General, The Cult of Keith Raniere

Knife Media disables comments after Frank Report comments on youtube

07/24/2017·

Frank Parlato

A couple of hours after the Frank Report made two comments on the You Tube video posted by The Knife Media, editor Jens Erik Gould disabled the entire comments section of the site.

The video was of Mr. Gould’s appearance on Fox and Friends to tout The Knife Media and its fearless analysis of media bias.

The video was published on July 23, 2017. It is described as “Editor-in-Chief Jens Gould is interviewed by Pete Hegseth on Fox & Friends to explain how The Knife Media rates bias and distortion in the news, citing the example of media coverage of Trump.”

Frank Report made two comments:

Comment #1:

The interview is quite nicely done and much of what Mr. Gould says resonates with many. However, people viewing this should be aware that The Knife Media recently changed its name. It was formerly The Knife of Aristotle. The conceptual founder of The Knife is Keith Raniere.

Comment #2

While I applaud the concepts promoted by Mr. Gould, a great deal of transparency and for that matter – a careful vetting of how analysts evaluate what is spin, slant and bias – is required. For more information on The Knife and about Mr. Raniere, I invite people to visit the Frank Report. www.frankreport.com. Here are a couple of links which may be informative. Facebook page emerges under The Knife (sans Aristotle) https://frankreport.com/2017/07/10/facebook-page-emerges-under-the-knife-sans-aristotle/ News from NXIVM Village: Knife of Aristotle to change name; newbies promoted to EMPs https://frankreport.com/2017/07/06/news-from-nxivm-village-knife-of-aristotle-to-change-name-newbies-promoted-to-emps/ “Knife of Aristotle isn’t just Fake News site, it’s a cult” https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/the-knife-of-aristotle-isnt-just-a-fake-fake-news.html

Show less

knife yu tube

Comments are not welcome at the Knife Media.

Comments (4)

Add Your Comment

Cut and paste from Knife report on Trump Jr meeting with Russians07/24/2017

They don't give any bias ratings to Fox News, just “conventional” media, which is rated as highly biased/slanted. The Knife coverage bends over backwards to give Trump every possible benefit of the doubt. Yes it is true that there has not yet been “due process of law.” That is what Mueller's investigation will do (if Trump doesn't fire him). “Untangling the slant Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical.” Then why the F doesn't the Knife actually do some reporting about the law and norms? This isn't reporting, or spin analysis. It's more consistent with “How do we get an interview on Fox News to promote our product” ? https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/sorting-slanted-coverage-trump-jr-s-meeting/ SUBSCRIBE NOW LOG IN The Knife TRUMP POLITICS UK NORTH KOREA ISLAMIC STATE TOPICS TOGGLE SEARCH Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meetingPhoto by Shutterstock Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting July 11, 2017 183Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)183 Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 6Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)6 Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) The Raw Data Unspun and unbiased. These are the facts. Trump Jr. confirms meeting with Russian lawyer in 2016 Donald Trump Jr., elder son of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement released Sunday that he met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016, when his father was running for the presidency, at Trump Tower in New York City. Trump Jr. said he had met with an individual after an acquaintance said she “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and was not told the person’s name prior to the meeting. Trump Jr. said his father’s then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, were at the meeting. He said the meeting lasted between 20 and 30 minutes, and that he had not informed his father of the discussion. Trump Jr. said the lawyer, whom The New York Times identified as Natalia Veselnitskaya, did not provide details to support her claim of having information about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and that she also talked about “the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act.” Veselnitskaya has reportedly campaigned against the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. government passed in 2012 to withhold visas or freeze assets of Russian individuals who have been suspected of human rights violations. CNN reported she also founded a group supporting the removal of a Russian law preventing U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children, which was put in place following the Magnitsky Act. The Times first reported on the meeting on Saturday. Veselnitskaya said on Saturday that she, Trump Jr., and the others discussed “nothing at all about the presidential campaign.” Veselnitskaya added she had “never acted on behalf of the Russian government” and “never discussed any of these matters with any representative of the Russian government.” Kushner’s lawyer Jamie Gorelick said on Saturday that Kushner, who is one of Trump’s presidential advisors, had disclosed the meeting with Veselnitskaya as part of his requirements to obtain security clearance earlier this year. Gorelick said Kushner had initially filed documents that did not disclose the meeting, and then submitted additional documents that included information about “over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition.” Manafort’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment from The Times and other media outlets. Update: On Tuesday, Trump Jr. released on Twitter an email chain from June 2016. Rob Goldstone, described by The New York Times as an entertainment publicist, wrote to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered official documents to the Trump campaign that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” Goldstone also said, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone: “Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Distortion Highlights Much of the coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting supports that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process. This is premature reporting, regardless of what investigators eventually find. Such reporting can taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself. SHOW ME EVERYTHING The Numbers See how the articles rate in spin, slant and logic when held against objective standards. CNN Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign TOTAL INTEGRITY 66% very-spun The Washington Post Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer during presidential campaign after being promised information helpful to father’s effort TOTAL INTEGRITY 59% very-spun The New York Times Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton TOTAL INTEGRITY 57% very-slanted The Wall Street Journal Trump Jr. Met Russian Lawyer Who Claimed to Have Information on Hillary Clinton TOTAL INTEGRITY 61% very-slanted The Distortion Read between the lines. Learn how news outlets distort the information. Top Spin Words DOGGED CAST A SHADOW BIG NOTHING BURGER DAMAGING VIGOROUSLY UNDERSCORE RETALIATION MORE STRONGLY Given the information described above, one could argue that Trump campaign officials may have colluded with the Russian government to influence last year’s election. The email chain released Tuesday could demonstrate that Trump Jr. at least had the intent to receive info about Hillary Clinton from Russia. But it’s important to remember that there are two investigations in process on this matter and they have not concluded. Many news outlets covering the story don’t give weight to this. Instead, they use spin and slant supporting that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process. This is premature, even if investigators eventually do find the Trump campaign guilty. And if they don’t, then such reporting could taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself. Here’s how the outlets imply potential collusion by framing the data in a slanted way, speculating without evidence, and omitting certain key information. 1. Framing the data Some outlets emphasize the prospect of collusion, making a guilty verdict seem more likely. For example, CNN presents the following question: “Did the Trump campaign collude with Russians in an effort to hurt Clinton and win the White House?” This frames the FBI’s investigation in a narrow way, emphasizing the possibility of collusion and potentially minimizing other interpretations of the facts. The above question could be restated in a more open way, allowing for broader exploration. For instance: What connections, if any, did Trump’s campaign have with Russia? If there was a relationship, what was the nature and context of that relationship, and what information was exchanged, if any? Another example is how The Washington Post says, “The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton — at the same time that U.S. government officials have concluded Russians were collecting such data.” This sentence implies that the timing of the two events was not coincidental and that Trump aides were coordinating with the Russians to oppose Clinton. However, this is a selective comparison of two events, when they may or may not be correlated. Two events happening around the same time doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected. Is it fact or fiction? Which outlet presents the most spin? CNN 31% Spun The New York Times 42% Spun The Wall Street Journal 43% Spun The Washington Post 50% Spun 2. Biased speculation Consider the following sentences: The meeting “underscore[s] the fundamental issue for federal investigators as they probe Russia’s interference in last year’s election:” whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia “in an effort to hurt Clinton.” (The Washington Post) “The meeting…points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.” (The New York Times) The above conclusions aren’t illogical per se, but they are not properly substantiated with evidence. In what way does the meeting “underscore” or “point to” the investigation into possible collusion? If foreign nationals met with campaign aides about negative information related to another candidate, would this always “underscore” possible collusion? There is missing information that would need to be addressed for this judgement to be sound. Additionally, the outlets provide few alternative perspectives on the meeting. For example, politicians collecting negative information on each other isn’t particularly new or necessarily against the law. 3. Missing information Before jumping to conclusions about Trump Jr.’s meeting, it’s important to address some key questions that aren’t answered in the coverage: Are there any specific laws that are potentially being violated? If so, which ones? What standards are being used to determine if something is collusion or not? How is this particular meeting evidence of possible collusion? Why does it raise questions? Based on the information provided, it is unclear whether Trump Jr.’s meeting would be considered a violation of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulations or other laws. A legal investigation would need to prove the allegations in question. Unfortunately, the media does not fill in this missing information, which can mislead readers. Untangling the slant Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical. Fiction or Fact The Washington Post “The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton…” There was a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and Veselnitskaya. Saying that Trump aides, presumably referring to Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort, were “in the market to collect negative information” is the reporter’s interpretation of the meeting and may be unfounded speculation. His statement said that prior to the meeting he was told Veselnitskaya “might have information helpful to the campaign,” not that she had “negative information that could be used against Clinton.” The New York Times “…President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and the Russians…” There have been meetings between Trump associates and Russians that were previously not disclosed. The facts are pretty straight forward – undisclosed meetings aren’t necessarily enlightening or astonishing, though calling them “revelations” may suggest otherwise. Also, to say these meetings have “dogged” Trump may imply they point to collusion, or at least make him look more suspicious – why else would the meetings “plague” him? But this is the reporter’s opinion, not fact. Fact Comparison Facts in only 1 source Facts in 2 sources Facts in 3 sources Facts included in all sources Inaccurate The Trump aides met with Ms. Veselnitskaya on June 9, about a month after Mr. Trump effectively clinched the Republican nomination. (The Wall Street Journal) On May 26, 2016, Trump won enough delegates to earn the GOP nomination. That was two weeks before the June 9 meeting, not one month. Headlines An article’s headline can direct how the news is understood. Compare and contrast how different outlets present the story through their headlines. ABC News Trump Jr. tries to downplay meeting with Russian attorney States that Trump Jr. was diminishing the importance of the meeting, which may suggest he is trying hide something. How might your impression change if this headline were more fact-based? For example: “Trump Jr. releases statement about meeting with Russian attorney.” Business Insider Donald Trump Jr. provided 2 wildly different statements to describe his meeting with a Russian lawyer Exaggerates the differences between the statements Trump Jr. made about the meeting “Wildly different” is a subjective, non-measurable description of the differences between his statements. How different do they need be be before they’re considered “wildly different”? Other than being dramatic, this phrase could imply he’s being deceitful, even though providing different information doesn’t automatically mean he’s lying. Similar on The Knife The coverage of Trump’s visit to Poland: a hybrid of spin and cherry-picked information Two ways the media dramatizes the SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s executive order Where implications fail: Trump, Mueller and the media Balance Get the full picture! Don’t buy into cherry-picked information. The media’s slant: Trump Jr.’s decision to meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya raises suspicion of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The New York Times and The Washington Post further imply that the meeting itself may be questionable or perhaps unlawful. What the media doesn’t explore: We don’t have enough information as to whether the meeting violated any laws or regulations. Only two first-hand accounts of the meeting are presented – Trump Jr.’s and Veselnitskaya’s. Both report that the meeting did not involve any substantial discussion about the campaign and no negative information about Hillary Clinton was shared. Politicians regularly collect information about opponents, negative or otherwise, for use in campaigns. The outlets don’t specify if collecting this information from a foreign national would be considered illegal, and if so, under what conditions. Credits Writer Julia Berry López Spin Experts Chelsea Brown Tine Stausholm Slant Experts Ginger McIntosh Everett Hart Logic Experts Sylvie Lloyd Leah L. Mottishaw Data Expert Lisa Reider Researcher Lisa Reider Lead Analyst Leah L. Mottishaw Editor Shane Mottishaw Lead Editor Jens Erik Gould Tags ElectionsPoliticsRussiaTrumpUnited StatesDonald TrumpDonald Trump Jr.Jared KushnerPaul ManafortNew Yorkinvestigation Up Next The Syrian ceasefire: Seeking balance in the news SUPPORT THE FACTS. Subscribe to a better type of news and get access to all of our analysis for only $15/mo. SUBSCRIBE NOW LEARN MORE Trending on The Knife Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama ABOUT US OUR TEAM SUPPORT CONTACT US FAQS TERMS AND CONDITIONS © 2015-2017, The Knife, LLC. All rights reserved. Join the Newsletter Be part of the solution. Become aware of how the media distorts the most important news stories. Email: SUBSCRIBE

Jenna07/24/2017

Are any of Knife staff in DOS?

Yes07/24/2017

Most of the Knife women are reported to be in DOS. Many of the Knife men are married to women in DOS. Everyone on the Knife is a Raniere-verse insider.

VanDouche07/24/2017

The people in “The Knife” can't even cut through the bullshit and fake image of the man that is Keith Raniere and they want me to believe they can cut through all of the alleged bias, slant, distortion, etc., of the real media? GTFO. James Odato is one of the most respective investigative journalists in the Capitol region. Where is their “analysis” of 2012 Times Union article on their charlatan of a leader. All of thee reaming followers are responsible for all he does. No one man can do all this alone. They are complicit enablers in his scheme and should all be held responsible and suffer the consequences of his actions.