Narrative: ALL of the Sunday programs lied about the “counter-protesters”

by Skip


“Mr. President, do you want the support of these white nationalists groups that say that they support you? Mr. President? Have you denounced strongly enough?”

– Female report at Presser, Meet the Press 0:07

Industrial workers of the world flagIt takes at least two sides to create a conflict. Not one, two.  Watching the Sunday shows you might believe that only one side was in Charlotteville, VA this past weekend.  The reporting concentrated on the KKK as a whole and neo-Nazis from whatever groups they happened to belong.  Just one side.

On This Week with Georgie George Stephanopoulos, there was not one mention of AntiFA or as you can see with the flags the Industrial Workers of the World group; one of a number of Socialist groups from the Left that ALWAYS seem to have a presence when violence is around.  Yet, he and his reporters and panel member just called them “counter protesters.” I guess Georgie forgot all about the Berkeley riots, the Oakland riots, and the Portland riots, eh?

Whitewash much?

Same thing with Meet The Press even though it was clear when Chuck Todd rolled tape and the IWW flag was shown in the opening frame (at top of post – their logo on the left above).  Although it was just there for a flash, having DVR’s it I was able to “frame through it” and the writing on the flag that was visible was “…ORS of the WORLD” (0:06).

Even Fox News Sunday – nary a word about the “other side” unless they were labeled with the innocuous phrase “counter-protesters.”  It’s as if the name “AntiFA” didn’t exist.  Ditto for the other Sunday morning talking head shows.  And these are supposed to be amongst our nation’s crack journalists – even as it was clear in their tape rolls?

AntiFA – you know that group – the self-proclaimed Leftist group that has taken it upon itself to have the power to declare anyone that isn’t one of them is a fascist.  The problem is, they won’t acknowledge that their tactics are anti-Free Speech (Fascism itself) because “evil” must be silenced (just like we have seen on campuses.  Black outfits, black knit caps, bandanas covering their faces, goggles, helmets, body armor (on some), bats, mace, batons – they weren’t there for an afternoon tea of any type that I know of. Let’s also not forget BLM and other such groups.

President Trump’s words on the violence:

We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, many sides

He was technically right – many groups and many sides.  Yet, that top quote was emblematic of the Political Class (politicos and MSM alike) – and as I have pointed out before, “you will be made to care” and the Left will make sure that you DO and that you will AFFIRM their beliefs or it’s the Two Minute of Hate for you (H/T: Orwell’s 1984) except there is never a two minute time limit.  Yet it was not enough.

Today, he did name the KKK and Neo-Nazis. Just what the Left wanted.  And no small number of Republicans.

But I’m disappointed – he didn’t mention any of the Left’s groups.

And the Left just smiled.  They won. They have just made everyone believe that “It takes at least two sides to create a conflict.” it only takes one side to win.

Whitewash brush

UPDATE: Forgot about this reporter being sent to the hospital by an AntiFA protester

Local CBS Reporter Assaulted By Anti-Racism Protester A Day After Charlottesville Chaos

You know, it’s like when some Islamist starts screaming “Allahu Akbar” and high-level government officials and MSM all go “We may never know what the motive was.”

What is the motive of the MSM in all this?

Leave a Comment

  • roger

    “Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom ”

    Isn’t it meet the presses “individual freedom” to report their own opinion? (MTP is not News it’s an editorial show format)

    No is declaring victory, I also don’t think anyone is claiming this is one sided. I love that you are upset of the use of the word “counter protesters” when that is literally what they are. This event was organized by white supremacist groups who lie on the far right side or the political spectrum, antifa is on the other side of the political extreme you know the left…therefore they are “counter points” to one another. Another way to express this is “Counter Protestors”

    In Sum, your article is pointless. Perhaps you would like to comment on the fact that Trump took 3 days to denounce them?

    Skip will you be attending the protests in Boston this weekend, or is that to close to actual journalism for you? It’s

    • granitegrok

      They are free to report, or NOT report, on anythng they wish to. Since we ALL have Freedom of the Press (it is not limited to “professional journalists” or news companies, we get speak out as well. And on this I and the other writers at GraniteGrok are free to point out any bias that we see.

      You made my point for me, Roger – while the Press went hog-wild over Trump’s “non-naming” of specific groups on the Right (NeoNazi, KKK, et al, all of which are emotionally laden names), they conveniently used the emotionally neutral, ambiguous term “counter-protesters.. Yes, technically correct but without the distasteful connotations such as AntiFA fascists, Totalitarian Socialists, and Communists. Would that not have been fair and balanced to do so?

      Frankly, as long as you are in favor of “counter-protesters”, I think that Trump’s use of “many sides” was sufficient – just as emotionally neutral as your verbiage.

      I rarely get out to events and haven’t for the last two years due to family committments, so no, I will not be going. But I do recognize your “taunting”.

      • granitegrok
      • roger

        Yeah it’s far easier to talk crap on the internet all day from the comfort of you home while you wait to the SS check to come in.

        • granitegrok

          THAT’s the bipartisan spirit the Left is always talking about!

          • roger

            That’s not a denial

          • granitegrok

            You didn’t ask a question.

          • roger

            Statements presented as facts can be denied.

          • granitegrok

            OK, dude – here’s the real reason. I just brought my Youngest home from a VA lock down psych ward because he suffers from severe PTSD from his year long deployment with the 101st Airborne at a FOB in the upper Pech Valley. THAT’S the family matter I said was taking up this weekend, but you just couldn’t leave well enough alone, could you?

            I’d use stronger language but I’d be breaking my own Rule #1.

          • roger

            Hey man I hope your son gets the help he needs. I support our veterans and troops.

            I do have do point out the irony in supporting a man who called people like your son “weak”. That is the exact moment I stopped supporting him.

            I think my issue with your type of “reporting” is you just fly off the handle and quote other articles. But that is the format of the site so I guess I have to take it or leave it.

            I was pretty triggered by the whole alt-left alt-right dynamic going on. I think calling them counter protesters really doesn’t make a difference. Trump pretty much said that the alt-left started it and I don’t disagree. That doesn’t mean the alt-right groups are in any justified in their existence.

    • KAMGlosta

      Is there a reason you’re such a d*uche or were you born that way?

  • Rick Costello

    The core issue is erasing history because, by today’s standards, unfortunate institutions (slavery) existed and, because certain nations, people or organizations existed at that time, memorials to their deeds and statues of their heroes will be razed in order to purge our politically corrected souls of their existence.

    For the record, the Catholic Church endorsed chattel slavery back in the day. Mark Brumley, managing editor of The Catholic Faith and Catholic Dossier magazines said “The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul’s command for slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8). Furthermore, the Catholic Church didn’t get around to repudiating slavery until the 1890s and prior to that actually supported it.” Indeed, certain nineteenth century American clergy—including some bishops and theologians defended the American slave system. Contending that the long-standing papal condemnations of slavery didn’t apply to the United States. The slave ‘trade’, some argued, had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, but not slavery itself. In the same year that the 13th Amendment was passed in the United States the highest authority in the Catholic Church, short of the Pope, i.e. the “Holy Office” (of the Inquisition), which ruled on matters of orthodox faith and teaching, declared/published the following official statement, signed by then Pope, Pius IX :
    “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. [Instruction 20, June 1866 ] I wonder if all these politically correct, bleeding heart, history erasers would contend that by today’s standards American Catholic churches and cathedrals be razed and their property seized for the benefit of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the Black Lives Matters movement?

    Also worth noting is that Ulysses Grant didn’t free his family’s slaves until after the war and after the 13th Amendment yet no one’s contending they tear down his monument in DC and elsewhere. Indeed, no one clamors to shut down, bulldoze and put parking lots in place of museums or historical sites such as (in Lexington, Kentucky who will be removing their Confederate statues too) Hunt-Morgan House on North Mill Street, Bodley-Bullock House (a Confederate H.Q.), not to mention Waveland and its slave quarters or any of the 70 sites belonging to the National Park Service. Why? Because these places generate ‘revenue’ for the government while a statue of Lee or whomever does not. These barbarians want to erase a proud Southern history while actually knowing little to nothing about history. If any of these nitwits knew anything of history they might know that the first military monument in the US Capitol honoring African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate who wanted to correctly portray the “racial makeup” in the Confederate Army and a black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. As a lifelong northerner from New Hampshire, I side with the Southerners on this subject rather than those perpetrating a virtual orgasm of stupidity.

    • Bruce Currie

      No, it’s not about “erasing history”. Many, if not most of the monuments, were erected in response to threats to Jim Crow laws and segregation–not to honor or memorialize the war’s history.

      “A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.”

    • Bruce Currie

      To claim that Ezekiel’s statue accurately portrays the racial makeup of the Confederate army is a self-serving delusion and a rewrite of the facts–to put it mildly.

      “… I estimate that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

      “We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”

      “The total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers.”

      • Rick Costello

        Why would one suppose that Frederick Douglass, the famous black (sorry, I meant “African American”) leader of the Abolitionist movement, warn Lincoln that unless (Northern) slaves were guaranteed freedom and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels.” Why would Douglas, an intelligent guy, think for one moment that slaves from the north would ‘defect/flee’ to the Confederacy to fight on their side if the Confederacy cause was racism? Frederick Douglass (again) reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army … real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal (Union) troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.” When enlistment was opened to all blacks 83% of Richmond’s male slave population volunteered for combat duty in the Confederate Army and a special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms. They were not alone. Were these “African American” men fighting for racism and slavery?
        You can quibble over exact numbers of black soldiers Bruce but fight for the South they did. The break with the Union and subsequent war was over State’s Rights and tariffs NOT some fight over racism or slavery. If it were Lincoln would not have stated in his inaugural address of 1861 that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

  • mer

    Which side threw the first blow/sprayed the first pepper spray/started the violent confrontation?
    While the “Nazis/White Supremicists” are more than despicable, nay abhorrent even, all they were doing was talking. Saying words. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. Remember Skokie, rember the ACLU Jewish Lawyer that represented them?
    Whatever happened to “I detest what you say, but will defend your right to say it?”

    Sorry, if “words hurt you” then you really don’t have any business being outside your little plastic bubble echo chamber.

    • Bruce Currie

      As repugnant as “antifada” may be, I think you’re making a false equivalence here. The far-right-wing militants who came to Charlottesville were an order of magnitude different from the counter-demonstrators:
      “By the time both groups converged on the park, a line of camouflage-clad militia members toting assault rifles were standing outside the park, looking very much like an invading army. ‘They had better equipment than our State Police had,’ Mr. McAuliffe said.”

      “As the white nationalists massed in the park, Ms. Caine-Conley and other members of the clergy locked arms in the street. Behind them were hundreds of protesters, including black-clad, helmet-wearing members of the far left known as antifa.”

      • mer

        Bullcrap false equivalence.

        Who threw the first punch? So folks exercising 2A rights somehow made it ok for antifa to start beatdowns?

        Who threw the first punch out in Berkely, folks supporting Milo or Antifa?

        • Bruce Currie

          I don’t think we know who threw the first punch.
          I think you mean 1A rights here–not 2A.
          The behavior of Antifa at Berkeley was repugnant. The speaker should have been allowed to air his opinions, and defend them. Instead he was made into a martyr.

          Here’s a different, and fair-minded take on the events at Charlottesville:
          “This is very Weimerica — yet another example of America following the path of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s.
          A government that cannot maintain order in the streets — that has lost the will to even try and do so — signals to extremists that it has rotted. Extremists will gather in strength to prepare for the next regime. We are in the early stages, with time to reform. It is our job to demand that the police — supported by local and state governments — maintain order during political protests.
          Another worrisome sign is people’s turn to the President for immediate action, as if he is our God-Emperor. Local law enforcement is not Trump’s job. The Constitution created a federal system. Let’s try it least we lose it. We won’t like what comes next.

    • Bruce Currie

Previous post:

Next post: