Search Results

BECKET ADAMS: In First Big Test of the Trump Era, Media Fails Miserably. “After months of post-election chest thumping about how they could not be cowed by the powerful, reporters have reacted with a mix of yawns and giggles after the State of California announced it would pursue criminal charges against two activists who went undercover and investigated Planned Parenthood’s practice of salvaging and distributing body parts scrounged from the remains of aborted fetuses.”

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and it all makes sense.

TO BE FAIR, HE’LL BE AT LEAST AS OBJECTIVE AS SHARPTON, MADDOW, BRIAN WILLIAMS, CHUCK TODD, AND ANDREA MITCHELL: Josh Earnest Named NBC News, MSNBC Political Analyst.

Just think of NBC News as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

DISPATCHES FROM THE HOUSE OF STEPHANOPOULOS. ABC Targets Trump Supporters After Weekend Rallies Turn Violent:

“In Huntington Beach, California a protester allegedly pepper-sprayed one of the organizers,” [ABC’s David Wright] said sounding doubtful, “Witnesses say a group of flag-waving Trump supporters tackled him and proceeded to beat him up.”

For Wright, it may only have “allegedly” happened, but according to Reuters, it did occur. “Four counter-protesters were arrested, three for illegal use of pepper spray and one for assault and battery, Kevin Pearsall, a spokesman for the California State Parks Police said on Saturday evening,” they reported on Sunday.

Read the whole thing. Just think of ABC News as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

BUT OF COURSE HE DID. Mayor De Blasio Connects Racist Murder to Trump, ‘Atmosphere Of Hate:’ “At some point, it would be nice if the media would notice that the left constantly uses this climate-of-hate argument to indict the right every chance it gets but denies any such climate exists when the target is a conservative or a police officer.”

Just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and you’ll understand why they never will.

WHO MADE THIS MONTAGE: CNN or DNC? “In virtually any given week during the Obama administration, CNN could have put a similarly negative pastiche. Anyone remember the network doing it?”

Just think of CNN as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

NO, BECAUSE THEY’RE DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Would journalists support congressional investigation of Obama surveillance of … journalists?

IF IT WEREN’T FOR FAKE NEWS, WOULD THEY HAVE ANY NEWS AT ALL? CNN and MSNBC did zero work fact-checking Democratic senator’s bogus claim.

Think of them as Democratic Party operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

ANDREW MALCOLM: The truth about Trump’s worrisome war on media.

President Trump let slip the secret during his first news conference. Here’s what he told shouting reporters trying to trip him:

“I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest — because I sort of enjoy this back-and-forth. And I guess I have all my life.”

As do his supporters and a good number of detractors, who’ve turned Trump appearances and his press secretary’s news briefings into TV ratings hits on cspan.org and cable.

Enough Americans have witnessed or perceived media misinterpretations and bias to enjoy seeing its elite members handed back some guff, even crudely. And there’s now a vibrant, imperfect social media on 24-hour online patrol.

Meanwhile, media members who blithely passed along Obama’s serial lies about, among many things, keeping your doctor and health plan under ObamaCare, are now on Alpha Alert for Trump untruths, visibly relishing each one.

The Washington media needs to stop whining, get off their high horse and do the jobs they chose, reporting accurately what a president says now and putting it in true context to what he said last year or last night.

It isn’t whining — it’s anger. And it may be with us a while, because the Democratic-Operatives-with-Bylines lost big in November, and the second stage of grief is the most difficult one to get through.

JUST NBC THE AMNESIA! KATY TUR CAN’T RECALL OBAMA’S 2012 ‘FLEXIBILITY’ HOT MIC TO RUSSIANS.

And thus NBC comes full circle — Sharpton and Brian Williams invent fake news, and Tur conveniently forgets the real thing.

Just think of the network’s “news” division as being largely staffed by Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

FLASHBACK: NBC’s Tom Brokaw conveniently forgetting Obama’s worldview on the eve of the 2008 election:

KURT SCHLICHTER: President Trump Has Been Far Too Nice To The Mainstream Media.

It wasn’t a press conference – it was a kinky dungeon session where masochistic journalists eagerly sought out the delicious pain Master T was dealing. Hack after hack stepped up, tried to play “gotcha.” and ended up whimpering in the fetal position. The best part was CNN’s Jim Acosta, fresh from whining about how conservative outlets now get to ask questions too, basically handing Trump the cat-o-nine tails. Dude, next time keep from talking yourself into more public humiliation by biting down on the ball gag.

The media’s safe word is “Objectivity,” but none of them uttered it.

The wonderful thing about Trump – and the thing that sets the Fredocons and wusspublicans fussing – is that he gives exactly zero damns about the media’s inflated and ridiculous self-image. He doesn’t pay lip service to their lie that they are anything but what Instapundit calls “Democratic Party operatives with bylines.” Trump called them the “the enemy of the American People,” to which normals responded with “Yeah, sounds about right.”

Read the whole thing.

HEH: After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They’re Not Getting Called on for Questions.

Hey, I think the headline writer spelled “Democrat operatives with bylines” incorrectly.

THE FAKE NEWS PROBLEM, THEN AND NOW: At Tablet, James Kirchick explains “Why the left is also responsible for the proliferation of inaccurate information—and why the big beneficiary is Donald Trump:”

Now that Trump is in the White House, much of the media feels uninhibited in their campaign to destroy him, seeing the unprecedented nature of his presidency as license to get away with anything. Take Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of The New York Times. Since he was targeted by pro-Trump, anti-Semitic Twitter trolls last summer, Weisman—a man who is supposed to at least feign objectivity—has completely dropped any pretense of political independence. His own Twitter feed—like the feeds of a growing number of Times reporters—is a constant stream of anti-Trump invective indistinguishable from committed anti-Trump pundits like myself.

Why do I hold myself and Jonathan Weisman to such wildly differing standards? Because my job is to opine and provoke. His job is to accurately report on events, so that I know that the things I am reacting to are real, rather than the products of angry mass hallucinations or partisan messaging campaigns. By publicly refusing to do his job, he makes my job (and all our jobs as engaged citizens) much harder because I can’t reasonably trust that what I read in The New York Times is factual or based on good sourcing. Who in their right mind inside the Trump administration would talk to The New York Times, except to mislead the paper’s reporters and editors, by spinning them up or sending them off on wild goose chases that serve the administration’s own aims? How can I trust that what I read in the paper’s news columns isn’t hopelessly distorted by the angry bias evident in the social-media feeds of the paper’s editors and reporters? Much of the reporting on the Trump administration thus far seems to be so poorly sourced, riddled with caricature and negative wishful thinking as to be actively misleading, for all intents and purposes “fake news.” The beneficiary of the resulting confusion and hysteria is not The New York Times or its readers. It’s Donald Trump.

But Kirchick’s take doesn’t feel all that far removed from how left-leaning media critic Jack Shafer, then with the Washington Post-owned Slate described the state of the MSM in May of 2008, with an assist from the since-deceased Michael Crichton:

In 1993, novelist Michael Crichton riled the news business with a Wired magazine essay titled “Mediasaurus,” in which he prophesied the death of the mass media—specifically the New York Times and the commercial networks. “Vanished, without a trace,” he wrote.

* * * * * * * *

“[T]he American media produce a product of very poor quality,” he lectured. “Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it’s sold without warranty. It’s flashy but it’s basically junk.”

* * * * * * * *

As we pass his prediction’s 15-year anniversary, I’ve got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It’s gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren’t going extinct tomorrow, Crichton’s original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.

That was nearly decade ago, building on an article that Crichton wrote a quarter century ago. And yet things have only gotten exponentially worse for the media in the years since, passing through their quasi-religious hagiography of the Obama era along the way. Just think of the MSM as Democrat party operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

UPDATE: Mark Hemingway on “The Problem of Two Unreliable Narrators: Trump Versus the Media — When both the person in power and his critics are both perceived as lacking credibility, the person in power is likely to come out on top.”

I’M SO OLD, I CAN REMEMBER WHEN “JOURNALISTS” SERVED AS PARTY OPERATIVES FOR A PRESIDENT WHO ADVOCATED RADICAL CHANGE: Journalists Whine About “Tradition” After NY Post Gets First Question At Trump Press Briefing.

As Glenn predicted this morning, “Things will change:”

The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump Administration until further notice.

So I guess love isn’t in the air anymore with the MSM — why, it’s like they’re Democrat party operatives with bylines or something.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: It’s Not 1934, writes Mickey Kaus:

Yet those who adhere to this unnamed tendency — let’s call it ’34ism, unless you can come up with a better name *** –allow the power of their terrifying dream to overwhelm sober consideration of everything Trump does or intends to do, good or bad (on trade, taxes, regulations, immigration, etc). We’re supposed to draw up sides — condemning (and ostracizing) those who are “complicit” in Trump’s administration and welcoming those who “stand on the right side of history” — even before we know whether the authoritarian seed will grow or wither, disregarding all the other positively auspicious seeds (reform of trade, control of borders, fewer foreign miliary adventures,  ending the Republican threat to Social Security and Medicare, etc.) that might flourish instead. In Slate 34ist Yascha Mounk’s head it’s practically Life During Wartime already, with brave Trump critics fired from their jobs, sleeping on the couches of their secret colleagues in the Resistance. Keep the car running.

Suggested alternative: See what happens first! Don’t let the reaction to Trump be dominated by one extremely unlikely bad possibility, at the expense of nurturing the far-more-likely good possibilities.

Those asterisks above connect to a footnote from Mickey that “Better name ideas [are] appreciated — just put them in the comments section below [his post], or tweet them to @kausmickey.”

The month after Obama won the election in 2008, Virginia Postrel noted that a lot of journalists (read: Democrat operatives with bylines) had heavily invested in the notion that it was the 1930s all over again, and had a major case of what Virginia dubbed “Depression Lust,” and were busy cranking out “Depression Porn” in service to the Office of the President-Elect. Not least of which was Time magazine’s infamous cover of Obama Photoshopped into the second coming of FDR and the headline “The New, New Deal,” thinking it was a compliment, and not an ominous prediction of an economy as similarly atrophied as Roosevelt’s. Pretending that Trump is Hitler allows you, oh brave foot-soldier in the DNC-MSM, to pose as the new Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It’s simply the funhouse mirror image version of the same sclerotic meme.

For the modern left, if the economy is relatively good*, and the incoming president has a (D) after his name, he’s the second coming of JFK (see: Clinton, Bill); if the economy is bad, and he has a (D) after his name, he’s FDR — and no matter what the shape of the economy, if the president has an (R) after his name, he’s Hitler (QED: Nixon, Reagan, Bush #43, and Trump).

* And it was, despite Clinton’s rhetoric. Would Time magazine lie to you? Well yes, of course. But look what they admitted in December of 1992.

THE SJW SINGULARITY HAS BEEN REACHED: “Fighting Trump via a romance novel about gay Muslims who pretend to be animals. No, really.”

Slate is the last Website owned by the Graham family, which also owned the Washington Post until its 2013 sale to Jeff Bezos. Something very strange has gotten in the water there recently. In addition to their above weirdness spotted by Rod Dreher, NewsBusters notes that “Slate Boss Salutes Irresponsibility: ‘I’m Glad BuzzFeed Published It.’

CBS — which has refused to publish the details — brought on Slate editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, who saluted BuzzFeed’s decision to disseminate the anti-Trump hit piece.

Weisberg admitted that the document was composed of “gossip” including some which is “not true,” but nevertheless “I’m glad BuzzFeed published it because I got to read it.”

So it’s fake but accurate in Weisberg’s mind, to borrow from the New York Times’ phrase excusing RatherGate. Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense. Well, other than the gay Muslim furries part – that’s still pretty darn weird, even for Slate.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Spicer: Media doesn’t treat Trump with respect, cheers on Democrats.

The media doesn’t treat President-elect Donald Trump with the proper respect, the man set to be the next White House spokesman said in an interview with The Hill.

Sean Spicer, a longtime GOP operative and strategist for the Republican National Committee, criticized a media landscape that he said mocked Trump even as it cheers on Democrats.

While he said the media seems to understand that Trump represents a larger movement after his presidential win, his remarks reflected longstanding antipathy on the part of the Trump team on how the businessman has been treated.

“There’s some positive aspects here and there, but largely it still continues to not treat him with the respect that he deserves,” Spicer said.

“I think for a lot of folks inside the beltway, and inside pundit-world, they don’t fully appreciate the understanding that he has of where the American people are,” Spicer continued. “They continue to mock him in ways, when it frankly just shows the lack of understanding of that they have of where the American people are and what they think.”

Spicer also criticized what he said are “countless examples” of the media cheering on Democrats.

“There are countless examples of the media engaging — overtly or covertly — cheering on Democrats and there’s no accountability. But it’s also not even frowned upon,” he said.

No, it’s cheered on by their fellow Democratic Party operatives with bylines.

JUST THINK OF THE MSM AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: Obama had Scandals Aplenty — The media just pretended they didn’t exist.

CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS:

Shot:

“It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion*, just as effectively as by bombs.”

—Kenneth Clark, script for [1969 BBC TV series] Civilisation.

—“Almanac: Kenneth Clark on how civilizations commit suicide,” Terry Teachout, today.

Chaser:

Judge Edwin Torres of the New York State Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District described how…“A society that loses its sense of outrage is doomed to extinction.” There is no expectation that this will change, nor any efficacious public insistence that it do so. The crime level has been normalized.

Consider the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. In 1929 in Chicago during Prohibition, four gangsters killed seven gangsters on February 14. The nation was shocked. The event became legend. It merits not one but two entries in the World Book Encyclopedia. I leave it to others to judge, but it would appear that the society in the 1920s was simply not willing to put up with this degree of deviancy. In the end, the Constitution was amended, and Prohibition, which lay behind so much gangster violence, ended.

In recent years, again in the context of illegal traffic controlled substances, this form of murder has returned. But it has done so at a level that induces denial. James Q. Wilson comments that Los Angeles has the equivalent of a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre every weekend. Even the most ghastly re-enactments of such human slaughter produce only moderate responses.**

—Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down,” the American Scholar, Winter 1993.

Hangover: CNN’s Don Lemon: Anti-Trump Violence Against Disabled Man ‘Not Evil.’

—Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media.com, today.

* A look at England in the decades after Clark’s epochal series ran is in its own way proof of that statement as much as Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago.

** Chicago hit the 500+ murder milestone for 2016 in September. It would hit almost 800 before the year was out.

Related: Lemon is far from the only member of the DNC-MSM loathe to examine this story. The Washington Post’s Callum Borchers does a whole lotta throat-clearing (and anti-Trump, anti-GOP virtue signalling) in the lede before laying out the actual details:

wapo_chicago_anti-trump_hate_crime_1-5-17

Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

THIS IS CNN: Don Lemon: Anti-Trump Violence Against Disabled Man ‘Not Evil.’

CNN founder Ted Turner presumably would concur; when faced with an even more enormous crime, he became a “see no evil” man himself.

In contrast, as Anthony Bialy tweets, “Those who believed ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ right away are unsure if the Chicago assault was a hate crime,” speaking of CNN.

cnn_bogus_hands_up_3-23-15-1

Just think of Lemon and the CNN anchors in the frame capture above as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense

WATCH A BUNCH OF JOURNALISTS FREAK OUT AFTER BEING ASKED IF THEY KNOW ANYBODY WHO DRIVES A TRUCK:

Which brings us to the simple question about truck ownership from John Ekdahl that drove Acela corridor progressive political journalists into a frenzy on Tuesday night: “The top 3 best selling vehicles in America are pick-ups. Question to reporters: do you personally know someone that owns one?”

Rather than answer with a simple “no,” the esteemed members of the most cloistered and provincial class in America–political journalists who live in New York City or Washington, D.C.–reacted by doing their best impersonation of a vampire who had just been dragged into the sunshine and presented with a garlic-adorned crucifix.

Just think of the MSM as (urban elitist) Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense. And that parochialism has been deeply entrenched for decades. The MSM’s reaction to Ekdahl’s simple query yesterday is yet another example of how spot-on Saul Steinberg’s classic 1975 New Yorker “View of the World from 9th Avenue” cover was, all the way to the present day, encapsulated in the theme of Dana Loesch’s recent book, Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run a Country You’ve Never Been To.

new_yorker_flyover_country_cover_1-15-16

WELL, YES: Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free’ Administration Was Actually Riddled with Scandals.

No one can forget the disturbing onslaught of Obama cult products circa 2008/2009: the Obama flags, perfume, soap, soda pop, basketballs, clocks, flip-flops, soap-on-a-rope — you name it. Obama’s smiling mug was slapped on practically every product you could think of — including even sushi! — and his devoted cultists snatched it up.

Then there were the children singing Obama songs of praise, Obama’s lavish birthday bashes, and his unearned Nobel Peace Prize. While most of “Obamamania” dissipated over the ensuing years, there were still occasional reminders that he still had a very fervent and devoted following — mostly, it turned out, in the mainstream media.

For the entire eight years of Obama’s presidency, we witnessed an obsequious MSM that only very reluctantly reported negative news about their hero, dropping problematic stories like a hot potato at the first opportunity. Thus, Obama’s many scandals became old news in a matter of weeks.

Think of them as Kool Aid-drinking Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

FAKE NEWS: ABC News continues to “normalize” Donna Brazile as DNC chair.

Why is Jonathan Karl interviewing Brazile in the first place? And if he’s going to do that, how does one sit there and politely rehash the last election with her without poking the obvious elephant in the room? It has been 62 days since CNN severed their ties with Donna Brazile over the fact (no longer an “allegation”) that she cheated during one of the Democratic presidential primary debates and attempted to cheat during a second one in Flint, Michigan. And yet ABC News is inviting her to sit down for a casual New Years Day chat like any other political analyst.

There is not one reputable media outlet in the country who is even attempting to suggest that Brazile didn’t cheat or attempt to cheat on Hillary Clinton’s behalf during the primary. Even Brazile herself refuses to say that she’s innocent, instead preferring to insist that she will not be persecuted as if she were Jesus Christ or something.

I keep hearing media outlets complaining when any of their competitors provide coverage of Donald Trump in terms of his policy proposals, cabinet nominations and all the rest. The major charge they level is that these journalists are somehow “normalizing” Trump’s presidency. That’s a rather insulting phrase, since Trump actually won and must now be evaluated by the job he does. But isn’t it somehow worse to keep introducing Donna Brazile as the interim chair of the DNC and allow her to continue commenting on politics? Isn’t this an act of “normalizing” someone as the head of one of our two major parties while she’s known to have attempted to do more to directly tamper with an election than the Russians did? And where is the media outrage at the DNC for not removing this person who is known to be corrupt? All I’m hearing is crickets on that score.

We’re witnessing the “normalization” of a known cheat… a dishonest actor who was caught red handed attempting to corrupt a presidential election. This person has remained as the interim head of the Democratic Party for more than two months since being definitively exposed. And ABC News continues to propagate the fantasy that all is well and there’s nothing particularly notable about the situation.

Think of them as Democratic Party operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

DNC-MSM WANTS TO APPROPRIATE ‘FAKE NEWS’ LABEL THAT CENTER-RIGHT HAS OWNED FOR OVER A DECADE.

When your team includes Brian Williams, Dan Rather, Al Sharpton, Eason Jordan, Jayson Blair, Katie Couric, the JournoList, and a whole squadron of Middle Eastern fauxtographers and the Pallywood propaganda assembly line, it takes a fair amount of chutzpah to accuse the other side of “fake news” – though think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: 9 times the media attacked Trump supporters.

There probably isn’t one particular thing that paved the way for a billionaire businessman-turned-reality TV star with no government experience to become the next president of the United States.

But reporters and political commentators took turns pointing to nearly every possible lead to explain what “created” Donald Trump: the Tea Party, CNN, talk radio, the Republican Party and the Left, among them.

Perhaps most notable was the blame placed on voters for exercising their right to select the next leader.

Here are nine times, in no particular order, the national media blamed the voters for Trump’s rise to the White House.

Think of them as Democratic Party operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong. And a lot of people have figured it out.

WHY THE NEW YORK TIMES’ RESOLUTION FOR MORE ACCURATE REPORTING IS DOOMED:

The problem with these mea culpas and modified, limited hang-outs is that anyone familiar with the history of The New York Times has seen this movie before. Baquet may think putting people out on the road is the answer, but the paper has been there and done that in 2004. David Kirkpatrick spent a year in the field, covering mostly the socially conservative tribes of Jesusland. Yet here is the NYT, right back where it started.

The pre-election lack of balance Spayd identified continues in the paper’s current coverage. The NYT has visited flyover country from time to time after the election and occasionally included comments from Trump supporters in other pieces. But as before, such stories are drowned about by the flood tide of Times coverage serving progressives’ parochial appetites.

Immediately after every presidential election, the MSM promises to improve their coverage, even in November of 2008, when the DNC-MSM went all-in to successfully elect Obama.”Unexpectedly” though, it only gets worse during each successive presidential election. You almost wish they’d run an Onion-style headline instead: DON’T WORRY COCOONED READERS, WE’LL STILL BE TOTALLY IN THE TANK FOR THE NEXT DEM CANDIDATE AND WE’LL STILL HALF-ASS IT IN 2020. At least they’d get points for being honest Democrat operatives with bylines for a change.

FAKE NEWS: “Not a single journalist exposed in Wikileaks was punished. Some were promoted. All will get awards.” Think of them as Democratic Party operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong. That’s how their colleagues and bosses think of them. . . .

ANALYSIS: TRUE. ‘Fake News’ Is The Legacy Media Shaking Down Facebook.

Robert Tracinski:

An overview of studies on the fake news phenomenon indicates that Facebook’s critics have it completely backward. People don’t form their political preferences by reading fake news, they seek out fake news to support their political preferences. That goes for both sides, mind you, but given the organizations Facebook has tapped to deal with this issue, I have a feeling that in the new system one side is going be flagged way more often.

Yet for readers of those stories, gaining the official disapproval of Facebook is going to be like being “banned in Boston.” For the right audience, it’s a selling point: “Read the news Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want you to hear!”

That’s why Facebook doesn’t just leave it to users to make their own choices. Instead, flagged stories will be harder to find in Facebook news feeds and won’t be able to promote themselves with advertising. Given how “fact checkers” have played favorites with their ratings, there is a massive incentive for them to abuse this power simply to suppress facts and interpretations that support the other side of the political debate.

That’s kind of baked into the whole idea. After all, nobody was all that bothered by “fake news” until they thought it produced an election result they didn’t like. Then it suddenly became an issue. So from the very beginning, this push to suppress “fake news” is motivated by a desire to suppress undesirable political outcomes.

If you think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, it all makes sense.

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: Mainstream Media Scream: Media tries to delegitimize Trump’s victory. “Question is: Who did more to interfere in the integrity of the U.S. election? The American news media which forwarded its own ‘fake news’ to discredit Trump or, if Russia really is behind the hacking, Putin’s regime which disclosed some emails that revealed truths about what Clinton’s team thought of her opponents?”

THEY DON’T CALL HIM THE “LITTLE IDIOT” FOR NOTHING: Singer Moby After Trump: ‘Americans are Either Really Stupid or Incredibly Bigoted….Really, Really Dumb People.’

I’m so old, I remember when musicians tried to increase their fan base through flattery, rather than deliberately making their appeal “more selective,” as legendary fictitious manager Ian Faith would say.

Moby’s star power has diminished significantly over the last decade, but if the media are going to rail against “Fake News,” his recommendations that the left deliberately lie to voters in 2004 are worth taking a second look at:

“No one’s talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day,” Moby tells us. “It’s a lot easier than you think and it doesn’t cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes.”

Moby suggests that it’s possible to seed doubt among Bush’s far-right supporters on the Web.

“You target his natural constituencies,” says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.

“Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?’”

As Jonah Goldberg wrote in February of 2004, shortly before Andrew Sullivan endorsed Kerry and permanently broke from the right, “A couple of weeks ago, several liberal bloggers announced that they wanted their readers to deliberately make up fake emails and send them to NR because they found the real emails we were posting in the Corner too unhelpful to their cause. So far they’ve all been way too stupid to fool us, but that could change. And now, last night, Andrew Sullivan received an email that he — and I, and a lot of our mutual readers — think was made up. Whether it was or wasn’t, it now seems safe to predict that the Moby-Moore fringe of liberalism is ratcheting-up it’s ends justify-the-means approach to political discourse. Get ready for the Age of Mobyism, it won’t be pretty.”

The Age of Mobyism flowed pretty seamlessly into the Age of Vox; and along the way, a surprising number of Democrat operatives with bylines were willing to admit they had no problem with deliberate lying and obfuscation to advance the DNC-MSM cause. If the MSM really does want end the scourge of “fake news,” theirs is an awfully big swamp to drain.

yglesias_sophistry_8-10

(Classical reference in headline.)

KYLE SMITH: Keep crying wolf about Trump, and no one will listen when there’s a real crisis.

It’s contrary to the laws of nature for a tabloid writer to tell the gentry media not to go berserk. It’s like a cat telling his owner to stop coughing up hairballs or Iron Man asking Captain America to be less arrogant. Here at The Post, our mission statement does not include understatement. We provide journalistic Red Bull, not Sominex.

Nevertheless, a word of neighborly advice to our more genteel media friends, the ones who sit at the high table in their pristine white dinner jackets and ball gowns. You’ve been barfing all over yourselves for a week and a half, and it’s revolting to watch.

For your own sake, and that of the republic for which you allegedly work, wipe off your chins and regain your composure. I didn’t vote for him either, but Trump won. Pull yourselves together and deal with it, if you ever want to be taken seriously again. . . . Hysteria is causing leading media organizations to mix up their news reporting with their editorializing like never before, but instead of mingling like chocolate and peanut butter the two are creating a taste that’s like brushing your teeth after drinking orange juice.

Plus:

Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds’ characterization of reporters as ‘Democratic operatives with bylines’ is taking root in the American mind. Among independents, according to Gallup in September, the media had an approval rating of 30 percent; among Republicans 14. Almost everyone but Democrats think the media are biased, and support for that view goes way back. . . . This fall WikiLeaks confirmed everything conservatives have been saying about the media for more than 20 years. CNN, you have been busted. You allowed Democratic Party operative Donna Brazile to get hold of town-hall questions in advance and help Hillary Clinton prep with them. . . . John Harwood, New York Times/CNBC reporter and Republican debate moderator, you have been busted. You asked John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chair, for questions you could pose to Jeb Bush in an interview.

Dana Milbank, Washington Post columnist and longtime phony “nonpartisan” political reporter, you have been busted. You reached out to DNC flack Eric Walker and asked for help putting together a “Passover-themed 10 plagues of Trump” story.

Not only are you evidently an undercover Democratic Party operative who should be drawing checks from the DNC instead of from The WaPo, you’re a tired hack who can’t even come up with his own column ideas without assistance.

Ouch. The truth hurts.

KEEP CRYING WOLF ABOUT TRUMP, AND NO ONE WILL LISTEN WHEN THERE’S A REAL CRISIS, Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post:

Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds’ characterization of reporters as “Democratic operatives with bylines” is taking root in the American mind. Among independents, according to Gallup in September, the media had an approval rating of 30 percent; among Republicans 14. Almost everyone but Democrats think the media are biased, and support for that view goes way back.

In November 2008, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said readers who complained about shallow coverage and pro-Obama bias were “right on both counts,” publishing tallies that proved the paper had been far more critical of Obama’s opponent Sen. John McCain than of Obama. A few weeks later, “Game Change” co-author Mark Halperin said the media showed “extreme pro-Obama coverage” in a “disgusting failure.”

In 2012, The New York Times’ public editor Arthur Brisbane said the paper “basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008” and cited a study that showed the Times’ coverage had been far more approving of Obama than it had been of President Reagan and both Presidents Bush.

In January 2008, NBC’s Brian Williams was honest enough to point out that the network’s reporter covering Obama had said, “It’s hard to be objective covering this guy.” Williams immediately demanded the reporter be fired for admitting to being unable to do his job.

Just kidding: Williams praised the reporter, calling him “courageous.”

In 2016, the media didn’t even pretend it wasn’t working in Hillary Clinton’s interests.

Read the whole thing.

JOURNALISM: The NYT publisher and executive editor would like you to take them seriously now… now that they are done putting their all into getting Hillary Clinton elected. They’d like to be empowered for the purpose of undercutting President Trump. “I don’t know who’s supposed to be influenced by this. . . . Please, don’t go. I get that they’re saying that. But I don’t get the argument why we should stay. I see a promise to keep doing something they haven’t been doing. Or… a dishonest claim about what has been done and a promise to continue dishonestly. There’s no confession of bias, no admission of any need to do better.” Hacks gonna hack. Dem operatives with bylines gonna operate.

VICE REPORTER FIRED AFTER STORY QUESTIONING WHETHER LENA DUNHAM VOTED IN PRIMARY:

The verdict on Twitter is that [Michael] Tracey was fired for publishing Dunham’s personal address, although the purchase of her home in 2014 was widely covered in the tabloids and easily accessible to anyone with Google.

Tracey tweeted today, “FYI — the Chief Operating Officer of VICE is Alyssa Mastromonaco, who attended off-record parties with the failed Clinton campaign,” along with journalists from NBC, the New Yorker, the Times, People, the Politico, Vox, and another sites staffed with Democrat operatives with bylines. But beyond that, I’m gobsmackingly gobsmacked. Doesn’t Tracey know that New York journalists should only publish the addresses and/or photos of houses owned by Missouri policemen and New York residents who legally own firearms?

hate-in-the-time-of-tantrums-banner-11-10-16-1

THE ROLLING STONE VERDICT AND THE END OF HONORABLE JOURNALISM:

The verdict against Rolling Stone is a punishment for journalistic malpractice—but it’s also something more. The case highlights the elimination of an honor culture in journalism and in public life. Vast majorities of people dislike journalists, not because journalists are liberal, although that’s part of it. Journalists are disliked because they act without honor. Such was the case with Rolling Stone’s fake rape story.

To understand the importance of honor in journalism, it helps to go back to one of the best examples of honest journalism in history. It comes from the former pages of Rolling Stone itself.

Read the whole thing.

Related: Rolling Stone’s False Rape Story Will End The Magazine.

I’m not at all sure I agree with that assessment, any more than RatherGate ended CBS News. In both cases, while those fabulist scandals exposed both institutions as being staffed by Democrat operatives with bylines, their brands are deep-pocketed enough to continue for quite some time. Even if Rolling Stone is sold, somebody will buy the brand for its boomer-era music cachet, just as there’s still a post-Washington Post, post-Daily Beast zombie version of Newsweek still on the Internet.

TALKING POINT REACHED: IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ALREADY NON-OBJECTIVE MSM TO DITCH OBJECTIVITY TO DEFEAT TRUMP:

Saturday’s New York Times anti-Trump roundup included an ironic compliment to the Trump campaign, which has freed journalists to label (Republican) politicians as liars and racists. Times editorial board member Brent Staples perversely celebrated “The Election That Obliterated Euphemisms.” The text box: “Donald Trump made it impossible to avoid the word ‘racist.’” Staples certainly didn’t.

Staples is following the path of colleague Jim Rutenberg’s notorious August 8 front-page opinion, “The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity,” which argued that treating Trump like a racist demagogue was a basic journalistic duty.

Ahh, the same media that concluded in 2012 that words such as “golf,” and “Chicago” were racist. The same newspaper whose columnist tweeted that year, “Stick that in your magic underwear,” to the Republican nominee. The same newspaper whose then-ombudsman wrote way back in 2004, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is.”

But this year was totally different from all of the previous election years. Until 2020, when (if Trump loses tomorrow) whoever the Republican nominee is, he’ll be considered a reactionary troglodyte compared to Trump’s nuanced views on abortion, gay rights, etc.

Just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

TIME-WARNER-CNN-HBO SPOKESMAN BILL MAHER PRETENDS TO APOLOGIZE FOR CRYING WOLF AT BUSH, McCAIN AND ROMNEY:


In response, Iowahawk adds:


But then, long before Trump came along, the previous president or GOP candidate, who received brickbats and worse from the left is magically rehabilitated to bash the current nominee. Rinse and repeat, going back to Eisenhower and Goldwater.

This past July, Jonah Goldberg explored “How the Media’s History of Smearing Republicans Now Helps Trump.”

Last night, responding to Maher, Stephen Kruiser wrote, “As he points out [in the above clip], Maher gave a cool million to the Obama campaign in 2012 to prevent Mitt Romney from being elected. In the last few weeks before the election, Democrats were portraying Romney (the man they now describe as honorable) as a sexist animal abuser who gave a woman cancer. Check back in four years to see if they’ve really learned anything about crying wolf.”

Similarly, file this prediction from Twitter user Chris Antenucci away for future reference: “Bill Maher and most liberals in 2020: ‘This year’s nominee, Rubio, is making Trump look like a moderate. He’s a radical on abortion.’”

That’s a remarkably safe bet. We’re seeing lots of mea culpas from the media and its critics about how badly it blew its reporting this year and how deeply it was in the tank for the Democratic nominee. But they could virtually be rewrites of the same faux apologies we’ve seen at the conclusion of every presidential election since at least 2004. And yet, “unexpectedly,” the MSM just never seems to learn from them, do they?

Just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

WELL, YES: Joe Battenfeld: Comey’s not the problem, the media is the problem. “A powerful public official errs on the side of transparency and disclosure and how does the media react? Outraged. Indignant. Defensive. These are our supposed public watchdogs. The ones whose job is to expose what taxpayer-funded officials and politicians don’t want you to know.”

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: Politico Reporter Gets Caught AGAIN Sending A Story To A Clinton Staffer For Approval.

DISPATCHES FROM THE MEMORY HOLE, PART ONE:

Shot:

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the election coverage in the nation’s largest newspapers and on cable TV, you have likely found yourself a bit exasperated at how events from the campaign trail have been covered. Much of that comes from editorial bias in story selection, but more than a little is caused by the obvious bias inherent in the “explanations” of the stories which do make it into print or on the air. But it seems that the journalists aren’t too happy either. Some of them feel constrained by the musty, dusty old rules of engagement in the news game. Keep in mind that we’re not talking about “opinion journalists” like Hannity or Maddow here, but the reporters who are supposed to be covering the stories for us with all of the who, where, when, what and how details. When it comes to politics such things can be hard to define, as politicians employ greater and greater amounts of spin in their stump speeches and debate performances.

Marc Ambinder feels their pain and brings us an opinion piece at USA Today this week in which he calls for new rules of journalism. Under these revised guidelines, reporters should feel free to correct what they perceive as errors on the part of the candidates on the fly.

—“The Left is ushering in ‘new rules of journalism’ because of Donald Trump,” Jazz Shaw, Hot Air, November 1st.

Chaser:

As I wrote last month in “The Rise of the John Birch Left:”

The original Birchers weren’t bad people, but their Cold War paranoia got the better of them. Similarly, as Charles Krauthammer famously said, “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil,” which illustrates how a John Birch-style worldview can cause the modern leftists to take an equally cracked view of his fellow countrymen…

…Which brings us today to Marc Ambinder, who according to Wikipedia is a former White House correspondent at the National Journal, contributing editor at GQ and the Atlantic, and editor-at-large at The Week, where he blows the battle trumpet, Col. Kilgore-style: “Why Democrats should treat Republicans like their mortal enemy.”

* * * * * * *

I missed the memo though: When did Democrats stop treating Republicans like their mortal enemy?

“You Went Full Bircher, Man. Never Go Full Bircher,” Ed Driscoll.com, December 3rd, 2014.

Meet the “new” rules of journalism — just the same as the old rules of journalism. Think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

RIGGED, BY DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Donna Brazile’s debate question flap boosts ‘rigged’ narrative. “’Trump has stressed over and over again that the press is not just biased, but that parts of it have become effectively adjuncts of the Democratic Party,’ said Boston College political science professor Dennis Hale. ‘This certainly feeds that story.’” Ya think? If I were a Bernie fan, I’d be livid.

SO, NOT, AS GLENN THRUSH WOULD SAY, “BADASS?” What Top Democrats Really Thought About Hillary’s Private Server: “F*****g Insane.”

Related: If The Media Investigated Hillary Like They Did Watergate, We Wouldn’t Need WikiLeaks.

RIP STEVEN DEN BESTE: Glenn and Sarah Hoyt expressed their condolences yesterday, and I’d like to as well. The rise of the Blogosphere during the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was something to behold – the best analogy that I can think of is to compare it to the golden age of television in the 1950s: a new medium was born, and for those willing to seek it out, programming of a surprisingly high quality was available to be consumed on it.

But unlike television, which then as now requires an army of craftsmen and technicians to create, the early Blogosphere was almost exclusively a series of solo acts, and living in California, from about 9:00 PM to midnight Pacific Time each weeknight, I would eagerly consume the best of the new programming as it went online, usually (forgive me If my memory of the timing is a bit off) Den Beste around 7:00 or 8:00 PM, Lileks around 9:00 or ten o’clock, and then pre-Weimar era Andrew Sullivan around 11 or midnight. And of course, Glenn firing off new posts throughout the night.

Den Beste also demonstrated how infinitely flexible blogging could be. Glenn, Mickey Kaus, Sullivan and Virginia Postrel specialized in short posts offering news aggregation and commentary, but Den Beste seemed to effortlessly generate 1,500 to 3,000 word essays on the GWOT and other breaking news events every night. Of course, they only looked effortless to those of us reading them. I imagine the work that went into them eventually contributed to Den Beste’s health issues, and the merciless brickbats he received from the tolerance and diversity-obsessed left eventually led him to focus his blogging primarily on anime and other lighter fare.

As with the Golden Age of TV, which by the early ‘60s had collapsed into Newton Minnow’s infamous “vast wasteland…of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials,” the Golden Era of the Blogosphere was doomed to be a fleeting epoch as well. Today, blogging is universal, but also far too corporatist, an increasingly exclusive medium for Democrat operatives with bylines to pay homage to the state. But for a time, there were a plethora of individual voices to be read, and Den Beste’s was one of the most idiosyncratic and enjoyable.

“A software engineer by trade, exhibiting a precise logic in his thinking, Den Beste was acerbic, sharp and often charmingly irascible,” Jim Geraghty writes today in encomium. “I missed his playful cantankerousness when he had merely stopped blogging. He’s missed even more now.” RIP.

UPDATE: In his tribute to Den Beste, Ace of Spades compares the heyday of the USS Clueless as belonging to “a pre-professional blogging age (such as it may well be), a novice/hobbyist phase, when writers would just write about whatever interested them at that moment, whether it ‘fit the format’ or whatever. Rather like I’ve heard FM radio was when it first came out, as opposed to heavily-programmed/demographically-targeted AM.” Given the free-form, inventing techniques and terminology on the fly nature of the early Blogosphere, that’s an apt comparison as well.

THINK OF THEM — AND ALL THEIR COLLEAGUES — AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: No Consequences From Media Peers for Reporters Caught Colluding With Hillary: Colleagues yawn while star reporters like Thrush and Leibovich cooperate with Clinton campaign. Now, anybody engaged in similar cooperation with Trump — or any Republican — would be made a pariah, of course.

THE MEANING OF IS: No, the Clinton campaign didn’t actually deny Dem operatives incited violence at Trump rallies.

Larry O’Connor:

Today, you’ll see many mainstream media reports saying Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook denied any involvement in the “bird-dogging” activities revealed by James O’Keefe’s video investigation released last week by Project Veritas.

But, did he really? I don’t think so.

As is typical with everything surrounding the Clintons, you need to really look at what he said and parse the sentence down to its actual meaning.

Of course Mook didn’t say anything that he could be pinned down on later. A lie is the default response from the Clinton Camp, and if pressed they will admit to only as much truth as they absolutely must.

This has been the Clinton’s SOP for more than 30 years, and the Democrat-operatives-with-bylines are usually all-too-happy to play along.

ANN ALTHOUSE: Robby Mook’s sleight of hand about the Democratic operatives who manufactured violence at Trump rallies. “That doesn’t get the DNC off the hook. Why were these people hired? They did something, and then they were hired. Were they hired because they’d shown what kind of dirty tricks they were capable of?”

Of course they were. The Democrats send people to manufacture violence at Trump rallies, then their operative-with-bylines friends in the media cluck their tongues at how Trump is “manufacturing violence.”

Plus: “Mook sounds so guilty there. He’s mad that any video exists (because it hurts his candidate), and he’s also telling us not to make any inferences about anything that isn’t proved by video. Again, I’m thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?”

Well, he sounds guilty because he is guilty. And he’s angry that the video means that even his allies in the press have to take some notice.

BUT OF COURSE: Ashe Schow: Media focus on Trump’s problems at Al Smith dinner, but not Clinton’s.

The Hill’s Joe Concha is fast becoming one of my favorite media reporters. He attended Thursday night’s Al Smith dinner, and has written an article called “Al Smith Dinner I attended was different than one I read about.”

Concha laid out some of what we’ve all heard in the media today about the zingers told by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We’re also being told that Trump delivered some truly terrible jokes that resulted in boos and jeering.

But what isn’t being given as much attention — except from a couple outlets — is that Clinton was also booed at times, though not as often as Trump. The Guardian pointed out a couple of jokes from Clinton that received some cheers and boos.

“You notice there is no teleprompters here tonight, which is probably smart, because it may be you saw Donald … dismantle his own. Maybe it is harder when you are translating from the original Russian,” Clinton said.

“I have deep respect for people like Kellyanne Conway. She is working day and night for Donald, and because she is a contractor, he is probably not even going to pay her,” Clinton said in another joke that didn’t do very well.

Concha notes that all the attention being paid to the boos and jeers toward Trump leaves out some important context.

“Republicans — especially those named Trump — aren’t popular in New York, and certainly with the wine and cheese crowd at the Waldorf last night,” Concha wrote. “And even Clinton got some boos and awkward reactions.”

He added that the event raised $6 million for children, more than it had ever raised before.

So while Trump was predictably booed at an unfriendly event, the media ran with it in order to smear him. Further, they ignored this same group booing Clinton. And the media wonder why their trust with the American people continues to plummet.

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: The Media’s Hypocritical Moralizing About Trump Has Become Unbearable.

Now that the DNC-MSM has dropped the mask – even more so than in 2004, 2008, and 2012 – will the next batch of GOP presidential candidates do anything different in 2020 to prepare for Lucy pulling the football?

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: “Regardless of who is your chosen – or least favorite – presidential candidate, independent minds should be concerned about the latest revelations in the news media’s unseemly relationships with government and political actors. While there are many responsible journalists working today, inside documents and leaks have exposed serious lapses constituting the most far-reaching scandal our industry has known. It’s our very own Newsgate,” Sharyl Attkisson writes.

As a reminder, CEO Les Moonves said earlier this year of Trump’s campaign, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Its nightly news anchor Scott Pelley once likened global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers. John Dickerson, the host of Face the Nation and the “political director” for CBS, wrote an article for Slate in 2013 charmingly titled “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes, and CBS pushed out Attkisson after her investigative coverage of Obama and Hillary’s Benghazi debacle.

hillary_msm_love_9-7-16-1

OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Journalist emails Jennifer Palmieri to give her a “heads up” on coming sex scandal story. “I need to give you a heads up on something Menendez-related that will affect your new boss so you have time to put together a plan for it. . . . Won’t be breaking news until next week, but likely to be big enough that you’ll want to plan for it in advance. And good luck with today.”

UPDATE: From the comments:

So far, the biggest thing I’ve learned from these Wikileaks documents is that big-shot journalists in New York and D.C. regularly take a big, steaming dump all over the standards and ethics that were drilled into my head back in journalism school like they were the Ten Commandments. Seriously, a lot of this stuff would get your ass fired in a heartbeat if you were a regular reporter at a TV station or newspaper out in flyover country.

So: One set of rules for them. Another set of rules for everybody else.

Noted.

Or as they say, “It doesn’t matter what the legal and ethics people say, we need to win this mother***er.”

UPDATE: Oops, actually I think I have the wrong Matthew Miller. I thought it was this guy, but it’s this guy. He publishes in high-level places sometimes, but he’s a PR guy, really, not a journalist, though the difference grows ever more elusive.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd and his wife, a Democratic consultant, hosted a dinner party at their Washington D.C.-area home last year for Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director.

Todd began his career working as a Democrat operative on the 1992 presidential campaign of “stolen valor” Congressman Tom Harkin; little has changed in that regard in his current job.

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: What media bias? Journalists overwhelmingly donated to Hillary Clinton.

Late Sunday evening, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza tweeted: “Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don’t root for a side. Period.”

It was a hilariously ill-timed tweet, because Monday morning the Center for Public Integrity released its 2016 campaign analysis showing journalists giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Of the 430 people CPI identified as “journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors ­— as well as other donors known to be working in journalism,” 96 percent gave money to Clinton, according to federal campaign finance filings. Those 430 journalists gave $382,000 to Clinton and just $14,000 to GOP nominee Donald Trump. CPI identified just 50 journalists who gave to Trump (meaning 380 gave to Clinton.)

CPI noted that the law only obligates candidates to disclose the names of donors giving more than $200 in a single election cycle, meaning many more members of the media could have donated to either campaign, but in smaller amounts.

Cillizza followed up his earlier tweet by commenting on the CPI report: “Well this is super depressing. NO idea why any journalist would donate $ to politicians.”

CPI noted that even as many newsrooms have policies against donating to politicians (the New York Times is more vague, strongly suggesting that such donations would compromise the paper’s integrity), their reporters donated.

This isn’t an age of Trump thing among journalists, either. In 2012, every major media outlet donated heavily to President Obama compared to Mitt Romney (yes, even Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News). The story was the same in 2008.

It’s a political monoculture, and that’s one reason for the rise of Trump.

THE DISGUSTING MEDIA SAT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT FOR A PARTISAN VICTORY:

None of the stories that horrify them now are new. They are years old. Decades, even. It is mind-blowing that no one decided to drop any of this before now. Unless, of course, you believe the idea that they sat on it in order to destroy him in the general. What’s more, that they did so at the request of the Clinton campaign. It is not only plausible, it is in fact the most likely scenario. It’s not like the journalists just sat on their hands for a year before dropping all this. A little research, a few phone calls, and all of this information would have been out there much sooner. But, that didn’t help the agenda.

So, while some folks on the Right can (and should) take some of the blame for creating the monster that is Republican Nominee Donald Trump, the Media cannot be allowed to feel horrified for the monster they too helped to make. This is on them. They had stories, they chose not to run them. They chose to favor a candidate. They were too afraid to lose a source.

“The Media cannot be allowed to feel horrified for the monster they too helped to make.” I don’t know if that sentence was written incorrectly, but in any case, I wouldn’t worry much – they don’t feel at all horrified by the monster they helped to make. Just think of the MSM as Democratic operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: “Weird. Hillary had an off the record dinner w/ a bunch of journalists prior to her campaign launch to ‘frame the HRC message.’”

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: Kimberley Strassel: The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins.

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”

A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she’d done wrong. “Everyone wants her to apologize,” wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles’ heel.”

Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the “vast majority” of career agents and prosecutors working the case “felt she should be prosecuted” and that giving her a pass was “a top-down decision.”

The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.

Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.

The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”

The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence.

Well, yes.

TO ASK THE QUESTION IS TO ANSWER IT: Why Did the Media Wait So Long to Go After Trump?

Just think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THE WASHINGTON POST TO FACT-CHECK A RAPE VICTIM’S STORY:

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler took the time to sift through the 41-year-old case of Kathy Shelton, who said she was raped when she was 12 years old by a then-41-year-old man.

Ordinarily, I’d expect the Post to take Shelton’s claims at face value (and to be fair, Kessler does call her a rape victim, as her attacker, Thomas Taylor, agreed to a plea bargain). The Post would be accused of “victim-blaming” if it dared point out an accuser’s changing story, even if it ultimately seemed sympathetic to her.

But Shelton is different because she has told the press that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “took me through hell” and has appeared with GOP nominee Donald Trump.

This earns Shelton extra scrutiny. Kessler points out that she didn’t know until 2007 that Clinton was the defense attorney in her case, that she may or may not have been misquoted about harboring no ill will toward Clinton and that she said she had a psychiatric exam but court records say she didn’t.

These aren’t the “smoking gun” contradictions I would usually consider evidence of an untruthful accuser (and again, Kessler is not saying she is untruthful). Shelton could have hated a random, unnamed defense attorney until she found out it was Clinton, who by that point had become a household name. That would have been pretty devastating for a victim, to find out that a former first lady, U.S. senator and, at the time, presidential candidate was responsible for allowing your rapist to walk free.

In 2007, Shelton apparently told Glenn Thrush, who was then a reporter for Newsday, that she felt Clinton “was just doing her job” by representing Taylor. Seven years later, in 2014, she told the Daily Beast she was misquoted and that “Hillary Clinton took me through hell.” She could have been upset with an unnamed defense attorney, as I wrote above. Or she could have never thought about the other people involved in the case until she was shown an affidavit from Clinton claiming Shelton “is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing” and “has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

Clinton merely said in the affidavit that she had “been informed” of these things about Shelton, but offered no source or proof. Shelton told Thrush in 2007 that she was shocked by the affidavit because “it’s not true” and she had “never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

It’s always “believe the women” until they threaten the career of a Clinton. Then it’s “a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty” and “look what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park.” And the press plays right along because, well, think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: Hillary Campaign E-Mails Singled Out NYT’s Maggie Haberman for ‘A Very Good Relationship’ for Spin Help.

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: New Email Leak Reveals Clinton Campaign’s Cozy Press Relationship.

TALE OF THE TRUMP TAPE: NBC HAS A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO.

More to the point, why hasn’t all this terrible audio already surfaced? At any point in the last year, when there was still time to deprive Trump of the GOP nomination, did NBC brass ask Apprentice producer (and Trump friend) Mark Burnett for a look into his archives? Or were they complicit in allowing Trump to cruise to the GOP nomination when they knew there was likely evidence in Mark Burnett’s basement that could disqualify him?

* * * * * * * *

Back to NBC News’ anchors and reporters, who have been conspicuously silent about their network’s role in enabling Trump for years, then sitting on the explosive tape for (at least) five days before a whistleblower leaked it. Donald Trump was employed by the same network that currently employs Lester Holt, Brian Williams, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and its biggest star of all, Matt Lauer. Why the silence? They’re like Cardinals in the Vatican maintaining omerta about a pervert in their midst.*

There are clear lines of accountability here – to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack and NBCU CEO Steve Burke. Did these executives just look the other way for many months while a former employee whose bad behavior was well-known got closer and closer to the White House? And did they place the career of Billy Bush – reportedly being groomed to replace Matt Lauer on the hugely profitable Today program – ahead of the U-S presidency? That sounds absurd, but this is the twisted world of network television and NBC has some explaining to do.

Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

* Hey, even I don’t think NBC has descended to the level of the BBC in this department, but they’ve certainly maintained their omerta about the multiple fabulists working in their midst.

AFFLICTING THE COMFORTABLE: “And there we have it in a nutshell. ‘Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.’ That phrase, it should be pointed out, is not what ‘they’ say it’s a journalist’s duty to do. That phrase was satirical, uttered by the fictional Irish bartender ‘Mr. Dooley,’ the 1893 creation of Chicago Evening Post humorist Finley Peter Dunne. It was not intended to be taken seriously… In other words, give pain to those who don’t have it. What a motto, what a career description. Forget the five Ws, forget just telling the truth. Journalists are here to give pain to those they feel are too pain-free. And of course the press takes it upon itself to determine just who is comfortable enough to deserve affliction.”

Just think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

(Via Kathy Shaidle.)

JUST THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE. Conflict of Interest: PolitiFact and the Clinton Foundation Share Megadonor.

FLASHBACK: NETWORKS WORRIED ABOUT RELEASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION WHEN IT HURT OBAMA.

Worried, actively suppressed – in any case, just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

GLOVES OFF – THE MEDIA IS LIBERALISM’S ACHILLES HEEL, Kurt Schlichter writes:

The Arizona Republic, which is apparently a desert brochure, supports Hillary. “Unprecedented!” Yet everyone in Arizona shrugs – the Republic went pinko long ago. Then weary travelers in Marriots across America found that USA Today is opposing Trump. Why the editors of a periodical whose sole purpose is to help out-of-town hotel guests find out when the local TV station is rerunning The Simpsons believes their anti-kudos will move the needle is unclear. But the rest of the media is reeling in delight – “Trump’s lost USA Today! Game over, man. Game over!”

The liberal establishment survives only because it controls the mainstream media propaganda machine. It’s one of the three legs of the stool that keeps the Democrat Party stable – the other legs are deadbeats and creepy weirdos with money like Hillary.

So let’s kick out that leg. Let’s go right at the media poohbahs, those puffed-up hacks and self-important dorks who are desperately trying to keep a grip on power as their own incompetence plus the relentless advance of technology conspire to consign them to much-deserved irrelevance.

Related exit question: Can You Trust The Press? New video from Prager University:

“When success is measured mainly in terms of ‘clicks,’ the outrageous beats the sober just about every time. Inserting opinion, even in the middle of a news story, is a way in which journalists can distinguish themselves. And in mainstream media outlets, those opinions overwhelmingly tend to be liberal. This might not be so bad if journalists acknowledged their bias. But they almost never do. Yet the bias is obvious.”

Just think of the MSM as Democratic Party operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

More: Creative Destruction: US Newspaper Jobs Are More Than 50,000 Below 1947 Levels.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: How Journalists Purge Peers Who Don’t Lick Hillary Clinton’s Boots.

Related: 20 Mins on ‘Miss Piggy’ Remark, Silence on Cheryl Mills Immunity.

trump_hillary_msm_debate_banner_9-20-16-1

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS:

As I understand your use of this term, “the media” is essentially shorthand for anything you read, saw or heard today that you disagreed with or didn’t like. At any given moment, “the media” is biased against your candidate, your issue, your very way of life.

But, you know, the media isn’t really doing that. Some article, some news report, some guy spouting off on a CNN panel or at CrankyCrackpot.com might be. But none of those things singularly are really the media.

Fact is, there really is no such thing as “the media.” It’s an invention, a tool, an all-purpose smear by people who can’t be bothered to make distinctions.

“Dear readers: Please stop calling us ‘the media.’ There is no such thing,” Paul Farhi, the Washington Post, Friday.

Thousands of conservatives and even some moderates have complained during my more than three-year term that The Post is too liberal; many have stopped subscribing, including more than 900 in the past four weeks.

It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially when newspapers are shrinking. Conservative complaints can be wrong: The mainstream media were not to blame for John McCain’s loss; Barack Obama’s more effective campaign and the financial crisis were.

But some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

—The late Deborah Howell, then the Post’s ombudswoman (a job the Post has since eliminated), November 16, 2008.

‘Yeah, I’m In The Media. Screw You.’

—Button worn by the late Ginny Carroll to the 1992 Republican convention. Carroll was a bureau chief for Newsweek, then owned by the Washington Post.

Incidentally, this isn’t the first time that Farhi has tried to play these semantic games: As Tim Graham of NewsBusters paraphrased a similar Farhi column in 2012, “WashPost Writes The Public Be Damned: They’re Biased If They Think We’re Biased.”

Perhaps Iowahawk has the best response to Farhi’s latest column, and its smug headline, “Dear readers: Please stop calling us ‘the media.’ There is no such thing.” “Okay, how about we just call you assholes,” he tweeted yesterday.

Or Democrat operatives with bylines. Often the two phrases are quite interchangeable. (Unexpectedly.)

All of which is why, as  Kurt Schlichter writes, “We’re Laughing at the Self-Destruction of the Media Gatekeepers.”

BUSTED: ADAM BALDWIN NOTICES BLATANT LIE IN CHUCK TODD’S LATEST HILLARY CLINTON REPORT.

Just think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

IMAGINE IF THE PRESS WEREN’T DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES: Hillary’s Hellish Week.

UNEXPECTEDLY: Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low, Gallup reports, “with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year:”

Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

Republicans Fuel Drop in Media Trust

While it is clear Americans’ trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump’s sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years.

Why on earth would that be? Paul Krugman assures me his fellow DNC-MSM operatives with bylines are “objectively pro-Trump.”

(Classical reference “unexpectedly” in headline.)

THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: Our Press Falls Down on the Job Again.

Libya is no closer to stability or peace than it has been since the invasion. Western plans to bring order to the country are failing yet again. . . .

We must all be grateful that we don’t have a Republican President or it would be Libya, Libya, Libya all the time, a deafening chorus of shrieks and imprecations. “How could the White House be so stupid as not to learn the lessons of Iraq?” “Who knew what, and when?” We would also be hearing much more about the consequences of our failures: the continuing flows of arms, funds, and jihadis to various groups in Africa and beyond, not to mention the damage to U.S. prestige. The responsible officials would be hounded by an enraged press corps and an aroused public. Hillary Clinton has actually been quite lucky that the GOP attack focused almost solely on Benghazi, when that tragic incident was only the tiniest piece of a major policy disaster.

Not that a return to Bush-era press inquisitions would be a good thing. There really ought to be some kind of happy medium between the no-holds-barred relentless attacks on GOP foreign policy failures and the whistle-past-the-graveyard treatment of Democratic ones. And many of America’s biggest recent foreign policy failures had strong bipartisan support at the time. A lot of Democrats backed the Iraq invasion, and a lot of Republicans backed Libya.

Nobody is ever going to get everything right in foreign policy—that’s not the way history works. But these days in the U.S., in large part thanks to the way much of the press (with some honorable exceptions) goes about its business, we have got a system that makes it hard for us to learn from our mistakes—to have the serious conversation about foreign policy and global strategy that the country badly needs.

We have the worst political class in history.

I QUESTION THE PREMISE OF THIS HEADLINE: Hillary’s media is torching its standards to cover the election, Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Post.

Considering that we read earlier drafts of this same article in October of 2008 by then-ABC/PJM contributor Michael Malone and immediately after the 2004 election by then-Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, what standards are left?

Former CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson writes that until her debacle on the 15th anniversary of 9/11 (and fourth anniversary of Benghazi), Hillary’s health (or the lack thereof) “was ‘the stuff of conspiracy theorists’ until the reporters who appear to have been proven wrong, decided it was not. It’s almost as if we in the media take an editorial position with no factual basis, dare critics to prove us wrong, and then when events do, we modify our stance.”

Exactly. Or as Ann Althouse noted last month, “The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.”

It all makes sense when you think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines—and hopefully hazmat suits as well, when they’re flying with Hillary these days. Perhaps we should set up some sort of quarantine ward stat for these potential asymptomatic pneumonia carriers:

hillary_msm_love_9-7-16-1

NEW YORK TIMES TRIES TO FACTCHECK GARY JOHNSON ON ALEPPO, REPEATEDLY STEPS ON A RAKE INSTEAD: “Unlike Johnson, who was asked a question on the spot, the New York Times reporter had the Internet, paid editors, and all the time in the world to help him avoid making a bunch of embarrassing errors. In spite of all that, NYT was still forced to publish not one, but two corrections of Rappeport’s reporting… It turns out that providing a correct answer to the question ‘What is Aleppo?’ is a lot harder than it looks. Especially if you’re a journalist with a surprising lack of foreign policy knowledge.”

As Obama advisor Ben Rhodes said earlier this year about what he called his “blob” of Democrat operatives with bylines, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

It turns out that perhaps Rhodes’ use of “literally” wasn’t even in the false Biden definition of the L-word.

FIND A LOVE THAT LOOKS AT YOU THE WAY THE PRESS LOOKS AT HILLARY, this viral tweet correctly notes:

hillary_msm_love_9-7-16-1

Just look at the rapturous expression in their faces — you can see them as well in a slightly different angle in this tweet from Andrea Mitchell, who’s just glowing — she can feel her future boss is this close to the oval office.

But note that the “blob’s”* expression also contains a healthy amount of fear as well – the media is very much the battered spouse in this relationship: “Clinton campaign warns media to tread carefully,” the Hill reports. As Steve Green asks response, “C’mon, media — you going to take this lying down?”

Of course they are. Because we saw the above image before. We see it every four years:

Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

* Classical reference.

UPDATE: “Did Hillary just tell Andrea Mitchell, ‘you’re my kind of woman’?”

DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE WITH A BYLINE SAYS WHAT? Scandal-plagued George Stephanopoulos asks is it ‘appropriate’ for scandal-plagued Roger Ailes to advise Trump?

Flashbacks: “Stephanopoulos Again Fails to Disclose His Donations During Clinton Interview” as recently as April of 2016. Hillary’s operative with a byline at ABC donated a reported $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which the Sunlight Foundation noted “operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”

In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election Dan Gainor of Fox News explored another “Scandal No One is Talking About:”

We are watching ABC’s George Stephanopoulos attack Herman Cain on how he deals with women. This is the same George Stephanopoulos who worked for Bill Clinton and did his best to undermine attacks against him. Remember, Clinton was charged with a variety of women-unfriendly incidents including rape. Yes, rape. Not that the networks made a big deal of it at the time.

Here’s Stephanopoulos, on page 267 of his autobiography “All Too Human,” “Most important, I wanted to keep reports of Paula [Jones’] press conference off television … It wasn’t a hard sell.” His book goes on to say how he tried to discredit her. Yes, this openly Democratic operative is a “newsman” now.

Don’t believe it for a second. The different between “journalist” and Democratic Party operative is often non-existent.

Just think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, and you won’t go far wrong.

UNEXPECTEDLY:  “‘CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting [Dr. Drew Pinsky]’ a source told me. ‘First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.’ What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and e-mails. ‘It was downright scary and creepy,’ a source close to Pinsky said.” Which is why “Dr. Drew loses show after discussing Hillary’s health,” the New York Post reports*.

Flashback: David Shuster suspended at MSNBC in early 2008 — a channel that was then at the height of its raucous Keith Olbermann slurring Bush nightly phase — for uttering the innocuous phrase, “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” by the Clinton foundation. Chelsea was then 27 years old, and on her way to be being paid $600,000 by MSNBC’s parent network for filing less than two dozen stories, one of which was a hard-hitting take no prisoners interview with…the Geiko gecko.

Just think of the network executives as Democrat operatives with bylines – and in both cases, financial contributors to the Clintons’ slush fund – and it all makes sense.

CNN PANEL LAUGHS AT KAINE: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF HILLARY DOESN’T HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE?

The MSM could do far more than this — if they really wanted to. As to why they don’t, just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines – and in CNN’s case, financial contributors to the Clintons’ slush fund – and it all makes sense.

WINSTON SMITH, CALL YOUR OFFICE: CNN, The Hill attempt to shield Hillary Clinton from her former KKK ‘mentor.’

Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense. CNN in particular can always be counted on dispatching a Democrat’s awkward allegiance with an openly racist longtime mentor into the memory hole during an election year.

THE GREAT WHITE HOUSE VACATION HYPOCRISY, as explored by Jonah Goldberg, who notes, “Hurricane Katrina was undoubtedly a huge story, and investigating the federal response to it was squarely in the fourth estate’s wheelhouse. But there’s simply no denying that the news media used that disaster as a partisan cudgel against a Republican president it detested. Worse, the media congratulated themselves endlessly for their Katrina coverage despite the fact that they collectively did a terrible job.”

That depends on how you define their job. Just think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, and from the MSM’s point of view, their coverage of Katrina was a spectacular success, paying huge dividends in 2006 and 2008, ultimately giving Obama one party control of the House and Senate for his first two years, and allowing him to pass Obamacare. As one of the people who issued the media’s marching orders during that period said shortly before Obama took office, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

JUST THINK OF THE MSM AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: “The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client,” Ann Althouse writes.

Which brings us to media professor and early blogger Jeff Jarvis:

And note this:

Now do ABC, aka, the House of Stephanopoulos; NBC, the home of Al Sharpton; CBS, whose news division president is David Rhodes, brother to self-immolating Obama advisor Ben Rhodes, and where the current host of Face the Nation advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP’; and of course, the Clinton News Network.

“SOMETIMES OUR MEDIA CAN BE SO INCURIOUS:”* Remember that ‘Republican Woman for Clinton?’ She’s a healthcare lobbyist married to a Clinton operative.

* Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

HEY, IT’S TIME FOR A QUADRENNIAL COLUMN THEME: American journalism is collapsing before our eyes, Michael Goodwin writes in today’s New York Post.

I’m so old, I remember reading this column when it was titled “Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline” in October of 2008 by ABC and PJM contributor Michael Malone, and even when it was titled “The ‘Media Party’ is over”, by Newsweek and MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman at the start of 2005.

But if you think of the vast majority of “journalists” as being, in reality, Democrat operatives with bylines working feverishly as king- and queen-makers for their party, there’s no need to write columns tut-tutting the demise of Beltway journalism, which died a very long time ago, indeed.

WELL, YEAH: Media predictably treats Bush, Obama differently on Louisiana disasters.

So why isn’t Obama visiting? And why isn’t the press crucifying him for not visiting? Well, the answer to the first question comes from Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, who I normally admire as a journalist. He explains that Obama’s just too cool and unswayed by the politics of photo-ops.

That would be a fine explanation if Bush was given the same justification during Katrina. The other problem with Cillizza’s explanation is that Obama has absolutely visited places after natural disasters for the photo-ops. He surveyed the damage of Hurricane Sandy just two weeks before the 2012 election. There’s no explaining that away as “the right thing to do” while visiting Louisiana is just politics.

Cillizza mentions that his article is about how Obama thinks of himself, not how we see him, and that he apparently sees himself above performance politics. I guess he sees himself above it all, except when it would look good right before a re-election, right?

If the mainstream media treated Obama the way it treated Bush, perhaps public trust in media wouldn’t be at an all-time low and falling. But this is how it will always be. Democrats get the benefit of the doubt and long explanations for why they did or didn’t do something. Republicans are just treated as uncaring.

Just think of reporters as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

WELL, WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE: What would media say about naked Hillary statues?

In a country once rocked for two weeks by the inadvertent appearance of Janet Jackson’s nipple at the Super Bowl, media condemnation of the objectively vulgar statue suddenly proved non-existent. The mood in the national press was rather jubilant and lauding.

The tone of the media wouldn’t concern if bias in its coverage of the presidential election and cultural affairs in America was not already so out of control.

Picture, if you will, a naked statue representation of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, erected (erm…) by cover of night in Times Square and on the boardwalks of Los Angeles, the sculptor’s artistic license given free reign. Imagine the sagging breasts, the flabby tum tum, the far-less-than-pert buttocks, and for the coup de grace, creative depictions of the male genitalia. Would the sculptor go very short, or very long?

It is impossible to quantify the rage that our media would unleash on the nation and heap upon sexist and racist, so-called artists. See, there is at this point, no irony in, no shame from, and no end to, the parade of contradictions that mainstream media will foist on its viewers and readers.

When it comes to Trump, the same rules simply do not apply. He cannot speak for himself; the media will speak for him. He cannot be entitled to dignity; the media will strip it from him however they can. And it’s not because he’s Trump. It’s not because he angered the fans of Univision. It’s because he’s Republican. If it were Jeb Bush, the statue in Times Square would have been of Jeb Bush; the media criticism all the same.

Anyone who’s honest will admit that the media has long favored liberals, but the bias has been worse than ever in this election season. Bashing a political figure’s looks, private lives, and even personally attacking their family members is totally fair game — as long as that political figure is a conservative.

Just look at the coverage on Melania Trump’s white dress at the RNC. Elizabeth Wellington, a fashion writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer, suggested that Trump’s dress symbolized racism. “To many, that outfit could be another reminder that in the GOP, white is always right,” she wrote.

Vanessa Friedman of The New York Times wrote, “Ms. Trump’s choice of a white dress…sent all sorts of interesting subliminal signals.” Just a week later, Wellington gushed over Hillary Clinton’s all-white DNC outfit. “White is a hue that’s both soft and strong.

But it was appropriate: Her acceptance speech was a coming out of sorts. Clinton’s white pantsuit is telling us she has arrived. This is surreal. A dream come true….”

What would the reaction be if a mainstream journalist made even the slightest negative comment about Clinton’s or Michelle Obama’s attire at the DNC? What if they were called “too old looking,” “too fat,” “too weak”? We all know the answer to this question.

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

JOE SAUNDERS: 2 Of The Biggest Names In Media Just Spilled The Beans…Trump Was Absolutely Right.

There’s more than one way to rig an election.

With the pack-mentality newshounds in the American media baying for Donald Trump’s blood during the dog days of August, the sheer brazenness of the mainstream’s efforts to carry Hillary Clinton to victory in the November general election is passing all bounds.

And partisans passing themselves off as journalists are barely pretending anymore.

The column focuses on Chris Cuomo and Jorge Ramos, but if you think of most any of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, you won’t go wrong.

BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS TO ENSURE HIGH BLACK TURNOUT FOR THE DEMOCRATS: Why must the media mislead on police shootings?

Why can’t the media just accurately report what is going on when a police shooting occurs?

The latest example comes out of Milwaukee, Wisc., in which a black police officer shot and killed Sylville Smith, who refused to put down his gun.

This was not another case of a white officer shooting an unarmed black man. It was a black officer, and more importantly the man he shot was armed. Riots and violence broke out in Smith’s neighborhood anyway.

Beyond trying to downplay the race of the officer and the firearm status of the slain man, CNN went a step further by selectively editing what Smith’s sister Sherelle said to reporters.

“Burnin’ down s*** ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down s*** we need in our community,” Sherelle told reporters. “Take that s*** to the suburbs. Burn that s*** down! We need our s***! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

CNN stopped rolling the clip after Sherelle’s comments about her own community. They framed her comments as “calling for peace.” Not exactly.

Think of them as Democratic Party operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE. Study: Networks dedicate over 5X more coverage to Trump comment than Mateen at Clinton rally.

JUST THINK OF THE MEDIA AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE: “Trump joked about kicking baby out of rally & media went WILD. But when father of Orlando terrorist rallies for Hillary…. CRICKETS.”

#MAKEAMERICAEXPENSIVEAGAIN:

When you listen to Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech tonight — seriously, America, why? — expect to hear a lot of compassionate talk aimed at working Americans. Specifically, about the Democratic Party’s plans to raise the national minimum wage to $12/hour, force companies to offer paid parental leave, double-down on ObamaCare, expand Medicaid, and push for greater education subsidies.

Then, ask yourself: Are these policies going to make life less or more expensive for Americans?

As I wrote at the beginning of 2009 after watching DNC operatives with bylines infected with a serious case of what Virginia Postrel dubbed “Depression Lust,” and Tom Brokaw begging Obama for higher gas prices, you and I have a rendezvous with scarcity.

Or as Hillary warned us over a decade ago, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

And she has a very good chance of making her will a reality next year.

DON’T EVER CHANGE, CBS: CBS’s John Dickerson to Obama Yesterday: ‘Is Honesty Overrated as a Prez Quality?’

CBS’s Charlie Rose sat with two of Obama’s speechwriters in May as all three men laughed about the Big Lie of ObamaCare — the over 36 times Obama told Americans, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

CBS’s Dan Rather told Bill O’Reilly in 2001: “I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things:”

dan_rather_title_card_7-24-16-1

Click on screen cap to be taken to video.

What’s fascinating is how many “journalists” (read: Democrat operatives with bylines) are openly willing to admit that lying is perfectly fine with them.

And just as a reminder, John Dickerson, Host of Face the Nation, Advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP.’

JUST THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T BE FAR WRONG: Leaked emails reveal Politico reporter made ‘agreement’ to send advanced Clinton story to DNC:

An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent “agreement” with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton’s fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.

Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.

The email’s subject line read: “per agreement … any thoughts appreciated.”

Flashback: Mark Levin in 2011 on “The Sleaziness of Politico’s Kenneth Vogel.”

IT’S CLEAR THAT “ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY” IS A ONE-WAY STREET:

When Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who died in the Benghazi attack, gave a moving and heartbreaking speech at the Republican National Convention, the liberal media jumped to attack her. I’m not talking about criticism or the suggestion that her solutions for what happened shouldn’t be enacted; I’m talking about personal attacks.

Smith, who is still obviously grieving over the loss of her child, blamed Hillary Clinton for it. Clinton was the secretary of state at the time and appeared to make conflicting statements about what caused the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

“For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism the tragedy in Benghazi has wrought upon America, I blame Hillary Clinton,” Smith said Monday night. “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”

MSNBC said her “gross accusation” against Clinton “ruined” the night. A GQ writer tweeted: “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.” He has since deleted the tweet. Still others, like Salon and the Guardian, claimed the GOP was “exploiting” her pain to score points.

But as Jim Geraghty at National Review pointed out, this accusation of exploitation (and the harsh words directed at Smith) only come from the media when Republicans are involved. Geraghty mentioned how Democrats and the media weren’t lodging similar claims when Cindy Sheehan traveled to President George W. Bush’s home in Texas to protest the war, nor when Mitt Romney was blamed for causing cancer.

These attacks also don’t come from the Left or the media when the grieving parents are calling for gun control or for cops to be arrested (things media often endorse).

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines (and no consciences) and you won’t be far wrong.

JUST THINK OF THEM ALL AS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE. Celebrating Rolling Stone’s Sabrina Rubin Erdely as a Journalist: “Regardless of their impact on Dean Eramo’s lawsuit, the release of the Rolling Stone affidavits leave little doubt that Sabrina Rubin Erdely isn’t a very good reporter. She had her thesis—existence of a campus ‘rape culture’—in advance. As Cathy Young noted, the spine of the article, Jackie’s story, ‘had more red flags than a Soviet military parade.’ It’s easy to see how people could have been horrified by the article. But it’s remarkable to observe how many high-caliber editors and reporters praised the quality of Erdely’s journalism. It seems their agreement with Erdely’s thesis blinded them to her flaws—a consistent problem in how most of the mainstream media has approached campus sexual assault.”

Read the whole thing.

WELL, YES:

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 4.28.56 PM

Related, from Dave Weigel: Trump, Saddam and why people mistrust the media.

The point is that Trump has been saying, for quite some time, that the United States should not have gone to war in Iraq, and that it should side with dictators as long as they “kill terrorists.” The Republican primary electorate endorsed that view. Clinton, as a senator and then as secretary of state, took another view, and backed the use of American power to remove both Hussein and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi. There’s video of Clinton gleefully saying “We came, we saw, he died” upon learning that Gaddafi had been torn apart by his own people. This has never been treated like a gaffe; but Trump’s “Saddam killed terrorists” riff suddenly is.

By consistently covering Trump’s argument over time, and by following up on it, media outlets did their job to inform voters. That was why Tuesday night’s collective Captain Renault moment was so strange, and so demonstrative of why many media consumers are skeptical of what they’re hearing. Instead of a debate on the facts — should Hussein have been removed? Did he “kill terrorists,” in a contradiction of what Americans were told before the war? — there was manufactured outrage, straight from a rival campaign.

Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, and you will not go far wrong.

REMEMBER WHEN CBS EDITED OBAMA’S ON CAMERA RESPONSE TO BENGHAZI?

Just think of CBS as being Democrat operatives with bylines (for decades) and you won’t be far wrong.

NBC HAS TOP MEN WRITING THE NEWS. TOP. MEN.:

msnbc_terrorism_pattern_6-29-16-1

But then, this is the logical endpoint of NBC’s Tom Brokaw, who by then had over 40 years as a journalist and teleprompter reader claiming the week before the 2008 election that he didn’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is. “We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy,” Brokaw told Charlie Rose. “Unexpectedly,” as the kids say at Bloomberg, neither man was horrified at the implications of that statement. Both what it says about Obama himself, and the DNC operatives with bylines (such as Brokaw and Rose) who not only failed to vet him, but covered for him every step of the way.

NO WONDER OBAMA AND HILLARY’S OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES ARE SO EAGER TO CHANGE THE TOPIC: The Islamist War on Gays Comes to America.

NOTHING GETS PAST THE GRAY LADY: NY Times: Say, People Are Just Barely Getting By In Obama’s Economy.

Hey, Obama’s operatives with bylines promised America a new FDR in 2008; they just didn’t realize that it was a warning, not a compliment.

time_fdr_2008_10-2-12

Found via Maggie’s Farm. So which candidate does the Times think will be the best successor to The One’s stagnant economic policies?

LONDON DAILY MAIL US POLITICS EDITOR: ‘A LOT’ OF THE REPORTERS COVERING HILLARY ARE ‘FANS,’ ‘IN AWE.’

Just think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines, and you won’t go far wrong.

Flashback: WaPo reports in 2006, Bill Clinton Expects That “Establishment Old Media Organizations Are De Facto Allies.”

And they were, except during their “Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media,” as ex CBS man Bernie Goldberg described it.

THE REVOLT AGAINST THE MASSES:

Press targets voters for fueling Trump’s rise.
TSA Says Passengers Only Have Themselves to Blame For Long Lines.
Obama: ‘VFW Halls All Across America’ Have Warped View of Economy.

“The best short credo of liberalism came from the pen of the once canonical left-wing literary historian Vernon Parrington in the late 1920s: ‘Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,’” Fred Siegel wrote in 2014 history of the American left, The Revolt Against the Masses.

More recently, as the late Kenneth Minogue wrote in the New Criterion in the summer of 2010:

My concern with democracy is highly specific. It begins in observing the remarkable fact that, while democracy means a government accountable to the electorate, our rulers now make us accountable to them. Most Western governments hate me smoking, or eating the wrong kind of food, or hunting foxes, or drinking too much, and these are merely the surface disapprovals, the ones that provoke legislation or public campaigns. We also borrow too much money for our personal pleasures, and many of us are very bad parents. Ministers of state have been known to instruct us in elementary matters, such as the importance of reading stories to our children. Again, many of us have unsound views about people of other races, cultures, or religions, and the distribution of our friends does not always correspond, as governments think that it ought, to the cultural diversity of our society. We must face up to the grim fact that the rulers we elect are losing patience with us.

And by extension, so are their operatives with bylines, and those who staff their ever-expanding bureaucracies.

THE HOUSE OF STEPHANOPOULOS HAS A SAD. Watch: Trump calls ABC reporter Tom Llamas ‘sleaze.’

Flashback: George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation.

Related: This is rich:

“When Democrats are raising questions, the press is also reflecting what your opposition is saying about you,” said another reporter. “We’re not just us throwing questions at you.” *

Trump responded that he didn’t mind the criticism coming from the opposition, but said it’s different when it comes from the press.

“I think the political press is among the most dishonest I’ve ever seen,’ he said. “I have to tell you that. But I think the political press – I see the stories and the way they’re couched.”

As the press conference ended, a reporter told Trump he had “set a new bar in being contentious with the press” and asked whether this is what it would be like if Trump wins the White House.

“Yeah it is,” Trump responded.

“I”m going to continue to attack the press,” he added. “I find the press to be dishonest. I find the political press to be extremely dishonest.”

Well they are. Just ask Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Scott “Holocaust Denier” Pelley, Face the Nation host John Dickerson who advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP,’ etc., etc.

All of which is why, “If this news conference turns into a press-driven referendum on how the press is doing,” Ari Fleischer tweets, “Trump will have won the day.”

Or as Jonah Goldberg wrote in 2000 when George Bush was caught on a hot mic calling insulting Adam Clymer, “Here is a secret about presidential politics that nobody is willing to admit but everyone knows: It never hurts to call a reporter from the New York Times an a**hole.”

Last year at the National Press Club, Ben Carson warned the press, “I got to tell you guys, that’s why people don’t trust you anymore. I mean you’re down there with used car salesmen.” I agree – although apologies to used car salesmen for the unfair comparison.

*Right – you’re acting as Democrat party operatives with bylines, amplifying your bosses’ message.

UPDATE: 800 pound gorilla in presidential race grilled for thoughts on 800 pound gorilla in zoo:

trump_gorilla_5-31-16-1