DAN GAINOR: 7 of the liberal media's craziest LA riots moment
As the recent Los Angeles riots escalated into looting, arson, attacks on police and finally a Democrat-ordered curfew, the major news media had one major message to tell us – that everything was "mostly peaceful."
In a repeat of an embarrassing moment from the last time the left threw a violent national temper tantrum, the press once again downplayed or flat out lied about the nature of what was going on. It didn't matter how they said it, the talking points were out, the riots were "peaceful" again. Forget those burning cars, looted businesses and acts of violence. Even Mayor Karen Bass admitted things got bad. That's just one of the embarrassing nuggets from the latest round of leftist violence. Here's a list of my top seven remarkable moments.
Outlet after outlet has slipped the word "peaceful" into their coverage of the violent riots. There's The New York Times with "largely peaceful" twice in the same story and one more "peaceful" for good measure. Reuters said, "largely peaceful," too. "The View," scarily an actual ABC News program, had host Whoopi Goldberg claim, "it's been peaceful for days." Over at CNN, they said people were there to protest, "initially peacefully." Even wars are initially peaceful. Till they aren't. The Washington Post called the protests "muted," and, honestly, we'd all love to see rioters muted or even gagged. Sometime comedian Jon Stewart went with, "peaceful protesters, mixed with anarchists and vandals."
Then, invoking the meme from the last rioting, NPR said, "mostly peaceful." Just what you expect from an allegedly mostly neutral outlet. So did CBS News and Axios, etc. You don't see news stories saying Fourth of July parades are mostly peaceful, because they're legit peaceful. And journalists don't have to lie to make people think that. Overall, the Media Research Center (my former workplace) found 211 examples of CNN and MSNBC personalities using the "peaceful" party line. And they've only just begun.
"The View" returns to the list, whining about the dangers of "militarizing" the protests by sending in the National Guard. Host Whoopi Goldberg repeatedly called for "states' rights" like Democrats did in the 1860s. Typically unhinged Sunny Hostin warned about policing "Americans' protest activity." She neglected to note that the Guard was sent in because of the actions of non-citizens. Then came the kicker.
Hostin continued that, "an army turned inside to police its citizens can cause chaos and fascism." Goldberg added, "Civil war." Hostin responded, "And civil war." The idea that enforcing the law could lead to civil war is the kind of threat Marxists make. If you try to make me obey the law, I will break more laws.
Every protest, it seems, has one memorable quote. This time it comes from ABC7 Los Angeles. They were getting a live report and watching scenes of cars burning, when anchor Jory Rand cautioned not about rioters, but about police. "It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there in the wrong way, and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators," he said. It's almost like you can picture rioters cooking S'mores over roasting Waymo cars.
CNN co-anchor Dana Bash, D-Bedlam, did what the left always does. She blamed Trump. On her show, "Inside Politics With Dana Bash," she ranted, "I know this is a promise that he gave on the campaign trail to do whatever he could to deport illegal immigrants," she said. Then she bashed a Trump post, saying, "But what you just posted is basically an arsonist saying, 'I better call the fire department because they got to come in fast to get the flames out." She concluded with, "That seems like what's going on."
This is especially clueless considering the numerous instances of actual arson going on in LA. They're so bad that Waymo had to suspend ride service in the area after five of its cars were burned. That should be the kind of arson Bash was criticizing. Of course, it wasn't.
CNN's tiny voice of the resistance, Brian Stelter, did his best to try and minimize the violence and arson. He tweeted, "Offline, in real-world Los Angeles, most Angelenos are having a perfectly normal day. But online, the fires and riots are still raging. Seeking clicks, clout and chaos, unvetted social media accounts are preying on fears about where last weekend's clashes will lead…"
He's almost rejecting the concept of journalism. (Well, it is CNN.) Don't report on that triple murder, most people nearby weren't harmed. Don't report on the Ukraine war, most of Europe isn't under attack. Skip your COVID-19 coverage, most people didn't die. It's like an English 8000 level class in rationalization.
The media never ignore the narrative. The one they are pushing this time is that absentee Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom gained ground as a leader of the resistance. "Morning Joe" gave nine words to border czar Tom Homan warning politicians not to interfere with immigration enforcement, "I'll say it about anyone. You cross that line." What followed was over a minute and a half of Newsom PR quotes trying to sound tough, including, "He's a tough guy. He knows where to find me."
Other outlets were just a bit less obvious. CNN ran with, "Newsom and California confront Trump with a potential blueprint for Democrats." Politico has done its darnedest to make this a big moment for the California governor. "Newsom's speech rallies anti-Trump movement," read one headline. "Newsom's speech rallies anti-Trump movement," went another. Go watch a clip of both people and message me if you think Newsom is more macho.
The print press certainly embarrasses itself on every major news topic. The Times wrote an editorial claiming, "Trump Calling Troops Into Los Angeles Is the Real Emergency." Not the rioting, looting, burning and violence, but trying to stop it.
The Post ran a letter headline claiming, "'He's waging a war on us': As Trump escalates, Angelenos defend their city." Yes, blame Trump. Except he's not the one burning Waymos, looting an Apple store or throwing stones off an overpass at police.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Will The ‘Beautiful' Bill Increase The Deficit?
NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 19: The National Debt Clock is seen February 19, 2004 in New York City. ... More According to a Treasury Department report, the U.S. governments national debt, the accumulation of past budget shortfalls, reached a total of more than $7 trillion for the first time. (Photo by) The performative exchange of military strikes between Iran and the US means that a nuclear tipped hot war in the Middle East is off the cards for the moment, though the bad news is that a far greater crisis awaits. In the past five or so weeks prominent financiers – Ray Dalio, Jamie Dimon and even Elon Musk – have warned about the burgeoning fiscal deficit and the mountain of debt that the US (and other countries) has accumulated. A very decent blog post by Indermit Gill, the chief economist at the World Bank, outlines the viewpoint. Next week, there is a good chance that the Senate passes President Trump's budget, which according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will swell the deficit by close to USD 3trn and push debt to GDP towards an unprecedented 125% in the next ten years Additionally, rumours that the next Federal Reserve chair will be picked soon by President Trump (Powell leaves in May 2026) has upset the dollar, making life even more difficult for foreign holders of US debt. What is interesting is not how gargantuan the world's debt load has become, but how few people care. Politics in the West has changed so much that it has neutered what used to be a political class who in a very Catholic way, pronounced themselves to be fiscally responsible. In the US, it used to be the case that a good number of Senators were what was called 'fiscal hawks', or had an aversion to large budget deficits, and an even greater aversion to resolving them through higher taxes (the US has only produced budget surplus twice – under Lyndon Johnson and then Bill Clinton – and in both cases taxes were raised). Paul Krugman has referred to deficit hawks as 'deficit scolds', because the spend more time warning about the dangers of the deficit than fixing it. Ronald Reagan, and the policy makers who surrounded him – namely James Baker, Nicholas Brady and Don Reagan, were fiscally conservative by reputation but had the luxury of being able to grow the US economy through tax cuts and de-regulation. At the time (early 1980's onwards) some Republicans had a 'starve the beast' mindset, which is to say that they favoured lowering taxes so that the government would have less revenue to spend, but there is little evidence that this worked as a strategy (partly because many of the initial Reagan tax cuts were aimed at the rich). In the post Reagan phase, deficit reduction as a virtue came into its own in the Robert Rubin era (at the Treasury), and many of his former colleagues and acolytes continued this during the early years of the Obama presidency (a relevant private body is the Hamilton Project, where Rubin was a founder). One of the notable initiatives of the Obama White House was the creation of the US National Committee on National Fiscal Responsibility and Reform or the Simpson-Bowles Commission as it became known, a bi-partisan body that aimed to reduce the fiscal deficit and debt. Its most noteworthy aspect, in my memory, was the degree of civility and collaboration between representatives of the Democrats and Republicans. Such a body could not exist today. Indeed, the radicalisation of parts of both parties, in the context of quantitative easing (which has dulled the impact of rising debt and deficits) has broken the link between fiscal responsibility and electability. For example, the first crack in the Republican edifice was the advent of the Tea Party Movement, one of whose tenets was tough fiscal responsibility, as inspired by a 'Chicago Tea Party' rant from CNBC commentator Rick Santelli in 2009. Many of the Tea Party oriented voters and Republican politicians then gravitated to the Trump corner in 2016, the price of which was a surrender of their fiscal sacred cows. Today there is only a handful of fiscally conservative Republican Senators (the Club for Growth publishes an annual scorecard of how fiscally rigorous it thinks members of the House and Senate are). The majority of Republican Senators appear happy to give the nod to a policy that edges the US closer to the financial precipice. Indeed, not only will the Trump budget favour wealthy households but it will increase the number of financially precarious households, and damage healthcare and education provision. The other interesting observation I draw is that the relationship between debt and politics has now reached a turning point, and from here debt will condition politics. I see this happening in at least three ways. The first is that in the context of 'zero fiscal space' the constraints imposed by high levels of debt and deficits, will drive new splits within parties, for example between those who are keen to spend more on defence, versus those who wish to preserve social welfare safety nets. The revolt by a large number of Labour MPs against benefit cuts imposed by Keir Starmer is an example. In the future, this cleavage may inspire new political parties. To echo a recent note (The Power Algorithm) new 'tech bro' parties could materialise that prefer using robots to do the work of immigrants and that technology should be deployed for social control. The second, related scenario is that in the absence of money to spend, the traditional 'pork barrel' cycle of politics disintegrates, and instead politicians tilt the broad political debate to non-fiscal issues – identity, foreign policy, and immigration. A third element in the hypothesis is that voters observe mainstream politicians to be helpless and useless in the face of very high fiscal constraints, and they become largely apathetic about politics and in some cases vote for extreme candidates, such as 'chainsaw economists' as in the case of Argentina. In this way, and perhaps exceptionally in history, the coming debt crisis (if the World Bank's economist is correct) will be intertwined with the current crisis of politics.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump wants Canada's digital services tax gone before trade talks resume
U.S. President Donald Trump says he's ending all trade discussions with Canada to hit back at Ottawa for slapping a tax on web giants — and he wants it removed before negotiations can begin again. Canada and the U.S. have been locked in talks to get Trump to lift his punishing tariffs on Canadian goods, levies that have already led to major economic dislocations, job losses and a drop in southbound exports. Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed at the G7 last week to reach some agreement on the trade dispute within 30 days. Speaking in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon, Trump said the U.S. has "such power over Canada," and that he's upset the country is following a taxation strategy similar to Europe's. "It's not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it," he said of imposing the DST, which was passed into law last year with a delayed application."We're going to stop all negotiations with Canada right now until they straighten out their act," he said. Asked if there's anything Canada can do to appease him, Trump said Ottawa could remove the tax. "They will," he said. "They do most of their business with us. When you have that circumstance, you treat people better." Earlier Friday, Trump posted on social media he may impose some sort of blanket tariff on Canadian goods as retribution for the DST, which will primarily hit U.S. firms since it targets only the biggest earners. Speaking briefly to reporters before Trump's Oval Office comments, Carney said he hadn't talked with Trump that day. "We'll continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians," Carney said. He did not address a reporter's question about whether his government is prepared to drop the DST — something the Business Council of Canada is calling on Ottawa to do in exchange for U.S. tariff relief. Set to take effect on June 30, the DST would have U.S. companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb pay a three per cent levy on revenue from Canadian users. The policy will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2-billion US bill due at the end of the month. These global digital firms are often able to skirt paying taxes in the countries where they operate, and the last Liberal government pitched the DST as a way to bring the tax code up to date and capture revenues earned in Canada by firms located abroad. U.S. long opposed DST It's been a bone of contention between Canada and the U.S. for years, with former president Joe Biden's ambassador to Canada warning during his tenure that, if a DST was enacted, the U.S. would hit back. While Canada and other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries had been discussing some sort of global DST, the Trudeau government decided to move ahead with its own tax rather than wait for co-ordinated action. Carney's finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said last week Ottawa planned to enact the tax even while negotiations with Trump are ongoing. That's what's prompted the president's ire. "We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump said. WATCH | Foreign Affairs minister on the trade war: As he has done in the past, Trump mischaracterized Canada's tariff regime on U.S. dairy products. The high tariff rates Trump frequently cites are only applied if U.S. exports exceed a set "tariff-rate quota," something that has never happened. Trump's own Department of Agriculture noted earlier this year that almost all agricultural products traded between the United States and Canada are free of tariffs. In an interview with CBC's Power & Politics, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said supply management, which places limits on certain products, including dairy, to ensure stable prices, is a "cornerstone" Canadian economic policy that is "extremely important." Anand said that despite Trump's threats, Canada will push ahead with trying to broker a deal that's in the best interest of workers and businesses, "while at the same time ensuring we diversify our supply chains so we are never again dependent on one economy." She touted the New EU-Canada Strategic Partnership of the Future that Carney brokered with the European Union earlier this week. Trump's abrupt decision to call off negotiations may have caught Canadian officials off guard. Speaking to CBC Radio's The House hours before Trump's post, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Canada's negotiators "continue to be optimistic about the constructive tone" between the two countries. Still, Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said there have been signs the "tone and tenor of talks has improved in recent months." Trump and Carney have had two friendly meetings in that time, and she hopes to see "progress continue" despite Trump's apparent attempt to derail the talks. "Negotiations go through peaks and valleys. With deadlines approaching, some last-minute surprises should be expected," Laing said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US and China agree framework deal to extend trade war truce
The US and China have extended the truce in their trade war after two days of talks in London that resulted in a 'framework' deal over export restrictions on rare earths and semiconductors. Negotiations to resolve the wider tariff war triggered by Donald Trump in April will continue but the truce settles, for now, growing tension between the two economic super-powers. The talks, which broke up at about midnight UK time after more than 20 hours of discussions over two days, were led by the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, alongside the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, and the trade representative, Jamieson Greer. Lutnick expressed optimism on Tuesday that concerns about critical or rare earth' minerals and magnets, which are vital to a range of industries including cars, electronics and defence, would be resolved as the deal was implemented. The wider dispute, triggered by Trump's decision to impose triple-digit tariffs on Chinese imports in April – since eased to a baseline 30% – has yet to be resolved with China's exports to the US plunging 35% year on year in May. Both sides had accused each other of reneging on a preliminary trade deal struck in Geneva last month to ease retaliatory tariffs, with China putting restrictions on exports of rare earths and the US continuing curbs on semiconductor exports. But the trade war has already caused damage on both sides, whatever the positioning and rhetoric. China's exports to the US plunged 35% year on year in May. The choked global supply of rare earths, which China controls, was already threatening to halt production in the automotive sector this summer on both sides of the Atlantic, with permanent magnets used in everything from windscreen wipers to doors. China's delegation was headed up by the vice-premier He Lifeng – a seasoned negotiator at the top of the Chinese government who had also led talks in Geneva. Lutnick told reporters that Tuesday's framework put 'meat on the bones' of the Geneva deal. Its implementation had faltered over China's curbs on critical mineral exports. The deal also would remove some US export restrictions that were recently put in place, Lutnick said. 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents,' Lutnick said. 'The idea is we're going to go back and speak to President Trump and make sure he approves it. They're going to go back and speak to President Xi and make sure he approves it, and if that is approved, we will then implement the framework.' Related: China accuses Pete Hegseth of sowing division in Asia in speech 'filled with provocations' In a separate briefing, China's vice commerce minister Li Chenggang said a trade framework had been reached that would be taken back to US and Chinese leaders. There was a cautious welcome from investors and analysts. 'At least now there's a bottom line that neither side is willing to cross,' said Mark Dong, a co-founder of Minority Asset Management in Hong Kong. Deutsche Bank's note to clients on Wednesday was more sceptical. 'So while the mood music has stayed positive, investors may be wary of the pattern that emerged during the previous US-China trade talks in 2018-19, when apparently constructive in-person meetings seemed to take a step back as the negotiating teams returned to their capitals.' Lutnick said China's restrictions on exports of critical minerals and magnets to the US would be resolved as a 'fundamental' part of the framework agreement. 'Also, there were a number of measures the United States of America put on when those rare earths were not coming,' Lutnick said. 'You should expect those to come off, sort of as President Trump said, in a balanced way.' Li said: 'Our communication has been very professional, rational, in-depth and candid.' Reuters and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report Sign in to access your portfolio
