» media

The PJ Tatler

Even the Washington Post Isn’t Buying Hillary’s Spin on Ducking Press

Monday, May 18th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Awkward family time…

With Hillary Clinton rapidly approaching a month since she answered a question from a reporter, her allies are working to push back on the idea that she is ducking the press.

“PUTTING THE VOTERS FIRST, HILLARY ASKS THE QUESTIONS THAT REALLY MATTER,” read the subject line of an e-mail — ALL CAPS in the original! — that arrived in my inbox this morning courtesy of Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton super PAC directly coordinating with the presidential campaign on rapid response.

The missive lays out the facts aimed at putting lie to the “she won’t answer questions” narrative.

First, Correct The Record notes that Clinton has answered 20 questions from “everyday Americans”: seven during her first trip to Iowa (she’s back in the state today), five during her New Hampshire excursion and a whopping eight when she visited Nevada.

Cillizza (with whom I often don’t agree) then proceeds to expose just how awfully lame this little story by Team Mrs. Bill is. A sampling:

It makes zero difference how many questions Clinton has asked average Americans. Like, none. If those people were running for president, then I would be super-interested to know how they responded to some (or maybe all) of Clinton’s 117 questions. But, they aren’t. She is. Citing the number of questions Clinton has asked of people to rebut the idea that she isn’t taking enough (or any) questions from reporters is sort of like saying you aced a job interview because you answered every question asked of you with another question. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?

It may not be anything that Hillary Clinton does that derails her inevitability parade, but what she doesn’t do. The same media types who are completely incurious about her various legally questionable activities are also upset that Grandma isn’t giving them any cookies.

This makes two things very clear:

1) Her staff knows she’s horrible when interacting with people and are keeping her distant and in controlled situations.

2) The Clintons haven’t entirely grasped the overwhelming changes in media since the 1990s or even since 2008.

When Hillary’s meal ticket was POTUS, the media were at the beginning of their evolutionary leap from journalists to ego-centric personalities. Yes, they are all leftists willing to play along for the agenda but the emotional little dears simply will not be ignored.

There is a growing feeling that the MSM is along for the ride because this is the only train running right now but they can’t wait for the next Barack Obama to show up out of practically nowhere so they can ditch the imperious Mrs. C. for someone who doesn’t scare the crap out of them.

Meanwhile, the Granny probably thinks she can get away with this for another year and a half.

Read bullet | 26 Comments »

(VIDEO) Legacy Media Democrat Mika Brzezinski Criticizes ABC’s Legacy Hiring of Stephanopolous

Monday, May 18th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

She may not have come directly from a Democratic administration into a “news” job, but she came from the loins of someone in a Democratic administration, which is the second easiest way to get a media job. She should be careful — her entire career is built upon a lack of judgment by her employers.

Read bullet | Comments »

Sinking In Ratings Quicksand, MSNBC Hosts Begin Clamoring For Hillary’s Attention

Friday, May 15th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

The Little Commie Network That Couldn’t hit a ten year low on Wednesday, to the chagrin of almost no one outside of New York, or Washington, D.C.

Desperate for any kind of attention now, its hosts are violating the Prime Directive about protecting Mrs. Bill from any unsavory interaction with the commoners and/or the media.

While other news organizations were busy deflecting from Hillary’s disdain for answering questions, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd both hit the airwaves in desperate attempts to get Grandma’s attention. Here are the videos:

Read bullet | Comments »

How Low Can They Go? MSNBC Hits Rock Bottom, Keeps Digging

Friday, May 15th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

Conservatives need to stop fretting about MSN-You-Can’t-BC-erious. Although it accurately reflects the habitual nastiness and impotent frustration of the moonbat Left, it’s now simply a loony bin for the craziest nutters in America not currently serving in the Obama administration:

Not only did The Ed Show hit a new low of 30K viewers in the 25-54 demo on Wednesday, but MSNBC had its lowest total day ratings in close to 10 years with 49K average viewers in the demo over the course of the day. The last time MSNBC saw demo ratings this low was on July 20, 2005 when it had 45K in total day. In primetime, MSNBC also came in third place with just 76K in the demo compared to 337K for Fox News and 196K for CNN.

Charts at the link above. By the way, Fox News fans, don’t get too cocky; relatively speaking, nobody’s watching Fox either.

Read bullet | Comments »

ABC News Should Be Ashamed

Thursday, May 14th, 2015 - by Debra Heine

The underhanded way ABC rolled out a controversial news story about one of its anchors today is disgraceful.

As Michael Walsh reported this morning, ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos gave $50,000 in undisclosed charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years. While the contributions were publicly available information, the host had not disclosed the conflict of interest to ABC viewers – until he was caught by Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon.

Stiles asked ABC for a comment, and while they were waiting for a reply, ABC leaked the story to Dylan Byers of Politico, who titled his story “George Stephanopoulos discloses $50,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation” (as if the idea to disclose was all Stephanopoulos’s).

WFB reported:

Stephanopoulos, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, confirmed the donation to POLITICO’s Dylan Byers after the Free Beacon contacted ABC News for comment. The host, who acknowledged making two donations of $25,000 between 2013 and 2014, issued a statement of apology for failing to disclose his contributions.

A half an hour after Politico’s story ran, ABC News sent a statement  to the Washington Free Beacon.

Tweets via Twitchy:

Disgraceful, but unfortunately par-for-the-course behavior from the media these days. If you were wondering what MSM coverage of Hillary Rodham Clinton will look like in 2016 (if she gets that far) this little episode should give you a pretty good idea.

Read bullet | Comments »

Partisan Hack Stephanopoulos, ABC ‘Newsman,’ Gave $50K to Clinton ‘Foundation’

Thursday, May 14th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

In the old days, before journalism became just another partisan political activity, this would be a firing offense:

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos has given $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their non-profit organization, the On Media blog has learned.

In both 2013 and 2014, Stephanopoulos made a $25,000 donation to the 501 nonprofit founded by former president Bill Clinton, the Foundation’s records show. Stephanopoulos never disclosed this information to viewers, even when interviewing author Peter Schweizer last month about his book “Clinton Cash,” which alleges that donations to the Foundation may have influenced some of Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State.

In a statement to the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos apologized and said that he should have disclosed the donations to ABC News and its viewers. ”I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply,” he said. “I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.”

And that, you can bet, will be that. Klassic Klinton, by the way: better to ask forgiveness than permission. And while we’re on the subject of the good old days, let’s observe that no way in hell should a partisan hack like Stephanopoulos ever have been hired by ABC News in the first place — unless, of course, ABC News is not really about news, but about partisan hackery:

Stephanopoulos is the chief anchor and chief political correspondent for ABC News, as well as the co-anchor of ABC’s “Good Morning America” and host of “This Week,” its Sunday morning public affairs program. Prior to joining ABC News, he served as communications director and senior advisor for policy and strategy to President Clinton. He also served as communications director on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

In its own statement on Thursday, ABC News said it was standing behind its star anchor. ”As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record,” the network’s statement read. “He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him.”

The contempt these people have for the American people is truly stunning. And what will the American people do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

WATCH: 2 ‘Jetmen’ Fly Over Dubai Wearing Rocket Packs

Thursday, May 14th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Yves Rossy, aka “Jetman,” and his buddy Jetman Dubai Vince took a flight over Dubai this week using Rossy’s own jetpacks. The footage alone is phenomenal, putting Disney’s Rocketeer to shame. The question is, how long will it be before these jet packs are commercially available for consumer use? After all, it is 2015. Weren’t we supposed to have flying cars by now?

Read bullet | Comments »

Media Bias 101: Politico Upset That Non-Candidate Walker Isn’t Taking Questions on Israel Tour

Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Despite the presence of a declared candidate for the 2016 presidential race who isn’t taking questions, Politico really wants its readers to know that Scott Walker isn’t talking to them this week.

Want to know what Scott Walker thinks about the Obama administration’s preliminary deal with Iran on its nuclear program? Or the composition of Israel’s new government? This week, you’re out of luck.

The Wisconsin governor, the current Republican front-runner in some early voting state polls, is in Israel until Thursday, but he isn’t taking questions. Stung by his own past gaffes and those of other Republican presidential hopefuls abroad, Walker has locked the media out of his Israel trip, moving to burnish his foreign policy credentials without actually talking about foreign policy.

Oh good, a “gaffes” mention too!

The reason Mrs. Bill doesn’t take a lot of questions is because she’s so gaffetastic that she should be relegated to a YouTube channel rather than running for president of the United States again. Also, it’s sexist #WarOnWomen bullying to point out that she can’t campaign and chew gum at the same time or that she’s an imperious shrew who is disdainful of the very same media that constantly goes to bat for her.

But that Walker guy who isn’t even a candidate yet? HOW DARE HE?!?!?

Scott Walker scares the Democrats, hence the devotion to his lack of press interaction replete with digs at his foreign policy experience.

You know who else the MSM hardly ever says anything negative about?

John Ellis Bush.

Read bullet | Comments »

University of Virginia Administrator Files Suit Against Rolling Stone

Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 - by The Tatler

The tabloid rag that is Rolling Stone is being sued for  running a debunked “gang rape” story at the University of Virginia campus. The magazine’s parent company and the author of the article are also being sued.  The suit asks for $7.85M in damages.

The lawsuit charged that Nicole Eramo, associate dean of students and top administrator in dealing with sexual assaults, was defamed by Rolling Stone, Wenner Media and reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely in the November 2014 article about an alleged 2012 gang rape at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

The article “A Rape on Campus” was the subject of immediate criticism when it was published last year. Eventually, the magazine started to walk back its claims about the subject matter and the student who was the source of the story.

Rolling Stone apologized in December for “discrepancies” in the account and admitted it never sought comment from seven men accused of the alleged rape.

The lawsuit charges

Erdely and Rolling Stone acted with actual malice when they published A Rape on Campus. Erdely and Rolling Stone knew that Jackie was not a reliable source for truthful information about her interactions with Dean Eramo. They had serious doubts about the truth of the disparaging claims they planned to make about Dean Eramo, but intentionally violated commonly accepted journalistic norms and consciously failed to investigate sources and information that they believed would have revealed the falsity of the charges they leveled. Erdely and Rolling Stone were intent on painting a narrative that depicted Dean Eramo as complicit in a cover up of Jackie’s allegations and, having made the decision to so accuse Dean Eramo, celebrated their preconceived narrative by including an intentionally doctored illustration of Dean Eramo that depicts her as callous toward a sexual assault victim sitting and crying in her office.

The Columbia Review of Journalism ripped the magazine for lapses in their editorial and reporting judgement last month.

The lawsuit, filed in state Circuit Court in Charlottesville, Virginia, said Rolling Stone, Wenner Media and Erdely aimed to depict the University of Virginia as indifferent to rape on campus.

“To personify the university’s alleged institutional indifference to rape, Erdely and Rolling Stone cast Dean Eramo, who met with and counseled Jackie (the alleged rape victim), as the chief villain of the story,” it said.

They falsely claimed that Eramo tried to persuade Jackie not to report the rape and that she was indifferent to her allegations, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit filed by attorney Tom Clare of Alexandria, Virginia, seeks at least $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

This isn’t the only lawsuit on the horizon for Rolling Stone. The fraternity at the center of the fake story has also said it is planning to sue the magazine.

Read bullet | Comments »

Pulitzer Prize Winner Hawks ‘Protocols of the Elders of the Anti-Islam Movement’ in the New Yorker

Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 - by Patrick Poole

A document entered into court evidence by Justice Department prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, and later cited affirmatively by the federal judge in the case and cleared by the federal appeals court, would seem an unlikely target for a former journalist to try to spin a conspiratorial tale around, namely slandering others of hawking a racist/”Islamphobic” “Protocols of the Elders of Islam.”

And yet that is what David K. Shipler, a former New York Times reporter and winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, is now trying to do.

Clearly upset that so-called “Islamophobes” have been successful using the document – again, discovered by the FBI, submitted into the evidence by federal prosecutors and approved as genuine by the federal court – to expose the Muslim Brotherhood roots of some of America’s largest Islamic organizations, Shipler wields his “Islamophobia” harpoon like Ahab at his “anti-Islam industry” Moby Dick.

He makes his dubious case in a new book out this week, entitled “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” (Alfred A. Knopf), which includes an entire chapter on the subject, and summarizes it in an article published on Tuesday in The New Yorker, “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement.” The book received a very lukewarm review in the New York Times this past Sunday.

In the New Yorker article, Shipler claims:

Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light.

Two features of the memo are highlighted by the Islam watchers: first, its assertion that “the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” and, second, “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” [emphasis added]

What’s remarkable about Shipler’s treatment of the Explanatory Memorandum in his article and in his book is how much he is willing to quickly dismiss facts that completely undo his case, and how he pays no attention to the glaring contradictions he ends up wrapping himself into trying to debunk the document. At major points he contradicts himself. He breezes over the mountain of evidence that he has to overcome, but that means he can’t plead ignorance of it. One is only left with the conclusion that he’s being intentionally mendacious.

I beg the reader’s indulgence, for I will quote lengthy passages and on occasions paste screenshots from the court documents themselves so you know I’m not engaged in anything dodgy. Tellingly, most of these quotes never appear in Shipler’s book, and if so, only in selectively edited form.

So let’s start with the evidence.

The document he is trying to cast doubts on is known generally as the “Explanatory Memorandum,” but it’s actual title is “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America.” The document is dated May 22, 1991, and was entered into evidence as “Elbarasse Search – 3″ by federal prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2008.

Helpfully, the federal court overseeing the case in an unusual move posted the trial evidence on their own website. The Explanatory Memorandum and the FBI translation of the document can be found here.

At this point, we can turn to what the Justice Department said in federal court about the Explanatory Memorandum. In one court filing, available on the ACLU’s website, federal prosecutors state (p. 12):

The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8 Govt. Exh. 3-64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ; Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government’s Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of “grand Jihad”:

The Ikhwan must understand that their role in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious…. [emphasis added]

So the Justice Department states that:

1) Two Islamic organizations – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – were created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (based on other trial evidence as well as the Explanatory Memorandum);

2) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni;

3) That the memo describes the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within.”

Now please note that these claims were not made by “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement” but the Justice Department in a federal court filing. He can tilt at all of the “anti-Islam” windmills he wants, but fundamentally he still has to explain away the court evidence.

And as stated earlier, much to the consternation of Shipler, the federal court agreed in a published opinion with the Justice Department’s analysis of the document when Judge Jorge Solis ruled on motions from three separate organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial — ISNA, NAIT, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — asking to be removed from the Justice Department’s co-conspirator list. The judge’s ruling against removing the groups from the unindicted co-conspirator list was unsealed in 2010.

In that ruling, Judge Solis states (p. 15):

Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and dated May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a section titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Id.) Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.)

So Judge Solis found that:

1) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by Mohamed Akram of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council;

2) That the document describes the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within”;

3) That the document lists the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” including ISNA and NAIT.

At this point Shipler laughably believes he has room to maneuver. In the New Yorker article and in his book, he makes three general claims:

1) That the judge blindly accepted the Justice Department’s argument about the origins and importance of the memo and never allowed adversarial challenges to its provenance;

2) That the Explanatory Memorandum was admitted as hearsay, meaning that the groups named in the memo were never allowed to challenge in court;

3) That the judge failed to distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.”

Let’s take these in order.

1) Judge Solis accepted the Justice Department’s description of the Explanatory Memorandum unquestioningly and never allowed adversarial challenges.

In discussing the order by Judge Solis in response to the motions of the three Islamic organizations, Shipler states in his book (p. 190):

CAIR and two other groups moved to have themselves removed from the list of unindicted co-conspirators, but the effort backfired and gave Islam watchers more ammunition. Not only was their motion denied by Judge Jorge Solis, who presided over the retrial, conviction, and sentencing of the five Holy Land Foundation defendants (the first trial had ended in a hung jury). He also accepted the government’s assertions by citing the seized Elbarasse documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum, without testing their accuracy in an adversarial proceeding. He did not distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.” He ruled, “The Government had produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], and NAIT [North American Islamic Trust] with HLF [Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” [emphasis added]

Remarkably, Shipler contradicts himself just a few pages later, quoting a defense attorney for the Holy Land Foundation defendants who said that the Elbarasse documents had, in fact, been challenged by the defense team (p. 198):

The defense team lodged vigorous objections to the introduction of this and the other documents from the Elbarasse search, and two attorneys on the defense team, Nancy Hollander and Marlo Cadeddu, scoffed at Guandolo’s statement. “There was no such stipulation by the defense,” said Cadeddu. “Nor would we ever have stipulated to any such thing. Any claims to the contrary are simply untrue.” Indeed, after the five Holy Land officials and fund-raisers were convicted, their lawyers argued specifically, in an unsuccessful appeal to the Fifth Circuit, that the trial judge had erred in admitting the documents, which the attorneys branded hearsay, irrelevant to the charge that the defendants had funneled money to Hamas. [emphasis added]

Read bullet | 20 Comments »

Politico Posts Dig at GOP over Amtrak Funding While Details of Tragedy Still Coming In

Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Here’s Politico editor Blake Hounshell’s tweet that he posted even before mentioning the casualties:

This is why it’s difficult to see the political landscape getting any better in America any time soon, if ever. The agenda and the narrative trump all for liberals.

Fatalities in a tragedy?

Yeah, yeah, we’ll get to those in a minute, gotta remind everyone that the Republicans want to cut the budget first.

There is no discussion with people who think it’s appropriate to launch into an infrastructure spending tirade even as first responders are just arriving on the scene of a tragedy. They truly believe this happened because evil Republicans kept just the magic amount of money away from Amtrak to make it safe.

They are all from the Krugman school of thought that says any federal spending that didn’t do the trick failed simply because enough wasn’t spent.

And then you’re on an infinity loop of tax dollar demands that isn’t even slowed down by the presence of dead bodies.

Read bullet | Comments »

The New York Times Begins Publishing On Facebook Tomorrow

Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

The Grey Lady’s death rattle?

Tomorrow morning, in what marks a tectonic shift in the publishing industry, the New York Times is expected to officially begin a long-awaited partnership with Facebook to publish articles directly to the social media giant, a source with direct knowledge of the talks told me. According to people familiar with the negotiations, the Times will begin publishing select articles directly into Facebook’s news feed. Buzzfeed, NBC News and NatGeo are said to be also joining the roll out, among others.

The deal raises all sorts of knotty questions for the Times. How many articles will Facebook get to publish per day? What is the revenue sharing breakdown? How does the Times protect the independence of its journalism, say, if the paper runs a hard-hitting investigation on Facebook? And what happens when the Times allows Facebook to insert itself between its journalism and its readers?

Not surprisingly, the prospect of a Facebook partnership is generating palpable anxiety inside the Times newsroom, with some Times journalists casting it as an end-of-the-Times-as-we-know-it inflection point. When rumors of a deal surfaced last October, the Times’ late media columnist David Carr articulated this view, writing “the wholesale transfer of content sends a cold, dark chill down the collective spine of publishers, both traditional and digital insurgents alike.”

Many will say that this is the final nail in the coffin of what we used to call journalism. Just as many will probably posit that leftist bias buried it so long ago the coffin has already begun rotting.

Whatever the actual case may be, one thing is for certain, that air of exclusivity and swagger is gone now. Every displaced New Yorker’s favorite Sunday affection in Los Angeles is now slumming it alongside BuzzFeed and sponsored ads for a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. It’s just now adopting a distribution channel that drunk college girls made famous ten years ago.

While this may very well breathe new financial life into the Times, it certainly can’t be a good sign for newspapers or journalism in general. What was once a news destination is now arm-wrestling NatGeo for the attention of people who just want to see if they’re missing any friends’ birthdays.

The Times‘ management wants to keep its digital subscriber base and somehow thinks it will protect the content that lures them all the while throwing Facebook enough “news” to keep Zuckerberg and company happy.

Good luck with that.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert Convinced D.C. Media Are Conspiring with GOP Against Hillary

Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

This is too rich. The house monkey shared by George Soros and David Brock isn’t known for his intellectual prowess, but now he’s gone full Alex Jones with the conspiracy stuff. If you happen to find someone outside of the MMFA offices who believes the MSM is doing the bidding of the Republicans, get them to neurologist immediately.

 

Read bullet | 12 Comments »

University of Virginia Dean Sues Rolling Stone Over Fake Rape Story

Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Justice maybe???

A University of Virginia associate dean of students filed a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone on Tuesday, alleging that the magazine portrayed her as callous and indifferent to allegations of sexual assault on campus and made her the university’s “chief villain” in a now-debunked story about a fraternity gang rape.

Nicole Eramo is seeking more than $7.5 million in damages from Rolling Stone, its parent company Wenner Media and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the investigative journalist who wrote the explosive account of sexual assault on the campus in Charlottesville, Va. The magazine retracted the story after news organizations and the Columbia University journalism school found serious flaws in it.

Yes, WaPo, there usually are “serious flaws” in a hoax, but kudos to you for keeping the false narrative limping along well after it’s been blown out of the water.

There is quite a laundry list of people who should be suing the magazine (those still exist?) over this deliberate targeting of innocent people. Let’s hope they all get their day in court.

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

How Awful Was Mark Halperin’s Ted Cruz Interview? Think Progress Called Him Out On It

Monday, May 11th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

UPDATE: HALPERIN SORT OF APOLOGIZES

Many were upset after Mark Halperin plumbed the depths of hack partisan journalism while interviewing Ted Cruz.

It turns out he was so awful that even Think Progress couldn’t stomach it.

Here’s the headline:

The Prize For The Most Racist Interview Of A 2016 Candidate Goes To Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin

Ouch. It’s gotta hurt when someone like Halperin, who is so deep in the tank for leftists he long ago grew gills, gets called the “R” word.

Does this mean there are going to be some new ground rules for covering minority candidates who are Republican? Probably not. It’s more likely that Halperin is so awful that he’s going to get eaten by his own. Imagine Chris Hayes with even less personality or on-camera skill and you’ve got Halperin.

It was a strange couple of days, however, as Salon posted something sort of sensible about Islam, free speech and how the Left doesn’t get it.

Maybe the Apocalypse really is upon us.

Read bullet | Comments »

True Tolerance Means Tolerance of Hate

Monday, May 11th, 2015 - by Walter Hudson

Appearing on the “All Star Political Panel” segment of Twin Cities Public Television’s Almanac on Friday, I fielded a question from host Eric Eskola regarding a newly proposed Freedom of Conscience bill presented by a Minnesota state representative earlier in the week. Referencing that morning’s episode of the Fightin Words podcast, Eskola asked why I thought this attempt at securing religious liberty for Christian business owners was doomed to failure.

In short, I noted that the argument for Freedom of Conscience rests upon shaky rhetorical ground. It seeks to preserve the freedom to deny service in a very limited context, conceding that such freedom shouldn’t exist in any other context. If people have the right to apply their judgment to their relationships, that right applies to all relationships, whether personal or commercial, and whether motivated by religion or not.

Former state senator Ellen Anderson, who sat with me on the panel, took exception to my interpretation. She noted that similar rationale has been used in the past to argue for a right to discriminate against customers on the basis of race.

Unfortunately, the segment had to end there. Given the opportunity to further the discussion, I would have argued that true tolerance requires us to allow that which we disapprove of. Indeed, private racial discrimination should be legal. Hate cannot be overcome with rights violations. It can only be neutered by removing coercion from human relationships. In a world where no one may legally take from or harm another, hatred simply doesn’t matter.

As it stands, my defense of freedom provoked the ire of gay rights activist Steven Lewandowski, who took to Twitter offering rebuke:

It remains unclear what news item or aspect of business changes the fundamental right to freedom of association, which gay rights activists rode to victory in their successful campaign for gay marriage in Minnesota. “Don’t limit the freedom to marry” read lawn signs peppering the Twin Cities in the fall of 2012 when voters considered an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Apparently for some, that freedom to choose with whom one associates only matters in the context of gay marriage.


Subscribe to Fightin Words liberty radio for free, available on iTunes or RSS feed.

Read bullet | Comments »

Newspaper Very Upset That Chris Christie Spent Money Earmarked For Entertainment On…Entertainment

Friday, May 8th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

“Journalism”

Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has champagne tastes on a public budget.

The Garden State boss and potential presidential hopeful burned through $85,000 in taxpayer cash on entertainment in luxury boxes at sports arenas between 2010 and 2012, the Associated Press reported.

“The money came from an account, worth $95,000 a year, that Christie can use to pay for official entertainment or other expenses associated with his job,” according to the report, based on documents the AP obtained via the Garden State’s open records law.

There are all kinds of things that discerning people can fault Chris Christie for but taking advantage of money earmarked for a specific purpose isn’t one of them. It’s perfectly legitimate to think the existence of the fund is unnecessary, but the headline and first line of the article are implying that Christie has been caught in some sort of “Gotcha!” wrongdoing.

Public officials spend taxpayer money for entertainment all the time. It would be nice if the taxpayers would stop electing people who allow this to be so.

Read bullet | Comments »

CIA-Backed, ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrians … Now Openly Working with Al-Qaeda

Friday, May 8th, 2015 - by Patrick Poole

As I have reported extensively here at PJ Media over the past year, a growing mountain of evidence confirms that the “vetted moderate” Sunni groups that the U.S. has backed in Syria — backing which includes CIA-provided heavy weaponry – have always been working with the very same jihadist groups that the Obama administration and the Washington, D.C. foreign policy “smart set” have consistently claimed they would counter.

Now, a new report establishes that even more CIA-backed “vetted moderate” groups are collaborating with groups designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Specifically, they are collaborating with al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, though at times they have also operated jointly with the Islamic State.

Reuters reported last Thursday that two Free Syrian Army (FSA) units — Division 13 and Fursan al-Haq — are fighting side-by-side with the Nusra Front in northern Syria:

Hardline Islamists fighting side-by-side with groups backed by the United States have made gains in northern Syria in recent weeks while showing rare unity, which some fear may be short-lived.

An Islamist alliance calling itself Army of Fatah, a reference to the conquests that spread Islam across the Middle East from the seventh century, has seized northwestern towns including the provincial capital Idlib from government forces.

The alliance, which includes al-Qaeda’s wing in Syria, known as the Nusra Front, and another hardline militant group, the Ahrar al-Sham movement, is edging closer to the coastal province of Latakia, President Bashar al-Assad’s stronghold.

Fighting alongside them, although excluded from a joint command center, are groups which reject the jihadists’ anti-Western aims and say they receive covert support from the CIA. Two of these are called Division 13 and Fursan al-Haq.

While the Islamist groups appear to be stronger than their Western-backed allies, it is a rare example of cooperation, just weeks after Nusra Front fighters crushed a previous U.S. backed rebel force in a blow to Washington’s Syria strategy.

Remarkably, Reuters (as well as many other establishment media outlets) continues to present this level of cooperation between U.S.-backed groups in Syria and terrorist organizations as “rare.”

This is categorically false.

In an effort to preserve that narrative, Reuters added this howler:

Abu Hamoud, a commander from Division 13, said his group coordinated with Nusra Front, which the United States considers a terrorist organization, but this does not mean it is aligned to it.

As if “coordinating” with al-Qaeda is functionally different from “aligning” with al-Qaeda.

In service of this narrative, establishment media have attempted to create distinctions between Nusra and other U.S.-backed groups. Reports have noted that the Nusra Front had recently taken out two of the major Syrian rebel groups, Harakat al-Hazm (in March) and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (in November), and that both had been trained and received heavy weapons from the United States. However, both groups had been openly cooperating with Nusra before their demise.

Both Hazm and SRF had their “vetted moderate” credentials provided by the D.C. foreign policy establishment, which deemed Hazm as “rebels worth supporting” and SRF as “the West’s best fighting chance against Syria’s Islamist armies.”

Last year, just as SRF was in line to receive CIA-provided anti-tank missiles, SRF commander Jamal Maroof told Western media that he had no intention of fighting al-Qaeda.

A few weeks later, the Wall Street Journal reported that SRF had been fighting alongside the Nusra Front in the Golan Heights of southern Syria. In September, Agence France Presse reported that SRF had struck a truce with the Islamic State, thus ending any notion that they ever had a chance “against Syria’s Islamist armies.”

When Liz Sly of the Washington Post interviewed the commander of Hazm in April 2014 just as they were beginning to receive heavy weapons shipments from the U.S., the commander gave a double-sided response about Nusra:

LS: You have already participated in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. What are your relations with Jabhat al-Nusra?

AA: Jabhat al-Nusra is a military formation, a fighting battalion that exists on the ground like any other. We have no strong or meaningful relationship with them. They fight on their fronts, and we fight on ours.

LS: What do you think of them?

AA: They hold responsibility for bringing ISIS fighters to Syria from across the world. This was a mistake committed against the Syrian people. I think of them as a group of people fighting to topple the regime, but if they change their ideology to resemble that of ISIS or bring death and destruction upon the Syrian people, then we won’t allow it.

In September, an article in the L.A. Times reporting from the frontlines in Syria recorded an exchange with two Hazm fighters armed and trained by the U.S. The fighters admitted that they liked Nusra and fought in coordination with them.

Just a few weeks later, as U.S. warplanes began to target the Islamic State in northern SyriaHazm issued an official statement condemning the strikes as “an attack on the revolution” Of the U.S., they demanded “unconditional arming” of the Syrian rebels.

Read bullet | 17 Comments »

LAPD Chief Beck Throws Officer Involved in Venice Shooting Under the Bus Before Any Investigation

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

This guy…

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck on Wednesday addressed the death of an unarmed homeless man fatally shot by an officer following a confrontation near the historic Venice sign, saying the shooting concerned him and an investigation was underway.

Brendon Glenn, 29, was the individual killed by police late Tuesday night, according to a man who runs the Teen Project’s drop-in center for homeless youth in Venice.

Beck said in a Wednesday afternoon news conference that he had reviewed video of the shooting and he did not see evidence that indicated extreme circumstances that could prompt an officer to open fire.

“Any time an unarmed person is shot by a Los Angeles police officer, it takes extraordinary circumstances to justify that, and I have not seen those extraordinary circumstances at this point,” Beck said.

The reason this hasn’t blown up in the news yet is because both the officer and the deceased are black, so it only fits Joan Walsh’s narrative at this point.

What Beck is thinking here is beyond comprehension. In the wake of Baltimore, and just a few days after an officer in New York was murdered, why would he make a statement like this? There are well -established police procedures which may very well find fault with the officer, but allow them to proceed. Why stir up anti-cop sentiment when you’re the head cop?

It’s just plain irresponsible for Beck to not have chosen his words more carefully at a time when lives are at risk in large (liberal) cities.

Then again, Beck is a liberal darling on matters of immigration, so he’s probably just doing his part to keep the lefty narrative alive.

Read bullet | 21 Comments »

Obama Proves Campus Rape Is Good for Business

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Reporting of sex crimes on college campuses has nearly doubled in the last five years. Not because the crimes have necessarily occurred, as last year’s Rolling Stone/UVA debacle illustrated quite clearly. Oh, and not because there are standardized procedures for collecting and reporting sexual offenses, either. And, as a recent National Review article indicates, numbers can be played with or outright omitted in order to create fantastic headlines, like the absurd 1 in 5 stat  cited by President Obama’s It’s On Us campaign to stop sexual assault on college campuses. Yet these drummed-up numbers continue to be used to drag the dead horse of campus rape out of the contemporary feminist barn and into the mainstream media’s spotlight. Why?

Money, of course:

The number of Title IX sexual violence complaints received by the department jumped from just 20 in fiscal year 2009 to 123 in fiscal 2014. As of April 8, 2015 — a little over halfway through the current fiscal year — the department had received 68 such complaints.

However, the number of staff has been falling at the Office for Civil Rights, which is tasked with enforcing Title IX.

…President Barack Obama’s proposed fiscal 2016 budget would increase the Office for Civil Rights’ funding by 31 percent to $131 million, which the Education Department has said it would use to hire 210 full-time employees.

That’s 210 more employees who will be used to threaten colleges with too many complaints on file:

The Office for Civil Rights staff have said in the past that their priority is taking corrective action, rather than punishing a school. In the Boxer letter, they note they have “experienced positive results” on that score using their ability to threaten federal funding if an institution doesn’t fall in line.

Building bureaucracy on your tax dollars, one questionable accusation at a time.

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

The United States Has Become a Dictatorship of Double Standards

Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 - by Robert Wargas

Even as I write this, I can feel the Overton Window shifting. Let the record show that when a death squad descended on Pamela Geller’s event in Texas with the aim of killing Geller for speaking freely, the “mainstream” response was to provide the death squad with golden parachutes of sophistry and moral equivalence. It was the finest of East Coast intellectual output.

I’ve lost count of how many sophistic articles have been published so far, but surely one of the most egregious came from Noah Feldman, JD, PhD, at Bloomberg View. In opening paragraphs so glib they seem to have oozed out of some used car salesman’s Brylcreemed pompadour, Feldman writes:

It’s easy to be distracted by the condemnation of the crime, which should be absolute. No verbal provocation can justify killing.

But it’s also easy to be distracted by the First Amendment.

Why do people write this kind of thing? What compels someone to consider a case of attempted terrorist murder, arising from the “provocation” of cartoons, and then devote all his forensic acumen to saying, essentially, “Hey! Look over there!”

I wrote last week that the enemies of free speech are slowly nudging their target into the identity-politics framework. In this worldview, there are Oppressors and the Oppressed, and the roles are irreversible. It’s all narrative: the interlocking assumptions that determine how people interpret real-world events. The identity-politics framework sees American society (all of Western civilization, in fact) as a structure, a machine expertly tuned to produce benefits only for the Oppressor. Some people always win; some always lose. Thus Geller is the real aggressor, even when she’s being shot at. The death squad was merely reacting to overwhelming forces within the structure.

This is the basic logic behind most of our contemporary debate, such as it is, on everything from free speech to immigration to race riots to voter ID laws. There are hard and soft versions of it. Some people come right out and say that the Oppressed should use violence against their Oppressors. This group is often very theoretical, using the unwieldy concepts and jargon they learned in their cultural studies courses. You see them at places like (of course) Salon and The Nation and the post-Peretz New Republic.

Others channel their narrative in a softer, mealy mouthed way, usually with the well practiced preamble “I believe in X, but…,” X being some bedrock value of our country. This latter group is less explicit about their assumptions, probably because they don’t know they have them. You’ll find these people at the more “mainstream” media outlets.

Whether they’re “hards” or “softs”—we could use the old Thatcherite terminology of “wets” and “dries” if you want—the people who argue this way have particular beliefs about power in our country. This is why charging them with hypocrisy never works. After incidents like the Geller event, many conservatives go straight to work documenting the double standard. We’re not allowed to draw Mohammed, the alleged prophet of Islam, but others are allowed to depict Jesus submerged in urine. These articles are necessary, but you’ll have noticed they don’t move the apologist crowd even one inch.

There’s a reason for this. In the identity-politics framework, double standards are necessary and justified. They are a way of balancing the unequal power distribution in the United States. (Trust me that I hate writing sentences with phrases like that.) Just as affirmative action is supposed to correct structural injustice in the economy, gagging people is necessary to stop the “oppression” of designated victim groups. Think of the new obsession with “trigger warnings” and “safe places” on university campuses. This crowd sees free speech as one more tool of power in the Oppressor’s handy box.

Something else is going on here, however, regarding Geller’s treatment in the media.

Read bullet | 88 Comments »

DNC Sanctions 6 Televised Opportunities For MSM To Not Ask Hillary Any Real Questions

Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

For you fans of bad theater…

The Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday that they will sanction six presidential debates beginning this fall, giving Hillary Clinton’s challengers a limited number of chances to confront the former secretary of state on the debate stage.

“We’ve always believed that we would have a competitive primary process, and that debates would be an important part of that process,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a press release.

The mere fact that Wasserman-Schultz is still in charge should give Republicans plenty of hope, no matter how much “inevitable” the press and the GOP establishment tell us Mrs. Bill is.

Team Clinton and those in the press committed to her election (everyone but the New York Times it would seem) have done a lot of work laying the ground rules for what her Divine Madameship can be asked or called. Fourteenth Century kings didn’t have as many dos and don’ts. By the time the DNC’s Kabukifest hits the airwaves the moderators may only be allowed to say, “Thank you for being here, Secretary Clinton.”

The upside to this for both her Democratic challengers and the Republicans is that any prolonged exposure (more than 5 minutes, usually) to a camera in a live setting is usually disastrous for the least likable woman in the world. There is the story of Hillary Clinton, then there is Hillary Clinton herself. One is nice and one frightens children.

Of course, the media entities involved will do all they can to keep these debates as close to round table script readings as possible to provide Hillary some cover. They can’t, however, control that pinched, angry look she flashes whenever the slightest thing in the universe fails to show her deference.

Younger voters who have only heard the story of Hillary Clinton until now will find sleep a bit less forthcoming once they see that.

Read bullet | Comments »

Report: MSNBC Shows of Alex Wagner, Ed Schultz, and Chris Hayes Facing the Axe

Monday, May 4th, 2015 - by Debra Heine

Are the heads of Alex Wagner, Ed Schultz, and Chris Hayes on the chopping block at White House cable news organ MSNBC?

According to Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell, the new NBC News president is asking the three programs to prove that they’re viable.  NBC News honcho Andrew Lack is reportedly showing up at MSNBC editorial meetings held by Phil Griffin and sources say he’s “underwhelmed” with what he sees.

Mediaite has learned that Lack is now beginning to take an active role in the herculean task of trying to right that left-leaning ship: Specifically, Lack is now often attending MSNBC chief Phil Griffin‘s 11:30 a.m. editorial meetings; and, to quote one witness, Lack regularly appears “underwhelmed” with the story pitches.

A couple of weeks ago, the executive producers of Now with Alex Wagner, The Ed Show, and All In with Chris Hayes were told to prepare “sizzle reels” of the best their programs have to offer. Theoretically, this exercise will help them identify what works best on their respective shows but, in reality, our sources say, any or all of these shows could soon be on the chopping block. The senior staffs of all three programs, we are told, are now concerned that their days are numbered.

Mediaite has also been told that Lack is considering a total overhaul of MSNBC’s daytime programming. The days of Lack’s predecessor Patricia Fili-Krushel deferring to Griffin’s judgment on programming are, according to our sources, officially over.

The progressive network dumped the shows of Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid a few months ago due to their poor ratings.  Wagner, Shultz and Hayes may soon follow in their footsteps for the same reason.  But the unnamed elephant in the room is the Reverend Al  Sharpton, whose show Politics Nation also consistently suffers from poor ratings.

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

At least implied in the Mediaite report, Politics Nation with Al Sharpton isn’t under the same level of scrutiny — yet. However, a new report from National Review’s Jillian Kay Melchior might change that. Sharpton has featured union officials after having received hefty donations to his charity National Action Network, itself under fire for its questionable practices:

Since Politics Nation debuted on MSNBC on August 29, 2011, Al Sharpton’s nonprofit National Action Network has collected more than $2.38 million in contributions from unions, according to Department of Labor records. Meanwhile, Sharpton has often used his show to promote pro-labor viewpoints, also inviting union leadership on as guests. …

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we’re talking about “payola,” which is heavily frowned upon in the news business.

If Andrew Lack is serious about putting MSNBC on a path toward respectability (and the higher ratings that come with it), Al Sharpton will need to go, too.

 

 

Read bullet | Comments »

The Gaslighting of America: No, Police Shootings Are Not Way Up

Monday, May 4th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh
YouTube Preview Image

The MSM would have you believe that’s true. And by “MSM” I mean, of course, the fons et origo of leftist memes, the New York Times, which uses both its news and opinion columns to push the latest PC-think whenever possible. Every now and then, though — just to preserve whatever remains of their tattered reputations for factual accuracy — they have to run a story like this:

Police Killings Rise Slightly, Though Increased Focus May Suggest Otherwise

Their names have become both a litany and rallying cry: Michael Brown. Tamir Rice. Eric Garner. Walter L. Scott. And now Freddie Gray. Since Mr. Brown was fatally shot in an encounter with a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in August, so many unarmed black males have died in police confrontations that even President Obama noted this week that “it comes up, it seems like, once a week now, or once every couple of weeks.” Calling such encounters “a slow-rolling crisis, he added, “This is not new and we should not pretend it is.”

But determining the prevalence of such killings is no easy matter. The use of force by the police — against minorities and whites alike — is so poorly monitored that there is no precise accounting of how many citizens are killed, much less their ethnicity or other crucial details.

What official data exists suggests that the number of killings by police officers has crept upward only slowly, if at all, in recent years. Since 2009, one regular if incomplete measure, the F.B.I.’s account of justifiable homicides by police officers, ranged from 397 to 426 deaths annually before jumping to 461 in 2013, the latest reporting year…

A number of criminologists believe police homicides are near their nadir. In New York City, for example, 91 people were fatally shot by police officers in 1971 — and a record-low eight in 2013, the last year for which figures are available. In Los Angeles, officers used “categorical” force — gunfire, chokings and other violence that could lead to death — in 84 of nearly 149,000 arrests in 2012, down 17 percent in seven years.

That data suggests that any perception that higher numbers of unarmed African-Americans are being killed by the police in recent months is driven by citizens’ postings of unsettling cellphone videos and pictures, like that of police officers dragging Freddie Gray, his legs apparently not working, into a van.

In this way, they can point to the morgue and say, hey, we reported that, and then go right on pushing the Narrative that the cops have declared open season on “unarmed black men” on the op-ed page. As the newspaper editor says in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

 

 

Read bullet | Comments »

How Will the Republicans Combat Vagina Politics?

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Brendan O’Neill (who will receive flack for his opinion because he has a penis) nails it (as I will receive flack for this innuendo-laden metaphor) over at Reason when it comes to women declaring unwavering support for Hillary simply because she, too has a vagina:

The bigger problem with such unabashed declarations of “vagina voting” is that they confirm the descent of feminism into the cesspool of identity politics, even biologism, and its abandonment of the idea that women should be valued more for their minds than their anatomy.

How can contemporary feminists get away with applying the same reasoning that has kept women out of the Oval Office for over 200 years? 2008, of course.

The current president’s victory was celebrated as the watershed moment for black men in America. Thanks to him, Loretta Lynch is the “first black woman” to hold her post as attorney general. The majority of Americans who don’t follow the news beyond the nightly national broadcast don’t know a thing about Lynch beyond the fact that she is black and a woman. Qualifications? Experience? Who cares. Black. Woman. That’s all we need to know. Instagram it and move on.

In an increasingly visual culture, what candidates will the Republicans proffer to fit the demographic bill? Even Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are too white and too male for this tough crowd. If they took a few lessons from Sofia Vergara they might stand half a chance. You know, jazz up that accent, tease the hair, get loud with the wardrobe, be ethnic. Sure, it was a strategy that kept your demographic out of office for the past 200 years, but times have changed. Race is in. Desi Arnaz would stand a better chance than these family values-laden dudes.

O’Neill rightly observes that “…modern feminism is pooping all over the suffragettes, who fought tooth-and-nail against the valuation of their viscera over their brains.” Perhaps that is the new campaign strategy. After all, if Obama and Lynch can screw with MLK’s “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” clause, why can’t Rubio, Cruz and the rest of the Republicans put race back into the race?

Read bullet | 32 Comments »

Harvard Law School Students Are in Distress Over Evil Cops

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Harvard Law students staged what I suppose was meant to be a “protest” against police violence, sticking a series of upside-down American flags into the ground with the names of those killed by police in the first few months of 2015. No details of each case are given, leading one to believe that each killing was essentially a murder in the name of law enforcement.

Note, this is the same law school that nearly honored a female lawyer whose organization was involved in the creation of a “notorious, anti-cop rap video” in February. Last year, the prestigious Ivy League university permitted law school students to postpone final exams so that they could adequately focus on protesting the non-indictments of cops in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, a decision that set a precedent for law schools in the Baltimore area.

Recently the law school devoted a conference to “tackling” what has been dubbed “implicit racial bias” in the legal profession: “…how cognitive processes are unconsciously formed and affected by biases and prejudices that can be ingrained from years of social learning and by negative stereotypes.” In other words, these law students are being convinced that the system is inherently racist. The question becomes, what kind of biases will they be carrying out of the classroom and into the court room?

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Muslim Congressmen Exhibit Outrageous Hypocrisy in Trying to Ban Dutch Politician Geert Wilders from U.S.

Friday, May 1st, 2015 - by Patrick Poole

Last week, two Muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN), sent a letter to the State Department requesting that they deny a visa to Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders was coming to Washington, D.C. for a Capitol Hill event sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA).

Unsuccessful in their attempts to have Wilders banned, Ellison, Carson and their associates from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tried to disrupt a press conference on free speech with Wilders, Gohmert, and King in front of the U.S. Capitol yesterday. Ellison promoted their actions on Twitter:

Leave aside the spurious legal reasoning they employed to try to deny Wilders a visa, aptly refuted by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, and that their attempts to tie Wilders to Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik had been thoroughly debunked by none other than Breivik himself. What makes the pair’s anti-free speech behavior so outrageously hypocritical is that they both have stood silent as the Obama administration has allowed a long line of extremists, and even members of terrorist organizations, to enter the United States.

Even worse, the two Muslim congressmen have regularly promoted and associated with organizations that have been designated as terrorist organizations, and individuals and groups that have been tagged in federal court by the Justice Department.

For instance, in May 2012 a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (still a designated terrorist organization), Hani Nour Eldin, was allowed to enter the U.S. and was even escorted into the White House for a private meeting with Obama’s national security staff. Ellison and Carson didn’t utter a word in protest.

Nor did they express the slightest concern when members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were given VIP treatment typically reserved for visiting dignitaries at JFK Airport.

When Sudanese genocide henchman Nafie Ali Nafie (aka “Nafie the Butcher”) was given a visa by the State Department in 2013, the Muslim congressmen again were mute.

And nothing was said when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress in July 2012 that she would allow more members of terrorist organizations into the country.

Their voice was also absent following the news last year that the Clinton State Department maintained a terrorist “hands-off” list for entry into the U.S., revealed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), or as Homeland Security continued to stonewall congressional requests for information on such terrorist “hands-off” lists.

So Ellison and Carson have deemed Geert Wilders, who has been subject to repeated threats from Islamic terror organizations and has had to live with 24/7 security for more than a decade, a greater threat than members of terrorist groups, genocidal henchmen, and Islamic extremists.

That glaring silence might be telling of where their sympathies really lie, if it weren’t for their open and unashamed support of terrorist fronts and cheerleaders. As I reported here at PJ Media late last December, Carson was scheduled to appear at the 2014 Muslim American Society (MAS)-Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual conference on a Ferguson panel with Mazen Mokhtar, an individual that federal agents had testified in federal court had operated an Al-Qaeda website to raise money for the Taliban.

Carson’s appearance at the MAS-ICNA event was not only promoted on the conference website, but also in the conference program:

Carson-Moktar750

A few days later, Carson tried to walk back his appearance at the conference, claiming he didn’t speak on the panel with Mokhtar. However, Carson never addressed the fact that the conference itself was Mohktar’s. (Mokhtar is currently executive directtor of the primary conference sponsor, MAS).

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Forget About Why they Aren’t: Why Are Women Having Children? And What Can Politicians Do to Support Their Decision?

Thursday, April 30th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

The Atlantic published the most recent in a whole slew of articles on why women aren’t having children. (Google “Why women are having children” and you’ll get the entire mind-boggling list.) The reasons are prototypical contemporary feminist blather about the evil stain that humanity is on the environment and how they just don’t want to have kids. Apparently the selfishness inherent in not wanting to care for another human being is perfectly justified by the selflessness of caring about grass, trees and greenhouse emissions. Environmentalism, combined with a healthy love of animals, is the salvation-du jour of the not-mothering crowd.

In reality, these baby-less babes represent a mere 5% of Americans who, according to a 2013 Gallup poll, do not want to have children. According to Gallup, “More than half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 40 have children, and another 40% do not currently, but hope to have children someday. Only six percent of Americans aged 18 to 40 do not have, and do not want to have, children.”

The real question becomes: In the face of all this popular criticism, why are women still choosing to become mothers today? And what real solutions can politicians anxious to imbue family values into American culture generate to support the parenting desires of the electorate?

Read bullet | 21 Comments »

VFW: CNN Host’s Comment About Vets ‘as Unacceptable as It Is Insulting’

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

The Veterans of Foreign Wars isn’t ready to let a CNN host off the hook for comments she made about returning veterans having complicity in police violence.

“I was talking to the city councilman last week,” Brooke Baldwin said Tuesday while reporting from Baltimore. “He said, ‘Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There’s a lack of emotional investment.’ And a lot of young people — and I’ve been talking about this so much. A lot of young people — and I love our nation’s veterans, but some are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they’re ready to do battle.”

After outcry over her remarks, Baldwin made an on-air apology today.

“I absolutely misspoke,” Baldwin said on CNN’s New Day this morning. “I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning … I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans — to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry.”

She offered another apology at the beginning of her afternoon show.

“No one wants peace more than those who wear the badge and those who wear the uniform,” VFW National Commander John W. Stroud said in a statement after Baldwin’s apology. “To have someone in the press make a personal statement that, apology or not, accuses military veterans as being the aggressors is as unacceptable as it is insulting.”

“Our country should celebrate the fact that highly trained and motivated veterans are choosing to continue serving their nation and communities as police officers — a profession, just like the military, that most Americans would fail even the most basic entrance requirements,” Stroud said. “Journalistic standards should demand better than accusatory statements made without any facts or reality.”

The VFW is asking its members to view Baldwin’s original comments, listen to her apology, “then if so compelled, to let her know your thoughts through CNN’s viewer feedback link here.”

Read bullet | 26 Comments »

How Sex Ed Screwed Millennial Women

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Camille Paglia once suggested that real sex education would involve sitting a tween girl down and giving her a stark reality check. Forget condoms on bananas. The real issue would be: Do you want to have babies or not? Then, let the life planning begin.

Instead, what the majority of millennial students received via public education were the basics on how to avoid pregnancy and STDs (as if you can lump a new life in with a gross disease) along with a strong push to plan for a career before thinking about having a family. America is now reaping the fruits of an entire generation of public labor:

In a new report, the Urban Institute think tank writes that in 2012, there were only 948 births per 1,000 women in their 20s, “by far the slowest pace of any generation of young women in U.S. history.” …The report authors say they don’t know whether Millennial women will eventually catch up in childbearing like women who lived through past recessions did.

Overall, the report paints a positive picture for women of color and a neutral one for white women. On one hand, women might be enjoying living carefree and childless into their 30s. On the other, a nationwide shortage of babies hasn’t worked out well for places like Germany, Denmark, or Japan, where aging populations threaten economic growth and the sustainability of pension funds.

Eighty-one percent of white women are experiencing a decrease in birth rate because they simply aren’t marrying. These career women are living out their Carrie Bradshaw or Hannah Horvath fantasies without realizing that they are de-funding the very socialized economy for which they so heartily advocate. All that free birth control won’t be so free if they don’t produce a new generation of babies to pay for it down the road.

What’s more, these women are inevitably relying on a paternal government that will take care of them well into their old age. Considering that the public education system has already trained them to economically produce, the question becomes: If they require more care than they are financially worth, what makes their aging bodies a good public investment?

Read bullet | 29 Comments »

Brian Williams Deploys Big Guns as NBC News, MSNBC Revenues Hit Skids

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

The embattled NBC News anchor, who survived both D-Day and the Inchon Landing, is digging in:

Talks between the exiled anchor and NBCUniversal have recently become tense — with the 55-year-old newsman saying he will not have his “NBC Nightly News” job taken away without a battle, The Post has learned. “Brian is saying he’s not going down without a fight and [is] threatening to make it really ugly — worse than Ann Curry,” a source close to NBC told The Post.

In 2013, Curry departed NBC’s “Today” in a downpour of negative publicity. She made a teary, emotional on-air goodbye as co-host Matt Lauer looked on awkwardly. Curry and Williams are both represented by a pit bull lawyer — Bob Barnett at Williams & Connolly. “They want Brian to resign,” said one source. “If they have to fire him, they can’t control him.”

Just another day on the beaches for the one-percent talking head/college dropout/ Flashman manque who gets paid millions to read a teleprompter and pretend to be a dashing war correspondent. Hey, he’s been in tougher spots than this!

On April 24, the newest findings from NBC’s internal probe — which turned up 11 instances of Williams stretching the truth — were leaked. Three days later, a pro-Williams report surfaced saying NBC News boss Andy Lack was looking for ways to save his beleaguered anchor. On Tuesday, the anti-Williams faction seemed to fight back — telling the Hollywood Reporter that Lack is not convinced Williams can return. And so it goes.

Meanwhile, back in the corporate trenches, the grunts at NBC and its bastard idiot child, MSNBC, are taking some heavy shelling:

NBC Universal’s flagship broadcast channel and cable news network both saw declining revenue in 2014 even as their competitors saw growth, according to the latest annual Pew Research report on the State of the Media.

The report, which arrives amid NBC’s ongoing Brian Williams controversy and MSNBC’s ongoing ratings struggles, is yet another blow to a media company that just a few years ago could rightly claim to have the most popular morning, evening and Sunday broadcasts, as well as an ascendant cable channel with significant political influence.

But 2014 was a year of instability at both networks: At NBC, the “Today” show continued to fall farther behind ABC’s “Good Morning America”; “Nightly News” saw its margin over ABC’s “World News Tonight” narrow; and “Meet the Press” underwent a publicly humiliating shakeup that saw the departure of former moderator David Gregory…

“Nightly…” suffered an estimated revenue decline of 4 percent, to $148 million, while revenue at ABC’s “World News Tonight” and CBS’ “Evening News” grew by 11 percent and 1 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, MSNBC suffered catastrophic ratings declines as its programming drew increasingly stale and irrelevant. Its total viewership was down 14 percent from 2013, to a daily median of just 334,000 viewers. Those losses resulted in a 5 percent decline in ad revenue, which brought total revenue down 1 percent from 2013.

Time to call for reinforcements — what’s Katie Couric doing these days?

Read bullet | Comments »

Media Covering Baltimore Riots Discovers Life Not Just a Bowl of Cherries After All

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

It’s hard out there for a pimp:

Journalists covering riots in Baltimore were attacked and robbed Monday as furious locals confronted police and looted stores after the funeral of Freddie Gray, who suffered a fatal injury in police custody.

Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak was shoved to the ground and robbed of her phone. Baltimore Sun photo editor Chris Assaf was tackled by looters and beaten. Oliver Janney of CNN said he was “jumped,” suffered a broken nose and was robbed of his phone. A cameraman for CCTV America was attacked by protesters and had his camera stolen. A tweeted photo shows blood streaming down his face.

A video team from The Daily Caller also was attacked and robbed. Reporter Connor Wolf suffered a broken nose. Another reporter, Casey Harper, was hit with a liquor bottle that fractured his cheekbone. WNEW-FM reporter Steve Dorsey, meanwhile, was hit in the face by a protester. His phone was stolen. In earlier protests on Saturday an RT reporter was robbed on camera.

The attacks were reported by victims and their colleagues amid the mayhem that yielded 15 building fires and 144 torched vehicles.

Yeah, well, politics ain’t beanbag and neither are riots. I’ve been in the middle of a couple of myself, including the famous “White Night” riot in San Francisco that followed the light sentencing of Dan White for the murders of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. When the bricks and bottles start flying, people get hurt.

The number of assaults committed by protesters against journalists appears a significant departure from demonstrations elsewhere protesting excessive use of force by police. Chip Deale, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association, says most of the attacks appear motivated by protesters’ desire not to be photographed committing crimes. Deale says city officials’ Monday promise to use photos to identify and arrest suspects may heighten the danger for journalists, particularly photojournalists, as protests continue.

Maybe calling riots “protests” is part of your problem, media. Until the press learns to understand what exactly it is covering and call it by name, reporters will be put in peril by their own misapprehension of the world and how it works.

Read bullet | Comments »

Ferguson-Palestine Seed Bearing Fruit in Baltimore Riots

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

From Legal Insurrection:

This is becoming a recurring theme.

When there is a riot or other protest in the U.S., particularly if involving minority communities, “pro-Palestinian” activists try to hijack it and turn it into a criticism of Israel.

We saw it in Ferguson where “pro-Palestinian” activists spread lies that Israel trained the Ferguson police, and actually embedded themselves in the protests to try to turn the protests into anti-Israel protests.

The same thing has happened repeatedly with #BlackLivesMatters protests, most notably the dangerous blockade of the San Mateo – Hayward Bridge.

This is part of the emerging theme of anti-Israeli activists trying to tie unrelated movements, such as fossil fuel divestment, to Palestinian issues. Now we are seeing it with the Baltimore riots.

Max Blumenthal, notorious anti-Zionist and self-hating Jew, joined in to fuel the fire with Tweets like:

and

Blumenthal’s attempt to join in the community organizing through social media is yet another illustration of the yuppie socialist class fueling insurrection for their own nefarious political purposes. Like Ayers and Soros, these folks never let a good crisis go to waste, and when there isn’t one to be had, one can easily be made. It is no secret that the #BlackLivesMatter movement, along with associated organizations, has been funded and prepped to turn riot-like community organizing into violent expressions of pro-Palestinian unity. We’ve seen what this terror-backed rage can do in places like the Gaza Strip and Israel’s West Bank. What can we learn from Israel before our cities go down in flames?

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

CNN FAIL: Real News Must Wait While Most Powerful Man in the World Is Telling Jokes

Sunday, April 26th, 2015 - by Paula Bolyard

Barack Obama, Cecily Strong, Michelle Obama

 

Here’s what CNN was reporting while angry mobs were rampaging in the streets of Baltimore Saturday night:

 

download

Meanwhile, at least a dozen protesters were arrested in Baltimore as violence erputed and thousands took to the streets protesting the death of Freddie Gray, who died a week after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody earlier this month.

But the so-called Nerd Prom was calling and celebrity-obsessed CNN came running, sounding like a bunch of squealing teeny boppers reporting on a One Direction concert as they tweeted out “breaking news” about the event:

 

 

CNN correspondent Errol Louis admitted that the star-studded media schmooze-fest had taken priority over the actual news, advising viewers to head over to Twitter to search for a live feed if they wanted to know what was happening in Baltimore. “If people want to know…yes, twelve people were arrested…the Baltimore police have tweeted that. You can find that now. You can find the live feed if you actually wanna watch what’s going on — it sounds like complete chaos,” Louis said during CNN’s coverage of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. But he defended the network’s decision saying, “The most powerful man in the world is going to tell some jokes.”

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

Journalism may be in its death throes at CNN, but at least it looks like Dana Bash, Wolf Blitzer, and senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta had a great time, so it wasn’t a complete loss.

 

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

Hillary and How Hollywood Turned Menopause into a Curse

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Language warning: NSFW

Praised for her raw take on women’s body issues, comedian Amy Schumer hosted Tina Fey, Patricia Arquette and Julia Louis-Dreyfus for a sketch taking on Hollywood’s treatment of middle-aged women on the latest episode of her Comedy Central show Inside Amy Schumer. It was a well-timed take on a rote discussion aired in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s declaration and the ensuing #HillarySoOld Twitter trend. Millennial voters barely old enough to remember Sally Field will never know that famed star Myrna Loy already covered this territory in the mid-40s when she went from being Cary Grant’s sexy career-woman love interest to his dowdy middle-aged wife in the span of one whole year.

Why has Hollywood never been kind to middle-aged women? For the same reason men get sexier as they age. Both have a lesser chance of being capable or inclined to reproduce. Angelina Jolie may have been more than willing to surrender her lady parts in the name of science, but the reality is that a lifetime of hormone replacement therapy will not be kind to her looks or her figure. (Fortunately for her she can afford to hide all that the way most menopausal women anxiously hoarding Oil of Olay in Wal Mart cannot.) At the same time, a man whose hair is embracing that touch of gray has gone from sexual threat to father figure. (See: George Clooney’s resume.)

This double standard is fueled by a goddess feminism obsessed with the idea that a woman’s ability to bear children is a biological curse that must be overcome if she is to obtain equality. Instead of embracing fertility, we drug it, abort it, or demand federal dollars to daycare it out of existence so we can get back to work, our beauteous forms intact. Therefore, why should it be any surprise that menopausal years are seen as our last “f**kable” golden hour of life before the only thing working in our favor — our beauty — fails us?

The grand irony is, of course, that one of the greatest cultural institutions presumed to support Hillary in 2016 will, once again, inevitably work against her. In the end, she just doesn’t fit their type.

Read bullet | Comments »