Accuracy in Media

With CNN and MSNBC depicting the incoming Trump administration as the advent of a Fourth Reich, it should be obvious that the President-elect will have to go beyond his blistering tweets to cultivating sympathetic media and getting his own message out in a systematic way. But is the Trump transition team up to the job?

President Obama was ahead of the curve in this regard, having established an office of “Progressive Media and Online Response” to cooperate with “progressive” media sources. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign understood this form of “outreach” as well, as we saw in the WikiLeaks disclosures of how they colluded with major media outlets and reporters. Trump has used tweets, meetings with the press, official statements, and an occasional video. But much more will be needed if the President-elect hopes to survive the transition with a team in power that can get things done and communicate directly with the American people.

In addition to Trump’s tweets, which serve a legitimate purpose, the President-elect should consider a position that is comparable to what the Obama administration had, albeit with a focus on conservative and alternative news media. Trump appears to have great confidence in Dan Scavino, who now carries the title of Director of Social Media & Senior Advisor to President-elect Trump. Scavino has a fascinating bio and has worked for Trump nearly half his life, including as the former Executive Vice President and General Manager of Trump National Golf Club, Westchester. But it’s not clear what role he is playing in the presidential transition.

What Obama did is worth studying. Jesse Lee was named as the White House Director of Progressive Media and Online Response in 2011. He helped Obama win a second term. According to Lee’s bio, he previously worked as Online Programs Director in the White House and in the New Media department for the Presidential Transition team doing online outreach. He also had worked in online communications for the Democratic National Committee leading up to the 2008 election, served as Senior New Media Advisor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for the 110th Congress, and helped the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launch its online program from 2004 to 2006.

His current effort, as special assistant to the president and “director of rapid response,” includes dissemination of propaganda points about the greatness of Obamacare and other Obama administration initiatives.

While the Trump administration is being painted by the media as an extension of the White Power movement, it’s clear that the Democrats, including Obama, are going on the attack. Together, the media and the Democratic Party are functioning as the new obstructionists, determined to thwart progress and destroy the next administration’s nominees. Trump calls the media names and issues tweets, but there doesn’t seem to be much else being done in response to this coordinated assault.

A group called UltraViolet has placed full-page ads in The Arizona Republic, The Lincoln Star Journal, and The Reno Gazette Journal attacking Republican senators Jeff Flake (AZ), Deb Fischer (NE), and Dean Heller (NV) “for failing to speak out” against Trump’s appointment of Stephen Bannon, “a white supremacist and domestic abuser,” as chief White House strategist. The first charge is apparently a reference to Bannon’s Breitbart News having covered groups which talk about protecting the European heritage and Judeo-Christian traditions of the United States and other Western nations. Some of these groups are controversial and out of the conservative mainstream. But the idea that they are in favor of white supremacy is ludicrous. The “domestic abuser” charge against Bannon was dismissed as a spurious accusation made by an angry spouse in a divorce case.

Significantly, UltraViolet is run by Nita Chaudhary, who is married to Obama White House official Jesse Lee. She served as the Democratic National Committee’s first Director of Online during the 2004 cycle and started her career at People for the American Way. She was also the National Campaigns and Organizing Director at Political Action.

Publicly, Democrats are saying that they intend to work with the Trump administration on some issues. Consider that the University of Arizona just took out a full-page ad in Politico, advertising a statement from the “National Institute for Civil Discourse,” whose members include such prominent Democrats as former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, a Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. The statement signed by Reich and others says Americans should move beyond the “bitter” election and “ensure that America’s next chapter is civil and respectful…”

Despite talk of “civil discourse,” Reich has just written a column titled, “The Trump Administration Will Be the Most Dangerous Since Richard Nixon.” And he writes this before Trump takes office!

Rather than take a wait-and-see attitude, Reich has also written a column, “The First 100 Day Resistance Agenda,” in which he advises, “Get Democrats in the Congress and across the country to pledge to oppose Trump’s agenda. Prolong the process of approving choices, draw out hearings, stand up as sanctuary cities and states.” He also suggests, “Boycott all Trump products, real estate, hotels, resorts, everything. And then boycott all stores (like Nordstrom) that carry merchandise from Trump family brands.”

Reich is a Democrat double-talker who puts his name on a statement promising peace and harmony, while telling the far-left to do everything possible to obstruct and destroy the next administration.

Reich’s double-talk will not be worthy of any media scrutiny, of course.

One way to overcome this onslaught is to continue to go on the offensive, not only against the media but also the media’s darlings, such as Hillary Clinton. When the liberal media see that Trump is apparently backing away from holding Mrs. Clinton accountable for her corruption, they know they are winning the information war and that they have the President-elect on the run.

Meeting personally with The New York Times, as Trump did on Tuesday, will not mollify his critics. The media will see such a meeting as a sign of weakness. He needs to reach out to allies in the media who are willing to cover him and his administration in a fair and objective manner. Another way to do this is to open up the White House press briefings of his new administration to conservative bloggers and media outlets. There’s no reason to reserve front-row seats for what he once called the “crooked media.” Let them stand in the back with their hands raised.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Clintonispathetic
  • John Cunningham

    It’s going to be hard but, we the People can go a long way in helping. I take the Tampa Bay Times. I take it mainly for coupons and local news. It is a filthy Liberal rag just like all newspapers in the Country. Circulation is down in almost all the news papers so most of the pages is filled up with advertising. Of course if Americans who cared about fair and honest reporting stopped taking these rags of yellow cesspool of journalism, who knows?

  • gene456

    Trump is just giving the media one last chance to be civil before he takes office, when the real fun begins. Believe me, Trump will win this battle. Unless the NY Times and others start acting like objective news organizations rather than propaganda outlets, I predict they will be out of business within two years.

  • hap46

    We, of European Heritage, did a pretty good job of establishing a stable and respected City of Chicago since the early 1900’s. Now look at it. I think some of our esteemed GOP members better start stating the positives that many elders did a heck of a job making America a proud nation of hard working, middle-class citizens. Why is the liberal media tearing us down as hateful and racists?

  • Ted

    You kiddin’ me? Trump LOVES the media! He’s clearly one of those who believe ALL publicity is GOOD publicity … and his election proves the point … and he’s a product of it!

    His presidency is going to be a media circus … an hour-to-hour reality show … like “Naked and Afraid” … “Jersey Shore” … “The Kardashians” … “Mob Wives”. It won’t be much different than the campaign … totally crass and classless and filled with fabrications and misrepresentations … just others than Hillary Clinton to b bullied and besmirched.

    By season four … if it even lasts that long … I’m guessing the audience … even the deplorables … will be terminally tired of it.

  • Richard Solomon

    Wow! Thank you for your searching in-depth analysis of policy questions and issues. You seem to be much more of an expert on trash shows, which would explain why you swallow the media narrative hook line and sinker. The upside is that it’s unfair for the deplorables to blame you for your ignorance. You are the type of audience that the media looks for and loves-gullible with no analytical skills.

  • bob570

    If we cared about the media lies we’d never voted for him.

  • Esmee Phillips

    The MSM are dying so fast now, and apparently are so hell-bent on ‘self-assisted suicide’ by their help for Hillary, that AIM had better refocus itself on ‘Accuracy in Social Media’ or it will be out of a job.

    The NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost etc have beclowned themselves and (as WikiLeaks showed) become not just cheerleaders for progressive inanity but active collaborators. That their readership, ratings and revenue are plummeting is not only- maybe not primarily- because of their flagrant political bias. But it sure isn’t helping.

  • Esmee Phillips

    Yeah, but think how much more ‘vibrant’ and ‘enriched’ Chi is now!

  • Esmee Phillips

    As a Republican president,. Donald Trump is more in the Teddy Roosevelt vein than that of Cal Coolidge. And like TR, Trump could draw a bead on trusts: the half-dozen corporations whose gatekeepers massage and exclude so much of public opinion through their ownership of the national press and TV.

    What TR did to Standard Oil, Trump should do to promote a marketplace of ideas which hears all sides.

    He should also attack monopolies in social media which try to filter ‘extremist’ communications. The internet is ripe for trust-busting.

  • Deert

    We all know that every Conservative and Republican is a racist, so why is everyone so surprised that Trump is as well? As a matter of fact, you have to take a special Racism Test to gauge your racism level. If you don’t pass the test you’re not allowed to be a Republican or Conservative.


    Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter


    Sonnie Johnson: Say Its Name — Progressivism
    Since ISIS started chopping of heads, throwing gays from the top of buildings, raping thousands of Yazidi women, and drowning people alive, Republicans have pointed to President Obama’s inability to call terror by its name.
    Last Week at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Islamism, Senator Ted Cruz said, “Does anyone notice a trend here? A consistent effort by this administration to scrub any reference to radical Islamic terrorism, to pretend that the threat does not exist… the consequence of the willful blindness, of a policy that as a matter of administration policy refuses to acknowledge the threat, means over and over again this administration has allowed the threats to go forward.”

    Powerful conservative words most Republicans would agree with–probably give a standing ovation. These same people will tell me they stand on principle and can’t be swayed from those principles. Let’s test that theory.

    Conservatives… what if I told you the Progressive ideology built on the basic tenets of Marxism caused poverty, death and destruction? What if I told you they were rooted in Democrat-controlled cities and needed to be pulled out by their core?

    I know what you’d do: you’d give me a standing ovation. You’ve given me standing ovations for saying exactly that.

    What if I told you if the Progressive ideology was to go unchecked American cities would burn? What if I told you all of this BEFORE Ferguson?


    The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
    The Democrats:

    Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
    Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
    Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
    Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
    Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
    Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
    Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
    Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well-known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
    Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
    Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
    Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
    Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
    Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
    Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
    Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
    Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
    Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
    Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
    Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
    Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
    Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
    Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
    Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
    Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
    Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.


    Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?

    “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the
    creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was
    an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,”
    Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee
    that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    was thoroughly Republican policy.”

    And with President Barack Obama, the first black president, set to
    speak at the LBJ Presidential Library Thursday, that’s the notion that’s
    still widely promoted. This week, White House press secretary Jay
    Carney likened Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act in
    Congress to opposing civil rights legislation.

    “Republicans object to this strenuously, using the same arguments
    that conservatives used when they objected to every bit of progress made
    on civil rights for women and minorities over the past many decades,
    and they were wrong then and they’re wrong now,” Carney told reporters

    Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the
    bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an
    overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans
    voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130
    vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of
    the opposition still was from Democrats.

    Time magazine even largely credited Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) for pushing the sweeping legislation through, putting him on the cover after final passage.

    Johnson told Dirksen: “The
    attorney general said that you were very helpful and did an excellent
    job and that I ought to tell you that I admire you … and I told him that
    I had already done that for some time … . You’re worthy of the Land of
    Lincoln. And a man from Illinois is going to pass the bill, and I’ll see
    that you get proper attention and credit.”

    Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a black conservative
    organization, told TheBlaze that at the time the 1964 bill was debated
    “it was clear [that] distinguished leaders of the Democratic Party were
    the opponents … we didn’t have 24-hour news then, but people who were
    paying attention knew who opposed it.”

    “There is a myth, and it has been a particularly effective one, that
    the Democratic Party has created opportunities for minorities,” added
    Cooper, a former law professor at George Mason University and former
    counsel for House Republicans. “The record for 100 years from the 1860s
    through the 1960s has been that the Democrats have stymied the abilities
    of black Americans to have the same constitutional rights as all

    The basis of most Republican opposition to the 1964 law, even from
    GOP members of Congress who backed the 1957 and 1960 bills signed by
    President Dwight Eisenhower, was discomfort about forcing private
    business to comply with public accommodation laws. Cooper said few
    Republicans expressed any qualms about requiring public busses, and
    government buildings to integrate.

    “Because Republicans had been the party of civil rights and liked
    more in it than they didn’t, they voted for it,” Cooper said. “Democrats
    were split. It was Democrats that used a herculean effort to block it
    through filibusters.”

    Moreover, Cooper pointed out, some local governments in the South had
    laws prohibiting private business owners from serving black customers.
    Goldwater, Cooper said, wanted to end these laws first.

    “Barry Goldwater wanted to address those laws and give people free
    choices,” he said. “Barry Goldwater was never of the mind that
    government had no role in stopping discrimination.”

    The GOP’s civil rights case was not helped when rabid segregationist
    Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina left the Democratic Party for the
    Republicans after Johnson signed the law. But conservatives argue that
    doesn’t erase the historical divide.

    The 1957 Civil Rights Act
    established the civil rights division in the Justice Department and
    allowed federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against local
    governments that tried to interfere with the right to vote and
    established a federal Civil Rights Commission for two years. But the
    legislation, the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction, was
    considered watered down in order to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

    Eisenhower in his last year in office signed the 1960 Civil Right Act
    to strengthen enforcement of the 1957 law, extending the life of the
    Civil Rights Commission and produced penalties for anyone who obstructed
    voter registration. Like the previous bill, this legislation had also
    been watered down.

    The earliest bill to be called the Civil Rights Act came in 1866, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection under the law.

    It was the 1875 Civil Rights Act
    that allowed Americans to have access to public accommodations such as
    restaurants and public transportation. But the law wasn’t enforced and
    the Supreme Court struck it down in 1883.

    “The 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on the GOP’s 1875 Civil Rights
    Act,” said Zak, the historian. “That landmark legislation had been
    written by Senator Charles Summer, a Republican from Massachusetts.”

    Zak’s 2000 book, which he says was to clear up misperceptions about
    history, was followed by other books by conservative authors such as
    economist Bruce Bartlett’s “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried
    Past” in 2008 and well-known conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s
    2013 book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama,”
    which both talked about the Democratic Party’s strong affiliation with
    the Ku Klux Klan and progressive President Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy for
    southern segregation policies.

    But even non-conservative authors are now pointing out the party
    divide. Just last week, an excerpt from Todd Purdum’s new book, “An Idea Whose Time has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1864,” heralded little-known former Rep. Bill McCulloch (R-Ohio) as the Republican who saved civil rights.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed along similar partisan margins,
    with 61 Democratic “no” votes in the House and 24 Republicans voting
    against the bill, which passed 333-85. In the Senate, the measure passed
    with the support of 94 percent of the Republican caucus and 73 percent
    of the Democratic caucus.

    “The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded
    the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that
    Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had
    far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

    Cooper contends that Democrats have continued to exploit race, just in a more sophisticated at it.


    Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner

    Another email in the Wikileaks release shows that Donna Brazile, the
    current head of the Democratic National Committee, and then a CNN
    contributor tipped off the Clinton campaign on a question Hillary would
    receive in a town hall.

    “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Brazile wrote to Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri on March 12, 2016.

    Brazile added, “Here’s one that worries me about [Hillary],” and gave
    Palmieri a question about the death penalty. The next day Hillary was
    asked about her stance on the death penalty during a CNN town hall.

    CNN has not responded to a Daily Caller inquiry about if whether they
    ever shared town hall questions with Brazile, if so was it typical
    practice, and if they had any comment regarding Brazile sharing the
    questions with a campaign.

    Brazile released a statement Tuesday about the emails and said, “As
    it pertains to the CNN Debates, I never had access to questions and
    would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.” She claimed
    Russia is behind Wikileaks and added, “We are in the process of
    verifying the authenticity of these documents.”

    Harwood and Brazile are not alone in coordinating with the Clinton
    campaign. The Boston Globe op-ed editor Marjorie Pritchard worked
    with Podesta on how Clinton could gain a “big presence” in New

    “It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New
    Hampshire,” Pritchard wrote to Podesta about an op-ed the Clinton
    campaign wanted to place. Pritchard added, “That would give her a big
    presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story.
    Please let me know.”

    The Boston Globe told TheDC in response to these leaked emails: “It’s
    certainly no mystery to your readers that our editorial page endorsed
    Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and just endorsed her in
    the general election. But that’s the role of an editorial page. The
    newsroom is a completely separate operation and plays no role in our
    editorial decisions.”

    Besides coordination with the Clinton campaign, good ole’ love
    exchanged between journalists and the campaign is exposed in the
    Wikileaks release.

    Sheara Bruan, editorial producer for MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes,” described
    Hillary as “this amazing, intelligent woman,” to a Clinton spokeswoman.
    Braun added, “She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most
    men to be president.”

    MSNBC told TheDC they had “no comment” regarding these emails from Braun.

    The Clinton campaign in the Wikileaks release also lets be known
    which journalists are their favorites. In on email exchange, Clinton’s
    director of Latino outreach Lorella Preali lets traveling press
    secretary Nick Merrill know how much CNN reporter Dan Merica and Hillary
    Clinton love each other.

    “Dan Merica asked [Hillary] if she was jealous that she didn’t get [Chris] Christie’s endorsement,” Preali wrote.
    “[Hillary] responded with a prolonged smile (you could see the gears
    turning), and then said, ‘Dan, I really like you. I really, really like
    you.’ They are basically courting each other at this point.”

    Then in a document with a July 2015 media plan, New York Times
    Magazine chief national correspondent Mark Leibovich is described as
    “sympathetic.” After Leibovich’s July 7 interview, the New York Times
    Magazine writer wrote to Hillary’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri that she “could veto what you didn’t want” in the interview.

    Palmieri told him to leave out a joke about Sarah Palin cooking mouse
    stew and Clinton saying, “And gay rights has moved much faster than
    women’s rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon
    somebody in the future will unpack.”

    Leibovich shortly thereafter wrote, “Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary
    Clinton: ‘The meticulously managed rollout of a candidate whom voters
    think they know already.’” The Sarah Palin joke and the comment about
    gay rights were left out of the piece.

    TheDC has reached out to Leibovich to see why the Clinton campaign
    would view him as “sympathetic,” he has yet to respond. Leibovich is
    known for writing a book titled “This Town” about the chummy
    relationship between journalists and politicians.

    Hunter Walker, now at Yahoo News, was described as a “friendly” when
    he was at Business Insider by Clinton traveling press secretary Nick
    Merrill. In response, Walker wrote on Twitter Tuesday, “I think and hope
    people on all campaigns think of me as friendly and want to build
    relationships with me.”

    The Daily Caller has previously reported
    on a leak provided by Guccifer 2.0 which contains an invite to an
    off-the-record cocktail party hosted by the Clinton campaign that 37
    journalists from 14 outlets attended. The outlets represented were ABC,
    Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NBC, New
    Yorker, New York Times, People, Politico, Vice, and Vox. In that same
    leak, the Clinton campaign described New York Times reporter Maggie
    Haberman as a “friendly journalist” who they have had “tee up stories.”
    The Clinton campaign said that they have “never been disappointed” with

    The Daily Caller will continue to report on the essentially corrupt
    relationship between supposedly “straight” reporters and Democratic
    nominee Hillary Clinton.


    Report: U.S. Ranks 41st in Global Index of Press Freedom – Behind Namibia and Belize
    The United States is ranked 41st in a 2016 global index produced earlier this year by Reporters Without Borders.

    “The Index ranks 180 countries according to the level of freedom available to journalists,” the report stated. “It is a snapshot of the media freedom situation based on an evaluation of pluralism, independence of the media, quality of legislative framework and safety of journalists in each country.

    “It does not rank public policies even if governments obviously have a major impact on their country’s ranking,” the report stated. “Nor is it an indicator of the quality of journalism in each country.

    “Along with the Index, RSF calculates a global indicator and regional indicators that evaluate the overall performance of countries (in the world and in each region) as regards media freedom,” the report stated. “It is an absolute measure that complements the Index’s comparative rankings.

    “The global indicator is the average of the regional indicators, each of which is obtained by averaging the scores of all the countries in the region, weighted according to their population as given by the World Bank,” the report stated.

    The top 10 countries for freedom of the press, from one to 10, are Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland and Jamaica.

    The countries with the least press freedom, numbered from 170 to 180 are Yemen, Cuba, Djibouti, Laos, Sudan, Vietnam, China, Syria, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea.

    The overall assessment of the index stated: “The 2016 edition of the World Press Freedom Index, which Reporters Without Borders published on 20 April, 2016, shows that there has been a deep and disturbing decline in respect for media freedom at both the global and regional levels.

    “The many reasons for this decline in freedom of information include the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of governments in countries such as Turkey and Egypt, tighter government control of state-owned media, even in some European countries such as Poland, and security situations that have become more and more fraught, in Libya and Burundi, for example, or that are completely disastrous, as in Yemen,” the assessment stated.

    “The survival of independent news coverage is becoming increasingly precarious in both the state and privately-owned media because of the threat from ideologies, especially religious ideologies, that are hostile to media freedom, and from large-scale propaganda machines,” the assessment stated. “Throughout the world, ‘oligarchs’ are buying up media outlets and are exercising pressure that compounds the pressure already coming from governments.”

    Reporters Without Borders has been publishing the World Press Freedom Index since 2002 using the following criteria – “pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative environment, transparency, infrastructure, and abuses.”

  • efred1

    I’m inclined to agree: Trump will systematically disembowel each and every liberal news network, and maybe even get Congress to implement a “Truth in Reporting” Bill that he would sign, forcing the MSM to straighten up and fly right. Gone are the days of biased reporting with commentary interspersed in their reports, instead of just reporting the facts. If they want to be biased, they will have to state it upfront, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like. There will be no subsidizing these shows; they will stand or fall on their own merits.

    This could be a new golden age of news, where the MSM is truly the Watchdogs of Freedom and Liberty, instead of the Leg-Humping Lapdogs of Tyrants that they are today. We can only hope and Pray.