The Sad Saga of the Media

Ours is a diseased media – Guest post by Mustang who also spins some great tales at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

You know, if this wasn’t pathetic, it might make you laugh aloud. Recently, the New York Times claimed to have leaked a ‘secret’ gloom and doom climate change report; one that President Trump was trying to keep away from the public. Included in the article was the ever-present sniping at anyone who hasn’t swallowed the Gore lies and distortions. Now …um … the British scientist who completed this report wonders, how could the New York Times leak a report that was available to the public since the study went through the review process?

Is this an example of shoddy journalism, a careless attempt at fake news, or is it the very best example of leftist humor?

I would love to be able to peek under the covers, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you love to know who and what are behind these slapdash attempts to smear President Trump and/or his administration? Don’t you love all my conspiracy theories, noting of course that if people are out to get you, then you aren’t paranoid?

Why would the NYT (ostensibly responsible to profit-motivated stockholders) waste ink and space on such a dumb article/accusation as this? Particularly one so easily debunked. I think the answer is that it doesn’t matter. Someone is paying them to do it. I have no idea what the costs are of doing this, but I do know that a full-page advertisement in the NYT costs $150,000 (if done in black and white) —and you know, that is such a paltry sum of money to someone like Georgie Soros, or any number of other communist rats.

What I would love to see happen is someone from the Washington Examiner or New York Post do an expose on the behind-the-scenes antics of the American left. Tell us what happened, who is paying for it, and then let us be done with this mish-mash about how journalists on the left are really looking out for America’s best interests.

It is long past the time for Americans to begin holding the news media responsible for their nonsense. Why have we allowed the NYT to get away with such things as: plagiarism, failure to print the truth about famine in the Ukraine, or the Duke University Lacrosse fiasco, or delayed publication of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance of the American people?

I think it’s a market-share game that results on the print media preying upon its readers. As a case in point, the NYT printed stories on fashion news that was actually promoting its advertisers. Admittedly, no one has ever accused the New York Times of honesty.

I believe the NYT already knows that the number of people who read their rag is but a small percentage of the overall population (estimated between 650,000 to just over one million —in a city of just under 9 million inhabitants), but those who do read it are addicted to leftism and they’ll keep coming back for more —no matter how dishonest the stories are. Similarly, CNN and MSNBC pander to a peculiar audience, which is to say people sufficiently stupid to buy into communist social policy, and as equally senseless in buying products offered by their advertisers.

Well, to summarize, these are the millions of Americans who have long warmed to the idea of forgiving women who flush their babies down toilets. The way I see it, they are beyond redemption. Finally, in speaking about journalists, my good friend Kid” put up a video the other day. In the video, a Russia’s foreign minister enters the press room and prepares to answer questions. Before he takes his seat, however, American [ita non sit vox designativa] Reporter Andrea Mitchell begins to screech out questions. Perturbed, the foreign minister asked if her behavior was an example of her up-bringing. Good for him!

The video caused me to look more closely at Mitchell. My conclusion is that she is woefully unqualified to do the job for which she is being paid. She has a degree in English Literature, and while this may confirm her literacy, she is still as dumb as a box of rocks. If you wanted to get someone to respond to questions, and if those answers were ever to end up as a headline, then wouldn’t you want to approach that person with politeness? This incident, by the way, makes me wonder if the Russian foreign minister ever again allowed Mitchell back into the press gallery.

I hope not.


Why the Clintons just won’t go away

I am tired of my twitter feed getting clogged up with the latest absurd tweets coming from Chelsea. For some reason, people seems to think I should read them. I read this excellent post that answers much of why the Clintons just don’t-won’t go away. Worse why Chelsea is a non-stop media trove of useless information. Here is some of it from Vanity Fair:

In Vanity Fair, T.A. Frank exhorts elite American liberals in the strongest possible terms to resist their obvious temptation to turn Chelsea Clinton into a political item:

The last thing the left needs is the third iteration of a failed political dynasty.


…..The answer is that even though Hillary Clinton lost two elections, the Clinton machine—the one the family has been building ever since Bill left office in 2001—is still very much in place. Walter Russell Mead described it like this during the 2016 primaries: “The machine gathers the cash that provides perches and incomes to Clinton loyalists; the loyalists keep the publicity machine pumping, keep the networks of contacts and patronage refreshed throughout the vast Clinton network, and staff what amounts to a permanent campaign. This is what party machines used to do: provide incomes for the army of operatives who would jump into action to make sure the machine stayed in office.”

The loyalists who make up this apparatus want—or even need—for the gears to keep spinning. And for that, the machine needs to offer the promise of future influence. Otherwise, donations to the Clinton Foundation would dry up; speaking engagements would become less lucrative; Clinton-backed spin organizations would wither; and dozens of jobs would disappear. All this is to say that the strange persistence of Chelsea boosterism does not come out of nowhere; it is the product of a supremely well-organized political organization revving its engines. And it will not be shut down voluntarily.

H/T: American Interest

Newsweek Sr. Writer Kurt Eichenwald goes wacko on Tucker Carlson UPDATE

I don’t know how Tucker gets people on his show. One thing is for sure, you are in for a rousing smack down. Tucker would make a great Press secretary. Beating up all those poor hapless reporters who are so full of themselves. Newsweek at one time was a standard subscription for anyone who had a penchant for politics. This interview gives us a glimpse into how far it has fallen. Tucker was trending on twitter big time after the interview. No wonder.  Worth riding out the beginning commercial in the clip.

UPDATE: bydesign001 COMMENTED:  was definitely MUST SEE tv but it didn’t end there. Eichenwald then went on a twitter meltdown.

Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host calls out Newsweek for alleged bias and asks reporter Kurt Eichenwald to his face whether he should even be allowed to cover President-elect Trump.

FCC Approves Foreign Takeover of U.S. Broadcasters

While we are focused on the election, the giving away of American interests moves into high gear. Last week, control of the internet. One the most important assets of our country and important so that any dissident voices can be heard. But wait, they are not done yet. Let’s allow the takeover by foreign entities of the whole damn enchilada. Read it and weep. Read the whole thing.

Exclusive to Accuracy in Mediafcc

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on September 29th did something worse than give up control of the Internet. They voted unanimously to put America’s entire broadcast industry on the fast track to a foreign takeover by Chinese, Russian or Muslim Brotherhood front corporations.

This new FCC rule gives foreign interests the long sought-after tools they need to shape U.S. public opinion and to censor the opposition.

Once a foreign corporation scoops up a media business, such as a chain of radio stations, it can eliminate national and local programming and substitute its own government’s propaganda. That means that conservative talkers could find themselves off the air.

Citing the need for “change” from the old “vintage” laws, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel declared that “laws that govern broadcast investment can get in the way.”

So, rather than respect the law and Congress, the FCC decided in a 5 to 0 vote to decree a new “rule” that effectively guts a law that protected Americans from foreign interests and their propaganda. The new rule assumes that any foreign owner of a TV or radio broadcaster will be acceptable unless someone can prove otherwise.

So why did this happen? The current FCC commissioners are mostly lawyers and lobbyists with political connections to both political parties. These political parties depend on financial contributions from major corporations, including media corporations. They want the option of dumping their broadcast properties off on cash-heavy foreign buyers, no matter what impact it has on the public’s right to know.

The system is rigged, even in favor of the foreign interests buying up America.

More at Noisy Room

John Kerry “You media should stop reporting on terrorism so people don’t know what is going on”

Apparently Kerry was benched in place of VP Biden for his trip to Turkey, another one of our Mensa characters designing our approach to foreign policy. But wait, Kerry breaches in India. Hooray. So if we don’t know what is going on we will sure feel swell.

Here is the headline:John Kerry: You Media People Should Stop Reporting on Terrorism So People Don’t Know What’s Going On – Katie …

Here’s the reality: Kerry doesn’t want the press giving attention to the issue of terrorism because it further exposes the failure of the Obama administration’s foreign policy over the past eight years. Terrorism doesn’t go away if you simply ignore it but instead, expands.
From the crazy, mixed-up files of Obama administration Secretary of State John Kerry we have this deep thought rendered during remarks to the press on Monday in Dhaka, Bangladesh:

Remember this: No country is immune from terrorism. It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on. (Applause.)


Department of Labor to ban financial advice from the airwaves?

Anyone out there who might have a clue how the Department of Labor controls what programming we have on the radio or television? Really, we know what this is about. Beginning of the Ministry of Thought Control being granted the purview to eliminate programing by ‘Rule.’ First the airwaves, soon the internet. Follow the link at the bottom of the post if you wish to get into the weeds and the politics of the issue.

Radio stations which carry money-related broadcasts like Dave Ramsey, Clark Howard and others will force the hosts to stay away from individual calls. Even telling an individual or family that it would be a good idea to put away the plastic and get out of debt is technically a form of “financial advice” that ultimately affects their ability to retire comfortably (or at all).

A proposed 33-page rule applying to investment advisers emanating from the Department of Labor would redefine the fiduciary relationship between investment advisers and their clients investing for retirement, which is the predominant objective of most investors. According to the Wall Street Journal, the rule “could be released as soon as this month.”

One side effect of the rule is that it could mark the beginning of the end of financial talk radio and TV broadcasts. Since such programs tend to lean center-right (there are exceptions, including Suze Orman), it seems mighty convenient for the government and its regulatory army that the press, particularly the Associated Press, has paid no visible attention to this apparently imminent rule.

DOL’s rule, once in effect, would require advisers to act in their clients’ “best interests,” a stricter standard than the current requirement that they place their clients in “suitable” investments.

More at Newsbusters

FCC to police and question media, websites regarding content

We knew this was coming, and it has arrived. An assault via the FCC on bloggers, conservative radio, and any other media that the regime perceives as a threat.There were rumbles of it some years ago, but now, with nothing to lose, the first salvo is launched. Well worth the full read. Here we go:

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across  media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment  concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which  is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a  comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of  information on demographics, point of view, news topic  selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and  out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers,  web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell,  who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller.  “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been  privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one  should be concerned.”

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to  invasive questioning about their work and content.

For media owners:

“What is the news philosophy of the station?”

For editors, producers and managers:

“Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how  many and what are the beats?”

“Who decides which stories are covered?”

For reporters:

“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical  information for your customers listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup  questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was  spiked.)

Read more:  Daily Caller and document can be found there as well.

UPDATE: You may want to check out FCC Wants to Regulate Internet’s ‘On/Off Ramps,’ Commissioner Says

“When we talk about the Internet and the interaction, we are strictly talking about what we call the on/off ramps,” she said. “We are not talking about content. So we are insuring, what we are attempting to do at the FCC is ensure that every person has an equal engagement, that every single individual when they pay their money or when they sign on line, that they have an equal engagement.

%d bloggers like this: