The End of the American Century?

[camiar]

I stand by my statement about the function of intelligent journalism. Think of the time Erap called for a boycott of the Inquirer.

I'm not for Erap, but his call for Inquirer boycott was justified. Inquirer has degenerated as the propaganda machine of the oligarchs. During that time, it's nothing but negative journalism. Now that their candidate has won, suddenly their negative journalism disappeared? Do you see pictures of poverty on the front page like the ones they post everyday before?

Do not equate Inquirer with intelligent journalism.

 

Not to be OT, Dzhokhar's glamorous picture on cover page reeks of insensitivity. But I think it was well calculated to generate so much attention, and for sure, increased sales.

[viral]

true, the magazine cover did provoke. just as rolling stones did in the past with its charles manson cover. let's say that the magazine did want to investigate how a young man became a monster when he was by all indications doing well in america. was that the sole reason rolling stones used that selfie on the cover? was the feature going to be a psych piece on why this terrorist has got teenage girls atwitter and calling for his release? if so, could rolling stones not have placed the photo on the inside?

 

there's no question it's distasteful, one can only imagine the pain that victims and their loved ones feel over the fan base that has developed around dzhokhar proclaiming his innocence. is there any doubt that young females defend him for his good looks, did khalid sheikh mohammed develop such a fanbase after his photo was released? the rolling stones cover is a glamour shot, a flattering shot taken by dzhokhar himself, and we all know a caption-less picture can deliver a powerful message. in this case, the ensuing furor has shown that the photo is more powerful than the accompanying cover type.

 

the people who reacted found it hard to believe it was not a deliberate attempt to sell copies, to be controversial, despite the obvious insensitivity to victims of the bombing. so while the editors can claim they had a journalistic mission, it's doubtful they can claim common decency. they could have stuck to their mission and been respectful of the dead and the maimed by simply choosing a more appropriate cover.

 

 

 

with its front page misdeeds in the last year, i have trouble equating the Inquirer with intelligent journalism

 

 

to maxiev: you and i are free to express our disgust with a boycott of a publication. but write and boycott its sponsors, more effective.

[viral]

true, the magazine cover did provoke. just as rolling stones did in the past with its charles manson cover. let's say that the magazine did want to investigate how a young man became a monster when he was by all indications doing well in america. was that the sole reason rolling stones used that selfie on the cover? was the feature going to be a psych piece on why this terrorist has got teenage girls atwitter and calling for his release? if so, could rolling stones not have placed the photo on the inside?

 

there's no question it's distasteful, one can only imagine the pain that victims and their loved ones feel over the fan base that has developed around dzhokhar proclaiming his innocence. is there any doubt that young females defend him for his good looks, did khalid sheikh mohammed develop such a fanbase after his photo was released? the rolling stones cover is a glamour shot, a flattering shot taken by dzhokhar himself, and we all know a caption-less picture can deliver a powerful message. in this case, the ensuing furor has shown that the photo is more powerful than the accompanying cover type.

 

the people who reacted found it hard to believe it was not a deliberate attempt to sell copies, to be controversial, despite the obvious insensitivity to victims of the bombing. so while the editors can claim they had a journalistic mission, it's doubtful they can claim common decency. they could have stuck to their mission and been respectful of the dead and the maimed by simply choosing a more appropriate cover.

 

 

 

 

with its front page misdeeds in the last year, i have trouble equating the Inquirer with intelligent journalism

 

 

to maxiev: you and i are free to express our disgust with a boycott of a publication. but write and boycott its sponsors, more effective.

 

 

The photo that we're debating, in the context of developments involving global polarization based on cultural and religion, is from a war that is ongoing. For context, please read the piece below that I have copied.

 

 

By the way, I don't like the Inquirer very much, but is strives to practice intelligent journalism more than most other local publications, even if it doesn't always succeed, and it has f#&ked up bigtime. But please show me any publication that has a perfect record of pleasing its readers, or more important, a perfect record of accuracy and judgment.

 

There's always a way to demonstrate disapproval of a publication -- stop buying and reading it.

 

As for the stupid young girls who support the Boston Bomber, do you really think it's the Rolling Stone's fault?

 

 

 

 

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/standalone/slideshow/nyt_logo.gif

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/lens/lens_post.png

September 23, 2009, 12:00 am

From the Archive: Not New, Never Easy

By DAVID W. DUNLAP and JAMES ESTRINIn two years of global warfare, America had yet to see almost any pictures of dead Americans.

 

Then, in September 1943, an issue of Life magazine arrived in people’s homes and at their corner newsstands. It forced them to confront a stark, full-page picture by George Strock that showed three American servicemen sprawled on Buna Beach in New Guinea; two face down, one supine; their lifelessness unmistakable even in a still photograph.

 

On the facing page, Life’s editors said they had been fighting since February to get a picture past government censors at the Office of War Information, headed by Elmer Davis.

 

“Well, this is the picture,” they declared. “And the reason we print it now is that, last week, President Roosevelt and Elmer Davis and the War Department decided that the American people ought to be able to see their own boys as they fall in battle; to come directly and without words into the presence of their own dead.”

 

The Washington Post, for one, celebrated the new policy. In an editorial on Sept. 11, it said:

 

An overdose of such photographs would be unhealthy. But in proper proportion they can help us to understand something of what has been sacrificed for the victories we have won. Against a tough and resourceful enemy, every gain entails a cost. To gloss over this grim fact is to blur our vision. If we are to behave as adults in meeting our civilian responsibilities, we must be treated as adults. This means simply that we must be given the truth without regard to fears about how we may react to it.

 

Having said that, however, The Post added that it could not “wholly avoid the suspicion that the government is now letting us see something of the grimmer side of war because it considers us overoptimistic.” So even then, the issue was far from being clearly resolved.

 

And 66 years later, the fundamental question — is it a vital public service or a betrayal of public trust to graphically depict wartime casualties among American troops? — has scarcely been settled. Witness the impassioned recent debate over a decision by The Associated Press to release a picture taken by Julie Jacobson of a mortally wounded marine in Afghanistan.

 

There was little debate, however, among some of the leading figures in photography whom Lens contacted recently.

 

“I think the A.P. was absolutely correct in this decision,” said Dirck Halstead, the editor and publisher of The Digital Journalist, who was United Press International’s photo bureau chief in Saigon in 1965 and 1966.

 

Don McCullin, who covered the war in Indochina for The Sunday Times of London, said, “She probably did the right thing because, otherwise, why is she there?”

 

“Nobody wants to take pictures like that, but the reason you’re there is to cover the story,” said David Hume Kennerly, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for his photography of the Vietnam War for U.P.I. “To me, it’s not even a gray area.”

 

John G. Morris, a former picture editor of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and the author of “Get the Picture,” said, “I emphatically agree with the thinking of the photographer, of the editors of Associated Press and of The New York Times that this photograph is publishable.”

 

Many readers objected, all the same. Besides the disturbing nature of Ms. Jacobson’s picture, and the fact that the A.P. distributed it against the wishes of the marine’s father (echoed emphatically by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates), what helped fuel the debate was the fact that such pictures have rarely been seen in recent years from Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

This was not the case during the Vietnam War.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-McCullin.jpg

European Pressphoto Agency

Don McCullin and one of his photographs in Madrid in 2007.“We were given carte blanche, and now that would be classified as unacceptable,” Mr. McCullin recalled. He photographed dying American soldiers, helped transport a wounded soldier in a stretcher off the battlefield in Hue and was himself injured in Cambodia. “I took exactly the same risks that they took,” he said.

 

Mr. Halstead had a similar recollection. “Vietnam was a total free-for-all,” he said.

 

“Our job was to be there to take photographs of whatever happened in front of us,” he said. “Our core mission was to record history. We had to file based on the merits of the picture. I always take the position that the end decision was taken by the newspaper or magazine to run a photo. We supplied the photographs and they decided what to publish.”

 

Mr. Halstead put his finger on a significant point: whether at Buna Beach or in Hue or Helmand Province, a photographer is more likely to catch the aftermath of an engagement than the heat of battle — during which plain survival becomes a high priority for noncombatants.

 

“In Vietnam, unfortunately, most of the soldiers that were hit were dead,” Mr. Halstead said. “I certainly photographed too many of those. All you have to do is look at Henri Huet’s photos. In all the cases, the soldiers are being helped by medics.

 

“That is the heart of war coverage. There are few photographs of soldiers fighting. If there is hand-to-hand combat, chances are that you’re not taking pictures. In the course of war photography, you rarely see pictures of soldier fighting in close contact with the enemy like you see in the movies.”

 

A key difference between Mr. Strock’s photo and that taken by Ms. Jacobson last month was that the faces of the dead were obscured on the beach. The marine whom Ms. Jacobson photographed moments after he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush was all too recognizable as Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, whose father implored the A.P. not to distribute the picture. Most readers of Lens who objected to the release of the photograph did so on that basis.

 

Ms. Jacobson’s photo was not, however, the first widely published picture of a mortally wounded, identifiable American serviceman.

 

A much earlier example was a photograph taken by Larry Burrows that served as the cover of Life magazine on Apr. 16, 1965. Mr. Burrows was following Lance Cpl. James C. Farley of the Marines, the crew chief of helicopter Yankee Papa 13. He was aboard the aircraft at Da Nang when the squadron was attacked by the Vietcong. Under fire, Lt. James E. Magel was mortally wounded. He can be seen in the pictures lying inert at the feet of Corporal Farley.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-Burrows.jpg

Associated Press

Henri Huet, left, and Larry Burrows a few days before they were killed with two other photographers when their helicopter was shot down.Mr. Burrows died over Laos six years later when the helicopter carrying him and three other photographers, Mr. Huet among them, was shot down. He was 44.

 

His son, Russell, was 22 at the time. He remembers that Lieutenant Magel’s mother reached out to his family in sympathy. “My mother received a letter from his mother which basically said that she’d cancelled her subscription to Life immediately and hadn’t looked at the magazine between that time and 1965,” Russell Burrows said. Then, in 1971, she’d inadvertently picked up a copy of Life at the hairdresser’s and learned that the man who photographed her dying son had himself been killed in the war.

 

The younger Mr. Burrows said he also received a message from Lieutenant Magel’s mother. “The point of her letter was to say that she was belatedly grateful for anything my father had been able to do to help her son in the last moments of his life,” he said. “I’ve always wanted to talk to her.”

 

Photographically what Mr. Burrows did try to do — as was his custom, his son said — was to obscure the lieutenant’s face somewhat. “He was trying to present the war in a way that it would reach people,” Russell Burrows said, “as opposed to a way that would so horrify them that they would shut down and not see the pictures.”

 

He did, however, want his pictures to have an impact. Mr. Burrows’s guiding philosophy was paraphrased by his son: “In the end, it comes across as a little trite but essentially it was that if he could show the interested and shock the uninterested into seeing something like the horrors of war, he’d done his job.”

 

That is not to say photographers and editors exercised no restraint. “We endeavored not to show anybody’s face,” Mr. Kennerly recalled. “It’s not like going to a car race, hoping there’s a wreck. I don’t know of any photographer who’s gone into combat hoping to see somebody get shot.”

 

Mr. Morris was Life’s London picture editor during World War II and said he had suppressed many photographs for reasons of taste. “Who wants to inflict pictures of headless corpses on readers?” he asked.

 

But he said he is generally an advocate of the unblinking depiction of combat and its consequences.

 

“As picture editor of The New York Times during the Vietnam War,” Mr. Morris said, “I argued for prominent usage of the pictures by the A.P.’s Eddie Adams of the execution of a Vietcong suspect, for the publication of the photo by the A.P.’s Nick Ut of a naked Cambodian girl running from napalm, of the picture by John Filo of the shooting of a student at Kent State by National Guardsmen.

 

“If those pictures helped turned the world against continuation of the Vietnam war I am glad,” he wrote in an e-mail message from Paris. “If Julie Jacobson’s picture awakens even a few more of our fellow citizens to the necessity of finding a non-military solution in Afghanistan, I shall be eternally grateful.”

 

That sort of sentiment, of course, is exactly what animates many critics of the press. Judging from comments to the Lens blog, a large number of readers believe that journalists who insist on depicting the “horrors of war” are, in fact, advocating a pacifist political agenda — with one eye on a Pulitzer.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/09/20090923-Showcase_War/20090922-Showcase-War-350px.jpgMichael Kamber had two front-page photographs of wounded soldiers in Iraq on May 23, 2007. The seriously wounded man survived.“I would say that in my last trip in Afghanistan, in July, soldiers were markedly more hostile and suspicious towards me as a journalist than had been the case in earlier years,” said Michael Kamber, a photographer whose work is frequently published in The Times. “Not sure where this comes from, but there’s no doubt in my mind. In Iraq, particularly in the early years, they were quite welcoming. The hostility has ratcheted up noticeably.”

 

Sounding as if he had just read the 1943 Washington Post editorial (he hadn’t), Mr. Kamber added: “People have attacked me for being unpatriotic for publishing pictures of wounded and dead Americans. I find this strange. Press control — censorship — is something that happens in Communist China, in Russia. One of the cornerstones of our democracy is freedom of the press. As journalists, we need to be able to work openly and publish photos that reflect reality so that the public and government officials have an accurate idea of what is going on. They can make decisions accordingly.”

 

Thirty years earlier, Mr. McCullin was moved by much the same spirit. “I wasn’t looking to become rich,” he said by telephone from his home in rural Somerset, England. “I was just looking to make people aware of the suffering and price of war. It does not come cheap. People must be informed. Unfortunately, it’s the family of the soldiers who pick up the bill at the end of the day. It’s not the photographer who’s responsible. It’s the government of the nations who declare war.”

 

And then he said something wholly unexpected.

 

“I feel I totally wasted a large part of my life following war. I get more pleasure photographing the landscape around my house in my twilight years.

 

“Have we learned any lessons from the countless pictures of pain and suffering? I don’t think we’ve learned anything. Every year, there’s more war and suffering.”

 

[dungeonbaby]

Is the music and pop culture that diluted that you have to publish a pinup of a Morrison look-alike to reinvent the publication?

 

The U.S., stamping a posthumous cover to commemorate the life of a young man who just so happens to have injured hundreds and fatally wound a handful? Sounds about right. 'Merica.

 

My phone isn't exactly ringing off the hook to get me on the cover of the latest Al Jadid news magazine. I would've smiled for them. Sayang.

 

 

they can't publish a pinup of you yet, mtf, despite the brilliant smile. next month's issue is already being imagined...

 

 

Edited July 23, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[harmless0810]

UPDATED: George Zimmerman Emerges from Hiding to Rescue Family from Overturned Truck

 

by Elizabeth Shield 22 Jul 2013

George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted on second degree murder, emerged from hiding to rescue someone trapped in an overturned truck.

UPDATED: Zimmerman rescued a family of 4, 2 adults and 2 children. (When is he going to learn to stay in his car? Ha!)

 

Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.

 

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417.

 

THE WHITE-HISPANIC RACIST REVEALS HIS TRUE COLORS.

 

"I would love to have a George Zimmerman in our community." - Larry Elder (black conservative radio host)

[viral]

The picture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone is trying to tell readers that there is something seriously evil going on, it is actually happening all over the world. And it's important to understand it so we can deal with it effectively. We HAVE to deal with it effectively, as communities and societies. If only to keep it from killing and maiming more innocent people. That could be you, me, our families and friends, doing nothing more innocent than being at the mall or on a bus or in a movie house at the wrong time. Or running in a marathon.

 

Is the picture distasteful, hateful? Sure, it is. But it's today's reality staring you in the face, and it isn't comfortable or pleasant at all. Can you ignore it? Sure, your call.

Edited July 24, 2013 by viral

[harmless0810]

PHOTOS JULY 17, 2013

 

 

A Visual History of Terrible People on Magazine Covers From Stalin to Tsarnaev

BY DELPHINE RODRIK

 

 

The editors of Rolling Stone probably weren't surprised when the cover of their August issue, featuring the bedroom eyes of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, provoked controversy online and off. Worrying that the photo glorifies his image, some Massachusetts businesses are even refusing to sell copies of the issue. But for all the outrage, evildoers have a long history as magazine cover stars. Tsarnaev is the latest proof, it seems, that being a terrorist can get you into a jail cell indefinitely—or land you on a cover for good.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/hitler-time.jpg

 

TIME magazine featured five covers with Adolf Hitler's face from 1931 on; he was promoted to the magazine's Man Of The Year in the January 1939 issue. The last cover of Hitler was published May 7, 1945 following his death. This one is from his earlier days, published on March 13, 1933.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/stalin-time.jpg

 

Josef Stalin was named TIME's Man Of The Year in January of 1943.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/saddam-hussein-time.jpg

 

 

Sixty years later, Saddam Hussein was visibly pronounced dead.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/bin-laden-time.jpg

 

Osama Bin Laden followed in May of 2011.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/charles-manson-rolling-stone.jpghttp://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/charles-manson-life.jpg

 

Charles Manson made his way on to Rolling Stone's cover in June of 1970. He had graced the cover of LIFE the year before.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/columbine-killers-time.jpg

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, better known as the Columbine shooters, were also featured on the cover of TIME in 1999.

 

 

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u168560/buddhist-monk-wirathu-time.jpg

 

Time featured a less recognizable terrorist on its cover recently: Myanmar's Wirathu, a monk labeled as "The Face of Buddhist Terror."

 

 

 

 

 

Whether we like their stories or not, freedom of expression is essential in a free society.

[dungeonbaby]

Whether we like their stories or not, freedom of expression is essential in a free society.

 

what many people forget is that the constitutionally protected freedoms we have 1) extend to all people - conservative or liberal, 2) come with responsibilities, and 3) are not unlimited. just as you have the right to carry a gun, you are charged to use it responsibly without infringing on other citizens' rights. words can hurt, too, and just as you are free to say what you feel or believe, others are free to respond in kind.

[maxiev]

what many people forget is that the constitutionally protected freedoms we have 1) extend to all people - conservative or liberal, 2) come with responsibilities, and 3) are not unlimited. just as you have the right to carry a gun, you are charged to use it responsibly without infringing on other citizens' rights. words can hurt, too, and just as you are free to say what you feel or believe, others are free to respond in kind.

Agreed.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

I don't mind; I'll take a copy.

Make that two...

[sonnyt111]

Make that two...

I'd like a copy too.

[pussybear]

I wish Hunter Thompson were still alive and writing for RS. He'd have something colorful to say about that cover, one way or the other.

Edited July 25, 2013 by pussybear

[harmless0810]

what many people forget is that the constitutionally protected freedoms we have 1) extend to all people - conservative or liberal, 2) come with responsibilities, and 3) are not unlimited. just as you have the right to carry a gun, you are charged to use it responsibly without infringing on other citizens' rights. words can hurt, too, and just as you are free to say what you feel or believe, others are free to respond in kind.

personal responsibility is usually set aside for economic considerations. the data is in, rolling stone's sales are up 20% this month. some people take risks and succeed, others rely on sensationalism, and others just manufacture controversy. i'll try to recall some from memory. sometimes, i just roll with the punches and add some humor if i think it's appropriate:

 

hugh hefner - why are there so many guys buying his mag? i only read the articles. i'm only after the naked truth.

 

van halen - they have an album titled For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. david lee roth was out from the band then. i wanted to be a rock star, drive fast cars, and be with faster company. i always wanted to embarrass myself singing roth's "just a gigolo" among friends, but never found the guts yet.

 

shock jock howard stern - he made explicit comments about his wife during his shows.

 

roseanne barr - she sang the star spangled banner off-key then spat on the field before a baseball game. she got booed for her efforts. she was even the vice-presidential bet of the green party last year. i guess barr was the sane one in that party because they made her their nominee.

 

eve ensler - she created a play about a female body part. she can use every "flowery" rhetoric in its defense, but it setback women's achievements by focusing the play on their anatomy. good job, eve. who will bite your poison apple next?

 

britney spears - she has a song, if you seek amy. it's a code for a suggestive language normally said on porn vids.

 

nypd blue - the first network tv show to have scenes with the bare backsides of the cast. well, some detectives are defective in that department.

 

michael jackson - he used the derogatory word "kike" in his song 'they don't care about us." i remember a religion studies professor saying that a racist god only allows white people in heaven. i think jackson outsmarted us all. he escaped his rap on child abuse and now he's with celestial beings. bleach anyone?

 

g c b - it was originally titled good christian bit**es. it lasted for 8 episodes. they got the horns because they messed with something more powerful than a bull.

 

the westboro baptist church - they put up offensive signs during some funerals for service members killed in iraq or afghanistan. go away.

 

msnbc's chris matthews called michelle malkin a "mixed bag of skin and bones."

 

msnbc's ed schultz called a laura ingram a 'talk sl*t." is there a pattern here? can we say misogyny?

 

david letterman joked about sarah palin's then 16 year old daughter piper, as "getting knocked up by alex rodriguez in the dugout." michelle malkin led the boycott and posted the show's sponsors online. a few days later, letterman made a lame apology.

 

an "artist" put a plastic crucifix in a jar filled with his urine and called it "Piss Christ." it was the late 80s, a republican was president. the national endowment for the arts was almost abolished for this blatant act of disrespect by an individual that receives funding from them.

 

a british-african "artist" surrounded a Black Madonna with elephant dung and called them "ornaments." the new york metropolitan was crowded with patrons. again calls were made to abolish the nea in the late 90s.

 

and now, Carlos Danger:

 

 

 

Bipartisan praise abounds for New Yorker's Weiner cover

 

By Patrick Howley 9:12 PM 07/26/2013

 

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/original-e1374880270758.jpg

 

This week's New Yorker cover featuring Anthony Weiner straddling the Empire State Building taking a selfie is earning well-deserved praise from across the media landscape, as even liberal and mainstream publications pile on the embattled, "perpetually horny" Democrat.

 

Weiner's recent sexting scandal, and revelations that he had a "controlling" online and over-the-phone relationship with 23-year old Sydney Leathers while using the alias "Carlos Danger," has earned the New York City mayoral candidate some front-page mockery from America's most vaunted middlebrow newsweekly.

 

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/newyorker-cover-1024x1489.jpg

 

"With a topic like Anthony Weiner, how can you find anything broad or funny that he hasn't already personally breached?" said artist John Cuneo, who created the cover, in the issue's Culture Desk. "Free association made me think of the Empire State Building, and then King Kong, the iconic image of him straddling it."

 

"And then Weiner sexting, his head tilted and looking a certain way — I just stumbled upon the image as I was sketching. But all I could think about while working on this piece was, 'Will Weiner still be in the race by the time it runs?,'" Cuneo wrote.

 

"The New Yorker's Anthony Weiner cover needs little introduction — it's just that good," wrote The Huffington Post. "Tabloids, including the New York Post, ran Anthony Weiner-related front pages throughout the week, but the New Yorker probably just won the week's unofficial (but totally official) Carlos Danger cover competition."

 

"Is Weiner really going to be upset The New Yorker used the Empire State Building as a stand-in for his junk?" Slate.com tweeted. Hollywood.com wrote that the cover is reminiscent of past "favorite political sex scandal parodies."

 

So remember, folks: if you find yourself in a Starbucks in a few months flipping through some pretentious magazine filled with David Remnick-penned Obama apologisms and esoteric editorial cartoons, just remember that it was funny once.

 

Weiner, meanwhile, currently trails City Council speaker Christine Quinn in the New York mayoral race by nine points among registered Democrats. The New York Times editorial board has called for Weiner to drop out of the race.

[dungeonbaby]

does the white house press corps still have a pulse? is the tonight show the new briefing room?

[harmless0810]

does the white house press corps still have a pulse? is the tonight show the new briefing room?

none. maybe, until leno hits them with a zinger.

 

More bad news for the Liberal press: Libertarian buys WaPo; the Koch brothers (Republican donors), targeting the LA Times

 

Fire Sale: Washington Post Lost 87% of Value In Ten Years

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/08/06/4867244-3x2-940x627.jpg

by John Nolte 6 Aug 2013

The announcement that the Washington Post Co. sold its flagship paper to billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for $250 million, surprised everyone. And in an era when the Washington Post sells Newsweek for $1 and the New York Times sells the Boston Globe at a 93% loss; $250 million might sound like a lot of money. But buried in the Post's own reporting of its sale is the news that ten years ago the Post would have sold for $2 billion with a -B-.

That represents an 87% loss in just a decade. You figure in ten years of inflation and we are probably over 90%.

 

Like most print media outlets, the Post has had to struggle with the rise of the Internet and competition from New Media. That certainly hurt its value, but the Post is also guilty of a number of unforced errors that resulted in untold damage to the credibility of its once legendary brand.

 

Over the years, the fake fact checks, the apparent coordinating with the Obama campaign to destroy Romney, the phony smears leveled at Republicans, the non-stop pushing of leftist causes, the unforgivable stealth-corrections, the laughably biased polls… All of this added up in a way that devastated the Post's credibility and left it a shell of itself.

 

You can't wade into an online world where competition is everywhere and behave in this way. When people have options, they are not going to stand for the absurd deception that they are paying for and giving page views to an "objective" news outlet.

 

To millions and millions of potential customers, the Post became something that wasn't vital; something they no longer trusted. Millions more see the Post as an outright antagonist out to undermine who they are and what they believe in.

 

In a free market, when you alienate most of the customers, you end up on the wrong end of a fire sale.

 

 

 

Someone grew a spine:

 

 

RNC Chair: Hillary Projects Last Straw Against NBC, CNN

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Top%20Republicans/rubio-cruz-paul.jpg

by John Nolte 6 Aug 2013

During an appearance on "Hannity" Monday night, RNC Chair Reince Priebus expanded on his decision to cut off CNN and NBC (including MSNBC) from hosting and moderating debates during the 2016 GOP presidential primary season:

I think it's time that our Party stands up and protects our Party and candidates from networks that are not in the business of promoting our party; they're not in the business of promoting our candidate; they're not in the business of doing anything but promoting the Democratic Party. And I'm not going to sit around and watch this happen anymore. A couple of years ago we had a 23-debate traveling circus, and I think it's about time we cut out those people that are actually spending time and money promoting our opponents.

 

Monday, in an exclusive to Breitbart News, Priebus sent a letter to CNN and NBC informing them that unless they cancel their respective projects about Hillary Clinton, they will not be allowed to host any of the GOP presidential primary debates. CNN is planning a two-hour Hillary documentary that will enjoy a limited theatrical release. NBC is producing a four-hour miniseries; Academy Award-nominee Diane Lane is already signed to play the former Secretary of State.

 

Both networks have already said that they have no intention of cancelling anything. This is undoubtedly good news for tens of millions of Republicans who are tired of seeing their candidates defined by news organizations dedicated to their destruction.

 

Priebus went on to make another round of compelling points, including the fact that during the 2008 presidential primary, Democrats froze Fox News out from hosting debates. Moreover, many of the same leftists ridiculing the RNC's decision to avoid CNN and NBC due to these Hillary projects, are the same leftists who raged against Citizens United over its 2008 Hillary documentary.

 

The best news, though, is that Priebus made clear that the RNC is grabbing hold of these debates. He said, It is "our own right to choose who deposes and filters our candidates. I think I'm very reasonable here."

 

Reasonable and sane. Outside of CNN and NBC, hopefully that means Priebus won't allow the likes of a George Stephanopolous (a former Clintonite turned ABC News "reporter") to ever again have access to a debate so he can lay the foundation for Obama's phony War on Women narrative.

 

During the 2012 primary debate season, the mainstream media was relentless in its use of wild hypotheticals and gotcha questions that were mostly designed to focus on non-issues like gun control, abortion, race, birth control, and gay marriage. In debate after debate, biased moderators did everything in their power to avoid topics that might hurt Barack Obama and make our candidates shine: jobs, the deficit, and the overall economy.

 

Time and again, the moderator's questions would play right into the hands of whatever anti-GOP narrative the Obama campaign was cooking up.

 

Moreover, too many of these unprofessional moderators repeatedly stole the spotlight, intentionally pitted our candidates against one another, and worked overtime to make the field look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

 

It was a suicide mission our candidates were on, and they accomplished it.

 

At any rate, based on their appalling track records, Priebus didn't need yet-another reason to show CNN and NBC the door. But with these high-profile Hillary projects, they sure gave him one.