Tuesday's HOT MIC
Oh fer cryin' out loud.
This is a real thing, apparently.
The Committee to Protect Journalists named President Trump as the winner of its “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” award in its “Press Oppressors” awards Monday.
The committee released a list of top global press oppressors on Monday in response to Trump’s upcoming “fake news” awards, giving Trump the top honor.
“While previous U.S. presidents have each criticized the press to some degree, they have also made public commitments to uphold its essential role in democracy, at home and abroad,” the committee wrote.
“Trump, by contrast, has consistently undermined domestic news outlets and declined to publicly raise freedom of the press with repressive leaders such as Xi [Jinping], [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan, and [Abdel Fattah al-]Sisi.”
Trump failed to utter the magic phrases which please the Press Elders, which somehow makes him worse than actual dictators who imprison (or worse) people who speak out.
Meanwhile, Jake Tapper made headlines on Sunday for shutting down an interview with Trump advisor Stephen Miller. And on Saturday, Vox editor Eliza Barclay made the case "for evaluating the president’s mental capacity — by force if necessary." I could go on, of course, with the treatment given by the press to the current occupant of the White House -- and even compare it to how they genuflected to the previous occupant. I could also add that Trump hasn't imprisoned (or worse) a single journalist.
This "Committee to Protect Journalists" wouldn't recognize real oppression if it was a boot stamping on their face, forever.
P.S. I should have added that on the off chance that Trump (or any other President) started jailing reporters, you'd find the genuine resistance right here.
Yeah, we haven't heard a lot about him for the last couple of #MeToo months.
Rhetorical question, right?
More from the original Daily Caller post:
And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.
When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”
In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.
As someone who was a friend of Andrew Breitbart (although we had a sometimes tempestuous relationship) and also of Larry Solov (Breitbart.com CEO), it's hard to see how Larry et al had any choice but to end Steve Bannon's tenure. Further, anyone who thinks Bannon commands any kind of serious loyalty now or constitutes any kind of threat to Trump is being foolish or ginning up an imaginary conflict. That's over. My guess is Steve B. is stewing in his own juices now, filled with regret and trying to figure out how to get back in Trump's good graces. Maybe he has a chance — look at the Trump-Graham relationship now — but I tend to doubt it. Only an idiot disses a man's family — especially to an obvious sleaze bucket like Michael Wolff.
Ivanka Trump praised Oprah Winfrey's anti-harassment speech at the Golden Globes.
Apparently this wasn't enough for the #TIMESUP crowd:
Ivanka Trump failed to acknowledge that one of the men for whom time should be up, theoretically, is her father, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of alleged sexual misconduct and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Some of his accusers spoke out as recently as last month, renewing their allegations in light of the #MeToo movement.
Trump herself has been the subject of her father’s sexist behavior: In 2004, Donald Trump told radio DJ Howard Stern that it was okay to characterize Ivanka as “a piece of ass” and famously said he would be romantically interested in Ivanka if she weren’t his daughter. Last year, then-candidate Trump said he thought his daughter should change jobs or careers if she were sexually harassed at work — not that the harasser should be held accountable.
Sheesh. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer. Ivanka is not guilty of sexual harassment. But because of her father's questionable past, this somehow discredits her support? Where's the logic in that?
Some have pointed to this statement of "questionable" advice to women who may be sexually harassed.
Ivanka gave women some questionable advice for dealing with sexual harassment in her 2009 book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Business and in Life: “Learn to figure out when a hoot or a holler is indeed a form of harassment and when it’s merely a good-natured tease that you can give back in kind.”
Sounds like common sense to me. But then, I'm not a woman and don't get harassed. I'm sure some women are very uncomfortable having their sexiness and good looks commented on like that. I'm also sure that others enjoy the attention. Since most of us aren't mind readers and don't know what the reaction to a wolf whistle or catcall might be, good manners demand that we refrain from doing it.
Unless manners, too, are "sexist" in which case why should we care what women think anyway?