It is no secret that the mainstream media has decided that the threat presented by a possible Donald Trump presidency is so grave that it has suspended even the illusion of objectivity. Writing in The New York Times, media columnist Jim Rutenberg granted permission to his fellow journalists “to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.”
The Observer and others have detailed the ways in which traditional media companies and even tech companies have colluded to maximize negative coverage of Trump and minimize negative coverage of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. But it doesn’t end there. As Rutenberg described, many journalists feel the need to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”
That opposition has extended into new and uncharted territory. In the coordinated effort to stop a dangerous candidate from obtaining, to use Rutenberg’s breathless description of the stakes, “control of the United States nuclear codes,” the mainstream media has taken not just to bashing Trump but to extracting a price even from those who support him.
There are a hundred examples, but here are just a few headlines that tell the story:
- Daily Beast: “Trump’s Doctor ‘Overmedicated’ Patients Who Died in His Care”
- Washington Post: “The contractor that designs Ivanka Trump’s clothes does not offer a single day of paid maternity leave”
- New York Times: “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming”
Let’s look at each of these. While I don’t doubt that self-identified right-wing sites would look into the record of Hillary Clinton’s doctors, it’s much harder to imagine a site like Daily Beast, which fancies itself a centrist outlet (and is even edited by my old Rudy Giuliani speechwriting buddy, John Avlon), expending that kind of investigative energy on Hillary’s non-political professionals. The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, we will rummage through your past.
The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters.
As for The Washington Post story, the message was equally clear. While children of presidential candidates have long been considered off limits by the mainstream media, the Post clearly smelled danger in the crossover appeal of a successful, presentable working mother. Ivanka Trump (who, for the thousandth time, is married to the Observer’s publisher) runs a company that is not only among the 10 percent to provide paid maternity leave, but also offers unlimited vacation and sick days and flexible work schedules. So the Post attacked a company that Ivanka’s company does business with, only they implied that Ivanka was responsible for that company’s business practices. The Post later attached an editor’s note and clarified the story to “indicate that Ivanka Trump has no direct managerial role in G-III Apparel Group,” but the damage had been done and the misleading headline remains to this day. Plus, there’s the original URL of the story—which is important in search engine optimization. It has not been corrected and still gives the false implication that Ivanka herself is not providing paid maternity leave.
Then there’s the Peter Thiel story. His actions in supporting Trump supposedly have his industry peers “squirming,” according to The New York Times. Yet Clinton supporters who represent industries in which she is unpopular are portrayed as principled and loyal Democrats. Consider that Politico reported “Clinton haunted by coal country comment.” Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Local officials sent a letter to Sen. Joe Manchin saying ““Bill and Hillary Clinton are simply not welcome in our town.” So how come not a single supporter of hers, including Sen. Manchin and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, is said to be making West Virginia “squirm”?
Where are the mainstream investigations of Hillary’s doctors? Or the business practices of Chelsea Clinton? How is it that none of Hillary’s supporters has any industry “squirming”?
The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters. Buzzfeed did a whole story on whether Josh Kushner’s business would be hurt by the fact that — can you follow this? — his brother’s wife’s father is the presidential candidate. Is that the standard? Has there been a single article anywhere about the business prospects of Marc Mezvinsky’s siblings? The writer of the Buzzfeed story – the talented reporter Nitasha Tiku, who worked at the Observer and was happy to cash checks signed by Jared Kushner when she did—contacted several colleagues of Josh Kushner to determine whether they’d still be comfortable doing business with Josh’s investment firm, Thrive Capital. The Trump-opposing tech investor Chris Sacca is characterized by Tiku as saying, “The Trump connection might have affected Thrive directly.” The message from the MSM is clear: Support Donald Trump, and you—and maybe even your family—will be ridiculed, investigated and ignored.
The Observer itself provides another good example. Our traffic and users have grown more than 5x since January 2013, from 1.3 million unique users reading 3 million pages a month to 6 million unique users reading 17 million pages a month. This information is easily available. And yet, from the time this contentious, ornery campaign took shape, our documented-to-death Trump connection has been revealed in the way the Observer itself has been covered.
Politico wrote about us, “The paper’s editorials, which had largely ceased having influence…” I showed the reporter data proving that many more people read our editorials today than read them five years ago and I asked him to explain how he reached the conclusion that they had “largely ceased having influence.” He told me, “My editor wrote that line.” He said he’d get back to me if he got an answer. He never did.
Esquire’s hit piece on Jared Kushner called the Observer “a once venerable newspaper” without even pretending to offer an explanation of what made it venerable in the past or why it’s no longer so, despite the increased revenue, readership, staff, investment in journalism or other facts I would have been happy to provide had anyone asked.
The Daily Beast wrote that, “Kushner and the paper’s editor in chief, Ken Kurson, were the object of controversy and staff protests and resignations.” Got that? Staff resignations with an s, as in plural. Actually it’s been one staff resignation, a writer who was not the “top reporter” (he was No. 2 on a three-person team) that CNN crowed about in its headline. Given the constant turnover throughout the Observer’s history, long before Trump ran for president, it’s striking that CNN would devote a headline to this boring-as-hell non-event.
There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters.
Then there’s just the general anti-Observer snark. It’s been a fact of life, especially since our beloved longtime editor Peter Kaplan left the paper in 2009, but has been dialed to 11 since Trump began his unlikely ascent in American politics. A telling example involves a trifling story we ran, in which New York Times Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet said ‘F— You’ to a reporter he thought had used racist language. To me, it was the exact kind of funny and revealing little insider story that Kaplan would have loved (and I don’t claim to speak for him, despite the generous way he fed me advice even though I didn’t start here till four years after he left). Nonetheless, some media types, eager for any opportunity to celebrate the Observer’s demise, pounced. The Times’ own Willy Staley, for example, tweeted out the story and insightfully commented, “The Observer has become so f—ing weird!” Staley did not know at the time that Baquet himself praised the story, calling it “Perfectly fair.” It has been fun to watch the media simultaneously declare the Observer totally irrelevant but also responsible for electing the president of the United States.
At least Gawker, z’l, was less circumspect in its disapproval of what takes place here. In lambasting our paper’s endorsement of Trump in the Republican primary (we also endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, which understandably generated far less coverage), Hamilton Nolan wrote “The New York Observer, which was once a good newspaper, is endorsing the owner’s wife’s dad for president.” That’s at least funny, and it acknowledges by stating as a fact that the Observer was once good that the idea that Observer is no longer a “good newspaper” is Nolan’s opinion, rather than trying to hide behind factish sounding writing like “once venerable” or “largely ceased having influence.”
There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters. Not just any Hillary supporters, but those brave Republicans who are putting country ahead of party by supporting Clinton.
Search for “Republicans back Hillary” in Google and you get “There are now dozens of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary” (Washington Post), “The Republicans Who Support Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump” (The Atlantic), “Which Republicans Are Against Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet (also The Atlantic), “At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.” (New York Times), “Here are the Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald” (Time), and “The Biggest GOP Names Backing Hillary Clinton—So Far (The Daily Beast).
Enter “Democrats back Trump” and you get a story from The Hill from January and a Toledo Blade story.
The simple explanation would be that tons of Republicans back Hillary while few Democrats back Trump. But that narrative defies the reality of a Republican primary that drew record numbers of new GOP registrants and set a new record for votes cast, unlike the Democratic contest. And with the candidates roughly tied in the polls (the LA Times, for example, has Trump up by 3 points), there’s no way a “wave” of Republican Trump rejecters cannot be equaled by roughly the same number of Democrat Hillary rejecters. Unless the polling is drastically undercounting Hillary supporters (most think it’s more likely to be undercounting Trump voters, who have been shamed out of telling a pollster they support such a “dangerous” candidate), there have to be at least as many Trump Democrats as there are Hillary Republicans. But the media isn’t interested in finding them.
What’s even more surprising than the media suddenly cheering someone like former Bush aide Paul Wolfowitz, who was universally loathed by the MSM up until the moment he announced his support for Hillary has been the way the press issues valentines to Republicans no one has never heard of. How did Maria Comella, a press aide to Chris Christie, merit 1200 words and a “First on CNN” feature on air simply by declaring her support for Hillary?
Republican candidates have long complained about the bias in American media. Most of the time it’s nonsense. John McCain courted the favorable opinion of the New York Times so aggressively and for so long that it was almost fun to see him crying about how tough it was to run against a media darling like Barack Obama in 2008. Mitt Romney, who really did suffer from poor coverage, mostly had himself to blame –secret tapes about 47% freeloaders may have been reported by Mother Jones, but they weren’t manufactured by Mother Jones. And the alleged bias can sometimes work to a Republican’s advantage. When George W. Bush called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a “major league A—-,” probably as many people admired the future president’s authenticity as chastised him for his uncouth remarks.
What’s different here is the dropping of even the pretense of objectivity. In unilaterally determining that Donald Trump is unfit even to be covered objectively—to the point that he must be disqualified by any means necessary—the mainstream media has set a dangerous precedent.
RAPE ALLEGATIONS: MEDIA HUNTS BILL COSBY, CELEBRATES BILL CLINTON
Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.
Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.
The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges,including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women. As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.
Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.
I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby has been accused of rape and has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment and the loss of his license to practice law.
Juanita Broderick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broderick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broderick as a liar, a tool of the Right, or my personal favorite, old news.
Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.
Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still too happy to play along.
Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the media was all-too eager to play along.
While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.
Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of front runner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.
If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.
Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats. Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.
Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.
The media’s motives are racial, not noble.
If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 7, 2013 12:16 pm
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:
“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.
“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.
“The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge — and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.”
The post links to a Washington Post column by Marc A. Thiessen on the Benghazi whistleblowers.
A number of major news stories have broken in the last week about the attack, including the news that a team of U.S. Special Forces that was preparing to respond to the attack was told to stand down by the U.S. Special Forces Command Africa.
Listen to these statements by Jonathon Capehart of the Washington Post defending his view that the only reason that white members of the House are against Ambassador Susan Rice is because she is a black woman. Here are his words:
“On Friday, The Post editorial board took on “The GOP’s bizarre attack on Susan Rice,” the U.N. ambassador who is in the running to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Blasting a letter from 97 House Republicans to Obama warning against Rice’s possible selection as a “blatant disregard of established facts,” the piece gets to the heart of why the controversy over Rice rankles African Americans.”
“Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.”
“The blatant disrespect of a black woman by McCain and other Republicans won’t soon be forgotten by African Americans, no matter how soft McCain’s rhetoric gets.”
Nothing is off limits for this man; he even brings up the Civil War and reminds us that some of the Republicans come from “States of the former Confederacy.”
How can anyone think that questioning Susan Rice after she deliberately misled the American public on Benghazi is a “Bizarre Attack”?
Mr. Capehart smells blood in the water. I believe that it is his conviction that Obama’s reelection is a mandate that allows for using racial rhetoric against any voice of dissent. In his words, “It will not soon be forgotten”
Remember people, Obama refused to offer aid to Americans begging for their lives. Obama covered it up and continues to cover it up. It is a crime far worse than Watergate. Is it racist to want justice?
However there is an even greater evil going on in this. Mr. Capehart goes on to offer a chilling explanation of why he wants to save the Republican Party: “The Republican Party has a lot to do to redeem itself. And I hope it succeeds because a hobbled GOP could lead to a self-satisfied and complacent Democratic Party.”
The code message is that Conservatism and Christian values no longer have a place in our culture. In order for Republicans to survive they must abandon traditional marriage, the Bible and every vestige of conservatism. The people will not agree to anything else.
The New York Times put it this way, ““If Republicans are serious about repairing their party’s standing among women, gay and Hispanic voters, they need to adjust some policies and stop sending hostile messages.”
What if the opposite is true? What if we are really supposed to be clearer on our conservative convictions and more deeply aligned with the Word of God? What if the election is a total misreading of America and the people of God are supposed to hold their ground just a little longer?
Let me explain by harking back to the election of William McKinley. That election was bought and paid for by J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. McKinley outspent his opponent William Jennings Bryan by a margin of 5 to 1.
These titans of industry hated Bryan because he wanted moral reform, and at that time it was bad for business.
Mckinley won alright but it was a rigged election. The only other man that the big three feared was Teddy Roosevelt. They made him vice president in order to hold him at bay. What they could not have predicted was the assassination of McKinley which was a horrible tragedy. It was the worst way for Teddy Roosevelt become president. However, under his leadership the nation enjoyed prosperity and greatness.
In the last election, the big three were not in oil, steel, or railroads they are a much stranger conglomeration. They are ABC, NBC, and CBS. They worked to forge a narrative in cahoots with labor unions, and foreign money that no opposing candidate could have defeated. We do not know how much was funneled into Obama’s war chest from outside the United States because it was never disclosed.
We also do not know how much the unions helped count the votes: 91 districts in Philadelphia without even single vote for Romney? Was the last election rigged? I will leave that for you to decide.
What I do know the election does not mean that America wants race baiting, or radical centralization of power to the White House. I know that socialism will not work in America. We still believe in big dreams and hard work. We do not want government to take our freedom so that we can have a nanny state. When Obamacare and all of the other extreme programs become reality the nation will recoil against the bankruptcy and inefficiency of government programs. Hello FEMA! Most of all I know that there are millions of Americans who still love God and the Bible with all of their hearts
America is going to get sick of all of the handouts and we will hate it when we are forced to work hard to pay for others who will not work. The Constitutional Republic based on Christian values still has a chance for a big return. Let’s all stand our ground. Let them call us any name they want we know what we really are…Americans.