Unions’

Vista, CA / USA - March 17, 2020: Sign at Lake Elementary School in San Diego alerting school closed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19). (Photo: AdobeStock)
Vista, CA / USA – March 17, 2020: Sign at Lake Elementary School in San Diego alerting school closed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19). (Photo: AdobeStock)

Washington, D.C. (PPD) — The Democratic legislation allegedly aimed at providing “relief” from the coronavirus (COVID-19) is not designed to safely reopen schools anytime soon. The bill, which is expected to rely on reconciliation for passage by simple majority, is more a payback for teachers unions.

The White House and Congressional Democrats have touted the House Committee on Education and Labor appropriating $128.6 billion for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund “to support schools in safely reopening.”

However, the analysis from the Congressional Budget Office finds roughly $32 billion per year is appropriated for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. The remaining $60 billion would be spent through fiscal year 2028. Only $6.4 billion of that money is slated for fiscal 2021 — less than 5% of the total.

There are less than eight months remaining until the end of fiscal 2021 on September 30. Multiple studies and reports make it clear the period between now and then is key to safely reopening schools in time to further mitigate already significant damage to child education and health.

In December, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that implementing its recommendations for K-12 schools would cost between $55 to $442 per child. With roughly 51 million K-12 public school students, it could cost anywhere between $2.8 billion to $22.5 billion.

However, an analysis of U.S. Department of Education (DOE) data by the nonprofit Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity shows states already have between $53 and $63 billion from prior relief packages, including funding to reopening plans provided by the Trump Administration.

“With more than $53 billion in available federal emergency funds, state education agencies should have more than enough funds to implement the CDC’s recommended mitigation strategies to safely reopen,” the report said.

With funds already available for safely reopening schools and additional appropriations delayed over the course of several years, it’s unclear who or what will eventually benefit. What is clear is that it’s not a priority of the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats to mitigate the damage already done — and yet to be done — to children from school closures.

How significant is that damage? It’s almost immeasurable, though many are attempting to gauge it. School-age children have experienced a surge in mental health issues and large percentages have simply vanished from the system.

A study published by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) warned the loss of in-person learning could reduce the lifetime income of students by 3%. A study in the American Medical Association’s JAMA Network Open finds that this financial stress could result in the collective loss of 13.8 million years of life.

Teachers unions spent millions of dollars to elect Joe Biden and Democratic candidates up and down the ballot last November. Similarly, they spent millions lobbying to keep schools closed despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe to open, and that the damage done by closures far outweighs the risks of reopening.

That amount of money buys a lot of disinformation and procrastination. Contrary to Democratic claims echoed by a friendly corporate media, the data have never supported school closures. Since the early stages of the pandemic, researchers have been warning about prolonged school closures due to long-lasting, negative consequences for students.

Research at University College London (UCL) suggested school closures would do little to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. That research was published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health journal back in April 2020. It reviewed 16 previous studies, to include 9 that looked at school closures during the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

SARS is a respiratory disease caused by a coronavirus similar to the one that causes COVID-19. The research concluded school closures “did not contribute to control of the epidemic”.

A study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated “measures to mitigate risk for educational and health disparities among children have been woefully lacking” despite “months of public health and political discourse” to include historic action taken under the prior administration “to ensure the educational, nutritional, physical, and mental health needs of children are met.”

“Action is needed to offset the risk for educational losses among all children as well as exacerbated educational disparities among children in poverty,” the study warned. “Unforeseen extended school closures can lead to lower test scores, lower educational attainment, and decreased earning potential.”

The Democratic legislation allegedly aimed at providing

Emma Coronel Aispuro, 31, a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen, of Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico, and wife of infamous Mexican drug lord, Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman. (Photo: Wiki)
Emma Coronel Aispuro, 31, a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen, of Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico, and wife of infamous Mexican drug lord, Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman. (Photo: Wiki)

Washington, D.C. (PPD) — The wife of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, was arrested Monday on international drug trafficking charges, the Justice Department (DOJ) announced. Emma Coronel Aispuro, 31, a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen, of Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico, was taken into custody by authorities at Dulles International Airport.

The criminal complaint affidavit alleges Coronel Aispuro — the wife of the infamous drug kingpin — has been serving as the leader of a Mexican drug trafficking organization known as the Sinaloa Cartel. She is scheduled to appear in federal court Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia via video conference.

According to court documents, the U.S. government has charged Aispuro with participating in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana for importation into the country. The affidavit further alleges Coronel Aispuro conspired with others to aid in her husband’s widely reported escape from Altiplano prison on July 11, 2015 in Almoloya de Juarez, Mexico.

While Guzman was re-arrested in Mexico in January 2016, the worldwide news of his escape embarrassed authorities in Mexico and outraged the U.S. Coronel Aispuro is also alleged to planned another prison escape with others prior to his extradition to the U.S. in January 2017.

Guzman Loera — known more widely and simply as “El Chapo” — was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of New York in 2019 for his role as a leader of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Cornel Aispuro is charged in a one count criminal complaint with a conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, five kilograms or more of cocaine, 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, and 500 grams or more of methamphetamines for unlawful importation into the U.S.

The wife of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial