The Media Industry

ruh roh

 

Here is what Megyn Kelly has become
No feeling sorry for her. It's her own fault. She became obsessed with Trump (still is by some reports). Got schlonged for it.

 

Same author
6 days apart
What changed?
Only that he saw it as a chance to attack the Trump

 

Two headlines, one above the other

 

Same network as dumped a guy for saying the words "boobs" on air
And the same people who who were calling Trump a misogynistic womanizer
Are now lionizing Hugh Hefner

 

Still can't make heads or tails of the differences between the definitions of "news" and "opinion", huh? I can only surmise you are a Brietbart follower where they are one in the same.

 

As I've said from the beginning, Kelly's question to Trump was appropriate, whether Trump supporters liked it or not. It's fair to ask someone about past comments, especially those made publicly, and everybody in their right mind knew his comments would become major issues if he got the nomination. If Snoop Dogg ran for President and somebody decided to ask him about his lyrics that discuss killing police officers and slapping around his "******* and 'hos," I think that would be fair game too. Trump had far more hostile media critics than Megyn Kelly in other media outlets. She was hostile by Fox News standards. She was squishy and soft by New York Times or CNN standards. If she hadn't asked the question, one of those other critics most certainly would have, and it wouldn't have taken long.

Having said that, it wasn't too hard to see that she wouldn't thrive with NBC. People watched her before for two reasons. First, she was on Fox News, and the Right-leaning segment of the country watches that channel almost exclusively, because they virtually have a monopoly. The other side of that coin is that Fox viewers were not going to go follow Megyn Kelly to one of the most liberal networks on TV just to watch her. They weren't watching Fox because of her. They were watching her because she was on Fox.

Second, she was combative and confrontational on Fox News, which makes for entertaining television. We all like seeing somebody we don't like get kicked around, and she was good at that. Her NBC stuff isn't geared that way, so she's trying to do something that isn't her strong suit, and nobody is going to be as good doing something outside his or her strongest area of expertise. It's like if I tried to practice patent law. Could I do it? I suppose. Would I look like a damn fool at times? Yes.

 

A soon as your wrote that, it caused a ripple effect

 

I think most were okay with the original question in the first debate. I had no problem with it. Where M Kelly lost me was when she started spending the majority of her show bashing Trump over and over again. She covered all the women that had allegations that we don't hear anything about anymore and that was 95% of her show. Even when there was breaking news about more emails being release from wiki leaks on Hillary she would only put it on her back pages of a news paper.

 

I am much more cynical. I suspect that, by the time she took that stage as a moderator, she had already determined to make the move away from Fox into the mainstream media. I think she had been making this calculation for years, perhaps from the outset.

She and the folks who advise her determined that, if she was going to make that jump, she had to somehow get the liberals who control mainstream media/entertainment on her side. This was correct, but how could she ever get them to accept her? Fox News has a stigma attached. Moving from FNC to mainstream liberal television is almost impossible. And if you are going to do it, you need something dramatic, probably something extreme, to prove to them you are really on their side.

And then Trump ascended. It was coincidence, in no way could she have planned for that. But, to her, this was the perfectly timed opportunity she had been waiting on. So she jumped. Attacking Trump became her way in with the liberals. The way to establish her bona fides with the Upper East Side crowd.

So, that first question was not sincere. Or, even if it came from a sincere place, it was nonetheless cynically calculated. Not calculated to advance the presidential debate or educate the public, but calculated in a way to advance Megyn and her career. She did not care near as much who ended up President as she did making that jump to mainstream TV. Megyn was all about Megyn the whole time. This is what you are missing with your attempt to explain away Megyn.

But a funny thing happened on the way to that forum. Once Megyn committed to being anti-Trump, things did not go exactly according to plan. Trump reacted in a way that only he can. He got under her skin. You could see it in her eyes, and facial expressions. She became emotional and lost objectivity. She took it personally. It sowed doubt in her own mind about the path she chose. You could see it happening on live TV. She became obsessed with Trump for the rest of the campaign and then the remainder of her time at FNC. She kept trying to prove to viewers she was right the whole time, but it backfired. And it's been downhill for her ever since.

While she did land the big money contract she longed for, it came at a high price. She and her team miscalculated on several fronts. Trump became even more popular. More specifically, Trump held the female demographic she was after (white, middle aged to older). She cant exactly be the White Oprah if her primary target audience prefers Trump to Obama. It's easy to see this in hindsight, but if she and her people were as good as they think they are, they would seen it happening concurrently. Many of us here did at the time. There is a written record of this. It's almost like she picked Team ouBubba to be her career advisor and provide analysis. Big mistake.

 

LOL. I love this quote from the letter. "It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include the true, correct, or complete . . . candidate name . . . "

May have failed? Is there really a chance that his true first name was Deez and that his true last name was Nuts?

 

Despite denials of any bias, multiple Facbebook executives were in close contact with the Clinton Campaign during the election

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said his company is not biased against President Donald Trump, disputing claims made by the president that the social media company is against him.

"Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don't like. That's what running a platform for all ideas looks like," Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post.

However, Facebook executives were in close contact with Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign. Zuckerberg himself met with John Podesta, Clinton's former campaign chairman, and the company has even teamed up with longtime Clinton ally David Brock to combat "fake news," according to confidential documents obtained earlier this year by the Washington Free Beacon.

In a document attached to an email released by WikiLeaks and discovered by the Free Beacon last year, Teddy Goff, the digital strategist for the Clinton campaign, wrote of having "discreet conversations" about forming "working relationships" with companies such as Facebook and Apple as early as October 2014.

"Working relationships with Google, Facebook, Apple and other technology companies were important to us in 2012 and should be even more important to the you in 2016, given their still-ascendant positions in the culture," the partnership portion of the document reads. "These partnerships can bring a range of benefits to a campaign, from access to talent and progressive donors to early knowledge of beta products and invitations to participate in pilot programs."

"We have begun discreet conversations with some of these companies to get a sense of their priorities for the coming cycle, but would encourage you, as soon as your technology leadership is in place, to initiate more formal discussions."

The memo also confirmed that Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, was aiding the Clinton campaign. The Schmidt-backed group involved with the campaign was never mentioned by name, although he had provided funding to a tech company called The Groundwork, which ultimately received hundreds of thousands from Clinton's campaign.

Zuckerberg met with Podesta on at least one occasion, according to another email....."​

More here http://freebeacon.com/politics/face...intons-campaign-despite-claiming-no-bias/amp/

 

This is last night, and the age demo here is 25-54
Pretty remarkable for Hannity

 

Same NYT writer
Journalism is a career with zero accountability

 

I think Stephens is wrong, but I respect the repeal position a lot more than I respect the "pretend it's not there" or "interpret it into nonexistence" position.

 

I think his point, if I understand it correctly, is right. Gun control wont work, doesnt work, cant work. The only way the gun control crowd can obtain what they seek is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
(my edit - which is not going to happen either)
But maybe I read him wrong. I admit I did not spend long on it.

 

That's pretty much right. Here's a link to the article. Essentially he argues that so-called "common sense" gun control is irrelevant political theater that won't do anything meaningful to stop gun crime. Though falling short of mass gun confiscation, he argues that it would take a repeal of the Amendment and the complete elimination of the right to own a gun to make a real impact. He's probably right.

 

Please see my sig for another way to say the same thing.

 

Actually I don't see your signature. I'm using a mobile device.

 

I think getting rid of guns by repealing the second amendment would be about as effective as getting rid of alcohol by way of the eighteenth amendment.

 

Kinda depends on how far you're willing to go and what the "repeal" looks like. If it's truly a simple "repeal," then Congress would still be limited by due process rights and its Article I, Sec. 8 powers. In other words, it couldn't pass a national ban on firearms and couldn't just go raid homes and take guns. However, if the repeal went further and actually created new congressional powers to ban gun ownership, then that would be an actual game changer. Since there's a record of who owns most of the guns, it would be very easy to get search warrants, seize the guns, and prosecute the owners.

 

In that scenario it would come to the point where only criminals would have them. It would also create a large black market fueled by cartels to the south of us. Guns would be uber expensive for the criminals but their work would be much safer with all of the citizens disarmed. Within 10 years I think it would create such a bad situation we'd have to bring the 2nd amendment back.

 

That's basically the situation in Europe. Private gun ownership in most countries (with a few exceptions) is almost non-existent, but violent criminals can still get them on the black market. Of course, the Left would point out the fact that there are fewer gun crimes and assume that it's because there are fewer guns.

I think the reason there is less gun violence in Europe is that there are fewer violent people (though that's changing). If it was truly a matter of gun availability, then other forms of violent crime would be as common as they are in the US. They aren't. You're more likely to get shot in the US, but you're also more likely to get stabbed, assaulted, and raped. The Lefts presumption is dangerous, because when Europeans do go to the trouble to buy a gun and use it, it's often a bloodbath because everybody's defenseless.

 

Yep. One of the few benefits to the emasculation of European men is the fact that they are less violent. However, as you said that is changing with the introduction of Muslim men to Europe.

 

Sorry for the length of this, but you sorta hit one of my hot topics. It's a weird dynamic. Of course, feminism has been embraced far more than in the US, which means women pursue careers more, get easier access to welfare, and start families less. The Left would celebrate this, even though it's a major reason why their population is dying out.

Of course, the men are passive weanies, and passive weanies are rarely violent. However, depending on what people value, one could argue that they treat women worse. With that wussiness comes less willingness to take responsibility or accept obligation to care for others including women. Guys frequently don't marry the women they're sleeping with and even making babies with, because there's no shame in not doing so. They shack up for a while, and then when the woman gains a little weight or gets a little wrinkled, they leave and go find someone else. And people in America would be shocked at how often the older European man (50 or 60 year old) with money hooks up with the younger (25 or 30 year old) woman. That happens because dudes have no moral obligation to settle down or give a crap about the women he sleeps with. That happens in America, of course, but it is rampant in Europe.

You even see it in the mundane things. European men rarely open or hold doors open for women. I do this sort of thing all the time without even thinking about it, because my dad taught me as a child that this is part of being a gentleman. When I do, German women look at me like I just paid their rent for a month. I get a big smile, a nod, and a somewhat flirtatious, "danke schön" because they virtually never get this from German men. Seriously, if I was single in Germany, I'd have no trouble getting dates - not because I'm some great prize but just because I don't act like a smug, oblivious, and self-absorbed douche around women.

And its more than that. They shove in front of women in lines. They don't give up their seats to women on crowded buses or trains. I've seen pregnant women who were obviously struggling get on a train and bunch of candy-*** German dudes wearing their skinny jeans and carrying their "murses" just stay in their seats, glance at her, and then go back to looking at their iPhones. It's sad. And then I give up my seat and think to myself, "I guess I'm the only man on this train."

This says it all. Last week I was in a German grocery store, and Mrs. Deez wanted me to pick up some of her fancy chick shampoo. While I was looking for it I noticed that they had a bigger variety of fancy shampoos for men than for women. If it's easier for a dude to buy fancy shampoo, there's something wrong with your culture.

 

There seems to have been a lot of complicity in Hollywood with Weinstein
Much like with Bill Clinton back in the day, I guess
Here is a producer who refused to anything as all of this was happening, and even now clings to anonymity. So brave

 

The "new American Conscience" seemed to come up dry on Weinstein
How do you explain that?

 

Todays cover of WAPO
No mention of bigtime Dem donor Weinstein
go figure