Skip to main content

Beware of Disinformation on the PBS News Hour

                                                                                                      Originally, back in 1975, the PBS News Hour, under McNeil/Lehrer, was a source of reliable and intelligent programing. Judy Woodruff did her best to uphold those standards. But since Judy left, in 2023, the News Hour has become an embarrassing source of patent disinformation.

The latest example: somebody named Manisha Sinh, from some foreign country (Pakistan?), was given uncriticized time to totally MISINFORM the audience about the US Constitution’s THREE requirements for any president.

Art 1, s. 1 states, the person must be 1) “a natural born citizen,” that is, born to an American parent (not necessarily in the country). A baby born to an American astronaut on the moon can become President of the USA. 2) 35 years old. 3) 14 years a resident within the US.

But that guest didn’t say that. She only got one out of three correct! She said 35 years old, but then “born in the US” – false – and “not incited an insurrection”* – false.  

The three requirements in Article One , written in 1787, ratified in 1788, say NOTHING about “insurrection.” That comes up 82 years later in the 14th Amendment. Even then, its s. 3 does NOT specify that if a person engages in insurrection (which is undefined), then they cannot become president. Indeed, that is the very point the US Supreme Court is taking on today (Thursday 2-8-24).

Ms. Sinh pronounced as true that which the Supreme Court has yet to decide. The folks at the PBS News Hour gave her the platform and did absolutely nothing to correct the ill-informed untrue statement.

As a result, millions of people are misinformed, or confused if they remember what competent teachers told them in school.

Small wonder the US media is becoming a despised and untrusted institution in the USA.

 

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

@InterpretivePo1 


*You Tube, 43:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Z2TBJGlow


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Karl Marx was the FIRST Democratic Socialist

Karl Marx was the first Democratic Socialist.  As the election of Zohran Mamdani shows, Democratic Socialism includes the belief that socialism can be realized through democratic processes , and that where this can be done No Violence is needed. Karl Marx declared over 150 years ago that “there are countries, such as America and England … where the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means.” [1] And, ironically, in a New York City newspaper, the New York World, published on July 18, 1871, Marx said “the way to show political power [in Britain] lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.” [2] Then, as if prophetically describing our own times, Marx observed, “Let us sum it all up in a word. The working classes remain poor amid the increase of wealth, wretched amid the increase of luxury. Their material privation dwarfs their moral as well as their physical stature. They cannot rely on othe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Red Roulette, by a Billionaire Chinese Crybaby

Introduction After it all, “I thought that China wasn’t as bad as Americans tended to think.” (182) That’s the conclusion of billionaire Desmond Shum, author of Red Roulette* – his autobiographical account of how he and his wife, Whitney Duan, rose from rags to riches in the go-go years of China’s developmental miracle. Whitney and the Road to Wealth Born in the late 1960s, during the Cultural Revolution, both Whitney and Desmond received a normal education as children. She then enrolled in a military university in 1986. (73) As an outstanding student, she obtained employment as an executive’s assistant in “a real estate development company run by China’s military.” (74) At the time, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had numerous business interests, and Whitney started making connections with the elite among them. Later, the PLA was ordered to divest itself of these businesses as an anti-corruption measure by CCP General Secretary, Jiang Zemin in 1997. (75) The year before that, pe...
7 comments
Read more

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...
2 comments
Read more