Image 01 Image 03

Is it any wonder people shout back at the liberal media?

Is it any wonder people shout back at the liberal media?

Ace: “If the media has no ethical boundaries as far as publicly shaming random private citizens, why should we care about media?”

In case you missed it, the liberal media is really upset that the people they have been pissing on for years are pissing back. But it shouldn’t be a surprise.

There are countless stories of liberal media enemies-of-the-week, innocent citizens who make one errant comment or tweet and are the subject of a swarm of media bees. Remember how just recently the liberal media built up Ken Bone, who asked a question at a presidential town hall, because he said he had been for Trump but was considering Hillary after the event?

It was a useful narrative, so Ken Bone became media hero.

But when Bone appeared to go back to Trump support and commented that the Trayvon Martin verdict was correct, the media singled him out and took him down as quickly as they built him up, Ken Bone told the truth about Trayvon Martin, and for that media must destroy him.

Bone is hardly alone. There’s the guy in Rhode Island who recently complained in the local paper about women who wear yoga pants outside the gym. He thought he was being funny, but local feminists with the cooperation and encouragement of a wide range of national and international liberal media made him the New object of hate: Guy who complained about older women in Yoga pants. (Somehow no one noted or cared that he also complained about men in Speedos.)

Or how the media regularly caricatures ordinary non-liberal people as racist and violent, etc. I saw it first hand during the rise of the Tea Party movement, when media would attend a rally with multiple thousands of people and hundreds of signs, but would somehow find the six people and three signs they could use to taint the entire crowd and movement. Some of those people were planted in the crowd by liberals seeking to make the Tea Party look bad.

Or how the liberal media would immediately react to any mass shooting or terror attack with a (failed) attempt to blame the Tea Party, Add Boston Marathon Bombing to pile of Failed Eliminationist Narratives.

Is it any wonder that Americans’ Trust in Mass Media has Sunk to New Low? And that was before Wikileaks emails from the Podesta account provided clear evidence of collusion with Hillary by the supposed top-tier of mainstream media, and a window into their incestuous world.

People are sick and tired of it. That doesn’t mean that every person in the media is guilty of this conduct, but the snobbery, bias and nastiness is so pervasive as to cause pushback from the targets.

And the targets this electoral season are Trump supporters. All multiple tens of millions of whom are smeared as deplorable not just by Hillary, but the liberal media. Those targets have a right to shout back.

But the media doesn’t like being treated the way it treats others.

Of course, there’s a huge difference between yelling back and calling out, and threats of violence. Threats of violence should be condemned, as should shouts that truly are racist or sexist. But the media reaction was not just about threats or racist/sexist taunts, but also about the sort of naming and shaming the media does with reckless abandon.

This week, intense condemnation was launched after Trump called out one reporter in the crowd by name, Donald Trump can’t help himself from imperiling reporters:

Just a week ago, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer changed hats in the middle of an interview with Donald Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. “You know what worries me — and I’m not objective on this because I’m on the Steering Committee on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and I really believe in a free press and I’m sure you do as well — but the working journalists, the embeds who are traveling with them all the time, they go to all these rallies, they’re in this pen, he points to them, he sort of eggs the crowd on to go after them,” said Blitzer. “They’re a lot of young journalists, they’re scared sometimes.”

The same media that is so afraid practically laughs when Trump supporters are taunted and attacked. And went into spin mode to defend Hillary when it turned out that a Democratic operative bragged about stoking violence at Trump rallies by planting people in the crowd to bird-dog.

Ace went on a Twitter rant about the media reaction to being named and shamed. Here’s one of the tweets.

The sequence was Storified by @nowhere_nh:

The liberal media treats people with such contempt, is it any wonder that people shout back at them?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ironically, predictably, it is the progressive liberals who have relabeled and reestablished institutional racism, sexism, selective exclusion/discrimination (“=”) under the [class] diversity doctrine. The efforts by journolists of the fourth estate to conceal their sanctimonious hypocrisy are increasingly failing to extract deference to the bigots from their targets.

Wasn’t this blog that had a photo taken from behind Hilary Rodham Clinton showing the faces of the press as they were asking questions, or rather listening to her. Rapt and attentive, they were.

In a system where the msm is in the tank for only one side, actions must be taken to help level the playing field. One of these tactics is to shame the individual reporters, by name, for their lies and distortions. It cannot remain a one-way street for the msm. They have to have some form of accountability and responsibility for what they report. This election cycle for me has been the worst in my lifetime. They are not even pretending to be fair or ethical. They proudly proclaim that they must do all they can to prevent Trump from being elected. What worries me more than this is the aftermath if hillary wins and the msm becomes part of her administration. Just like obama’s terms, the ms makes no effort to call him out for his constant lies or fabrications. We can only guess how bad they will be for the queen of mean.

It would be impossible to imagine the de-legitimation of the US without first de-legitimizing the media. Watergate, unchecked, might have gone far in unraveling public confidence in Washington–but for the media’s intervention.

But that was before today’s monoculture, which has given media and government parallel interests. It has likewise nullified the supposed separation of powers constitutional scheme—little difference today between the two parties, and apart from two or three SC justices, constitutionalism is dead.

The merger of media and government enmeshes the former in the latter”s illegitimacy. Major media can no longer be read but instead must be interpreted, and especially scrutinized for intentional omissions.

Is “craven cowards” redundant? Or is “craven” sufficient?

“Dishonest” helps with the description.

Those who tell lies grow so accustomed to lies that they have a hard time identifying the truth.

Then there are those, like Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who recently said something like ‘these are my truths and what is true for somebody else might be different’. Wrong. Truth is objective and verifiable. Just like in the equation 2x +3 = 13, x must be 5. That is the truth. We can verify that is the correct answer, we can show that no other answer will work. 2(5) +3 = 13.

I’m not objective on this because I’m on the Steering Committee on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and I really believe in a free press

What Blitzer means by a “free press” is free from consequences.

This is not the Founding Era idea of a “free press”. The colonial-era press was extreme, shrill, nasty, tasteless, and absurd … but it was not invariably and universally a mouthpiece for one party. The men who composed America’s founding documents—and its philosophy—realized that a free press was vital … and by “free” they meant “independent”; free of government or party control, serious restraint, or—perhaps most importantly—”guidance”.

While a good (i.e., mature, fair, honest, and reasonable) press would be best, they knew then (as we know now) they weren’t going to get one … but an independent press would be good enough.

    TX-rifraph in reply to tom swift. | November 5, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    What Blitzer means by a “free press” is free from ANY constraints, not just governmental constraints — Free from ethics, honesty, criticism, challenges, scrutiny, etc.

    It goes with being a member of the ruling class.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | November 5, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    As the Founders used “press” it did NOT imply some group people.

    They meant the PRINTING PRESS, not some abstract notion of scriveners who had a God-given (and totally unverifiable) right to publish crap.

    In their time, the POWER of the PRESS was meant the ability of almost any free American to publish what they thought via the wonderful instrument of the printing press (which was easily affordable…you didn’t need to own one, they were readily for hire), and have it broadly disseminated.

    And it WAS. A lot of great (and awful) examples come down to us today.

    The PRESS today…in the Founders’ terms…includes blogs. They would have LOVED the crazy and sometimes wonderful stuff that we enjoy (?).

    They also would have spat on the idea that “the press” are some self-anointed bunch of pukes who think they have some right to express only their approved thinking.

“What Blitzer means by a “free press” is free from consequences.” +1

The days of us being polite, courteous and respectful are over!

Flick You liberal media. The war with you is just starting.
We will not stand for your lying ways anymore!!

Quiz time! What famous person wrote this?

The readers of the press can be divided into three groups:

First, into those who believe everything they read; Second, into those who have ceased to believe anything; Third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white. To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably. Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous, They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others…

The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods. These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth…

The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgement of all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own. They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve.

For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon. Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number — a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.”

    Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | November 5, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    I would have said Mencken, but it was Hitler.

    Interestingly, both answers would be very apt, as SOME things Hitler observed were simply true, as he would later prove in his life. Human nature is what it is, and is unwavering. Mencken was also a keen observer of human nature.

    The two men were, of course, polar opposites in HOW they used what they observed in human nature, and how they fought for it to be applied.

    But there is a 4th group. People like me who only read the likes of WaPo to see what bullshit trial balloons the Left will be floating this week.

If the media was only like snakes. Some snake are good snakes.

Shouting back at corrupt propagandists is a good thing.

Boycotting and bankrupting them is better.

    Practical question: How would one boycott and bankrupt the media? I haven’t watched network news (or CNN) or read newspapers for over twenty years, yet they’re all still around. Of course I’m forced to pay for their TV channels if I want to watch TV at all. It might help drive them out of business if our legislators would allow unbundling cable and satellite packages so we wouldn’t be forced to pay for CBSNBCABCCNNMSNBC.

      Do you go to the movies? Do you pay for any entertainment television? Do you watch ESPN? Do you pay to send your kids to liberal colleges? If you do, you’re supporting the democrat party.

      Re “legislation,” we need to first boot out the Crying Boehners of the GOPe – get rid of the likes of Ryan and McConnell, and replace them with patriots, and you’ll see change.

      And speaking of boycotting and bankrupting: the concurrent target is the GOPe: don’t give them a dime – only support individual candidates.

Henry Hawkins | November 5, 2016 at 8:42 pm

Internet killed the cable TV star. It’s not ethics or politics or ideology. It’s greed. The media are so cozy with government and incumbents because they know they’ll be looking for a job soon, as print news is all but dead and cable news is next.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 5, 2016 at 9:33 pm

The former president of NPR wrote a piece in “Vanity Fair” with a headline something like ‘Maybe The Right Wing Media Isn’t Crazy After All’. He said he’s been reading Breitbart almost every day for a year and while he doesn’t agree with their tone, they get the facts right. Then he talked about how he picked up his hardcopy of WaPo and found something like 20 stories critical of Trump and none critical of Hillary – despite there being plenty of stuff they could have published about Hillary. He made a mental note and did the experiment again a few days later and came up with a similar result – lots of negative Trump stories and very little negative Hillary stories.

Then there is a guy named Ken Silverstein who wrote a piece in “The Observer” titled ‘This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Journalism Profession’ or something along those lines. He says upfront that while he is a man of the left, he is not voting for either Trump or Hillary. He went on to excoriate the press for its biased reporting in a long scathing criticism.

They know they’ve blown it this year. However, even with criticism coming from their own side, I’m not sure they can, will, want, or have to change. Most of the major newspapers and broadcasters have been biased to a lesser degree most of my adult life. I think they completely lost ALL objectivity in ’08 to get Obama elected. They hate Trump so much they never even tried to be fair this cycle.

“They know they’ve blown it this year. However, even with criticism coming from their own side, I’m not sure they can, will, want, or have to change.”

They don’t need to. That’s why they’ve gone all in and dropped all pretenses with their “Trump is Hitler and must be stopped, the end justifies any means”.

If Hillary wins its for 8 years and its Game Over. And their critics will be sidelined on obscure parts of the net for the rest of their lives, talk talk talking about media bias while trying to avoid the Thought Police.

I disagree. People don’t spontaneously shout at the media; they scream their chants like they used to count”Lying Ted” or “lock her up”. They do so because the man on stage taught them to behave that way. This is a leadership problem.
This anti- Free speech pattern is not restricted to liberal media. Before liberals were affected, conservative journalists were buying guns, etc. to protect themselves from Trump’s altRight fans.

    “They do so because the man on stage taught them to behave that way.”

    LOL, man is that Trump persuasive or what.

    What he actually did, he freed them to express the truth.

buckeyeminuteman | November 6, 2016 at 1:08 pm

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies right to our faces.”