Wednesday'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.

We haven't done Afternoon Memes here in a while, so here's one for you.

Don't you just love the internet?

Honestly, the only things these GIFs should incite is eating your weight in popcorn while CNN/BuzzFeed implodes.

More #CNNBlackMail fallout:

Did no one warn CNN that going to war against Reddit and 4Chan users might not be the best of plans?

Big "Oops!" from the New York Times:

Correction: July 4, 2017

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article attributed incorrectly a Twitter statement to the North Korean government. The North Korean government did not belittle a joint American-South Korean military exercise as “demonstrating near total ignorance of ballistic science,” that statement was from the DPRK News Service, a parody Twitter account.

Li'l Kim is not amused.

In related news, the Times is eliminating 50-100 copy editing jobs, which in this light seems like maybe not the smartest move.

The latest in #CNNBlackMailGate:

It appears that CNN may have threatened the wrong gif creator. Ooooops.

Did CNN break the law with its doxxing threat? Senator Cruz thinks he might have...

Meanwhile, CNN is desperately trying to change the narrative:

Steve, this gal from BuzzFeed might not find a willing partner in Cloudflare if she marches over there demanding that objectionable accounts be shut down. The content distribution network company has been pretty vocal about their policy of not censoring content. Anonymous has criticized them in the past for providing services to ISIS-sponsored sites. Cloudflare co-founder and CEO Matthew Prince explained the company's policy in 2015:

Prince told us hosting any content on his network is not an endorsement – there are millions of pages cached in his company's servers. And he said it was a bit rich for Anonymous to be pressuring CloudFlare to drop websites.

"I did see a Twitter handle said that they were mad at us," Prince told The Register on Tuesday. "I'd suggest this was armchair analysis by kids – it's hard to take seriously. Anonymous uses us for some of its sites, despite pressure from some quarters for us to take Anonymous sites offline."

If the cops or Feds come to San Francisco-based CloudFlare about one of its customers, and they have all the proper legal documentation to take down a site, then the Silicon Valley upstart is happy to cooperate, Prince said.

But more often than not, investigators want him to keep sites up rather than take them down. Read into that what you will.

"Even if we were hosting sites for ISIS, it wouldn't be of any use to us," he continued. "I should imagine those kinds of people pay with stolen credit cards and so that's a negative for us."

With more than four million customers, it's inevitable that some clients may be dodgy, he said. On whether a website should be allowed onto his cloud platform, he said he'd rather take advice from the police or the US State Department (which is also a customer) than from some faceless Twitter user.

It's not in CloudFlare's philosophy to just take down sites because management doesn't agree with the content, Prince said. Some hosting companies exercise tight control about what can be served, but his firm doesn't want that kind of power.

He cited a personal case from a few years back, after a hacker used stolen information about Prince to access his tax files and posted the details on a CloudFlare-hosted site. Prince says he didn't take the site down, although the US authorities did shortly afterwards since the hacker had also posted personal data from Michelle Obama and the head of the FBI.

Of course, that was 2015 and this is 2017. Funny things happen to free speech advocates when the SJW rage machine gets fired up and takes aim at them. They'll defend free speech for ISIS and Anonymous, but for 4chan? That might be a bridge too far.


What is it? This:

There seems to bee some doubt as to whether this is genuine, but if it is, here's some good advice for BuzzFeed's Cecile Dehesdin...

Stop. Now. While you still can.

But if not, hey -- some bloggers just want to watch the media burn.

In other fake news....

Politico's report that a major White House shake-up was imminent appears to have been highly exaggerated. Either that or it was just manufactured nonsense.

Reince Priebus, according to multiple "sources," had until July 4th to "clean up the White House."

Via the Washington Examiner:

That story was picked up by dozens of media outlets, the latest of several also wrong reports of internal White House battles and threats by President Trump to junk his whole staff for a new team.

Well, the 4th came and went and there's been no staff shake-up. Moreover, Reince is still White House chief of staff.

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the press watchdog Media Research Center saw July 4 come and go with no change and told Secrets, "I've lost count how many times the 'news' media have reported the imminent political death of Reince Priebus. Mark Twain could relate to him."

Bozell added, "They've declared so many people fired at the White House, I'm surprised there's anyone left over there."

With so many media predictions of firings and staff shake ups gone wrong, some see damage to the media industry.

Gee, ya think?

We were told that the election of Donald Trump would cause a crack-up of the Republican Party. What we seem to be witnessing, however, is the mainstream media cracking up.


Mollie Hemingway debunks a CNN "Lincoln" quote. Meanwhile, I just caught the Least Trusted Name in News in another sloppy, Google-induced error: