 A certain anchor on CNN, fake as hell, CNN. The worst. So fake, fake news. Published in the Washington Post, this is what they discovered. They found that counties that had hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226% increase in reported hate crimes over comparable counties that did not host such a rally. Huh. Ho. Over the past year, you've likely heard the media claim that counties that host Trump rallies see a 226% uptick in hate crimes. And if you're anything like me, you've been very skeptical of this claim. If so, you have yet another reason to deeply distrust the so-called free press. Suppose it bastions of hard hitting just the facts news like Vox, which is owned by NBC. The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and CNN all reported this claim on several occasions since the study was released in March of 2019. Other media outlets have since picked up this erroneous claim and have spread it even more, making it an undeniable fact in the minds of many, many Americans. Washington Post researchers wanted to take a look at a potential correlation between Trump's rhetoric and hate crimes. And I think that's something a lot of people want to look at. And they looked at it officially. They actually use the Anti-Defamation League's hate, extremism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism map to look at this specifically. And what did they find? Well, they found that Trump's rhetoric indeed may encourage hate crimes. And Democrats have played their part in this scam, constantly repeating at their rallies that Trump is inciting violence. It turns out that the study and the numbers that they came up with is severely flawed. And it was debunked by a pair of Harvard University PhD students and the associate editor of Reason.com. According to the students, they were able to replicate these results when applied to Hillary Clinton and her rallies. The pair explained their findings, saying, quote, using additional data we collected, we also analyzed the effect of Hillary Clinton's campaign rallies using the identical statistical framework. The ostensible finding, Clinton rallies contribute to an even greater increase in hate crime incidents than Trump rallies. Wow, that's pretty interesting. I'm sure the media is all over this story to correct their previous reporting, right? Looks like another case of the drive-by media. They do their damage, and then they just speed away off into the night. The students continue to explain their findings, saying, quote, these results rely on comparing counties with rallies to other counties without them. This produces a glaring problem. Politicians tend to hold political rallies near where large numbers of people live. And in places with more people, the raw number of crimes is generally mechanically higher. Simply put, no one should be surprised that Orange County, California, with a population of 3.19 million, was home to both more reported hate incidents and Trump rallies than Orange County, Indiana, with a population of 19,840,000, which had zero of each. How could this happen? Even if researchers attempt to be unbiased, it is easy for ideology to interfere with the practice of scientific method. Empirical work requires numerous small assumptions and choices, often without obvious right or wrong options. That collectively affect the findings. The hypotheses that researchers choose to test often reflect their beliefs. And when initial statistical findings do not match the researcher's gut intuition, it is easy to tweak those choices until the analysis works. By comparison, when a result feels right, it is easy to conclude the analysis with minimal further checks. In short, falling prey to confirmation bias is easy. Attempting to find errors in a result that deep down you want to be true is hard. Furthermore, the ideological imbalance of academia where liberals outnumber conservatives six to one can worsen this. While claims deemed conservative may receive much scrutiny, those that comport with liberal sensibilities are more likely to go unscrutinized. It all seems to come down to what this channel talks about every single day, left-wing media bias. This is why watching the news feels a lot more like you're watching Democrat Party propaganda. Journalists are supposed to be trained to be objective and to resist the urge to confirm your biases. Instead, journalists are taught to be activists who are going to change the world. When the facts don't match up with their ideological desires, they simply manipulate the data to manufacture an outcome. The PhD duo found major flaws in the study, saying quote, the author's sole source of data is the Anti-Defamation League's 2016 report on hate, extremism, antisemitism, and terrorism. This lists 1,321 antisemitic incidents reported to the organization in 2016. There are two important things to keep in mind here. One, the list's focus is antisemitism, and two, many of the incidents on the list are not even actually hate crimes. In neutral press, acting as a gatekeeper need not report unquestioningly about every unpublished study. However, like academics, journalists as a profession are overwhelmingly liberal, with four times as many reporters identifying as Democrats than as Republicans, which is something this channel has talked about at length. Given how little scrutiny was required to reveal the flaws in the thesis that Trump rallies cause hate incidents, one cannot help but wonder whether its viral status was aided by journalists predisposed to believe its message. We all know that this happens on a regular basis in the media, with great examples being the Smollett story and the Covington kid's story. So what we have here is yet another media lie that's repeated so often that it no longer even matters that it's completely made up. The students who debunked this study actually tried to get in touch with the author so they could get ahold of his data that he used to reach these conclusions. But predictably, that proved quite difficult. When I reached out to the study's author some months ago, Feinberg explained that the study has not yet been peered reviewed and thus he couldn't release it to me. But after the second round of media coverage, Feinberg's team finally released it. Weird because the study had already been reported as unimpeachable by all the Democrat Party media networks for months. This guy knew his study was a scam but he wanted the media to get maximum use out of it before he had to release the data and the study was debunked. Has the media corrected themselves? Absolutely not. And they won't because this is their main talking point against Trump going into 2020. Of course, we could easily flip it around and accuse the Democrats and their media of inciting attacks such as the GOP baseball game shooting and Tifa attacks on ICE facilities and beatings on Trump supporters going back to before the election. But we all know how much good that will do. All we can do is what we're doing. Calling out their lies and hope that we can reach enough people. If you wanna help me in that goal, hit that like button, share this video wherever you can and subscribe to this channel. If you would like to further support this channel, please consider subscribing to me on Patreon or Subscribestar. For just $1 a month, you can help me continue this mission and you'll also get access to exclusive content. I also accept cryptocurrency and tips on PayPal. You can find all the links in the description and in the pinned comment. However you choose to support me, I deeply, deeply appreciate it and I hope you all keep coming back. I'm out. I'm out. I'm out. I'm out. I'm out. I'm out. I'm out.