When you start with the premise that Donald Trump is a monster and an outrage against public decency, practically any excuse will do to put on a serious face and intone gravely about the Future of the Republic under such a leader. And that is exactly what happened our friend Oleg Atbashian of The People’s Cube, who put together what he describes as a “silly animated GIF,” splicing together video of Donald Trump hitting a golf ball in a drive, and then film of Hillary stumbling over as she boarded a campaign plane, with a golf ball hitting her in the back.
From Michael Goodwin at Imprimis:
I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.
If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered. More.
Reality check: The biggest favor Trump could do the traditional news industry would be to violate the US First Amendment by persecuting them. They would be the new dope. It is hard to know who would or should otherwise care what they think, say or do.
This is not a punishment for their sins. They are just not needed anymore.
See also: Did Trump kill the New York Daily News?
From Bernard Goldberg at Townhall:
In 2001, when my book “Bias” came out, my focus was on liberal bias in the news and the refusal of mainstream journalists to either acknowledge its existence or try to tone it down.
But now bias is my second biggest journalistic concern. Arrogance is now No. 1. The snobbery of too many journalists is beyond annoying. It’s repulsive.
Take Stuart Rothenberg, a veteran political journalist and charter member of the Washington media elite.
While President Trump was speaking at a rally in West Virginia not long ago, Rothenberg took to Twitter to let everyone know that “Lots of people in West Virginia can’t support themselves or speak English.” More.
Reality check: The biggest blind spot is Rothenberg’s belief that he can say that without being a Republican and still be admired by those he insults.
At one time, that was true, because people like him were Cool. Many people are quite willing to be sneered at by those they thought were Cool. Gatekeepers of information.
But when everyone is on their handheld, Rothenberg’s Cool probably doesn’t matter to anyone but him. See Newsweek hit by layoffs after day of suspense (2016)
See also: Big conservative publisher Regnery cuts ties with New York Times
From Jack Montgomery at Breitbart:
The Times list is believed not to represent genuine bestsellers per sales data from across the United States. Instead, the organisation admits it “surveys” hand picked booksellers across the nation.
This contrasts with, for example, the Publisher’s Weekly list, which uses quantifiable data of sales, while the Times employs its own, undisclosed methodology, which appears — like pollsters — to re-weight the list.
Times spokesman Jordan Cohen claimed their lists “reflect authentic best sellers” — but Regnery believes the newspaper is “[gathering] book sale data in a manner which prioritizes liberal-themed books over conservative books and authors.”
“We refuse to continue to highlight a list which has an increasingly diminished value to our audience. Therefore, we will no longer promote, publicize or frankly even bother to mention this list,” Ross added. More.
Reality check: This is a sound business decision on Regnery’s part. If the Times survives, it will do so by marketing ever more narrowly to people who would never read a Regnery book. The Times may or may not be manipulating the rankings. If we don’t work there, we can’t know. What we can know is what the Times’ readers need to see as the rankings. Which is just as good for them as reality at this point.
See also: Did Trump kill the New York Daily News?
Vanity Fair is taking a hit too Did Trump kill Vanity fair?
From Daniel Greenfield at Front Page:
The sale of the New York Daily News for a dollar isn’t the death of the sleazy leftist tabloid. It died a while back.
Stasi summoned a boycott of the already failing paper when she blamed one of the victims of the Muslim terror attack in San Bernardino because he was a Republican. Lupica has no idea when the Constitution was written.
The Daily News had once been a powerhouse. But as the end approached, it lacked any actual talent. And Linda Stasi and Mike Lupica’s rage tantrums, the trolling covers, couldn’t compensate.
Like Newsweek, it sold for a buck, and like Newsweek it tried to survive on trolling covers.More.
Reality check: The real story here isn’t their politics but the fact that the news service that justified reading them is no longer needed in any event. And they could never have competed in the “sheer abuse of Trump” market with blogs run by trolls, which one can read for free.
They’re sort of like a butter churn. You can like it or dislike it but you really don’t need it.
See also: Vanity Fair is taking a hit too Did Trump kill Vanity fair?
From Lloyd Grove at Daily Beast:
Graydon Carter Didn’t Want to Axe Vanity Fair Staff, So He Left
A year ago, however, Carter fought tooth-and-nail against a corporate restructuring plan, promoted by Wintour and other Conde Nast execs, for Vanity Fair to lose its designated creative director and fact-checkers, along with those of the other magazines, in order to consolidate them all into company-wide departments as a cost-saving measure.
“It all kind of came to a head last fall, and Graydon was pissed off about that,” said a Vanity Fair insider who spoke on condition of not being further identified. “It was an Anna project—she was invested in it—and that was seen as a real affront.”More.
Reality check: The college kids who would have grown into faithful middle class VF readers are out rioting.
See also: Vanity Fair: Hollywood is over
Hollywood: Vanity Fair is over.
Cool is over.
Dozens have left the paper in the past year and interviews with current and ex-staffers show outrage over pressure from management to normalize Trump
On Monday 13 February, just over three weeks after Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Wall Street Journal’s editor-in-chief Gerry Baker held a town-hall style meeting in the paper’s midtown Manhattan newsroom amid mounting concern about the WSJ’s coverage of the new president, which many staffers felt was too soft and too quick to downplay controversies.
Poor morale underscored by two rounds of buyouts since September had been exacerbated by the recent departure of one of the paper’s number-two editors for the arch-rival New York Times. But the meeting meant to reassure the newsroom only heightened tensions.
“Instead of clearing the air about the legitimate concerns of editors and reporters about balanced coverage of Trump, Baker led off with a 20-minute scolding about how we were indeed covering Trump correctly, and anybody who disputed that was wrong and wrong-headed,” a recently departed Journal staffer told the Guardian. “That pretty much took the air out of the room. I and most of my colleagues were disgusted by his performance.”
President Trump visits the flood survivors in Houston, as seen through the eyes of CNN.
From Michael Cook at MercatorNet:
Just a handful of academic studies have attempted to measure the impact of fake news – as opposed to the dissemination of fake news.
In January 2017, Jacob L. Nelson, of Northwestern University, published an article in the Columbia Journalism Review.
He poured cold water on fake news panic. In the first place, the readership of internet fake news is tiny compared to the real news audience–just one-tenth. Readers also spent more time on average with real news than fake news.
And most significantly, readers of fake news do not exist in a filter bubble. Visitors to fake news sites visited real news sites just as often as visitors to real news sites visited other real news sites. In fact, sometimes fake news audiences visited real news sites more often.
Nelson concluded: “Is ‘fake news’ a fake problem?”More.
Reality check: Yes, it is a fake and very old problem. There has always been lots of fake news and disinformation out there, as anyone who has glanced at the supermarket checkout counter tabloids in th last fifty years will have noticed.
Hillary Clinton lost the US election because of real news that her party was unequipped to face, period.
See also: Part I: What isfake news? Do we believe it?
Part II: Does fake news make a difference in politics?
Part III: What can we do about fake news that would not diminish real news? Critics of ‘fake news’ should go to China — only the government has the right to post fake news.
Extra! Extra! A handy guide to the normal fake news: Surviving information overload
From Ben Kew at Breitbart:
The initiative comes after years of financial turmoil for the company. In 2016, the company announced losses of £68.7 million, although cut that figure to £44.7 million in 2017.
Since last year, The Guardian has been begging its readers for money to help ease its financial woes, telling its readers that the world now needs The Guardian “more than ever”.More.
Reality check: The obvious question is why does the world need the Guardian? Much of the world may feel it needs left-wing views for sure but those views are not in short supply even without the Guardian. All media face this problem now but the left-wing ones are more likely to morph into latter-day Pravdas. For example, we learn, “Comment Isn’t Free: Guardian to CLOSE Comments On Articles About ‘Race, Immigration and Islam,’” due to “toxic” atmosphere. Forcing people to go elsewhere to find out what people are saying.
See also: New York Times warns reporter against talking to students
Numerous journalists are worried sick that President Donald Trump incited violence against them during his raucous rally in Phoenix last week.
The New York Times published an article reporting that Trump’s claim reporters are “sick people” shook the media.
The article noted several journalists who claimed the president was going to get them murdered due to his comments. The very apparent concern among journalists led Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to author a sanctimonious piece declaring, “We’re Journalists, Mr. Trump, Not the Enemy.”
With all the worry over Trump supporters coming to kill them, it may come as a surprise to the press that some of their colleagues were beaten and harassed over the weekend by the president’s most violent opponents.
Some crime stories the media relish. Others they resist covering. In February of this year, a drunken peckerwood named Adam Purinton shot and killed an Indian engineer in suburban Kansas City thinking the man was an Iranian. The media nationwide ran with this story and shamelessly tied the shooting to the rise of Donald Trump. The Kansas City Star posted more than 50 articles on this one crime alone.
The extremist Alt-Left group Antifa have threatened further violence against journalists in Canada after members of the group attacked a camera crew of one of the country’s largest broadcasters in Quebec.
Last weekend anti-mass migration protestors marched against the current Canadian migrant crisis, which has seen thousands of mostly Haitian nationals penetrating the border from the United States.
The MSM will find a way to blame Trump.
CNN has made no attempt to retract or modify a Wednesday report which paints all supporters of President Donald Trump as “white supremacists by default.”
The report stakes its weighty claims about the moral character of Trump supporters on the word of “activists, historians and victims of extremism,” who argue that “ordinary people” have empowered white supremacists.
“It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town,” the report reads. “But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate.”
Much of the report rests on the extensive conclusions drawn by Fordham University professor and political activist Mark Naison, who wasted no time in issuing a stinging indictment of the character of all Trump supporters.
“You have to have millions of people who are willing to be bystanders, who push aside evidence of racism, Islamophobia or sexism. You can’t have one without the other,” Naison says. “We are a country with a few million passionate white supremacists — and tens of millions of white supremacists by default,” Naison told CNN.
On top of the news media’s self-inflicted wounds (going hard left when the rest of the nation tilted right, for example) comes the bad news that consumer products companies are cutting back on their ads.
Ad agencies are the hardest hit, but all media outlets that accept ads face a downturn — especially those online.