NBC News on Sunday displayed the widespread hypocrisy in establishment media coverage of President Trump’s MAGA rallies, posting a cautionary piece on the president’s decision to resume the iconic events in the age of the coronavirus yet failing to extend the same analysis to the massive crowd that congregated for the Black Lives Matter, LGBT demonstration in Brooklyn Museum plaza on Sunday.
“Rally for Black trans lives draws packed crowd to Brooklyn Museum plaza,” NBC News tweeted on Sunday, showing a picture of massive crowd:
Rally for Black trans lives draws packed crowd to Brooklyn Museum plaza. https://t.co/ph5oTf0MdI
— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 14, 2020
“Protesters packed the courtyard of the Brooklyn Museum and surrounding parkway in New York City on Sunday in support of Black trans lives, merging the fight to protect two deeply marginalized groups,” NBC reported, estimating the crowd to be “likely in the thousands.”
“As the country rallies behind dismantling racist systems that put Black lives at risk in the wake of George Floyd’s death, activists have also put a lens on Black trans people who are at the intersection of two dangerously marginalized groups,” the outlet continued.
NBC did not once mention the coronavirus or risks associated with large gatherings throughout the entire article.
Yet, less than two hours later, NBC News tweeted an article focused on the risks associated with President Trump’s upcoming rallies.
“President Trump plans to rally his supporters next Saturday for the first time since most of the country was shuttered by the coronavirus. But health experts are questioning that decision,” NBC News tweeted:
President Trump plans to rally his supporters next Saturday for the first time since most of the country was shuttered by the coronavirus. But health experts are questioning that decision. https://t.co/7FquU1wWw2
— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 14, 2020
NBC News appealed to health experts, who warn of the virus “spreading among the crowd and sparking outbreaks when people return to their homes.”
The outlet was relentless in the piece, painting a dire picture laden with cautionary language, yet failing to do so in its previous description of the Black Lives Matter and LGBT protest, which likely drew thousands:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines the highest risk events for transmission of the coronavirus this way: “Large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for individuals to remain spaced at least 6 feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area.” The CDC recommends cloth masks in places where people might shout or chant.
Trump’s rallies typically draw tens of thousands of supporters. They usually stand outside in line for hours before passing through airport-style security and cramming into an arena, where they sit side by side or stand shoulder to shoulder. The rallies are typically raucous, with much shouting, cheering and chanting. Some people dance and jeer at reporters. Sometimes protesters are met with violence before they are removed by security.
…
Dr. Ashish Jha, director of Harvard’s Global Health Institute, called the upcoming Trump rally “an extraordinarily dangerous move for the people participating and the people who may know them and love them and see them afterward.”
Little over an hour apart. pic.twitter.com/K2a7fGRNDd
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) June 15, 2020
NBC is hardly alone in its purported agenda. Former Trump challenger Hillary Clinton, citing the disclaimer on the registration page for Trump’s upcoming rally in Tulsa, suggested that he should not be holding rallies at all:
If your rallies come with a liability waiver, you shouldn’t be holding them. https://t.co/J1BgdUec9k
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2020
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also offered criticism, particularly over the RNC’s decision to hold the celebration of Trump’s nomination in Jacksonville, Florida.
Oh..; you mean like the protests, riots and looting the left instigated and promoted for an entire week, and still ongoing?
media: ok to loot, destroy, murder, and collapse the dreams of small family owned white and black business getting back on their feet, but a Trump rally is tooooo dangerous. berni and demented joe’s new movie Dumber and Dumber- dnc remake for the pres of 2020.
Game On! wonder when the Bikers for Trump will arrive in Seattle? whore dog billy would hold a rally anywhere as long as an under aged female was available or goodlookng trans. .
Once more we see and hear nothing but Lies coming from the NBC Fake News the Lying Peacock Lies and Lies and Lies more reasons to turn them off and tune them out
Eight “Red” states, one “blue” state, and the Trump “party” scheduled in, of course, one of the “red” ones. Now is anyone wondering how many masks will be counted at Trump’s “No Distancing” party? LOL. EVER?
At least you could find plenty of masks at the race riots!
And the monstrously LGBT-positive SCOTUS decision that was announced on Monday, though anticipated, wasn’t publicly scheduled, so no celebration was on hand when the decision was released, and since it WAS great news for the LGBT community, those folks cheered one day and were gone the next. Not much risk there.
The real risk – and the thousands of new cases coming each day out of each of the states listed above indicates that there IS real risk involved – is in unprotected close association – exactly the sort of situation Trump wants at his “parties.”
So go ahead, festering “red” states, and have your herd-immunity parties. After all, they’ll only kill off the old folks and the Blacks, pretty much, bagging you two of your favorite game birds with one stone. So spread it around and cut your Welfare, Medicare AND Social Security payouts in the process. How can you lose?
@George Wells: More testing. More people going to the doctor and hospital for things they put off during the shut down.
@Deplorable Me:
The ICUs are filling up, not with elective surgeries (those aren’t handled in Intensive care) but with confirmed COVID-19 cases where the patients are put where they are for a good reason. Hospitals of decent size have wings dedicated to this one virus, and THOSE wings are filling up. This has nothing to do with postponed wart removals or hysterectomies, and it has nothing to do with testing. Why are you and yours refusing to think this one through?
And the states that are doing this reporting are YOUR states, the GOP bastions, not liberal strongholds, and those are GOP folks in a panic because they see first hand what is going on right in front of them. They’re not waiting for Trump or Pence to TELL them that the virus isn’t coming back, because they see for themselves that that’s a lie.
@George Wells: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-new-panic-lie-increased-coronavirus-hospitalizations-and-cases-in-the-southwest
@Deplorable Me:
Ah, do you remember the days when all gays wanted was the right to marry? That was the BIG lie. Oh, well, once the fox gets inside the hen house, it’s hard to limit the damage the fox does. Now we have the pleasure of such wonderful things like Drag Queen Story Hour and people who are just trying to support their families, like bakers and florists, now have the privilege of hiring a lawyer. And because the Supreme Court has decided that original meaning of words in the legislation doesn’t really mean what it says so to increase the USSC’s power, they have usurped the right of legislation from the actual body tasked by the Constitution to legislate. How lucky for the guy who can’t win a race on his own power. All he has to do now is wake up and declare himself a girl and off he goes to the trophy. I’m sure that having Drag Queen Story Hour at Our Lady of Sorrows elementary school will be next.
The sick joke of it all is when those like King George are dug up 500 years from now by some researcher, their DNA will prove one thing; he was a man. Maybe a man in a dress, but still a man.
But you see, like Democrats, gays lie with impunity.
While it is true that the Chi-Com flu affects the elderly more (the Spanish flu affected children the worst), I have to wonder why, in a minority-majority state like ours, black cases represent 11.9% while white cases represent 27.4%. Hispanics seem to be the worst hit at 34.8%. So the Chi-Com flu is racist against Hispanics. Who knew?
Yep. In our state 1.5M+ have been tested.
@retire05:
Yes, Retire05. It would be much better if you still had the right to fire an employee simply because he said he was gay.
How sad for you that you found so much comfort in discriminately screwing with the lives of people who did you no harm, and now you’ve lost even that.
I’m glad that Republican Chief Justice John Roberts picked Gorsuch – Trump’s first nominee for the Supreme Court – to write the majority decision, AND to rub salt in Trump’s nasty, self-inflicted wound.
With Trump behaving as he is, John Roberts might just join the Court’s liberal wing just to mess with Orange-Daddy.
@George Wells:
Why would any employer, or perspective employer, know if an employee/applicant is gay? Is there some barometer that I can use to tell if someone is gay? Please, tell us all how to tell if someone is gay.
@retire05:
Your question is facetious, and any answer I might give to it would irrelevant to the matter, since declaring one’s homosexuality is neither actionable nor illegal in the workplace.
Any person has a right to introduce his or her spouse to his or her co-workers, and the gender of each pretty much spells out the truth. You need look no further for the answer to your question.
You have a first amendment right to say what you think about homosexuality, but you don’t have the right to censure others who feel differently.
And if you can’t figure out the obvious and yet you need to know what goes on under the sheets (as if you must), then ask. If the person you ask thinks you have a right to an answer, they’ll give you one.
@George Wells:
Well… no, you don’t. If an employee is saying things, expressing feelings or demonstrations that others find “offensive” or “inappropriate”, the company has an obligation to stop it. Sexual harassment, you know.
ANYTHING. All a person needs is to feel “offended”. Nice, huh?
@George Wells:
Your response only shows that you have no answer for my question which was “Is there some barometer that I can use to tell if someone is gay?” Instead, you go into things that have no relationship to my question. But since you seem to want to obfuscate your response, let me ask this: Is there some barometer that I can use to tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them?”
Where have I ever tried to censure anyone who professes to be gay?
I’m sure you will come back with some ridiculous claptrap that has no bearing on the question.
@Deplorable Me:
No. That’s not the way it works. You can’t be fired just for being old, no matter how offensive your boss finds your wrinkles, and now, FINALLY, I can’t be fired just because you find my homosexuality offensive.
Go back and read the Bostic decision again, because the first time didn’t stick.
@retire05:
No more so than there is a barometer that you can use to tell if someone is Christian by simply looking at them.
Or that you can use to tell if their blood is type A- by simply looking at them.
Not all protected characteristics, whether innate or by choice, are visually cued.
Surely you understand this?
So the answer you seek, irrelevant as it is in the eyes of the law, is a simple “NO”.
As an aside, though: Many gays swear that they possess “gaydar” that allows they to identify other gays by visual cues. Some have proven statistically that they are able to execute this phenomenon significantly above what would be expected by random guesswork. But NO, you would not likely possess this capacity, nor should you want to have it, as seeing all the gays flitting about around you might distress you unnecessarily.
@George Wells:
So why the need for the verbosity? Oh, that’s right……….you’re here for only one reason.
@retire05:
The need to make an answer abundantly clear arises when a question is posed in such a manner as to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with either an affirmative or a negative response. “Are you STILL beating your wife?” is a well-known example of such a question. Only a fool would believe that your question seeking a barometer of gay identity was a honest and sincere effort to learn something that you did not already know.
Verbosity? Did I use a word or words that gave you difficulty?
Perhaps I could teach you some English, if you sat out too many of your vocabulary classes in elementary school. You must have been too busy looking for miracles on the prairie to be bothered with a decent education…
@George Wells:
Pretty simple answer.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbosity
Verbosity definition is – the quality or state of being verbose or wordy : the use of too many words.
@George Wells: I see you’ve never worked in the modern workplace. If someone finds offense, they are offended. Off to HR. So, flaunt your sexuality, no matter which way it goes, and you’re offending.
@Deplorable Me:
You put a photo of you and your wife on your desk at work. Or you talk about your biological children, revealing (flaunting?) your sexuality.
A gay person sees that photo or hears about your kids and is offended that you are flaunting YOUR heterosexuality.
REALLY?
How far do you think he will get taking that sort of nonsensical complaint to HR.
Same difference.
Are you offended by red hair? Some people are.
But not every pet peeve you or I have is actionable, or reasonable or fair.
So, yes, I understand that some people are disgusted by gays, or by Blacks, or by Jews, and on and on, but no, I don’t care because, as y’all point out often enough, this isn’t a perfect world. Human Resources understands that too, and so they don’t care if you are offended by my existence. Take your hate to the grave with you, for all I care.
@George Wells:
It can be. I’ve seen it.
Depends on who is complaining, how big a fuss they are making and how much HR wants the problem to go away. Don’t pretend you don’t know that some people will exploit any leverage they can get.
Back in 2008 we had a lesbian girl in our shop. She was moderately capable and not a bad person, but she loved to discuss her and her girlfriend with another of the managers, making sure there was no doubt as to her orientation. The thought occurred to me that in the event of a RIF, she would be impossible to get rid of. That meant a more capable, more experienced craftsman would have to go in her place. Luckily, she decided to quit before the 2008 recession hit and we had to lay off a lot of good people.
Having been someone that has had to let people go, I despise artificial shields that protects the least competent.
@Deplorable Me:
In an ideal world, it would be that simple, and such “shields” as you call them would not ever be needed because nobody would ever fire anyone for WHO they are. They would instead make such personnel decisions solely on the basis of competence.
But that ideal world doesn’t exist.
Old people were being fired because they are approaching an age where they CAN retire, potentially costing the company a protracted period of pension payments – or increased health care benefit costs if they chose to remain at work.
Black people were being fired because of the color of their skin and, as the Bostic case so clearly proved, gay and trans people were being fired for who they loved, not for any issue of competence.
Those decisions to fire were not made in the best interests of the companies involved, and they certainly weren’t in the best interests of the employees being fired.
So don’t try to make the argument that irrelevant bias doesn’t enter the picture. It does.
What the various anti-discrimination laws and court decisions seek to do is to tilt the playing field back toward a more level orientation, to return the employer’s focus to the proper point of competence, performance and potential benefit to the company.
Wouldn’t it be nice if such laws weren’t needed. But they are. Employers proved that. We all have ugly biases, and sometimes we need help refocusing on what really matters.
@retire05:
Re: Verbosity definition
How nice for you that, when you can find nothing better to fuss about in the content of my posts, you can still fall back on your position as self-appointed style police for FA.
You would not find the English in my text so daunting if your first language was not Prairie Hick.
@George Wells:
I was in my late 50’s when that layoff I described happened. I was sure I would get cut; I didn’t. My brother, however, who worked for a company with a much sweeter retirement plan, was laid off ONE WEEK before he qualified for his retirement medical coverage. He actually found work elsewhere within the company and avoided being cut, but being a white hetero male, he had NOTHING to protect him.
Actually, skin color can be their shield. Again… I’ve seen it.
What I am saying is no one should be fired or laid off because of anything but their job performance or the financial necessity. That includes firing someone living with the burden of being a white, Anglo, hetero, Christian male, the category that is usually sacrificed to keep one of the protected species.
@Deplorable Me:
I agree. However, the history of discrimination is a long one, and for most of that history, it was the Blacks and the gays and the Jews and all of the other minorities that the Majority White Males used and abused that were the victims of discriminatory practices that the MAJORITY WHITE MALES in turn did nothing to diminish. The necessary result was a slow and tedious process of singling out first one and then another class of particularly disadvantaged people and forcing their protection either through legislation or the courts. Was that best? No. Best would have been having no need to protect anyone because no one would NEED protection. But protection WAS needed. So now you have it. Is it perfect? No. But pardon me if you don’t find me crying crocodile tears for the POOR white males who now, at long last, find themselves with the discrimination tables turned on them. They had it coming. THEY brought slavery to America. THEY murdered millions of Jews in WWII. THEY persecuted gays. Now that you get a taste of being on the receiving end of discrimination, it doesn’t taste so good, does it?
OK. So what’s the solution? Go all the way back to the notion that EVERYONE should be treated fairly, that none should be either discriminated against OR be unfairly advantaged. Put it ALL into law, and MAKE it work. It is easy to make the laws blind to anything other than performance, but not so easy making blind the people who make the decisions and enforce the law. That’s why the protective laws need to be specific. The people enforcing them cannot be trusted to be unbiased without spelling out exactly what “unbiased” means. We’ve learned that the hard way.