Cernovich vs MSM: Drudge Clinton 2 or Tina Brown Newsweek 2

Readability

Cernovich vs MSM: Drudge Clinton 2 or Tina Brown Newsweek 2

For me the most amaz­ing thing about the Susan Rice story isn’t CNN using an Obama staffer as their go to guy on the story, nor the media’s attempt to spin the story as noth­ing, or Pres­i­dent Obama play­ing with the “unmask­ing” rules to make it all pos­si­ble, nor the her actions were laud­able defense, the Wash­ing­ton Post’s tardy desire for an expla­na­tion, the pos­si­ble involve­ment of the FBI in this farce, DeGenova’s rev­e­la­tions on “spread­sheets” , the fact that the White house doesn’t do inves­ti­ga­tions, CNN’s all out effort to first deny and then min­i­mize the while thing, or even Rice’s denials that the unmask­ing was improper , that is wasn’t polit­i­cal,

No the real rev­e­la­tion is best high­lighted by this from Glenn Reynolds:

I TWEETED MAG­GIE HABER­MAN LAST NIGHT TO ASK IF IT WAS TRUE THAT SHE WAS SIT­TING ON THIS STORY, BUT SHE DIDN’T RESPOND

and this video via the Amer­i­can Thinker by Mike Cernovich

par­tially quoted by zero hedge:

“Mag­gie Haber­man had it. She will not run any arti­cles that are crit­i­cal of the Obama administration.”

Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vin­di­cates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”

I’m show­ing you the pol­i­tics of ‘real jour­nal­ism’. ‘Real jour­nal­ism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any sto­ries that would make Obama look bad or that will vin­di­cate Trump. They only want to run sto­ries that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”

What the rev­e­la­tion? It’s appar­ently that the main­stream media, the media that once owned infor­ma­tion and its dec­i­ma­tion appar­ently learned noth­ing from the rise of Matt Drudge.

Twenty years ago Newsweek had the story of Bill Clin­ton and Mon­ica Lewin­sky. They choose to sit on it and it instead went to Matt Drudge. It made Matt Drudge rich lead to a sit­u­a­tion where twenty years later while Newsweek which has been sold sev­eral times for the price of a Whop­per Jr, despite decades of his­tory and being one of the most rec­og­nized names in news in the top 5000 web sites in the world (4910) and top 1700 (1679) accord­ing to Alexa in the US vs the drudgereport.com’s at 723 in the world and 156 in the US.

Even worse it’s spawned 100’s of other sites (like this one) that pro­mote sto­ries the MSM would like to bury or fact check the sto­ries the media pro­moted that were once accepted as gospel. So unless you are talk­ing some­thing like the Kha­lidi tape of which there is only a sin­gle copy held by the LA Times (unless they’ve destroyed it by now) it is very dif­fi­cult to keep a story away from any­one who has a link to the internet.

One might think that the last twenty years might have taught the media this but appar­ently it has not. The media hasn’t fig­ured out that just because the lib­eral nar­ra­tive isn’t pub­licly chal­lenged in the news­room con­ser­v­a­tives don’t exist there. And while said con­ser­v­a­tives at the NYT, Bloomberg or else­where might be silent to remain gain­fully employed it doesn’t pre­vent them from drop­ping an email to a per­son when they see some­thing they don’t like. As Don Surber put it:

The media has lost its power, but doesn’t real­ize it.

Of course there is the pos­si­bil­ity that there is a dif­fer­ent rev­e­la­tion here, one revealed by this post at Mike Cernovich’s site

Break­ing his usual rule of never appear­ing on edited tele­vi­sion, author and film­maker Mike Cer­novich went on 60 Min­utes to show a record 15 mil­lion peo­ple the power of real news. The result was 60 Min­utes’ high­est rated episode in almost a decade.

60 Min­utes’ tops rat­ings for first time since 2008

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS’ “60 Min­utes” returned this week to a famil­iar place it hadn’t been accus­tomed to vis­it­ing that much lately: first place in the prime-​time tele­vi­sion rankings.

The ven­er­a­ble news­magazine hadn’t fin­ished as the most-​watched pro­gram of the week since Novem­ber 2008, when newly elected Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down for the first TV inter­view since their election.

Cernovich’s appear­ance on 60 Min­utes was a mat­ter of great inter­est, with his many haters around the world expect­ing him to look bad in front of a record 15 mil­lion viewers.

Per­haps a lot of his ene­mies were watch­ing to boost the num­bers but in my mind it’s much more likely that instead of the nor­mal niche mar­ket lib­er­als that 60 min­utes nor­mally draws from, they instead were able to draw from the entire news con­sum­ing pub­lic, a pub­lic that might have been shocked to see a Net­work news anchor admit that they believed the word of the Clin­ton cam­paign with­out ques­tion.

If that’s the case why would a for profit orga­ni­za­tion, mired in a sit­u­a­tion where their audi­ence is diluted by a plethora of alter­na­tive choices , when showed the poten­tial profit of draw­ing a whole new cus­tomer base choose to leave this source of rev­enue behind? After all if goal as a news orga­ni­za­tion is to attract the max­i­mum amount of view­ers to gen­er­ate the great­est pos­si­ble profit by pre­sent­ing cred­i­ble news to the largest audi­ence pos­si­ble then such a choice is fool­hardy and a sign that they have not learned a thing.

BUT if you goal is to advance a nar­ra­tive favor­able to a lib­eral niche of high power high power donors while be invited to the right par­ties etc, then it makes per­fect sense as Stacy McCain and I explained six years ago…

Fur­ther­more, con­sider how rich lib­er­als are will­ing to act as “angels” toward their media pets. I made this point yes­ter­day in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 mil­lion dur­ing two years as edi­tor of Talk, after los­ing $40 mil­lion dur­ing a three-​year period as edi­tor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goal­posts of pro­jected prof­itabil­ity at the Daily Beast to some­where between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever read­ers, that these are not merely busi­ness losses, but are in fact a sort of char­i­ta­ble endeavor to sup­port the prop­a­ga­tion of fash­ion­able liberalism?

As our friend Da Tech Guy points out, “profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown”:

She is part of a club, an elite …
[W]hen peo­ple invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to peo­ple: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-​Levy and we had a mar­velous time.”
It’s all about being a mem­ber, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hob­nob with the great.

Yes, but what Pete over­looks is this: Being a mag­a­zine edi­tor gave Brown enor­mous influ­ence in decid­ing who belongs to the “in” crowd. And one hand washes the other: Does Mika Brzezin­ski crave favor­able cov­er­age from the Daily Beast? “Oh, let’s invite Tina Brown onto Morn­ing Joe!”

if that the goal than do don’t care if you eschew the prof­its from a larger poten­tial audi­ence in fact any smaller profit from lib­eral view­ers or read­ers who choose to stick with you because you are unwill­ing to chal­lenge their world­view is a bonus extra.


If you think it’s worth­while to report sto­ries that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writ­ers and make our annual goal Con­sider sub­scrib­ing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaT­e­chguy blog

Remem­ber all sub­scribers get my weekly pod­cast emailed directly to you before it goes up any­where else.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s med­ical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




[olimome­ter id=3]

If you are not in the posi­tion to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

For me the most amazing thing about the Susan Rice story isn’t CNN using an Obama staffer as their go to guy on the story,  nor the media’s attempt to spin the story as nothing,  or President Obama playing with the “unmasking” rules to make it all possible, nor the her actions were laudable defense, the Washington Post’s tardy desire for an explanation, the possible involvement of the FBI in this farce, DeGenova’s revelations on “spreadsheets” , the fact that the White house doesn’t do investigations, CNN’s all out effort to first deny and then minimize the while thing,   or even Rice’s denials that the unmasking was improper , that is wasn’t political,

No the real revelation is best highlighted by this from Glenn Reynolds:

I TWEETED MAGGIE HABERMAN LAST NIGHT TO ASK IF IT WAS TRUE THAT SHE WAS SITTING ON THIS STORY, BUT SHE DIDN’T RESPOND

and this video via the American Thinker by Mike Cernovich

partially quoted by zero hedge:

“Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration.”

“Eli Lake had it. He didn’t want to run it and Bloomberg didn’t want to run it because it vindicates Trump’s claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a ‘never Trumper.’ Bloomberg was a ‘never Trump’ publication.”

“I’m showing you the politics of ‘real journalism’. ‘Real journalism’ is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn’t run it because they don’t want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that’s why they sat on it.”

What the revelation?  It’s apparently that the mainstream media, the media that once owned information and its decimation apparently learned nothing from the rise of Matt Drudge.

Twenty years ago Newsweek had the story of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. They choose to sit on it and it instead went to Matt Drudge. It made Matt Drudge rich lead to a situation where twenty years later while Newsweek which has been sold several times for the price of a Whopper Jr, despite decades of history and being one of the most recognized names in news in the top 5000 web sites in the world (4910) and top 1700 (1679) according to Alexa in the US vs the drudgereport.com’s at 723 in the world and 156 in the US.

Even worse it’s spawned 100’s of other sites (like this one) that promote stories the MSM would like to bury or fact check the stories the media promoted that were once accepted as gospel. So unless you are talking something like the Khalidi tape of which there is only a single copy held by the LA Times (unless they’ve destroyed it by now) it is very difficult to keep a story away from anyone who has a link to the internet.

One might think that the last twenty years might have taught the media this but apparently it has not. The media hasn’t figured out that just because the liberal narrative isn’t publicly challenged in the newsroom conservatives don’t exist there. And while said conservatives at the NYT, Bloomberg or elsewhere might be silent to remain gainfully employed it doesn’t prevent them from dropping an email to a person when they see something they don’t like. As Don Surber put it:

The media has lost its power, but doesn’t realize it.

Of course there is the possibility that there is a different revelation here, one revealed by this post at Mike Cernovich’s site

Breaking his usual rule of never appearing on edited television, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich went on 60 Minutes to show a record 15 million people the power of real news. The result was 60 Minutes’ highest rated episode in almost a decade.

60 Minutes’ tops ratings for first time since 2008

 

NEW YORK (AP) — CBS’ “60 Minutes” returned this week to a familiar place it hadn’t been accustomed to visiting that much lately: first place in the prime-time television rankings.

 

The venerable newsmagazine hadn’t finished as the most-watched program of the week since November 2008, when newly elected Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down for the first TV interview since their election.

Cernovich’s appearance on 60 Minutes was a matter of great interest, with his many haters around the world expecting him to look bad in front of a record 15 million viewers.

Perhaps a lot of his enemies were watching to boost the numbers but in my mind it’s much more likely that instead of the normal niche market liberals that 60 minutes normally draws from, they instead were able to draw from the entire news consuming public, a public that might have been shocked to see a Network news anchor admit that they believed the word of the Clinton campaign without question.

If that’s the case why would a for profit organization, mired in a situation where their audience is diluted by a plethora of alternative choices , when showed the potential profit of drawing a whole new customer base choose to leave this source of revenue behind?  After all if goal as a news organization is to attract the maximum amount of viewers to generate the greatest possible profit by presenting credible news to the largest audience possible then such a choice is foolhardy and a sign that they have not learned a thing.

BUT if you goal is to advance a narrative favorable to a liberal niche of high power high power donors while be invited to the right parties etc, then it makes perfect sense as Stacy McCain and I explained six years ago…

Furthermore, consider how rich liberals are willing to act as “angels” toward their media pets. I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

As our friend Da Tech Guy points out, “profit is not the goal of those who invest with Tina Brown”:

She is part of a club, an elite . . . 
[W]hen people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”
It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great.

Yes, but what Pete overlooks is this: Being a magazine editor gave Brown enormous influence in deciding who belongs to the “in” crowd. And one hand washes the other: Does Mika Brzezinski crave favorable coverage from the Daily Beast? “Oh, let’s invite Tina Brown onto Morning Joe!”

if that the goal than do don’t care if you eschew the profits from a larger potential  audience in fact any smaller profit from liberal viewers or readers who choose to stick with you because you are unwilling to challenge their worldview is a bonus extra.


If you think it’s worthwhile to report stories that the MSM won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.