Batya Ungar-Sargon, Bad News

This woman is hot!

At Amazon, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy.

Also, at Bari Weiss's Substack, "How Journalism Abandoned the Working Class."

More here, "New Book: How Elite University Grads RUINED Media, Working Class Concerns IGNORED By Press."

And watch, with Megyn Kelly: 

Politico: Biden's Aides Can't Bear to Watch Him Bumble Through Reporters' Questions

Heh.

At AoSHQ, "Oh they noticed, did they?"

Clarissa Ward Reporting from Afghanistan (VIDEO)

 He's either foolish or brave. 

Either way, it's been doing phenomenal reporting, even heroic,

At CNN, and Melissa Mackenzie below:

Good grief. @clarissaward is going to need years of therapy after this horror in Afghanistan.

She's doing good work.

God bless her and our soldiers. This is an abomination.

— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) August 20, 2021

Afghan Women Fear for Their LIves

Tragic, but no surprise, at all. 

At NYT, "For Afghan Women, Taliban Stirs Fears of a Return to a Repressive Past":

As Afghan women remained cloistered at home in Kabul, fearful for their lives and their futures, a starkly different image played out on Tuesday on Tolo News, an Afghan television station: a female presenter interviewing a Taliban official.

Sitting several feet away from Mawlawi Abdulhaq Hemad, a member of the Taliban’s media team, the host, Beheshta Arghand, asked him about the situation in Kabul and the Taliban’s conducting house-to-house searches in the Afghan capital.

“The entire world now recognizes that the Taliban are the real rulers of the country,” he said, adding: “I am still astonished that people are afraid of Taliban.”

But many are deeply fearful, among them the millions of Afghan women who are afraid of a return to a repressive past, when the Taliban were in power from 1996 to 2001, and barred women and girls from taking most jobs or going to school. In 1996, a woman in Kabul had the end of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish, according to Amnesty International. In recent months, some women have been flogged by Taliban fighters for having their faces uncovered.

In the two decades after the U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban, the United States invested more than $780 million to encourage women’s rights. Girls and women have joined the military and police forces, held political office, competed in the Olympics and scaled the heights of engineering on robotics teams — things that once seemed unimaginable under the Taliban.

Now, however, a central question remains: Will the Taliban once again trample over women’s rights with the same velocity they captured the country?

The Tolo News interview was part of a broader campaign by the Taliban since taking power to present a more moderate face to the world and to help tame the fear gripping the country. They are encouraging workers back to their jobs — and have even encouraged women to return to work and to take part in the government.

“The Islamic Emirate doesn’t want women to be victims,” Enamullah Samangani, a member of the Taliban’s cultural commission, was quoted as saying by The Associated Press, using the militants’ name for Afghanistan. “They should be in the government structure according to Shariah law.”

Still, worried about running afoul of local Taliban officials, many women have remained shuttered at home. Kabul residents have been tearing down advertisements showing women without head scarves in recent days. In some areas of Afghanistan, women have been told not to leave home without being accompanied by a male relative, and girls’ schools have been closed.

And, despite their pledges of no reprisals, there have already been reports of Taliban seizing property, hunting down government workers and journalists and attacking crowds of civilians.

At the same time, the Taliban was showing indications that it was, at least for the moment, adopting a more tolerant stance regarding the role of women and girls. Unicef, the United Nations’ children’s organization, said one of its representatives met a health commissioner on Monday in Herat and reported that he requested that women who work for the health department return to work.

That made the work of Tolo’s female journalists, including a reporter out on the street, all the more notable.

Matthieu Aikins, a journalist who has reported widely on Afghanistan, described the Tolo interview as “remarkable, historic, heartening,” although he pointed out that during recent peace talks in Qatar, the Taliban had given access to female journalists from Afghanistan and other countries.

Afghanistan observers said that while it is not unheard-of for the Taliban to grant interviews to female journalists, including international correspondents from CNN and other outlets, they are rare inside the country... Yeah, CNN's Clarissa Ward, apparently stuck behind enemy lines. I literally pray she has security. I watched her segment yesterday, and Wolf Blitzer finished off that part of the discussion admonisher her to stay safe...

Such a beautiful, beautiful woman, and wearing a burqa, as all Afghan women will be wearing now that the nation's in Taliban hands.

I shake my head and say to myself: I must pray.

 

Amy Chua at Yale

It's from Elizabeth Bruenig, who is a phenomenal writer.

She used to write at both WaPo and the New York Times. I'll bet she's making bank now, and I'm surprised the Atlantic has such deep pockets. *Shrug.*

At Atlantic Monthly, "The New Moral Code of America’s Elite: Two students went to Amy Chua for advice. That sin would cost them dearly":

Every striver who ever slipped the rank of their birth to ascend to a higher order has shared the capacity to ingratiate themselves with their betters. What the truly exceptional ones have in common is the ability to connect not only with their superiors but also with their peers and inferiors. And only the rarest talents among them can bond authentically—not just transactionally—with the people who will help them be who they want to be in the world. It’s a preternatural, almost Promethean gift if you have it, and Amy Chua does.

Thus begins the scandal dubbed “dinner-party-gate,” the latest in the annals of Amy Chua, Yale Law’s very own Tiger Mom, whose infamous defense of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the “dinner-party-gate” of its day approximately three years ago. Then, as now, Chua’s differences with some denizens of her milieu played out in the press, vituperations, allegations, insinuations, and all.

But whatever Chua had done this time, it was either so terrible that it was unspeakable, or so minuscule that it didn’t warrant mentioning in the pages of The New York Times, New York magazine, or The New Yorker. Even so, each outlet gave the mysterious affair a lengthy report. The New York Times declared the conflagration “murky,” something to do with Chua breaking her 2019 agreement with Yale Law School about socializing with students in off-campus settings; The New Yorker noted that the alleged get-togethers had taken place during the pandemic, and considered the rest “a riddle.” Nobody could produce a complainant or a victim; the only thing anyone seemed able to verify was that, whatever Chua had done last winter, the result was that this coming fall, she would no longer be leading a first-year “small group”—intimate cohorts of first-semester law students who are guided through their first few months by a faculty member who teaches, advises, and, per a 2020 budget memorandum from the Law School, likely lunches and dines with the lawyers-to-be.

The reporting left open a pair of related questions: What, exactly, had happened? And, perhaps more salient, if what took place really was something on the order of a minor violation of an ad hoc agreement between Chua and the Yale Law School dean, Heather Gerken, why had the news spilled into the nation’s most prominent news outlets rather than fading below the fold of a campus daily?

It appears to me that what transpired amounts to a skirmish between a notorious professor and an administration that seemed so eager to relieve itself of her presence that it lunged at an opportunity to weaken her position at the expense of two students who were left to deal with the consequences of the ultimately aborted campaign. Still, the answer to the latter question is more revealing than any single aspect of the whole affair. It has to do with the culture of elite institutions, where putatively righteous ends justify an array of troubling means, and noble public virtues like fairness and safety cloak more prosaic motives—the kind of vulgar envy and resentment that people with the best manners deny.

Everyone is just trying to get ahead, after all; this is no less true, and perhaps even more true, at a place like Yale Law School. It just comes more naturally to some than others. In that case one must take matters into one’s own hands.

The proximate drama begins with a trio of second-year law students, friends and acquaintances for a time. There was a person I’ll call the Guest—all three students asked not to be named, and, believing young people should have a chance at carrying on after having their reputation destroyed or destroying the reputation of others, I agreed—who was born and raised in California. He’d arrived at Yale Law School optimistic and younger than most, having come directly from UCLA. During his first semester, he’d befriended the Visitor, a young woman from a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, who had arrived on campus from Emory. The two made a happy pair: the Guest dreamier and prone to touches of poetry, occasionally drawn to Byzantine history and Christian theology; the Visitor shrewd, practical, and levelheaded, with a keen focus on the concrete facts of policies, problems, current affairs. After working together on a major project that fall, they became and remained close.

And then there was the Archivist, a young man whom the Guest had also befriended early in his time at Yale. The two young men bonded after meeting in their contracts class, after which they would find one another at bars and parties to chat about history, politics, and other shared interests. They met up in New York City for a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art; the Guest eventually gave the Archivist a key to his apartment, where the latter would often stop by to visit or do his laundry. In the second semester of their second year, things seemed placid.

And they may have remained that way, had it not been for a minor snag in the Guest’s academic year that put him on a path that would eventually lead him to Amy Chua’s doorstep.

A natural provocateur, Chua has vexed the Law School for years: First with Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, a wry ode to the high-pressure parenting tactics of Chinese matriarchs, which didn’t thrill the gently-brought-up sorts who sometimes pass through New England’s finest universities; then with The Triple Package, a book co-authored with her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, on the specific qualities that enable certain cultural groups to succeed in America relative to others—you can imagine how that went over—then with a Wall Street Journal op-ed taking a stand for the embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who, she said, was a “mentor to women,” including her own daughter. All throughout, Chua routinely scandalized the school by making edgy comments (allegedly remarking that Kavanaugh preferred his female clerks on the comely side, for instance, which Chua says is a gross distortion) and, yes, having students over for dinner, serving alcohol, and declining to filter her decidedly piquant inner monologue.

There is another side to Chua. It seems that for every student who emerges from her acquaintance embittered and put off, someone else comes away with nothing but the fondest of feelings for her. Her Twitter feed is peppered with spontaneous congratulations for her accomplished students, and features photos of the professor embracing former protégés in celebration of their success. During this latest contretemps, students advocated in Chua’s favor—quietly, perhaps, but with no less fervor than their anti-Chua counterparts. On April 1, a student emailed a trio of Law School deans: “Professor Chua cares more about her students than any other professor I’ve encountered at YLS. Professor Chua does more to advocate for her students than any other professor I’ve encountered at YLS. Professor Chua does more to mentor her students than any other professor I’ve encountered at YLS,” he insisted. “As you are all likely aware, I am far from the only student who feels this way. Does that not count for anything?” A PDF compilation of student and alumni letters in support of Chua spanned nearly 70 pages of similar sentiments.

Chua’s gift for relationships has also vested her with a great deal of power. Chua does know judges; she does have connections. It’s inconceivable that anyone on staff at Yale doesn’t. But Chua’s roster is either unusually expansive or perceived as such or both, and her status as a legal-career “kingmaker” has cast her in a supercharged penumbra. It’s the sort of mystique that can breed all kinds of resentments, especially in an environment where relationships with people in power are a finite resource.

Then there are Chua’s private, personal relationships—most notably, with her husband, Rubenfeld, a fellow Yale Law professor whose time at the university has been stained of late by allegations of sexual misconduct with students. Per a 23-page brief prepared by Yale Law Women, a respected student advocacy group with a formidable reputation for defending women’s interests on campus, the Rubenfeld saga stretches back to at least 2008, when a poster on the Top Law Schools forum obliquely mentioned rumors of monthly parties at Chua and Rubenfeld’s residence. A decade hence, Dean Gerken hired Jenn Davis, an independent Title IX investigator, to look into a range of allegations concerning Rubenfeld’s behavior with female students, from drunken, unwelcome, off-color remarks to unwanted touching and attempted kissing, on and off school grounds. Rubenfeld has categorically denied the claims. In its report, Yale Law Women said that fear of retaliation by Chua—concern that she would sabotage opportunities for career advancement—discouraged women who resented Rubenfeld’s advances from complaining about them to the administration.

At the conclusion of Davis’s investigation, Rubenfeld was suspended from his duties for two years, a penalty that took effect in 2020. Instead of closing the matter, Rubenfeld’s penalty seemed to strike concerned student groups such as Yale Law Women as a half-measure that would leave the matter to simmer until student turnover and the passage of time permitted another eruption.

Not that the Guest had any reason to contemplate any of this when, early in the spring semester of 2021, he decided to step down as an executive editor at the Yale Law Journal. The Guest, who describes himself as half-Korean, had misgivings about the way the journal’s staff had responded to his questions about the lack of racial diversity in its ranks, and his suggestions for addressing it. Still, even after making his decision, the Guest felt uncertain and unsettled. He confided this to the Visitor, who as a Black student at Yale Law had wrestled with similar questions, and she took it upon herself to bring them up with Chua during a Zoom meeting that served in place of the professor’s usual office hours. At that point, the Visitor recalls, Chua casually offered to talk with the two of them about the Journal affair at her home in New Haven, and the Visitor called the Guest to pass the invitation along.

Unfortunately for the Guest, the Archivist happened to be doing his laundry at his friend’s apartment when the call came, and he overheard the conversation, later documenting it as follows:

Feb. 18. I go over to [the Guest’s] to do my laundry. While at his apartment, I hear him call [the Visitor], who explains to him that Chua has just invited them over for dinner tomorrow. They discuss what to wear and what they should bring (ultimately deciding to bring a bottle of wine). [The Guest] makes zero mention of going over because of any personal crisis. After the phone call, he says that he’s been invited to a dinner party at Chua’s. [The Guest] implores me not to tell anybody so that Chua doesn’t get in trouble.

Despite his gumshoe efforts, the Archivist seemed to come away with a vastly different impression of the meeting than Chua, the Guest, or the Visitor.

The Guest and the Visitor independently told me that the meeting took place sometime in the afternoon, and that Chua offered cheese and crackers, but mentioned that she had dinner plans later on. The Guest recalled that he offered the bottle of wine as a hostess gift, which Chua accepted, though she drank only canned seltzer; the Guest opened the wine, meanwhile, and recalls pouring some for himself.

The Visitor recalled a fairly serious conversation: Chua offered advice about how the Guest should handle the brewing tempest his decision had spawned in their shared teapot. “He was getting press requests,” the Visitor told me. “Should he talk to the press? Professors are like, ‘What happened?’ Should he tell professors? Should he tell anyone? Or should he internalize it? Should he tell judges? Judges are clearly going to know about this, and I’m sure they do. And she wanted to know the full story of what happened. I think a big question was ‘Did I make a mistake?’”

The Guest came away from the conversation feeling reassured. The Archivist, however, was perturbed. Earlier that day, he’d texted two friends that the Guest and the Visitor were “going to dinner” at Chua’s, which, he added, they were “banned by the law school from doing.” One friend replied that this was weird, to which the Archivist replied: “Weird is a nice way to put it!” Chastened, the friend tried again: “So they are still ok with nepotism and complicity as long as it benefits them?” That was the ticket. “Yup!” the Archivist replied. Moments later, the Archivist sent a text that seemed to be more of a press release than a remark: “I think it’s deliberately enabling the secret atmosphere of favoritism, misogyny, and sexual harassment that severely undermines the bravery of the victims of sexual abuse that came forward against Rubenfeld,” he declared. How, why, or whether the Guest or the Visitor actually did any such thing was evidently left to the reader to infer.

Later that night, the Archivist logged a call with the Guest in which, he later said, the Guest sounded “extremely intoxicated”; the Guest denies that he was. By March, the Journal imbroglio was boiling over into the public sphere. Several of the school’s affinity groups had released statements, and the Journal had released information about the racial makeup of its editors—then the conflict came to the attention of conservative media outlets. Once more, the Guest had a series of questions for someone familiar with bad press.

This time, the Guest and the Visitor brought a premade date-and-cheese plate, the sort of appetizer offering, I gather, that you pick up at Wegmans on the way to Bible study. Again the two of them joined Chua at her New Haven manse for what sounds more like a media-strategizing session than the kind of debauched rager that would eventually possess the imaginations of Chua’s campus detractors. Again, the Archivist recorded the get-together in his notes: March 13: [The Guest] texts me again at 9:18 PM that he’s outside, indicating he has once again gone to Chua’s but won’t commit to saying so in writing

At that point, it seems, the Archivist had finally had enough. It was time to tell the administration what they had done.

When I was a little girl growing up in suburban North Texas not so very long ago, my grandmother, a housewife of the ’60s, would turn my cousins and me outside to play in the summer so she could sit at her kitchen table and chain-smoke her way through her library of paperback bodice-rippers. And when one of us would inevitably bolt back inside to complain about being annihilated with a Super Soaker at close range or nailed with a Nerf dart to the eye, she would always eject us with the same dismissal: Don’t be a tattletale. As far as childhood admonishments go, it was an interesting one—she wasn’t telling us not to do something, but rather not to be something...

Keep reading.

 

Felicia Sonmez Sues Washington Post for Gender Discrimination

Ironically, she herself covers sexual harassment and other gender-based forms of discrimination.

At Fox News, "Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez sues the paper and top editors including Marty Baron: Sonmez claims 'economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment' and 'mental and emotional distress' from paper."

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Slams Megyn Kelly Over Naomi Osaka Tweet

Everything's so stupid, especially these summer games (which I'm boycotting, because, well, they're so lame). 

At NBC News, "Sports Illustrated's swimsuit editor calls Megyn Kelly's Naomi Osaka tweet 'unnecessary'":

Let’s not forget the cover of (& interview in) Vogue Japan and Time Mag! https://t.co/PAAUEwAVi0

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) July 19, 2021

Poor @naomiosaka blocked me while taking a shot at me (guess she’s only tough on the courts). She is apparently arguing that she shot her many covers b/4 publicly claiming she was too socially anxious to deal w/press. Truth is she just doesn’t like Qs she can’t control. Admit it. pic.twitter.com/izyRzOrUVm

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) July 19, 2021

Substack! Holy Crap!

This blows my mind. 

My tweets are set to private, but in response to Steven Perlberg's tweet, linking his Business Insider piece (which is behind a paywall, of course), I quote-tweeted: 

.@MelissaTweets Elizabeth Bruenig's a freakin' self-declared communist? Did she take the 100 percent boost in pay? Or did she decline on principle? Can't say, because the article's behind a paywall, hence, capitalism. I can't even. *Man facepalming.*

Now, while you probably can't read the article to which Perlberg is linking, it turns out Mediaite did read it, and they've written up a piece that reveals the mind-blowing information. See, "Substack Offered NYT Reporter Taylor Lorenz $300,000: Report." 

Now that's why I yelled holy crap! when I saw that headline. You may not recall, but Ms. Lorenz is a very bad terrible person, and Tucker Carlson called her out a few weeks back, and it was glorious. But I knew how bad and terrible a person she was long ago, because, for one reason, she's been an awful no-good person for a long time, and Robert Stacy McCain wrote about her years ago, after Ms. Lorenz doxxed Pamela "Atlas Shrugged" Geller's daughters. You can't make this stuff up. (And Ms. Lorenz has of late been accused of stalking teenagers for inside interviews without the kids' parents permission, she's that bad.)

But no! She's getting offered a $300,000 advance to quite the Old Gray Lady and start her own newsletter? Well, I guess you gotta love free-market competition, which is why the New York Times is so freaked and has basically declared all-out war on the newsletter hosting platform, and this Sulzberger fellow, the publisher (or at least he used to be), is putting up some big bucks to go after top talent (some at Substack!) and have his own "by-line" bigwig writers up their game to meet the challenges of the day. Hoo boy, this is interesting.

At NYT, "Why We’re Freaking Out About Substack":

Danny Lavery had just agreed to a two-year, $430,000 contract with the newsletter platform Substack when I met him for coffee last week in Brooklyn, and he was deciding what to do with the money.

“I think the thing that I’m the most looking forward to about this is to start a retirement account,” said Mr. Lavery, who founded the feminist humor blog The Toast and will be giving up an advice column in Slate.

Mr. Lavery already has about 1,800 paying subscribers to his Substack newsletter, The Shatner Chatner, whose most popular piece is written from the perspective of a goose. Annual subscriptions cost $50.

The contract is structured a bit like a book advance: Substack’s bet is that it will make back its money by taking most of Mr. Lavery’s subscription income for those two years. The deal now means Mr. Lavery’s household has two Substack incomes. His wife, Grace Lavery, an associate English professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who edits the Transgender Studies Quarterly, had already signed on for a $125,000 advance.

Along with the revenue the Laverys will bring in, the move is good media politics for the company. Substack has been facing a mutiny from a group of writers who objected to sharing the platform with people who they said were anti-transgender, including a writer who made fun of people’s appearances on a dating app. Signing up two high-profile transgender writers was a signal that Substack was trying to remain a platform for people who sometimes hate one another, and who sometimes, like Dr. Lavery, heatedly criticize the company.

Feuds among and about Substack writers were a major category of media drama during the pandemic winter — a lot of drama for a company that mostly just makes it easy to email large groups for free. For those who want to charge subscribers on their email list, Substack takes a 10 percent fee. “The mindshare Substack has in media right now is insane,” said Casey Newton, who left The Verge to start a newsletter on Substack called Platformer. Substack, he said, has become a target for “a lot of people to project their anxieties.”

Substack has captivated an anxious industry because it embodies larger forces and contradictions. For one, the new media economy promises both to make some writers rich and to turn others into the content-creation equivalent of Uber drivers, even as journalists turn increasingly to labor unions to level out pay scales.

This new direct-to-consumer media also means that battles over the boundaries of acceptable views and the ensuing arguments about “cancel culture” — for instance, in New York Magazine’s firing of Andrew Sullivan — are no longer the kind of devastating career blows they once were. (Only Twitter retains that power.) Big media cancellation is often an offramp to a bigger income. Though Substack paid advances to a few dozen writers, most are simply making money from readers. That includes most of the top figures on the platform, who make seven-figure sums from more than 10,000 paying subscribers — among them Mr. Sullivan, the liberal historian Heather Cox Richardson, and the confrontational libertarian Glenn Greenwald.

This new ability of individuals to make a living directly from their audiences isn’t just transforming journalism. It’s also been the case for adult performers on OnlyFans, musicians on Patreon, B-list celebrities on Cameo. In Hollywood, too, power has migrated toward talent, whether it’s marquee showrunners or actors. This power shift is a major headache for big institutions, from The New York Times to record labels. And Silicon Valley investors, eager to disrupt and angry at their portrayal in big media, have been gleefully backing it. Substack embodies this cultural shift, but it’s riding the wave, not creating it.

And despite a handful of departures over politics, that wave is growing for Substack. The writers moving there full time in recent days include not just Mr. Lavery, but also the former Yahoo News White House correspondent Hunter Walker, the legal writer David Lat and the columnist Heather Havrilesky, who told me she will be taking Ask Polly from New York Magazine to “regain some of the indie spirit and sense of freedom that drew me to want to write online in the first place.”

(Speaking of that spirit: Bustle Digital Group confirmed to me that it’s reviving the legendary blog Gawker under a former Gawker writer, Leah Finnegan.)

And a New York Times opinion writer, Charlie Warzel, is departing to start a publication on Substack called Galaxy Brain. (Substack has courted a number of Times writers. I turned down an offer of an advance well above my Times salary, in part because of the editing and the platform The Times gives me, and in part because I didn’t think I’d make it back — media types often overvalue media writers.)

The Times wouldn’t comment on his move, but is among the media companies trying to develop its own answer to Substack and recently brought the columnist Paul Krugman’s free Substack newsletter to the Times platform. And newsrooms can offer all sorts of support that solo writers don’t get. Jessica Lessin, the founder and editor in chief of The Information, a newsletter-centric Silicon Valley subscription publication, said part of its edge was “sophisticated marketing around acquiring and retaining subscribers.”

Substack’s thesis is, in part, that media companies underpay their most prominent writers. So far, that seems to be bearing out. Mr. Warzel isn’t taking an advance, and many of the writers who took advances now regret doing so: They would have made more money by simply collecting subscription revenue, and paying Substack 10 percent, than making the more complex deals with money up front.

The former Vox writer Matthew Yglesias calculated that taking the advance wound up costing him nearly $400,000 in subscription revenue paid to Substack. The writer Roxane Gay told me she earned back her advance within two months of starting The Audacity ($60 a year) with an audience of 36,000, about 20 percent of them paying. She also wrestles with what she sees as Substack “trying to have it both ways” as a neutral platform and a publisher that supports writers she finds “odious,” she said, but has concluded that her dislike of someone’s work is “not enough for them to not be allowed on the platform.”

Isaac Saul, who told me his nonpartisan political newsletter Tangle brought in $190,000 in its first year, wrote recently that he came to Substack “specifically to avoid being associated with anyone else” after being frustrated by readers’ assumptions about his biases when he worked for HuffPost...

 

Charlotte Bennett Details Sexual Assault Allegations Against Governor Andrew Cuomo (VIDEO)

I've been ragging a lot on the media of late, but this segment, featuring CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell, interviewing former Cuomo aide Charlotte Bennett, is riveting. 

And O'Donnell also lays into the governor over the nursing home deaths, which again, for me, is one reason I prefer CBS news to its competitors, which, as noted, I don't even watch (especially the joke "Good Morning America" on ABC).

WATCH:

See What I mean About Tucker?

I made a few points about Tucker Carlson in my post from a few days ago. 

Now I love the guy, and I rarely miss an episode of his show. But c'mon! It took me one second to search Google and up pops his comments from 2003, defending the George W. Bush administration's foreign policy, and in particular the Iraq war. See, "Questioning Bush's motives on Iraq."

What's happened, I think, and not wrongly, from the perspective of good television opinion commentary, is that Tucker's "changed his stripes," so to speak, to keep up with the times. He's transformed himself into a "populist-nationalist," obviously because there's been a big market for it this last four years, and he's good at what he does. 

But when he airs commentary like we can see at this video below, unless you're someone who has a long history of following politics (and cable news), then you'd probably wouldn't notice Tucker's wishy-washy hypocritical bull. Remember that old saying about, "having your cake and eating it too"? Well, that's Tucker.

The thing is, interestingly, I personally like a restrained foreign policy. I mean, while Trump didn't start any "new wars" during his time in office, he himself indeed took dramatic and effective military action to defend vital national interests (like the drone strike killing Major General Qassim Suleimani, who was a very bad man, who was personally in charge of killing 100s of U.S. troops during the Iraq war). So, while I think Biden's actions in Syria a week or so ago look questionable by comparison, it's a joke to argue the President Biden doesn't have "the authority" to launch such a strike. Can you name any president since, I don't know, Gerald Ford, who in fact hesitated to take swift military action, even without congressional approval? I can't. And the reason is that the "War Powers Act" itself is probably unconstitutional, though it's never been struck down by SCOTUS. 

Again, I think Tucker's great, and I won't be tuning him out any time soon. His coverage of Biden's immigration disaster is superlative. And Tucker's consistent championing of the forgotten "working class" of this country --- and his hilarious segments taking down the left's "indoctrination" fascination --- is worth the ticket right there. But I'm not going to be some uncritical "rube" who just nods along with everything the guy says, because, remember, it's not insignificantly for *show.* And obviously, his show pays, as there's no chance Fox News will "cancel" Tucker, and indeed, his programming is being expanded big time, starting in April, with exclusive "Fox Nation" subscription content, coming to your screen in no short order.

So, it's all good. Hopefully my faithful readers can see what I'm saying. (And if you're so inclined, you can read some of the best political science research on such matters, here: "Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment.")

With that, carry on dear readers, and thank you for your support. 

Here's Tucker at the video from earlier this week:

Tony Dokoupil Covers Government Housing Policies Discriminating Against Black Americans (VIDEO)

I was discussing previous my news watching habits, and one of the great recent stories, from CBS Evening News, it turns out, is the tale of the man who adopted a "rescue dog" who was apparently afraid of men, but the guy adopted the dog anyway, and it turns out the dog returned the favor, and saved his life by dragging the man over to the phone, so he could call 911 as he was suffering from a stroke. This was a really heartwarming, down to earth report. Here, "Rescue dog that nobody wanted saves life of new owner."

And a few weeks back, Tony Dokoupil, at CBS This Morning, did a really good personal-story-style report on racial segregation in the neighborhood where his grandparents bought a home, in Linwood, New Jersey. 

This report, which is interesting to me because this kind of "redlining" was (and to some extent still is) a real example of insidious racism against black Americans. And I also liked the way Dokoupil handled the story, and the interviews he conducted, as he doesn't make it all about himself, but puts it in the context of how folks at the time felt, and what can be done now. 

And I didn't know it until this morning, but Dokoupil is married to Katy Tur, who is the super left-wing news anchor at MSNBC, who's biggest claim to fame is that she was once called out by Donald Trump while covering his campaign back in the day, and she published a best-seller out of it. Well, she and Dokoupil have three kids (two from Dokoupil's previous relationships), and they're expecting another baby in April, in contrast to the "baby bust" that is happening of late, especially because of the lockdowns, and the terrible life chances for young people nowadays, who really do have it worse than their parents and grandparents generations. Now good for Dokoupil, because Ms. Tur is actually pretty hot, but I'm surprised he comes off nothing like her in his reporting, and is more of a "straight news man," which I like, a lot. 

In any case, here's the segment on housing discrimination against blacks in New Jersey. Very well done:

Poor F*king George Stephanopoulos

This fake "journalist" is the reason I quit watching ABC News, and that includes even "ABC World News Tonight," which previously was my favorite, back in the day, when Peter Jennings held down the nightly news chair --- and that guy was the real deal, and star broadcaster with incredible appeal and savoir faire out the wazoo. 

Nowadays, if I watch MSM news programming, I prefer CBS News, especially "CBS This Morning," which while leftist, is still aiming for a pretty "middle class / working class" demographic, and I enjoy a lot of their segments, although I'm too lazy to blog them.

So, just read the whole thing, at also uber-woke CNN, a network I still watch, except for Jake Tapper, who I just can't stand. (And while the whole story isn't out yet, it turns out the Brooke Baldwin is not leaving the network on her own accord --- the truth will come out sometime, of course, but I'm sure she's got some revelations of "power struggles" over there, and it's going to be interesting to hear more about them.) 

And one more thing about CNN, I still like Wolf Blitzer. I know he's under pressure from his producers to toe the "woke" line, but, jeez, he's 100s of times better that the dork Tapper, so at least in the early afternoons, if I'm watching CNN, it's not too bad. After that, I flip over to Fox News, and I definitely try to watch Tucker every night, and that's even after sometimes I think HE's a phony, given his elite pedigree (his dad married divorcée Patricia Caroline Swanson, of Swanson TV dinner fame). And if you recall, Tucker used to be a "golden boy" on daytime news shows, including a stint at --- you guessed it! --- CNN, when he was a co-host of "Crossfire" for a time, back when he wore a bow-tie. He's dropped that habit like a hot potato, and now looks more, well, normal, with his regular coat and tie on his evening shows. 

Anyway, being a political scientist, I literally have to watch some television news, but all these "woke" networks are making it a chore. 

So, RTWT yourself, at "woke" CNN (and featuring the network's resident potato-head, Brian Stelter), "David Muir's new role at ABC News leads to drama with George Stephanopoulos and a visit from Bob Iger."

Time's Up Golden Globes?

This is exactly why I didn't watch the stupid Golden Globes last night: all the overwrought and stupid hand-wringing about "not enough diversity."

And here I am, an actual diverse guy, with an actually diverse family, to boot. 

Interesting, though, I did watch "Nomadland" last night, starring the phenomenal Frances McDormand. And you know what? It's a freakin' conservative movie! Yep. The film is almost all platitudes to rugged individualism, with all kinds of settings in rustic, "small-town" America, and "Fern" (McDormand) gives a raw and compelling performance that is indeed deep, genuine, and award-worthy. And the kicker is that the director, Chloé Zhao, is freakin' Chinese! I mean, you can't make this up. Zhao is a woman and an ethnic minority, but oh! That's not enough --- it's never enough for the gouging nobodies who put on these idiotic awards shows. 

And these dolts with their stupid hashtags, like "#TimesUpGlobes," are whining about not enough blacks, waah! Well, if they wanted more blacks, why the f*ck did they have ultra-white babes Tiny Fey and Amy Poehler hosting? You'd think someone, somebody, anybody, might have asked, ahead of time, "Aren't there any beautiful black women on T.V. we could have host the program?" I'm dyin' over here. *Shrugs.* 

Again, I think it's just best to watch shows that might interest you, rather than pay attention to the stupid media people who rag endlessly at these showbiz [slash[ media orgs, like the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. These are stupid, un-self-aware elites, who don't deserve the attention they so desperately crave. 

And no surprise, the self-flagellating story is at the Los Angeles Times (FWIW, really!), "‘Nomadland’ and ‘Borat Subsequent Moviefilm’ win at Golden Globes, as HFPA tries to move past controversy."

Patrick Soon-Shiong Exploring Sale of Company of Los Angeles Times?

L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, a surgeon by training (a very wealthy surgeon) denies the story. 

But here it is, at WSJ, "Los Angeles Times Owner Exploring Sale of Company":

Billionaire biotech investor Patrick Soon-Shiong is exploring a sale of the Los Angeles Times less than three years after buying it for $500 million, people familiar with the matter said.

The move marks an abrupt about-face for Mr. Soon-Shiong, who had vowed to restore stability to the West Coast news institution and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the paper in an effort to turn it around.

When Mr. Soon-Shiong acquired the Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune and a handful of weeklies from Tribune Publishing Co. TPCO +0.00% , then called Tronc Inc., in 2018, it was met with great fanfare from staff and media watchers after years of turmoil and downsizing at the publications. At the time, he said that the sale represented the beginning of a new era and that he intended to do what it took to make the business viable for the next 100 years.

He has since grown dissatisfied with the news organization’s slow expansion of its digital audience and its substantial losses, the people said. He also has increasingly come to believe that the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune—together known as the California Times company—would be better served if they were part of a larger media group, they said.

Mr. Soon-Shiong has been heavily focused on efforts by his immunotherapy company to develop a Covid-19 vaccine and has had little time to devote to the Times, people familiar with the matter said. “Covid really brought him back to the lab,” said one of the people.

Mr. Soon-Shiong didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment and a spokeswoman for the Times had no immediate comment...

So, no comment from the newspaper's owner of spokeswoman?  

I'll bet there really is some "dissatisfaction" over in El Segundo, where Mr. Soon-Shiong moved the paper shortly after his acquisition a few years back.

One thing, though, despite his protestations on the accuracy of WSJ's reporting, I see enough tweets from L.A. Times journalists to know that it's definitely up-and-down at L.A.'s last remaining "broadsheet" newspaper. 

And since I'm a subscriber, I'll be keeping my eyes peeled, as I'd hate to have to rely on the New York Times for the occasional local story, like the one a couple of weeks ago, on the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital.

We'll see. We'll see.

The Legacy of Housing Discrimination (VIDEO)

This segment below, from "CBS This Morning," is really well-done --- and troubling.

I mean, there's so much leftist anger and hatred over "racism" and "white supremacy," which nowadays neither is anywhere near the "devastating" levels idiot leftist-Dems want "the rubes" to believe. 

But if you honestly go back to the 1950s and 1960s, you do see patterns or real racial discrimination, and this segment is particularly interesting, as "CBS This Morning" co-host Tony Dokoupil's grandfather settled in the suburb of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, and at the video, Dokoupil conducts a set of generally decent, and not "blame-casting," interviews, discussing the phenomenon of racial "redlining," which back in the day, kept black families from being able to buy homes, and thus build generational wealth.  

It's well-done:

Now Joe Klein, of "Anonymous" Fame, is Writing at the Bulwark?

I guess the folks over at the Bulwark ran out of Lincoln Project sexual predator-enablers to post their "Never Trump" crap at their crappy "Never Trump" website.

So now they're going with Joe Klein? Joe Klein, really? I haven't heard a peep outta that guy, since, I don't know, I saw "Primary Colors" in theaters? 

But here he is, at the bullsh*t Bulwark, and whether he's hip to the ignominious origins of that foul outlet is anyone's guess, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He's blathering on about "unity," as if such a touchy-feely notion's gonna fix one iota of our entrenched mutual partisan hatred and polarization in this country, a hatred that's actually gotten worse since the new "unity" president (China Joe Biden) was elected.

See, "What We Mean When We Talk About 'Unity'":

It’s not about voting on a policy. It’s about fighting the insurgents trying to destroy our democracy.

Sure Joe. Who cares about "voting on policy" when you've got a majority party now in Washington filled with demonic Democrats located far to the left of Castro's Cuba. 

Brilliant! 

Chris Cuomo's Conflicts of Interest (VIDEO)

My wife and I have been talking about this for weeks. 

You see, we were both watching a lot of CNN back in March, April, May or so of last year, and some of these segments were the "family hour" on Chris Cuomo's prime-time show on CNN. Honestly, I thought some of the brotherly back-and-forth was pretty funny, although even then I was thinking, "This is probably not a good look for a purportedly "non-partisan" news outlet," but what the heck? Comic relief during the pandemic? And of course, no one knew then what we know now, and what we know now, about Andrew Cuomo, is criminal.

In any case, I watched Governor Cuomo's press conference on Monday, and he looked like he was lying remorselessly. I think later I even caught a critical segment discussing the governor on CNN, but not with Chris Cuomo. Maybe HE should be fired. 

In any case, WaPo, of all places, has the story, "CNN’s Chris Cuomo is reminding us why conflicts of interest poison the news":

On his Monday night CNN program, host Chris Cuomo provided an update on the biggest story of the past year. “Now, good news: When it comes to coronavirus, we’ve had the best week we’ve seen so far, in terms of getting people vaccinated. And every week since New Year’s, the rate has only improved,” said the host.

Here’s an update that he skipped: Just hours before “Cuomo Prime Time” aired, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo held a news conference to address his state’s nursing-home scandal. Under his leadership, the state has shown a staggering lack of transparency regarding the extent of coronavirus-related deaths in New York nursing homes. “We should have provided more information faster,” said Cuomo in the press briefing, which addressed an undercount of nursing-home deaths in the state.

That story — the hottest on the covid beat on Monday — didn’t make the cut on “Cuomo Prime Time.” Perhaps that shouldn’t be a surprise: Chris Cuomo and Andrew Cuomo are brothers, and journalists can’t reliably cover their brothers.

Except that Chris Cuomo did cover his brother, famously, during the early months of the pandemic. As the coronavirus spread around the country, Andrew Cuomo turned in more than 10 appearances on “Cuomo Prime Time.” The heartwarming moments stick out: In May, Chris Cuomo presented a gigantic test swab to joke about the governor’s televised coronavirus test. They laughed about their parents quite a bit, too. At the end of one appearance, Chris Cuomo thanked his brother for coming on the air. “Mom told me I had to,” replied the governor. The TV host rolled his eyes...

Well, it's not so funny now, is it?

And if you're watching Fox News at all, do try to catch a segment with Janice Dean, the network's weather-caster. She lost her in-laws (husband's parents) after they were sent to nursing homes during the height of New York's deadly pandemic, and Ms. Dean has never been political in her life, and certainly not on her network, but she's been out there with all cannons firing, and wants prosecution and imprisonment for the perpetrators of the deaths of thousands of thousands of New York's elderly covid-19 victims.

What an awful story, man.

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

It's Glenn Greenwald, one of the only online personalities, of any stripe, who gets what's going on. 

On Substack:  

Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.

What took place at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated riot. As such, it should not be controversial to regard it as a dangerous episode. Any time force or violence is introduced into what ought to be the peaceful resolution of political conflicts, it should be lamented and condemned.

But none of that justifies lying about what happened that day, especially by the news media. Condemning that riot does not allow, let alone require, echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists. The more consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial journalistic falsehoods are.

Yet this is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost seven weeks ago. And anyone who tries to correct these falsehoods is instantly attacked with the cynical accusation that if you want only truthful reporting about what happened, then you’re trying to “minimize” what happened and are likely an apologist for if not a full-fledged supporter of the protesters themselves.

One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. That claim was first published by The New York Times on January 8 in an article headlined “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It cited “two [anonymous] law enforcement officials” to claim that Sicknick died “with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress” and after he “was struck with a fire extinguisher.”

A second New York Times article from later that day — bearing the more dramatic headline: “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob” — elaborated on that story...

After publication of these two articles, this horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media. It became arguably the single most-emphasized and known story of this event, and understandably so — it was a savage and barbaric act that resulted in the harrowing killing by a pro-Trump mob of a young Capitol police officer.

It took on such importance for a clear reason: Sicknick’s death was the only example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing anyone. In a January 11 article detailing the five people who died on the day of the Capitol protest, the New York Times again told the Sicknick story: “Law enforcement officials said he had been ‘physically engaging with protesters’ and was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

But none of the other four deaths were at the hands of the protesters: the only other person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester, Ashil Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at close range. The other three deaths were all pro-Trump protesters: Kevin Greeson, who died of a heart attack outside the Capitol; Benjamin Philips, 50, “the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo,” who died of a stroke that day; and Rosanne Boyland, a fanatical Trump supporter whom the Times says was inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.”

This is why the fire extinguisher story became so vital to those intent on depicting these events in the most violent and menacing light possible. Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters. Three weeks later, The Washington Post said dozens of officers (a total of 140) had various degrees of injuries, but none reported as life-threatening, and at least two police officers committed suicide after the riot. So Sicknick was the only person killed who was not a pro-Trump protester, and the only one deliberately killed by the mob itself.

It is hard to overstate how pervasive this fire extinguisher story became...

Still more.

 

Brooke Baldwin Out at CNN (VIDEO)

Deadline has the story, and Baldwin's decision to leave the network so far appears to be a personal one. But I've watched her for years, and while she's not a hardline leftist, like the idiot Jake Tapper, she does get emotional when she's reporting stories about "race" and "black lives matter," etc. So, yeah, she's got some privilege to work through, whatever other motivations she has for leaving.

Here's Deadline, "CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin Announces Departure From Network."

I also actually just flipped over to CNN this morning, just as Ms. Baldwin started out with her personal announcement. She's a sweet lady, and no doubt she'll land on her feet. She's got a book coming out in April, so I imagine working on that book has been part of her personal "evolution," as all white people are supposed to "evolve" according to the diktats of the many mediocre radical left racial "journalists" at CNN, and elsewhere (here's looking at you, New York Times, and especially Nikole Hannah-Jones, who announced the other day she's "taking a break" from Twitter, after getting caught doxxing the guy from the Free Beacon). 

Slate Star Codex? The New York Times Slammed Again for Shoddy, Muckrake 'Journalism'

I guess it really was (is) a bad week for the Old Gray Lady, as I argued yesterday, here: "The 'Woke' Takeover at the New York Times Facing Pushback."

The NYT author is Cade Metz, who I've never heard of before, but who was getting slammed yesterday on Twitter, along with his newspaper, for an article on Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist by training who blogged at Slate Star Codex (which I only vaguely recall, and that's after myself being immersed in online debates and flame wars for over a decade; so you can see, perhaps, that a lot of NYT's reporting here is "inside baseball," and one of the biggest critiques of Metz is that he gets just about everything wrong at the article, entitled "Silicon Valley’s Safe Space.")

Below is Alexander's own response, at his Substack blog, as well a screenshot with some criticism pulled from Twitter earlier. (I can't seem to cut and paste from Alexander's Substack blog, and maybe that's by design, considering.) 

See, "Statement on the New York Times Article."