RUTHFULLY YOURS

Friday was one of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named “Michael J. Erickson” – someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify – to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had “uploaded.” The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it’s necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow to the Trump/Russia collusion story:

In the wake of his botched exclusive about Michael Flynn, Brian Ross has been suspended without pay for four weeks, effective immediately, ABC News announced Saturday.

The network said in a statement that Ross’ report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”

The statement added: “It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience. These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”

.@ABC News statement on Michael Flynn report: https://t.co/sd9TeFiiLQ pic.twitter.com/UtHFHeuwcM
— ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017

Ross, ABC’s chief investigative correspondent, reported on Friday that Flynn would testify that then-candidate Trump had directed him to contact the Russians about foreign policy during the campaign — causing a media firestorm and stock markets to plummet.

The implication that the president had done something improper or possibly illegal during the campaign led to wild speculation throughout the day Friday that the president was about to be impeached.

ABC first “clarified,” then corrected Ross’s report, saying Flynn would testify that Trump’s directive had actually come after the election (when contact with foreign governments by a new administration is standard procedure).

Several hours after the initial report, Ross himself appeared on “World News Tonight” to offer a “clarification.”

“David, a clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today,” Ross said at the end of his “World News Tonight” story. “He said the president had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that, saying, according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hotspots. And then after the election, the president-elect asked him–told him–to contact Russia on issues including working together to fight ISIS.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Introspection is not one of the left’s strong suits so I wouldn’t expect people who are oblivious to their own faults and foibles to consider the reaction of “The View’s” Joy Behar to what turned out to be the false news that General Michael Flynn would testify that he was asked to contact the Russians by Donald Trump during the campaign. (The report was based on false information broadcast by ABC’s Brian Ross. Flynn was told to contact the Russians after Trump was elected.)

Behar totally lost it, as did her audience and her co-hosts. The implication was clear: Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russians and would be impeached.

BuzzFeed:

“It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas and it’s beginning to look a lot like collusion,” said cohost Ana Navarro.

Conservative cohost Meghan McCain wasn’t so thrilled by the news, conceding it was a “good moment for Democrats,” but saying she doesn’t want the country “to become more polarized.”

“Not to be the Debbie Downer, but if this somehow leads to indictment, the country’s going to rip itself apart and it’s not good for America,” said McCain.

“It should lead to resignation,” Behar responded, to thunderous applause. “I remember Richard Nixon, and Richard Nixon stepped down, and so should Donald Trump.”

Behar said that reading about Flynn’s plea was “the antithesis of election night.” She was so, so, very sad when Donald Trump was elected but now, with the prospect of overturning that election and tearing the country apart, she is so very, very happy.

It makes you wonder if Behar would celebrate the destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb — as long as it was the “right” city. Dallas, yes. Boston, no.

Left-wing icon Dahlia Lithwick writing in Slate wonders, “Is it too late for Robert Mueller to Save Us”? CONTINUE AT SITE

Mika is mad.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/02/sarah-sanders-is-above-the-shame-game/

Mika Brzezinski, otherwise known as the future Mrs. Joe Scarborough, went ballistic Tuesday on her MSNBC morning show over comments by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who had responded to reporters’ questions about President Trump’s “Pocahontas” jibe the day before.

“What’s wrong with her? How can she do that job?” an exasperated Mika rhetorically asked the head-shaking panel. “How can she look in the mirror every day and say, ‘I am doing the right thing for the American people’ because you are not.”

Mika’s voice shook with anger. “Unbelievable. This is the president and that is the spokesperson for the president of the United States, sitting there, defending his racism. His bigoted language. His stupidity. This is where we are.”

Her sphincter-faced betrothed sat next to her, amused. But that wasn’t all. The woman who divorced her husband last year to hook up with her twice-divorced co-host amid years of cheating rumors continued to slam Sanders’ integrity:

It’s sick. The whole relationship [between Trump and Sanders] is sick. You have taken the oath. You are raising three children. Stop.

Set aside for a moment the audacity of one professional mother (Brzezinski) using the children of another professional mother (Sanders) as a way to shame her. But since Brzezinski is a liberal and Sanders is a conservative, no one bothered to call her out on it. Also set aside for a moment the fact that Mika’s tirade occurred a few days after she and her co-hosts were busted for pre-taping their Black Friday morning broadcast and passing it off as live television. This included “Truth Goddess” Mika informing viewers of how she cooked the turkey with the guts in it and how “it was still a little frozen.”

So, what got Mika mad? It was Sanders’ answer to a question from ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, who had asked about Trump’s “offensive” taunt, directed at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren:

I think what most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career.

Boom.

Two more media stars were fired on Wednesday due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor are the latest celebrities to lose their jobs in a cascade of accusations and revelations that began with the October exposure of the many misdeeds of film producer Harvey Weinstein. If recent history is any guide, some will say that other industries are just as bad as the ones that produce information and entertainment. But the hopeful news is that this may not be true, based on the results of a new public opinion survey.

As for Mr. Lauer, co-anchor of NBC’s “Today” show, the speed of his exit from his longtime perch atop the world of morning broadcast television was striking. According to the Journal:

NBC News Chairman Andy Lack said in a memo to staff Wednesday that the network received a detailed complaint from a colleague about misconduct by Mr. Lauer that represented “a clear violation of our company’s standards.”

The alleged incident between Mr. Lauer and the staffer took place during the network’s coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, a person briefed on the matter said.

“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident,” Mr. Lack added.

Ari Wilkenfeld, a lawyer for the accuser, said his client “detailed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct by Mr. Lauer” in a meeting Monday night with members of NBC’s human resources and legal departments. Mr. Wilkenfeld said NBC “acted quickly and responsibly” in investigating the claims and firing Mr. Lauer.

As far as this column can tell, Mr. Lauer has not commented publicly on the allegations. In the matter of Mr. Keillor, this doesn’t appear to be a case of unwanted prairie home companionship, but rather a workplace issue. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Citing “inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him,” Minnesota Public Radio said Wednesday it has terminated its relationship with Garrison Keillor, the former host of “A Prairie Home Companion” who helped build MPR into a national powerhouse.

Free speech has come under attack on two fronts since Donald Trump was elected president. Many unhappy with his victory charge that Russia interfered in our election on his behalf by using social media like Facebook and Twitter, which should be held responsible for the content on their sites. Meanwhile, some political activists and politicians are calling for a revision of our free speech laws to prevent “hate” speech and “fake news” from polluting the public square. Everybody is complaining about false or biased reporting that is distracting and confusing voters with disinformation and appeals to unsavory emotions. One of the pillars of American exceptionalism, the right of citizens to speak freely, no matter how rough or hateful their words, seems to be tottering.

The revelations that Russian propaganda exploited social media to affect the outcome of the election has resulted in Twitter, Facebook, and Google executives getting hauled before Congress to answer questions about the parts their businesses may have played in supposed Russian electoral interference. According to the testimony of these executives, Russian-sponsored Facebook ads reached 135 million American voters over 32 months, and the New York Times reports “more than 126 million users potentially saw inflammatory political ads bought by a Kremlin-linked company, the Internet Research Agency.” Many Congressmen from both parties demanded to know what social media companies will do to control the dissemination of questionable or hostile information.

Similarly, even before the violent demonstrations by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia last summer, critics were demanding a revision of our First Amendment in order to make it resemble the laws in Europe that prohibit “hate speech” and speech that attempts to “spread, incite, promote, or justify hatred based on intolerance.” The “free marketplace of ideas,” critics argue, in the age of the internet is no longer adequate for sorting out “legitimate” speech from hateful propaganda that, if left unchecked, could lead to political tyranny, as happened in Germany under Nazism in the in the 1920s and ’30s. The safety of the larger political community should take precedence over the right of individual citizens to speak their minds.

The libertarian Koch brothers are providing critical financing allowing Meredith Corp. to buy publisher Time Inc. Everyone involved seems to be taking pains to emphasize that billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch will have no editorial influence over Time magazine or any of the group’s other titles, which is too bad for readers. This is an outfit that could use a few dissenting voices.

The Journal notes that Meredith is paying $1.85 billion in cash, and that $650 million of it is coming from a private-equity unit of Koch Industries.

Both Meredith Chairman and CEO Stephen Lacy and its Chief Operating Officer Tom Harty have clarified that they will not be relying on their new partners for news judgment. According to the Journal:

Mr. Harty described the Koch investment as “passive” and said the firm “won’t have any influence on Meredith’s operations, including editorial.” Koch Industries, he added, has expressed no interest in acquiring any individual Time Inc. titles.

Mr. Lacy said he has never met with the Koch brothers. “They won’t have a seat on the board of which I chair,” he added.

The same message is coming from Koch Industries. According to the New York Times:

Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank.

Mr. Lombardo said the company is constantly evaluating investment opportunities.

“We’re looking at deals across all sectors, all industries,” he said. “This just happened to be one that made sense.”

Readers would be unlikely to welcome any publication that simply parrots the opinions of its owner. They also may take issue with the views of entrenched editors. This deal is happening precisely because so many readers have rejected the once-popular titles in the Time stable, which include People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, along with the eponymous magazine.

This is largely a story about the difficulty of traditional print publications navigating the new world of digital media. But as the new owners ponder ways to stem the decline, they might consider having these titles express a broader point of view. History suggests that Charles Koch would make a compelling columnist for Time magazine.

Time was one of the world’s great media empires and publisher of perhaps the world’s most influential publications when it was run by its co-founder Harry Luce, a passionate defender of free enterprise. He offered a new and engaging way for busy consumers to learn about their world—through a patriotic lens. Luce proclaimed an “American century” and did his best to promote the American ideal of constitutional democracy and economic liberty around the world.

The now-struggling Time magazine, no longer among the country’s most influential publications, flogs a somewhat different agenda. Whereas Luce was a passionate anti-communist, the magazine he built has in recent years published a series of largely flattering profiles of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A 2015 report called Mr. Sanders an “overachieving underdog” and a “breakout star” who “leads with his heart.” Last year, when Time designated Mr. Sanders one of the world’s 100 most influential people, it invited Berkeley professor Robert Reich to sum up the socialist senator. Mr. Reich offered an appraisal that was not exactly journalistic:

The intensity and steadfastness of his message that widening inequalities of income, wealth and political power in America are undermining our democracy and economy have inspired record numbers of young voters, independents and heartland Democrats to join his “political revolution.”

Sanders has shown it is possible to achieve all this with small contributions and a platform calling for single-payer health care, free tuition at public universities and a breakup of the biggest banks. His campaign has invigorated a new populist movement in America to restore democracy and create an economy responsive to the needs of ordinary people.

It’s fair to say that Luce would never have published such nonsense. And he didn’t have the advantage of seeing the full picture of all the misery that Marxism would impose on ordinary people over the past century. In 2016, Time published Reich’s howler while Venezuela’s experiment in socialism was already imploding in real time. CONTINUE AT SITE

“Not every horny narcissist with bad judgment is named Donald Trump.”

That was the actual “reportage” of New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush last year, in an article referring to the online sexual exploits of former congressman Anthony Weiner.

It appears, in retrospect, that Thrush might well have been describing himself.

Now, as long-silent accusations of sexual harassment surface like so many whack-a-moles, Thrush is one of the latest casualties.

News reports about his behavior, allegedly inflicting unwanted advances on a series of young women, describe the fedora-wearing Thrush as a successful and influential reporter who once worked for Politico and was then plucked away by the New York Times — once, perhaps, the most prestigious news publication in the world.

Some of his accusers say they feared his industry connections and felt smeared by him after they rebuffed his advances — all of which Thrush has denied.

But there’s a question as to how he was allowed to become an influential force in newsrooms and in political journalism, as described by offended female colleagues.

“Thrush, just by his stature, put women in a position of feeling they had to suck up and move on from an uncomfortable encounter,” wrote his former Politico colleague Laura McGann on Vox.com. She added, “Thrush is a talker — or, as many put it, ‘a bullshi–er.’ He likes to hear gossip, and he likes to spread it.”

McGann goes on to claim that Thrush manufactured gossip about female colleagues to deflect from his misbehavior, and that it was sometimes damaging to their careers.

As far as his professional work, we know from emails published by WikiLeaks that Thrush engaged in ethically questionable behavior there, too. As I wrote in my article Newsgate 2016:

Chief Politico political correspondent Glenn Thrush sent part of an article to [Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta for approval before it was published. ‘Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this,’ Thrush writes in the April 2015 exchange. ‘Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u … Tell me if I f—-d up anything.’ Podesta signs off and the article is published. An email on April 17, 2015 shows Thrush also sent eight paragraphs from a pre-published article to Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri with the title ‘please read asap…don’t share.’ Palmieri writes colleagues, ‘Glenn Thrush is doing a story about how well launch went and some part of it will be about me — which I hate. He did me the courtesy of sending what he is going to say about me. Seems fine.’

Let me be clear: This sort of behavior violates basic journalism tenets — at least as far as I was taught. Double-checking facts is always a good idea; but the idea of sending, pre-publication, sections of articles to the subjects of the articles is verboten. Can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein sending their Watergate articles to Nixon for pre-approval? Do you think Thrush offered the same benefit to Donald Trump campaign officials?