A Fate Worse Than Death?

skyfalling


Intolerance: Half of Staff May Quit if Kochs Buy L.A. Times

Breitbart:

Here is a fascinating look at our open-minded, objective, unbiased, not-at-all-liberal media:

At a Los Angeles Times in-house awards ceremony last week, columnist Steve Lopez addressed the elephant in the room.

Speaking to the entire staff, he said, “Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Austin Beutner’s group.” No one raised their hands.

“Raise you hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Rupert Murdoch.” A few people raised their hands.

Facing the elephant trunk-on, “Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by the Koch brothers.” About half the staff raised their hands.

These provincial, ideological bigots won’t even work for a conservative.

Apparently, too many staffers at the L.A. Times have also deluded themselves with their own propaganda. The media have been working overtime to pretend Obama’s failed economic policies are not failed economic policies. Imagine their surprise at the reality of the job market after these bigots walk out on a good-paying gig.

Please Koch Brothers, please, please, please buy these newspapers.


Somehow I doubt that very many will quit. They’ll check out their job opportunities and find slim pickings, then decide that the Koch Brothers deserve a chance. And even if they do quit I bet there are a lot of talented people out there who would love to take their places.

I do find it amusing and interesting that no one considers it objectionable when a rich progressive wants to own a media outlet. Progressive newspaper reporters and talking hairdos on television will swear that their own political leanings do not affect the totally unbiased way they report the news. That is because “News” is like “Truth”; it has no bias.

If these people really plan to quit they should at least wait until they find another job are told to spin or suppress stories for political reasons. Then they could claim they quit rather than “lie”.

Because a progressive would never lie for money, would they? It would be a fate worse than death.

(Unless there was a book deal involved.)


What Goes Around, Comes Around

POUTUS

POUTUS


Newsbusters:

Chuck Todd: Obama ‘Hates’ ‘Internet Media and Social Media’

NBC’s Chuck Todd told an inconvenient truth about Barack Obama on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

CHUCK TODD: What I wonder how many people realized at the end [of Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner] when he did his, you know, there’s always this part at the end where they get serious for a minute. And it’s usually the part where presidents say, “You know, I think the press has a good job to do and I understand what they have to do.” He didn’t say that. He wasn’t very complimentary of the press. You know, we all can do better.

It did seem, I thought his pot shots joke wise and then the serious stuff about the internet, the rise of the internet media and social media and all that stuff – he hates it. Okay? He hates this part of the media. He really thinks that the sort of the buzzification – this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was trying to make that clear last night.

Todd was likely quite correct, but chose not to disclose why Obama hates new media. It’s because most of it isn’t in the tank for this President and can’t be controlled by him.

That’s obviously not true of folks such as Todd and his colleagues in the old media who echo the current White House resident’s talking points, mercilessly attack his opponents, and cover for his missteps.

It’s therefore no wonder the President hates “the rise of the internet media and social media,” and although Todd is very active on Twitter, one thinks he also hates this rise because it’s making him and his colleagues less relevant.


There are a lot of ways to say it:

“What goes around, comes around.”

“Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

“Karma’s a bitch.”

But they all mean the same thing.

Not that many years ago a guy name Dubya was POTUS and the media were his lapdogs. People on the left weren’t happy with the media chokehold on information and the blogosphere was born. Left Blogistan was a place you could go for stories the major media wouldn’t touch.

Then this media whiz came along and saw the potential to manipulate this new “social media”. That guy is David Axelrod. He packaged up an empty suit with a blank resume and with a $100 million in seed money from Wall Street he turned a nobody into The Lightbringer.

Now the media are lapdogs for The Lightbringer and the right blogosphere (aka: Wingnuttia) is the place to go for stories the major (Lamestream) media won’t touch. And the biggest story they won’t touch?

The clothes have no emperor.


129004044307082428


No Shit, Sherlock?

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell


Captain Obvious Award Winner:

Gosnell case: HuffPost host says left ‘made a decision’ to not cover trial

Since late last week, a consensus has emerged: The national media has in large part ignored the trial of 72-year-old abortion provider Kermit Gosnell. Much less agreement, however, hovers over the question of why. Cameras aren’t allowed in the Gosnell courtroom, goes one theory. The details of the proceedings are too grisly for family-oriented media outlets, goes another prominent theory. Lefty media bias, goes yet another.

In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill made clear where his theoretical thinking lay:

“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

Strong words from a host on a left-leaning outlet.


Now that the media has been shamed into covering the trial they are trying hard to spin it in their favor. “The conservative media didn’t cover it either!” goes one irrelevant argument. “Some feminist bloggers covered it!” goes another weak defense.

But the one that takes the cake is the argument that the pro-life movement is to blame for Gosnell’s atrocities.

I wonder how relieved the media is now that the Boston Marathon bombings gave them a chance to change the subject? (And another chance to bash the right.)


This post will make you sick – the Grand Jury Report on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

kermit-gosnell_002


These are the opening paragraphs of the Grand Jury report on Dr. Kermit Gosnell:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

Let us say right up front that we realize this case will be used by those on both sides of the abortion debate. We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

The “Women’s Medical Society”

That was the impressive-sounding name of the clinic operated in West
Philadelphia, at 38th and Lancaster, by Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D. Gosnell seemed impressive as well. A child of the neighborhood, Gosnell spent almost four decades running this clinic, giving back – so it appeared – to the community in which he continued to live and work.

But the truth was something very different, and evident to anyone who stepped inside. The clinic reeked of animal urine, courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam (and defecate) freely. Furniture and blankets were stained with blood. Instruments were not properly sterilized. Disposable medical supplies were not disposed of; they were reused, over and over again. Medical equipment – such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff – was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used. The emergency exit was padlocked shut. And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains. It was a baby charnel house.

The people who ran this sham medical practice included no doctors other than Gosnell himself, and not even a single nurse. Two of his employees had been to medical school, but neither of them were licensed physicians. They just pretended to be. Everyone called them “Doctor,” even though they, and Gosnell, knew they weren’t. Among the rest of the staff, there was no one with any medical licensing or relevant certification at all. But that didn’t stop them from making diagnoses, performing procedures, administering drugs.

Because the real business of the “Women’s Medical Society” was not health; it was profit. There were two primary parts to the operation. By day it was a prescription mill; by night an abortion mill. A constant stream of “patients” came through during business hours and, for the proper payment, left with scripts for Oxycontin and other controlled substances, for themselves and their friends. Gosnell didn’t see these “patients”; he didn’t even show up at the office during the day. He just left behind blank, pre-signed prescription pads, and had his unskilled, unauthorized workers take care of the rest. The fake prescriptions brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. But this drug-selling operation is the subject of separate investigation by federal authorities.

Our focus was on the other side of the business.

Murder in plain sight

With abortion, as with prescriptions, Gosnell’s approach was simple: keep volume high, expenses low – and break the law. That was his competitive edge.

Pennsylvania, like other states, permits legal abortion within a regulatory framework. Physicians must, for example, provide counseling about the nature of the procedure. Minors must have parental or judicial consent. All women must wait 24 hours after first visiting the facility, in order to fully consider their decision. But Gosnell’s compliance with such requirements was casual at best. At the Women’s Medical Society, the only question that really mattered was whether you had the cash. Too young? No problem. Didn’t want to wait? Gosnell provided same-day service.

The real key to the business model, though, was this: Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere – because they were too pregnant. Most doctors won’t perform late second-trimester abortions, from approximately the 20th week of pregnancy, because of the risks involved. And late-term abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy are flatly illegal. But for Dr. Gosnell, they were an opportunity. The bigger the baby, the more he charged.

There was one small problem. The law requires a measurement of gestational age, usually done by an ultrasound. The ultrasound film would leave documentary proof that the abortion was illegal. Gosnell’s solution was simply to fudge the measurement process. Instead of hiring proper ultrasound technicians, he “trained” the staff himself, showing them how to aim the ultrasound probe at an angle to make the fetus look smaller. If one of his workers nonetheless recorded an ultrasound measurement that was too big, it would just be redone. Invariably these second ultrasounds would come in lower. In fact, almost every time a second ultrasound was taken, the gestational age would be recorded as precisely 24.5 weeks – slightly past the statutory cutoff. Apparently Gosnell thought he would get away with abortions that were just a little illegal. In reality, of course, most of these pregnancies were considerably more advanced.

But the illegal abortion business also posed an additional dilemma. Babies that big are hard to get out. Go snell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women. The women would check in during the day, make payment, and take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor wouldn’t appear until evening, often 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00 p.m., and only then deal with any of the women who were ready to deliver. Many of them gave birth before he even got there. By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff. The policy, in effect, was labor without labor.

There remained, however, a final difficulty. When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.”

Over the years, there were hundreds of “snippings.” Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the “snipping” was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff. But all the employees of the Women’s Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all.


That was just the beginning. There is lots and lots more. 281 pages more.

The worst part is the lack of oversight. Pennsylvania state officials did not inspect Gosnell’s clinic for eighteen years, even though there were complaints, lawsuits and at least two patient deaths. The atrocities were discovered by accident when the police raided the clinic looking for evidence that Gosnell was running a “pill mill.” If he had stayed out of drug dealing his clinic might still be open for business.

Gosnell’s victims:

kermit-gosnell_003 kermit-gosnell_005


kermit-gosnell_006

Freezer full of fetal remains

Freezer full of fetal remains


kermit-gosnell_007


This is really a sensational scandal. When you think about it this case is tailor-made for tons of television coverage. Lots of gore and lurid details, drugs, a rich defendant, and hundreds of dead babies. The only things missing are sex and dead white girls. This is way better than Casey Anthony or Jody Arias. So where is the news media? The television networks are conducting a near black-out of news reporting on the case.

You don’t have to be pro-life to be outraged by this case and the lack of media coverage thereof.


Reserved for media section at the Gosnell trial

Reserved for media section at the Gosnell trial


Protecting You From Unhappy Thoughts

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell


From Elite Panic and Kermit Gosnell by Ace of Spades:

People who do evil generally don’t imagine they’re doing evil. In fact, some of the worst evils are perpetrated by those who’ve convinced themselves they’re doing good. One’s conscience tends to restrain one from evil; but if one can trick one’s conscience into thinking one’s doing good by doing evil, well. Then you’ve really got something.

I imagine the media believes it’s “doing good” by being so cautious about What Truths the Public Is Capable of Hearing. After all, if this Gosnell trial were publicized, people would Get Angry, and come to All the Wrong Conclusions, and put the allies of those in the media (such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood) on the defensive.

Hell, these maniacs might even get in into their skulls to hurt people!

Well, we can’t have that. We can’t let the Wrong Kind of Information — true information, but the sort of information the non-enlightened may be confused about — passing into the Wrong Kinds of Brains.

Thus, this embargo on the Gosnell story is not just partisan bias, fronting for the Democrats by refusing to mention anything that might be used as a wedge issue against them.

No, this embargo is done for the Public Good, even if the public is too stupid to understand that. If the public heard about these things… Well, that’s not gonna happen. Not on our watch.

It’s been occurring to me lately that much media behavior is explainable by this prism. They don’t want to report certain facts, not because the facts aren’t true (they’re facts by definition), but because they’re Concerned About The Capacity of Non-Journalists to Successfully Interpret These Facts.

And they justify this to themselves by conceiving themselves as Angels guarding the outer doors of Hell itself, with millions of slavering monsters just beyond the gate.

By deliberately misleading the public, you see, they’re protecting the world.

From us.


If you have been following the story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell you should be horrified and outraged. He is an abortion doctor that is on trial for murdering aborted babies that were born alive. Witnesses have testified to watching him use scissors to snip the spinal cords of live infants.

A woman who worked at a Philadelphia abortion clinic has testified how she was told snipping babies’ spines after they were born was ‘standard procedure’ to bring about ‘fetal demise’.

Lynda Williams, 44, said her former boss Dr. Kermit Gosnell taught her how to turn a baby over and cut its neck with a pair of scissors – but she only did it once because it gave her ‘the creeps’.

As she testified in the murder trial against Gosnell, she added that patients were often given pain medication that did not work during procedures, and that he would slap their legs if they squirmed.

Gosnell, 72, is charged with murdering seven babies at Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society and with the death of a woman, who suffered cardiac arrest after she was given too much anesthesia.

He performed illegal, late-term abortions and when the babies were born alive, he would sever their spinal cords to kill them, prosecutors have claimed over the four-week trial.


If you have never heard of Dr. Kermit Gosnell that is no surprise. The U.S. media has essentially embargoed the story. That should horrify and outrage you even more.


The Mouths Of Sauron

The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.'

The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: ‘I am the Mouth of Sauron.’



Victor Davis Hanson:

Journalists as Ring Wraiths

Today’s Washington journalists are like J. R. R. Tolkien’s ring wraiths, petty lords who wanted a few shiny golden Obama rings — only to end up as shrunken slaves to the One.

The Bob Woodward/Ron Fournier/Lanny Davis psychodrama is another small reminder that the Obama administration continues to assume that the press should be little more than a veritable Ministry of Truth. Its proper duty is to serve the White House and promote the progressive agenda of Barack Obama. Any were considered suspect who questioned whether those exalted ends should really be achieved by any means necessary — but they were so few and far between that it mattered little.

Woodward, Fournier, and Davis, in their surprise at the general paranoia of the Obama administration, must think that freelancing White House zealots are tarnishing the reputation of their president, who, given his own predilections, would otherwise not countenance such clumsy intimidation of journalists.

[...]

In the same way that the operatives of the Nixon White House once channeled the character of Richard Nixon, so too the Obama administration reflects the manner in which Barack Obama has always campaigned and viewed politics. His 2004 Senate run and two presidential campaigns all shared the same modus operandi of unleashing surrogates to tar opponents, bully critics, romance the mainstream media, and caricature the shrinking number of journalistic kulaks — all while deploring the politics of personal destruction.

The Woodward fiasco is different only in that a few liberals now feel that, given that Obama need not face election again, they should be allowed to salvage some journalistic integrity by mild cross-examination and pathetic eleventh-hour confessions of past White House pressure. Or, in the words of journalist Mark Halperin, writing of the Woodward affair, “It’s a little embarrassing none of the rest of us was as aggressive as he was.” Four years ago it was a little embarrassing; now it is only predictable.

Cannot Obama be somewhat magnanimous and give our modern-day Nazgûl a few face-saving measures after they have sold their souls on so many occasions when it counted? Of course not; emaciated wraiths remain wraiths. Dissent is equated with a sort of disloyalty among the supposedly kindred minds of fellow culture warriors. By questioning motives, they have earned justifiable rebuke — or worse.


The Ringwraiths were not just petty lords who wanted shiny baubles, they were kings who lusted for rings of power. The analogy still fits however, because today’s media lusts for the power (along with fame and fortune) that White House access brings.

But wait! There’s more!

When Amory Gutierrez from the Pleasanton Weekly wanted to do a puff piece on the Obamas’ helicopter, “Marine One,” the White House put out the welcome mat. After all, Pleasanton is a very upscale bedroom community attached to Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Democrats outnumber Republicans there more than two to one. Gutierrez, however, did not keep to the anticipated script.  Her piece gushed over the helicopter flown by a Marine crew, but then went on to repeat what the Marines had told her.  In nearly four years of flying the Obamas, Michelle Obama had never so much as verbally acknowledged the crew’s existence.

Intentional or not, the one line in the otherwise celebratory piece made the first lady look aloof and disdainful of the military — or as some people put it, just plain snooty.  The White House moved decisively into damage-control mode.

 

Now, one might see this move as more than a bit of an overreaction. After all, the Pleasanton Weekly is not exactly the Washington Post. But, in many circles, Michelle Obama has a major image problem.  There is her statement that she was not proud of her country that seems continually to follow her. Then, there were the vacations that were roundly criticized for masquerading as state visits. Consequently, this small weekly in an overwhelmingly Democratic district was being pressured to remove the line that further tarnished the first lady’s image.

Did the Marines not say this? Was the line inaccurate? Gina Channell-Allen, the president of the Pleasanton Weekly, never contested the veracity of the line. In justifying her yielding to the “request” from the White House to have it removed, she made an argument so torturous as to remind us that the First Amendment is too important to be left to journalists to defend.

Channell-Allen told readers that she had been asked by the White House to take out something that compromised the president’s security, and while she was doing this, taking out the other line was no big deal. In fact, Channell-Allen conflated the two requests as if one were part of the other. Here is how she put it: “They also mentioned taking out a line that could be misconstrued about the first lady. It wasn’t going to change lives or destroy administrations by leaving it in or taking it out. When you’ve just been asked to do something to keep the president of the United States from harm, taking a line out about something like that is not a question.  Even journalists have to choose our battles.”

Asking the Office of the First Lady for a comment on why it was necessary to pressure a small weekly newspaper to edit its story, The Daily Caller received an email from Michelle Obama’s press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, that denied the office knew of the story or ever had interacted with the paper.


I’m not holding my breath waiting for the media to come to Jeebus. They already sold their souls. Obama owns them. They are damned for eternity.


“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” -Auric Goldfinger


Whose War On Women?

Blog026

Yesterday by Maureen Callahan in the NY Post:

“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c–t, a–hole.” He complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”

He wound up confronting the author of the e-mail directly. “I said, ‘From now on, every e-mail you send this reporter will be on the record, and you will be speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.’ That shut it down.”


Why are we only hearing about this now? Why was this not front-page news the day it happened? Was a formal complaint made? If not, why not? Who is the author of the e-mail? Where is a copy of the e-mail?

Is this person still on the public payroll and if so, why?

This story says as much about the sad state of our media as it does about the Obama Fratboy Administration.

But hey, Mitt Romney has binders full of women!

Fucking asshats.


“You Will Regret This”


Business Insider:

BOB WOODWARD: A ‘Very Senior’ White House Person Warned Me I’d ‘Regret’ What I’m Doing

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward said of the White House’s pushback on his reporting.


So now the “most transparent administration ever” is threatening reporters who tell the truth about them.

I’m not making any predictions but this is the kind of thing that can be a game changer. If the media turns on Obama he’s toast and they don’t like it when one of their own gets attacked.


Who the hell is Oscar Pistorius and why should I care?

2012 Virgin Active Sports Industry Awards


Today’s ZOMG! news bulletin:

Oscar Pistorius granted bail in murder case

Nine days after his arrest in the shooting death of his girlfriend, Oscar Pistorius has been released on bail.

A judge granted bail to the double-amputee athlete Friday on the fourth day of his bail hearing.

In announcing his decision, Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair said that the state had not provided enough evidence to convince him that the international athlete was a flight risk.

Pistorius is charged with one count of premeditated murder over the Feb. 14 killing of Reeva Steenkamp. He says he accidentally shot her, thinking she was a dangerous intruder inside his home, lurking in a toilet stall off his bedroom.

The magistrate set bail at 1,000,000 South African rand (approx. $112,800), Reuters reported. Pistorius was also ordered to stay away from his home and witnesses, is prohibited from drinking alcohol, and must turn in his passport and his firearms He must also report to the police station twice a week.

The prosecution vehemently opposed bail, calling the Olympian also known as the “Blade Runner” a flight risk.


Who the hell is Oscar Pistorius and why should I care? Why is my twitter stream been clogged for days with his name?

Near as I can tell he is a minor sports celebrity from South Africa who is accused of killing his girlfriend. So what? Murders are a dime a dozen here in the U.S, we don’t need to import them.

The fact that Oscar Pistorius is a “story” tells you all you need to know about our news media. (They seriously suck.)

Let’s get back to the important stuff like the breathless blow-by-blow coverage of Chris Brown and Rihanna.


Dogs Always Whine When They Get Left Behind

tiger obama


WaPo:

President Obama enjoys guys’ weekend, golfs with Tiger Woods

President Obama on Sunday displayed the freedom that comes with not having another election ahead of him, golfing with Tiger Woods in an enclave of privilege here along Florida’s blustery Atlantic coast.

Since his reelection in November, Obama has been talking about the perils facing America’s middle class, highlighted in his State of the Union address last week. On Friday he visited a public high school in his hometown of Chicago, where he spoke in personal terms about the need to reduce gun violence and create jobs in the country’s troubled urban areas.

The contrast to where he arrived only hours later – and where he will remain through Monday’s federal holiday – could not be more stark. He disappeared late Friday evening behind the gates of the Floridian, a lush golf and residential compound off limits to the public. Neither the public outside those gates, nor the media, has seen him since.

And by adding Woods, the greatest player of his generation, whose fame might only be matched by the notoriety attached to his precipitous adultery-fueled fall from grace three years ago, Obama made clear that he’ll live with criticism over the gap between the harsh realities he is seeking to address in public life and the glamour of his private follies.

The Floridian is owned by Houston businessman and Obama donor Jim Crane, a near-scratch golfer who also owns the Houston Astros baseball team. Crane held a fundraiser for Obama last March in an upscale shopping and dining complex attached to Minute Maid Park, the Astros home field.


That’s a pretty amazing article for the Washington Post to print about Obama. I wonder what’s up?

The traveling White House press corps has been given no access to Obama on this outing, a guys’ weekend of golf and a cool winter sun. First lady Michelle Obama and the couple’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, took their annual ski vacation in Aspen, Colo., during the long Presidents’ Day weekend.

For much of this outing, the small contingent of the White House press corps accompanying Obama has lobbied with little success for more information about where precisely on the Floridian grounds the president is staying, who he is staying with, and how much contact he has with other people on the grounds.

A photo of Obama on the course with someone as famous as Woods is commonly a moment the “traveling pool” of about a dozen journalists is allowed to witness. White House officials declined to allow that Sunday.

For the long weekend, the pool has been permitted just inside the Floridian gates, where reporters have used as their “filing center” a mirror-ceilinged party bus, the kind used for shouldn’t-be-driving evenings of bacchanalia like bachelor parties.

Because the president’s motorcade has not left the compound, White House officials have explained, there is no reason for the pool to track the president’s activities or to know who he is spending time with on a personal vacation.

That is an argument often respected by the White House press corps, except this time Obama is not staying in a private home but on the grounds of a complex accessible by those who belong to the club and others. The press corps is staying at a Holiday Inn Express roughly eight miles away.


Okay, now it makes sense.

Dogs always whine when they get left behind. Sometimes they get mad and chew up your slippers or gnaw on the furniture to get even. But when you come home they are excited to see you and jump right in your lap.

They are literally showing Obama who’s the boss.


It’s A Business!

newspaper-reporter-typewriter


Theodore Dawes:

The Fall of Journalism

In the past 30-plus years I’ve interviewed dozens of candidates for jobs in journalism. Among the questions I always posed is this one: Why are newspapers published?

To date, no journalism school graduate has known the answer, which is, of course, to make money for the publisher.

Last year I participated in a get-together with journalism students from the local college. I asked my question and received the same b.s. answers as always (“To… uh… provide the community with a voice?”)

When I told the students the answer, the instructor disagreed and repeated the same nonsense his students had already provided.

Mine was a common sense observation, gently delivered. As a friend of mine recently wrote, “If you want to see heads explode, try explaining to people that they are not the customer and the newspaper is not the product… advertisers are the customer and reader attention is the product.”

If you were to run that past your typical journalism school faculty, the resulting cranial detonations would register on the geology department’s seismometer.

And yet it is entirely, one hundred percent true.

We in the newsroom should have no illusions. Our entire purpose is to fill the “news hole,” which is the space left over after the advertisements have been placed on the page.

That’s the fact that underlies Seinfeld’s comical observation: “It’s amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper.”


That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is to say when you work for someone he/she is the customer to whom you are selling your effort, skill and industry. So if you are employed as a reporter then you work for the publisher through his/her agent the editor. (For purpose of this post, “publisher” means “owner”.)

Your job is to keep the publisher happy. Certain stories and topics will make him/her happy. Others will make him/her unhappy. Too much of one and not enough of the other and you will be unemployed.

The primary concern of the publisher is usually to make a profit. But the publisher may have more financial interests than just the newspaper. If, as is very common, the publisher is a major corporation or Feelthy Rich Capitalist, they may will probably view the paper as an integral part of the corporation rather than a fully independent entity. They will then expect the paper to advance the interests of the corporation/FRC.

This isn’t just true of newspapers. It applies to magazines, radio and television news as well as some blogs. So if a corporation like General Electric were to purchase a television network, they would expect that network to advance GE’s interests. Those interests would include government policy and legislation that affect GE.

So if the leadership at GE concluded that it was in the best interests of GE that Candidate A defeated Candidate B in the next election, they would expect their network to help Candidate A win. This would affect what stories got coverage and how they were slanted.

It’s really that simple.


Impartial Partisanship

Blog024a10


Chris Hughes:

Welcome to Our Redesign

With this issue, we relaunch The New Republic. Our goals may be somewhat different from those of the magazine’s founding fathers, but we share their unabashed idealism. We believe that our new hyper-information age is thrilling, but not entirely satisfying. We believe that there must remain space for journalism that takes time to produce and demands a longer attention span-writing that is at once nourishing and entertaining. We aim to tell the most important, timely stories about politics, culture, and big ideas that matter to you.

The journalism in these pages will strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias, although it will showcase passionate writing and will continue to wrestle with the primary questions about our society. Our purpose is not simply to tell interesting stories, but to always ask why these stories matter and tie their reporting back to our readers. We hope to discern the hidden patterns, to connect the disparate facts, and to find the deeper meaning, a layer of understanding beyond the daily headlines.


But wait! There’s more!

Althouse:

I must say, I’d never paid any attention to Chris Hughes before, and I didn’t yesterday until pushed by my commenters. On the evidence of the interview he and Franklin Foer did with the President, I saw him as another media suckup doing Democratic Party politics under cover of journalism. Seeing this “free of party ideology or partisan bias” business now only inclines me to scoff. If that’s what you wanted as your brand, why did you lead off with that interview?

But I realize I need to get up to speed on this Chris Hughes character. I didn’t even bother to name him in yesterday’s post, and I’ve only just made a tag for him now. Sorry, I didn’t bother watching “The Social Network.” To the extent that I follow celebrities, I’m not particularly drawn to new media businessmen. I can keep track of Mark Zuckerberg up to a point, but I’ve never paid attention to the lesser Facebookians.

Here‘s a HuffPo article from last March about Hughes’s purchase of TNR, noting that he was “a key player in President Obama’s online organizing efforts in 2008.” Why would we expect this man — who’s only 29, by the way — to strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias? I’ve got to assume the striving is toward seeming to be free of party ideology and partisan bias, because that’s what journalists always say they are doing when they have ideological and partisan goals.


Partisans have just as much right to be journalists as anyone else. But they should be honest about their point of view. Otherwise the foundation for everything they say is based upon a lie.


Best Scam Ever

Blog018


Glenn Reynolds:

Where big GOP bucks could matter

Mitt Romney and the GOP lost, but it wasn’t for lack of money. They spent a lot; they just didn’t get enough bang for the buck.

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson alone donated $150 million. But Romney lost anyway, especially among unmarried women.

Which is why I think that rich people wanting to support the Republican Party might want to direct their money somewhere besides TV ads that copy, poorly, what Lee Atwater did decades ago.

My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites.

One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.

Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like.

The thing is, those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. So while nine out of 10 articles may be the usual stuff on sex, diet and shopping, the 10th will always be either soft p.r. for the Democrats or soft — or sometimes not-so-soft — hits on Republicans.

When a flier about getting away with rape was found in a college men’s bathroom, the women’s site YourTango (“Your Best Love Life”) led with the fact that the college was Paul Ryan’s alma materin a transparent effort to advance the Democrats’ War on Women claim that Republicans are somehow pro-rape. A companion article was “12 Hot Older Men Who Endorse President Obama.”

Similar p.r. abounded across the board: Sandra Fluke is a hero; Sarah Palin is a zero. Republicans are all old white men (women or minority Republicans get mocked or ignored).

This kind of thing adds up, especially among low-information voters. They may not know or care much about the specifics, but this theme, repeated over and over again, sends a message: Democrats are cool, and Republicans are uncool — and if you vote for them, you’re uncool, too.


If the feelthy riche are gonna buy up some women’s magazines, who are they gonna buy them from? Can you name a major media outlet (internet, dead tree, boob tube or talk, talk, talk radio) that isn’t owned by a rich person or big corporation? (NPR and PBS don’t count as “major” media.)

Ask a Vile Prog and they’ll tell you that the Evil One Percenters control all the media in this country and there is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to enslave us all. Ask a Wingnut Tea Partier and he’ll tell you that all the media except Fox News, Rush and Glenn Beck is the Lamestream Librul Media and Fox, Rush and Glenn are the only Fair & Balanced news sources in the country.

They are both wrong.

Consider Chris Matthews (aka “Tweety”) at MSNBC:

When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police.[9] Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary.[10] Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration and later worked for six years as a top aide to longtime Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.

Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews has said, “I’m more conservative than people think I am…. I voted for George W. in 2000.”[11] Salon.com has called him the “most conservative voice” on MSNBC’s primetime lineup.[12] Matthews has been accused by media watchdogs[13] of having panels of guests that skew to the right and of supporting Republicans in his own questions and comments.


Tweety made his bones on cable news during l’affaire Lewinsky. Five nights a week for the better part of four years his fans were treated to regular discussions of the distinguishing characteristics of the Presidential Penis (aka “The Clenis”) and interviews with Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Cashmere McCloud. If you had dirt to dish on Bill or Hillary, Chris Matthews wanted to interview you. No tinfoil hat conspiracy theory was too improbable to discuss, and no leaked detail from the Starr Chamber Investigation was too salacious to report. Tweety helped make Paula Jones and Vince Foster into household names.

Then starting in 1999 Chris joined the Get Gore Movement. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler spent years documenting how Tweety and the rest of the media set out to ruin the reputation of Al Gore and install George W. Bush as our 43rd POTUS. Chris remained a Bush supporter until sometime around 2007 when he performed an abrupt reversal and became a born-again Democrat and a flaming Obot.

Chris Matthews makes over $5 million dollars a year by playing the fool on MSNBC. He’s not getting paid for his wealth of knowledge (he got creamed on Jeopardy) or his keen insights. He is typically unprepared and obnoxious to his guests. His ratings are that great either. So why does he make so much money?

Answer: He is doing exactly what his employers want him to do. Think about that for a minute – why do his employers want him to play the fool?

All of the major media in this country share one common goal – supporting the establishment they work for. I don’t mean the Obama Administration, they work for the same people. I am talking about the corporatist/capitalist system.

This is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. It’s all out in the open. All you have to do is open your eyes and look.


UPDATE:


There are none so blind as those who will not see

NFHear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil-26


Matthew Continetti:

See No Evil

If a campaign finance story is not about David Koch or Sheldon Adelson, do liberals care?

Consider the reaction to Kenneth Vogel’s important report on the winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance, the secretive organization of progressive millionaires and billionaires who finance an extraordinarily byzantine network of liberal foundations and Super PACs that operate with undisclosed “dark money.”

What reaction? Exactly. There wasn’t any.

The left-wing VIPs assembled at the luxury W Hotel across the street from the White House, but only Vogel reported on the story. The gathering did not merit inclusion in either the Washington Post or the New York Times, both of which have offices within blocks of the W, and both of which have devoted reams of newsprint to Mitt Romney’s donor retreats and various Koch-affiliated fundraising summits. Was New York Times campaign finance reporter Nicholas Confessore too busy appearing on NOW with Alex Wagner to cover the event?

More likely the media simply ignore data that complicate their preferred narrative. When it comes to the fraught relationship between money and politics, that narrative is as follows: Money in politics is corrupting only because rich businessmen trade campaign donations to Republicans for low taxes and fewer environmental regulations.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, the narrative continues, assisted such transactions by treating corporate and union PAC donations as protected speech. Republicans are better at fundraising because they are selfish, whereas Democrats are more concerned with the common good. And when Democrats abandon the principles of campaign finance reform, they do so with heavy hearts and the tragic sense that they could not compete otherwise.

The end.

Not only is this fairy tale nonsense, it is the biggest myth in American politics. Liberals use this just-so story to salve their consciences and reinforce their collective prejudices against conservatives. They cannot conceive that progressive donors engage in the exact sort of influence peddling they so lustily condemn.

This willful refusal to face facts leads to repression and confusion. A liberal whose understanding of the 2012 election derived from mainstream media and Team Obama emails would not know that the president’s campaign outraised and outspent Mitt Romney’s campaign by hundreds of millions of dollars. She would be unaware that three of the top five Super PACs were aligned with Democrats. Indeed the overall Republican financial advantage was minimal, a little more than 10 percent. That figure does not include the indirect spending by labor unions that is hard to track. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has outraised the Republican Party in each of the last three election cycles. Remind me where the GOP’s huge money advantage lies?


His ability to raise vast sums of money was one of the original selling points on Obama. And that’s why they keep Nasty Nancy around too.

If the Democrats really cared about campaign finance reform they would have passed something back when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Why should they want to change the rules now? They’re winning!


corruption


Just say “No!”


Rick Green:

Register editor: Obama off-the-record comments deserve to be shared with voters

The Des Moines Register’s publisher and I spoke with President Barack Obama this morning — but we can’t tell you what he said.

Just four days before the Register’s presidential endorsement is released, Laura Hollingsworth and I received a phone call from the president. He was calling from Florida, on the heels of a morning campaign appearance and about 14 hours after his debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

The conference call lasted nearly 30 minutes and was an incredibly informative exchange of questions, answers and an insightful glimpse into the president’s vision for a second term. He made a genuine and passionate case for our endorsement and for reelection.

Just two weeks before Election Day, the discussion, I believe, would have been valuable to all voters, but especially those in Iowa and around the country who have yet to decide between the incumbent Democrat and his Republican opponent.

Unfortunately, what we discussed was off-the-record. It was a condition, we were told, set by the White House.

[...]

It was a “personal call” to the Register’s publisher and editor, we were told. The specifics of the conversation could not be shared because it was off-the-record.

Of course, we immediately lobbied his campaign staff in Des Moines for a formal, on-the-record call. We were told it was not their decision; it came from the White House. We requested that the White House be asked to reverse course so whatever the president shared with us could be reviewed by voters and our readers.

No reason was given for the unusual condition of keeping it private.

We relented and took the call. How could we not? It’s the leader of the free world on line one.


The answer, Mr. Green, is simple: Just say “No!”

There are good reasons for a newspaper to grant off the record interviews, but this wasn’t one of those situations. You are in the “news” business. Secrets are not news unless you report them. What’s the point of having information you can’t use?

As much as I applaud you for publishing this article, you could have given us just as much information if you had told the President that you would not do the interview unless it was on the record and he then refused to talk to you. The difference is you would not be keeping secrets from us. If you are keeping secrets from us, whose side are you on?

The fact is, Mr. Green, you are being used. You LET yourself be used. Imagine if you and all your brethren in the media took a firm stand and refused to be used anymore.

Anonymity and secrecy should be reserved for whistleblowers. Official sources should never be allowed to disseminate approved talking points confidentially. The press should tell their sources that “Anything you say can and will be published.”

Lawyers and priests get paid to keep secrets. You get paid to do the opposite. Start doing your job.

Cordially,

The Klown


And the winner is . . . Bob Shieffer!


No, seriously.

For the first time in four debates, nobody is talking about the moderator:

Bob Schieffer sets the standard

Finally, the moderator isn’t the story.

The cardinal rule of debate moderation is this: it isn’t about the moderator. But in the first three debates of the 2012 presidential campaign, the moderator invariably became part of the story: Jim Lehrer lost control; Martha Raddatz took too much; and Candy Crowley stole the spotlight when she decided, on a whim, to fact-check the candidates.

Enter Bob Schieffer, who disarmed the candidates with a Texas septuagenarian’s unassuming charm and facilitated their conversation with the calm confidence that comes from two decades as anchor of a Sunday morning news show.

Never once did President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney disregard his efforts to keep time and move the conversation forward, never once did they ride roughshod over him the way they had over Lehrer and Crowley. All six topics were covered, and when the debate ended, there was but a 35-second discrepancy in their speaking times, according to a clock provided by CNN.

Schieffer was far from perfect. Like Lehrer, he rarely interjected. On more than one occasion, the conversation drifted far from foreign policy — most memorably, to teachers unions and class sizes — and Schieffer stayed silent. (His one minor slip-up, when he accidentally called Osama bin Laden, “Obama bin Laden,” drew attention on Twitter but faded quickly) But by and large, Schieffer fulfilled the mission as defined by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was to facilitate a fair debate but leave control of the conversation to the candidates.


When I was a kid all the newscasters were somber, serious men who told you the day’s news, but they didn’t make themselves part of it. They all seemed to have gone to the Joe Friday School of Reporting – “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Debate moderators are like referees and umpires – if people are talking about them afterwards it’s not a good thing. Journalism schools should use Shieffer’s and Candy Crowley’s performances as textbook examples of the right and wrong way to do it.


Hating A Dead Man


‘Hating Breitbart’ Review: How Andrew Tortured the Media with the Truth

“Hating Breitbart” introduces movie goers to the man the mainstream media despised for telling it like it is.

The film, opening in select theaters Friday, will certainly be greeted with head nods and high fives by those who followed the late media mogul’s work. Those unfamiliar with Andrew’s mission or his successful take down of media memes will walk away with a better understanding of what he was fighting – and why so many people wanted to personally destroy him.

The documentary captures Andrew using his media empire to savage ACORN, the media lie that the Tea Party movement was hopelessly racist and reporters who cared more about attacking Andrew’s minions than doing actual journalism.

Andrew did it all with great humor, a ferocious spirit and a willingness to sign up every citizen journalist he could to join his army.

“Everybody has the ability to break a story … it’s the most exciting era in the history of the First Amendment,” he says during the film.


I have to admit that I missed most of the Breitbart experience while he was alive. Now I wish I had paid more attention.

Forget about his political views. The man was onto something that could be a real game-changer. For decades the mainstream (corporate) media has held a stranglehold on information. Yes, “the truth is out there”, but you gotta go look for it. Propaganda comes right into your living room every night.

A very small group of people, answerable to no one, exercise control over 90% of what we call news. They decide what to tell us about and what to ignore. They even try to tell us what it means. Joseph Goebbels would be envious.

People talk about starting new political parties when they should focus on joining what Breitbart called the “new media.”

“The new media is taking over where the old media failed. Yes, they failed, my friends. Yes, they failed.”


Breitbart believed in citizen journalists, armed with digital cameras, smart phones, internet access and social media, who would bypass the old media. In other words, what the progressive blogosphere was supposed to be before the progressive bloggers sold out (he helped create Huffington Post).

This is not about ideology. Truth has no ideology, it just is what it is. But truth is a double-edged sword that doesn’t care which way it cuts.

Remember Occupy Wall Street? They recorded their activities and posted them on YouTube. Then they discovered that people didn’t like what they were seeing so the Occupiers started deleting their own stuff. But even though it was bad for the Occupy movement it was a win for the new media. People didn’t have to take anyone’s word about the Occupiers they could see for themselves.

The prevalence of recording devices has provided shocking proof of how police officers really act. We’ve seen people punched or tasered by cops for little or no reason. This has resulted in some states trying to criminalize the recording of the police!

The truth is out there. Let’s go get it.

Hating Breitbart starts today in selected theaters.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32



Jim Lehrer – “Everybody knows what they saw”


Breitbart:

Spin Doesn’t Work If Everybody’s Seen The Event

Sean Hannity, Fox News: “I felt that for you, after the debate, a lot of criticism heaped on you.”

Jim Lehrer, PBS News Hour: “Yeah”

Hannity: “How did you feel about that?”

Lehrer: “Well, you know, I’m not really keen on criticism [laughs], just as a general thing. But, that was right at the beginning. The criticism has pretty much gone away now because people realize that spin doesn’t work if everybody’s seen the event. Sixty-seven million people watched it, sixty-seven million other people reacted to it — saw excerpts [of] it and all of that. So, they know what they saw. So, everybody is pretty well chilled out on this, and nobody’s blaming me for it and blaming me for anything. And the format is what made it possible. Whatever happened, some people look at it in a positive way, some people look at it in a negative way. However, the fact of the matter is it was the format and all I did was implement the format — which was a wide-open opportunity for the candidates to directly address each other.”


I think Team Obama made a serious miscalculation when they tried to blame Jim Lehrer. He is widely respected in the media and they tend to defend their own. Remember the War on FOX News? The media took FOX’s side.


Nutpicking


Joe Cannon:

Bringing The Crazy

Obama is, by any normal measure, vulnerable. He hasn’t been a good president, and I see no reason to believe that he would improve during a second term. If he manages to hold onto the gig, the deciding factor won’t be his accomplishments or promises, but the sheer scary surreality of the modern Republican party.

Case in point: This lady. I believe that her little scheme falls under the Constitutional definition of treason. They’ve been edging up to that line for years, and now they’ve crossed it.

Then there are the party platforms:

Predictably, Texas Republicans want a land without Social Security, without the United Nations, and without President Obama. But the 23-page platform has some truly random gems, like opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was negotiated and adopted under the presidencies of those dangerous radicals, Reagan and Bush. They oppose implanting a radio chip in your body. (Radio chips bad; tortilla chips good.)

On the economy, the Texans proudly quote at great length from the GOP’s national platform—from 1932. I kid you not. These folks pine for the policies of Herbert Hoover. They want to repeal the minimum wage, abolish the Federal Reserve, and return to the gold standard. By next year they’ll be calling for a return to wampum and barter.

We can always count on Larry Klayman to bring The Crazy.

[...]

In fact, those who favor Obama (or who consider him the least stinky of the two stinkers) should encourage the madmen of the right to keep doing their Renfield-in-the-asylum impressions in public places. The widespread perception that Klaymanesque kooks have taken over the GOP may be the only reason why Romney isn’t clobbering Obama.


“This lady” is Randi Shannon, a “Republican state Senate candidate in Iowa [who] has decided to bow out of the race and become a U.S. senator of an alternative form of government.”

I will concede that Larry Klayman is a kook, but he holds no official position in the Republican Party. In 2003 he tried running for the Senate in Florida but lost in the primary.

As for the Texas state Republican party platform, if you actually read the document you will discover it’s not quite as crazy as Paul Begala would like you to believe. There is stuff in there I don’t agree with, like their positions on abortion and gay marriage, but it’s mostly mainstream conservative dogma.

Cannon’s post is a classic example of “nutpicking“, which has nothing to do with scratching your genitals:

NUTPICKING….Last night I held a contest to create a name for the moronic practice of trawling through open comment threads in order to find a few wackjobs who can be held up as evidence that liberals are nuts. It’s both lazy and self-refuting, since if the best evidence of wackjobism you can find is a few anonymous nutballs commenting on a blog, then the particular brand of wackjobism you’re complaining about must not be very widespread after all.


So Cannon takes a couple ostensible Republicans who hold no elective office or official positions in the GOP and he holds them up as typical Republicans. Then he adds in an article by Paul Begala that basically nutpicks the Texas state Republican party platform, which I doubt few Texas Republicans have even read.

Just like that he has what superficially appears to be a logical, reasoned argument proving that the Republicans are batshit insane. The problem is his argument is based on the logical fallacy of incomplete evidence, also known as confirmation bias.

We see this nutpicking pattern a lot. The purpose is always the same – to delegitimize the opposition. As Cannon himself puts it:

Oh, hell, there’s no point arguing with this nonsense. You can’t talk a madman out of his madness.


A few crazies = they’re all crazy = there is no point in even talking to them.

To be fair, Republicans do the same thing. Ironically, they have been known to use Joe Cannon as an example of left-wing craziness.


What is a “real” journalist?


Before there was Andrew Breitbart, there was Michelle Malkin to hate:

‘Real Journalists Are Apologists for Corrupt-ocracy’: Michelle Malkin Takes on Juan Williams in Tense Live TV Segment

Things got a little more heated than usual on tonight’s Hannity in a debate between noted conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams over the nature of the recent White House leaks.

Williams had tried to argue that there was nothing particularly special about the leaks regarding national security currently emanating from the White House, claiming that every administration had done the same thing. Malkin fired back by raising the point that the liberal press had excoriated former President Bush over the leaks regarding CIA agent Valerie Plame, which were seen as an attack on the country’s intelligence community and, by extension, on national security.

Williams’ response was to pull rank on Malkin. “I’m a real reporter, I’m not a blogger out on the blogosphere,” Williams said dismissively, before launching into a lecture about how reporters talk to officials, something he apparently didn’t believe Malkin had any experience with.

[...]

“The American people are sick of the kind of snotty condescension from liberal elite journalists like Juan Williams who tell us that the rest of us are not doing our jobs, when the point is that when Eric Holder was shamefully approved and nominated and approved to be Attorney General, he had already had a long record of bastardizing national security and the rule of law,” Malkin said.

[...]

Williams must have sensed he was bleeding this point, and interrupted, accusing Malkin of going off-topic before launching into an extended repeat of his original arguments, virtually unaltered. It was at this point that Hannity interrupted to tell Williams that he was going to have to accept that “Holder is finished” before closing the segment. Williams tried to protest, at which point Malkin got in her killing blow.

“So real journalists are apologists for corrupt-ocracy, we got it,” Malkin said drippingly.


According to Wikipedia, Malkin got an English degree from Oberlin college in 1992 where she worked on a conservative student newspaper.

Malkin began her journalism career at the Los Angeles Daily News, working as a columnist from 1992 to 1994. In 1995, she worked in Washington, D.C., as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[11] a free-market, anti-government regulation, libertarian think tank.[12][13] In 1996, she moved to Seattle, Washington, where she wrote columns for The Seattle Times. Malkin became a nationally-syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate in 1999.[14][15]

For many years, Malkin was a frequent commentator for Fox News Channel and a regular guest host of The O’Reilly Factor. In 2007, she announced that she would not return to The O’Reilly Factor, claiming that Fox News had mishandled a dispute over derogatory statements made about her by Geraldo Rivera in a Boston Globe interview.[16] Since 2007, she has concentrated on her writing, blogging and public speaking, although she still appears on television occasionally, especially with Sean Hannity on Fox News and Fox & Friends once a week. In December 2009, Malkin began writing for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.


She also has written four non-fiction books (including two bestsellers) and has been blogging since 2004.

But she’s not a “real” journalist?

The progressive blogosphere got its start as a reaction to “real” journalism. Two of the earliest blogs (called “webzines” back in those prehistoric times) were The Daily Howler (1998-present) and Media Whores Online (2000-2004). Talking Points Memo started in 2000 and Media Matters for America (MMfA) started in 2004. All of them were media critics/watchdogs.

By the end of the Nineties there were three full-time news networks (CNN, FOX and MSNBC) but journalism was becoming increasingly lazy, decadent and corrupt. The media came to see themselves as gatekeepers of information and kingmakers in politics. They took it upon themselves to decide what we should and should not know, as well as which candidates we should support.

I used to think of reporters and journalists as people who went out and found stories. In reality they spend most of their time at their desks, waiting for news to come to them. They regurgitate official talking points and cooperate to stage photo-ops.

On television there are basically two types of “journalists.” The first is a news reader in the style of Ron Burgundy. They are hired for their looks and voice qualities, and they sit in front of a camera and read the news to us off a teleprompter.

The second type is the pundit or bloviating gasbag. They don’t provide us with any information, they just tell us what they think about the stories of the day. (As far as I am concerned the term “news anchor” should refer to the weight that keeps the body of a bloviating gasbag from rising to the surface.)

Compared to Juan Williams and most “real reporters”, Michelle Malkin is way above average. At least she does some research on the topics she plans to discuss. She must be doing something right or the proggers wouldn’t hate her so much.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 271 other followers