Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

The Memory Hole

As Jay Cost noted today, Obama, our now semi-retired president, has worked very hard to alienate both parties in Congress; at the Washington Post, Erik Wemple writes that he’s similarly frozen out C-SPAN:

As reported in Sharyl Attkisson’s new book, “Stonewalled,” C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb interviewed President Obama in the Oval Office on Aug. 12, 2010. In that session, Lamb asked Obama what he’d changed in the Oval Office. The president responded, in part: “We have not yet redecorated this room . . . Given that we are in the midst of some very difficult economic times, we decided to hold off last year in terms of making some changes.” Lamb’s session with the president was part of a documentary on the White House that C-SPAN was planning for a later date.

Notwithstanding the decision to “hold off last year,” the Oval Office got a new look just days after the president’s Aug. 12 chat with Lamb. On Aug. 31, The Post published a story on the makeover. Concerned that C-SPAN would publish the interview with Obama in the wake of the news in The Post, White House officials contacted C-SPAN to “make sure” that the network didn’t release the Obama remarks until weeks later, when the full documentary was ready, Attkisson writes.

C-SPAN defines its mission as a “public service,” a calling at odds with taking orders from the White House. It dropped its Obama-Oval Office footage on Aug. 31. According to Attkisson’s book, Josh Earnest, then deputy press secretary, threatened to “withhold future access” from C-SPAN.

That was four years ago. What has happened since then? “I will say that we’ve not been able to get interviews with the president, vice president or the first lady as well,” says Mortman. And what about lesser-ranking White House officials? “No results at the lower levels,” says Mortman, noting that the White House generally cites scheduling issues in rejecting interview requests. Several C-SPAN programs feature interviews — “Washington Journal,” “Newsmakers,” “Communicators,” “In Depth” and “Q&A” — though the network would commonly invite White House officials for “stand-alone” sessions, according to Mortman.

Longtime readers of the blog know I don’t believe in “objectivity” as the MSM defines it; it’s a self-serving vestigial term they’ve held over from the early days of mass media when there were only three TV networks, wire services, and one or two newspapers per big city. But C-SPAN is about as close as it gets to an objective TV channel in the 21st century, and a DC institution. For Obama and his handlers to freeze out that channel is yet another reminder of the insular Castro-esque bubble they wish to reside in.

Related: Peter Wehner on “Obama’s Extraordinary Damage to His Party.” No wonder Mr. Obama’s Democrat predecessor in the White House dubbed him an amateur.

Politico Violates Godwin Law

October 30th, 2014 - 5:36 pm

 

 

 

I’ll say this much for them: you have to hand it to Politico for making it competitive in a race to the bottom with the Haaretz cartoonist depicting Netanyahu flying a blue and white passenger plane labeled ISRAEL into the WTC for the most offensive cartoon published on the same day. Heckuva job, boys — take two copies of Triumph of the Will out of petty cash.

(Via Twitchy.)

Update: From the Department of Distinct Lack of Self-Awareness:

 

Whatever Gets You Through the Night

October 30th, 2014 - 1:59 pm

“Al-Jazeera America Ratings In The Tank,” David Brody writes at CBN News, with a big swatch of an excerpt on the beleaguered Qatar-owned channel’s notorious ratings woes from the left-leaning showbiz Website The Wrap. See if you can spot the howler here:

After buying Current TV in early 2013, and debuting over the summer that year, Al Jazeera has lost almost half of Current TV’s audience.

Current TV’s run with progressive news programming lasted from December, 2011 to August, 2013. In that timespan, the network ran programs like “The Young Turks,” “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” “The War Room with Jennifer Granholm,” “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” and “Joy Behar: Say Anything.”  Upon being bought by Al Jazeera, Current was in 60 million American homes.

Al Jazeera America was born as the opposite of Current TV, possessing no political point of view and no opinion program in favor of hard news and in-depth reporting. It hired veteran news anchors and reporters from previous networks, including former NBC News anchor John Seigenthaler; former CNN anchors Tony Harris and Ali Velshi; former CNN correspondent Joi Chen; former MSNBC anchor David Shuster; former NBC News White House Correspondent Mike Viqueira, former PBS journalist Ray Suarez, and several other veteran TV news personalities.

“Al Jazeera America was born as the opposite of Current TV, possessing no political point of view” — Really? No political point of view? No bias whatsoever? No take on America and the Middle East? No opinion on Israel? Are we sure the guys in the studio even know how to tie their shoes? I’m not sure whether to raise an eyebrow Spock-style, or type a James Taranto-esque “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!” in response, but hey, whatever gets you through the night if you truly believe that about a Qatar-owned TV network.

Exit question: “But Soledad O’Brien, How Can You Take Money From A Patron of Islamists?”

“Mary Burke Was Fired By Her Own Family for Slumping Sales, Management Incompetence, and an Abrasive, #Bossy Style; Now Claims She Wasn’t Fired, It’s Just That Her Job and Paycheck Were Restructured Out of Existence,” Ace of Spades writes, on Burke’s disastrous tenure at Trek Bicycle Corporation:

“Her performance in Europe was not good”” [Tom Albers, Trek’s Vice President and Chief Operating Officer] says. “We were losing a lot of money for us at the time. I don’t remember the amount, but it was considered significant based on where we were [as a company] at that particular point in time.”

“And also, we were encountering personnel/people problems over there. The people were threatening to leave the company. Many of them were.”

Primarily, Albers contends, because of the managerial style of their supervisor, Mary Burke.

“Her way of managing was kind of a ‘her way or the highway’ kind of approach to things,” Albers explains, adding that her subordinates “felt that she wouldn’t listen to them and was just imposing things on them that didn’t make sense.”

“Gee, I wonder how she wound up being a Democrat politician,” Ace deadpans. Read the whole thing.

At Hot Air, Guy Benson embeds a scan of today’s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, where the scandal made the top of the front page, but Burke’s party operatives with bylines wrote the headline as “Conservative ex-Execs say Burke Forced Out of Trek.” (Italics mine.) Nice touch — take two copies of Hillary’s memoirs out of petty cash, fellas.

Also on the front page of today’s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: Scott Walker gains 7-point lead in new poll.

Exit quotes:

 

 


Much more here.

“Exclusive–Rand Paul: Stephanopoulos ‘Originated’ War on Women Attack, Scott Brown Right to Have Concerns,” Matthew Boyle writes at Big Government:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that former Sen. Scott Brown is right to have concerns over ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos being the debate moderator on Thursday night.

“I don’t think this would be the first time his [Stephanopoulos’] impartiality has been questioned,” Paul said in a phone interview. “If you go back to the previous presidential debates, many people have brought up that the whole questioning about birth control was originated as a campaign theme by Stephanopoulos and there’s questions about whether that was done in coordination with Democrats.

“It’s always hard to have someone be perceived as an objective arbiter on a debate if they spent most of their life as a partisan.”

On Wednesday morning, Brown said he had “concerns” over Stephanopoulos being the debate moderator in the wake of a report from Breitbart News that a top campaign adviser to incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has longtime ties to the former Bill Clinton campaign official and White House adviser.

That appearance from Brown on Fox News came before a second report from Breitbart News that shows Stephanopoulos was actually sent as Clinton’s emissary to accept Shaheen’s and other Democratic women’s endorsement of his re-election campaign in 1996. Stephanopoulos then served as a “senior adviser” to the president. The exchange is on video, captured by C-SPAN at the time.

And note that as of October of 2012, in “eight out of the last nine general election presidential debates (every one since he joined ABC News in 1997), Stephanopoulos has gone on his network’s airwaves to claim victory for the Democratic candidate, all in the guise of offering impartial analysis,” the Media Research Center reported.

Yet another reminder that a GOP candidate for national office not only has to rhetorically best his opponent, but overcome both the MSM, and in many cases, the margin of voter fraud, to take office. I hope Scott Brown is prepared to debate both Jeanne Shaheen, and her party operative with a byline, who’s serving as the “moderator” tonight.

The Religion That Dare Not Be Named

October 30th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

“Child sexual exploitation has become a ‘social norm’ within some areas of Greater Manchester, according to the author of a report ordered after the Rochdale grooming case,” the BBC reports:

It said girls in uniform were regularly stopped by men outside schools.

Inquiry chairwoman Ann Coffey MP said the “prevailing public attitude” blamed children, leading to 1,000 convictions from 13,000 cases over six years.

Home Secretary Theresa May has described the report as “alarming”.

Ms Coffey has called for exploitation to be “declared a public health priority”.

In her report – Real Voices – Ms Coffey said explicit music videos, sexting and selfies could be “fuelling the increased sexualisation of children”.

‘Children are children’

The “normalisation of quasi-pornographic images… has given rise to new social norms and changed expectations of sexual entitlement,” she said.

“We need to get across the key message that whatever young people wear and however sexualised they appear, they are still children and need our protection.”

Huh. Typing CTRL-F and “Muslim” or CTRL-F and “Islam” returns zero finds on the BBC article. Not even CTRl-F “Asian” brings up that popular British PC euphemism within the actual article. Perhaps my Internet browser is broken. Either that, or from the BBC’s perspective, children aren’t the only group that the BBC feels need protecting.

Not that the BBC is any great shakes when it comes to protecting kids; as one of Glenn Reynolds’ commenters notes, “when it comes to sexual abuse with minors the BBC have serious problems of acknowledgment period. So many at the hands of those in their own organization.” Or as Mark Steyn wrote back in July, ““Notwithstanding two years of headlines re Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and others, not everyone at the Beeb in my day was a paedophile — or at least I don’t think so,” in his profile of Australian-born UK folk singer Rolf Harris, who was found guilty in June “of 12 counts of indecent assault on young girls in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties,” Steyn wrote.

“Ben Shapiro exposes the truth behind the media-created myth of Gentle Giant Michael Brown, the unarmed teen gunned down in cold blood by a white racist cop for the crime of walking while black. Except that every part of that story is a lie,” Breitbart TV notes.

Haven’t we seen this playbook in action before from the media-industrial-Obama complex? Why, yes we have:

And yes, all of the above would be described by those who’ve manufactured the myths of Brown and Martin as “Hate Facts,” to borrow from Greg Gutfeld’s brilliant description of the MSM’s Orwellian overculture.

“Flummoxed Charlie Rose on Midterm Anger: ‘Why Is It They Don’t Like’ Obama?”, as spotted by Scott Whitlock at the Media Research Center:

The CBS This Morning crew on Tuesday alternated between confusion as to why Barack Obama may be driving Republicans to a big midterm victory and strident declarations that the GOP would have no mandate. Co-host Charlie Rose talked with political director John Dickerson and wondered of disenchanted voters: “So, why is it they don’t like this President so much? Is it a spillover from ObamaCare or something else?”

Talking with Rose today, Dickerson went on of course to dismiss the GOP and their voters (i.e. half of CBS’s audiences), and gives an answer similar to the late Peter Jennings’ infamous “temper tantrum” crack after the GOP won the 1994 midterms. But what else would we expect from the “CBS political director?” In early 2013 at the then-Washington Post-owned Slate, Dickerson wrote, “The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat,” which hardly makes him a neutral, unbiased political observer. (And so much for the media’s collective pledge of a new civility following the Giffords shooting in early 2011.)

But this isn’t the first time that Rose, who’s been in the MSM since the early 1970s, has feigned confusion over Mr. Obama. Right around this time in 2008, Rose and Tom Brokaw famously pretended to not know anything about the worldview of the then-likely next president of the US:

CHARLIE ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

TOM BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

So just to review: Obama surging in polls in late October of 2008, Charlie pretends to know nothing about his ideology, lest he say anything that could damage his chances. Obama tanking in polls in late October of 2014, Charlie knows nothing about why his polling has cratered, lest he say something that could improve the GOP’s chances. As I’ve written before about his 2008 performance, it’s not like Rose and Brokaw head mammoth news organizations that could readily answer their queries, should they have chosen to ask them.

Ever since the days of Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr smearing Barry Goldwater as a crypto-Nazi in the early 1960s, old media has always largely been staffed by “Democratic operatives with bylines,” as Glenn Reynolds would say. But they used to appear to be (a) much better at explaining the issues and (b) a bit more subtle when it came to hiding their biases. Why should viewers watch someone who pretends to be so existentially confused about the events of the day?

Related: “The left insists election GOP is winning handily is ‘boring’ and ‘about nothing,’” Noah Rothman writes at Hot Air.

But of course — Bill Clinton or JFK wins with under 50 percent of the vote? Mandate for sweeping change. Obama wins in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote? “We Are All Socialists Now.” GOP wins with clear majority? It’s always a show about nothing, according to the MSM.

MSNBC’s Krystal Ball “secretly participated in the Stop Rush movement since becoming affiliated with MSNBC, emails reveal. But Ball did not respond to The Daily Caller’s emailed request for comment on her participation in the activist effort,” Patrick Howley writes at the Daily Caller:

“Stop Rush” is a campaign principally organized by Angelo Carusone, who is now a Media Matters executive vice president embroiled in controversy after TheDC published racist and anti-Semitic blog posts that he wrote. TheDC recently exposed the latest incarnation of the Stop Rush movement as a small group driven primarily by ten activists using technology to robotically harass Limbaugh’s advertisers on social media. (RELATED: The Conspiracy To Destroy Rush Limbaugh)

Ball was involved in trying to smoke out a suspected mole in the Stop Rush movement in the spring of 2012, months after she joined MSNBC as a contributor and shortly before she debuted as co-host of the network’s 3 p.m. talk show “The Cycle.”

“That recording only went to a few of us. So who is talking too much?” wrote liberal activist “Shoq” in a May 16, 2012 email to Stop Rush ringleaders, including Ball, which was provided to TheDC. “Even Randy didn’t know he was being recorded. Someone that one of you is talking to cannot be trusted. I am not pleased by that. At all. Please think carefully.”

Yes, let’s think carefully. Just to review, so one newsreader on MSNBC tried to force Rush off the air, and another stoked the riots in Ferguson. And the entire channel screams racism at the drop of words such as “golf” and “Chicago.” (And don’t even get ‘em started on breakfast cereal.) The channel deceptively edited George Zimmerman’s 9/11 audio in 2012 to stir racial hatred on behalf of Obamas’ reelection bid. As Ken Shepherd notes today at NewsBusters, “CNBC’s Harwood Wildly Spins for Hillary via Twitter” in response to her recent “corporations don’t create jobs” facepalm-worthy gaffe. Meanwhile, NBC’s Bob Costas serves as a pint-sized would-be social justice warrior routinely promoting whatever the current DNC talking points are during the halftime shows of NBC’s Sunday Night Football broadcasts.

Harry Shearer would go on to co-star in Spinal Tap and serve as the voice of multiple characters on The Simpsons. But early in his career, after he starred for one bruising year as a cast member on NBC’s original Saturday Night Live in 1979, he described SNL’s writing staff and production team as being  “a highly complex, highly political hierarchal organization masquerading as a college dorm.”

Today, NBC is an activist wing of the Democrat party masquerading as a news organization. Why does the GOP let them get away with it?

“After victory in key Iraqi town, time for revenge,” is the headline on this seemingly workaday piece by Reuters yesterday, which reported on the latest events involving ISIS. Buried 12 paragraphs into the story is this provocative sentence:

During that period Islamic State used secret tunnels built by Saddam Hussein to evade United Nations weapons inspectors to move and store weapons and supplies.

Well. I’d certainly like to know more about this. What was moved through these secret tunnels? Which weapons were moved? Where did they go to?

(Via Randall Hoven.)

‘The Most Stunning News Story of 2014′

October 27th, 2014 - 4:42 pm

obama_nixon_beach_10-8-11-2

“In her new memoir, Sharyl Attkisson [formerly with CBS] says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was ‘shocked’ and ‘flabbergasted’ at what the analysis revealed,” the New York Post reports:

“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.

She speculates that the motive was to lay the groundwork for possible charges against her or her sources.

Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

Describing Attkisson’s report as “The Most Stunning News Story of 2014,” at Power Line, John Hinderaker adds:

If the Obama administration hacked into a reporter’s computers, used them to spy on her, and even prepared to frame her for a potential criminal prosecution by planting classified documents, aren’t we looking at the biggest scandal in American history? Perhaps I’m forgetting something, but I can’t come up with anything to equal the stunning lawlessness on display here–if what Attkisson says is true (which I don’t doubt), and if the administration is the guilty party.

Shortly after 9/11, Frank Rich, then still with the New York Times, and much of the rest of the MSM worked themselves into apoplexy merely because then-Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer merely said ”all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do,” in response to a GOP congressman’s moronic statement that “If I see someone come in and he’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked.” Which was a crack that understandably angered American Sikhs in addition to Muslim-Americans. Today, because the Chicago-level of corruption of the Obama administration is so pervasive and its effects so cumulative, actual spying on journalists — and insertion of spyware into their computers — gains very little traction in the MSM. It’s a reminder how inured we’ve become to the corruption of Mr. Obama and his staffers.

Certainly the MSM have; and will remain so until the next time there’s a president with an (R) after his name.

As the Insta-Professor notes:

YEAH, BUT THEY’RE NOT JOURNALISTS NOW, THEY’RE DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Bob Woodward: Today’s Journalists Should Investigate The IRS Scandal Like Watergate.

Last year, when Woodward noted in a recent book that it was the Obama administration that initially proposed the budget sequester not the GOP, tyro juiceboxers Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, then still on the payroll of the Washington Post organization organized a JournoList campaign to seriously trash their fellow Post employee’s reputation, as the news he was generating was doubleplus ungood crimethink not advancing the (Democrat) party line. Will the effort to blacklist Woodward repeat itself once again?

Related: “Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama:”

When the White House didn’t like [Sharyl Attkisson's] reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.

Which brings us back to Glenn Reynolds’ headline above.

A Canadian convert to Islam is the suspect in today’s Ottawa terrorist attack according to Reuters, Allahpundit writes at Hot Air. Move along, nothing to see here:

That’s all Reuters has right now, apart from his name: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. One reporter notes, though, that that name appears several times in Montreal’s court database on drug charges. Martin Couture-Rouleau, the suspect in the other recent attack on Canadian soldiers and a convert to Islam himself, also lived in Quebec. Might be just a coincidence but the first thing police will be investigating is whether these two knew each other. The timing of the attacks suggests that there was some copycatting happening at least.

Another interesting detail: A Twitter account linked to ISIS apparently tweeted a photo this afternoon of a man whom they claimed is Zehaf-Bibeau, holding a gun with a keffiyeh covering his mouth. Where they got that photo is unclear. Could be they simply googled him, found a social media account somewhere, and lifted the pic. If not, if they had it archived for some reason, this investigation’s going to get much hotter. Oh, and according to Heavy.com, that same ISIS account was supposedly followed by Couture-Rouleau. Another coincidence?

His origins and purpose, still a total mystery:

 

Regarding Ben Bradlee, “David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker and a reporter for the Washington Post from the early 1980s until the early 1990s, wrote in a Tuesday online story that ‘the most overstated notion’ about the late WaPo executive editor Ben Bradlee ‘was the idea that he was an ideological man. This was a cartoon.’”

Well a photo-realistic graphic novel, perhaps. Here’s John Dickerson in Slate, which was owned by the Post for years until being spun off when the disastrously mismanaged Washington Post was acquired last year for pocket change money by Jeff Bezos:

There is a quote from Ben Bradlee’s book Conversations With Kennedy that I always thought about when I thought of him:

This record is sprinkled with what some will consider vulgarity. They may be shocked. Others, like Kennedy and like myself, whose vocabularies were formed in the crucible of life in the World War II Navy in the Pacific Ocean, will understand instinctively. There is nothing inherently vulgar in the legendary soldier’s description of a broken-down Jeep. “The fucking fucker’s fucked.” Surely, there is no more succinct, or even graceful, four-word description of that particular state of affairs.

Here’s why I liked that quote. First of all, it’s true on the specific matter of when and how to deploy expletives. It also captures the cadence and voice of a particular period of writing. It’s a little self-indulgent and has the feeling of a tumbler of something by the typewriter. William Manchester uses this voice in The Glory and the Dream. It makes me think that the writer would be good company until he had too many drinks. He’d probably flirt with your wife if you sat her next to him, but you wouldn’t be bored at dinner.

But the real reason I liked that quote is that it demonstrates the way in which Bradlee was straddling two worlds, playing the role of both reporter and friend. It would be great if every presidency had at least one reporter who worked that territory.

So Bradlee was buddies with JFK, cheerfully covered up his myriad excesses and peccadilloes, and his paper did everything it could to destroy Nixon (and later, fortunately unsuccessfully, Reagan). But heaven forefend we think of him or his newspaper as ideological. Gotcha.

Exit quote:

For the sake of ideological diversity, that’s an exceedingly good thing.

The Hunter Biden Chronicles

October 22nd, 2014 - 1:57 pm

“Everything you need to know about Beltway nepotism, corporate cronyism and corruption can be found in the biography of Robert Hunter Biden,” Michelle Malkin writes today in her syndicated column. “Where are the Occupy Wall Street rabble-rousers and enemies of elitist privilege when you need them? Straining their neck muscles to look the other way:”

Continually failing upward, Hunter snagged a seat on the board of directors of taxpayer-subsidized, stimulus-inflated Amtrak, where he pretended not to be a lobbyist, but rather an “effective advocate” for the government railroad system serving the 1 percenters’ D.C.-NYC corridor.

So, where does a coke-abusing influence peddler go after raking in gobs of Daddy-enabled dough and abusing the U.S. Navy’s ill-considered generosity? Back to Cronyland! Hunter joined Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings — owned by a powerful Russian government sympathizer who fled to Russia in February — this spring. The hypocritical lobbyist-bashers at the White House deny he will be lobbying and deny any conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Just Like You Joe was whipping up class envy in South Carolina last week. “Corporate profits have soared,” he railed, thanks to “these guys running hedge funds in New York,” who are to blame for “income inequality.” You know, like his son and brother and their Beltway back-scratching patrons.

Corporate profits have surged thanks to Wall Street manipulators? Man, wait’ll President Goldman-Sachs hears about that – just watch the kabuki hit the fan then.

“A new poll from Pew Research breaks down conservatism and leftism in the media – and comes up with a number of interesting results. As it turns out, leftists are far less tolerant that conservatives and implicitly trust government sources,” Ben Shapiro writes at Big Journalism:

Fox News Has a More Balanced Audience Than MSNBC. The poll shows that 55 percent of those who watch Fox News are either mixed in political viewpoint or leftist; 52 percent of those who watch MSNBC are either mixed or conservative. The most balanced outlet: The Wall Street Journal, although surprisingly, those who are consistently conservative read the paper the least of all ideological groups (13 percent of the audience is consistently conservative).

Leftists Think Humor Is News. Leftists trust The Colbert Report and The Daily Show as news. We knew this already from polls of young people who cite these shows as some of their top news sources, but it underscores the point that leftists simply do not take politics seriously – they’re happy to take their cues from people who began their careers making fart jokes. It is worth noting that the audience for The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and The Huffington Post are virtually identical in ideological composition. The Daily Show’s audience does not exist on the political right, with just 7 percent of its viewers identified as conservative in any way.

Nobody Trusts BuzzFeed. The least-trusted news source is BuzzFeed. It is not trusted by consistent liberals, mostly liberals, mixed political viewpoints, mostly conservatives, or consistent conservatives. At least consistent conservatives trust The Rush Limbaugh Show and consistent leftists trust The Ed Schultz Show. Nobody trusts BuzzFeed.

And note this Twitter exchange on the poll last night:


The irony is that Time magazine was founded by Henry Luce in the 1920s to appeal to a center-right audience — and did so quite well, until Luce relinquished control of the magazine in the mid-1960s, before passing away in 1967. Three years later, and Time was doing their best Pauline Kael impersonation and trying to figure out who on earth were these strange pro-American Nixon voters who still wanted America to win in Vietnam?

Time magazine is a classic example of former National Review editor John O’Sullivan’s First Law of Politics in action: “Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time.”

And actually, so is Pew:

Unexpectedly!

October 22nd, 2014 - 11:47 am

bloomberg_unexpectedly_10-22-14-1

Ahh, Bloomberg, home of the “unexpected” bad economic news since, oh, about January of 2009, don’t ever change. Normally Bloomberg only applies the “unexpected” adjective to economic news that’s bad for the rest of us, but from the point of view of the president is good news: after all, he tore up the American healthcare system, openly called for bankrupting energy companies; his first “energy” “czar” demanded skyrocketing “European-style” energy prices, and numerous others of their leftwing ideological bent have demanded higher costs on energy and consumer goods, from Tom Brokaw to hapless wannabe Obama advisor Fareed Zakaria to this poor sod-ette in the UK Guardian:

Clothes and food should cost much more than they do in Britain to reflect their true impact on the environment, Vivienne Westwood said on Wednesday night. Speaking at a Guardian Live event at Chelsea Old Town Hall hosted by columnist Deborah Orr, the controversial fashion designer said: “Clothes should cost a lot more than they do – they are so subsidised. Food should cost more too – you know something is wrong when you can buy a cooked chicken for £2.”

Westwood also declared that capitalism was over.

So, all in all, good news, Mr. President?

Quote of the Day

October 21st, 2014 - 8:09 pm

The Kennedys’ penchant for wiretapping has lately been documented by more official bodies. The Rockefeller Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States, for example, reported that a newsman had been Wiretapped by the CIA in 1962 — with no authority in law — “apparently with the knowledge and consent of Attorney General Kennedy.” The Kennedy mythmakers said nothing about the revelation. And these were the same people who called for or helped fashion an article of impeachment when it was revealed that Nixon had approved the wiretapping of newsmen.

And talk about sleaziness! In conversations with Benjamin C. Bradlee, President Kennedy would sound out his journalist friend on the possibility of obtaining and publishing information damaging to JFK’s political adversaries — Bradlee who as executive editor of the Washington Post, which claims to have had  much to do with saving the Constitution from Richard Nixon’s depredations, apparently was not overly concerned· about such matters when they involved his presidential buddy.

For, as Bradlee discloses with little disapproval, wiretapping, prying into tax returns, election fraud, misuse of federal agencies — all of these, he admits in effect, were practiced and/or discussed in his presence by President Kennedy. Occasionally Kennedy had FBI Director Hoover over for lunch, and a little dirt for dessert. “Boy, the dirt he has on those Senators,” the President once said, shaking his head. And what apparently amused Kennedy more than anything else were Hoover’s revelations about which whores his former Senate colleagues were then patronizing. On one occasion the director showed JFK a photograph of a German girl who had been involved with Bobby Baker — “a really beautiful woman,” sighed the President.

There was another reason for the President’s buttering up of Hoover. As he undoubtedly suspected, the director had also been keeping a file on him going back to his days as a young World War II naval intelligence officer, at which time he had been carrying on with a comely foreigner suspected of having pro-Nazi sympathies. Which apparently was one of the reasons, if not the main one, why JFK on his election resisted strong liberal pressure to oust the director. Not even a President could know what was in a file kept under lock and key in. Hoover’s private office.

Thanks to Bradlee, too, we have now learned that Kennedy’s private conversation was most uninhibited. His scatological references made Nixon’s sound like a Boy Scout’s. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for history, “Benjy” — as the President liked to call his buddy — was there to record the just-between-us-boys observations of a Chief Executive who, thanks to his speechwriters (and they were among the best), has gone down in history as an elegant, witty phrasemaker.

Now, it turns out, there was a different Kennedy hidden from public view — one whose ”excesses of language,” as Bradlee concedes, were “generally protected” by the press. In other words, the readers of Newsweek, of which Bradlee was then Washington bureau chief, were never made privy to the kind of language JFK generally used in normal, private conversation. Years later though, Newsweek – like that other weekly publication — relished Nixon’s expletives, even those he sought to delete.

It Didn’t Start with Watergate, Victor Lasky, 1977.

Update:

More: Oh Those Democrat Operatives with Bylines, Part Deux.

What, Coolidge, Hoover or Reagan weren’t available as candidates to live rent-free in Pierce’s mind years after they left office?

CHRIS HAYES, host: There’s some scary stuff out there. ISIS, monstrous and scary. Ebola, scary, doing horrible things to people in West Africa. Killed someone here. It’s understandable. These are genuinely scary things, but the magnitude with which they are interpreted makes me think there is something about the American political consciousness that’s looking for something to fear at all times.

CHARLES PIERCE, Esquire: I think that that’s part of the conditioned reflex that was placed into the American public and into our political culture by the last administration. In which, you know, you had 9/11, then you had anthrax, then you had the snipers, then you had every bit of the government dedicated to scaring you about nuclear bombs from Iraq. You had three years of being blindsided by enormously terrible events, and then when that was done, you had a hurricane in New Orleans that the government’s response to was awful, and the entire economic system collapsed what seemed like overnight.

So the ground had already been prepared by fake threats and then you got real catastrophes for which we weren’t prepared, and all of that adds up to the kind of thing you’re seeing now.

HAYES: Charlie Pierce, thank you.

But as DNC co-chairwoman Donna Brazile finally admitted last year at CNN, “Bush came through on Katrina.” Besides, I’m not at all sure why Pierce is that suddenly now concerned with people drowning in waterborne disasters:

If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.

Charles Pierce writing the Boston Globe MagazineJanuary 5, 2003, on his way to an easy win as the Media Research Center’s “Quote of the Year,” capping off their annual DisHonors Awards, “Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2003.”

Gee, wait’ll they discover how Obamacare was passed against the will of the American people…

* Not to mention the “It’s Different When We Do It” card.

Update: “Turns out history for the left didn’t begin on January 20, 2009 but rather in April 2010 or thereabouts,” Allahpundit writes:

In fact, the ObamaCare omission here is so egregious, it reminds me in an odd way of those creepy liberal revisionist histories in which JFK somehow ends up dead at the hands of the right-wing city of Dallas while his left-wing assassin is conveniently airbrushed into oblivion. They used reconciliation to pass what’s arguably the most momentous piece of domestic policy of the past 50 years, and now, the instant Republicans use it for anything, the tactic will be deemed de facto cheating — despite endless leftist screeching since 2009 that we should probably go ahead and jettison the archaic 60-vote threshold for cloture entirely. You keep smiling, guys.

Which dovetails nicely with Sonny Bunch’s observation today in the Washington Free Beacon that “#GamerGate Makes the Left Uncomfortable Because Gamer Gaters Have Adopted the Left’s Tactics:”

Because when I look at #GamerGate, I don’t really see the Tea Party (just as I’m sure Jessica Hunter—a gay, liberal, female Canadian #GamerGater—doesn’t really see the Tea Party). No, I see the tactics of the modern reactionary left. Consider: The movement’s biggest accomplishment thus far has been to get Intel to pull advertising from video game blog Polygon Gamasutra after they flooded the company with complaints. We’ve seen this a ton over the last few years, but not from the Tea Party.

No, we’ve seen it from the anti-Prop 8 campaigners, who used their combined efforts to get Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater, fired for donating to the anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. We’ve seen it from astroturfed anti-gun groups trying to pressure Kroger into banning people from carrying guns. We’ve seen it in Black Twitter’s efforts to get Paula Deen dropped after she admitted to using racist language following an armed robbery. I could go on and on: the freakout over Grantland’s Dr. V. story; the effort to #CancelColbert; Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars; etc.

At the risk of engaging in some questionable psychoanalysis, allow me to suggest that one of the reasons the left is so disturbed by the rise of #GamerGate is that this is the first time in many years that these self-proclaimed Social Justice Warriors have met any sort of organized pushback. And they find it doubly infuriating to see the tools they have used so successfully—the Twitter mob, the email campaign, the claims of grievance—turned against them.

In their frequent use of brutal scorched earth Alinksy-style tactics to advance their goals and silence their enemies, the far left have increasingly opened up Pandora’s Box — did they think they’d get to keep all of its secrets to themselves?