A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1040562893684977664",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "The Media Bias/Fact Check web site, run by Dave Van Zandt, says this about the BBC....\"When it comes to reporting on the USA and in particular President Donald Trump, there is a negative tone directed at Trump and his policies. In general, the BBC covers both sides of stories, with a slight bias in favor of the left.\".<br /><br />This is obvious when you read BBC News articles about President Trump, but what is not so obvious to many is how the BBC selectively chooses what Trump stories to report on based on how negative the coverage will be.<br /><br />An example recently is the article they wrote on Trump's visit to a mixed martial arts on 2nd November, titled \"UFC: Raucous reception for Trump at Mixed Martial Arts\".. The article starts with \"Donald Trump was met with raucous boos - and some cheers\". So some people 'booed' and some cheered, no details are given as to how many booed and how many cheered. Why use the word \"Raucous\" in the title?<br /><br />They mention a \"small anti-Trump protest was held at the Madison Square Garden arena.\". From what we've all learned about the current political climate in the U.S. this is unsurprising. The BBC also said that \"It comes less than a week after the president was booed at the baseball World Series in Washington DC.\". This event was also covered by the BBC.<br /><br />So all normal BBC behaviour and what would be expected of their President Trump coverage.<br /><br />However, this week Trump attended a football game between between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University where he received a very warm reception from the more than 100,000 crowd. The attached video shows this event.<br /><br />Even the New York Times, hardly a President Trump supporter, had to say ... <br /><br />\"So when Mr. Trump decided to attend Saturday’s football game between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University in the more politically friendly territory of Tuscaloosa, Ala., several aides and allies saw it as a way for him to elicit a more unequivocal show of support during a period that has kept the White House in a defensive crouch.<br /><br />In Alabama, the president received exactly that. When he was introduced and shown on the giant screens, the red-clad crowd responded with rousing cheers as a smiling Mr. Trump waved and clapped and drank in the support. There were some boos as well, but the cheers dominated and some fans chanted, “U-S-A, U-S-A!”<br /><br />Mr. Trump could hardly have found a bigger sports spectacle than Saturday’s matchup, an event that all but shut down the city of Tuscaloosa. More than 100,000 fans poured into Bryant-Denny Stadium hours before kickoff. Those who arrived early enjoyed members of the United States Special Operations Command parachute team dropping from the sky to land around the 50-yard line.\"<br /><br />And what did the BBC News report on this President Trump reception....NOTHING. Why? because is showed Trump in a positive, popular light and we all know that the BBC does not like it when that happens!<br /><br />A great example of Bias By Omission.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=politics\" title=\"#politics\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#politics</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=bias\" title=\"#bias\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#bias</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=donaldjtrump\" title=\"#donaldjtrump\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#donaldjtrump</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1040562893684977664",
"published": "2019-11-11T09:45:26+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The Media Bias/Fact Check web site, run by Dave Van Zandt, says this about the BBC....\"When it comes to reporting on the USA and in particular President Donald Trump, there is a negative tone directed at Trump and his policies. In general, the BBC covers both sides of stories, with a slight bias in favor of the left.\".\n\nThis is obvious when you read BBC News articles about President Trump, but what is not so obvious to many is how the BBC selectively chooses what Trump stories to report on based on how negative the coverage will be.\n\nAn example recently is the article they wrote on Trump's visit to a mixed martial arts on 2nd November, titled \"UFC: Raucous reception for Trump at Mixed Martial Arts\".. The article starts with \"Donald Trump was met with raucous boos - and some cheers\". So some people 'booed' and some cheered, no details are given as to how many booed and how many cheered. Why use the word \"Raucous\" in the title?\n\nThey mention a \"small anti-Trump protest was held at the Madison Square Garden arena.\". From what we've all learned about the current political climate in the U.S. this is unsurprising. The BBC also said that \"It comes less than a week after the president was booed at the baseball World Series in Washington DC.\". This event was also covered by the BBC.\n\nSo all normal BBC behaviour and what would be expected of their President Trump coverage.\n\nHowever, this week Trump attended a football game between between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University where he received a very warm reception from the more than 100,000 crowd. The attached video shows this event.\n\nEven the New York Times, hardly a President Trump supporter, had to say ... \n\n\"So when Mr. Trump decided to attend Saturday’s football game between the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University in the more politically friendly territory of Tuscaloosa, Ala., several aides and allies saw it as a way for him to elicit a more unequivocal show of support during a period that has kept the White House in a defensive crouch.\n\nIn Alabama, the president received exactly that. When he was introduced and shown on the giant screens, the red-clad crowd responded with rousing cheers as a smiling Mr. Trump waved and clapped and drank in the support. There were some boos as well, but the cheers dominated and some fans chanted, “U-S-A, U-S-A!”\n\nMr. Trump could hardly have found a bigger sports spectacle than Saturday’s matchup, an event that all but shut down the city of Tuscaloosa. More than 100,000 fans poured into Bryant-Denny Stadium hours before kickoff. Those who arrived early enjoyed members of the United States Special Operations Command parachute team dropping from the sky to land around the 50-yard line.\"\n\nAnd what did the BBC News report on this President Trump reception....NOTHING. Why? because is showed Trump in a positive, popular light and we all know that the BBC does not like it when that happens!\n\nA great example of Bias By Omission.\n\n\n#news #journalism #politics #bias #donaldjtrump",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1040562893684977664/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1038785436316102656",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "The BBC News thinks that cities would be better off being designed by women. The cities designed by men are crap and women would design cities that would suite everyone's needs, especially the needs of women.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-50269778/what-would-a-city-designed-by-women-be-like\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-50269778/what-would-a-city-designed-by-women-be-like</a><br /><br />This video shows a number of women designers and women involved in the redesigning areas of Barcelona, giving examples of why cities designed by men are not good enough for women; They raise a number of issues and ideas;<br /><br />1. More bathrooms/restrooms/toilets.<br />2. Divided spaces.<br />3. Women don't drive as much as men, use public transport more.<br />4. Pedestrianisation.<br />5. More benches<br />6. Anti-machismo stands.<br /><br />In my mind the whole premise of men being the ones who design cities is incorrect. When was the last city designed by a man? Sure buildings may have been designed by men, retail parks have and housing estates have, but ENTIRE cities? Through necessity, cities have evolved over generations rather than been built as a finished entity. As older parts have decayed or have become obsolete they are redeveloped, usually to satisfy financial targets both in terms of construction and return on investment. The needs of the man and woman probably haven't played much importance in the design so to imply that men designed cities mainly for the needs of men is just plain wrong.<br /><br />Now going back to the list above, speaking as a man, I would love to see cities with more #1, #2, 3#, #4 and #5. Why are they things that only women want more of?<br /><br />A woman in the video makes a blanket statement that women need to use toilets more often than men. What about older men? Or men who have sub-optimal bladders? or men who suffer illness that requires them to use a toilet more often than a healthy man? Wouldn't a greater provision of public toilets benefit both sexes?<br /><br />Wouldn't more benches also benefit men and women? Again, older men and disabled men would welcome more available seating, as would I and almost every other man alive!<br /><br />EVERYONE would appreciate more nice things in cities but it is not solely men who are responsible for how our cities look like today. In my opinion the whole thrust of this video is targeted at a monster that does not exist. Why choose to produce it this way? Why not make it a more gender neutral production which hi-lights the needs of BOTH men and women? Does it not make the video appear sexist? That all men designers ignore what women think and want...deliberately?<br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1038785436316102656",
"published": "2019-11-06T12:02:27+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The BBC News thinks that cities would be better off being designed by women. The cities designed by men are crap and women would design cities that would suite everyone's needs, especially the needs of women.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-50269778/what-would-a-city-designed-by-women-be-like\n\nThis video shows a number of women designers and women involved in the redesigning areas of Barcelona, giving examples of why cities designed by men are not good enough for women; They raise a number of issues and ideas;\n\n1. More bathrooms/restrooms/toilets.\n2. Divided spaces.\n3. Women don't drive as much as men, use public transport more.\n4. Pedestrianisation.\n5. More benches\n6. Anti-machismo stands.\n\nIn my mind the whole premise of men being the ones who design cities is incorrect. When was the last city designed by a man? Sure buildings may have been designed by men, retail parks have and housing estates have, but ENTIRE cities? Through necessity, cities have evolved over generations rather than been built as a finished entity. As older parts have decayed or have become obsolete they are redeveloped, usually to satisfy financial targets both in terms of construction and return on investment. The needs of the man and woman probably haven't played much importance in the design so to imply that men designed cities mainly for the needs of men is just plain wrong.\n\nNow going back to the list above, speaking as a man, I would love to see cities with more #1, #2, 3#, #4 and #5. Why are they things that only women want more of?\n\nA woman in the video makes a blanket statement that women need to use toilets more often than men. What about older men? Or men who have sub-optimal bladders? or men who suffer illness that requires them to use a toilet more often than a healthy man? Wouldn't a greater provision of public toilets benefit both sexes?\n\nWouldn't more benches also benefit men and women? Again, older men and disabled men would welcome more available seating, as would I and almost every other man alive!\n\nEVERYONE would appreciate more nice things in cities but it is not solely men who are responsible for how our cities look like today. In my opinion the whole thrust of this video is targeted at a monster that does not exist. Why choose to produce it this way? Why not make it a more gender neutral production which hi-lights the needs of BOTH men and women? Does it not make the video appear sexist? That all men designers ignore what women think and want...deliberately?\n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1038785436316102656/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1038773398117560320",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "<br />Millennial men are demanding better parental leave, says Jill Treanor, a business reporter for the BBC News.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50251179\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50251179</a><br /><br />This article starts off by detailing the experiences of just one man, an \"IT expert\"' called Yash Puri who decided to take 3 months parental leave to look after his young child. It tells of how he \"see's dads in the office who want to know about my story\", it doesn't tell us how many or who they actually are. The article features a second man who plans on taking advantage of parental leave due to the company he works for launching a new parental policy which allows fathers to have the same parental rights as mothers.<br /><br />Most of the article explains how companies are changing their parental policies in a similar way to provide father's will have greater opportunities to help share the responsibilities with child care. It also explains how companies are seeing it as a way to attract more staff.<br /><br />Only one company said that it is changing due to what its staff were wanting and that was PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The PwC Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (Yes folks, this is how bad things have become!) said \"I think many more parents of both genders now want to be more hands-on parents, particularly in the early years. We're seeing that ourselves among our young millennial men.\". No stats are provided, only what the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer 'thinks'. Being cynical I could say \"well she would say that, wouldn't she\", because if men were happy going to work rather than looking after a young child then the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer would have less work to do, wouldn't she?!<br /><br />What is striking about this news article is how the BBC fail miserably in backing up the main title of the article with solid facts. How are \"Millennial men demanding better parental leave\" when they cite no examples of men demanding it and just mainly focus on companies using parental leave to attract more staff?<br /><br />Yet again they attempt to promote their woke 'men want to do more traditionally female stuff' agenda when in fact it is doubtful that this is anywhere near reality. Sure a small percentage of men want to nurse children but to say that all millennial men are demanding to do so is just not believable.<br /><br />BTW, Jill Treanor is yet another BBC \"journalist\" who previously worked at the Guardian.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1038773398117560320",
"published": "2019-11-06T11:14:37+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\nMillennial men are demanding better parental leave, says Jill Treanor, a business reporter for the BBC News.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50251179\n\nThis article starts off by detailing the experiences of just one man, an \"IT expert\"' called Yash Puri who decided to take 3 months parental leave to look after his young child. It tells of how he \"see's dads in the office who want to know about my story\", it doesn't tell us how many or who they actually are. The article features a second man who plans on taking advantage of parental leave due to the company he works for launching a new parental policy which allows fathers to have the same parental rights as mothers.\n\nMost of the article explains how companies are changing their parental policies in a similar way to provide father's will have greater opportunities to help share the responsibilities with child care. It also explains how companies are seeing it as a way to attract more staff.\n\nOnly one company said that it is changing due to what its staff were wanting and that was PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The PwC Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (Yes folks, this is how bad things have become!) said \"I think many more parents of both genders now want to be more hands-on parents, particularly in the early years. We're seeing that ourselves among our young millennial men.\". No stats are provided, only what the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer 'thinks'. Being cynical I could say \"well she would say that, wouldn't she\", because if men were happy going to work rather than looking after a young child then the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer would have less work to do, wouldn't she?!\n\nWhat is striking about this news article is how the BBC fail miserably in backing up the main title of the article with solid facts. How are \"Millennial men demanding better parental leave\" when they cite no examples of men demanding it and just mainly focus on companies using parental leave to attract more staff?\n\nYet again they attempt to promote their woke 'men want to do more traditionally female stuff' agenda when in fact it is doubtful that this is anywhere near reality. Sure a small percentage of men want to nurse children but to say that all millennial men are demanding to do so is just not believable.\n\nBTW, Jill Treanor is yet another BBC \"journalist\" who previously worked at the Guardian.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1038773398117560320/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1035526865619603456",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "There is an English language adage which says \"a picture paints a thousand words.\" and the BBC News understands this very well indeed.<br /><br />I don't know who actually selects the pictures they use to adorn their articles but they have a great talent for supporting the BBC's political and social agendas.<br /><br />Take this one as an example.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50199309\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50199309</a><br /><br />There has been a recent argument about the UK Government's post-EU employment and environmental standards. A BBC article about it chose a picture of a woman wearing protective clothing and helmet to illustrate what an employed person looks like. She is standing there talking into a radio and probably instructing other workmen, oh sorry, workpeople in their work.<br /><br />\"So what?\"...I hear you ask...\"Woman can do manual engineering work as well as men!\" and indeed you are right, but how many women actually do?<br /><br />Looking at the latest Office of National Statistics 'Employment by occupation' stats, from 2018, UK women hold less than 50,000 jobs to which the picture could be associated. That is including Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Engineering Professionals, Vehicle Trades, Building and Civil Engineering Technicians, etc. This equates to just 0.003% of all women employed, or just 0.001% of all UK employment. To put this into context 8 times as many women are employed as health professionals, while 12 times as many women are nurses and midwives. There are a whopping 24 times as many women who hold managerial and senior official roles. The problem is that by using a picture of a female nurse, or a female doctor or a female senior executive the image portrayed would not be as effective in the story which the BBC REALLY wants to convey.<br /><br />Remember that this news article has nothing to do with gender roles or the role of women in our society, it is an article on generic employment and environmental standards. The BBC however doesn't miss the opportunity to demonstrate how far they think women have come and how they are now occupying previously held male jobs, and they use a picture which, at most, represents 0.001% of workers to do so. <br /><br />Unlike the pictures the BBC used in their coverage of the mass immigration into the EU this example of picture usage doesn't really bother me. I do, however, find it very interesting the lengths the BBC go to in the pushing of their preferred agendas.<br /><br /><br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1035526865619603456",
"published": "2019-10-28T12:14:03+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "There is an English language adage which says \"a picture paints a thousand words.\" and the BBC News understands this very well indeed.\n\nI don't know who actually selects the pictures they use to adorn their articles but they have a great talent for supporting the BBC's political and social agendas.\n\nTake this one as an example.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50199309\n\nThere has been a recent argument about the UK Government's post-EU employment and environmental standards. A BBC article about it chose a picture of a woman wearing protective clothing and helmet to illustrate what an employed person looks like. She is standing there talking into a radio and probably instructing other workmen, oh sorry, workpeople in their work.\n\n\"So what?\"...I hear you ask...\"Woman can do manual engineering work as well as men!\" and indeed you are right, but how many women actually do?\n\nLooking at the latest Office of National Statistics 'Employment by occupation' stats, from 2018, UK women hold less than 50,000 jobs to which the picture could be associated. That is including Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Engineering Professionals, Vehicle Trades, Building and Civil Engineering Technicians, etc. This equates to just 0.003% of all women employed, or just 0.001% of all UK employment. To put this into context 8 times as many women are employed as health professionals, while 12 times as many women are nurses and midwives. There are a whopping 24 times as many women who hold managerial and senior official roles. The problem is that by using a picture of a female nurse, or a female doctor or a female senior executive the image portrayed would not be as effective in the story which the BBC REALLY wants to convey.\n\nRemember that this news article has nothing to do with gender roles or the role of women in our society, it is an article on generic employment and environmental standards. The BBC however doesn't miss the opportunity to demonstrate how far they think women have come and how they are now occupying previously held male jobs, and they use a picture which, at most, represents 0.001% of workers to do so. \n\nUnlike the pictures the BBC used in their coverage of the mass immigration into the EU this example of picture usage doesn't really bother me. I do, however, find it very interesting the lengths the BBC go to in the pushing of their preferred agendas.\n\n\n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1035526865619603456/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1035507374754205696",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "The BBC just loves young activists, especially young female activists. The younger they are the better. The BBC throws them forward as examples of inspiring members of the next woke generation, a generation that believes that they have been wronged by previous ones and believe that they are now the ones to make things right once more. Greta Thunberg is an obvious example of this BBC child prodigy worship but there have been many others. Take for example the young girl who decided it was time to clean up the UK that the BBC created a video about on September 27, 2019 (see my post about this), or the many reports about the school children who 'skipped school' (I call it 'truanting') to fight climate change.<br /><br />The angle that the BBC always tries to take is that these children carry out there activism off their own back, and as a result set an example that we older people who have up to now screwed things up. <br /><br />So here we are with yet another example.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50171701\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50171701</a><br /><br />A 15 year old student, called Aela Mansmann, was suspended from her Cape Elizabeth, Maine school in September for putting up posters in the school bathroom which said \"There's a rapist in the school and you know who it is.\". Along with two other students she did this as part of her activism against sexual assault in schools. From the news it is not possible to establish whether or not the target of the accusation is guilty or whether or not he was the target of bullying but the result of their actions apparently created \"fear in the high school\". The school took the latter as being true hence the suspensions.<br /><br />The BBC article finishes with a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is widely accepted as a very left-leaning organisation, and a statement from her mother, Shael Norris, which was also made through the ACLU.<br /><br />Her mother wrote \"All my daughter ever wanted was for students to feel safe speaking out about sexual assault. I'm so proud of her for standing up for what she believes in.\".<br /><br />Anyway, I'm not going to go into the story that much, that is not what I take issue with. What I do not like is the selective omissions which the BBC chose to make to the story. As always the BBC could argue that they didn't know the relevant bits that I am referring to, but my answer to that would be \"well you are journalists, don't you look into the facts before publishing news articles?\".<br /><br />From reading the whole piece you are left thinking that this young 15 year old student decided on her own volition to make a stand on sexual assaults at her school and her mother fully supports her daughter's spontaneous and self-motivated activism. But who exactly is the mother Shael Norris and is Aela Mansmann just an average school student?<br /><br />It doesn't take a genius to look Shael Norris up on the internet and find out that she is the current Executive Director for SafeBAE. In fact, looking at her LinkedIn account she herself founded this non-profit organisation over 4 years ago. <br /><br />SafeBae's mission statement says ... \"SafeBAE is a survivor-founded, youth-led national organization whose mission is to end sexual assault among middle and high school students. As the only national peer-to-peer organization of our kind, we help promote culture change by giving teens the tools to become activists and shift school culture through raising awareness about dating violence, sexual harassment and assault, affirmative consent, safe bystander intervention, survivor care, and their rights under Title IX. \". <br /><br />On the SafeBAE web site there is a video which features Aela Mansmann, she is described as one of ten local committee members who is very active in organising events to spread the organisations message across schools and college campuses across the U.S. <br /><br />Looking back further into Shael Norris's career history she was also the Director of College & Community Campaigns for another organisation called V-Day for 18 years. V-Day described itself as \"a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls.\". Listed as one of her responsibilities is \"Collaboration with all student activist groups, support agencies & lobbyists on the issue of sexual assault on US campuses.\".<br /><br />If you look a bit deeper you can find out how political V-Day actually is. They state ... \"We are in the midst of a rising tide of right-wing nationalism, white supremacy, fascism, tyranny, hatred of and fear of immigrants, misogyny, femicide, homophobia, transphobia, corporate greed and climate destruction. We cannot beat these violators on their terms. We will never be that cruel, discompassionate, greedy, or murderous. We cannot let ourselves be changed by or sunk in their cynicism, hatred, divisions and destruction.\". V-Day is clearly far left-wing.<br /><br />Am I being unreasonable thinking that all this additional information does have a bearing on the BBC News article? Does it alter how the events should be viewed? Rather than being just an average student, Shael Norris is actually a highly active political activist who works for her highly active political activist mother's non-profit organisation, does this really matter?<br /><br />Things written in BBC News articles aren't always what they seem.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1035507374754205696",
"published": "2019-10-28T10:56:36+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The BBC just loves young activists, especially young female activists. The younger they are the better. The BBC throws them forward as examples of inspiring members of the next woke generation, a generation that believes that they have been wronged by previous ones and believe that they are now the ones to make things right once more. Greta Thunberg is an obvious example of this BBC child prodigy worship but there have been many others. Take for example the young girl who decided it was time to clean up the UK that the BBC created a video about on September 27, 2019 (see my post about this), or the many reports about the school children who 'skipped school' (I call it 'truanting') to fight climate change.\n\nThe angle that the BBC always tries to take is that these children carry out there activism off their own back, and as a result set an example that we older people who have up to now screwed things up. \n\nSo here we are with yet another example.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50171701\n\nA 15 year old student, called Aela Mansmann, was suspended from her Cape Elizabeth, Maine school in September for putting up posters in the school bathroom which said \"There's a rapist in the school and you know who it is.\". Along with two other students she did this as part of her activism against sexual assault in schools. From the news it is not possible to establish whether or not the target of the accusation is guilty or whether or not he was the target of bullying but the result of their actions apparently created \"fear in the high school\". The school took the latter as being true hence the suspensions.\n\nThe BBC article finishes with a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is widely accepted as a very left-leaning organisation, and a statement from her mother, Shael Norris, which was also made through the ACLU.\n\nHer mother wrote \"All my daughter ever wanted was for students to feel safe speaking out about sexual assault. I'm so proud of her for standing up for what she believes in.\".\n\nAnyway, I'm not going to go into the story that much, that is not what I take issue with. What I do not like is the selective omissions which the BBC chose to make to the story. As always the BBC could argue that they didn't know the relevant bits that I am referring to, but my answer to that would be \"well you are journalists, don't you look into the facts before publishing news articles?\".\n\nFrom reading the whole piece you are left thinking that this young 15 year old student decided on her own volition to make a stand on sexual assaults at her school and her mother fully supports her daughter's spontaneous and self-motivated activism. But who exactly is the mother Shael Norris and is Aela Mansmann just an average school student?\n\nIt doesn't take a genius to look Shael Norris up on the internet and find out that she is the current Executive Director for SafeBAE. In fact, looking at her LinkedIn account she herself founded this non-profit organisation over 4 years ago. \n\nSafeBae's mission statement says ... \"SafeBAE is a survivor-founded, youth-led national organization whose mission is to end sexual assault among middle and high school students. As the only national peer-to-peer organization of our kind, we help promote culture change by giving teens the tools to become activists and shift school culture through raising awareness about dating violence, sexual harassment and assault, affirmative consent, safe bystander intervention, survivor care, and their rights under Title IX. \". \n\nOn the SafeBAE web site there is a video which features Aela Mansmann, she is described as one of ten local committee members who is very active in organising events to spread the organisations message across schools and college campuses across the U.S. \n\nLooking back further into Shael Norris's career history she was also the Director of College & Community Campaigns for another organisation called V-Day for 18 years. V-Day described itself as \"a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls.\". Listed as one of her responsibilities is \"Collaboration with all student activist groups, support agencies & lobbyists on the issue of sexual assault on US campuses.\".\n\nIf you look a bit deeper you can find out how political V-Day actually is. They state ... \"We are in the midst of a rising tide of right-wing nationalism, white supremacy, fascism, tyranny, hatred of and fear of immigrants, misogyny, femicide, homophobia, transphobia, corporate greed and climate destruction. We cannot beat these violators on their terms. We will never be that cruel, discompassionate, greedy, or murderous. We cannot let ourselves be changed by or sunk in their cynicism, hatred, divisions and destruction.\". V-Day is clearly far left-wing.\n\nAm I being unreasonable thinking that all this additional information does have a bearing on the BBC News article? Does it alter how the events should be viewed? Rather than being just an average student, Shael Norris is actually a highly active political activist who works for her highly active political activist mother's non-profit organisation, does this really matter?\n\nThings written in BBC News articles aren't always what they seem.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1035507374754205696/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031205852896432128",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "The BBC no longer cares about the migrants attempting to enter the US across its southern border. They no longer care about the unaccompanied migrant children and don't care about all the families who are being detained in the \"concentration camps\" which are referred to as \"detention facilities\".<br /><br />Why are the BBC now so uncaring? Have they been corrupted by the alt-right and white supremacists? Do they no longer like people from Africa and South America? It all seems a bit strange,<br /><br />Following on from their wall-to-wall daily coverage of the US immigration problems (some would call it an 'immigration crisis') of early and mid 2019 the subject has fallen silent on the BBC.<br /><br />We all remember the numerous articles, adorned with heart tugging pictures of women and children sitting behind wire fences (never of the 48% who were men), and quoting every Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comment on how the immigration facilities were like \"US Japanese internment camps during World War Two\" or \"concentration camps\". The number of BBC articles on the subject probably ran to hundreds over the months, so many I can't actually be bothered to look at them all and count them.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48710432\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48710432</a><br /><br />The immigration issues are still there, and although the Mexican authorities are clamping down on illegal migrants (the BBC as with all other left wing commentators like to call them 'undocumented migrants') from travelling through their country, more than 17,000 illegal immigrants are being apprehended on the border on a daily basis.<br /><br />Why are the BBC not reporting on this anymore?<br /><br />If you look further afield coverage of illegal immigrants on US news channels is also very sparse now. They too were providing copious hours on coverage during the first half of 2019 but since then they have moved to covering more political stories. The answer, of course, is that the immigration crisis was not a vote winner for the Democratic Party. Their 'open borders' and decriminalisation of border crossings policies were not resounding well with most of the US electorate and were in fact deeply unpopular. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey conducted July 15th to 17th 2019 showed that 67% of Americans thought that decriminalise border crossing was a 'Bad Idea'.<br /><br />So the left leaning news companies in the US stopped their reporting, the Democrats stopped talking about it and the BBC dutifully fell in line and stopped reporting on it as well.<br /><br />So much for the BBC being a genuine news service.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=politics\" title=\"#politics\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#politics</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1031205852896432128",
"published": "2019-10-16T14:03:54+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The BBC no longer cares about the migrants attempting to enter the US across its southern border. They no longer care about the unaccompanied migrant children and don't care about all the families who are being detained in the \"concentration camps\" which are referred to as \"detention facilities\".\n\nWhy are the BBC now so uncaring? Have they been corrupted by the alt-right and white supremacists? Do they no longer like people from Africa and South America? It all seems a bit strange,\n\nFollowing on from their wall-to-wall daily coverage of the US immigration problems (some would call it an 'immigration crisis') of early and mid 2019 the subject has fallen silent on the BBC.\n\nWe all remember the numerous articles, adorned with heart tugging pictures of women and children sitting behind wire fences (never of the 48% who were men), and quoting every Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comment on how the immigration facilities were like \"US Japanese internment camps during World War Two\" or \"concentration camps\". The number of BBC articles on the subject probably ran to hundreds over the months, so many I can't actually be bothered to look at them all and count them.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48710432\n\nThe immigration issues are still there, and although the Mexican authorities are clamping down on illegal migrants (the BBC as with all other left wing commentators like to call them 'undocumented migrants') from travelling through their country, more than 17,000 illegal immigrants are being apprehended on the border on a daily basis.\n\nWhy are the BBC not reporting on this anymore?\n\nIf you look further afield coverage of illegal immigrants on US news channels is also very sparse now. They too were providing copious hours on coverage during the first half of 2019 but since then they have moved to covering more political stories. The answer, of course, is that the immigration crisis was not a vote winner for the Democratic Party. Their 'open borders' and decriminalisation of border crossings policies were not resounding well with most of the US electorate and were in fact deeply unpopular. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey conducted July 15th to 17th 2019 showed that 67% of Americans thought that decriminalise border crossing was a 'Bad Idea'.\n\nSo the left leaning news companies in the US stopped their reporting, the Democrats stopped talking about it and the BBC dutifully fell in line and stopped reporting on it as well.\n\nSo much for the BBC being a genuine news service.\n\n\n#news #journalism #politics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031205852896432128/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031190521455411200",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50053563\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50053563</a><br /><br />We all know that for the last three years the BBC has been doing everything in its power to interfere and help reverse the decision of the British people to leave the EU. Their anti-BREXIT bias has been unashamedly on display at every step of the long and painful process.<br /><br />Yet another BBC article attempts to change Leaver opinions by providing us with the views of four unheard of, mainly left leaning, pro-EU advocates. They are ;<br /><br />- Slovak Liberal MP Katarina Csefalvayova<br />- Retired Austrian Social Democrat MEP Eugen Freund<br />- Bavarian Green MP Katarina Schulze<br />- Bavarian CSU MP Martin Huber<br /><br />That's about it really. The BBC wants us to stay in the EU and so do these four unknown people. Do they really think this is interesting and will change anyone's minds?<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1031190521455411200",
"published": "2019-10-16T13:02:58+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50053563\n\nWe all know that for the last three years the BBC has been doing everything in its power to interfere and help reverse the decision of the British people to leave the EU. Their anti-BREXIT bias has been unashamedly on display at every step of the long and painful process.\n\nYet another BBC article attempts to change Leaver opinions by providing us with the views of four unheard of, mainly left leaning, pro-EU advocates. They are ;\n\n- Slovak Liberal MP Katarina Csefalvayova\n- Retired Austrian Social Democrat MEP Eugen Freund\n- Bavarian Green MP Katarina Schulze\n- Bavarian CSU MP Martin Huber\n\nThat's about it really. The BBC wants us to stay in the EU and so do these four unknown people. Do they really think this is interesting and will change anyone's minds?\n\n\n#news #journalism",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031190521455411200/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031182912023265280",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "So the BBC News thinks it is a news organisation.<br /><br />A news organisation should report the news in an unbiased, accurate and professional manner. It is not the job of a news organisation to provide a platform for partisan commentators and their opinions, especially political opinions. To do this is to appear to take sides in the debate. If an opinion is reported on then it should be provided in context with views from other people, especially if they are on the opposite side of the argument. This is what I would consider BALANCED REPORTING.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50049421\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50049421</a><br /><br />Take this BBC News article as an example.<br /><br />Written by someone called 'PJ Crowley', no I hadn't heard of him as well. He is described as \"a former US Assistant Secretary of State and and author of Red Line: American Foreign Policy in a Time of Fractured Politics and Failing States\". To be more accurate he is an ex. Obama appointed Assistant Secretary of State who lasted less than 2 years before being forced to resign. <br /><br />P.J Crowley is apparently a regular contributor to the BBC, as he is with CNN and MSNBC in the USA. He is a regular critic of Donald Trump on Twitter and it is very easy to see where his political beliefs lay.<br /><br />Here is a recent Tweet from Mr Crowley ... \"If our self-described stable Genius-in-Chief in fact exhibited “great and unmatched wisdom,” he wouldn’t be threatening the economy of a NATO ally with limited trade with the United States. In short, he can’t do what he claims. Is there any doubt he is becoming unhinged?\"<br /><br />Another says \"Our one trick president again employs bluster to try to gain leverage in a negotiation almost no one is happy with. But in announcing the cancellation so conclusively, he seems to view the Taliban as a traditional adversary driven by incentives we can understand. They’re not.\"<br /><br />In this latest article his Viewpoint, which is attributed to Crowley only at the very bottom of the page, he voices some sweeping anti-Trump statements. He says that the transcript of the President's phone call to the Ukraine President \"presents strong evidence a crime was committed.\". This opinion has little general support and is now only held by very left wing Democrats. He says that \"there was a quid pro quo but many Trump supporters still choose to see a benign image.\" even when this was denied by all who are familiar with the phone call including the Ukrainian President!<br /><br />Other quotes from the article include;<br /><br />\"But Trump did it in just about the worst possible way.\"<br /><br />\"How Trump's get-out-of-the-way strategy fits into his maximum pressure campaign against Iran is anyone's guess.\"<br /><br />\"this is a crisis largely of Trump's making.\"<br /><br />It would have been nice for the BBC to ask the White House for its and the President's comments on these points and the article in general, but they didn't.<br /><br />For the BBC to publish such politically partisan 'viewpoints' without providing any counter opinion and contradictory argument this is blatantly biased. The reason they do this is because the viewpoint matches the viewpoint of the BBC. If this was not the case could you believe that a similar article which opposed the beliefs of the BBC would be treated in the same way? No, of course not.<br /><br />However, the BBC will say, as they have said to me in the past, this article is not about the opinions of the BBC they are just publishing the opinions of someone else....this is called \"Plausible Deniability\".<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=politics\" title=\"#politics\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#politics</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1031182912023265280",
"published": "2019-10-16T12:32:44+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "So the BBC News thinks it is a news organisation.\n\nA news organisation should report the news in an unbiased, accurate and professional manner. It is not the job of a news organisation to provide a platform for partisan commentators and their opinions, especially political opinions. To do this is to appear to take sides in the debate. If an opinion is reported on then it should be provided in context with views from other people, especially if they are on the opposite side of the argument. This is what I would consider BALANCED REPORTING.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50049421\n\nTake this BBC News article as an example.\n\nWritten by someone called 'PJ Crowley', no I hadn't heard of him as well. He is described as \"a former US Assistant Secretary of State and and author of Red Line: American Foreign Policy in a Time of Fractured Politics and Failing States\". To be more accurate he is an ex. Obama appointed Assistant Secretary of State who lasted less than 2 years before being forced to resign. \n\nP.J Crowley is apparently a regular contributor to the BBC, as he is with CNN and MSNBC in the USA. He is a regular critic of Donald Trump on Twitter and it is very easy to see where his political beliefs lay.\n\nHere is a recent Tweet from Mr Crowley ... \"If our self-described stable Genius-in-Chief in fact exhibited “great and unmatched wisdom,” he wouldn’t be threatening the economy of a NATO ally with limited trade with the United States. In short, he can’t do what he claims. Is there any doubt he is becoming unhinged?\"\n\nAnother says \"Our one trick president again employs bluster to try to gain leverage in a negotiation almost no one is happy with. But in announcing the cancellation so conclusively, he seems to view the Taliban as a traditional adversary driven by incentives we can understand. They’re not.\"\n\nIn this latest article his Viewpoint, which is attributed to Crowley only at the very bottom of the page, he voices some sweeping anti-Trump statements. He says that the transcript of the President's phone call to the Ukraine President \"presents strong evidence a crime was committed.\". This opinion has little general support and is now only held by very left wing Democrats. He says that \"there was a quid pro quo but many Trump supporters still choose to see a benign image.\" even when this was denied by all who are familiar with the phone call including the Ukrainian President!\n\nOther quotes from the article include;\n\n\"But Trump did it in just about the worst possible way.\"\n\n\"How Trump's get-out-of-the-way strategy fits into his maximum pressure campaign against Iran is anyone's guess.\"\n\n\"this is a crisis largely of Trump's making.\"\n\nIt would have been nice for the BBC to ask the White House for its and the President's comments on these points and the article in general, but they didn't.\n\nFor the BBC to publish such politically partisan 'viewpoints' without providing any counter opinion and contradictory argument this is blatantly biased. The reason they do this is because the viewpoint matches the viewpoint of the BBC. If this was not the case could you believe that a similar article which opposed the beliefs of the BBC would be treated in the same way? No, of course not.\n\nHowever, the BBC will say, as they have said to me in the past, this article is not about the opinions of the BBC they are just publishing the opinions of someone else....this is called \"Plausible Deniability\".\n\n\n#news #journalism #politics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031182912023265280/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031149936602836992",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "Do you know how many people are shot to death by the police each year in the USA? Do you have an idea what type of person gets shot to death by the police each year in the USA?<br /><br />According to the Washington Post, a newspaper with a typical left-leaning bias, in 2017 the total was 987, in 2018 the total was 996 and so far in 2019 the total has been 457. If you look at ethnicity, the percentage of black people who have been killed over these three years has been 20%, while the percentage of white people has been 39%. <br /><br />In this post I am not looking at the comparison of white versus black victims of police shootings but I've provided the stats above to show that white people can get shot by the police just as black people and Hispanic people can.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290</a><br /><br />This report by the BBC details just one of the 457 deaths in 2019. It tells the tragic story of a young woman being shot in her bedroom, through the window by a policeman, when he responded to a 911 call by a neighbour. He \"perceived a threat\" and shot within seconds of seeing the woman approach the window. There appears to have been a gun found in the bedroom afterwards but obviously what actually happened and what was going on in the minds of the woman and the police officer may never be known.<br /><br />I guess this is typical of many of the high stress situations that can occur in police work and maybe, if proved to be a mistake, the tragic consequences which can happen.<br /><br />So, out of the many police shootings which have taken place over the years why did the BBC decide to write about this one? Was it because the Guardian, VOX.com, USA Today, Sky News, CNN, MSNBC, and many other left leaning news media companies also reported on the event? Probably, but then again why did they all , including the BBC, think that this was newsworthy and the shooting to death of Michael Tuck in Dayton, OH. on the 22nd August 2019 was not? Why was the shooting to death of David Ingle on August 13, 2019 in Joplin, MO. not covered by the BBC? Was it because the victims were white?<br /><br />What made the tragic killing of Atatiana Jefferson different was that she was a black woman and the police officer was a white man. This is made blatantly clear throughout the BBC article....<br /><br />\"Black woman shot dead by Texas police through bedroom window\"<br /><br />\"A black woman was shot dead by police through her own bedroom window\"<br /><br />\"The Fort Worth Police Department said in a statement that the officer, who is a white man, had \"perceived a threat\" when he drew his weapon.\"<br /><br />Is there any proof this killing was all to do with the race of the policeman and victim? Some who hold certain political agendas may think so but I haven't seen any actual evidence to give a hint to this as the cause.<br /><br />In the article the BBC also connect this police killing to another incident which occurred a few weeks earlier ... \"The shooting comes less than two weeks after an off-duty police officer was jailed for shooting a black man, Botham Jean, dead in his own Dallas apartment less than 35 miles (55km) from Saturday's incident.\". Why make this connection? Are the BBC trying to give the impression that there is a particular issue with racist police shooting black people in that area?<br /><br />In my opinion all this shows that the BBC are just the same as many other biased news outlets who selectively report on stories which match their selected agendas. White men being killed by police are not newsworthy, black people being killed by police, especially white police, are.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1031149936602836992",
"published": "2019-10-16T10:21:42+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Do you know how many people are shot to death by the police each year in the USA? Do you have an idea what type of person gets shot to death by the police each year in the USA?\n\nAccording to the Washington Post, a newspaper with a typical left-leaning bias, in 2017 the total was 987, in 2018 the total was 996 and so far in 2019 the total has been 457. If you look at ethnicity, the percentage of black people who have been killed over these three years has been 20%, while the percentage of white people has been 39%. \n\nIn this post I am not looking at the comparison of white versus black victims of police shootings but I've provided the stats above to show that white people can get shot by the police just as black people and Hispanic people can.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290\n\nThis report by the BBC details just one of the 457 deaths in 2019. It tells the tragic story of a young woman being shot in her bedroom, through the window by a policeman, when he responded to a 911 call by a neighbour. He \"perceived a threat\" and shot within seconds of seeing the woman approach the window. There appears to have been a gun found in the bedroom afterwards but obviously what actually happened and what was going on in the minds of the woman and the police officer may never be known.\n\nI guess this is typical of many of the high stress situations that can occur in police work and maybe, if proved to be a mistake, the tragic consequences which can happen.\n\nSo, out of the many police shootings which have taken place over the years why did the BBC decide to write about this one? Was it because the Guardian, VOX.com, USA Today, Sky News, CNN, MSNBC, and many other left leaning news media companies also reported on the event? Probably, but then again why did they all , including the BBC, think that this was newsworthy and the shooting to death of Michael Tuck in Dayton, OH. on the 22nd August 2019 was not? Why was the shooting to death of David Ingle on August 13, 2019 in Joplin, MO. not covered by the BBC? Was it because the victims were white?\n\nWhat made the tragic killing of Atatiana Jefferson different was that she was a black woman and the police officer was a white man. This is made blatantly clear throughout the BBC article....\n\n\"Black woman shot dead by Texas police through bedroom window\"\n\n\"A black woman was shot dead by police through her own bedroom window\"\n\n\"The Fort Worth Police Department said in a statement that the officer, who is a white man, had \"perceived a threat\" when he drew his weapon.\"\n\nIs there any proof this killing was all to do with the race of the policeman and victim? Some who hold certain political agendas may think so but I haven't seen any actual evidence to give a hint to this as the cause.\n\nIn the article the BBC also connect this police killing to another incident which occurred a few weeks earlier ... \"The shooting comes less than two weeks after an off-duty police officer was jailed for shooting a black man, Botham Jean, dead in his own Dallas apartment less than 35 miles (55km) from Saturday's incident.\". Why make this connection? Are the BBC trying to give the impression that there is a particular issue with racist police shooting black people in that area?\n\nIn my opinion all this shows that the BBC are just the same as many other biased news outlets who selectively report on stories which match their selected agendas. White men being killed by police are not newsworthy, black people being killed by police, especially white police, are.\n\n\n#news #journalism",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031149936602836992/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031125480584609792",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50054915\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50054915</a><br /><br />This BBC News article has one of the most egregious smears I have ever seen from any UK based 'mainstream news' companies and that is really saying something. Whether this was just the view of the writer of the piece or the view of Fran Unsworth, the Director of BBC News and Current Affairs, I do not know but whoever takes responsibility for it should be made to apologise for it and resign.<br /><br />Apparently the police of England and Wales has recorded an increase of 10% in reported race and other types of hate crimes. In their news article, the BBC explain how this increase takes the total number of events ... \"Transgender hate crime went up 37% to 2,333. For sexual orientation the rise was 25% to 14,491, for disability 14% to 8,256 and for religion 3% to 8,566.\". They provide no further analysis on these figures, they do not say whether these are crimes of a physical nature (assault, etc), whether they are reported social media posts or people verbally saying or shouting insults, etc. What they do say is that these increases \"have been driven by improvements in recording by police and a growing awareness of hate crime.\".<br /><br />Having seemingly not carried out any deeper investigation into the increased number of crimes the BBC have quoted one possible factor from the official Home Office report .... \"However, it added that there had been \"short-term genuine rises in hate crime\" following certain events such as the 2016 EU referendum and \"part of the increase over the last year may reflect a real rise in hate crimes recorded by the police\".\"<br /><br />If you bother to look at the Home Office report you will notice that a 2nd possible factor was omitted by the BBC. The report actually says \" there has been spikes in hate crime following certain events such as the EU Referendum and the terrorist attacks in 2017.\". The BBC DELIBERATELY left out the bit about terrorist attacks. Why?<br /><br />This is yet another example of the BBC using their 'agenda filters' on the facts. Refusing to provide full details to shield their opinions and moral causes, and applying bias to add strength to them. Their steering of this path through the day-to-day news results in a picture of the World which cannot be fully understood or believed. Their audience is effectively being conditioned and brainwashed into a BBC contrived sound box.<br /><br />The biggest issue I have with this news article, and why I believe it to be one of the worst I have seen, is a reference made to Tommy Robinson and President Donald Trump. They are undoubtedly the two most hated personalities by BBC staff.<br /><br />In the article they point out that ... \"There were spikes in religious and race hate crime in May, June and July 2018.\". Following this the BBC have taken it upon themselves, just as the official Home Office report has done with the EU Referendum, to add a hint to why these spikes MAY have occurred ... \"In May 2018 former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was sentenced to his first jail term, sparking a series of protests, while in July US President Donald Trump visited the UK.\".<br /><br />Nowhere in the Home Office report does it mention President Trump or Tommy Robinson, this has just been dreamed up by the BBC News team. No proof of truth is provided, the BBC just added their names and their events in blatant attempt to connect them to the hate crime spikes. <br /><br />How the BBC can be allowed to carry out such deliberate unsubstantiated smearing is beyond me. If you look at other events that occurred during May, Jun and July 2018 you will find a number of events which could have potentially fuelled hate crime, including;<br /><br />- 2018 London Borough council elections.<br />- 2018 United Kingdom local elections.<br />- 2018 Lewisham East by-election.<br />- Anniversary of Manchester Arena attack.<br />- Wedding of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.<br /><br />.. and probably a lot more.<br /><br />QUESTION: How can the BBC prove its assertion that Trump and Robinson were responsible for substantial increases in hate crime during 2018, or as the Home Office calls them 'spikes'?<br /><br />ANSWER: They can't. This is FAKE NEWS.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=politics\" title=\"#politics\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#politics</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1031125480584609792",
"published": "2019-10-16T08:44:31+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50054915\n\nThis BBC News article has one of the most egregious smears I have ever seen from any UK based 'mainstream news' companies and that is really saying something. Whether this was just the view of the writer of the piece or the view of Fran Unsworth, the Director of BBC News and Current Affairs, I do not know but whoever takes responsibility for it should be made to apologise for it and resign.\n\nApparently the police of England and Wales has recorded an increase of 10% in reported race and other types of hate crimes. In their news article, the BBC explain how this increase takes the total number of events ... \"Transgender hate crime went up 37% to 2,333. For sexual orientation the rise was 25% to 14,491, for disability 14% to 8,256 and for religion 3% to 8,566.\". They provide no further analysis on these figures, they do not say whether these are crimes of a physical nature (assault, etc), whether they are reported social media posts or people verbally saying or shouting insults, etc. What they do say is that these increases \"have been driven by improvements in recording by police and a growing awareness of hate crime.\".\n\nHaving seemingly not carried out any deeper investigation into the increased number of crimes the BBC have quoted one possible factor from the official Home Office report .... \"However, it added that there had been \"short-term genuine rises in hate crime\" following certain events such as the 2016 EU referendum and \"part of the increase over the last year may reflect a real rise in hate crimes recorded by the police\".\"\n\nIf you bother to look at the Home Office report you will notice that a 2nd possible factor was omitted by the BBC. The report actually says \" there has been spikes in hate crime following certain events such as the EU Referendum and the terrorist attacks in 2017.\". The BBC DELIBERATELY left out the bit about terrorist attacks. Why?\n\nThis is yet another example of the BBC using their 'agenda filters' on the facts. Refusing to provide full details to shield their opinions and moral causes, and applying bias to add strength to them. Their steering of this path through the day-to-day news results in a picture of the World which cannot be fully understood or believed. Their audience is effectively being conditioned and brainwashed into a BBC contrived sound box.\n\nThe biggest issue I have with this news article, and why I believe it to be one of the worst I have seen, is a reference made to Tommy Robinson and President Donald Trump. They are undoubtedly the two most hated personalities by BBC staff.\n\nIn the article they point out that ... \"There were spikes in religious and race hate crime in May, June and July 2018.\". Following this the BBC have taken it upon themselves, just as the official Home Office report has done with the EU Referendum, to add a hint to why these spikes MAY have occurred ... \"In May 2018 former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was sentenced to his first jail term, sparking a series of protests, while in July US President Donald Trump visited the UK.\".\n\nNowhere in the Home Office report does it mention President Trump or Tommy Robinson, this has just been dreamed up by the BBC News team. No proof of truth is provided, the BBC just added their names and their events in blatant attempt to connect them to the hate crime spikes. \n\nHow the BBC can be allowed to carry out such deliberate unsubstantiated smearing is beyond me. If you look at other events that occurred during May, Jun and July 2018 you will find a number of events which could have potentially fuelled hate crime, including;\n\n- 2018 London Borough council elections.\n- 2018 United Kingdom local elections.\n- 2018 Lewisham East by-election.\n- Anniversary of Manchester Arena attack.\n- Wedding of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.\n\n.. and probably a lot more.\n\nQUESTION: How can the BBC prove its assertion that Trump and Robinson were responsible for substantial increases in hate crime during 2018, or as the Home Office calls them 'spikes'?\n\nANSWER: They can't. This is FAKE NEWS.\n\n\n#news #journalism #politics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1031125480584609792/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1025734400096649216",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "On the 27th September the BBC News published a news story about a 12 year old African-American girl who said that three white classmates pinned her down and cut her dreadlocks off with scissors.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49849722\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49849722</a><br /><br />We all know that children can do some pretty bad and stupid things and we all have stories that we could tell of the things that happened while we were at school. I remember a friend I had at school who was repeatedly dragged through dog faeces by a group of school bullies because he was smaller than them, I also remember children being shot at using air guns by another group of kids from a school window. The list is endless. Would these stories be classed as 'newsworthy' though, probably not.<br /><br />Why then does this incident qualify as NEWS? Children doing crappy things to another child? On the face of it there must be thousands of stories to be told each day which meet this criteria. The reason why the BBC DID publish this news article was the potential of it being a 'race hate' incident. A secondary reason could be the fact that the U.S.Vice-President Mike Pence's wife teaches at the very school where the attack took place.<br /><br />There was no actual voiced accusation of racism in either the article or the accompanying video. The three WHITE children had called the African-American girl 'Ugly' and 'Nappy' but there was no reference to her colour or race. However with the alleged victim being African-American and the three accused being white the BBC had no hesitation in pouncing on it like a dog with a bone. A racist attack at Mike Pence's wife's school? how could they resist!<br /><br />Roll-on 3 days and another BBC News story appears on the incident, however this one is about the young girl recanting her allegations, she apparently made the whole story up.<br /><br />So the BBC News rushed to publish an unsubstantiated accusation of a racist attack by a 12 year old child without carrying out any investigation into whether or not it actually occurred? They didn't even wait until more facts had come to light. Sounds very much like a repeat of their Jussie Smollett coverage which also proved to be a hoax.<br /><br />It was noticeable that even though the news article was all about a fake racist attack which was now debunked the BBC did not miss out on the opportunity and added a 'you may also be interested in' video at the bottom of the page. The video was about African Americans in New Orleans reflecting on race relations, which contained a number of people voicing how they face discrimination on a daily basis, how the U.S. has always been racist and how President Trump has made things a lot worse.<br /><br />I guess the BBC could not waste the opportunity to further spread their progressive 'woke' agenda to us all.<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1025734400096649216",
"published": "2019-10-01T11:42:18+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "On the 27th September the BBC News published a news story about a 12 year old African-American girl who said that three white classmates pinned her down and cut her dreadlocks off with scissors.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49849722\n\nWe all know that children can do some pretty bad and stupid things and we all have stories that we could tell of the things that happened while we were at school. I remember a friend I had at school who was repeatedly dragged through dog faeces by a group of school bullies because he was smaller than them, I also remember children being shot at using air guns by another group of kids from a school window. The list is endless. Would these stories be classed as 'newsworthy' though, probably not.\n\nWhy then does this incident qualify as NEWS? Children doing crappy things to another child? On the face of it there must be thousands of stories to be told each day which meet this criteria. The reason why the BBC DID publish this news article was the potential of it being a 'race hate' incident. A secondary reason could be the fact that the U.S.Vice-President Mike Pence's wife teaches at the very school where the attack took place.\n\nThere was no actual voiced accusation of racism in either the article or the accompanying video. The three WHITE children had called the African-American girl 'Ugly' and 'Nappy' but there was no reference to her colour or race. However with the alleged victim being African-American and the three accused being white the BBC had no hesitation in pouncing on it like a dog with a bone. A racist attack at Mike Pence's wife's school? how could they resist!\n\nRoll-on 3 days and another BBC News story appears on the incident, however this one is about the young girl recanting her allegations, she apparently made the whole story up.\n\nSo the BBC News rushed to publish an unsubstantiated accusation of a racist attack by a 12 year old child without carrying out any investigation into whether or not it actually occurred? They didn't even wait until more facts had come to light. Sounds very much like a repeat of their Jussie Smollett coverage which also proved to be a hoax.\n\nIt was noticeable that even though the news article was all about a fake racist attack which was now debunked the BBC did not miss out on the opportunity and added a 'you may also be interested in' video at the bottom of the page. The video was about African Americans in New Orleans reflecting on race relations, which contained a number of people voicing how they face discrimination on a daily basis, how the U.S. has always been racist and how President Trump has made things a lot worse.\n\nI guess the BBC could not waste the opportunity to further spread their progressive 'woke' agenda to us all.\n\n\n#news #journalism\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1025734400096649216/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1025089582437470208",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "I'm not the only one...<br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a><br /><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aucDmK5E4bU&t=20s\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aucDmK5E4bU&t=20s</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1025089582437470208",
"published": "2019-09-29T17:00:01+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I'm not the only one...\n\n\n#news #journalism\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aucDmK5E4bU&t=20s",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1025089582437470208/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1024963608048881664",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562",
"content": "President Trump just said \"Our economy is the envy of the World. Perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country\".<br /><br />Now, two things must just be said before I proceed. Firstly Trump is always talking positively about the U.S. economy, it's what leaders of countries should do. It shows a confident attitude towards the health of the nation which will hopefully spread to business, the stock market and its citizens. It also strengthens the negotiating position of the country when dealing with the rest of the World. Secondly, and importantly, Trump included the word 'perhaps'.<br /><br />This statement, of course, triggered the BBC New Fact Check team into action to investigate whether or not President Trump was correct in saying this. After all the Fact Check Team are paid a salary so they have to show something for the licence fee money being spent to sustain them.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430</a><br /><br />Their ultimate verdict was \"It's true the economy has been doing well - but there have been periods when it was even stronger.\"<br /><br />I was interested in seeing how they came to this conclusion, what metrics did they rely on.<br /><br />1 - The growth in GDP figures for the U.S. \"has generally been strong\", although the graph they provide does show higher points during the Obama era. <br /><br />2. - The stock market \"Stock market soars... then wobbles\". The BBC go on to say ... \"It's true the Dow reached record highs under his administration. Mr Trump's supporters argue that his corporation tax cuts along with his US-focused policies, his clampdown on bureaucracy and his promises of infrastructure investment have all helped.However, in recent months, the index has been highly volatile, reflecting worries about the trade confrontation with China, and a gloomier outlook for the global economy.\"<br /><br />However the value is still TWICE that of the value when Obama was President and it is still on an upward trend. Not much credit given by the BBC on that point! There has never been a time in history, and there will never be one in the future when the stock market isn't going through a time of volatility, it's how the traders actually make money! They use any excuse to talk up or talk down the economic forecasts, but you can plainly see how well the value of markets is increasing regardless of any volatility which will probably be very short term.<br /><br />3 - The unemployment rate is down to 3.7%, but the BBC says it was that low in 1969, and was down at 3.5% at the end of that year. They do concede though that 6 million more people are employed since the 2016 election.<br /><br />4 - U.S. wages are also climbing at a record rate although the BBC point out that \"a trend which began during President Obama's administration.\".<br /><br />So to my untrained eye the U.S. economy looks in a very healthy state and by looking at ALL the metrics that the BBC used in the Fact Check COMBINED I would say that it could be claimed that it is the most healthy U.S. economy ever. GDP is generally going up, wages going up, stock market climbing, unemployment going down (especially in the Back and Hispanic communities, employment up. <br /><br />Shame the BBC doesn't come to the same conclusion when it looks at the same data, but saying that I would be flabbergasted to ever see a complimentary word said by the BBC about President Trump!<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=news\" title=\"#news\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#news</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=journalism\" title=\"#journalism\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#journalism</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=politics\" title=\"#politics\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#politics</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1024963608048881664",
"published": "2019-09-29T08:39:27+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "President Trump just said \"Our economy is the envy of the World. Perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country\".\n\nNow, two things must just be said before I proceed. Firstly Trump is always talking positively about the U.S. economy, it's what leaders of countries should do. It shows a confident attitude towards the health of the nation which will hopefully spread to business, the stock market and its citizens. It also strengthens the negotiating position of the country when dealing with the rest of the World. Secondly, and importantly, Trump included the word 'perhaps'.\n\nThis statement, of course, triggered the BBC New Fact Check team into action to investigate whether or not President Trump was correct in saying this. After all the Fact Check Team are paid a salary so they have to show something for the licence fee money being spent to sustain them.\n\nhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430\n\nTheir ultimate verdict was \"It's true the economy has been doing well - but there have been periods when it was even stronger.\"\n\nI was interested in seeing how they came to this conclusion, what metrics did they rely on.\n\n1 - The growth in GDP figures for the U.S. \"has generally been strong\", although the graph they provide does show higher points during the Obama era. \n\n2. - The stock market \"Stock market soars... then wobbles\". The BBC go on to say ... \"It's true the Dow reached record highs under his administration. Mr Trump's supporters argue that his corporation tax cuts along with his US-focused policies, his clampdown on bureaucracy and his promises of infrastructure investment have all helped.However, in recent months, the index has been highly volatile, reflecting worries about the trade confrontation with China, and a gloomier outlook for the global economy.\"\n\nHowever the value is still TWICE that of the value when Obama was President and it is still on an upward trend. Not much credit given by the BBC on that point! There has never been a time in history, and there will never be one in the future when the stock market isn't going through a time of volatility, it's how the traders actually make money! They use any excuse to talk up or talk down the economic forecasts, but you can plainly see how well the value of markets is increasing regardless of any volatility which will probably be very short term.\n\n3 - The unemployment rate is down to 3.7%, but the BBC says it was that low in 1969, and was down at 3.5% at the end of that year. They do concede though that 6 million more people are employed since the 2016 election.\n\n4 - U.S. wages are also climbing at a record rate although the BBC point out that \"a trend which began during President Obama's administration.\".\n\nSo to my untrained eye the U.S. economy looks in a very healthy state and by looking at ALL the metrics that the BBC used in the Fact Check COMBINED I would say that it could be claimed that it is the most healthy U.S. economy ever. GDP is generally going up, wages going up, stock market climbing, unemployment going down (especially in the Back and Hispanic communities, employment up. \n\nShame the BBC doesn't come to the same conclusion when it looks at the same data, but saying that I would be flabbergasted to ever see a complimentary word said by the BBC about President Trump!\n\n\n\n#news #journalism #politics",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/entities/urn:activity:1024963608048881664/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1005116337703362562/outboxoutbox"
}