The most significant point on Pam Geller on MSNBC

Readability

The most significant point on Pam Geller on MSNBC

is really the fact that Media Mat­ters and their new friends at LGF didn’t have enough oomph to keep Pam Geller off of MSNBC alto­gether.

Although with rat­ings so low that I could likely out­draw him at Chris Matthews clearly can’t afford to upset what is left of his viewer base, maybe we should call him “Softballs”.

All that being said this is where a mis­take like this hurts in the long run. Why let the other side have a gimme?

Update: Stacy expands and elaborates

And notice how this works: If Fox cov­ers a story that other net­works ignore, the attack is directed at the net­work. How­ever, if MSNBC books a guest (Geller) to dis­cuss a story that it had oth­er­wise ignored (the Ground Zero mosque), Media Mat­ters screams bloody mur­der that this one guest is unacceptable.

Media Mat­ters is attempt­ing to exer­cise the power of an arbiter, to arro­gate to itself the author­ity to decide which sto­ries are news­wor­thy and which sources are cred­i­ble, and it does so through intim­i­da­tion. The mes­sage to news pro­duc­ers and edi­tors couldn’t be clearer: Give seri­ous cov­er­age to a story we don’t like, and we’ll unleash these attacks against you.

Remem­ber Liz Mair’s the­ory that David Weigel’s Journo­list e-​mails were made pub­lic because Weigel had dared to dis­pute the Left’s nar­ra­tive that por­trayed Rand Paul as a racist. Weigel wasn’t toe­ing the line. He hadn’t coop­er­ated in the Meme-O’-th’-Day agenda and, by speak­ing out, had helped kill the meme that Democ­rats were employ­ing to tremen­dous advan­tage. Was that why he became the Luca Brasi of MSM reporters?

is really the fact that Media Matters and their new friends at LGF didn’t have enough oomph to keep Pam Geller off of MSNBC altogether.

Although with ratings so low that I could likely outdraw him at Chris Matthews clearly can’t afford to upset what is left of his viewer base, maybe we should call him “Softballs”.

All that being said this is where a mistake like this hurts in the long run. Why let the other side have a gimme?

Update: Stacy expands and elaborates

And notice how this works: If Fox covers a story that other networks ignore, the attack is directed at the network. However, if MSNBC books a guest (Geller) to discuss a story that it had otherwise ignored (the Ground Zero mosque), Media Matters screams bloody murder that this one guest is unacceptable.

Media Matters is attempting to exercise the power of an arbiter, to arrogate to itself the authority to decide which stories are newsworthy and which sources are credible, and it does so through intimidation. The message to news producers and editors couldn’t be clearer: Give serious coverage to a story we don’t like, and we’ll unleash these attacks against you.

Remember Liz Mair’s theory that David Weigel’s Journolist e-mails were made public because Weigel had dared to dispute the Left’s narrative that portrayed Rand Paul as a racist. Weigel wasn’t toeing the line. He hadn’t cooperated in the Meme-O’-th’-Day agenda and, by speaking out, had helped kill the meme that Democrats were employing to tremendous advantage. Was that why he became the Luca Brasi of MSM reporters?