The Washington Post has long been a leftist publication, in the 1970s it was dubbed “Pravda on the Potomac” by conservatives.
The newspaper has gotten worse since then, even after its purchase in 2013 by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
On Friday it released a 2005 video of Donald Trump in a hot-mic conversation with Billy Bush of Access Hollywood as he very crudely discusses his sexual moves on women. In his apology the Republican presidential nominee categorized his behavior as “locker-room banter,” but the reality is that most men, or even high school sophomores, don’t speak in that manner about women, at least in such explicit detail. Trump needs to make one more apology added with a vow never to discuss women in that fashion for as long as he lives.
While NBC, which owns Access Hollywood, not surprisingly had the video clip first, it was cognizant of it on Monday. But while the network’s lawyers were still reviewing the clip, an anonymous source alerted the Post about it on Friday, four hours later it went live on the newspaper’s website.
But who was that source?
In a July Wikileaks release, Greg Sargent, who writes the Plum Line blog for the Post–most of the its blogs are leftist electronic rags–was exposed as a shill for the Democratic National Committee. Lee Cary in the American Thinker laid down how the DNC propaganda treadmill works at the Post. Sargent gets a tip of slanted information from the DNC, which of course he doesn’t credit in his blog entry. Writers higher up on the Post food chain credit the Plum Line on this “scoop,” other media sources credit the Post, when in fact the “news” is really a disguised Democratic Party informercial.
How many other shills such as Sargent at the Post have yet to be exposed?
“According to the Washington Post” is a much more convincing article lead-in than “According to a Democratic Party press release.”
Back to the Trump tape. Yes, it’s newsworthy, but if the DNC was the Post’s source, shouldn’t its readers know about that? Remember, there’s a conveyor line of information coming from the Democrats to the Washington Post. Here’s another question: Let’s say a similarly damaging recording of Hillary Clinton was out there and the Post became aware of it. Would the Post run with that story? Or does the paper ignore it, using feeble excuses that it is “old news” or “not relevant to the political discussion.”
Win or lose this autumn, conservative bloggers and activists need to widen the battlefield and include what Trump rightly calls the “dishonest media” in the war for America. The establishment media, with a few exceptions, is a leftist cabal. If we successfully expose them to the masses, we’ll discover that defeating the Democrats will be surprisingly easy.
Don’t worry about Greg Sargent. I’m sure he has a job waiting for him at the Democratic National Committee if things stop working out for him at the Post. Or in a Hillary Clinton presidential administration.
Mr. Spock:Lieutenant, I am half-Vulcanian. Vulcanians do not speculate. I speak from pure logic. If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen.
Star Trek: Court Martial 1967
Sherlock:He? Mycroft:Obviously. Sherlock:Why? Size of the hat? Mycroft:Don’t be silly. Some women have large heads too. No, he’s recently had his hair cut. You can see the little hairs adhering to the perspiration stains on the inside. Sherlock:Some women have short hair too. Mycroft:Balance of probability
In this business it’s impossible to keep track of everything going on. Once in a while something falls through the cracks for me it was the special election in Florida 13.
I may have heard the names of the candidates in passing and as I recall the democrat said something embarrassing a bit ago on immigration, but if you asked me on Sunday about the race I could tell you nothing intelligent about it. Nor have I had time to search the web for any info. All I know is what I’ve seen in passing on twitter and on Morning Joe today.
Both have been interesting lessons in the balance of probability.
Let’s start with twitter, yesterday I saw the following tweet from Greg Sergeant of the Washington Post The Plum Line:
Folks, please let’s not overinterpret meaning of FL-13, whoever wins. It will be decided by vagaries of turnout on margins.
One of the things I’ve learned in these last five years is how the media tends to work to advance a meme to set expectations. It is almost axiomatic that when a race’s national implications are downplayed by a side it means that side is doing poorly. Given the balance of probability being familiar with Mr. Sargent’s writing & the content of that tweet I drew the following conclusion:
It was a reasonable assumption, but the reason why it is called the balance of “probability” rather than “certainly” is once in a while things fall outside of it.
It turns out Mr. Sargent was part of a longer conversation with Rick Wilson a fellow out of Florida I follow whose opinion I trust. In the full context of that conversation they both agreed this would not be a test of Obamacare. Mr Sargent brought this to my attention & further tweeted…
I found several things interesting about their Fl-13 coverage:
1. This story led the 8 AM hour (which means it opened the 6 AM hour) Given the amount of news out there from the Malaysia Airline disaster to Ukraine to the “Climate Change Palozza) I was surprised to see how much prominence the story was given.
2. The segment talks about what this race means in terms of Obamacare as an issue but Alex Sink unlike the Senate Candidates in trouble for the left was not in congress when Obamacare was passed so she doesn’t have to defend that vote.
3. The libertarian candidate who is apparently in some polls pulling as much as 13% was not mentioned in this segment.
When I went to the Morning Joe site to get the video above I discovered that FL-13 was part of the opening segment of the 7 AM hour as well kicking in 6 minutes into the start and took up the rest :
It seems strange to me that you can do 12 minutes on FL-13 and what it means nationally and not point out there is a 3rd party candidate libertarian.
It also seems strange to turn this a race into a referendum / test case on Obamacare and it’s defense without pointing out the Democrat Candidate Alex Sink is one of the few democrats in a key race with no direct connection to Obamacare.
Given the function of MSNBC & the fact that Morning of Joe is the first political show of the day the balance of probability suggests that the White House & MSM expect Alex Sink to win that race. It further suggests the purpose of Tuesday’s Morning Joe segments is battlefield prep establishing a meme for 2014.
If I’m correct then tomorrow, barring some incredible news story like the resignation of president Obama or Miley Cyrus entering a convent Morning Joe will lead with the Alex Sink victory in Fl-13 and spend multiple segments in every hour talking about how it means the tide has turned on Obamacare for democrats, and the rest of the drive by media will not only pick up that story and run with it for the rest of the day but will point to this race as an example of how things as not as bad for the left in 2014 as the GOP & polls would have you believe.
I think that’s the plan, and it will be up to the GOP turnout efforts in the district to foil it.
Given my error concerning Mr. Sargent’s tweet you might think it odd that I draw such conclusions without more information, maybe the GOP will pull it off, maybe the left is overly optimistic, maybe the libertarian will poll way below expectations all of those things could happen, but the thing about the balance of probability is this, while things sometime fall outside of it over time it tends to assert itself.
It’s 11:08 EST right now. In less than 20 hours we’ll find out if I’m right.
It’s Tuesday and we are $42 dollars toward this week’s goal of $365.
If you think our work here is worthy of your support I ask you consider hitting DaTipJar below.
With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.
Journo-list Greg Sargent is worried about the White House being undermined by house democrats on Iran.
Strangely enough he seems less worried about Iran undermining the deal but it’s not like the priority is to actually stop Iran, as it was to have a “deal” that LOOKS like it stops Iran.
But hidden within that piece is an Important little tidbit that says a lot about the actual state of affairs in DC
If the GOP-controlled House passes something with the support of someone like Hoyer, it could make it harder for Senate Dems to resist pressure to act.
and THAT is the story of the democrat control of the Senate over the last 3 years. The story that the media has done its best not to tell.
Over and over the House has acted, over and over the Senate didn’t vote
When the house passed budgets the senate didn’t vote…until Obama was re-elected.
During the shutdown bi-partisan bill after bi-partisan bill passed the house and the senate didn’t vote.
Just last month the Upton Bill passed with 39 democrats voting yes, and the senate didn’t vote
The question isn’t if Reid wouldn’t win these votes, odds are he would have won most of them, but Reid isn’t worried about winning votes, he’s all about making sure no democrat has to make any decision that the American people might hold them accountable for
but bipartisan movement in the House could intensify the pressure on him to allow a vote on something the White House doesn’t want.
The end of the filibuster was sold as something necessary to allow thing to proceed in the Senate but the truth is for Democrats in general and Harry Reid & the White House in particular Senate inaction has always been a feature, not a bug.
At least as long as Barack Obama is in the White House that is.
Scarcely had Bill Clinton finished the oath of office before he embarked on a series of left-wing initiatives that he had perhaps promised in various speeches or policy papers, but which I — relying on the news media’s depiction of the campaign — had not realized were part of his agenda.
And just remember Fox News Channel didn’t come until existence until October of 1996. and even now it only represent 11% of the total news audience.
It’s Monday and we are at the same point as we were a week ago at this time.
Last week we ended up very short but there is on reason why this has to be true again.
How is it changed, by hitting DaTipJar below.
If you are a conservative the best gift you can give to yourself is someone willing to fight the good fight every single day. We need only 63 more subscribers at $20 a month to make mortgage and payroll every single week.
Help me and my Magnificent Seven make your case all year long. Subscribe.
Question: When can you tell when a poll report is trying to spin you?
Greg Yes I report what Media Matters says, it’s just a form of outsourcing Sargent. breathlessly reports that Wisconsin is a dead heat according to an automated poll, and reinforces his argument with an “internal” democratic poll by a using group calling Wisconsin a “dead heat”
In paragraph 7 he finally finds a poll that is worth questioning:
A public poll taken from May 17-22 by Saint Norbert College found Walker ahead 50-45, though that remained in the poll’s margin of error. Union officials questioned its sampling, and a pollster for Barrett argued to Chris Cillizza that some of the public polling had been taken before Barrett mounted his TV ad offensive against Walker.
So the poll that shows Walker ahead, consistent with report after report is questioned, in fact polling in general is called out in the last paragraph:
Indeed, even neutral Wisconsin political observers believe that public polling of this race may not be predictive, since turnout in a mid-year gubernatorial recall election is impossible to anticipate.
Yeah who believes these polls anyway?
The post gets updated with the results of the Marquette Law School poll with Walker up seven. Sargent notes it’s “just inside the margin of error” and quotes a different source saying Walkers lead is under a point. That source? Talking Points Memo!
Sargent’s piece whether a press release for TPM & Media Matters or an attempt to con one more bit of work or dollar from democrat loyalists who ignore any non MMFA approved source does have a glimmer of truth (as any good propaganda does), in questioning reliance of polls. I’m a big believer in watching actions instead so lets look at the actions:
As although as I type this Joe Scarborough just asked Van Jones why the president wasn’t in Wisconsin, (Jones changed the subject at once) the MSM that was once all Wisconsin all the time suddenly doesn’t find the recall all that interesting.
Frankly Greg I would include your own post as more evidence of the point I’ve been making right along:
The dustup over Sleep Train, along with the blowback suffered by Carbonite over that company’s public denunciation of Limbaugh, demonstrates that the iconic radio talk show host is dealing from a position of strength in the campaign to deprive him of advertisers. One tends to prosper when one advertises on Limbaugh’s show. But cross him, and one will suffer.
The one overwhelming fact is that Limbaugh commands many millions of listeners. There is no evidence that any of them have stopped listening because of the kerfuffle with Sandra Fluke. Indeed, one suspects that Limbaugh has gained listeners, curious about what the fuss is all about. As long as the show maintains its listener base, it does not matter if any advertisers bail on Limbaugh for political reasons. There will always be others who will want to take their place, because it is good business to advertise on the most listened-to radio talk show on the planet.
Remember Dan Riehl mentioned on Friday a story the left was crowing about that seemed too good to be true for them
I don’t know, I’m no industry expert, but I’d be skeptical of a big story like this breaking on a Saturday. I could be wrong, but I think I’ll wait until I hear what, if anything, is said about all this on Monday when most radio talkers are back on the air.
Maybe it’s just me, but I suspect that if there was a true mass exodus of advertisers from Rush the MSM would have spent yesterday crowing and would still be doing it today.
Yet there are only the three Memeorandum leads, two by the same person Judd Legum from Think Progress and Greg “Anything you want it that’s is what I’ll print it” Sargent and the lefty blogs that mimic them. If it wasn’t for Sargent’s position at the Washington Post it would be a total case of crickets.