Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, speaking at Hillsdale College’s Center for Constructive Alternatives, weighed in on President Obama’s decision to sit down to an interview with YouTube star GloZell.
Attkisson spoke on the topic of “Investigative Journalism and the Obama Administration” and was asked during the Q & A about Obama’s GloZell interview. “The president did an interview with an online blogger — a young woman with bright green lipstick,” an audience member said. “It was heralded by some as a new era of journalism. What do you think this administration’s target audiences are for their release of information?” he asked.
Attkisson said she doesn’t have a problem with Obama “doing that sort of thing.” But she said the administration has “perfected the idea of going around neutral news reporters who would ask critical questions.”
“My only problem would be if they do that instead of also being answerable to those who could ask the tough and probing and challenging questions and hold them accountable on behalf of the public,” she said. “And I think sometimes they do more of that social media and fun stuff and entertainment and celebrity stuff.”
She noted that the “fun stuff” does reach a certain audience “because that’s how some people get their news,” but said that the Obama administration is not asked critical questions on controversial topics during these interviews, which are not conducted by “informed interviewers.” Attkisson said, “Doing that instead of doing more of the other kind I see as a problem because I’m a traditional journalist. But I don’t have a problem with them doing that if they want to do it — in addition to.”
You can watch Attkisson’s speech in it’s entirety below:
This number is awful in light of what economists expected but pretty much par for the course in recent years. The good news always brings hope for some sustainable growth but is followed by “unexpected” bad news. The lapdog media faithfully dig for nuggets of hope, though.
Any of my regular readers here at PJ Media can attest, I am no fan of the FBI’s counter-terrorism programs. Recently, I’ve been writing about the FBI’s failures to catch “Known Wolf” terrorists – individuals who were already known to law enforcement prior to their acts of terror. So no one can accuse me of being an apologist for the bureau.
But an article yesterday in The Guardian entitled “Counter-terrorism is supposed to let us live without fear. Instead, it’s creating more of it” by two individuals currently promoting the screening of their film (T)ERROR at the Sundance International Film Festival falsely claims the FBI is engaged in a deliberate effort to entrap innocent American Muslims.
Here’s the case they make:
While making our film (T)ERROR, which tracks a single counter-terrorism sting operation over seven months, we realized that most people have serious misconceptions about FBI counter-terrorism efforts. They assume that informants infiltrate terrorist networks and then provide the FBI with information about those networks in order to stop terrorist plots from being carried out. That’s not true in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases.
Since 9/11, as Human Rights Watch and others have documented, the FBI has routinely used paid informants not to capture existing terrorists, but to cultivate them. Through elaborate sting operations, informants are directed to spend months – sometimes years – building relationships with targets, stoking their anger and offering ideas and incentives that encourage them to engage in terrorist activity. And the moment a target takes a decisive step forward, crossing the line from aspirational to operational, the FBI swoops in to arrest him.
So they accuse the FBI of setting suspects up and then arresting them — entrapment. This “entrapment” claim is commonly repeated by defense attorneys and self-styled “civil rights” groups. In fact, that’s what the authors of The Guardian article explicitly say:
The cumulative effects of FBI surveillance and entrapment in communities of color have been devastating.
I’ll leave aside their “communities of color” smear, but there is one glaring problem with their entrapment claim: in no single jihadist-related terrorism trial since the 9/11 attacks has a federal court on ANY LEVEL found that the FBI engaged in entrapment. Many suspects have made the claim, but none have successfully argued it. In only one case I remember, that of Ahmadullah Niazi, did the Justice Department voluntarily drop an indictment because of the reliability of an informant.
Those who peddle these FBI entrapment claims have been found to regularly play fast and loose with data, such as describing terror conspirators who turn state’s evidence against their partners and are sentenced to jail for their roles in terror plots as “informants.”
Another tactic taken is to equate the involvement of an informant as a de facto case of entrapment, as do the authors of The Guardian article. They cite the arrest earlier this month of a Cincinnati-area man:
A recent example: on 14 January, the FBI announced that it had interrupted an Isis-inspired terrorist plot in the United States. Christopher Lee Cornell, a 20-year-old recent Muslim convert from Cincinnati, was allegedly plotting to attack the US Capitol with pipe bombs and gun down government officials.
But then they make a colossal leap with this non sequitur:
Cornell was arrested after purchasing two semiautomatic weapons from an Ohio gun store because the man that Cornell thought was his partner was actually an FBI informant.
So the reason he bought the weapons was because there was an informant? In the information made available so far, there’s no indication that’s the case. If the record of every single jihad-related terror case since 9/11 is any guide, it’s unlikely their claim will stand. One reason why these terrorism cases have universally withstood scrutiny by the federal courts are the extensive measures taken by the FBI to prevent entrapment.
As an example of how far the FBI will go to prevent someone from turning to terror, consider the case of 19-year-old Colorado woman Shannon Conley, who was sentenced last week to four years in prison. As the court record shows, the FBI repeatedly warned Conley over a period of months not to attempt to travel to Syria to join ISIS and even talked to her parents asking them to intervene. And yet she persisted in her plans and was arrested trying to board a plane bound for Turkey. Now her parents are saying “the terrorists have won” after her sentencing, blaming the federal government for prosecuting their daughter.
If anything, this administration has bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns that they are unfairly targeting Muslims, such as special rules for dealing with the Muslim community and conducting a wide-spread purge of counter-terrorism training materials at the request of Muslim organizations. Curiously, none of this is mentioned in The Guardian article.
Attorney General Eric Holder, hardly a right-wing neo-con “Islamophobe,” has directly challenged the claims that the FBI uses entrapment targeting the Muslim community, telling one Muslim legal group:
Those who characterize the FBI’s activities in this case as ‘entrapment’ simply do not have their facts straight or do not have a full understanding of the law.
And yet The Guardian regurgitates a number of howlers, such as this:
And on campuses across the country, Muslim student associations have banned discussions of politics, terrorism and the “war on terror.”
But Muslim Student Associations (MSA) have had no trouble at all discussing politics, terrorism and the “war on terror.” In fact, you can’t shut them up from talking about it. One topic you won’t hear addressed at MSA meetings, however, is the long litany of senior MSA leaders who have been convicted in terrorism cases.
In the absence of actual evidence, The Guardian authors have to resort to anecdotes, including this one:
After a recent screening of our film at a New York City mosque, a young African-American convert to Islam, sporting a brown full-body covering with matching hijab, confessed to us that she feels uncomfortable discussing aspects of her identity. She does not speak about her religious conversion in public, for fear of attracting or encouraging informants.
Yes, because wearing a brown full-body covering with a matching hijab, no one would ever know she’s a Muslim.
This is how laughably ridiculous those who peddle this false narrative have sunk. Perhaps a review of some of the jihad-related terror cases where FBI informants weren’t involved is warranted:
Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo
UNC-Chapel Hill vehicle jihadist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar
Seattle Jewish Federation killer Naveed Afzal Haq
Little Rock killer Carlos Bledsoe (aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad)
Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan
Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad
Boston bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Cross-country jihadist spree killer Ali Muhammad Brown
Undoubtedly, if FBI informants had been used in any of these cases to prevent their terror attacks, The Guardian authors, Islamic “civil rights” groups and their ilk would be crying “entrapment.”
Conservative political advocacy groups supported by the billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 U.S. elections, more than double what they raised in 2012, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
The newspaper said the goal was announced to donors at a weekend meeting in Rancho Mirage, California, hosted by Freedom Partners, a business lobby at the center of the Koch brothers’ political operation. The Post cited a person who attended the gathering.
The money will be doled out by a network of 17 organizations funded by industrialists Charles and David Koch, who have become a major force in conservative politics in recent years, and other wealthy donors. The network raised $407 million for the 2012 campaign.
I spent some time scouring the MSM to see if there were any similarly specific stories about how much Tom Steyer or groups funded by George Soros plan on spending during the same election cycle and didn’t find much.
One of the inaccuracies in the constant media wailing is the “organizations funded by” line. Many of those organizations are only partially funded by the Kochs, one with a built-in reduced yearly amount. It doesn’t fit the “They control everything and damn Citizens United!” story that the leftist talking heads like to tell. When Soros only partially funds an organization, his name is never mentioned.
Steyer is pretty much a ghost, even though he throws money around Democrat politics like a Kennedy at an exotic dancer convention.
He should think about getting an adult job one day. The most laughable part of this pseudo-science babble is Nye’s claim that “the strong winds we had in California” are a result of climate change. For those unfamiliar with the region, they are called Santa Ana Winds and they have been a fact of life here for thousands of years.
New York Times Discovers Yemen’s ‘Death to America’ Houthi Rebels are Moderates and Possible U.S. Partners
The New York Times launched some weapons-grade stupidity on Sunday with an article by Rod Nordland and Eric Schmitt citing “experts” claiming that the Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen that have swept though critical parts of the country, including the capital Sanaa, are not just moderates, but possible U.S. counter-terrorism partners.
Because of the ongoing Houthi offensive, Yemen’s information minister admitted last week that the government had lost effective control of the country.
JUST IN: Yemeni Info Minister @NadiaSakkaf tells me government control in Yemen is "almost non-existent". Intv airs 8pm CET // 2pm ET
— Christiane Amanpour (@camanpour) January 19, 2015
Thankfully, the Times is here to assure us that when the Houthis shout “Death to America” they really don’t mean it:
At first glance the official slogan and emblem of the Houthis, who are now the dominant force in Yemen, does not offer much hope to American policy makers.
It includes the words “Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.” Houthis shout it when they march, wear it on arm patches, paint it on buildings and stick it onto their car windows. When pictured, those words are rendered in red, framed by “God is great” and “Victory to Islam” in green, on a white background.
Sometimes the red words are shown dripping blood.
But for all their harsh sloganeering, the Houthis may be a lot more moderate than it suggests, according to many diplomats and analysts who have followed them closely. They say it would be premature to dismiss them as Yemen’s Hezbollah, despite their alliance with Iran.
For reference purposes, here’s the slogan in question:
The logo of Yemen's triumphant Houthis: Allahu akbar Death to America Death to Israel Damn the Jews Victory to Islam pic.twitter.com/BOQSpAFCDD
— Oren Kessler (@OrenKessler) January 22, 2015
Ah, but we have nothing to fear, because they fight Al-Qaeda says the Pentagon:
On Wednesday, Michael G. Vickers, the Pentagon’s top intelligence policy official, noted that the Houthis’ dominance had been growing over the past several months as they expanded their control since last September, but he said that has not interfered with American missions. “The Houthis are anti-Al Qaeda, and we’ve been able to continue some of our counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda in the past couple months,” Mr. Vickers said.
And they’re nothing like yet another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, say the “experts”:
“The Houthis are not Hezbollah,” said Charles Schmitz, an expert on the group and a professor at Towson University, referring to the Iranian-supported group that dominates Lebanon and is actively fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. “They are domestic, homegrown, and have very deep roots in Yemen, going back thousands of years.”
In fact, they could be U.S. counter-terrorism partners if they only dropped their “Death to America” sloganeering (!!) the “experts” continue:
April Alley, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group in Sana, said: “Theoretically there is quite a bit of common ground in Yemen between the Houthis and the U.S., particularly when it comes to security issues and Al Qaeda. But so far it’s not been enough to overcome the obstacles. The Houthis have their own limits in which they can engage the Americans given the political narrative they have propagated.”
It should be noted that last week a U.S. Embassy vehicle carrying U.S. personnel was shot up at a Houthi checkpoint:
— Haykal Bafana (@BaFana3) January 20, 2015
And a Houthi checkpoint featuring the “Death to America” signs has been operating right outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa since September:
— Hisham Al-Omeisy (@omeisy) September 24, 2014
Another surreal sight: Houthi checkpoint with big sarkha sign ('death to America') on 40m road bang slap in front of US embassy #Yemen
— Peter Salisbury (@altoflacoblanco) September 24, 2014
And yet on Friday the White House said that the embassy will remain open:
WH spokesman Josh Earnest says US Embassy in Sanaa remains open; US monitoring situation closely #voaalert
— Luis Ramirez (@LuisVOA) January 23, 2015
One curious omission in the Times article, however, is that Obama hailed Yemen as one of his administration’s counter-terrorism successes back in September:
Note: President Obama's reference to counter-terror success in Yemen (Sept. 10) does not seem to be aging well http://t.co/rBxCpF0eqh
— Michael B. Kelley (@MichaelKelleyBI) January 14, 2015
So with Iran or Iranian proxies in charge of another Arab capital (Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, Sanaa) we have nothing to fear, the New York Times is here to tell us.
And the Houthis take their place as acclaimed moderates in the U.S. foreign policy narrative bubble, along with the “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood, the “vetted moderate” Syrian rebels, the “moderate elements” of Hezbollah (as cited by CIA Director John Brennan), and even “moderate” Al-Qaeda.
The Jerusalem Post reports:
The Fox news segment, on the show “Shepard Smith Reporting,” began with a response to a quote from Martin Indyk from The New York Times on Thursday wherein the former US ambassador to Israel and the former US envoy to the peace process says: “Netanyahu is using the Republican Congress for a photo-op for his election campaign and the Republicans are using Bibi for their campaign against Obama…Unfortunately the US relationship will take the hit. It would be far wiser for us to stay out of their politics and for them to stay out of ours.”
Wallace said he agreed completely with Indyk and that he was “shocked” by the whole affair.
Smith queried whether Netanyahu would back out of the speech because, “Members of his own Mossad have come out and said this is a horrible idea and so have members of his own political party. Of course his political opponents are screaming up and down, the newspapers over there are going wild over this,” he added.
“It just seems that they think we don’t pay any attention and that we are just a bunch of complete morons, the US citizens, like we wouldn’t pick up on what is happening here,” Smith said.
…”For Netanyahu to do something that is going to be seen as a deliberate and a really egregious snub of President Obama, when Obama is going to be in power for the next year and three quarters, seems to me like a pretty risky political strategy for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Wallace said.
“For Netanyahu to come here and side with Boehner against Obama on Iran seems to me like very dicey politics,” he said.
That’s right, Shep Smith and the Fox News crowd have officially joined the ranks of the anti-Israel mainstream media, purporting that the Mossad and Israeli media somehow think American citizens are “a bunch of complete morons.” Apparently Shep and Chris Wallace have remained blind to the fact that Bibi and Barry have hated each other since the beginning. They’ve also ignored the fact that Obama’s administration, through various unnamed sources, has worked hard to hack away at any relationship the two leaders may have ever claimed.
Looks like Kathy Shaidle is right, we’ve all got to be our own Churchills now.
The topic of Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News Talking Points Memo on Friday was “How the Internet is Deceiving You.” Using an attack on the film American Sniper by Vox’s Amanda Taub as an example, O’Reilly said, “The far left is going nuts launching hateful attacks on the film and on Mr. Kyle and most of the libel is found on the net.”
O’Reilly said that Taub may even be a terrorist sympathizer, citing an article she wrote trying to explain the actions of the terrorists who blew up a school in Pakistan.
“Here we have Taub providing the rationale for the slaughtering of innocent school children,” O’Reilly said. “Does it get much worse?”
He complained that her article about American Sniper was posted “on a number of sites including Yahoo.”
“But those providers did not tell you, the reader, who Amanda Taub is, or the quality of the organization for whom she works. They just post her disgusting stuff without any context,” O’Reilly continued.
“The chief danger here is not from a propagandist here like Amanda Taub. It’s the entire internet climate,” he said. “Americans are often presented with information that’s false, libelous, and distorted in the extreme. There are no journalistic standards on the net. Few websites even have editors looking at it. They just post this stuff and walk away.”
It’s a fair-enough criticism. Anyone can create a blog or put up a website that has the look and feel of a legitimate news site. Fact-checking is sometimes an afterthought.
O’Reilly thinks this free flow of information (and misinformation) poses a great danger to our republic:
“Unfortunately, many Americans believe what they read and therefore there is a danger to the republic,” he said. “If you know anything about history you know that dictators, both on the left and on the right, first control the press. The Nazis and the communists put out a steady stream of garbage brainwashing their population. To some extent, that is happening now in free societies with the elevation of the net. And it’s flat-out dangerous.”
Has Bill O’Reilly been to N. Korea lately? Or to China (that allegedly burgeoning bastion of capitalism and freedom)? A friend recently returned from a business trip to China and said both Facebook and Google were blocked there. He had to use Microsoft Outlook to send and receive email. “That pesky free exchange of ideas thing,” he said sarcastically.
Nomiki Konst, a political strategist and former Huffington Post blogger, joined Bill O’Reilly after his Talking Points Memo and reminded him that the Nazis had very limited vehicles with which to release their propaganda. Today, she said, there are “literally millions of ways to communicate different messages to different echo chambers.”
She asked him if he wanted to regulate the internet.
O’Reilly, who clearly doesn’t understand how the interwebs and news aggregator sites work, said he doesn’t want to regulate small sites like Vox but said, “When it gets over into the big ones like Google and Yahoo and all of these things and they just post it with no context, that’s propaganda, it’s wrong, and it’s happening all over the place. ”
O’Reilly said he thinks readers ought to know what a writer’s “worldview” is and that it should be clear where writers are coming from.
“If you write an op-ed in a newspaper, it tells at the bottom who you are and what agency you’re coming from. It doesn’t do it on the net.”
Well, except for that whole charade of the unsigned newspaper editorials that we are led to believe are right-down-the-middle pieces, written by trained journalists who have no biases whatsoever. And if we were to use O’Reilly’s truth-in-journalism standards, a large percentage of op-eds over the last 50 years should have been carrying labels that read: WARNING: LIBERAL BIAS. Also, where were the warnings about the danger to our republic when the “Big 3″ networks had far-left “real journalists” like Dan Rather feeding Americans their news on a nightly basis?
Konti told O’Reilly that the best way to rebut opinions that he didn’t like was by having more opinions. “We’re in a free society where we have freedom of speech and you just rebutted hers. That’s the best way to do it.”
In a later segment of the show, O’Reilly discussed the problem with Geraldo Rivera and they both worried about the proliferation of opinions floating around the internet without the guiding hand of “trained journalists.” It’s clear that O’Reilly is nostalgic for the days when just a handful of powerful individuals controlled the media and the flow of information.
The democratization of information is at once powerful and terrifying and liberating, but the technology can’t be undone — the information revolution is here to stay. More speech (and more excellent speech) is what is needed, not regulation.
Ten media companies have aligned to test drone newsgathering with Virginia Tech, shortly after CNN announced it would be developing drone reporting with Georgia Tech.
They’re wandering into new territory as regulations currently don’t allow media organizations to use the unmanned aircraft.
Advance Publications Inc., A.H. Belo Corp., The Associated Press, Gannet Co. Inc., Getty Images (U.S.) Inc., NBC Universal, The New York Times Co., The E.W. Scripps Co., Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and The Washington Post have partnered to test drone newsgathering at the FAA-approved site in Virginia.
At the testing site, one of six approved by Congress as a first step to forging domestic drone regulations, the news agencies will “conduct controlled safety testing of a series of real-life scenarios where the news media could use small UAS technology to gather the news,” according to law firm Holland & Knight.
The firm has been working with the media companies since the middle of last year to come to an agreement on testing.
The Federal Aviation Administration recently entered into a research and development agreement with CNN.
“Our aim is to get beyond hobby-grade equipment and to establish what options are available and workable to produce high-quality video journalism using various types of UAVs and camera setups,” said CNN Senior Vice President David Vigilante. “Our hope is that these efforts contribute to the development of a vibrant ecosystem where operators of various types and sizes can safely operate in the U.S. airspace.”
While the FAA has granted exemptions for the use of drones in other industries including agriculture and film, no media organization has yet been granted permission to use drones for newsgathering.
“Unmanned aircraft offer news organizations significant opportunities,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in a statement. “We hope this agreement with CNN and the work we are doing with other news organizations and associations will help safely integrate unmanned newsgathering technology and operating procedures into the National Airspace System.”
This is a thing that happened today.
I loved Friends during its 1994–2004 run, but when I started re-watching the sitcom thanks to its Jan. 1 arrival on Netflix, I steeled myself to be disappointed. I knew that from our modern vantage point, the fashion and technology would feel, at times, obsolete. (Ross’s Season 3 “laserdisc marathon”!) I suspected some plotlines would be a little creaky, too: Ross’s relationship with an undergrad, say, and Monica in a fat suit. But as a longtime fan, I worried most about Joey.
Joey’s “thing” was that he was an inveterate womanizer; in the pilot, he compared women to ice cream, and told a mopey Ross to “grab a spoon.” In the year 2015, would this kind of horndogginess play? The trope of the leering lothario just felt so old, so unfunny, so painfully CBS. But as I watched, I was soon reminded of Joey’s other qualities: His warmth, his happy-go-lucky confidence, and his love of jam. Joey is great! Sure, he loves beautiful women, but somehow his openness and goofiness—and Matt LeBlanc’s performance—still make him easy to watch.
You know who isn’t easy to watch? Chandler Bing.
Indeed, of all the aspects of Friends that seem trapped in the past, Chandler Bing is the most agonizingly obsolete. Once he may have seemed coolly sarcastic, the gang’s designated “funny one.” But through the eyes of a 2015 viewer even vaguely cognizant of modern gender politics, he’s also the cringe-worthy one.
Chandler, identified in Season 1 as having a “quality” of gayness about him, is endlessly paranoid about being perceived as insufficiently masculine. He’s freaked out by hugs, and by Joey having a pink pillow on his couch. (“If you let this go, you’re going to be sitting around with your fingers soaking in stuff!”)
In retrospect, the entire show’s treatment of LGBTQ issues is awful, a fault pointedly illustrated by the exhaustive clip-compilation “Homophobic Friends.” But Chandler’s treatment of his gay father, a Vegas drag queen played by Kathleen Turner, is especially appalling, and it’s not clear the show knows it. It’s one thing for Chandler to recall being embarrassed as a kid, but he is actively resentful and mocking of his loving, involved father right up until his own wedding (to which his father is initially not invited!). Even a line like “Hi, Dad” is delivered with vicious sarcasm. Monica eventually cajoles him into a grudging reconciliation, which the show treats as an acceptably warm conclusion. But his continuing discomfort now reads as jarringly out-of-place for a supposedly hip New York thirtysomething—let alone a supposedly good person, period.
One wonders what kinds of childhood traumas were visited upon these leftist scolds to make them decide ahead of time what they won’t like about a sitcom that went off the air over ten years ago. Probably something horrific like mommy not getting the right kind of frosting for the 10th birthday cake.
I am often considered somewhat cranky, yet on my worst days I’m the Happiest Guy On Earth compared to your garden variety Social Justice Warrior (SJW). Imagine living such a miserable life that the phrase “I steeled myself to be disappointed” comes out of your brain in reference to watching a popular situation comedy.
In their zeal to despise all things American, progressives spend their days creating struggles and seeing oppression in places like sitcoms, where most people see an easy laugh.
The writer laments the treatment of “LGBTQ issues” in a show that really didn’t go after a lot of heavy issues. Ross wasn’t a very flattering portrayal of paleontologists either. Monica seemed far too anal to be a really inventive chef. Rachel’s career path was unrealistic.
The list of things to complain about in a show that never really was about any of those things is endless.
Because it was a lighthearted television show, you SJW shrew.
Progressives rail at the lack of depth in things that aren’t supposed to have depth because they are working out personal issues related to the shallowness of their own lives and political philosophy, it’s that simple.
They are that simple.
Everybody’s two favorite features in the largest-selling Brit newspaper, The Sun, have returned: The Sun has printed a topless model on Page 3, ending days of speculation that the feature was dead. The newspaper has tweeted out a picture of Thursday’s Page 3 which features a blonde-haired model, under the headline ‘clarifications and corrections’, winking and […]
The Sun, Britain’s top-selling newspaper, has scrapped Page 3’s topless women after 44 years, delighting the legion of critics who have branded the photos of bare-breasted models sexist, offensive and anachronistic.
Insiders said the decision has been taken to kill off the controversial feature quietly but that the feature would continue online. “This comes from high up, from New York,” said one senior executive in a reference to the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch.
The Sun refused to respond to any calls, emails or texts from the Guardian throughout Monday but told the Times, which is also owned by Murdoch: “Page 3 of The Sun is where it’s always been, between pages 2 and 4, and you can find Lucy from Warwick at Page3.com. “
A savvy business decision, or a bow to the booboisie? A bow to crazed feminists and angry Muslims (strange bedfellows indeed)? Luckily, the paper has left itself an out-clause should the need arise:
The change may be reversed, it is understood, if it results in a noticeable Sun sales decline. Publisher News UK has previously publicly argued, in the face of mounting opposition from critics including the No More Page 3 campaign, that the feature remains popular with its readers and those who want rid of it do not buy the paper.
Fortunately for fans of the female form, the feature remains on line, and you can have a gander here.
Let’s ask the late Howard Hughes what he thinks:
Remember that “land of the free, home of the brave” stuff? Not so much anymore:
As newspaper Charlie Hebdo prints a record 7 million print run, editor-in-chief Gerard Biard is slamming U.S. media for refusing to show the cover of the latest issue, in an interview with NBC News.
“This cartoon is not just a little figure. It’s a symbol. It’s the symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of democracy and secularism,” he told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd on Sunday. “When they refuse to publish this cartoon, when they blur it out, when they decline to publish it, they blur out democracy.”
Why should anyone be surprised? Over the past half-century, the type of person who went into the media changed from streetwise ethnics without a lot of formal education but plenty of savvy into upper-class college kids who majored in a subject any halfwit (e.g., me) could learn in three months on the job. Politically correct do-gooders to a fault, they were also largely physical and moral cowards whose “bravery,” such as it was, consisted of taking bold stands in complete accordance with whatever their peers were doing. As I’ve pointed out before, today the MSM date each other, marry each other, live in the same neighborhoods in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Washington, go to the same schools, send their kids to the same schools and have their vacation homes in the same places.
Defend Charlie Hebdo? Well, sure, in principle… but…
Several American news organizations — including channels ABC, CNN, and NBC along with the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter — have not shown what has been billed the “survivors’ issue” cover featuring a cartoon drawing of Islam’s Muhammad. CBS News, meanwhile, did show the cover image during broadcasting on multiple platforms.
“We do not kill anyone,” Biard said. “We must stop conflating the murderers and the victims. We must stop declaring that those who write and draw are provocateurs, that they are throwing gas on the fire. We must not place thinkers and artists in the same category as murders.”
“Every time that we draw a cartoon of Muhammad, every time that we draw a cartoon of the prophet, every time that we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion,” said Biard. “Religion should not be a political argument.”
Biard obviously does not summer on Martha’s Vineyard.
Get ready for a good laugh. If you aren’t ready, file this story for when you need one. I did, and it hit the spot.
Online feminist mag Jezebel, which spends more time discussing Lena Dunham’s haircuts than anything actually relevant to feminism, featured a story on “human-baby activist” Alice Vincent’s complaint that Clint Eastwood used dolls instead of live babies for his latest box office smash American Sniper.
Yep. “Human-baby activist.” It gets better:
The film notoriously forewent actual child actors in favor of plastic baby dolls, presumably to avoid traumatizing real babies from the terror of being in the same room as director Clint Eastwood. A sagacious decision, but one that poised yet another dilemma: the plastic babies are milkfed and symmetrical, glowing in their perfection and delicately rosy cheeks, sweet and subdued, and will never encounter colic. The babies’ noses are flawlessly buttony, their cheeks absolutely round, their tiny lips distended in an unachievable bow. The babies’ tans are even, and a perfect shade of sunkissed white skin. Their very existence, the upholding of these babies as somehow the way all babies should look, exerts undue pressure on actual live babies to live up to this type of unachievable ideal, and ultimately sends the message to American Sniperviewers that if their babies are not as perfect as the babies onscreen, then they are not as worthy. It says that in order to be considered beautiful, a baby must be a doll.
Babies, beware. Even though you don’t yet have the cognitive ability to watch a film, Hollywood is out to harass and intimidate you with their impossible beauty standards. Jezebel ends their compelling coverage of this hot-button issue with a “plea” to the American Sniper gang:
We make a collective plea to Clint Eastwood and the cast of American Sniper for the liberation and visibility for all babies, not just ones constructed of plastic and rubber: of human babies, and of babies who are flawed, and babies whose shit and piss and puke is tangible, not just the kind scrawled out into a diaper with yellow and brown magic markers. We demand the depiction of normal, oxygen-breathing babies on our screens, in a show of solidarity that babies come in all shapes and sizes, all religions and nationalities, and do not have to be in possession of perfect diction or enthusiastic participants in nightlife to be good enough to be included in the cast of a film.
Clint, Bradley, next time you’re about to make an Oscar-nominated movie about a war hero, think about the babies!
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was a pioneer who stood alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the march on Selma and the fight for civil rights in America. And viewers of the film Selma will never know that fact, because director Ava DuVernay elected to eliminate Heschel from the film.
In an op-ed for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Heschel’s daughter Susannah writes:
The 50th anniversary of the 1965 march at Selma is being commemorated this year with the release of the film “Selma.” Regrettably, the film represents the march as many see it today, only as an act of political protest.
But for my father Abraham Joshua Heschel and for many participants, the march was both an act of political protest and a profoundly religious moment: an extraordinary gathering of nuns, priests, rabbis, black and white, a range of political views, from all over the United States.
…My father felt that the prophetic tradition of Judaism had come alive at Selma. He said that King told him it was the greatest day in his life, and my father said that he was reminded at Selma of walking with Hasidic rebbes in Europe. Such was the spiritual atmosphere of the day.
…What a pity that my father’s presence is not included in “Selma.” More than a historical error, the film erases one of the central accomplishments of the civil rights movement, its inclusiveness, and one of King’s great joys: his close friendship with my father. The photograph reminds us that religious coalitions can transcend and overcome political conflicts, and it also reminds us that our Jewish prophetic tradition came alive in the civil rights movement. Judaism seemed to be at the very heart of being American.
In an interview with the Algemeiner, Heschel commented further:
“I felt sad and I had moments when I felt angry,” she said of the omission, describing it as “tragic.” …“This filmmaker seems to want to try and change the narrative,” she told The Algemeiner. “It is about black people trying to do it themselves.”
“I understand this as a Jew, because that is what Zionism is about, but I know that we were helped by others, and the Civil Rights Movement was about coalition, it was about Christians and Jews coming together, marching together, and feeling at that moment in Selma that something profoundly religious and moral was taking place.”
According to the Algemeiner, “The film’s producer, Ava DuVernay, defended her inaccurate portrayals in an interview on PBS, saying: ‘This is art; this is a movie; this is a film. I’m not a historian. I’m not a documentarian.’”
Last week we covered the story of CNN’s Jim Clancy, who embarrassed himself with a feeble Twitter attempt to tie the radical Islamists behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre to Hasbara (Israeli PR). Today, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:
Veteran CNN anchor Jim Clancy stepped down on Friday, one week after a series of Twitter posts in which he mocked pro-Israel tweeters on a thread discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Neither CNN nor Jim Clancy gave a reason for his departure, which was reported by AdWeek. Clancy had worked at CNN for 34 years.
Apparently, at one point the Twitter backlash got so bad that Clancy took mouthing off to a whole new disgusting level:
Clancy later told the Twitter account for Human Rights News, “You and the Hasbara team need to pick on some cripple at the edge of the herd.”
Jay Ruderman, head of the Ruderman Family Foundation, which is dedicated to advocacy and inclusion for the disabled, demanded an apology from Clancy and CNN. Ruderman said the use of the term “cripple” was insensitive.
Whether it was a long-overdue retirement or a simple parting of the ways, Clancy’s exit from CNN is one thing for which we can fully thank some serious Twitter hasbara.
This could get ugly. An industry dominated by liberals just ignored diversity-inclusion rules in a purely subjective awards process?!?
Question: In a Hollywood-on-Hollywood social justice warrior outrage fight, who wins?
Sure, that’s the problem.
The American media seems to already be held hostage by Islamic terrorists and doesn’t even know it. Jews are fleeing France, Islamic terrorists are slaughtering people by the thousands in the last week, and they’re worried about backlash from the people who decidedly are not out killing others.
When it comes to the news here, the terrorists have definitely already won.
Want to know what cowardice looks like on live television? The Washington Post notes:
On Sky News, former Charlie Hebdo journalist Caroline Fourest was trying to explain how “crazy” it is that certain journalism mills in the United Kingdom won’t show the cover of the latest edition of the magazine. Well, Sky News provided a stronger explanation than Fourest ever could have. Watch some memorable seat-of-the-pants censorship, live.
Which is better, cutting away from the image or apologizing to viewers who may have been offended by seeing a partial caricature of Mohammed? The British accent on the newscaster made it all so prim and frothy, too. This was apparently for all those viewers who’ve ever wondered what it’d feel like to be dismissed by the Dowager at Downton over a political statement. Then again, I highly doubt even socialist Tom would invite one of the Sky News chickens to dinner.
At least we know what editorial board discussions look like at CNN and a series of U.S. news outlets that refused, er, made the “editorial decision” not to show the cover generated by the remnants of a massacred magazine staff. What, exactly, are they so afraid of?
Millions of copies of the French weekly Charlie Hebdo sold out within minutes Wednesday, just days after attacks in Paris last week left more than a dozen people dead.
The satirical magazine announced last week it would continue with its weekly publication, increasing its print run to 3 million copies. The latest issue, featuring a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad on its cover, quickly sold out before dawn, The Associated Press reported. That is more than 50 times its normal circulation, with millions more copies expected to arrive.
Survivors of last week’s attacks, during which 17 Parisians were killed and many from the magazine, worked in borrowed offices to continue working on this week’s issue.
This is, of course, the exact opposite of what the terrorists want. As almost anyone over the age of ten knows, the point of terrorism is to make people live in fear and capitulate.
Just like the American media loves to do.
The pathetic rationalizations from various media entities in the United States over why they won’t print any of the “offensive” Charlie Hebdo covers have been a remarkably sad spectacle. How does a news entity operate under a permanent editorial directive to always avoid being “deliberately offensive”?
The truth almost always offends somebody.
Oh…makes sense now.
This image appeared with the below-quoted Tweet. Follow the image link to find that the Tweet was removed mere minutes after grabbing it for this article.
Don’t say we didn’t warn…. pic.twitter.com/YOzdOURnjf
— Israel in Ireland (@IsraelinIreland) January 12, 2015
The Israeli Embassy in Ireland published a far more provocative piece of art than did Charlie Hebdo this week. Far too angry to even broach forgiveness, the JPost reports that the Embassy
…posted a photograph on its Twitter account on Wednesday featuring Mona Lisa decked out in Islamic garb while holding what appears to be a rocket.
The post seems to be a common sentiment among Israelis who are angry over what they perceive as the international community’s inability to empathize with its precarious security situation.
Sensitive to criticism over its response to Hamas rocket fire, Israel has often sought to conflate its struggle against Palestinian terrorism with the jihadist violence that reared its ugly head in France last week, claiming the lives of 20 people.
The artwork was released amid news that French President Hollande did not want Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attend Sunday’s unity march in Paris. Hollande felt the Israeli prime minister’s presence would “…divert attention from the theme of national unity the million-person event was intended to symbolize,” according to Israeli media reports.
…The French official who conveyed Hollande’s wish to Jerusalem said that Netanyahu’s presence and that of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, would “cause difficulties.” The French believed that Netanyahu’s presence among the foreign notables leading the march would inevitably introduce dissonant echoes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Jewish-Muslim relations that would jar the somber atmosphere.”
As France works to distance itself and its Jews politically from Israel, the Obama administration is hard at work crafting acts of radical Islamic terror into a War on Muslims. The White House refuses to employ France’s term “war against radical Islam,” instead choosing to refer “…to terrorists as ‘violent extremists who have sought to incite a religious war against Islam.’” The Orwellian doublespeak does not bode well for Jews abroad or in America. Despite the fact that anti-Semitism motivated many of the non-Muslim related terror attacks that will be discussed in February’s “summit on violent extremism,” Obama’s ultimate goal regarding radical Islamic terror is and always will be to defend Muslims. Even if it is at the risk of the Jewish population.
Perhaps the Israeli Embassy in Ireland is correct in saying that “Israel is the last frontier of the free world.” And perhaps that is the real reason their artwork is so disturbing.
I wrote back in 2011:
I hated guys like Bill Whatcott when I was pro-choice, and I hate them more now that I’m not.
Which was pretty harsh.
That said, Whatcott is one of Canada’s most notorious public pests.
In fairness, all he’s done is adopt tactics of the Left for generations to great practical effect, such as picketing, parody and public nuisance.
In a stunt literally worthy of Charlie Chaplin, for instance, Whatcott once managed to position himself at the front of a “Gay Pride” parade while holding up an anti-sodomy banner.
I run hot and cold on the matter of whether such stunts actually “work,” but I grant Whatcott credit for being an out-there Christian “crusader,” especially given Canada’s general distaste for such public displays of non-conformity.
And today, I’m obligated to congratulate him for accomplishing the (almost) unthinkable:
Winning a $30,000 libel judgement against our rich, powerful and knee-jerk “progressive” public broadcaster, the CBC.
Lena Dunham used last night’s red carpet appearance to announce that she’d deleted her Twitter account in order to “create a safer space for myself emotionally” in the wake of the Barry One shakeup. That last part was understood parenthetically, of course, as “creating a safer space” obviously has nothing to do with having one less social media outlet through which to publicly bare your breasts.
What she failed to mention is that she didn’t really delete her Twitter account. After all, she’d just used it hours before to promote the 4th season premiere of Girls. Oh, who’s kidding who; without the bare breast pic, it was probably her publicist logging in under her username.
Leading neo-con John Podhoretz used the shout-out to promote his own writing praising Girls, while fans of the HBO star used Dunham’s statement to get angry, incite flame wars and block fellow Twitter users over nothing. What was that about deranged neo-cons again?
Just to set the record straight on those crazy neo-cons, the Free Beacon detailed Tweets sent by known neo-cons to Dunham over the past few years. Threatening, indeed, especially discussing Chinese hegemony in Asia. I know she went to Oberlin, but please, she was an arts major after all. Why are you threatening to discuss current events that will inevitably impact the female population with a self-proclaimed feminist? Don’t you know she’ll block you if you use too many big words?
Which makes one wonder why Dunham would bother making such a big deal out of her haters. She knows how to block them. Perhaps it’s because she doesn’t want to. In fact, this was her feeble, ultimately meaningless attempt to stick it to her critics from the safest and most public space imaginable. The neo-cons got better press out of this than she did, because the audience is sick of her incessant whining and the airheads hosting a red carpet show are too dumb to bite. They wouldn’t dare bring up rape (cue her tears) let alone her habit of lying about being raped on campus in order to sell books. They can barely wrap their mouths around, “What are you wearing?” In Lena’s case, they were probably impressed that she bothered to get dressed at all.
A bizarre report from NBC News by Ayman Mohyeldin this morning broadcast during Meet the Press highlighted the city of Dearborn, Michigan, which has the highest Muslim population concentration of any city in America, as a beacon of American Muslim integration.
As Jeffrey Myers at Newsbusters observed, Mohyeldin blamed U.S. foreign policy for increased radicalization inside the Muslim community:
For some, radicalization and attacks against the U.S. stems from anger at American foreign policies and wars in the Middle East. While the overwhelming majority of muslims have successfully assimilated and integrated into U.S. society, the challenge remains to find individuals who may be on the fringes of the communities and are also alienated.
There are some curious omissions from Mohyeldin’s report that directly question his claims of successful assimilation and integration of Muslims in Dearborn.
For instance, last August The Intercept published an internal assessment by the National Counterterrorism Center showing that Dearborn — a town of less than 100,000 — had the second largest number of known terrorism suspects in the country behind New York City.
Needless to say, the Muslim community in Dearborn expressed outrage at the NCTC’s data analysis. And despite the fact the NCTC report was the Obama administration’s own document and the finding was the expression of raw data, Detroit U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade joined local activists at a news conference to denounce those findings.
— The Jewish Press (@JewishPress) January 10, 2015
Lassana Bathily, a Muslim immigrant from Mali in West Africa, obviously has no problem with Jews. As an employee of the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris, he not only worked for Jews on a daily basis, he also took the opportunity to save 15 Jewish lives when the store was attacked by radical Islamists this past Friday.
The Jewish Press reports:
Lassana Bathily, a Muslim employee at the HyperChacher supermarket in Paris, saved the lives of 15 Jewish shoppers, when he hid them in the supermarket’s basement freezer after the terrorist, Amedy Coulibaly, entered the store and opened fire.
Bathily also had the presence of mind to also turn the freezer off.
BuzzFeed carried a translation of the French television news interview with Bathily:
“When they ran down, I opened the door [to the freezer],” he told France’s BFMTV.
He quickly shut off the freezer and switched off its light. As he closed the door to shelter the customers inside, he told them, “Stay calm here. I’m going out.”
Eventually police raided the market, killing Coulibaly. As the hostages were freed from the freezer, they had a few words of thanks for Bathily. “They congratulated me,” he told BFMTV.
Describing the 24-year-old man as “shy,” the UK Daily Mail explains, “Using a goods lift he escaped and was able to give the police valuable information about what was happening inside and where the hostages were hiding.” Those huddled in the freezer were able to use cell phones to contact relatives and make them aware of the situation and that they were safe.
Multiculturalists may attempt to use Bathily as an example against stereotyping Muslims and avoiding the identification of radical Islamic terrorism. However, the exact opposite is the case. Bathily is yet another example of why saying “Je Suis” is the ultimate statement after a tumultuous week of terror in France. Whether we are Charlie Hebdo or Juif, the reality is that our existence as a free people who believe in the Divine, inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of justice” alone is enough to offend radical Islamic terrorists.
When Melissa Harris-Perry’s producers invited J.J. Goldberg on to speak about the Jewish community in France, they were probably expecting textbook politically correct responses from the editor at large of America’s largest left-wing Jewish newspaper, the Forward. Which is why it’s so funny to watch Harris-Perry attempt not to balk at Goldberg’s frank candor on the radical Islamist roots of anti-Semitism in France. “The anti-Semitism problem in France is not primarily a problem of anti-Semitism from French Muslims,” she rushes to clarify at 2:32. “There is a problem of anti-Semitism there, but it is not primarily a problem of Muslim versus Jewish populations there, but rather a question of – sort of — French citizens in the broadest sense.”
“Um, I don’t think so,” Goldberg begins before detailing in brief France’s dance with anti-Semitism over the past century, noting that the incidents happening now are “happening from the Muslim community.” He then rattles off a series of French leaders who are Jewish and have established bonds with the Israeli Jewish community. “The integration of Jews into France and the acceptance of Jews in France is very, very thorough,” he explains. He ends his segment by noting that 70% of Jews in France today have come from Sephardic countries of origin where they have experienced “tension with their Arab neighbors”.
Harris-Perry attempts to interrupt his scholarly explanation twice before giving in and going to the commercial break.
This is no different than blaming a rape on the way the victim was dressed. It’s disgusting and these people are complicit in the ongoing Islamic terrorist plague.
President Barack Obama promoted a proposal to offer two years of free community college tuition to students on Friday but the plan and its $60 billion pricetag over 10 years immediately faced skepticism from Republican lawmakers.
Obama floated the education idea on the third and final day of a tour to promote agenda items being prepared for his Jan. 20 State of the Union address, a speech that will be his first to the U.S. Congress since Republicans won the Senate in November elections.
A quick note about real media bias here. Since the president’s speech yesterday, I cannot even speculate on how many articles about it that used the word “free” in the headline, but didn’t mention or question potential cost. This is precisely how the advocacy media helps the leftists brainwash the masses.
This particular post actually did report the truth, then experienced cheerleader’s remorse. It provides another glimpse into just how deeply the media’s need to “rah-rah” for this president is. Look at this paragraph:
Obama has maintained a sunny mood throughout the tour, promoting the prospect of bipartisan harmony and declining to attack Republicans, in what amounts to an early attempt to try find political harmony in Washington.
Once the bad news about the president’s idea was reported, it was almost required that something nice be written about him, no matter how far removed from reality it was. Two sentences of truthful reporting were just too much to bear, and it was time to get back to op-ed speculation about feelings.
“He’s gone two days without saying anything bad about Republicans, ISN’T HE JUST DREAMY?”
Long after Barack Obama leaves office, the MSM enablers of leftist nonsense will remain.
They are, and have been for decades, the real problem.
Alisyn Camerota will replace Kate Bolduan as co-anchor on CNN’s “New Day,” and Michaela Pereira has been promoted to co-anchor of the morning show, a network spokesperson confirmed on Friday.
Boulduan, who had been with the show since it launched in 2013, will become co-anchor of “This Hour” with John Berman, replacing Pereira. Camerota came to the network last year after 16 years with Fox News.
“Thrilled!” Camerota tweeted on Friday, linking to a report from The Wrap, though FTVLive first reported the news in late December.
Camerota was Bolduan’s replacement while she was on maternity leave, and has long been rumored to be on her way to the morning show. “New Day” has been making gains in the ratings, beating MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on a regular basis.
Soledad O’Brien’s tenure in the morning slot at CNN plunged the network to new lows. It was so bad that it made MSNBC look good for a while.
It is somewhat humorous that their tactic for regaining ratings revolves around someone they poached from Fox News. If it works, look for more poaching (or attempts, at least) to ensue.
If, however, the network is serious about things it might want to weed out the Democrat legacy hires.
Charlie Hebdo, the magazine attacked this week by heavily-armed Hell-bound Muslim jihadists, was run by Left-wing atheists who reveled in lampooning all religions and politicians who aren’t sufficiently socialist.
Yet despite the heathen commie content of Charlie Hebdo, those of us in the Right-wing echo chamber have offered full-throated support for their right to express their despicable views, even if they do it with tasteless, often ribald, satire. (The fact that I use the word “ribald” proves that I’m the kind of stick-in-the-mud who should despise Charlie. What’s worse: I write ScrappleFace.com, which I bill as “family-friendly satire.” Ick.)
But you see, Right-wing evangelical wackos like me tend to be people of principle. True principles, by definition, must enjoy universal application. We believe in a free marketplace of ideas where, ultimately, the truth will come to light — if not in this life, then in the one to come.
So, while one of President Obama’s press secretaries clucks his tongue about Charlie Hebdo’s poor judgement – using the bully pulpit to pressure them to still their Muhammed-mocking pens — we stand by the cartoonists’ right to lampoon the Prophet Muhammed and his morality-bereft, blood-besotted groupies. (Carney’s parsing of “right” vs. “judgment” is fine for parlor prattle, but not from the president’s spokesman standing before a global camera in the White House.)
We did not support Charlie because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s not because we were glad to see someone stick it to the pedophile “prophet” of the scimitar “scriptures.” After all, Charlie mocked Christians too.
We support free speech rights unconditionally — regardless of what we think of the message. If we disagree with the viewpoint or method of expressing it, the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship by statute or scimitar (or presidential bullying).
The Leftist is in a quandary, because many of his movement’s brightest lights, or at least loudest speakers, want us to believe that slim difference lies between the Muslim gunmen of Paris and the average Southern Baptist.
To Lefty, we’re all dangerous religious bigots.
Yet even the “progressive” journalists and politicians know in their hearts that if they showed up at a baptist church potluck, uninvited, and started to spout their Utopian collectivism, they’d get nothin’ but love, strange looks, and perhaps some awkward but sincere attempts to share Jesus with them.
At the Baptist potluck, Lefty would be allowed to run his fool mouth until the peach cobbler ran out, signaling time to go home.
Next Sunday, someone would ask Brother Mike to pray for Lefty’s commie, heathen soul…bless his heart.
There’s a reason many Israeli satellite providers don’t waste their money on CNN. The infamously anti-Semitic cable news channel’s reporter Jim Clancy blamed Wednesday’s terrorist attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on — who else — the Jews.
To be completely accurate, he dubbed the radical Islamist “pro-Muhammed” mentality that led to the terror attacks “Hasbara.” Hasbara is the term used to describe pro-Israel international PR. What does hasbara have to do with fostering or endorsing radical Islamist terrorism? Nothing. Unless, of course, you’re taken to task for your inaccuracies by a Jew. Then, suddenly, your gross inaccuracies along with all the world’s problems are because of the Jews.
Kessler proceeds to present Clancy with facts (something CNN reporters avoid at all costs), and the most Clancy can generate in terms of a response is:
.@clancycnn Or you could admit that your tweet was mistaken, and your response to me was inappropriate.
— Oren Kessler (@OrenKessler) January 7, 2015
Yeah, that didn’t happen, because there’s something else CNN reporters lack: journalistic integrity. There’s another Jewish word for that, Jim. It’s called “schmuck.”
Hat tip: Mediaite
Following the fatal terrorist attack Wednesday at the offices of French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, sources confirmed this afternoon that it is sadly not yet clear whether this very article will ultimately put human lives at risk.
According to totally and utterly depressing early reports, given the tragic deaths of 12 people, it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that this 500-word article will not make those involved in its writing—and potentially even those not involved—the targets of brutal and unconscionable violence.
“The heartbreaking tragedy that unfolded in Paris today is the result of a perverted, hateful ideology that has no place in the civilized world,” is a quote that someone or some group of people might be reading at this very moment and, in what unfortunately serves to illustrate the horrifying state of modern society, interpreting as an unforgivable insult against their beliefs that must be met with the cold-blooded murder of innocent people. “It’s just so terrible and senseless. I mean, how can something like this even happen?”
“I’m at a loss for words, to be perfectly honest,” is a further quote that would hopefully not enrage anyone to the point of actually taking another human being’s life, but which, for the love of God, conceivably could.
This is an oddly subtle approach for The Onion, actually, but it does the trick. While it doesn’t mention Islam by name, it didn’t really need to. The entire piece is basically saying, “This is so insane we are having a difficult time processing it.” It also acknowledges that the nutjobs are still out there and could do this again.
As the preeminent satirical publication in the United States (the New York Times doesn’t count, it thinks it’s being truthful), it would have been weird for The Onion to not comment at all. Because they’re pros, they didn’t try to express themselves in a purely humorous fashion. There is an ill-defined waiting period before even dark humor is appropriate (I was on stage as a young comic the night the Challenger blew up and saw some horrible “too soon” joke attempts, all of which failed miserably). This had a near perfect tone.
Here is the conclusion:
At press time, although the consequences of this article are reportedly still unclear and actual human lives may hang in the balance, sources confirmed that the best thing to do—really the only thing to do—is to simply put it out there and just hope that it does some good.
It was something they almost had, but probably didn’t want, to write and it was done exceedingly well.
(h/t The Week)
Yes, we take our right to free speech and expression for granted, but it is under assault here at home too. Sadly, this horrific incident today didn’t seem to wake up many (any?) of the politically correct appeasers of radical Islam.