Currently Browsing: Eyes on the Media

Florida Today: Rangel Labels BOCC Actions A “Farce.” (It Was.) Makes Farcical Arguments To Prove Her Point.

“I need to take a selfie before the launch…..”

Florida Today’s “public affairs and engagement editor” and a member of the Editorial Board Isadora Rangel has an op-ed piece concerning the recent resolution passed by the Brevard County Commission to “uphold and adhere to the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States of America.”

We had written about this five days before Rangel. It is not that we are claiming that Rangel plagiarized our post, but there are some striking similarities.

For example:

RANGEL: No one seemed concerned that every commissioner already takes an oath of office that requires them to “support, protect and defend” the Constitution, making the resolution a moot point and mere political theater — or farce.

RoH: Right off the top, why is Isnardi seeking to pass a resolution, which by definition has no legal weight of the law behind it, saying “we want to protect the Constitution” when in fact upon taking the office of Commissioner, she and the other Commissioners take an oath to follow the laws of the State of Florida, the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution?

Why the need for the resolution?

YouTube Bans A Video Which Contains A Sentence They Found Objectionable.

In December of 2017, Doctor Michelle Cretella, M.D., the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, with the help of the Daily Signal, posted a video called “I’m a Pediatrician. Here’s What I Did When a Little Boy Patient Said He Was a Girl.” (The transcript can be found here.)

In the video, Cretella states:

An identity is not biological, it is psychological. It has to do with thinking and feeling. Thoughts and feelings are not biologically hardwired. Our thinking and feeling may be factually right or factually wrong.

If I walk into my doctor’s office today and say, “Hi, I’m Margaret Thatcher,” my physician will say I am delusional and give me an anti-psychotic. Yet, if instead, I walked in and said, “I’m a man,” he would say, “Congratulations, you’re transgender.”

If I were to say, “Doc, I am suicidal because I’m an amputee trapped in a normal body, please cut off my leg,” I will be diagnosed with body identity integrity disorder. But if I walk into that doctor’s office and say, “I am a man, sign me up for a double mastectomy,” my physician will. See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.

The highlighted sentence above ran afoul of the YouTube censors.

The response video from the Daily Signal:


“This Is CNN” A Second Video.

Another video drop from Project Veritas.

One of our staffers here continually points out that media outlets all have biases. They remind us that it used to be that you knew the “slant” of the organization by the name of the newspaper itself. You might have the “Des Moines Democrat” or the “Parker Republic,” which allowed people to see out in the clear the bias of the publication.

For us, the issue is not necessarily that CNN has a bias in their opinion shows. That’s going to happen on every network. We aren’t sure we are bothered by the bias in news reporting.

What bothers us about this is the depth of bias and CNN’s attitude of trying to “get” Donald Trump. It is one thing to be an observer and comment on a story.

It is another when so called journalists become the story.

When Is A Terrorist Attack Not A Terrorist Attack?

When is a terrorist attack not a terrorist attack?

When you are working for the BBC, that’s when.

The BBC has been accused of ‘sanitising’ terrorism under plans for an effective ban on journalists using the word ‘terror’.

Reporters will be told to avoid using the word to describe any terror attack, unless they are quoting someone else.

Instead, they will refer to terror attacks by naming specific details, such as the location and the method of slaughter used.

The controversial edict means that the BBC will no longer use the phrase ‘terror attack’ to describe the massacres at London Bridge or Manchester Arena, as the corporation did when the atrocities occurred.

Bob Gabordi Knows The Answer, He Just Wants To Ignore Them. UPDATED!

Florida Today Executive Editor Bob Garbordi

(UPDATED with Orlando shooting of a carjacker at the bottom of this post.)

Florida Today Executive Editor Bob Gabordi has what can be described as an “interesting” opinion piece on the Florida Today site. By “interesting,” we mean one that is just really strange and lacking in so many things.

Let’s talk about ‘good guy’ without a gun who saved lives in Tennessee Waffle House

James Shaw Jr. is the guy who never gets mentioned in the gun debate. He’s the “good guy” without a gun.

Early Sunday morning, Shaw, 29, rushed a bad guy with a gun who had opened fire at a Waffle House near Nashville, Tennessee. The gunman killed four people and Shaw felt trapped, thinking he might be next.

Local police say Shaw decided not to be a victim and rushed the shooter, disarmed him and threw the assault rifle he was carrying over the Waffle House counter. He took his chance when he saw the gunman look down at his rifle, as if he had to reload. Thank God.

Why do we think heroes always have to have a gun?

Why do we not talk more about people like Shaw?

Yes, there are a lot of people who choose not to have a weapon. Yet as Garboldi states, James Shaw, Jr. was in a no-win situation. “Not wanting to be a victim,” the police and Garbordi say. What is missing is that the patrons in the restaurant were going to be victims because no one in Waffle House was carrying a weapon. You see, it is against Waffle House policy to allow weapons into their restaurant. They do make exceptions for law enforcement, but have known to refuse service to a National Guard Soldier wearing a side arm.

So let’s be clear about this: the shooter walked into a restaurant as a wolf amongst the sheep. Shaw was placed in the position of being a victim because of the choices others made for him and other patrons – choices that included banning weapons on the premises.

Bill Mick: Apologist?

Radio Host and Florida Today Columnist Bill Mick.

FloridaToday columnist and radio host Bill Mick has a rather interesting opinion piece in the FloridaToday, part of which concerns the Broward County Deputy Sheriff Scott Peterson who remained in his car while the horrific shooting was taking place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Mick wrote:

Don’t be quick to judge deputy

A Broward County deputy has resigned after it was revealed that he stood outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for four minutes while the killing of 14 students and three adults occurred.

It’s said that it was clear that there was a massacre going on inside. Did he freeze, potentially in fear? Did he react as he had been trained early in his career to wait for SWAT to respond? Or did he just ignore the current training that says to attack an active shooter because waiting for backup or SWAT only costs more lives?

We won’t know unless he speaks out or the agency does if there is further investigation into his actions.

What I would urge, though, is this. Until you have been in those shoes, of responding to a situation where your life is on the line, even as bullets are flying at others, you have no idea just how you would respond. Period.

Yes, criticism is easy and from all appearances, this deputy failed in his chief duty of protecting those kids. He’ll suffer for that as he punishes himself. It doesn’t require us piling on.

While Mick sounds the what appears to be the right moral tone that we often hear of “don’t judge,” ultimately Mick’s point fail like dominoes collapsing.

First, we need to discuss the meaning of “judge” in context here. People will often cite the Bible and say “see? Even Christ says not to judge others!” (Luke 6:37) The problem is that the word “judge” is somewhat imprecise and has two meanings within the Bible:

F.F. Bruce, a New Testament scholar, explains the linguistic dilemma this way:

“Judgment is an ambiguous word, in Greek as in English: it may mean exercising a proper discernment, or it may mean sitting in judgment on people (or even condemning them).”

While there may be some who are judging the deputy’s actions, we’ve seen darn few people judge him as in pronouncing a sentence on him.

We certainly can criticize and even judge (as to discern) the former officer’s (in)actions if nothing else because we can simply echo what the Broward County Sheriff said:

Dana Loesch Has Been Busy This Week Using Logic And Reason In The Wake Of the Parkland Shooting.

This past week NRA spokesperson and author Dana Loesch made several appearances on different panel debates after the horrific shooting in Parkland, Florida.

The first appearance was at the CNN “townhall” that according to many, was a scripted and rigged event.

One of the more interesting segments came when Loesch and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel had a very interesting exchange, especially in the light of new revelations that a Broward County School Resource Officer was on the scene and sat in his car for 4 of the 6 minutes the shooting was going on.

First, watch the exchange between Loesch, a student and Israel:

Additionally, from the transcript:

ISRAEL: So if an individual was threatened and it was real, that’s a crime. But these posting things – –

LOESCH: Yes, they were threatened with death. They were threatened that they were going to bleed. They were threatened that they were going to be killed.

ISRAEL: Well what’s your specific case?

LOESCH: And he had already taken bullets and knives to school. He had already assaulted people. He assaulted his parent. He assaulted other students. Thirty-nine visits and this was – – known to the – – to the intelligence and law enforcement community.

ISRAEL: You’re – –

LOESCH: Now I’m not – – look I’m not saying that you can be everywhere at once, but this is what I’m talking about. We have to follow up on these red flags.

ISRAEL: You’re not the litmus test.

ISRAEL: You’re absolutely not the litmus test for how law enforcement should follow up. You’re wrong. There weren’t 39 visits. Some of them, they were GOA. Some of them called from other states, so say there were 39 visits I don’t know where you go those facts, but you’re completely wrong.

The Jordan Peterson Interview.

Professor, clinical psychologist and author Jordan Peterson sat down with Britain’s Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman last week and the result was what was called a “fiery interview” which has been taking the internet by storm. The interview delves into the alleged gender pay gap, free speech, patriarchy and a host of other issues.

The interview also turns into a debate as Peterson skillfully refutes the accusations Newman makes.

Two things have been noted by many on the internet and we think they are worthy of the attention they are getting.

First, Newman tries to make Peterson look horrible due to his refusal to cede control of language he uses to others.

The discussion concerning freedom of speech was sparked due to Peterson’s famous refusal to capitulate to the Left’s demands over language. He said he was “not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless to whether of not it was put into law,” he explained during the interview. As you can imagine, his refusal to bend became centered on transgender pronouns and Peterson was labeled “transphobic.”

The professor reiterated that he’s no such thing and said he’s never called a student by an “incorrect” pronoun, nor would he. “I never mistreated a student in my class,” he said.

During the discussion, Newman makes a statement that Peterson turned around and exposes her hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of all people who want to legislate speech – both compelled speech and speech that is censored.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »