Posts

Poll: Florida Governor DeSantis Far More Popular Than The Media

A new poll has found that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is enjoying overwhelming public approval among Floridians regarding his year-long handling of Covid and the vaccine distribution. The media? Not so much.

Cygnal, a less well-known firm that the New York Times called the most accurate polling firm in 2018 and which had the highest number of correct Congressional projections in 2020, conducted a survey of 800 likely general election voters in Florida. Considering the unrelenting, Democrat-operative attack media in Florida and nationally over the past year, the results are stunning.

The statewide Cygnal survey conducted April 8-11, 2021, shows that DeSantis is viewed favorably by a substantial number of likely voters. He is +17 among uninformed voters but +25 among informed voters. So the more a voter knows the issues, the more likely that they approve of the Governor. (I suspect this dynamic of more issue knowledge translating into higher approval is true of Republicans in general.) But even casual voters give him strong approval. Meanwhile, the poll found that the mainstream media has a negative approval rating of -14.

DeSantis’ handling of the Covid virus has even higher approval among Floridians than President Biden’s handling — 60 percent for DeSantis and 58 percent for Biden, while former President Trump’s stood at 49 percent.

A whopping 72 percent of Florida voters in the poll said they approve of the state’s vaccine distribution. Seventy-four percent of voters said they approve of DeSantis’ decision to prioritize the elderly and vaccinate seniors first; 72 percent approve of making Florida one of the first states where anyone over 18 can get a vaccine; and 58 percent approve of keeping the economy open throughout the year of Covid when most states locked down for a short or long period.

The last one was one of his most controversial decisions, and one the media slammed him on repeatedly. Likely a poll six months ago would not have been as positive, but the data is incontrovertible now and Florida voters see it, even if the media is reluctant.

As someone who firsthand watches the Florida media savage Gov. DeSantis in blatantly unfair, opposition operative ways — 60 Minutes is hardly alone in that respect, they just got nailed because of the video and a couple of brave Democrats stepping up to call them out — it is particularly heartening to see how many Floridians distrust the media and rightly approve of the DeSantis decisions that the media assailed.

The survey has a margin of error of 3.46 percent.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

CORRUPT CNN ‘Hemorrhaging Viewers,’ With Ratings Down 54 Percent Overall, Down 60 Percent In Key Demographic

Not good enough. CNN still averages over one million viewers a day. This kind of viewership enables CNN to continue their perfidy and propaganda. Americans must boycott this dangerous network in much greater numbers.

CNN ‘Hemorrhaging Viewers,’ With Ratings Down 54 Percent Overall, Down 60 Percent In Key Demographic

By Daily Wire, April 16, 2021

Adding to weeks of reports of dwindling ratings, CNN has been “hemorrhaging viewers” since President Joe Biden took office on Inauguration Day. According to reports, CNN’s ratings are “down more than 50 percent in multiple categories” since January 20.

“The liberal network spent years attacking former President Donald Trump and the network thrived during his final days in office amid a brief post-election spike. CNN averaged 2.2 million viewers during the first three weeks of 2021, but it has averaged just one million viewers since Biden took office, a staggering decline of 54 percent,” reported Fox News.

This drop in on-screen fortunes began when Donald Trump left office. In March, The Daily Wire reported that “CNN has lost about a million viewers on average,” since Biden entered office, with CNN “drawing nearly 50% fewer viewers in the key 24-54 age group.”

Some conservatives were initially worried in early January when, after dominating cable news ratings for two decades, Fox News received “lower TV ratings than both CNN and MSNBC at the same time for the first time since 2000” in the week of the US Capitol riots.

“From Election Day through Inauguration Day, when Democrat Joe Biden was sworn in to succeed Trump as president, CNN was the most-watched cable news network in both total viewers (1.8 million),” reported USA Today. Mediaite reported that “MSNBC was the most-watched network in all of cable” on Friday January 22, with CNN dropping to third overall in prime time.

However, it seems that the sudden ascendency of CNN appears to be short-lived. Not only has their overall viewership declined by 54 percent, the plummeting numbers are even worse among key demographics.

“CNN’s struggles are even more prominent among the key advertising demographic of adults age 25-54, with a drop of 60 percent. It averaged 617,000 demo viewers from Dec. 28 through Inauguration Day but only 244,000 since Biden entered the White House,” added Fox News.

On the New York Times podcast, “Sway,” host Kara Swisher asked Don Lemon — one CNN anchor impacted by the dwindling viewership — whether he was concerned.

“No. I’m not worried about it … Trump was a horrible person. And he was terrible for the country. And it is better for all — for the world that he is no longer the President of the United States,” Lemon responded. “So if that means that cable news ratings go down? Aww. So I’m not really that concerned about it. I would prefer that my ratings go down and Trump not be in office than my ratings be sky-high and him be there. That’s the honest truth.”

Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” has also been struggling to retain his audience. In late March, The Daily Wire reported that “According to Nielson Media Research, the most recent episode of CNN’s Reliable Sources — hosted by Brian Stelter — saw its lowest rating of the year for the second weekend in a row,” adding Townhall.com’s report that Stelter’s show “failed to reach over a million viewers for the second time in as many weeks, while also boasting its second-lowest viewership of the year for its key demographic of 25 to 54 year-olds.”

RELATED VIDEO: Democrats: How to Expose & Defeat the “Lying Left” | Breakdown | Huckabee

RELATED ARTICLES:

Watch: CNN’s Brian Stelter Confronted Over Explosive Videos Released by Project Veritas

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE: ‘Russian Bounty’ Story Peddled By Media To Hurt Trump Turned Out To Be Fake News

Rep. Biggs Sends A Letter Urging Democrat Committee Members To Launch An Investigation Into CNN

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Federal Judge: ‘The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions’

The American press is the enemy of the people and has done incalculable, irrevocable harm to our Constitutional Republic.

Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision
Politico reports: A federal appeals court judge issued an extraordinary opinion Friday attacking partisan bias in the news media, lamenting the treatment of conservatives in American society and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn a landmark legal precedent that protects news outlets from lawsuits over reports about public figures.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe, contained in his dissent in a libel case, amounted to a withering, frontal assault on the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law — New York Times v. Sullivan.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.

Could the Courts Wheel on the Press?

Special to the NY Sun, March 20, 2021:

Could the United States federal courts turn against the press that emerged in the Age of Trump? Feature the dissent uncorked Friday by one of America’s greatest judges, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia circuit. In an otherwise prosaic libel case, the judge seems to have taken a satisfying swig of the ink of liberty before issuing a blistering rebuke of a press that he reckons has become dangerous to our democracy.

Pass the flask, we say. We bow to no one in our fealty to the press. We get that the First Amendment was designed to protect an irresponsible press (the non-irresponsible press, after all, has never really needed protecting). Yet we’ve never seen anything like the nihilism that has entwined our biggest newsrooms with the woke Democratic Party. At some point our courts are bound to take notice.

The case that ignited Judge Silberman was levied by two former officials of Liberia. They claimed that a human rights organization called Global Witness defamed them by publishing a report, as the court put it, “falsely implying that they had accepted bribes in connection with the sale of an oil license.” The District Court allowed them to shelter under the Supreme Court precedent known as Times v. Sullivan.

That case, decided in 1964, involved an advertisement that was run in the Times by supporters of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 libel judgment. It was overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court that, at the time, was all too willing to proclaim rules that hadn’t been passed by any legislature and didn’t appear in the Constitution.

The justice who wrote up Sullivan, William Brennan, would later craft the most famous farrago of judicial law-writing in American history, Roe v. Wade. In Sullivan, the rule the Court produced did not involve trimesters of pregnancy and the like. What Sullivan established was a system of unequal justice, where private citizens had an easier time suing for libel than public figures.

Public figures would have to prove any libel had been uttered with “actual malice.” That is, the libel would have to be not only untrue and defamatory but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” We newspaper roughnecks loved that license, since we could accuse public officials without knowing what was true. Henceforth, the press ruled the roost.

In Global Witness, Judge Silberman spent the first part of his dissent arguing that the court majority had tried to “stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band.” He then announced outright that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan.” He proceeded to do so with astonishing bluntness, even while acknowledging the uphill nature of the legal contests ahead.

In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the Brezhnev Doctrine, named after the Soviet party boss who proclaimed that, as Judge Silberman paraphrased the point, “once a country has turned communist, it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”

The Sullivan precedent, Judge Silberman warned, has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” That, he averred, would be one thing were it a two-sided phenomenon. The “increased power of the press,” he averred, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions.” He singled out the Washington Post, the Times, and even National Public Radio.

“Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas,” Judge Silberman warned. “It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat.” He doesn’t map out how he thinks all this can be won, but he seeds his opinion with grist for the Supreme Court to focus on.

It is a moment to remember that our doctrines on libel, as on other things, can change. When America’s first great libel case, was brought by New York’s colonial governor, Wm. Crosby, against the printer John Peter Zenger, the doctrine was the greater the truth of a defamation, the greater the libel. Zenger began the process of turning truth into a defense of libel. A time of reckoning could well be at hand where truth gets the premium part.

RELATED ARTICLE: Jewish groups condemn CNN’s Don Lemon for vile antisemitism in remarks suggesting Black and Brown Jews don’t exist

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.