How The Media Business Works

Advancing the narrative is far more important than making a profit.

Case in point, Vox on May 8 ran an article titled, “Disney put more than $400 million into Vice Media. Now it says that investment is worthless“:

Just a few years ago, big media companies were falling over themselves to bet on Vice Media. Disney made the biggest bet, by putting more than $400 million into the swashbuckling digital publisher.

Now, Disney says all of the money it put into Vice has been incinerated: In investor filings Wednesday, Disney said it no longer thinks it will ever get any return on the investment it made in Vice — a company that at one point was supposedly worth $5.7 billion.

Even though their propaganda outlet is losing money hand over fist, George Soros and a group of investors poured $250 million into the outlet just days earlier.

From NewsBusters on May 8, “Soros Investment Helps Bail Out Flailing Vice Media“:

Vice Media just got some help from the biggest funder of the left: billionaire George Soros.

The edgy and controversial liberal media company raised $250 million in debt from a group of investors including Soros Fund Management LLC, 23 Capital, Fortress Investment Group LLC and Monroe Capital, according to the May 3, Wall Street Journal.

Soros needs them to keep churning out propaganda………..

Journos From Prominent News Publications Found To Have Working Relationships With Antifa

After mapping the social interactions of 58,254 Antifa accounts on the social network Twitter, Dr. Eoin Lenihan found that many journalists from major publications such as The Guardian, Vox, and more had a direct working relationship with the Antifa members.

Lenihan posted his findings to Twitter where he put up a chart showing Antifa area accounts with their related members.

CBS News, NYT Reporter Suggest U.S. Scrap Free Speech in Favor of New Zealand-Style Censorship

CBS News released a propaganda segment on Monday featuring New York Times tech reporter Cecilia Kang where they suggested the US government could do an end run around the First Amendment through strict “regulations” in order to suppress “hate speech” and “misinformation” online.

Both the CBS News host and NYT reporter Cecilia Kang said the US should look to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India — which do not have free speech — as models for suppressing free speech on the internet.

As I reported in November 2018, the New York Times editorial board wrote a propaganda piece comparing right-wingers to jihadists and demanded authoritarian censorship of the internet to stop the spread of “toxic ideas.”

The New York Times last year hired virulent anti-white racist Sarah Jeong in August 2018 as their lead technology writer and made her a member of their editorial board.

MSNBC Report on Venezuela Makes Case for Second Amendment
‘In Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power’

MSNBC reporter Kerry Sanders unwittingly made the American case for the Second Amendment during a report Tuesday on the political upheaval in Venezuela.

Anchor Andrea Mitchell introduced Sanders for his report by commenting on the surprising ability of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro to stay in power, despite the pressure on him to step down.

“Not only hanging on but he appears to still control the military,” Sanders said. “You have to understand, in Venezuela gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power and as long as Nicolás Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.”

Maduro’s socialist regime has presided over economic devastation in Venezuela, where citizens are beset by rising prices and food and medical shortages. The country banned private gun ownership in 2012 under Maduro’s authoritarian predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

The Associated Press reports that opposition leader Juan Guido took the streets to protest Maduro’s government and called on the military to join him:

 Anti-government demonstrators clashed with troops loyal to Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro at an air base in the capital hours after opposition leader Juan Guaidó took to the streets in a bold and risky attempt to lead a military uprising against the embattled socialist.

The early-morning rebellion seems to have only limited military support.

But it was by far the most-serious challenge yet to Maduro’s rule since Guaidó, with the backing of the U.S. and dozens of other countries, declared himself the country’s interim president in January in rejection of a government he accused of stealing last year’s presidential election.

The dramatic events began early Tuesday when Guaidó, flanked by a few dozen national guardsmen and some armored crowd control vehicles, released a three-minute video filmed near a Caracas air base in which he called on civilians and others in the armed forces to join a final push to topple Maduro.

The Media Have Already Lost The Election.

It’s far too early to predict which party will win next year’s election, but not too early to announce the national media as a clear loser in terms of national influence and prestige.

Pew reports that millennials have become as negative about major media as older generations, with their rate of approval dropping from 40% in 2010 to 27% today. Gallup tracks a similar pattern, finding 70% losing trust in the media, including nearly half of Democrats.

As Trump backers never cease to point out, the Mueller report undermined the supposedly rock solid case for “collusion.” Whatever the truth, a solid majority of Americans believe the Russiagate brouhaha was politically motivated. Some progressives, like Rolling Stone’s contributing editor Matt Taibbi, believe Mueller represents “a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.”

Ironically, Trump, the man the media wanted to bring down, was largely their creation. At a party in 2016, my wife and I were regaled by a CNN account executive crowing about the company’s strategy of using Trump rallies, at the exclusion of others, to boost ratings. Once having created President Frankenstein, CNN then tried to keep up the ratings by chronicling his disposal — this worked for MSNBC which, unlike CNN, never much pretended to be an objective network. Today, CNN’s audience share has fallen below not only leader Fox, but MSNBC, Home and Garden, Discovery and Food networks.


Don’t blame Trump for your worries. Place that on the correct person, to whit: William Jefferson Clinton, you mendacious idjit.
“When the Philanderer in Chief, frustrated with Serbian intransigence in 1999, changed the rules of engagement to include the political leadership, news media and the intellectual underpinning of his enemy’s war effort, he accidentally filed suit under the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Serbians knuckled under, yes. But the rest of the world took note….”

For the first time in recent memory, the White House Correspondents Dinner did not have a comedian emcee its annual dinner. Instead, the president of the White House Correspondents Association, Olivier Knox, delivered a solemn address to open up the usually jubilant evening.

Knox focused his remarks on the threat he said the White House is putting journalists under.

“I don’t want to dwell on the president,” Knox said while discussing President Trump. “This is not his dinner. It’s ours, and it should stay ours. But I do want to say this. In nearly 23 years as a reporter I’ve been physically assaulted by Republicans and Democrats, spat on, shoved, had crap thrown at me. I’ve been told I will never work in Washington again by both major parties.”

“And yet I still separate my career to before February 2017 and what came after,” Know continued. “And February 2017 is when the president called us the enemy of the people. A few days later my son asked me, ‘Is Donald Trump going to put you in prison?” At the end of a family trip to Mexico he mused if the president tried to keep me out of the country, at least Uncle Josh is a good lawyer and will get you home.”

Journalists in the Trump era are under physical threat, Knox said somberly.

“I’ve had to tell my family not to touch packages on our stoop,” he told the crowd. “My name is on a statement criticizing the president for celebrating a congressman’s criminal assault on a reporter. I’ve had death threats, including one this week. Too many of us have. It shouldn’t need to be said in a room full of people who understand the power of words but fake news and enemies of the people are not punch lines, pet names or presidential. And we should reject politically expedient assaults on the men and women whose hard work makes it possible to hold the powerful to account.”

Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A.

If you haven’t been keeping up with all this:

This is a New Yorker magazine article that you should read at your earliest convenience. It’s an expose’ aided by Bloomberg’s Trace organization (so you know the slant they’re coming from and how they’re going to characterize things) but as has been pointed out elsewhere, that doesn’t make it wrong or incorrect.

The NRA has some major problems to deal with and it looks like a lot of them are self inflicted. This makes the external threats even more dangerous since all this diverts resources from them to deal with the internal situation. And just personally between you and me, readers, since you and I  only have the information we’ve been given, being able to determine just what the hell is actually going on is difficult.

Writer’s ‘Medium’ Account Suspended After Challenging School Shooting Narrative

Even leftists who don’t hold tight to the ‘correct narrative’ suffer the consequences. The media’s hypocrisy knows no bounds if one of them strays off the plantation.

On Thursday, popular Twitter user and writer known by the alias “Kantbot” found his Medium account suspended in the wake of publishing a piece that went viral regarding school shootings and mental health interventions primarily in public schools.

Despite a somewhat provocative headline — “Guns Don’t Kill People, School Psychologists Do” — the piece gives a nuanced look at the culture of school psychology and mental health interventions in relation to school shootings. Notably, the post veers from talking points supporting gun control measures or, conversely, armed guards at schools — the two competing narratives consistently debated after such attacks.

According to a vague email from the tech platform, the writer’s account was suspended for “hateful text, images, or other content in (his) username, profile, or bio.”

The writer’s bio on Medium featured a photo of a philosopher-esque “Pepe the Frog” and a quote from Friedrich Schiller’s “On the Aesthetic Education of Man.”

Kantbot finds the timing suspect. The writer noted that he’s been publishing posts on Medium for two years using the same bio and photo without ever encountering an issue.

“It seems strange that after I posted a popular story to all of a sudden be cracked down on without any warning,” he told The Daily Wire, adding that he “wasn’t given a chance to remove” his avatar, if that indeed was the issue.


Former WA Bump Stock Owners Alarmed at Effort to Reveal Identities

Washington State gun owners who surrendered their bump stocks in exchange for financial compensation from the state are sounding alarms since learning of a Public Records Act (PRA) request from an individual seeking their names and addresses in order to build a database and publicly reveal their identities.

The request was in a brief email to the Washington State Patrol (WSP), which administered the “buyback” program in March. Under a law enacted earlier this year, the state allocated $150,000 for the purpose of “buying back” bump stocks for $150 apiece, with a limit of five per person. According to WSP public records officer Gretchen Dolan, the money went fast, so at least 1,000 bump stocks were turned in by Washington gun owners.

But then came the PRA request via email from an individual named “Yati Arguna,” which may be a pseudonym.

“This is a public records request. I seek to inspect any and all completed WSP bump stock buy back (sic) forms. I seek to obtain the names and addresses where checks will be mailed for the bump stock buy back (sic) program. My intent is to create a searchable database and map of Washington state to overlay the locations. The public has a right to know that these dangerous devices may have been in neighborhoods that the (sic) live in and who has previously owned such devices.”

WSP has been sending letters to all people who turned in their bump stocks and will receive compensation, to advise them of the request. It ignited a firestorm, best illustrated by the conversation that erupted on a popular AR-15 internet forum.

In the letter to gun owners, WSP advised, “Disclosure will occur in fifteen days (April 26, 2019), absent a superior court order enjoining disclosure.” (emphasis added) This offers a course of action for gun owners, but they will have to act fast. The WSP letter was sent specifically to advise the affected gun owners of the PRA request “to give you the opportunity to seek to enjoin disclosure of the records…” Otherwise, the information on the former bump stock owners will be released because it does not appear to be protected from disclosure by law.

But there is a bizarre development that turned their wrath in the wrong direction.

Coincidentally, Kennewick-area gun rights activist Paul Holgate also submitted a more formal PRA request, with his email address and phone number, and a copy of that request, along with the “Yati Arguna” note was part of the package mailed to each participating gun owner. The result was an avalanche of telephone calls and emails to Holgate from concerned gun owners.

Holgate told Liberty Park Press, “I’m a big Second Amendment advocate and I also believe in government accountability.”

He was “bothered” that the state might be building its own database, and when he initially inquired about that, Holgate said the state declined to answer. So, he filed the PRA request, asking how many individuals turned in bump stocks, what information was collected by the state patrol, any policy or procedure documents that may have been created and how the agency disposed of the bump stocks it collected.

He does not think “Yati Arguna” actually exists.

Liberty Park Press attempted to contact that person via the email address supplied on the original note, but received no response.

Gun owners are wary about such a request because of past attempts, in other parts of the country, to identify people with gun permits and reveal their home addresses. This could, they worry, make them vulnerable to burglary or home invasion robberies, and also exposes them to possible public scorn.

In Washington state, the identities of gun owners with concealed pistol licenses is confidential by law.

For his part, Holgate said he is “just a private citizen” and a longtime gun owner who is frustrated by a wave of anti-gun activism that has erupted in recent years.

“There’s a lot of crap going down in Washington state. They’re trying to degrade our Second Amendment rights and I think the state should be held accountable…I could care less about getting information about people.”—Paul Holgate

“I totally understand why people are up in arms,” he chuckled, “but they’re up in arms at the wrong person.”


WaPo’s Latest Weapon

Many Christians were angered and annoyed by the Washington Post’s editorial headline from two days ago. I’m among that number.

It’s interesting to note how often most of the American mainstream media has ignored the Islamist mass murders of dark-skinned Christians just in the past few years. Examples: Nigeria and Egypt.

Then there have been cases in which they could not ignore the brown skin of Christian terror victims, such as with the Sri Lankans or in the case of the mass shooting at a Charleston AME church back in 2015. This, of course, was valid in the case of Charleston, with the white perpetrator confessing that he hoped to ignite a race war. But, with the Sri Lankans, the victims were the same color as the terrorists.

Therefore, it was necessary to conjure a racial narrative for the massacre in Sri Lanka, as WaPo did. That is the implication in the term “far-right.”

The other day, a friend postulated that one of the earthly reasons that Christianity is so hated and demonized by the Organized Left is because, in centuries prior to this one, it was spread chiefly by white males – in their flawed, human (BIRM) way of course. I, however, contend that, in the earthly realm, Christianity has helped its converts far more than it has harmed them.

Of course, we know the spiritual reasons for this hatred.

Australian blogger – and old online friend — Arthur Chrenkoff sees the Organized Left’s strategic goal for what it is.

If you are worried about the violence against and the persecution of Christians you might be far right. If you value the cultural and philosophical heritage of the Western civilisation you might be far right. If you don’t believe in an open borders immigration policy you might be far right. If you prefer local democracy to transnational institutions you might be far right. If you are defending your country from an armed invasion by another country you might be far right too. (…)

This effort to use language as a cudgel has several sinister implications. It delegitimises perfectly normal political ideas through guilt by association. It also creates the impression that the (genuine) far right is much bigger, more influential and more threatening and dangerous than it actually is. This in turn is used to downplay and minimise the dangers of Islamist and far-left extremism and terrorism. But perhaps the scariest aspect of it all is that the left, by manufacturing the far right monster, are actually genuinely contributing to the growth of far-right extremism. The relentless flood of identity politics, grievance and victimhood, and shaming and guilting entire sections of population based on their skin colour and culture is genuinely radicalising some misfits into fascism, like the Christchurch terrorist, for example. For every action there is eventually an equal and opposite reaction. The left might think it’s courageously defanging the fascist dragon but instead it’s just sowing its teeth.

That last sentence describes a desired goal of the Organized Left – a feature, rather than a bug.

By the way, when I talk about these things, getting angry is appropriate. But it’s important to let one’s anger dissipate and to appreciate those who are able to dissect this Othering of Christianity and of Western Civilization; to peel off its coating. When we point it out to you, we’re not trying to stoke fear, but to wipe away the confusion as to what the Sowers of Discord are doing.

Reconnaissance is your friend.

Taqiyya for Easter

Let’s say a fire breaks out at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris at the start of Holy Week, and just after two of the city’s other most prominent houses of worship – St Sulpice and the Basilica of St Denis – have been attacked and vandalized.

Well, I think we can all confidently say as the first flames are beginning to lick the ceiling that it’s undoubtedly an accident. Cigarette butt. Or maybe computer glitch. Probably just an overheated smart phone. We don’t need to get in there and sift through the debris. We can just announce it.

On the other hand, when there are coordinated attacks on Easter services at several churches in Sri Lanka, it becomes a little more challenging to pass off multiple suicide-bombings killing nearly three hundred people as an electrical malfunction.

So, in contrast to the confident declarations of a week ago, on Sunday morning the media opted for a subtler narrative. Lead sentence from The Economist:

IT HAS BEEN nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

So it’s something to do with the Tamil Tigers? Their guns fell silent, but now they’ve returned with a vengeance, eh?

Well, er, no, er, not, ah, precisely… But it’s useful for “context”, lots and lots of context. And, if you pile up enough context, you can bury the actual story. My old chums at The Age in Melbourne produced an especially fine example:

Colombo: More than 200 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in eight bomb blasts that rocked churches, luxury hotels and other sites in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday – the deadliest violence the South Asian island country has seen since a bloody civil war ended a decade ago.

Ah, there’s that bloody civil war flaring up all over again, right?

Steady on. We’re not quite saying that, but it’s important to know the historical background and so forth…

The scale of the bloodshed recalled the worst days of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, in which the Tamil Tigers, a rebel group from the ethnic Tamil minority, sought independence from the Buddhist-majority country. The Tamils are Hindu, Muslim and Christian.

So it’s a Hindu-Muslim-Christian attack on churches and hotels?

Er, not exactly. We’re still doing ten paragraphs of general throat-clearing here…

Sri Lanka, situated off the southern tip of India, is about 70 per cent Buddhist. While there have been scattered incidents of anti-Christian harassment in recent years, there has been nothing on the scale of what happened on Sunday.

So it’s part of a tradition of Buddhists’ anti-Christian harassment?

Well, these Buddhists are notoriously “hard-line”…

There is also no history of violent Muslim militants in Sri Lanka. However, tensions have been running high more recently between hard-line Buddhist monks and Muslims.

So the hard-line Buddhists attacked the churches to get at the non-hard-line Muslims?

Whoops, did we give you the impression Muslims had something to do with this? Our mistake…

Two Muslim groups in Sri Lanka condemned the church attacks…

Let us turn to The New York Times:

Religious Minorities Across Asia Suffer Amid Surge in Sectarian Politics

Gotcha. This is all part of a general problem of various unspecified religions in unspecified countries suffering in a general sort of way. But could you be a little less general and more specific?

Okay. Opening paragraphs:

The deadly attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted how easily religious coexistence can be ripped apart in a region where secularism is weakening amid the growing appeal of a politics based on ethnic and sectarian identity.

In India, the country’s governing right-wing Hindu party is exploiting faith for votes, pushing an us-versus-them philosophy that has left Muslims fearing they will be lynched if they walk alone.

In Myanmar, the country’s Buddhist generals have orchestrated a terrifying campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Rohingya Muslims.

And in Indonesia and Bangladesh, traditionally moderate Muslim politicians are adopting harder-line stances to appeal to more conservative electorates.

So Hindus are attacking Muslims, and Buddhists are attacking Muslims, and “hard-line” Muslims are attacking moderate Muslims. Thank God for some clarity on the situation. But what were all these Muslims doing in church on Easter morning?

Well, as we said, it’s all very complex – not like “Edelweiss” being an obvious white-supremacist dog-whistle by a notorious Nazi Jew composer. Best not to think about it.

Sri Lanka is a popular tourist destination, so there were many western victims of yesterday’s attack, including young ones: from an eleven-year-old English boy and a ten-year-old Australian girl to three of the four children of Denmark’s wealthiest man, retail billionaire Anders Holch Povlsen. Yet throughout Sunday the UK, Aussie, Danish and the rest of the world’s media saw their job as thorough obfuscation of the truth. I heard about yesterday’s attack from the BBC, which had extensive rolling coverage with correspondents on the ground – and yet seemed mainly to be trying to tell us as little as possible. A lady think-tanker from Chatham House was keen to focus on the brutality with which the Sri Lankan government had ended the Tamil insurgency a decade ago: a fascinating topic no doubt, but utterly irrelevant to the mound of Christian corpses in Colombo that morning. In the entire hour, hers was the only mention of Islam – when she cautioned that it would be grossly irresponsible and “Islam-phobic” even to bring up the subject.

She didn’t really need to spell that out, did she? It used to be said that ninety per cent of news is announcing Lord Jones is dead to people who were entirely unaware that Lord Jones was ever alive. Now the trick is to announce Lord Jones is dead and ensure that people remain entirely unaware of why he is no longer alive. One senses that a line was crossed in yesterday’s coverage. As one of our Oz Steyn Club members, Kate Smyth, put it, the media have advanced from dhimmitude to full-blown taqiyya.

The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie. All day yesterday and into today, if you had glanced at the telly, switched on the radio or surfed the big news sites of the Internet, you would have thought the Tamil Tigers were back “with a vengeance”, as The Economist put it – even though with one exception (the 1990 police massacre) the death toll was higher than any individual attack the Tigers had ever pulled off.

Meanwhile, back in that fast shrinking space known as the real world, from the very first hours the headline of this story was completely straightforward:

Islamic Suicide Bombers Slaughter Three Hundred on Easter Morning

But apparently that can no longer be said.

Mueller Report: Assange Preferred Trump Because Hillary Was a “Sociopath” Who Would Start More Wars

The redacted Mueller report reveals that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange wanted Donald Trump to win the presidency because he thought Hillary Clinton was a “sociopath” who would start more wars.

Assange, who was arrested last week and faces extradition to the United States, thought that it would be far harder for Trump to start wars given his platform and opposition from Republicans.

“GOP will generate a lot oposition [sic], including through dumb moves. Hillary will do the same thing, but co-opt the liberal opposition and the GOP opposition. Hence hillary [sic] has greater freedom to start wars than the GOP and has the will to do so,” Assange wrote.

Nancy Pelosi Declares a ‘New Era’ of Internet Regulation; E.U. Threatens Same
Nancy Pelosi wants to gut Section 230

Little wanna-be tyrants…some with dementia.

We’ve all been watching this develop for years now: The internet is being slow-choked, not by rapacious ISPs forcing users to pay for “fast lanes,” but by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who want to have a bigger role in what we’re allowed to do and say online. To be sure, lawmakers are being greatly aided in their efforts by major tech players such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, who are explicitly calling for regulation to maintain current market positions in a sector defined by creative destruction (all hail MySpace and Blackberry!).

In an interview with Recode‘s Kara Swisher, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) pronounced that in the tech sector, the “era of self-regulation” is over when it comes to privacy and speech rules. Sounding a lot like conservative Republicans such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, she zeroes in especially on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as the thing that needs to be torched.

As the title of a new book puts it, Section 230 comprises “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” Author Jeff Kosseff explains that by immunizing websites, platforms, and service providers from “lawsuits over materials that their users upload,” Section 230 “fundamentally changed American life.” Indeed, the internet as we know it is based on both “content created not only by large companies, but by users,” writes Kosseff, who observes that of the top 10 most-trafficked websites in the United States in 2018, only Netflix “mostly provides its own content.” All the rest—Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, et al.—either rely heavily on user-generated content (including potentially actionable reviews and comments about everything under the sun) or exist to guide users to such content (Google, Yahoo).

Pelosi is done with all that, telling Swisher that the freedom of expression empowered by Section 230 is “a gift” and a “privilege” that can be rescinded if major tech companies don’t move in the direction she and other politicians want.

The Push to Demonize Private Gun Ownership Never Stops

The push to demonize private gun ownership never stops. Michael Bloomberg and other gun control advocates are continuing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research that the news media uncritically disseminates.

Entertainment television shows are no less one-sided.

Americans use guns defensively about 2 million times a year — about 5 times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes. But don’t expect to see gun owners saving the day on television. Instead, gun owners are bigoted, hotheaded, and dangerous.

ABC’s The Rookie has a scene where an armed neighborhood watch group is patrolling its neighborhood. One man wears a red baseball cap and picks up a Hispanic-looking man who is trimming a hedge in his yard because he “looks guilty as hell to me.” The police arrive and tell the patrol members to put away their guns because protecting the neighborhood is a “job for law enforcement.”

CBS’s SWAT had a similar theme. After a hit-and-run driver injures gay men, and others are threatened, a gay “gun rights group” tries arming itself for protection (February 21, 2019, Season 2, episode 16). The police explain that the job of protecting people is their own, and that the gay men are just “amateurs.” Letting people defend themselves is described as “shooting up the streets.” ……..

In a recent episode of Chicago PD, a criminal leaves a gun at a crime scene and the gun registration system allows the police to eventually trace the gun back to him (March 27, 2019, Season 6, episode 17). It is nice in theory, but reality never works this way. Registration is just a lazy way for writers to solve crimes, as we’ve seen for many years on NBC’s Law & Order.

In real life, crime guns are very rarely left at the scene of incidents, and the only exceptions occur when criminals have been seriously injured or killed. Also, crime guns are very rarely registered. In the exceedingly rare instances that they are, they aren’t registered to the person who committed the crime. That’s why police in Chicago, Hawaii, DC, Pennsylvania, or Canada can’t point to any crimes that have been solved as a result of registration………

Sure, things going wrong with guns makes for good entertainment. But so does law-abiding citizens heroically stopping attackers, as occurs so many times every year in real life. The one-sidedness of our entertainment shows and downright preachiness of some scenes betray a strong political agenda. Our entertainment shows should be a form of escapism, and political agendas ruin that for a lot of us.

Why the Left can’t understand Tucker Carlson.

Third, this monologue, like many other statements from Tucker Carlson, illustrates something about him that his enemies, as well as many of his friends, are loathe to acknowledge. It is this: though he is conservative, and though he is a sharp and effective critic of many of Trump’s enemies, he is by no means an unreflective supporter of the president. On the contrary, he dissents from Trump on many issues — from his policy in Syria to the slate of possible domestic initiatives he mentioned in his recent monologue.

This is the hardest thing for the Left (and, again, some ditto-head elements on the Right) to swallow: there are some independent commentators out there who call the shots as they see them and offer commendation or criticism on the basis of their own principles, not on the basis of parti pris. When it comes to the virtue of independence, Tucker Carlson leads the pack.

This fact causes painful disturbances in The Narrative.

Television Show Bias against guns: The constant false claims that gun registration being used to solve crime

Television entertainment shows keep pushing a myth by gun control advocates that a gun registry is an effective way to solve crime. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal. This episode from Chicago PD makes that exact claim (Season 6, Episode 17, March 27, 2019).

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved that the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Canada and other parts of the U.S. haven’t had any better luck. From 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveal that the murder weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases — only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides — was the gun found to be registered to the accused. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, these 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

Of course, the real Chicago police have also been unable to point to real cases where registration has solved crimes.

For other examples of media bias against guns, see here.

House Demoncraps Want ‘Oversight’ over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions

Now, does anyone still have any lingering questions about why I refer to these wanna-be authoritarian tyrants disguised as congressional representatives and senators as demoncraps? Read on brothers.

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are demanding to know why Fox News did not publish a story prior to the 2016 election about an alleged affair years before between porn star Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.
House Committee on Oversight and Reform chair Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) wrote to former Fox News reporter Diana Falzone last month demanding that she turn over any documents relating to Trump’s alleged extramarital affairs.

An article in the New Yorker last month alleged that Fox News executive Ken LaCorte spiked the story to protect Trump — a claim LaCorte has vehemently denied, saying the story lacked corroborating evidence and that the network was merely practicing responsible journalism, as were other outlets who declined the story.

Ex-Fox News Editor: Here’s Why I’m Not Complying With House Investigation Into Spiked Stormy Daniels Report

In the country’s escalating partisan fights and media attacks, two bad ideas have surfaced.

One was from President Donald Trump, who tweeted that Saturday Night Live’s constant mocking of him could, in fact, be an “advertisement without consequences” and wondered if the Federal Election Commission should investigate. It’s a silly notion that should be ignored.

The other was from a lawyer for a former Fox News reporter who, in trying to get her client from underneath a non-disclosure agreement, baselessly speculated on MSNBC that I and Fox may have broken campaign contribution laws because I wouldn’t publish a half-cooked Stormy Daniels story two weeks before the 2016 election. It’s another silly notion that, unfortunately, Congress is now acting on.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) took the bait, and is now bringing newsroom debate into his House Oversight Committee for investigation. In a letter sent to the former reporter, Diana Falzone, he asked for her working documents on the story, as well as an interview with the committee.

Falzone’s lawyer announced that she would comply with the committee. I won’t.

If House Oversight can launch an investigation based on the ridiculous notion that publishing, or even more bizarrely not publishing, a story can be construed as an in-kind campaign contribution, then no journalist in America is safe from government intimidation. It’s a vast overreach of power, and I won’t have any part of it.

To be clear, I fully support Fox News lifting Falzone’s non-disclosure agreement so that she can make her case publicly, without leaks or lawyers. But neither editorial decisions nor joke writing should be a subject of government approval.

Perhaps this is all a PR stunt disguised as an investigation. I wouldn’t be surprised to read an anonymous source close to the House Oversight investigation leak out that, lo and behold, Fox News is really horrible, faux news after all.

Or, perhaps Trump and Cummings are ushering in a new era of criminalizing “wrong” journalism and comedy. Whether its cries of “lock her up!” or “traitor,” we’ve seen a desire to shift political disagreements into courtrooms, so perhaps it’s the media’s time for similar treatment. I hope not.

Whatever it is, House Oversight committee members should be ashamed that an important investigative arm of Congress is being used in this manner.

Ken LaCorte is the founder of LaCorte News and is the former Senior Vice President for Fox News Digital.

The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

When you’ve lost the most proggie New Yorker magazine….

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.” The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie. When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself. On a hill in downtown Montgomery, down the street from both Jefferson Davis’s Confederate White House and the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where M.L.K. preached and organized, the center had recently built a massive modernist glass-and-steel structure that the social critic James Howard Kunstler would later liken to a “Darth Vader building” that made social justice “look despotic.”

It was a cold place inside, too. The entrance was through an underground bunker, past multiple layers of human and electronic security. Cameras were everywhere in the open-plan office, which made me feel like a Pentagon staffer, both secure and insecure at once.

But nothing was more uncomfortable than the racial dynamic that quickly became apparent: a fair number of what was then about a hundred employees were African-American, but almost all of them were administrative and support staff—“the help,” one of my black colleagues said pointedly. The “professional staff”—the lawyers, researchers, educators, public-relations officers, and fund-raisers—were almost exclusively white. Just two staffers, including me, were openly gay.

During my first few weeks, a friendly new co-worker couldn’t help laughing at my bewilderment. “Well, honey, welcome to the Poverty Palace,” she said. “I can guaran-damn-tee that you will never step foot in a more contradictory place as long as you live.”

“Everything feels so out of whack,” I said. “Where are the lawyers? Where’s the diversity? What in God’s name is going on here?”

“And you call yourself a journalist!” she said, laughing again. “Clearly you didn’t do your research.”

Poor widdle baby. Such a snowflake ‘reporter’.
I got a phone number for him. 800- 922-2222 (800-WAA-AAAA)
CNN’s Jim Acosta didn’t get chosen to ask a question during President Trump’s Rose Garden press conference with Brazil president Jair Bolsaonaro on Tuesday, but he managed to complain about a reporter who did. Daily Caller White House correspondent Saagar Enjeti was allowed to ask multiple questions, including whether or not the Supreme Court will be expanded and Trump’s thoughts on the state of social media. Following the press conference, Acosta accused Enjeti of asking Trump a softball question, but it seems the CNN reporter wasn’t paying close attention because the question was directed at the Brazilian president,

New Zealand’s Handling Of Mosque Massacre Shows Why Americans Are Lucky

The Founders who demanded a Bill of Rights for their vote to ratify our Constitution was one of the most brilliant plans the U.S. government has ever had crammed down its throat.

Freedoms of the press and speech are something which is near and dear to my heart. The ability for people to say what they want or broadcast what they want – without fear of government reprisal – is a key pillar of freedom and liberty. I may not like what someone posts on social media or expresses in a newspaper, blog, TV, or radio – but I will defend their ability to give an opinion or air their content.

The recent actions by the New Zealand government in light of last week’s horrific terrorist attack only solidify my point of view.

It is understandable why the Kiwis want to keep video of the attack from public consumption – as several people who have viewed the video have expressed horror by its content. Yet, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Adern has boldly crossed the line into censorship by dictating to Google, Instagram, and Facebook the videos must be removed – or they’ll face reprisals for violation the law.

“This is an issue that I will look to be discussing directly with Facebook,” Adern told reporters on Sunday when asked if Facebook should disable their live-streaming feature. A 22-year-old is under arrest for sharing footage of the attack, and those who post censored versions of the attack video will also be prosecuted. Sky New Zealand pulled Sky News Australia for showing the video, although it isn’t known if it was done at the behest of the government. One can guess they wanted to avoid running afoul of the country’s Office of Film and Literature Classification, who declared the video was not a freedom of speech or information issue.

This is the purest form of hogwash.

Americans are lucky to avoid this situation with the guaranteed protections in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The protections may have been whittled away at over the years – but they still exist. There’s nothing wrong with websites like Facebook or Google deciding to block videos of shootings or suspend accounts if they choose to – as long as it’s not by government edict. There are other websites out there for people to get their fix – or support freelance journalists – if it’s their desire. Individual companies should not be coerced by government officials to wipe away any trace of an attack like it didn’t happen (imagine if the same had been done over September 11th). The images and video are obviously unseemly – one reason why I refuse to watch it – but that’s my choice. The government shouldn’t make it for me.

Dangers still exist. President Donald Trump suggested the FCC or FEC should start looking into Saturday Night Live and late night talk shows. It’s doubtful he’s serious and more than likely just wants to gin up his most fervent supporters into a rhetorical frenzy.

The 2013 proposal by California U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein to define a “real journalist” was more serious. Feinstein suggested “real journalists” were only those who did work for what could be called “traditional news outlets” aka ABC, CNN, Fox, Huffington Post, or Reason – instead of those who ran their own individual blog. Feinstein’s amendment (which thankfully did not pass) would have made it extremely problematic for those who wish to independently post videos or content on Facebook or YouTube. There were similar fights in court over the filming of police arrests.

Perhaps the best – and worst – part of freedom of the press (and freedom of speech) is the fact it relies on individuals to determine what news they consume, and outlets to police their own. ABC was slow to fire Brian Ross for his many failures, while Brian Williams was only demoted from NBC to MSNBC for lying. How many people will now question anything Reuters’ reporter Joseph Menn writes on Beto O’Rourke – or any other candidate, for that matter – because he admitted to covering up O’Rourke’s involvement in a hacking group. Will Tucker Carlson face actual backlash – in the form of fewer viewers – for whatever it was he said on Bubba the Love Sponge? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is a double-edged sword – but the idea it should be thrown away because an outlet decides to give journalists a slap on the wrist (or axe to the head) is something which should be resisted at all costs.

What happened in New Zealand is horrific. But deciding to punish those who display video or images of the attack is wrong. It is something which should be resisted in America, and the words of the First Amendment should not be ignored.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Is Right: The Hijab Reflects ‘Adherence to Sharia Law.’

FOX management displays crap-for-brains by suspending Judge Jeanine for speaking truth to islamers.

The recent outrage surrounding Fox News host Jeanine Pirro’s remarks concerning the hijab is a reflection of the abysmal degree to which common sense is under assault in America.

Context: While discussing Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Israel remarks with Nancy Pelosi, Pirro said:

This is not who your party is.
Your party is not anti-Israel.
She is.
Think about this, she’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democratic Party, so if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?

Think about it.

Omar wears a hijab which according to the Quran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution? [emphasis added.]

Common sense dictates that this is a fair question. If Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam, including dress codes, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they likely also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes of Islam—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and (when capable) jihad?