Debunked? That doesn’t mean we’ll stop the harrassment

Democrats desperate to prove debunked Russian dossier’s sex charge against Trump By Rowan Scarborough – No evidence? No matter. Just think if Republicans were this persistent in chasing down the IRS, Benghazi, and other scandals over the last decade.

“The Times’ source said the bottom line is this: Mr. Schiller, who directed Oval Office operations before resigning to take higher-paying jobs, said nothing happened and denied there was any Russia-Trump collusion.

“So in the end, the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by leaking this, because the final result is a convincing denial of the dossier’s most famous and salacious report,” the source told The Times. “A huge number of the Democrats’ claims are based on the dossier, and the dossier’s credibility is in tatters.”

The FBI has maintained a wall of secrecy about how it specifically used the unsubstantiated dossier to target Mr. Trump and his people.

Public now wary of ‘unhinged’ liberal press By Jennifer Harper – “Relentless, hostile media coverage of President Trump and his administration could be reaching the saturation point.” One can hope.

“The public appears weary, wary and quite possibly ready to move on — hungry, perhaps, for credible news coverage over biased caterwaul.

“Unhinged coverage of Trump is hurting the media,” writes Kyle Smith, a columnist for the New York Post who has advice for journalists.

Some conservative analysts have suggested that unprecedented negative coverage of Mr. Trump is actually a symptom of panic in the press, now faced with the president’s accomplishments and his unexpected resilience.

The Wapo story on Roy Moore provides an illustration of just how insidious press bias can be when done with skill. There are many (e.g. Charles Hurt) who think the story “was devastatingly fair” and “thorough and balanced.” They see style but do not see substance. They do not engage critical thinking. They do not see what is missing, what is created via innuendo, or what is being done to create a narrative.

Why Ajit Pai’s decision killing Obama’s net neutrality FCC regulation is good by Washington Examiner – “Sometimes you have to wonder how sincere people are when they gnash their teeth and pull out their hair over President Trump blocking or reversing an Obama-era regulation.”

“Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision … This is the Democratic line. By portraying deregulation as a bonbon for Big Business, and concealing the hit taken by some of the biggest businesses (see above), these partial accounts avoid debating the issue on its merits and dwindle into demagoguery, where they are comfortable.

Net neutrality regulation also effectively outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy as a whole. Competing business models allow experimentation, and this leads to providers serving customers better by meeting their needs more precisely.

The FCC’s move last week will leave Internet business models to compete in the marketplace rather than competing in smoke-filled rooms for the favor of regulators. This deserves applause from everyone, except for those who love regulation as a good in itself.

Why the Portuguese argument for Net Neutrality doesn’t work by Taylor Millard – This one ties the partisan misleading thing, the net neutrality thing, and the press role and responsibility thing all together.

The public knows about data throttling because the media brought it to light. It’s a lot easier holding individual companies responsible for their actions, than it is government bureaucrats. The VA has been roundly criticized for how they treated vets, yet no real changes have been made. The TSA has been criticized for groping people, yet the “blue gloves of freedom” still exist. NSA spying is still “a thing,” even if some data collection was halted.

I understand why there are people wondering what happens next, with the potential repeal of Net Neutrality. But if you’re going to complain about it, especially if you’re an elected official, don’t pass misinformation out about it. It just makes you look bad.

The legal road ahead for net neutrality and the Restoring Internet Freedom Order by Hao-Kai Pai – “The response to the RIFO has also been, in broad strokes, as anticipated, with pro–net neutrality voices taking to the media with proclamations of the internet’s impending death.”

“The interesting thing about these arguments is how familiar they sound: They are largely the same as the arguments made on the other side against the 2010 and 2015 OIOs. Needless to say, it is nice that net neutrality proponents are finally embracing the arguments that those of us who have been critical of the FCC’s Open Internet efforts have been making for nearly the past decade. This newfound concurrence, however, does raise interesting questions about how the inevitable legal challenge to the RIFO will proceed.

When it comes to the legal arguments for and against net neutrality, there really is little new under the sun. The basic issue remains that Congress has not given the Commission clear direction for how it should approach the internet.

Compared to the OIO, the RIFO has exceptionally well-developed factual basis and analysis of that factual basis. The OIO was premised on a theory of innovation that promised the increase of investment in broadband networks. It provided little beyond conjecture to support that theory. In its details, it ignored, misused, and misrepresented evidence (that is, it was an “economics free zone”), resolved contentious points by pointing to favorable comments with a cursory statement that the Commission was persuaded by them, and relied on the Commission’s own assertions of expertise.

The RIFO, on the other hand, analyzes and rejects the theory put forth in the OIO, relying on substantive analyses of data to do so.

Net neutrality isn’t so neutral and the nature of the arguments follows established patterns.

Comments are closed.