Image 01 Image 03

Liberal Media Narrative: Rand Paul Has a Women Problem

Liberal Media Narrative: Rand Paul Has a Women Problem

Completely predictable.

The Republican “War on Women” isn’t over and if liberals have their way, it never will be.

Newly announced presidential candidate Rand Paul appeared on the Today Show yesterday morning and had the nerve to push back when Savannah Guthrie put words in his mouth.

Nick Gass of Politico:

Rand Paul clashes with Savannah Guthrie over changing views

Sen. Rand Paul clashed with “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie over her line of questioning during an interview Wednesday morning, criticizing her for editorializing over perceived changes in his political views since his election to the Senate.

“You have had views on foreign policy in the past that were somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years,” Guthrie told the Kentucky Republican, who was appearing via satellite from Nashua, New Hampshire. “You once said Iran was not a threat, now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel, now you support it, at least for the time being, and you once offered to drastically cut … defense spending.”

Paul attempted to speak as Guthrie continued.

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who once referred to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham as a “right wing slut” is just beside himself over all this misogyny:

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin:

This is how the story begins but it doesn’t end there.

Behold the creation of a narrative.

The Washington Post: Rand Paul’s problem with female interviewers just cropped up again

Salon: “No no no no no no no no: Listen!” He-man Rand Paul lectures a lady — again

News Busters: Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell Scold Rand Paul Following Today Show Interview

Perez Hilton: RUDE! Presidential Hopeful Sen. Rand Paul Lectures Female Interviewer… Again!!

Republicans have to start treating members of the press like Democratic opponents.

Because they are.

Back in February, Professor Jacobson proposed Three Questions All Democrats Must Answer.

Ace of Spades has a few new ones.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for our totally unbiased media to ask them.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


OK, we need to end the confusion here.

Are female reporters/talking heads delicate lil’ flowers, just a raised male voice away from collapse on the fainting couch?

Or are they capable, sometimes domineering, grown-up adult winnims (hear them roar) who don’t need anybody leaping to their rescue, thank you very much?

Which is it, America?

    Its all in the misogynistic nuance, which can be detected by all non-misogynists, especially flaming liberals, both men and women. Not seeing it is simply proof of one’s misogyny.

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    “Are female reporters/talking heads delicate lil’ flowers…”

    Yes, all the lefty ones are. Ever notice the right side females never need any help?

CloseTheFed | April 9, 2015 at 8:52 am

They’re ideological bullies.

CloseTheFed | April 9, 2015 at 8:59 am

BTW, we all know Rand is doing what has to be done. If the press wants to make policy, they should all quit and run for office. They don’t; they make policy from the cheap seats: they frame the acceptable limits of discussion, and candidates are simply supposed to accept those limits.

Reporters generally aren’t visionaries; every reason exists not to allow them to set the rules of engagement and the limits of our discourse and how our society should be constructed.

I was taught reporters were supposed to be neutral in political matters. With this current crop of reporters (I use the term loosely) being a DemocRAT hack is how to get ahead. This is the fault of our so-called liberal arts education system.

nordic_prince | April 9, 2015 at 10:03 am

Here is the correct narrative: the LSM have a Republican/conservative problem ~

I’m undecided on Paul, but he’s pissing off both sides, which is a good sign.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | April 9, 2015 at 10:54 am

Chuck Todd will regurgitate just about anything a Democrat operative feeds him. He will occasionally seem “fair”, but more often he will uncritically move Democrat talking points into the MSM faster than just about anybody else of his stature. Probably because he’s so close to the Democrat propagandists at MSNBC.

Having him moderate any GOP primary debates is a mistake.

Henry Hawkins | April 9, 2015 at 11:27 am

From the Society Of Professional Journalists (est. 1909) website, behold their Code Of Ethics. Read through this and tell me how they’re doing. Also, tell me if it made you laugh, puke, tremble with anger, or all three:

Journalists should:

– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

– Label advocacy and commentary.

– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
Act Independently

The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

Journalists should:

– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

– Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

– Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
Be Accountable and Transparent

Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

– Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

– Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

– Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

– Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

– Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 9, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Looks to me like journalism isn’t failing just a few or many of these ethical guidelines, but EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM, Henry. Put me down for ‘laugh’ and fine tremors of anger. I’ll puke after lunch. Diet, remember?

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 9, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Dude! That’s almost, like, as old as that Constitution thingie.

    Hipsters can’t even read that old stuff. “Big words”, man.

“I, as a female reporter, would say to Chuck Todd and The Guardian, we don’t need your help. Savannah Guthrie doesn’t need your help. Kelly Evans doesn’t need your help, and you are entitled to push back on the interviewer just as much as you would if you are a man.”

“These male commentators can butt out,” Kelly added. “We can give as good as we get. … To me, it’s ironic that these people trying to step in and protect these female interviewers are themselves being sexist, while they’re suggesting that you were being sexist because you didn’t kowtow and you weren’t polite enough to a female interviewer.”

Oh, Megyn…I don’t care how Hawkins says you kiss.


To make sure Republican faux pas turn into nationwide scandals that would not even pass the smell test in the real world.

I do — my lip prints are all over the TV screen, along with drool marks. Please don’t tell my wife.

But seriously, I saw that segment last night, and she was correct in her warning that Paul has called down the fire on himself and his campaign. It’s gonna be a long 17 months for him because the entire cabal of towel boys(and girls) in the liberal bordello is gonna be out to strip his hide right off. I hope he can figure out a way to finesse his way through it and gets some good advice because he’s gonna need it. The clowns who gave Obama a pass for the last six years are going to suddenly rediscover their — hah journalistic credentials.

Talk about swimming with the sharks!