Some Notable Events

§ "The latest Gallup poll [2016] finds that only 32 percent of adults 'trust the mass media,' down from 55 percent in 1999....Only 20 percent expressed strong confidence in newspapers, 21 percent in TV news and 19 percent in internet news" (Robert J. Samuelson, "Why Trump gets his jollies in attacking the media," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 26, 2017, section 1, p. 23).

§ In the category of "better late than never, welcome to the party," or the category "denial of obvious reality probably won't work in the long run," we have this admission from the homosexual magazine The Advocate: "If there is a gay gene---no researcher has found it yet" (Brenden Shucart, "The Empty Choice Argument," Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017, p. 18).

§ According to a 2016 study by the Center for Public Integrity, "more than 96 percent of donations from media figures to either of the two major-party presidential candidates [Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump] went to Hillary Clinton [as of October 2016]" (Jonah Goldberg, "Bans on donations only help reporters hide biases," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 24, 2016, section 1, p. 19).

§ A columnist for the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times has stated that the ABC network's news division is "replete with gays" (Billy Masters, "Billy Masters," Windy City Times, May 4, 2016, p. 25).

§ "Only 6 percent of people truly trust the media, according to a [2016] study by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute" (Rex W. Huppke, "Trust in media is a matter of 'factpinion,'" Chicago Tribune, April 19, 2016, section 1, p. 2).

§ According to the 2014 General Social Survey: "a record low of 7 percent [of Americans] have a lot of confidence [in the media], while 44 percent have hardly any confidence at all" (Emily Swanson, "Americans show record low confidence in government," Chicago Tribune, March 12, 2015, section 1, p. 18).

§ According to a June 2014 Gallup survey: "Americans' faith in each of three major news media platforms---television news, newspapers, and news on the Internet---is at or tied with record lows in Gallup's long-standing confidence in institutions trend."

§ According to a September 2013 Gallup survey: "Americans' confidence in the accuracy of the mass media has improved slightly after falling to an all-time low last year [2012]....[Also] far more Americans say the media are too liberal than too conservative, 46% vs. 13%....Although up from the all-time low found last year, Americans' confidence in the mass media remains lower than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their confidence began to decline in 2005 and has been lower since. The decline over that period is apparent among Democrats, independents, and Republicans."

§ According to Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA and author of the book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind: "Media bias aids Democratic candidates by eight to 10 percentage points in a typical election, every mainstream national news outlet has a liberal bias, and only four of 100 news outlets examined lean right and even those can't be considered far right" (from an editorial titled "Why The Bias Matters" in Investor's Business Daily, Sept. 7, 2011, p. A14).

§ According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism's report on media coverage of the final days of the Obama vs. Romney presidential campaign ("The Final Days of the Media Campaign 2012"): "During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points....For Mitt Romney in the final week,...Negative stories in the press outnumbered positive ones 33% to 16%....All totaled, in the period from August 27-November 5, the number of unfavorable stories exceeded favorable one[s] for both men in the mainstream media, but the tone for Obama was considerably less harsh. In the end, 20% of stories during the fall period about Obama were favorable compared with 29% that were unfavorable (a gap of 9 points). For Romney, 15% of stories during this fall period were favorable while 37% were unfavorable, a gap more than twice as large as Obama's." In sum, the liberal bigots who dominate the media once again discriminated in favor of the Democrat and just may have been the deciding factor in the election.

§ Evidence that liberals finally may be slowly (too slowly) coming around on homosexuality---From Psychology Today of all places: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

So, they are finally throwing the long-ago discredited 10% figure under the bus, and they are indirectly admitting that 50% of homosexuals were probably NOT born homosexual and so should be able to change and become what they were born to be---heterosexual. They are also indirectly admitting that if people can be homosexual without having homosexual genes, then people can be heterosexual without having heterosexual genes. In other words, they are admitting that people born with homosexual genes (if they exist) can still satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle. We'll take progress where we can get it.

§ From the Dec. 31, 2007/Jan. 7, 2008 issue of U.S. News & World Report (page 25): The "American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years producing a new edition of...The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders....[It] is hugely influential because it determines what is and is not a mental disorder....The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated with shyness, for example, became symptoms of 'social anxiety disorder.' And drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems. Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the drug industry" (from "Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness" by Kent Garber).

And regarding that new edition of the DSM, the fifth, which was released in May 2013: it's so flawed that it "has been slammed by prominent psychiatrists---including Dr. Allen Frances, head of the task force that wrote the fourth edition, who warned doctors to use it 'cautiously, if at all'" (Alice Park, "Head Case," Time, June 3, 2013, p. 16).

The APA has little credibility nowadays. They definitely do not deserve the authority to tell us what is and what is not a mental illness. We need to use whatever leverage we have to pressure psychiatrists to significantly reform or defund the wayward APA. It's a bad joke.

§ According to a 2008 study titled "The State of the News Media," by the Project for Excellence in Journalism: "The 20-year trend of public dissatisfaction with the press showed few signs of reversing course in 2007. Majorities of Americans continued to say that journalists are often inaccurate (55%), do not care about the people they report on (53%), are biased (55%), one-sided (66%) and try to cover up their mistakes (63%). Those sentiments, all more prevalent than in the 1980s, have become entrenched."

§ "According to a new survey [by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center], only 12 percent of local reporters, editors, and media executives describe themselves as conservatives, while twice as many say they're liberal. At national news organizations, the gap is wider----7 percent conservative vs. 34 percent liberal" ("More liberals at news outlets, survey says," by Randy Dotinga, Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 2004, p. 44). In reality the situation is even more unbalanced than those statistics indicate. In that Pew study, 54 percent of news people self-described themselves as "moderate," as neither liberal nor conservative. However, as other statistics in this study suggest, many of these so-called moderates are closet liberals. For example, a stunning 88 percent of journalists believe society should approve of homosexuality while only around half of Americans believe that. Syndicated columnist George Will once noted that about 90 percent of news reporters, editors, and producers vote for Democrats not Republicans ("Free-market flavor for elections," Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15, 1997, p. 19). "Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Washington editor, conceded that there was media bias favoring Senator [John] Kerry [in his presidential campaign against George Bush in 2004] and speculated that it might be worth a...5-point advantage [in the election]" (John O'Sullivan, "The Limits of Media Bias," National Review, Nov. 29, 2004, p. 46). To illustrate that anti-Bush bias: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism...[found that from] Oct. 1 through Oct. 14, 2004: Percent of stories [in the mainstream media] about President Bush that are negative----59 percent. Percent of stories about Sen. Kerry that are negative----25 percent. Stories favorable to Bush? 14 percent. Favorable to Kerry? 34 percent. That is not a difference [opined syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer]. That is a chasm" ("No question about media's liberal bias," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 17, 2005, section 1, p. 19). "Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News...is acknowledging that reporters' bias 'tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction.' [Plus] 'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace, a self-described Democrat, calls the media's blatant favoritism 'astonishing.' Meanwhile, liberal journalist Juan Williams agrees with the assertion that CNN is 'in the tank' for the Democrats" (Investor's Business Daily, Nov. 1, 2006, p. A12). And finally: "An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this [2008] election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans" ("Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1," William Tate, Investor's Business Daily, July 24, 2008, p. A11).

§ Newsweek's Howard Fineman admitted, in the March 22, 2010 edition of the magazine, that "almost no one likes or trusts the media. The latest Gallup survey of respected institutions puts us down with the worst of the riffraff" (http://www.newsweek.com/id/234927).

§ Chicago Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington: "journalistic credibility is so low it's underground....There has been an inexorable erosion of our craft and credibility. We've lost the public trust" ("Columbia dean's great ideas ignore basics," May 26, 2003, p. 29).

§ Columnist Mona Charen, in June 2001, noted that: "In 1997 [the latest year for which statistics were available at the time she wrote this], corporations gave almost five times as much to left-leaning charities and public-policy advocates than to right-leaning ones" (Daily Herald, June 17, 2001, sec. 1, p. 16). Corporate America appears to be a bastion of liberalism.

A March 2017 National Review article titled "Why Corporate Leaders Became Progressive Activists" and subtitled "U.S. corporate activism tilts overwhelmingly to the left" reinforces that point. Fact is, college campuses have been dominated by liberal radicals for many years, and those radicals have been busy indoctrinating students with their liberal ideology, and some of those indoctrinated students (who apparently are not intelligent enough to know they were essentially paying for manipulative indoctrination instead of a decent education, who apparently are not intelligent enough to see how they were cheated out of a decent education) go on to run corporations and use their influence to advance liberalism.

§ The following news item has not been made up, shocking though it is. According to National Review magazine (Sept. 11, 2000, p. 46): "Recognizing the gap between their lesson plans and most parents' sensibilities, mainstream sex educators openly embrace a policy of secrecy. The Centers for Disease Control lauds one program, Becoming a Responsible Teen, that insists students sign a contract of secrecy: if a student talks to his parents about what he has learned in class, he is thrown out of the program."

§ According to the October 23, 2000, National Review (p. 32): "Girl Scout staffers writing in the book [On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience] claim that roughly one in three of the Girl Scouts' paid professional staff is lesbian." We hope we're not the only ones who find this disturbing. What are all those lesbians doing there? Are they there to prey on, to take advantage of, young girls? Lesbians do find young women sexually desirable, tempting. Perhaps it's time to start spreading the word about the Girl Scouts far and wide. And for those who would be interested in an alternative to the Girl Scouts, an alternative dedicated to upholding traditional values, you may want to check out American Heritage Girls. This group was started by those who believe the Girl Scouts have lost their way.

§ Here are a couple of interesting quotes from a homosexual writer named Paul Varnell, out of a homosexual newspaper: "Lesbians and gay men have nothing in common except mutual incomprehension" and "Almost all gay men say that they experience their desire for other men as a given, as if it were an inherent part of them. By contrast, many (but not all) lesbians say they regard their sexual desire for women as a choice" (Chicago Free Press, Nov. 30, 2005, p. 6). That item about lesbians can be explained thusly: if many lesbians know they were sexually abused by men when they were young (and many were), then they should be able to understand how they were probably not born lesbian but have "chosen" to be with women due to a fear of men.

§ "Politically, the arts community traditionally skews Democratic and liberal, and that bias is reflected in campaign contributions to the two major parties....Contributors in that [arts community] sector provided $4.7 million to Obama in the current election cycle through June 30 [2008], but it gave just $815,451 to McCain" (Charles Storch, "Arts community has long tradition of giving to Democratic Party," Chicago Tribune, Aug. 17, 2008, section 7, p. 11).