Woke "News" Propaganda Outlet MSNBC Loses One-Third of Its Audience Over Its Egregious Pro-Hamas Bias

The network isn't reporting how many Israeli citizens were murdered by the Hamas government in a war crime.

It will only "report" the combined death toll for "both sides."

Woke MSNBC loses 33% of primetime audience during coverage of the Israel Hamas war as it insists on publishing a joint death toll - while Fox and CNN see double-digit increases on viewing figures

The outlet's viewer figures were between October 7 and 10, which saw the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas terrorists

By comparison, the shocking events saw a leap in Fox News's audience, up 42 percent, and in CNN's coverage, which saw a 17 percent rise in viewers

MSNBC has come under fire for its coverage of the atrocities in Israel, including for its insistence on publishing a joint Israel and Gaza death toll

Woke news broadcaster MSNBC lost 33 percent of its primetime viewers during its coverage of the Israel Hamas war.

The outlet's viewer figures were down 24 percent overall for the four days between October 7 and 10 which saw the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas terrorists.

By comparison the shocking events saw a leap in Fox News's audience, up 42 percent, and in CNN's coverage, which saw a 17 percent rise in viewers.

'These numbers tell you a lot about MSNBC, which excels at Trump-era liberal therapy but can't match others during global historic events' Puck media reporter Dylan Byers wrote.

And Dylan Byers is a partisan liberal goon.

MSNBC has come under fire for its coverage of the atrocities in Israel with an an Israeli mother whose two sons were take hostage by Hamas exploding at MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night when asked how she feels about Israel's counterstrikes in Gaza.

Renana Gomeh, whose two sons age 12 and 16 were kidnapped by Hamas, became visibly irritated when Mitchell asked her feelings on the attacks in Gaza.

'I can't be sympathetic anymore. I can't be sympathetic to animal human beings -- well, they're not really human beings -- who came into my house, broke everything,' said Gomeh.

'Stole everything, took my children from their bedrooms and took them to the Gaza Strip.'

By contrast Fox News reporter Trey Yingst has won praise for his fearless coverage of the shocking scenes unfolding in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Vivek Ramaswamy defended the Hamas terrorist simps on campuses, and said that "money" is the reason behind the GOP's support of Israel.

Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy

The Harvard student groups who co-signed the anti-Israel letter are simple fools. But it's not productive for companies to blacklist kids for being members of student groups that make dumb political statements on campus. Colleges are spaces for students to experiment with ideas & sometimes kids join clubs that endorse boneheadedly wrong ideas.

Are colleges places where students are allowed to experiment with ideas?

Or are they coerced and bullied into supporting ONE idea, woke identity Marxism?

And all of the people currently being blacklisted are themselves part of the censorship bloc.

I've been as vocal as anyone in criticizing left-wing cancel culture (see my first book "Woke, Inc."), but it's bad no matter who practices it.

Really? When the people who have been victims of leftist cancel culture for seven years get a little of their own back, it's "just as bad" as their oppressors oppressing them forever?

It wasn't great when people wearing Trump hats were fired from work. It wasn't great when college graduates couldn't get hired unless they signed oppressive "DEI" pledges. And it's not great now if companies refuse to hire kids who were part of student groups that once adopted the wrong view on Israel.

I think it was more about adopting the wrong view on murdering children and raping women.

This isn't a legal point, it's a cultural point. I say this as someone who vehemently disagrees with those Harvard student groups.

Sure, Vivek. "I find Bill Clinton's behavior totally indefensible but..."

Those calling for blacklisting students right now are responding from a place of understandable hurt, but I'm confident that in the fullness of time, they will agree with me on the wisdom of avoiding these cancel-culture tactics.

I agree that you are a liberal Tech Bro bitch.

Meanwhile, he also opined that GOPers supporting Israel are doing so due to "money." He did not specify who was giving them that money, but I think we can connect the breadcrumbs.

Move over, Ilhan Omar -- another politician wants to make the "all about the Benjamins" argument about Israel. Only this time, it's not a Democrat, but instead one of the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination. Vivek Ramaswamy appeared on Tucker Carlson's Twitter show yesterday to echo Tucker's view that America has no real interest in the genocidal attacks of Hamas on Israel, and should focus instead entirely on its own domestic security. Advertisement

Ramaswamy doubled down on that and insinuated -- as he claimed in the first debate -- that everyone's been bought off. And he did so while we still don't have a full accounting of American citizens potentially killed or captured in the conflict:

"The selective nature of ignoring certain other conflicts--even more importantly, ignoring the interests of the U.S. right here at home--is what irritates the heck out of me," Ramaswamy told Carlson.

"It is shameful. And I think that there are, frankly, financial and corrupting influences that lead them exactly to speak the way they do, that's just the hard truth," he added.

In case that was too subtle, Ramaswamy made it more plain in the conversation:

Ramaswamy told Carlson that he is open to providing "limited military support" for Israel by sending weapons but slammed his opponents for calling for a stronger military response against Iran and "refus[ing] to take the option of ground troops off the table."

Just to lay my cards on the table so that I am not merely insinuating my position:

I'm done with the isolationist/pacifist wing. I do agree, and have agreed for a while, that the neocons have got to go and that US foreign policy has to be re-oriented to be America First.

But people are taking this to extremes are are deploying all the tropes leftists used to use to shift blame from America to Russia, and from Islamic terrorists to Israel.

Clarification: When I say "extremes," I mean, specifically, "absolutes." We are going from a healthy injection of skepticism for the need of US intervention abroad, as well as a realization that the Regime is both evil and hopelessly incompetent, to a dogmatic, absolutist position of isolationism/hippie pacifism. It's the absolutism I oppose. It is not healthy for us to act like alcoholics and veer from one extreme to another. Do we have to quit booze one day and become convicted teetotalers swearing "not another drop!" and railing about the dangers of Demon Rum?

Can we just stop the problem drinking, instead?

Twenty years ago we (most of us, anyway) were far, far too bellicose and war-fevered and had much, much too much trust in the cadre of pampered incompetents in the Regime leadership class.

But now we're swinging around wildly to become absolute dogmatic isolationists?!

Can we not land on somewhere more sensible, without the silly absolutism? Can we please not veer wildly from one unhealthy, unwise extreme to its polar opposite extreme?

I agree that being excessively pro-war is bad.

But I want to compare the current isolationist/International Pacifist position on Russia:

1. We should not send US troops to Ukraine. (Obviously.)

and

2: We should not send arms to Ukraine. Because that will lead to sending troops to Ukraine, and that will start WWIII.

I have an intellectual problem with that because we've been sending arms to groups fighting Russia for 80 years and it hasn't provoked WWIII yet. And Russia and Putin have been arming and training terrorists for all that time, and we haven't nuked Moscow.

The US and Russia have been providing arms to each other's enemies for all this time, and we both seem to acknowledge it's fair game and not worth a nuclear war.

I just mean, I don't think this argument is strong. I'm not Joe Ukraine here. But to this argument I'd ask, why was there no nuclear war when we gave Afghanis Stinger missiles? We killed a LOT of Soviet troops, indirectly.

And they killed a LOT of US troops in Iraq.

So what's changed now? I know people are going to scream this isn't true but what's going on is that Russia is now being conceived by many as an aggrieved ally we're supposed to have sympathy for and thus support.

I get the resistance to "I Stand with Ukraine" and all that. But when did Russia actually become a trusted ally we need to defend and cover for?

It starts with wanting to repudiate the criminal US "intelligence" community and rotten Regime. That, I get.

But it ends up with people lecturing me about how I have to take Putin's perceived nationalist aspirations into account.

Why? Why do I have to do that? How many Americans has Russia, and Putin specifically, murdered by providing explosives and technical training to terrorists?

And now I have to fucking worry about Putin's fucking feelings?

Now, I just wanted to establish that before getting to the one that is my bridge too fucking far: The new demand from the isolationist semi-right that we must not support Israel too vigorously, even with mere rhetoric, because that too might start WWIII.

Now the new demands go as follows:

1. We must not send troops to Israel. Okay, seems prudent.

2. We must not send arms or financial support to Israel, because that slightly increases the risk that we might have to send troops to Israel. Um, again, as in the case of Russia, we've been sending arms and money to Israel to decades; why the sudden risk that we'll be sending US troops to defend Tel Aviv?

This doesn't seem likely to me. This seems like a made-up bit of propaganda.

Also note that while I already objected to this demand in the case of Russia, at least with Russia, there is a small but real chance that arming Ukraine could, really, lead to a nuclear exchange and maybe WWIII.

But arming Israel? How could that start WWIII, exactly? If Iran uses a bomb it will be against Israel, not us, and Iran would then be destroyed. What would then happen? Russia would nuke us just for... what? Why would they do that?

This seems a very fantastical scenario, and I do begin to wonder why people are pushing this extremely unlikely scenario with such vigor.

But it gets worse. Because now there's a third demand:

3. We must not even give strong rhetorical support to Israel because they'll take that as a greenlight to "go too far" and that, in turn, through some unlikely chain of events, could lead to the US getting nuked or something.

Okay, so now we're not even allowed to use strong language?

If we're literally making our foreign policy based on the idea of not putting ourselves at even a hypothetical risk, why not just go all the way with it and join Obama and Biden in supporting Iran? Why not just give them the bomb?

That would reduce our risk of getting into a nuclear exchange with Iran. It would reduce the risk from "vanishingly small" to "non-existent."

So if we're basing foreign policy based on nothing at all except minimizing any risk, no matter how small, to ourselves, then let's just cut out the fucking Middle Man and give the bomb to Iran.

Why not just straight-up ally with Hamas and Hezbollah? There is almost no risk that Israel will commit terrorism against us, even if we do that. But there is a sizeable risk of Hamas and Hezballah committing terrorism against us.

So if the only goal is minimizing risk to self, why fuck around? Let's just align with the terrorists and get ourselves put on the White List.

There has to be more going on that "just trying to minimize risk to ourselves."

I think that rubric is being used to cover some genuine hostility to Israel.

And to that I say: Then take the masks off. Why lie? If you don't like the Jews, just say so. Stop dancing around talking about some hard-to-conceive fake concerns about Iran nuking us.

I'm just at an end with this crap. I'm not going to be part of a movement that is just repeating the hard-left's propaganda points from six years ago. Those bullshit claims did not suddenly become true and right just because the Deep State is tyrannical and the Regime is corrupt.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:46 PM

| Access Comments