North Korea and the modern media

The Winter Olympics are upon us, not usually of much interest in Australia given that we had experienced global warming well before anyone else. But it was nevertheless brought to my attention by this article in the Campus Review: Former North Korean students, in humanising suffering, tighten diplomatic ties. Not one-eyed at all, specially given the grievance expressed against South Koreans who don’t appear to be as sympathetic to the plight of North Koreans as you might wish, but certainly an article with more sense than you get in the American mainstream media. From Instapundit.

“THIS WEEKEND’S COVERAGE OF NORTH KOREA’S REGIME AT THE OLYMPICS WOULD MAKE EVEN FORMER NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST WALTER DURANTY BLUSH:” The Media Sides With North Korea Over The United States At The Olympics.

Ben Shapiro tweets:

As they say at David Horowitz’s Front Page Website, “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.” The DNC-MSM are really going out of their way to drop the mask this weekend.

Flashback to last year: “Following the lead of CNN’s Brian Stelter, Thursday’s Situation Room touted the spike of sales in the book 1984 and strongly hinted that Americans view the Trump administration as the real-life version of Big Brother portrayed in George Orwell’s classic.”

UPDATE: Speaking of Stelter, as Michael Malice, the author of Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il tweets, “Reminder that CNN was more hostile to an American citizen who made a wrestling gif than to a representative of the most evil government on earth.”

Liars and their media enablers

Part of the interest in following politics in the US is to see just how corrupt it is, with the heart of that corruption in the media reporting. The certainty that the mainstream media will lie at every turn to protect a Democrat, and do the same to harm a Republican, is as plain as day but almost never discussed. Three instances have come up in the past two days of the ways in which the news is suppressed and distorted.

First Obama went to see the Pope, and this is how it turned out:

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

Stark indeed. This is the Obama version, just a bit of chit chat really:

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

And this is the Vatican version:

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

OK so the Pope says one thing and Obama says another. Just how likely is it that Obama was the one to be telling the gospel truth. But while the media in some sense took note, they left it up in the air about where the truth might be. And then there is this which has also come up at the same time:

The Obama administration now says more than 6 million people have signed up for Obamacare, but critical information is missing, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told Fox News on Friday.

“I think that they are lying to us about who has paid, who has not paid, who is getting subsidies…They don’t want to give us the numbers,” she said. “The way they are surveying this (web)site — you know they are trying to cover things up.”

Of course, Obama has done nothing but lie about the Affordable Care Act so why should now be different? It’s routine for Obama to lie. But as disgusting and despicable as that is, the way this is not a media issue, to be chewed over and discussed, is an important element in what is turning the US into the Argentina of the twenty-first century.

And perhaps most bizarrely of all there is this, At Obama-Putin Phone Call:

While we’ll never know exactly how the phone call went, if you read how the Obama administration described the conversation between Putin and Obama, and how the Russians described it, you’d think they were two completely different phone calls. . . .

When you read the Russian version it sounds like Obama is cooperating to help Putin “protect” the citizens of Ukraine. The White House version has Obama practically berating Putin, while the Russian version has him going along with Putin’s plans.

It is a disastrous business when it is infinitely easier to believe the President of Russia than the President of the United States just as I would find it as likely that I’m being lied to by The New York Times as I am by Pravda. As the article concludes: “Aren’t you glad we have a community organizer in charge of the free world?” Well, tell the truth, aren’t you?