Search Results

DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, THEN AND NOW: “Drew Pearson is probably a forgotten name these days* to the young and ambitious racing about the capital. But few had more influence — and played on both sides of the journalist/politics boundary line quite as routinely — as Pearson during decades as one of the two or three most influential political columnists:”

His professional life involved very obvious quid pro quos; doing favors for powerful people by writing about something or, occasionally, not writing about something (like a senator’s tax-avoidance legislation to help a big company in his state).

Writing about a Kennedy press conference, he acknowledges that he’d wanted to assist Kennedy but didn’t get to his press secretary (Pierre Salinger) in time. “I had planned a question about the Free University of Cuba but couldn’t get hold of Salinger to coach Kennedy in advance.”

His was a world of exchanges where information was bartered. While he voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, he still withheld from readers knowledge that Republican candidate Richard Nixon had received psychotherapy. He was looking to get something in return.

He withheld, too, investigating tax breaks that then-Senator Lyndon Johnson had obtained for a Texas company in return for Johnson backing Pearson’s preferred Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. Years later, Pearson helped to write Johnson’s 1964 State of the Union address, though their relationship was complex and, yes, he was still a syndicated columnist.

He operated in a pantheon of potent columnists, led by Walter Lippman and Walter Winchell, with no real counterpart these days (perhaps Tom Friedman of The New York Times when it comes to issues of foreign affairs.).

The Friedman comparison is apt, considering the latter man’s pet phrases seem to wind up each year in Obama’s State of the Union addresses, and he’s a frequent golfing partner of our semi-retired president.

* I dunno — he was on the NFL’s All Decade Team of the 1970s

(H/T: Kathy Shaidle.)


In recent weeks, the president has gotten cozy with top executives at major U.S. newspapers, headlining a Democratic Party fundraiser at the home of Las Vegas Sun owner Brian Greenspun and dining at the Anchorage home of Alaska Dispatch News publisher Alice Rogoff during a three-day trek across the state last week.

On the surface the events didn’t seem to influence either paper’s coverage of the president during his stays in Las Vegas and Alaska, but journalism specialists say they may have raised questions in the eyes of average Americans about the fairness of the news media.

At the same time, however, a distinction must be drawn between the business leaders at an individual media outlet and the reporters who work beneath them, says John Watson, director of the journalism division at American University.

“Here’s a news flash for you: The people who own newspapers and the people who publish newspapers aren’t journalists. They’re business people,” Mr. Watson said. “Owners and publishers aren’t journalists, even though they own and employ journalists. It’s different.

Nahh, it really isn’t; as the passage I highlighted above regarding a Democrat fundraiser in the home of the Sun’s publisher, he and his journalists are all, as Glenn likes to call them, Democratic operatives — and the vast majority of news consumers on both sides of the aisle know this already and can adjust their expectations accordingly. Nobody is still claiming with a straight face that the media is objective — or even should be – at this late date.

And second, it’s worth noting that even when Obama has been aboveboard with journalists, their role as party operatives supersedes their ability to report news. Recall Obama’s infamous quotes, which rocketed through the Blogosphere immediately before the November 2008 election that he would bankrupt the coal industry and that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

These promises, spoken in a chilling monotone by Obama sat, out in the open, as part of an hour-long video uploaded without comment in January of 2008 by the San Francisco Chronicle. They were recorded during his meeting with the paper’s editors to discuss his policies in general. No matter what your beliefs on environmentalism are, if you’re a journalist, a major presidential candidate promising to raise consumers’ energy prices and bankrupt an entire industry should be 48-point all-caps front page news. Instead, Obama’s remarks went uncommented on by the Chronicle, meaning either they’re lousy journalists who don’t know when a major story has been handed to them, or they’re Democratic operatives with bylines.

Or both. Any questions about media “fairness” were answered quite a long time ago.


I’ve said it a million times: The anchorman of CBS News should attend Democratic fundraisers (as happened). The Supreme Court reporter of the New York Times, a.k.a. the paper of record, should march in abortion-rights rallies (as happened). And PBS news figures should be open partisans.

Yesterday, when Senator Barbara Mikulski declared for the Iran deal, meaning that this deal could not be blocked by the Senate, Gwen Ifill spiked the football. “Take that, Bibi,” she tweeted. Aha! Good one, Gwen!

The PBS ombudsman has written about this matter disapprovingly. I’m not sure I disapprove. What I disapprove of is pretending — the pretending that these news organizations are neutral and dispassionate, instead of on the left.

Nomsayin? Know what I’m saying? It seems so . . . elementary. Let your true colors fly, and we’ll have a good ol’ democratic debate.

Exactly. There’s no such thing as “objectivity,” and news consumers should know about the worldview of journalists and/or Democratic operatives with bylines such Ifill, in order to make informed choices. (Particularly in the case of PBS and NPR, as we’re legally required to partially foot the bill for these networks.) The MSM’s cry of “objectivity” dates back to the 1920s through the end of the 1970s, when limits in technology created a mass American media consisting of just three national radio networks, the forerunners to the three national commercial TV networks, a handful of wire services, and for most large cities, only a couple of newspapers. That media world hasn’t existed for decades.

I thought self-styled “Progressives” didn’t want to live in the 1950s anymore — why rely on an Eisenhower-era trope to dodge responsibility for your statements?

THE DEMOCRATS NOW OWN IRAN. THEY’LL SOON WISH THEY DIDN’T, Jonathan S. Tobin writes at Commentary:

Obama got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets the responsibility for Iranian terror and hate. By making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year) said the deal gives us “peace in our time,” his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.

Nonsense — look at how it was for the Democrats and their operatives with bylines to make Iraq an entirely GOP issue only a few years after calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein themselves:


Yet another reminder that as in 2008, the Democratic operatives with bylines at Time-Warner-CNN-HBO will be going all-in to get their party’s boss over the finish line.

DNC-MSM REVOLVING DOOR REVOLVES: Sam Kass, former White House chef and husband of MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, joins NBC as well:

On Wednesday, the hosts of NBC’s Today cheered the network’s decision to hire former White House chef — and husband of left-wing MSNBC host Alex Wagner — Sam Kass. Co-host Savannah Guthrie gushed: “…we’ve got an exciting announcement. You guys remember Sam Kass, of course he’s the former assistant White House chef, executive director of the First Lady’s Let’s Move campaign, and nutrition advisor to the President….He is becoming an NBC News senior food analyst.”

Obama attended Kass’s wedding to Wagner; in last year’s “Love in the Time of Obama,” Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon explored just how interconnected Kass and Wagner are with Big Money, Big Government, and Big Journalism, and how they used nepotism to leapfrog into “the new aristocracy,” as Continetti dubbed the Washington-NY power structure. But then, the entire MSM really does seem like one big happy mafia family of Democratic operatives with bylines, doesn’t it?


As BuzzFeed’s C.J. Ciaramella tweeted, “Passive voice: the politician’s best friend.” Much more from Dylan Byers of the Politico:

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” to “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,” reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton’s possible role. The article’s URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Just as the Politico’s Glenn Thrush described Hillary’s home-brew email server as “badass” in March, earlier this week, New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal admired her efforts at stonewalling his newspaper and other news sources:

“How do you think this crazy pack of Republican candidates and the level of their conversation has made the race for Hillary?” Susan Lehman, the podcast’s host, asked editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal about six minutes into their discussion.

“I think she’s basically ignoring it, which is extremely intelligent,” he responded. “And this is going to sound rather strange coming from a journalist,” Rosenthal added, apparently referring to himself, “but she’s also ignoring the press which I don’t think is such a terrible idea.”

“I don’t think [Hillary Clinton’s] not talking to the press is an issue,” Rosenthal continued. “Sincerely, who cares?”

Obviously no one at the Times — gee, why could that be?

FDR COULD NOT BE REACHED FOR COMMENT: Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Gen. Wesley Clark: Let’s Throw Radical Muslims Into Internment Camps:

“If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”

Will any of Clark’s fellow Democrats be asked about his comments by their operatives with bylines?

HOWARD KURTZ: HILLARY ROPING OFF PRESS IS LIKE DUKAKIS IN THE TANK: And note that Hillary and her Democratic operatives with bylines — as supine then as they are now — consented to playing the same rope games in 1992, as this vintage C-Span video illustrates. I wonder if they were using the same safeword back then as well?

PRESS ROPED IN BY AIDES AT HILLARY EVENT: I’m not sure what the usage rights are to the photos in Daniel Halper’s post at the Weekly Standard, which is also currently atop Drudge, so I don’t want to embed any of them here, but if you haven’t seen them yet, by all means click over. I’ll wait.

OK, back? That the press went along with this with such docility tells you everything you need to know about which party they support — they are, as Glenn likes to say, Democratic operatives with bylines. If they were real journalists, or if this technique was employed a GOP presidential campaign, their first thought would be: I’m cutting the rope. Even if I don’t have a knife. I’ll start sawing away with car keys — or simply duck under it, just to see what happens next.

Because what happens next is a headline. One that will quickly become what former AP man Joseph Campbell calls a classic media myth that feeds upon itself: HILLARY’S GOONS HARASS JOURNALIST. JOURNALIST HAULED AWAY BY CLINTON SECURITY.  I BROKE HILLARY’S PRESS BLOCKADE! A real journalist would dine out on the headline for months.

And if this was an opportunity to employ the same headlines but with Bush, Trump, Perry, Cruz or Rubio, the press would be chomping at the bits to write such a story. As Cruz told Glenn Beck on Thursday, “Nothing would make [a journalist] happier than to take your life and filet [a GOP candidate or his operatives] on the front pages.”

But why go out of the way to cause bad press for one of your own?

And for the furious reaction from Twitter users from the photos of the “press lapdogs herded like sheep,” Twitchy has you covered.


…And never will be, by the MSM, Democratic operatives with bylines, as the vacationing InstaProfessor likes to say.

DIVERSITY PROBLEM: Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.

Well, when you transform your profession into a collection of Democratic operatives with bylines, you’re not likely to find very many Republicans.

THE PRESS: DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES. New Host of Face the Nation Advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP.’

DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES UPSET AT INSUFFICIENT KOWTOWING: Media pile on Rand Paul after aggressive response to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie.

They’re your enemies. Treat ‘em like Obama treats Fox News. And you have to laugh at this: “Rand Paul thinks he knows how to be a journalist better than you do.”

Here’s a hint: He does. Because it’s not that hard to be a better journalist than Savannah Guthrie, and most of her peers. The truth is, they’re not very good at what they do, but so long as they function as Democratic operatives with bylines, they don’t have to be. And that’s the real problem.

UPDATE: Republican strategists — and FOX producers — should probably click through and read the comments here. . . .

OF COURSE, JEB BUSH ISN’T A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS LAWS. AND HE’S RELEASED ALL HIS OFFICIAL EMAILS. But what Heidi’s trying to do here (or help MSNBC do here) is to muddy the waters and make it look like “everybody does it,” or at least to provide a talking point for Democrats. This is what the Democratic Operatives With Bylines do. Even at Bloomberg, where the standards are supposed to be higher.


Maybe the University of Texas at Austin and its many passionate defenders had reason to beware of Wallace Hall when Governor Rick Perry appointed him to the UT System board of regents in 2011. Perry was pushing some plan he got from a rich oilman to eliminate research as a criterion for granting professorial tenure, an idea scathingly denounced by detractors as tantamount to book-burning.

But having a good motivation only makes this story worse. When Hall began to criticize the way UT-Austin was run on strictly administrative grounds, he was roundly denounced as a sort of fifth-columnist for Perry’s assault on tenure. Later when he accused the university of corruption, he was hunted like a witch.

A campaign launched against Hall included impeachment proceedings in the Legislature and a criminal complaint brought to the Travis County district attorney. Even the establishment press turned on Hall, whose greatest sin was doing what the press is supposed to do — ask questions that make powerful people uncomfortable. An unbroken chorus of editorial page shrieking from Texas’ biggest newspapers denounced Hall and called for his resignation.

The dramatic denouement is threefold: Hall has been vindicated of charges he abused his role as a regent. The charges of mismanagement and corruption he brought against UT are all being re-investigated because now people are admitting he was on to something. And finally, Hall’s biggest accusers are starting to look like the biggest rats, the ones who had the most to hide.

Well, that’s often how it works. Plus: “And maybe all of that is Austin politics. But what is to be said for the Texas press and its handling of the Wallace Hall story? Every major newspaper in the state has either called for Hall’s head at one point or questioned his integrity, most of them basing their complaints on an allegation that Hall asked for too much information from the university — in other words, that he did too much reporting. . . . That feels like the sort of thing beat reporters in the capitol covering the story from the beginning should have been able to discover early on, perhaps by asking Hall what he was doing. Instead, the establishment press parroted the charge brought against Hall by detractors that he was asking too many questions and for too much public information — an accusation especially strange when brought by the press.”

Not so strange as all that. The press sees itself first and foremost as political allies of Democrat-dominated institutions, which most emphatically includes universities, a major source of funding, foot-soldiers, and ideological suport for Democrats. When outsiders want information that might hurt Democrat-dominated institutions — see, e.g., ClimateGate — they are always portrayed by the press as partisans, malcontents, and evil. That is because the press today functions largely as a collection of Democratic operatives with bylines.

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Measles: Misinformation Gone Viral. “The resurgence of measles is largely attributable to the confluence of two separate factors. On the one side there is a strong, if unacknowledged, effort on the part of some people to free ride off the vaccination of others. . . . They receive the protection afforded by herd immunity, without subjecting their loved ones to the risks, however small, that vaccinations always present. The second factor that reduces vaccination levels is the spread, sometimes deliberate, of misinformation that overstates vaccination risks. This sentiment is often fueled by powerful suspicions that drug companies are greedy and governments corrupt. This entire episode was fueled by fraudulent studies published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998 in Lancet magazine, which twelve years later the journal eventually retracted, but only after much of the damage was done.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times, in a story by Jeremy W. Peters & Richard Perez-Pena, tries to spin this Whole Foods/Prius/Hipster issue into, of course, an attack on the GOP. Note that they quote Hillary as pro-vaccine today, but fail to note that it’s a flipflop from prior campaigns.

UPDATE: “Why don’t you trust the media?” they asked, as a story about fringe liberal anti-vaxxers is spun to attack Republicans. Heh.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I’m pretty sure that Hillary’s poor record on this issue is why the press is working in unison to try to spin it as a “conservative” issue. Here’s a hint, though: Compare the vaccination rates in, say, West Virginia, with those in tony neighborhoods of California.

MORE: Michael Walsh on the political project underway: The Democrat/Media Complex Attacks: Vaccinations Are the New Birth Control. And the Evil Republicans want your kids to dieeeeee!

Jenny McCarthy and RFK Jr. are not Tea Partiers, whatever the Times’ Democratic-Operatives-With-Bylines want people to believe. But if the GOP doesn’t counterattack on this, it will become established truth by November of 2016.

Counterattacks should include demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants, and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients. And liability for tony private schools that don’t require vaccination. . . .

STILL MORE: Flashback: Hillary’s 1993 Attack On Vaccine Manufacturers.

EVEN MORE: Hollywood Reporter: Vaccination rates are plummeting at top Hollywood schools, from Malibu to Beverly Hills, from John Thomas Dye to Turning Point, where affluent, educated parents are opting out in shocking numbers. With an interactive map.

FINALLY: Well, well. Obama’s budget cuts $50 million from a vaccine program for the underinsured.

JOURNALISM: Take a Look at How Journalists with WFOR in Miami React to Republican’s Re-Election. Democratic operatives with bylines.

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.

DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES — AND CLOWN SHOES. Hit On Georgia Republican Perdue Blows up In BuzzFeed’s Face. “Perdue wasn’t signing a ‘woman’s torso,’ as BuzzFeed claimed. The truth is that he was signing a woman’s diabetic pump at the request of the woman as a way to raise awareness for juvenile diabetes. Rather than own up to and correct the error, BuzzFeed merely blame-shifted by changing the headline to: Tracker Fail: Dems Miss Insulin Pump In Video Of Perdue Signing Young Woman.”

When you take pre-digested hit pieces from political hit men. . . .

JOURNALISM: News & Observer sat on huge Hagan fundraiser story for two weeks. Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t be far wrong.


DAVID HARSANYI: Biden Gets Another Free Pass.

Remember when the media freaked out for three days over Sarah Palin’s completely innocuous use of the term “blood libel”?

Nearly every major media outlet took a deep dive on this critical outrage. Millions of Americans learned more about how Jews in the Middle Ages were sometimes falsely accused of kidnapping and murdering Christian children so they could use the blood for ritualistic baking. But more significantly: What did Palin mean? Was she sending a veiled message to evangelical voters? Was it just anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head again?

There will be no such national conversation over Vice President Joe Biden’s recent comments. While extolling the virtues of his son Beau at a speech at Legal Services Corp., our Clouseau-esque vice president launched into one of his folksy populist rants. “When he was over there in Iraq for a year,” he explained, “people would come to him and talk about what was happening to them at home in terms of foreclosures, in terms of bad loans that were being — I mean these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.” . . .

Is there any question that the repercussions for these sorts of mistakes are meted out asymmetrically? There is simply no way a Republican could get away with the buffoonery Biden peddles almost daily. Is the lack of genuine scrutiny over Biden’s mistakes a reflection of the media’s handling him like an unserious person? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t the president be open to far more criticism for putting the country in such a precarious position? Or is it that Biden finds himself in the right party? Either way, it reflects poorly on the media.

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON UNEARTHS Hillary Clinton’s correspondence with Saul Alinsky. On Twitter, the reaction from pro-journalists seems to be “Who’s Alinsky again?”

Plus: “We’re not even close to 2016 and just tonight we’ve had: 1) CBS run a Hillary hero show 2) Politico smugly dismiss new Hillary info.” Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you’ll never be far wrong.

Though whether Hillary will benefit from being compared to Tea Leoni isn’t entirely clear. . . .

DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: “Meet the Press” covered Rand Paul’s pro bono eye surgery in Guatemala and larded it with impugnment of his motives. Obama golfs and they defend him; Paul fixes poor third-worlders and they impugn him. That’s who they are, that’s what they do.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Mediaite: From ISIS to Health Care, Hillary’s Media Allies Rewriting History.

BECAUSE, AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, THEY APPROVE OF HER WORDS, AND HER CONDUCT? Howard Kurtz: Lois Lerner ripping ‘crazies’ on right: Why some media folks don’t care.

BECAUSE THEY’RE DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES? Why doesn’t the media grill Democratic pols on the ideas pushed by their fringe?

JUST THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: Becket Adams: This Washington Post puff piece on President Obama’s recent fundraising tour is really something else.

Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post gained some amount of notoriety earlier this year after she penned an embarrassing and now-debunked attack on Charles and David Koch, the libertarian-leaning bogeymen of the left.

And now she has authored what may be this year’s silliest puff piece for the Obama administration.

To be fair, though, the year is nowhere near over.

PROFESSOR JACOBSON, WRITING IN THE DAILY CALLER: Media Aids And Abets Left-Wing Smear Of Governor Scott Walker. Of course they do. They’re Democratic operatives with bylines. Just like they aided and abetted smears of Palin while covering for Obama.

REMEMBER, IT’S ALL ABOUT BATTLESPACE PREPARATION FOR 2014 AND 2016: Ann Althouse: Look at the new New Republic cover, smearing Scott Walker for his “toxic strain of racial politics.”

When Chris Hughes relaunched TNR, he promised that TNR would go “deeper than the headlines in a timely, unbiased fashion.” Nah. Just more Democratic operatives with bylines.


THE TODD AKIN OF VIRGINIA: Arlington County Board chairman apologizes for ‘Latino time’ comment.

Noting that board colleague Walter Tejada had not yet arrived at the swearing-in and would be a bit late, Fisette said that Tejada was running on “Latino time.”

Fisette was questioned about the phrasing by a reporter from WJLA-TV, and said that after talking with friends, he found that “some were offended.”

Do tell. And I’m sure the WaPo and Jon Stewart will be all over this. Background: The “GOP Lawmaker” Principle: Why You See So Many Articles About Random Right-Wing Politicians. “As the national electoral plight of Democrats increases, so does the incidence of stories about obscure state Republican lawmakers.” While stories about Dems get buried.

Because, you know, the press is largely made up of Democratic operatives with bylines. (Hat tip: Hinkle.)

BRYAN PRESTON: Battleground Texas, the Texas Media, and Wendy’s Choice.

James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas captured Battleground Texas organizer Jennifer Langoria admitting that the group uses its voter registration drives as data-mining operations for their political operations. Whatever one thinks of Project Veritas, it did not put words into Battleground Texas’ mouth.

“So every time we register someone to vote we keep their name and number,” Langoria says.

According to Texas election law, it is unlawful to transcribe, copy, or otherwise record a telephone number furnished on a voter registration application.

Battleground Texas has, therefore, been caught in what appears to be election fraud.

It’s not the first time. Earlier this year, Project Veritas captured a Battleground Texas volunteer discussing forging a signature on official voting documents. “It happens all the time,” she said.

It’s also illegal. Project Veritas did not put those words into the mouth of that Battleground Texas volunteer.

Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and state Sen. Ken Paxton, candidate for attorney general, are calling for the group to be investigated.

The media in Texas have done their dead-level best to ignore both of Project Veritas’ videos as long as they possibly could. When the media here do cover them, they have tended to downplay the videos’ potential significance. The Texas Tribune even interviewed a Democrat election lawyer — but not a Republican one — to defend Battleground Texas’ actions seen in the Veritas video. The prevailing media opinion seems to be that, because leftwing outfits have often criticized Project Veritas, every story that it unearths is worthless or worse.

Leftwing outfits are often created expressly to attack Republicans and to defend Democrats and their allies. The media ignore that, too. Media often cite these leftwing groups as if they are non-partisan watchdogs, while either joining criticism of Project Veritas or downplaying what the group finds. This is neither fair nor balanced journalism.

Nope, but they’re not journalists, they’re Democratic operatives with bylines.


By the way, 3 years ago today, in the Wisconsin protests, which included teachers who were calling in sick to absent themselves from the classroom, doctors stood on a street corner under a sign that read “I’m a doctor/Need a note?” They were real doctors, putting their names on notes that the protesters could use to excuse their absence from work.

When lefty politicians or groups break the law, the press’s attitude is “politics ain’t beanbag.” But that forbearance doesn’t extend to Republicans. The reason for this is that the press is largely made up of Democratic operatives with bylines. Plus, from the comments:

Ho-hum another anti-GOP hack job from the WAPO. How ordinary.

Meanwhile, no curiosity about the IRS and Obamas ongoing violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution, as well as usurping the legislature.

It’s interesting to watch the press try to do oppo-research and battlespace-prep on every GOP figure who gets mentioned. These are the same people who told us that looking into Obama’s background — or lack of actual accomplishments — was racist, and that looking into Hillary’s background — or lack of actual accomplishments — is sexist.

U.S. NEWS: There Is a War on Women, But Not From Republicans. “It seems that it’s perfectly acceptable to attack candidates like Palin, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann – call them crazy, stupid, you name it – those are just facts, right? When it’s Wendy Davis or Elizabeth Warren, it’s politics at its worst – it’s the GOP demonizing women once again. A story questioning the authenticity of Sarah Palin’s pregnancy is fair game; she made a choice to run for office. But, when Wendy Davis is questioned about whether the dates of her marriage that she publicly disclosed are accurate, it’s an attack on single women trying to move up in the world.”

It’s almost as if the press is made up of Democratic operatives with bylines.

A FISH, A BARREL, A SMOKING GUN: Taking On The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC. “Speaking of questions: Is there any joke that anyone could make about any Democrat that the Huffington Post would not deem ‘questionable’? Of course not. The entire mission of Arianna Huffington’s organization, which she sold for more than $300 million to AOL a few years ago, is to help Democrats and harm Republicans. Yet HuffPo is considered a ‘mainstream’ news operation, while Fox News is consistently demonized by the same allegedly objective journalists who view HuffPo as entirely legitimate and respectable.” They’re not journalists, they’re Democratic operatives with bylines. Or, in the case of the Crowder hit-piece, without even that.

ANN ALTHOUSE ON RUTH MARCUS’S TED CRUZ COVERAGE: “He pontificates? You mean he’s uppity? The liberals need to pre-ruin any people of color on the GOP side. After Marco Rubio’s career went down in flames because he drank a glass of water, the appetite for destruction rages. Look! There’s another Hispano-Conservo! Get him!

They’re not journalists. They’re Democratic operatives with bylines.

JOHN HINDERAKER: Whither The “Social Issues.” I’ll note that in 2010, the Tea Party didn’t talk about them, and did well. In 2012, Romney didn’t talk about them much — but the Dems successfully used them as a wedge issue and the GOP didn’t respond.

UPDATE: Reader Mark Pernel writes:

I think there are two things going on in that example. The first is that the Tea Party is more a fiscal-issues group and were better
positioned to ignore the social stuff. There is definitely a social-conservative wing of the movement, but they are willing to
overlook the culture wars at least to some extent in order to get the fiscal issues fixed.

The second is that 2010 was a mid-term, and without the big hammer of a Presidential campaign it was harder for the Dems to use
social issues as a wedge. Trying to organize a wedge issue across ~470 Congressional races is hard, particularly when you’re already on
the defensive for your vote on a deeply divisive issue like PPACA. Having a single national race that can act as a focal point for the
wedge changes the dynamic, and it was bad news for Romney.

Especially when the press regards itself as Democratic operatives with bylines, as it so clearly did.

PROF. JACOBSON: Gloria Allred’s Worst Nightmare — Transcript released but her client’s still gagged. “Reports from inside the courtroom in Boston at which The Boston Globe is seeking access to Mitt Romney’s testimony in the divorce case of the founder of Staples indicate that the Judge will authorize the release of the transcript to The Globe, but will not lift the gag order on the parties to the divorce, including Gloria Allred’s Mormon-hating client, Maureen SulLivan. . . . It will be up to The Globe and other media to spin the transcript against Romney, which they certaily will do, but Allred will not be at the center of that circus.”

Plus this: “Romney’s lawyer says the Gov. has no problem having his testimony made public.”

Also: “The Globe, of course, has not gone to court seeking access to Harvard’s federal filings, including documents signed by Elizabeth Warren, which might bring down Warren.” Democratic operatives with bylines.

OF COURSE THEY DID: Megyn Kelly: Media in spin room laughed and applauded at Obama’s “bayonets” line.

After all, they’re just Democratic operatives with bylines.

YA THINK? Benghazigate might be bigger news if the president was a Republican. Or if the press weren’t composed of Democratic operatives with bylines.

MICKEY KAUS: Press Already Writing the Obama “Comeback” Story. “What appeared to be a neutral press yearning for a good horse race is looking more like the screenwriter’s need to throw some minimal obstacles in the hero’s path in order to make his ultimate triumph all the more satisfying.”

There’s no such thing as a neutral press. They’re Democratic operatives with bylines.

SO IN RESPONSE TO THE NEW OBAMA VIDEO DROP, one establishment political journalist tells me it’s no big deal because everyone knows Obama’s a big lefty, talks blacker when with black audiences, etc., etc.

But the thing is, in 2004-2008, Obama sold himself as a black guy who wasn’t in the mold of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. So when he sounds like that, it’s a contradiction. You know, the kind of hypocrisy the press usually goes after in politicians. Unless, as with Obama, the press is trying to drag them across the finish line. Because there’s no way they’re going to let Obama be a one-termer, when the hated W got two. . . .

UPDATE: Charlie Spiering quotes Obama: “We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”

And here I thought his slogan was Forward! Not, you know, Forward, into the past!

ANOTHER UPDATE: DNC Scrambles To Deflate Obama Video: “The Democratic National Committee — armed with the help of dismissive tweets from a variety of journalists — scrambled Tuesday night to attack The Daily Caller for its videos of President Obama’s controversial race comments in 2007 before the story was even published.”

Journalists? Or Democratic operatives with bylines? You decide.

MORE: Paul Mirengoff: Obama slandered America as racist using dishonest claims about the response to Hurricane Katrina.

RASMUSSEN: Obama and Romney Tied. So we keep hearing about how Romney has had one terrible week after another, but the polls are all tied up. What will happen if Romney ever manages to have a good week?

Of course, Obama’s Army in the press will do its best to prevent that.

UPDATE: Related: Obama’s Palace Guard: How media fact checkers made themselves of service to the president in the welfare reform debate. They’re just Democratic Party operatives with bylines now.


From the introduction:

“Beyond the spin and polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer, but a classic Chicago machine pol.”

Chapter 1: A childhood of privilege, not hardship

Michelle Obama says “Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or possessions.” In fact, for much of his life, Barack Obama has enjoyed privileges and opportunities denied to most Americans.

Chapter 2: Myth of the ‘rock star’ professor

Though initially popular as a University of Chicago Law School adjunct lecturer, he was not ranking among the top professors, according to student evaluations.

Chapter 3: The 1997 speech that launched Obama

His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech got the big headlines, but a previously unreported 1997 Obama speech did far more to launch him with big backers with big bucks.

Chapter 4: For the slumlord’s defense, Barack Obama, Esq.

It was a frigid January and the slumlord who put his tenants on the street without going through the required eviction process got off with a $50 fine. His lawyer went on to be elected president of the United States.

Chapter 5: Obama’s toughest critics on the Left

Long before he ran for president, radical critics accused Obama of selling out Chicago’s poor to the Daley political machine.

Chapter 6: The poor people Obama left behind

Altgeld Gardens housing advocate Hazel Johnson welcomed the young Obama into her kitchen. Then she never heard from him again after he won his first election.

Chapter 7: The myth of Obama as state senate reformer

When the real reformers asked for his help, State Sen. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found.

Chapter 8: Obama’s state pension fund scheme

It worked for Rev. Jesse Jackson against the Fortune 500, so State Sen. Barack Obama used it to get millions for his friends from Illinois’ biggest public employee pension funds.

Chapter 9: Obama’s Arab-American network

Syrian emigrant Tony Rezko had lots of Arab-American friends in the Chicago business community who shared his enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

Chapter 10: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington

Surprised by Solyndra? Don’t be, it’s just one of many examples that demonstrate Barack Obama is doing things in Washington the same way he did them in Chicago.

Too bad the legitimate press Democratic Party operatives with bylines didn’t report this stuff four years ago.

PROF. JACOBSON: Maybe Romney answer was “inelegant” only because Mother Jones didn’t disclose that part of tape was missing. Plus, holes in the “equipment failure” explanation?

And: “While there is a myth that the Shirley Sherrod tape was unfairly edited (it was NOT, it was perfectly fair), no such media narrative will develop around the incomplete Romney tape. That’s just the way it works in the age of Obama.”

UPDATE: More Rose Mary Woods jokes. And a photo!

ANOTHER UPDATE: John Fund: Media Hypocrisy In Treatment of Romney Tape. They’re not “media.” They’re Democratic operatives with bylines.

JOURNALISM: Reporters haven’t asked about Sebelius breaking law in W.H. briefings.

Reporters covering the White House don’t seem to have many questions about Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was last week found in violation of federal law against engaging in political activity while on the job.

A review of transcripts by The Daily Caller indicate that no questions have been asked by the reporters who cover the president about Sebelius during official White House briefings or gaggles since Sept. 12, when the U.S. Office of Special Counsel said in a report that the cabinet secretary violated the Hatch Act earlier this year.

It’s still up to President Obama whether Sebelius should keep her job or face some sort of punishment after being found in violation of the Hatch Act.

Democratic Party operatives with bylines.

SHOCKER: HuffPo Misreported What Romney Said About “Middle Income.”

I’ve bolded a few inconvenient words. Observe: the HuffPo reports “$200-$250″; the AP story elsewhere says $200K-$250K and less. Add the “and less” and suddenly Romney is saying the same limits as Obama — and the other bolded words make clear.

By the way, this is first in a series of Romney Rumors; it’s become clear that we need to capture these things just as we did with Palin. If you see anything you think needs to be debunked, pass it along.

Indeed. You can’t trust the press — as many are now observing, they’re just Democratic operatives with bylines.

UPDATE: Andrew Kaczynski tweets: “Not really reported by HuffPost, they posted the AP story, who got it wrong. HuffPost had no way of knowing.” Okay, so it’s AP who are the Dem operatives with bylines.