Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

Sharyl Attkisson

I dream of a world without smears: OPINION

The following is an excerpt from an article in The Hill

Smear /smeer/: noun

  1. Carefully timed and publicized release of negative material, true or not, about a target.
  2. Character assassination.

Bork, Thomas, Hill, Clinton, Clinton, Beck, Imus, Palin, Biden, Obama, O’Reilly, Sanders, Trump, Hannity, Kavanaugh, Northam, Klobuchar, Carlson ... 

Smears have become a distasteful staple in our media diet. The nonprofits, LLCs, super PACs, PR firms, crisis management companies and global law firms that organize and promote smears have formed a multibillion-dollar industry. They’re profiting beyond imagination.

Are we?

After interviewing many players who work in the smear industry, I came up with three characteristics that qualify an accusation as a smear. The determination of whether a particular attack is, in fact, a smear lies not so much in the truth of the accusation, but in execution and motivation.

In a smear:

  • The media are used as a tool in an organized effort to amplify accusations, true or not, in a fashion disproportionate to the alleged offense.
  • Though moral outrage is voiced, the accused actually is targeted for entirely different reasons, usually in a campaign by political or financial competitors.
  • The goal of a smear is the target’s destruction.

When a smear is launched against someone we don’t like, we may be happy to enjoy the ride. If it’s against someone we like, we fret about how unjust it is. But we seldom step back and see the big truth: We are little more than an unwitting audience watching a scripted play. There are behind-the-scenes producers, writers and actors. They are experts at working the media, plucking our emotions and prompting their desired results. They carefully time each allegation, roll out demands for apologies or resignations, and organize “grassroots” boycotts. 

We might benefit from asking ourselves if the smear du jour really deserves to dominate national or even global headlines, hour after hour, day after day. Is it really much more important than all of the real news happening around the world? Are we better off for the results?

Can we find kryptonite to weaken or destroy the smear, if we want to?

(Continued)...

Read the rest of the article at The Hill by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/434065-i-dream-of-a-world-without-smears

]]>

POLL: Trump's approval inches up

The following is written by pollster ScottRasmussen.com

One of the more interesting trends we've been observing is the recent inching up of President Trump's Job Approval rating.

Yesterday, the Senate voted against the president's declaration of a national emergency and news headlines highlighted the fact that many Republican Senators joined Democrats in the rebuke of Trump's position.

Despite that, or perhaps because of it, the president's job approval reached its highest level in months--47%. Prior to yesterday, his approval had been at 46% on six of the last seven days. The president hasn’t had a stretch that positive since before the government shutdown.

--Scott Rasmussen, pollster

It will be interesting to see where these numbers head in the coming weeks and months.

In New Hampshire, the president's job approval is at 42%. That's well below the ratings of Governor Chris Sununu (78%), Senator Jeanne Shaheen (63%), and Senator Maggie Hassan (60%).

Normally, a 42% job approval rating would spell trouble for an incumbent seeking re-election. However, the president may benefit from a lesser of two evils factor. Six percent (6%) of New Hampshire voters disapprove of the president but believe things would be worse if Hillary Clinton was president. The combined total of 48% almost precisely matches the president’s share of the New Hampshire vote in 2016.

On other matters, a majority (54%) of New Hampshire voters do not believe that our economic system is fair to most Americans. However, just 27% have a favorable opinion of Socialism. And just 13% want to get rid of private health insurance companies.

Nationally, (58%) of voters believe increasing government spending hurts the economy. A ScottRasmussen.com survey found that only 18% believe it helps. Seven percent (7%) believe it has no impact and 17% are not sure.

Most voters (58%) also believe that raising personal income taxes hurts the economy.

On the flip side, 57% believe cutting personal income taxes helps the economy. And, by a 54% to 23% margin, voters also believe cutting government spending is good for the economy.

When it comes to corporate income taxes, opinion is mixed. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe cutting corporate income taxes helps the economy while 38% disagree and believe it hurts. Forty-four percent (44%) believe raising corporate income taxes is good for the economy while 32% take the opposite view.

For more information, visit ScottRasmussen.com

]]>

MS-13: a vicious import into the U.S.

This week on Full Measure, Jonathan Elias is in Honduras to investigate why so many citizens from there make the dangerous trip to the US. One of the reasons is the rampant gang violence, much of it attributed to MS-13. The gang was started in Los Angeles by El Salvadoran immigrants and is now largely centered in Central America.

That’s part of the problem when it comes to illegal immigration: along with what most would consider deserving, honest people are violent thugs responsible for horrendous crimes. Jonathan actually sits down with MS-13 gang members for an interview.

Also this week, some doctors say antidepressants can save lives. But there's a world renowned renegade psychiatrist with a different view. Psychiatrists typically rely on prescription drugs as much or more than any medical speciality but Dr. Peter Breggin has never prescribed a drug for treatment of mental disorders. He’ll tell us why. It’s food for thought for anyone seeking treatment for depression or other mental disorders.

And you won't want to miss Scott Thuman's excellent adventure on a scooter in Vietnam.

We never waste your time rehashing stories you've already seen all week. Check out ways to watch us Sunday on TV, on demand and online--below:

]]>

Ex-Clinton and Obama officials must answer questions under oath

The following is an excerpt of a report by Sara Carter

A federal judge ordered multiple senior Obama Administration officials, State Department officials and former Hillary Clinton aides Thursday to provide answers under oath to questions requested by Judicial Watch after a roughly four year court battle.

Judicial Watch, a leading conservative non-profit watchdog group, announced the schedule of depositions in their case in a press release Thursday.  The Judicial Watch questions regard two separate cases regarding the Obama administration’s actions during the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA Annex in Libya, and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified government emails...

The confirmed discovery schedule now includes:
  • March 12: State Department’s responses to interrogatories and document requests were due.
  • March 14: Deposition of Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton who reportedly had no security clearance and is believed to have played a key role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s non-government email system.
  • April 5: Deposition of John Hackett, a State Department records official “immediately responsible for responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.”
  • April 16: Deposition of Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff.

(Continued)

To read the rest of the report, click the image below. If the image doesn't appear, just click here: https://saraacarter.com/former-senior-obama-officials-ordered-by-judge-to-answer-judicial-watch-questions/

https://saraacarter.com/former-senior-obama-officials-ordered-by-judge-to-answer-judicial-watch-questions/
]]>

Rep. Posey to Facebook: "blatantly false information" on vaccine safety

Above image: Bill Posey, R-Florida, a pro-vaccine advocate who says vaccine safety issues must be addressed scientifically

The following is a news analysis

It was an earth-shattering revelation from the government's world renowned pro-vaccine medical expert: in a sworn statement, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman said science proves vaccines can cause autism, after all, in "exceptional" cases. What's worse, he claims, government officials misrepresented and covered up his findings after he informed them a decade ago.

Dr. Zimmerman's testimony adds to a growing body of scientific evidence focusing attention on vaccine safety issues.

Pharmaceutical interests portray such evidence, and efforts to study or report on vaccine safety issues, as "anti-vaccine." Scientists and advocates on the other side argue it's actually "pro-vaccine" to investigate ways to make vaccines as safe as possible.

Clearly, the newly-public information from Dr. Zimmerman stood to sway public opinion more than other evidence and claims. After all, he is pro-vaccine and took part in defending the government against vaccine injury claims in court. The government's own chosen expert was now conceding a vaccine-autism link; something the government had previously told the public was impossible.

The powerful nature of Dr. Zimmerman's findings is likely what triggered an organized media campaign driven by vaccine interests to controversialize and censor vaccine safety questions. This campaign included hyping recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. and blaming "anti-vaxxers." As part of this campaign, a great deal of disinformation was distributed including the false claim: "There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases."

In fact, on that point, there is no scientific dispute: it is untrue. Experts from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and vaccine makers alike agree that vaccines-- like other medicines-- are associated with serious injuries and death. The risks are disclosed on vaccine labels that the public rarely reads. The only dispute is how often such injuries and deaths occur, and exactly which injuries can be blamed on vaccines. CDC and vaccine makers say the risk of vaccine injuries and deaths is lower than the risks of the relevant diseases.

Nonetheless, members of Congress got involved in the campaign to discredit those raising vaccine safety questions. The Senate quickly convened a one-sided hearing called "Vaccines Save Lives," in which vaccines were defended and promoted without mention of the multiple safety issues. A large group of advocates concerned about vaccine risks were locked in the hallway and not invited to appear.

The pharmaceutical industry influences Congress by spreading around enormous amounts of campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans, effectively scuttling attempts to improve vaccine safety or hold hearings examining vaccine-autism links and other health issues. Drug companies earn billions from vaccines. Government-mandated vaccines are guaranteed billions in the bank. Vaccine safety questions mean the possibility of enormous sums of money lost to the industry.

One point the industry and its government partners effectively argue is the notion that if people stop vaccinating, it will mean the return of deadly infectious diseases. However, vaccine safety advocates and scientists counter that vaccines are not an all-or-nothing proposition and should not be argued on that basis. They say science can identify which children have conditions that make them most likely to be injured by vaccines. Those children can be separated out while the rest of the population is vaccinated safely.

After several weeks of the relentless media campaign and under pressure from members of Congress, Facebook recently announced it intends to censor "anti-vaccine" material. Vaccine safety advocates say this move is designed to protect the vaccine industry and prevent members of the public from reading scientific studies and other information about vaccine risks.

Congressman Bill Posey (R-Florida), a pro-vaccine legislator who is one of a minority on Capitol Hill defying the pharmaceutical industry and his own leadership by pursuing vaccine safety issues, has written a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In his letter, Rep. Posey asks whether Facebook has a relationship with vaccine makers as paid advertisers. He also asks for Zuckerberg's views on free speech. He points out that the government has paid $4 billion to vaccine injured patients and their families in recent years. Under a special arrangement approved by Congress, damages are not paid by the vaccine industry. They are paid from a government trust fund financed by a fee that patients are charged for each dose of vaccine given.

Read Rep. Posey's letter to Facebook below:

]]>

Herpes Vaccine and Short on Time

There's more than one side to this story about the scientist who violated nearly every ethics rule governing human research in developing a herpes vaccine. He even gave patients shots at the Holiday Inn Express.

Watch the Full Measure investigation by clicking the image below or, if the image doesn't show up, just click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMLbcRyB7k&t=16s

Get Smart

Why experts say our "smart" border cities need to get smart. Or else get hacked by our foreign adversaries.

A fascinating examination of modern technology and its vulnerabilities.

Watch our Full Measure investigation by clicking the image below, or if the image doesn't show up, just click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgkz8BEo2Mo