What Word the Media Refuses to Use For the College Riots: Insurrection

No one who's politically aware can be unaware of January 6, 2021. Tens of thousands of Americans descended on Washington to protest the counts and Covid-related conditions of the 2020 election. A riot took place at the US Capitol. The riot resulted in the charging, per ABC News three years later, of over 1,200 and “incarceration for more than 460 people.”  The coverage since then of that day in the mainstream media is typified by headlines like this from the New York Times:  Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept. Or like this from Forbes:  Jan. 6 Insurrection 2 Years Later: How Many Arrested, Convicted And What Price Donald Trump May Still Pay The Washington Post has an ongoing section titled:  THE JAN. 6 INSURRECTION There’s more of this kind of thing out there. And that’s before you get to Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. Here’s NPR on Pelosi:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Launches Select Committee To Probe Jan. 6 Insurrection And CNN on Biden:  The big lie being told by the former president, and many Republicans who fear his wrath, is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day. There’s more like this out there in the media, but you get the drift. When the subject of the riot at the Capitol on January 6th comes up, the “I word” is always nearby. So let’s take a moment to check the definition of “insurrection” and move on to the events of our current day and what is curiously missing in the coverage of these multiple upon multiple anti-Israel, anti-Semitic riots on one college or university campus after another. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “insurrection” as follows:“…an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As of today, America is awash in multiple upon multiple “acts or instances revolting against civil authority” - the civil authority of one American college or university after another. And the mainstream media coverage is curious indeed.  Here’s a sample headline from the Washington Post:  Riot police and over 2,000 arrests: A look at 2 weeks of campus protests CNN headlined:  What we know about the protests erupting on college campuses across America The CNN story said:   New York CNN  —  College campuses across the United States have erupted with pro-Palestinian protests, and school administrators are trying — and largely failing — to defuse the situation. And on…and on and on…went the media coverage of these riots on multiple college campuses, the resulting arrests and financial damage. Good for them.  But the missing word in all this coverage? The missing word used routinely in the media and by progressive politicians to describe one solitary -- and admittedly decidedly wrong -- riot on January 6, 2021? That would be, of course, “insurrection.” All one has to do is turn on the television or start streaming current network coverage and there is decided violence on display. At Columbia University in New York the insurrectionists smashed windows and occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall. The Los Angeles Times headlined:  Nationwide, police make almost 2,000 arrests at college campuses since protests started All of which is to say that what’s happening collectively on some 70 college campuses across the country - riots, vandalism, violent clashes with police -is decidedly an insurrection against the “civil authority” and “governing” of those colleges and universities.  Yet mysteriously, silence on that fact from the media. Which in turn suggests that because the culprits of January 6 were Trump supporters the media says they were all about insurrection. But when the culprits of infinitely larger riots, replete with violence and attacks on police, involve far-left, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas students and “outside agitators” - oh well, no big deal. If ever there were a naked example of how liberal media bias operates, there it is. Relentless coverage of “insurrection” for January 6th, (and in fact, no one was ever charged with the actual crime of “insurrection”) shrugging off massive campus unrest as just mere good ole American protests. The good news? Americans are on to the game.  And in the hierarchy of the liberal media’s friends in the Democratic Party, word seeps out about concern on how all of this reflects on President Biden and his re-election chances. As headlined here in the Financial Times:  Campus protests become a political liability for Joe Biden and Democrats Exactly. Which says just why the liberal media is not eager to exacerbate Biden’s problem by describing these events as an “insurrection.” Things are bad enough as they are.

Elon Musk Called Out NPR And PBS As 'State-Affiliated': They Freaked

Uri Berliner's expose of the ideological unanimity at NPR reminds the Republican half of America that they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington to have their viewpoints excluded or ridiculed as "far right" hate.  Back there in the Stone Age of 2023, Elon Musk, he of X that is formerly Twitter, antagonized NPR and PBS because - ready? Musk had made some changes to “state-affiliated” media designations, applying the term to both of those outlets. They're state-funded, but not state-affiliated? While stripping the designation from media outlets tied to governments like those of Russia and Iran, Musk had the nerve - the nerve! - to apply it to, among others, America’s NPR and PBS along with the UK’s BBC and Canada’s CBC. This is in the news a year later after CNN’s Oliver Darcy, now the man behind CNN’s Reliable Sources, talks of life after X, and looks back at his decision to remove his CNN newsletter from X in July of 2023. To recall the start of this media kerfuffle, see these headlines.   First, this one in April of 2023 from NPR:  NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-affiliated media’ The story reported:  NPR will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platform. In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries. Then there was this from the UK Guardian in 2023:  PBS quits Twitter after being labeled ‘government-funded media’ Broadcaster leaves platform a day after NPR’s exit over concerns labels undermine credibility as independent news outlets That story reported:  In a statement to USA Today, Jason Phelps of PBS said the broadcaster’s staffers stopped using the organization’s Twitter account after learning that the platform had relabeled them. Phelps said PBS had “no plans to resume at this time” but added that the organization was ‘continuing to monitor the ever-changing situation closely’. Here at NewsBusters, reporter Luis Cornelio lasered in on this squabble in May of 2023.  Uh, Oh! NPR Gets Triggered Over Elon Musk — Again Cornelio’s story reported:  Musk initially slapped NPR’s Twitter account with a “state-affiliated” label, a move that triggered a wave of leftist condemnation, with even Biden White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre vouching for NPR’s reporting. NPR President and CEO John Lansing ridiculously pouted that he was “disturbed” by the label. “We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' a description that, per Twitter's own guidelines, does not apply to NPR,” Lansing claimed. Musk later changed NPR’s label to “government-funded media.” But NPR was apparently so triggered, it eventually left the platform. Musk mocked NPR’s exit from Twitter in a series of tweets last month, including a short post saying “Defund @NPR." Both PBS and NPR tried to wriggle off Musk’s “state affiliated” description by whining, essentially: “But we don’t take that much money!” Ahhhh. The Western Journal to the clarification rescue. The WJ investigated, headlining:  Fact-Check: How Much of PBS, NPR Revenue Comes from Government Funding? And what did the WJ fact check reveal? This:    So, just how much money does NPR get from government or government-affiliated sources? As noted above, NPR says only 1 percent of its annual budget comes from federal sources. But according to its own numbers, the broadcaster gets a lot more from government sources than it lets on.    For fiscal year 2020, for instance, the broadcaster’s affiliate stations received 8 percent of their revenue from federal appropriations via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also got 10 percent from colleges and universities — which themselves are publicly funded — and another 5 percent from federal, state and local governments. That is 23 percent, not 1 percent.” As Musk pointed out, WJ says NPR also states on its website that…  federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR. For its part, PBS gets even more from government or government-affiliated sources. That “even more” amount would be that:…  ….the TV broadcaster says it gets 15 percent of its revenue from the federal government, 13 percent from state governments, 3 percent from local governments, and 8 percent from universities. That’s a total of 39 percent. All of which is to say, Musk has been 100% correct to describe PBS and NPR as “state affiliated” - because they both are. For a fact they receive dollars from the government. According to that Guardian article , a PBS spokesman laughably said that: Twitter’s simplistic label leaves the inaccurate impression that PBS is wholly funded by the federal government. Hello? Needless to say, whether “wholly funded” or “partially funded” or accepting a dollar of government money, PBS is still taking government tax dollars to stay afloat. But, as discussed in this space with the recent, much publicized resignation of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner, the network exists in a liberal bubble, no dissent allowed.  There was an easy and obvious way for NPR and PBS to answer Musk’s criticism and get out from under his “state-affiliated” designation once and for all. That would be: Stop taking money from the government. Period. Stop taking any money from any government apparatus. Period. Make the “P” in NPR and PBS stand not for “Public” - aka taking government funds - but rather “P” as in “Private.” As in “National Private Radio” and “Private Broadcasting Service.” All of which would make NPR and PBS a genuine private sector competitor with the rest of the American private sector free market in the world of television and radio broadcasting. Would that happen? Of course not. Again, as Uri Berliner documents, the network exists in a liberal bubble. Not even Elon Musk can get through it. They want to challenge Elon Musk - but not like that.  The bottom line? Elon Musk was right. Both PBS and NPR take government funding. They still do. And, one can reasonably suspect, neither has any intention of stopping. 

Thanks to One Dissenter, the Mask Drops at NPR

Without a doubt, many readers here at NewsBusters were mega-dittos fans of the late, great Rush Limbaugh. In today’s media world perhaps you listen to conservative talk radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush’s successors Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, or Glenn Beck or Jesse Kelly. Or, indeed someone else, perhaps a local conservative host in your area. But whomever you listen to from that list of conservative talkers, they all have one thing in common: their shows have sponsors from the private sector.  And in no instance are those sponsors the American taxpayer. To a show, those sponsors are from the private sector, all busy selling their product (like Optima Tax Relief). This is, of course, not true with National Public Radio. NPR is funded in part, whether you like it or not, by you. The American taxpayer. And it is no coincidence that the government-supported radio has a seriously liberal bent. God bless America and free speech. But the decidedly obvious problem is that you are paying the bill - and the money is lifted right out of your wallet automatically, giving you absolutely zero choice in paying for what has morphed into left-wing propaganda radio. Imagine taxpayer dollars going to subsidize Limbaugh or Levin. You don't have to wonder whether the Left would find that a horrible expenditure of tax dollars to promote one side of the fence. Which makes the saga of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner considerably interesting. A longtime editor at NPR, Berliner penned a lengthy article which not only startlingly admits to the problem but criticizes his bosses and colleagues for producing news every day from the liberal bubble. Over at a site titled, yes, The Free Press, Berliner titled his piece this way:  I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. Let’s dip into some of the things this longtime NPR editor says. First of all, Berliner describes himself, saying:  You know the stereotype of the NPR listener: an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag–carrying coastal elite. It doesn’t precisely describe me, but it’s not far off. I’m Sarah Lawrence–educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother, I drive a Subaru, and Spotify says my listening habits are most similar to people in Berkeley.  I fit the NPR mold. I’ll cop to that. Then he goes on to say:   By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.  An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. And how did this happen? Berliner goes on - but of course - this way, saying:  Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency. Berliner keeps going, listing notable stories from the last several years and the way they were handled by the decidedly left-wing NPR staff. Trump-Russia collusion hoax? That was “catnip” and NPR took their guidance from the man Sean Hannity calls “the congenital liar (Rep.) Adam Schiff.” The New York Post pre-2020 election scoop about Hunter Biden’s decidedly scandalous laptop? Says Berliner:  The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump. The reality that the Covid pandemic came out of a lab leak in Wuhan, China?  The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists.  But that wasn’t the case. Berliner keeps on going to give examples making his devastating case of left-wing bias at NPR.  When George Floyd died, he writes that the message from the top of NPR was that.  America’s infestation with systemic racism was loud and clear: it was a given. Our mission was to change it. NPR, it was made clear, was all about diversity - diversity of skin color and gender. Berliner writes:  But what’s notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.  And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity. Now. Having spoken truth to power, you get one guess as to the newest headline about Mr. Berliner, this one from CBS: “NPR suspends editor who accused the network of liberal bias” And within a matter of hours, that headline was followed by this one at the New York Post. It read:  NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after bombshell expose reveals network’s pervasive left-wing bias The Post story reported:  NPR correspondent Uri Berliner, who was suspended without pay after calling out the radio broadcaster’s rampant liberal bias, resigned on Wednesday — and took a parting shot at the network’s controversial CEO. 'I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years,' Berliner wrote on his X social media account on Wednesday. 'I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism.' Berliner added that he 'cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.' The “new CEO” of NPR that Berliner refers to is one Katherine Maher. And it took a bare blink of the eye for Maher to be revealed in past tweets as the personification of the Trump-hating, far-left mindset that consumes NPR. So there you have it. You, the American taxpayer, are paying for NPR and its left-wing bias. And if you are working at NPR and protest that bias, you will be suspended without pay and then made so uncomfortable you are forced to resign. The real problem? This is but one example of a journalistic outlet pretending to “just the facts” reporting. The fact that taxpayers have to pay for it is particularly insulting to Americans. And that is something that Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn is determined to change, sponsoring legislation to defund NPR. While over in the House the same move is being led by Indiana Congressman Jim Banks. But make no mistake, there are plenty of so-called journalism outlets out there that pretend to straight-up reporting when, in fact, just like NPR, their newsrooms are under the iron-fisted control of left-wing activists. And viewpoint diversity, as is true at NPR, is not to be tolerated. At NPR, thanks to Uri Berliner -- at the cost of his job -- the mask of journalistic independence and objectivity has finally dropped. It's about time someone from the inside told the ugly truth about it.

Who's Fact-Checking Whoopi Goldberg on Republicans Wanting to Bring Back Slavery?

The headline at The Daily Caller read:  Whoopi Goldberg Says Republicans ‘Want To Bring Slavery Back’ Some version of that headline and Whoopi’s remark on ABC’s The View was all over the media world on Wednesday. The Daily Caller version reported this:   The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg said Wednesday that Republicans “want to bring slavery back” as she raged against Arizona’s reinstatement of an 1864 abortion ban.  ABC News's Whoopi Goldberg openly claims, without evidence, that Republicans "want to bring slavery back" She goes on to demand progressive-activist justices on the Supreme Court: "One of the good things about the Supreme Court is you can fight to make sure you make stuff better" pic.twitter.com/Bq0kT33ATG — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 10, 2024 Who will fact-check her on this crazy claim? Whoopi seems to be utterly unaware (or deliberately ignores) that support for slavery in the day came not from Republicans - whose party was formed in 1854 to oppose the expansion of slavery. History records that it was, in fact, slave-holding Democrats who founded the Democratic Party. And obviously, Whoopi is unaware that  the Democratic Party, writing in its first 6 platforms, staunchly supported slavery. Not to mention its Members of Congress opposed the passage of the 13th Amendment -- which abolished slavery. It was the GOP that ended slavery over the objections of the ardently pro-slavery Democrats. And oh yes, the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves? There were seven from 1800-1861. And since Whoopi tied the subject of slavery to abortion, a reminder that the founder of the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood was one Margaret Sanger. It was Sanger whose notoriously deep-seated racism was a pillar of her support for abortion. Her objective was to use abortion to thin out the inferior populations. Black women account for 38 percent of abortions. Isn’t it past time for Whoopi and others in the media to press the Democratic Party for its apology in supporting slavery? Periodically a call goes up for reparations -- but curiously the call is never directed at the Democratic Party which was, as said, responsible for supporting slavery and making it a matter of government policy upon winning elections -- six times in a row -- on a platform of enslaving black Americans. Fact? Misleading or gaslighting Americans is the modus operandi of the liberal media.  As the Whoopi story made the rounds, so too did this story from NPR’s Uri Berliner. Berliner’s piece over at The Free Press was headlined:  I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think. Berliner goes on to say:  An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. His point was clear: There was no viewpoint diversity at NPR. The goal every hour of the NPR broadcast day was to push the progressive world view. They're not alone. Berliner admitted this isn't just a problem at NPR. As if to reinforce Berliner’s point, in the Washington Post the other day was this already noxious headline about the shooting by Chicago police of a 26-year old black man named Dexter Reed.  It took a full eight paragraphs, deep inside the story, for the Post to report:  COPA (Chicago Police) said its review of the footage and initial reports “appear to confirm that Mr. Reed fired first,” hitting one officer while four others returned fire. Which is to say, this is an admission that directly contradicts the impression given in the headline that police singled out a car with a lone young black man at the wheel, stopped him on the pretense of not having his seat belt connected - and, unprovoked, shot him to death in a hail of 96 bullets.  In other words, the Post wasn’t interested in the truth and the facts. The Post, like those at NPR, are only interested in pushing the progressive world view. In this case that view being that police target young black men. So gaslighting is the order of the day. Which brings us back to Whoopi Goldberg on The View. Simply put, Whoopi, like the NPR crowd and that Washington Post headline, was gaslighting her audience. In Whoopi’s case leaving the impression that Republicans “want to bring slavery back” because, of course, Republicans had supported slavery in the first place. When, of course, the truth is exactly the opposite. Worse, not only did the Democrats repeatedly support slavery and oppose abolishing it, but in today’s world the party somehow can’t find it in themselves to apologize for it. No one in the pro-Biden media will ask for it. Will Whoopi take to The View to ask the Democrats and party leader President Joe Biden to apologize to black Americans for the party’s repeated support of slavery? Don’t wait up.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's 'True North' Is Truly False

Well, isn’t this interesting. One Chris Quinn, the Editor at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, has taken the time to pen a “Letter from the Editor” to the paper’s readers. The topic: the paper’s coverage of former President Donald Trump. The letter is designed to set the apparent critics of the paper’s Trump coverage straight. Coverage that, it seems, strikes Plain Dealer Trump-supporting readers as -- shocking, I know -- biased against the former president. The letter, found here, is a classic of thinking from inside the liberal media bubble. Lacking any self-awareness and, in the name of “truth” making utterly untrue comments. Let’s take a look. Says Quinn: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.” Then he quickly spins out…untruth. Examples? Quinn:  The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse. This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it. Journalists who are in no way objective still proclaim "This is not subjective." Journalists who sound exactly like Democratic strategists proclaim Trump uniquely undermined faith in our elections...after they spent most of Trump's presidency implying daily that he stole the election in a conspiracy with the Russians. That was a "yearslong campaign" to convince us Hillary Clinton's bridge didn't collapse. There's the usual hype that this was the worst threat since the Civil War, and these people have claimed with a straight fact that January 6 was much more serious than September 11. That's flabbergasting. There have been problems with American elections long pre-dating Trump. Trump was not needed to undermine faith in our elections.  In 2022, for example, CNN ran this headline on my own state of Pennsylvania:  Ex-Democratic congressman sentenced to prison in yearslong Pennsylvania election fraud scheme CNN begins its reporting this way:  CNN  — Expelled former Democratic congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for federal election fraud dating back to 2014, the Justice Department said Tuesday, and was immediately taken into custody. Myers, 79, pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to deprive voters of civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsification of voting records, and conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election as part of scams to stuff ballot boxes for certain Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania elections between 2014 and 2018, the DOJ said in a news release. Prosecutors said some of the candidates were running to be judges and had hired Myers, who would use portions of “consulting fees” from his clients to pay others to interfere with election results.” And the source for this story was not what Quinn refers to as "news sources of no credibility.” The source was the United States Department of Justice, as seen here in a DOJ press release. And the headline from the DOJ release:  Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Election Fraud In addition to the problem cited above involving Pennsylvania elections in the five elections between 2014 and 2018, the New York Times ran this headline on its front page all the way back in 1994:  Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate The Times began its story by reporting:  Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under ‘a massive scheme’ by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate. In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago. Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so. Talk about “undermining faith in our elections”! Note well. This story about a “massive scheme” that resulted in a stolen election was reported in 1994 - a full 21 years before Donald Trump ever ran for president.  Like his many colleagues in the liberal media, Quinn takes Trump's failure to concede defeat and exaggerates it into “an insurrection” on January 6th. Here’s a fact Quinn chooses to ignore. This is subjective. This is energetic spin, not a matter of law. In the charges brought by Biden DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith, not one charges Trump - or anybody else - with insurrection, and insurrection is in fact a chargeable crime. It hasn’t happened. So for Quinn to tell Plain Dealer readers that Trump “sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power” isn't true in a legal sense -- or he would have been charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith for doing so.   Completely ignored by Quinn is that President Joe Biden is the very first president in American history whose administration has gone out of its way to prosecute his political opponent to keep himself in power. Biden is behaving in the fashion of a third world banana Republic dictator in his treatment of his political opposition -- and Trump is the problem? Amusingly and illustrating a complete lack of self-awareness, Quinn says that “ the media landscape has been corrupted by partisans.” Seriously? A media landscape “corrupted by partisans”?  Like at MSNBC? Or maybe, closer to home, by partisans like Chris Quinn and the Cleveland Plain Dealer? The real fact here is that the Editor of the Plain Dealer has in fact made it plain that his highly subjective - and decidedly false - “true north” portrayal of Trump will be running the paper’s coverage of the 2024 election. It doesn’t get much more fake news than that. Note to readers of the Plain Dealer? Look elsewhere for true north coverage in 2024.