The New York Times has written many stories about research conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) at Rutgers University, which, according to Wikipedia:

The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) is an organization dedicated to identifying and predicting the spread of ideologically motivated threats (e.g. hate groups), disinformation, and misinformation across social media platforms and physical spaces.

New York Times has published articles about research at NCRI as well as cited their founder and institute members as an expert source many times before:

Topics Suppressed in China Are Underrepresented on TikTok, Study Says

Combating Disinformation Wanes at Social Media Giants (The institute is cited as an expert in this article, but the article is not about NCRI research)

TikTok Quietly Curtails Data Tool Used by Critics

How Anti-Asian Activity Online Set the Stage for Real-World Violence

How Online Hatred Toward Migrants Spurs Real-World Violence

Food Supply Disruption Is Another Front for Russian Falsehoods

One Republican’s Lonely Fight Against a Flood of Disinformation

Far-Right Extremists Move From ‘Stop the Steal’ to Stop the Vaccine

The Consequences of Elon Musk’s Ownership of X

And so on and so on. Suffice it to say, The New York Times has never had a problem with Joel Finkelstein or his institute at Rutgers, having cited them as an authority many times - and often citing their preliminary research as evidence of their authority. ("according to recent findings by the NCRI...", that sort of thing.)

NCRI recently published a very interesting study with potential implications for DEI training: "INSTRUCTING ANIMOSITY: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias." The study was designed to help answer the question: "Do ideas and rhetoric foundational to many DEI trainings foster pluralistic inclusiveness, or do they exacerbate intergroup and interpersonal conflicts? Do they increase empathy and understanding or increase hostility towards members of groups labeled as oppressors?" The study exposed test subjects to either a "DEI essay" or a control essay and then "Their responses to this material was assessed through various questions assessing intergroup hostility and authoritarianism, and through scenario-based questions." The study found that "across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, they engendered a hostile attribution bias... amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice." In the conclusion, the study authors wrote:

The evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment.

So that's the background on the study. That's a pretty eyebrow raising study, and one that readers of the nation's foremost newspaper would be interested in. However, the study authors have told National Review that despite an initial interest in doing a story about the study, The New York Times has decided they won't write about it after all, due to "concerns."

A New York Times reporter told the NCRI that he would cover the new study on DEI materials, and further told the institute that an article was prepared to run on either October 14 or 15.

However, on October 12, he told an NCRI researcher that the Times would “hold off” on covering the study on DEI due to “some concerns,” and suggested that the publication would revisit the study if it underwent the academic peer-review process.

Although the reporter disclosed that he did not have “any concerns about the methodology” and that someone at the Times’ “data-driven reporting team” had “no problems” with the study, he stated that he had concluded the study wasn’t strong enough after speaking with an editor.

“The piece was reported and ready for publication, but at the eleventh hour, the New York Times insisted the research undergo peer review after discussions with editorial staff — an unprecedented demand for our work,” an NCRI researcher told National Review. “The journalist involved had previously covered far more sensitive NCRI findings, such as our QAnon and January 6th studies, without any such request.” (The New York Times wrote to National Review and denied that the story was “ready for publication.”)

The Times reporter suggested that the research wasn’t strong enough.

“I told my editor I thought if we were going to write a story casting serious doubts on the efficacy of the work of two of the country’s most prominent DEI scholars, the case against them has to be as strong as possible,” he wrote to the NCRI.

“Our journalists are always considering potential topics for news coverage, evaluating them for newsworthiness, and often choose not to pursue further reporting for a variety of reasons,” a spokesperson for the New York Times told National Review. “Speculative claims from outside parties about The Times’s editorial process are just that.”

The NCRI researcher apparently had a similar experience with Bloomberg:

Two reporters at Bloomberg had agreed to cover the study and wrote an article. One of the journalists had described the coverage as “an important story” in communications with the NCRI and expressed being “eager” to publish the article; that journalist had further stated on November 11 that the article should be published in the next few days. 

However, an editor  — Nabila Ahmed, the team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News who “lead[s] a global team of reporters focused on stories that elevate issues of race, gender, diversity and fairness within companies, governments and societies”  — informed the NCRI on November 15 that Bloomberg would not go forward with the article. 

The NCRI asked for either a scientific or journalistic explanation, and Ahmed directed the researchers to Anna Kitanaka, the executive editor of Bloomberg Equality. Kitanaka told the NCRI that what stories get published and when is entirely an “editorial decision,” and did not provide details on why the publication axed the article.

Why are these outlets - who had no qualms with running provocative preliminary research from NCRI before - suddenly so careful about publishing a story about a study with profound implications for a topic which many Americans are keenly interested in? The New York Times has just recently published an article that was very critical of the DEI program at the University of Michigan. Are they still dealing with backlash from that? Did their readers hate it? Is NYT trapped by its subscribers, perhaps?

The Times reporter said to NCRI: "if we were going to write a story casting serious doubts on the efficacy of the work of two of the country’s most prominent DEI scholars, the case against them has to be as strong as possible." But why? Why does the case against them have to be as strong as possible? Why can't New York Times just publish a "good" case - or even a "pretty good" case? Why, NYT, does the case need to be "as strong as possible?"

I think this quote from the reporter to NCRI is profound. It basically confirms what James Bennet wrote in his essay for The Economist, "When the New York Times lost its way" - a heavily criticized piece that blasted NYT for letting woke zealots tarnish the newspaper with uncritical adherence to DEI principles.

Still, I love the Times - and I expect that they will, indeed, cover the study either indirectly by covering the conservative backlash for them not covering it - or waiting til "the case is as strong as possible." Or maybe they'll instead publish an opinion piece about how the NCRI is making NYT staff feel "unsafe."

But they've apparently tipped their hand in the handling of this study - NYT has a pro-DEI agenda, evidence be damned.

Submission statement: I think it's important that when owners of media outlets become personally vindictive toward persons who offer well-meant critiques of their coverage that this kind of conduct be made public and condemned. I can't imagine a universe in which I'd try to get a critic of my own work fired. I have welcomed and benefited from the criticism my readers have been good enough to provide and I always thank them. I would consider treating them disrespectfully a major breach of ethics. Attempts to intimidate critics of media must be called out and condemned by our community.

There's a web-based media outlet here in Southern Arkansas that started about a year ago. Its mission appeared to be to cover matters happening in the area for which they named themselves, Southern Arkansas Reckoning. At first, they were doing some very nice work getting FOIA-requested documents on the doings of state and county officials. I subscribed. It was not cheap. They charged $60 a year. You were also to receive a copy of one of the owners' books. (I never did).

Lately, beginning around the time of the election, they have morphed in a direction that isn't good, with many stories alleging the COVID vaccines have poisoned scores of Americans. One of their latest stories was about a study done in 2023 in Australia whose lead author is a psychiatrist named Peter Barry who uses his social media account quite often to promote anti-vaccine propaganda of the must spurious kind. His study, of course, concluded that mRNA vaccines reproduce mRNA in the body and that this causes scores of deaths.

The description by Southern Arkansas Reckoning's writer of the Peter Barry study was as though it was definitive proof that COVID vaccines are harmful. Left out was any mention of the many studies showing that adverse reactions are very rare as measured against the many many millions who have taken the vaccine. There have been about 4,500 people with heart issues, for example but this is from about 5 million people taking the shot.

The stories allow comments below. I critiqued their story on the basis of what I have said here (along with contesting their claim that hospitals being full was a lie promoted by "legacy media."

The response? An identification of me as a reporter for another news website and a threat to remove my comment. I simply said in response that I would post it on my facebook page if they did this. Maybe five or six of my close friends even read what I post there.

The next response? "Is that a threat?" I'm going to call your employer and tell them what you're doing. They looked up the owner of the news website where I work and named him. This was from Suzy Parker, one of the owners of Southern Arkansas Reckoning. I linked to the exchange on my twitter account and said this is just not the way to deal with commenters on your news website. She repeated her vow to tell on me to my employer.

So of course I wrote up a letter describing all this and included a cutpaste document with the exchange underneath the story and provided it to my direct supervisor and to the owner of our news website.

Now Southern Arkansas Reckoning has come out with a newsletter threatening other unnamed media companies for plagiarizing their work. I have done no such thing. No one at our news website has done any such thing. They are also threatening "legacy media" with lawyers being sicced on them, maybe they mean us. I love everybody I work with and we all work hard and love what we do. We are far from legacy media. We started 10 years ago. We run our news site with hometown private investor funds and advertising. There's no corporation subsidizing us.

This threatening of a commenter on their journalism with a job loss is bad conduct. Bad judgment. This is NOT the way to treat fellow journalists even if they are critical of your work. People should know about this.

Any advice about what to do from here?

Edit: Met with my direct manager about it this morning. Suzy Parker hasn't called anyone. I was told I had done absolutely nothing wrong.

[Mission Statement: What is your level of trust in Media News, and which do you feel is more trusted sources, aim of post is to get people to do self inquiry as to why they think one is more trusted than another ]

______________________

What Type of "Media News" do you spend the most time viewing or reading?

Do you research what you read or see on the "Media News"?

• ^(Do you know how to research what you read or see on the "Media News"?)

What do you think about these? :

https://preview.redd.it/ich50tgplg2e1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=73aa83288a1dacff3be9cc613b5417ce3def32ad

----------------------

Ranked: America’s Most Trustworthy News Organizations in 2024

• https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-americas-most-trustworthy-news-organizations-in-2024/

10 Most Unbiased News Sources in 2024 (Factual & Reliable

• https://www.techworm.net/2021/12/unbiased-news-sources.html

Trust in Media 2024: Which news sources Americans trust — and which they think lean left or right

• https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49552-trust-in-media-2024-which-news-outlets-americans-trust

“Social Media” has been differentiated from other media, in my opinion, because it was perceived to be “organic.” That is, it was differentiated from mass media, where a single institution or a small group could control messaging to a large audience. That is, I think, where the rule on this sub comes from that rather ambiguously bans discussion of social media corporate policy. 

But the distinction between social media and mass media is breaking down. Powerful interests are successfully using social media as mass media. Take for interest the fact that the Kamala Harris campaign was actually breaking Reddit’s rules, running an organized campaign to astroturf subreddits like r/politics This is mass media behavior, but it is perhaps even more subversive than the kind of mass media manipulation that concerned Chomsky because it can have the illusion of popular, grassroots support. Mass media continues its crusade against social media. MSM is no longer content with merely warning their viewers about the lurking dangers of misinformation on the web - which was always reminiscent of backwards thinking, pedantic primary school teachers barking “Wikipedia is not a source!” (people younger than about 35 - hopefully - will not have a memory of this) No, now the media is actually ordering their subscribers to leave Twitter, as some kind of patriotic or soul cleansing act: The Daily Beast: “If You Haven’t Left Twitter Already, Please Do So Now” and Slate: “Delete Your Account. For Real This Time. | On X. On Threads. Maybe even beyond that.” 

What is mass media afraid of, exactly? Well, call me a cynic, but I don’t think they’re worried about Americans consuming misinformation. I remember ads for “Airborne: The Vitamin C Common Cold Cure (Invented by a school teacher!)” for years on TV, and that’s the most benign sort of misinformation (this would be DISinformation because it was on purpose, though, right?) that appears on television. I think they’re probably scared about losing viewers. This cuts into their business. (If no one is watching, no one will buy snake oil) MSNBC seems to have had a 54% drop in viewership since the election. 

Are podcasts “Social Media”? I don’t know who makes the rules. But Chris Wallace is leaving CNN to do a podcast. Apparently, the powers that be think that it’s the format - not the content - that drives fifteen million people to listen to Joe Rogan while MSNBC has a viewership in the hundreds of thousands. (I imagine a big, cigar chomping exec screaming at his team in a meeting: “Have you guys heard of these PHONES people are listening to!? How do we get in on that!?” )

It’s obvious to me that there’s no longer a meaningful distinction between social media and mass media. At least - whatever distinction there is - it is no longer a distinction that makes a ban on discussion of social media a good rule on a media criticism sub. Critical theory examines power dynamics - and the powerful are using social media - often subversively - to manipulate and control the public, exactly like Chomsky told us in “Manufacturing Consent.” If Facebook, Google and Twitter censor ideas like “COVID is airborne” early in a pandemic because someone at the World Health Organization told them to - that is going to have a devastating effect - exactly like mass media in times of old. The next time America invades a foreign nation for no particular reason at all - a la Vietnam or Iraq - it will be because of a Tik Tok trend, stoked by paid consultants working for powerful organizations. Same aristocracy, different tech. 

Let’s talk about it. Let’s end the social media rule on r/media_criticism.

Historically, I've had a pretty balanced media diet that allowed me to foresee outcomes that other people didn't.

With the recent US election, I wasn't surprised by Donald Trump's victory, but I was surprised by the margin of victory. That leads me to believe I should make some adjustments to what I'm watching, reading and listening to.

I'd like to integrate more right-leaning sources, but what I've found is that the popular ones are very sensationalized. There seems to be a lot of alarmism, grievance and conspiratorial thinking in that sphere.

In truth, I've learned far more about right-leaning positions from interviews on left-leaning shows. For example, Ezra Klein had discussions with Patrick Deneen, Charles Fain Lehman, and Patrick Ruffini that I found super informative. But I can't rely on sources from the left to educate me about the right, so I'm looking for some new ones.

A little bit of research has led me to add The Hill to my news feed, since it's rated as centrist, and to follow the Reason Interview podcast. Do those sound like good choices? Any other ideas?

The article is claiming that women are overwhelmingly fleeing the country, whereas the statistics don’t back this up.

Top row - how CBS reported it (slanting the news)

Bottom row - how NY Post reported it (real news)

Summary What was the issue? A FEMA supervisor in Florida directed FEMA staff to not provide assistance to homes that had Trump signs.

She was caught upon complaints and fired.

Why is CBS Lying? CBS says the “employee” was “not identified” by FEMA.

It was a supervisor - the woman was Mar’i Washington, and the incident happened in Florida.

CBS wants to obscure the details possibly to mislead readers into thinking this was done by a white Karen.

[This sub should allow multiple photos - very difficult to do A-B comparison if only one photo can be uploaded per post - ridiculous!]

Looking for the best news outlet to follow in the new Trump era and beyond. Certainly will never click on a wapo link again and I think NYTimes is complicit too (done with Haberman). Where do I go from here? During the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, I abandoned US media and went BBC. Do I do that again?

This election cycle, I've found myself dodging political discourse—a stark contrast to my past passion for these discussions.

I've been thinking about why that's the case. In fact, I love any conversation about how to make our future better. An attempt to arrive at the truth is what I'm doing here.

But a cultural shift seemed to cause a change within me. I still felt the urge to speak up and say my piece, but I noticed inaction on my end.

Not inaction from fear but from a disciplined resistance.

But a renewed sense of optimism emerged that cast the disillusionment to the wayside.

I previously warned that an authenticity crisis was surfacing in the culture. Social algorithms prioritize engagement, a euphemism for addiction.

Consequently, many creators design content that doesn't satisfy but instead fuels outrage and intoxicates the audience.

This constant adaptation to algorithmic incentives dilutes the authenticity of communication, eroding meaningful discourse both online and in person.

What once was a tool to drive engagement online has now influenced real-world discussions in unsettling ways.

Another major issue is the 'mainstream media's' unapologetically biased and seemingly coordinated messaging.

I think it's a related issue because I would argue that the underlying philosophical impetus to the seemingly coordinated ideological transmission latched onto people's minds like a virus through social media, an ideology that would have died if it was localized to a physical community. Elon articulates this nicely on a previous podcast with Joe. https://youtu.be/tAJUwiAqW38

These two issues are disheartening and pose a direct threat to what I value most: the pursuit of truth.

This would be an existential crisis for humanity if it weren't for an alternative—an alternative that has the power to turn these issues upside down.

Long-form podcasts and independent creators.

These are spaces where the conversation doesn't end at a convenient soundbite but rather flows naturally over hours and pages, where ideas can evolve, arguments can breathe, and listeners and readers can truly understand—not just react.

This shift represents a powerful counterbalance to traditional media—one that champions depth, nuance, and authenticity over sensationalism.

Podcasters and writers who retain their authenticity and refuse to corrupt themselves in favor of the truth will win for themselves and society.

Evident by Joe Rogan's interview with Trump, which had 43 million views in 7 days!

As of November 2, 2024, Joe Rogan has hosted Trump, Vance, Fetterman , and extended an invitation to Kamala, who I hope makes an appearance on the show.

I don't have hard data to prove that podcasts and newsletters will significantly impact the election. But I believe, in hindsight, this election will be seen as the turning point.

How could it not?

Truth emerges from the battlefield of ideas, where each must be given room to clash and contend. True discourse requires the expanse of uncensored hours and pages, not mere moments of restricted dialogue.

I've seen the power of podcasts for over 10 years now. They've highlighted great ideas and terrible ideas in many realms of thought. It's about time politicians started making rounds.

What's amazing about this to me is that long-form podcasting allows you to hear the interviewee having a 2–3-hour conversation. All the political doublespeak, canned responses, and lies come out in a discussion that long. It would be so unnatural for someone to speak as they do in a political press conference when they're just having a face-to-face conversation.

I want to see the candidates as people, and I want to see that they're not trying to pull one over me. I want to see that they're intelligent, that they know what they're talking about, and that they can have a conversation about their subject matter for three hours.

I saw this with RFK Jr. throughout the race. He interviewed many of my favorite podcasters, all of who asked him questions from different angles. He did Lex Fridmans, Joe Rogan's, Jordan Petersons, and TheoVon's podcast.

I was able to see him and his ideas in a different light and more expansively.

I hope this is the final election cycle marked by baiting, algorithm-driven discourse, headline manipulation, and political gaslighting.

In the end, it's about the pursuit of truth, and I think we may have lost our way. This disillusionment led me to avoid political conversations altogether. Yet, independent creators renewed my hope for the future of media and the discovery of truth.

For the entire piece, please go check it out here: https://www.frontierletter.com/p/out-with-the-noise-in-with-the-nuance?r=jzsh5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

If you like my writing, subscribe to my substack:

https://www.frontierletter.com/

Have a safe election week, my fellow Americans!

Trump effectively said, (and I’m paraphrasing): “she’s a war hawk, let’s see how she likes war if you give her a rifle and she’s got 9 barrels shooting at her. They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington saying let’s send 10,000 troops to fight the enemy”

The fake news media cut off the last part and made it sound like Trump made a death threat.

Anyone on social media can easily access the interview, so they are counting on people to react to the headlines without watching the video. No wonder the MSM is hated.

As news has shifted from legitimate TV journalism to streaming information from social media platforms, I can only wonder how the phasing out of free Over The Air OTA TV broadcast has impacted society.

Cable or Satellite TV is expensive and many can't afford. I grew up on antenna TV and I admit the choices were few but everyone saw the same News.

The Facts

• The US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has indicted Raul Gorrin Belisario, the owner of Venezuela's state-owned media company Globovision, on money laundering charges linked to the country's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA).[1]
• The indictment claims that as part of a $1.2B scheme, Belisario paid hundreds of millions in bribes to Venezuelan officials in exchange for foreign currency exchange contracts with PDVSA.[2][3]
• The DOJ alleges that with the foreign currency, Belisario and his co-conspirators purchased real estate and yachts in the US, among other luxury items.[4]
• Belisario is known as a member of the "boliburgueses," a group of wealthy elites with ties to the old Hugo Chavez regime. He purchased Globovision in 2013 and reportedly reduced its criticism of Pres. Nicolas Maduro.[2]
• He faces 20 years in jail if arrested and convicted, though he remains at large. This is not his first stint with the US justice system, having previously been accused of money laundering in 2020.[1]

Read the full story here

The pundits in the media are now acting as if a "October Surprise" is just something little known that becomes a media story in the last few weeks of an election. That's not what an October Surprise is!

An October Surprise is an outrageous claim made by a campaign which is made when there is no time for the media to fact check it. The classic example is John Kerry being smeared in the last two weeks of the 2004 campaign.

The Trump campaign is no doubt planning an October Surprise and it's going to be AI generated and disgusting and repellent. Hopefully, people will consider the source and ignore it.

Mission Statement for Post:

This post is an example of how "Flip Flop" some media persons are, when they change their whole character promotions 'for a paycheck".

_______________________________________

Chris Cuomo is desperately trying to make himself relevant. He has resorted to trying to slam Obama and slam Harris.

He sold his soul for a Job....

He claimed to be Liberal while on CNN, and now he goes Right Wing Conservative, trying to be the top billing at NewsNation. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-cuomo-kamala-harris-not-a-godsend_n_67190803e4b0cd4214d81d95

Quote

The fired CNN star and brother of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) did not come out in favor of the former president but at times leaned awfully close while offering his candid thoughts on Harris.

“Kamala Harris is not a godsend, alright?” he said. “You people didn’t even like her six months ago! Now all of a sudden, she’s Black female Jesus, the way Obama was Black Jesus. And let me tell you something. He had a lot more going for him than Kamala Harris does — and not just as firsts go — but his type of campaigning, his type of persuasion, his charisma. He was imbued with things that she is not. And I don’t mean that as a criticism. It’s just a point of comparison.”

He added that the vice president’s alternative path to the nomination has “fucked her” by creating “misgivings.”

“There is an underlying feeling that she didn’t get this the right way, she may not have won a primary,” Chris Cuomo said, echoing a Republican talking point. “She didn’t even make it to the first round of primaries when she did run. And that is both fair and unfair at the same time.”

End Quote

He's did his 180 degree flip flop to try and garner the right wing support;

In March 2021, The New York Times reported that NewsNation hadn't lived up to expectations and was seeing low viewership. Six people at the time reportedly said that NewsNation was becoming increasingly right-wing and conservative in its presentation.

_________________

Many people forget how he tried to insult and demean Charles Smith and Dennis Rodman and the team, when he took a Basketball team to N. Korea, , for purely Sports Cultural promotion of American Sports to play N. Korean Basketball Team. Chris Coumo tried to bait them into Political spin, for his own benefit, when they CLEARLY told him, they are not there for any Political interactions. It's a Sports Game dealing with the Sports culture of Basketball.

https://youtu.be/uCj99LB0hPs

When Coumo did that self promotions trying to make himself look important... he showed how much of a imbecile he is, and his total disregard of what these ball players who "repeatedly told him", They were not on a Political Mission.

_______________________________________________--

commenter said it plain and clear.

• Rodman is right...he gets it...he knows the power of western culture in the world...the key word is CULTURE. Trying to get this point across was frustrating Rodman cuz Cuomo doesn't listen.
• Blaming Dennis is ridiculous. He took the Harlem globetrotters with him. It was a big group that went to reach out to these oppressed people and put some light in their lives. What do they expect him to do? He's a basketball player. Not a navy seal or some kind of superhero. He did so many interviews about this that actually brought him to tears. Yes he.can be.a.jerk sometimes but not in this situation. It's common sense. There isn't actual journalism anymore. It's dumbed to being a Jerry Springer show. A good deed never goes unpunished.

In coverage of Trumps recent bizarre and ad hominem campaign speeches, almost every network and publication said that Trump made "False" allegations about VP Harris's drug use. No one said, baseless, or unproven, or without evidence. They all said false, which technically is not accurate unless the VP has taken a drug test. It doesn't help with peoles trust in media when it looks like all reporters are in cahoots.