Thursday's HOT MIC

Welcome to HOT MIC, PJ Media's daily liveblog. Join our editors and contributors for news updates and conversation throughout the day, and add your thoughts to the mix in our comments section at the bottom or by clicking on the comment bubbles on individual posts.  Be sure to save this link so you can find HOT MIC every day.

Stand back everyone while the MSM stampedes away from this story:

Meanwhile, the #fakenews story the media has been chasing for a year continues to unravel ...

 

Moral narcissism much? Democrat challenger calls Republican congresswoman a "child."

Steve Krieg, an optometrist from Plattsburgh, N.Y., called Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) "a child" during a candidate's forum. He also defended referring to the 33-year-old Republican lawmaker as a "little girl."

Yes, this actually happened.

"I recognize her — I'm not going to say a little girl — I recognize her as a child, and it has nothing to do with her age. I see her as a child because she's a child. She thinks like a child. She has people set things up for her. She has people put their words in her mouth and she happily repeats them," Krieg said.

At least he admitted being a sexist. "I have been accused of being sexist for calling Elise a little girl, and I probably deserve to be called a sexist," the Democrat said. "I think most of us, if we admit it, have some of a sexist in us, some of a racist within us. It's something if we're decent people, we recognize in ourselves and we struggle with it all of our lives."

 

That's some great "struggling with it" — calling your opponent a "child." One would think that when Krieg became a man, he put away childish things like name-calling. Apparently not...

Note to married guys: don't sleep with women who aren't your wives. How difficult is this to grasp?!?

This is why referring to any Opinion writer at The New York Times as "conservative" is a joke:

Repeal the Second Amendment

That's the headline from "conservative" columnist Bret Stephens' latest. Here's more:

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

This great conservative thinker seems to be getting his talking points from the Moms Demand Action Twitter feed.

Stephens and his ilk should provide some inspiration though. If you are still looking to make it in media there is one simple path. Simply brand yourself as a conservative, then make it clear that you are will to crap all over other conservatives -- as well as all that conservatism holds dear.

You will be hearing from the Times, WaPo, MSNBC or CNN shortly.

 

See my comments about "fake news" in this Fox News article:

I sent the reporter, Brooke Crothers, some additional comments that didn't make it into the article. Here's the non-Cliffs Notes version:

It's true that "fake news" is easier and less costly to produce than factual news reporting. A separate, parallel, issue is the demand for instant reactions to newsworthy events. Original reporting is labor intensive and the 24-hour news cycle creates a sense of urgency that values speed over accuracy. As a result, sometimes even legitimate news sources get stories wrong in the rush to be first. I wouldn't call that fake news, per se, because in most cases it's not intentional, but it has the same effect as fake news because the original story goes around the world before a correction can be issued and most people never see the correction.

There was an excellent article in the Atlantic a few years ago about Vladimir Putin's war on truth. It explained how Putin uses the state-run media to create a false version of reality by blurring the lines between reality TV, entertainment, and real news. The propaganda campaign has been so successful that Russians can't tell the difference anymore between what's true and what's not. Even worse, many don't really care if they're being lied to as long as they're being entertained. At the time it was written (2014) a lot of people scoffed at the idea that something like that could happen here. But as we've seen, Russia has been able to infiltrate the platform where most Americans get their news — Facebook. Beyond the sheer traffic numbers, the Russians understand, perhaps better than Americans do, that Facebook is a space that combines entertainment with news, which creates a fertile ground for fake news and the  "counterfeit reality" the study warned about.

That said, I don't think the situation is quite as dire as the study predicts. While fake news will continue to be a problem, I think perhaps we're reaching a tipping point where people are becoming more skeptical and more discerning with their media choices. Those of us who produce content for legitimate news outlets have a vital role to play in raising awareness about the problem and teaching our readers how to navigate their news feeds so they can weed out bogus stories and media outlets. As people begin to understand the scope of the problem they'll organically delegitimize the purveyors of fake news and rely more on trusted sources like Fox and PJ Media. And, of course, we in the media need to lead the way in making sure we report things accurately at all times so we don't contribute to the problem.

That Atlantic article I linked is well worth your time.