Sometimes at CPAC you have to catch people on the Run like I did with Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe

His project Veritas is one of the last bastions of actual journalism being done these days. A second great example comes from one of the last interviews I did at CPAC 2016 before the final midnight court was with Lee Stranahan

Lee is one of the great reporters, if he writes it you can take it to the bank

DaTechGuy at CPAC 2017 (all Youtube videos are here). The last 3 interviews are going on the blog today and tomorrow morning.

3/11
Voices at CPAC 2017 Donna Keene, David Keene and Kayne Robinson of the NRA
Voices of CPAC 2017 Naseem & her Mother Salome, Dustin (Sanders supporter) & Charles from WI

3/10
Voices of CPAC 2017 DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Pastor Greg Young and Cody from MD
Voices at CPAC 2017 Senator Rick Santorum

3/9
Voices of CPAC 2017 DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Mona Salama & Tyler
Voices of CPAC 2017 Kurt Schlichter and Stephen Kruiser

3/8
Voices of CPAC 2017 DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Caleb from South florida and Robert Stacy McCain
Voices at CPAC 2017 Rep Josh Moore NH and Micha Pierce from WI and American Majority

3/7
Voices of CPAC 2017 DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Zaire Ali from MD & Daniel from LA
Voices of CPAC 2017 Michael Graham & Bill Lewis

3/6
Voices of CPAC 2017 DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court NIRSA Liberals strike back, Plus Elliott and Adam
Voices of CPAC 2017 Marc Hayden Conservatives vs the Death Penalty & Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation

3/5
Voices of CPAC 2017 Kid with Lid & Paris Alex pt3 & Izzy and a prayer on DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court
Voices of CPAC 2017 Tom from NC and Martin & Peyton from Hillsdale College

3/4
Voices of CPAC 2017 Kid with Lid and Paris on DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Parts 1 & 2
Voices of CPAC 2017 Jen from WA and Jeff from PA

3/3
Voices of CPAC 2017 Patrick Howley on DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court
Voices of CPAC 2017 Michelle from PA and Carla from PA

3/2
Voices of CPAC 2017 Susan from Dallas , Robert from MD and Donna Marie Fred from Ohio on DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court
Voices of CPAC 2017 Phil from VA and Michelle from VA

3/1
Voices at CPAC 2017 Niger Innis and Donald Scoggins at the Roy Innis Luncheon

2/28
Voices of CPAC 2017 Amelia Hamilton, Andrew Langer & GOP candidate
Voices of CPAC 2017 Paul, Fawad and the point the left is missing (with Stacy McCain)

2/27
Voices of CPAC 2017 Justin & Connor & How DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court Came About (It involves Stacy McCain & Beer)

2/26
A Historic CPAC Catholic 1st Exactly when I needed it

2/25
Voices at CPAC 2017 Two Rons and a Patricia
Voices of the Cannoli deprived at CPAC 2017 Scottie Neil Hughes
Voices at CPAC 2017 Evan Sayet A Deplorable Mind before and after
DaTechguy Meets Students TBS & Fake news at Donald Trump’s CPAC 2017 Speech
Voices of CPAC 2017 Author Matt Margolis On DaTechGuy’s Midnight Court

2/24
Voices of CPAC 2017 Tom Wenzel of EWTN & Alberto Calamaro of Radio Maria
The Media Narrative Hunt at CPAC
Voices of CPAC 2017 Donald Trump Single lines from CPAC speech as he makes them
Voices of CPAC 2017 the Indefatigable Kira Innis

2/23
Voices of Cpac 2017 Steve & Shen, Ed Morrissey of Hotair and a Kellyanne Conway Cannoli Story
Voices of CPAC 2017 Radio Row Sharon Angle & Rick Trader Daria Novak & Frank Vernuccio
CPAC 2017 Photos & Brief videos from the Sean Hannity Taping

Voices at CPAC 2017 Advocates: Melissa of Able Americans, Matt of American Majority
Voices at CPAC 2017 Yvonne (from almost #NeverTrump to Evangelical Coordinator) & Michael
Voices of CPAC 2017 Joe on Life behind the Berlin Wall

2/22

Voices at CPAC 2017 Liz a Cook County Republican (and Kasich delegate)
CPAC 2017 First Interviews Theresa an Attendee and Rob Eno of Conservative Review

2/21
Some Quick pre-cpac video and thoughts

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

There is plenty more from CPAC coming over the next couple of weeks, but what is also going to be coming are a lot of hospital bills and debt from work that both my wife and I are going to be missing because of the complications from her “routine” surgery.

If you are able and inclined to help mitigate them I’d ask you to consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.

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


Choose a Subscription level



If you are not in the position to hit DaTipJar We will be very happy to accept your prayers

There are two major things that should concern the American people about mainstream media. We’ve seen one of them very blatantly rear its hypocritical head since the start of election season in 2015: major left-wing bias. The other is even more dangerous and if we don’t take hold of the first, we’ll be faced with the second.

Before we get into the more severe threat of mainstream media, let’s focus on the one that’s clear and present. Mainstream media has been “left-leaning” for over four decades. Some may remember a time when the media was actually right-leaning. Those days are obviously behind us; anyone who doesn’t qualify for Social Security benefits has likely never seen right-leaning mainstream media (other than arguably Fox News and WSJ) in their adult life. The major shift that we witnessed in the most recent election cycle is unabashed bias. There was still a semblance of subtly in their bias during the Bush43-era. Today, they’re loud and proud about being leftists.

There are righteous cries by conservatives to do something about this problem. The Democratic Party’s propaganda wing has become so engrossed with their own rhetoric that they’re having a hard time understanding why there’s any opposition to them at all. It’s imperative that conservatives do what they can to simultaneously denounce mainstream media’s bias and to promote independent and conservative media that needs help in being the countermeasure to liberal talking heads.

It must be the people who bring about this change. It cannot be the government. This brings us to the bigger threat that could engulf us: state-run media. Today, it’s practically impossible for anyone to imagine a press that’s controlled by the government. It’s never been the case in America (despite rumored efforts by the “Deep State,” the CIA, and other powerful government entities) for the government to have control over the media, so very few are concerned about it. We should be.

If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that the sentiment of the American people can be shifted very quickly. In the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency, nearly 70% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage. Even Californians outlawed it for a time. Today, less than 40% of Americans oppose it. In less than seven years, the sentiment on this topic was changed through liberal indoctrination in colleges, massive propaganda campaigns in the media, and pressure put on those who would oppose the practice.

What we’re seeing happening with the media is not indoctrination from one side. Both liberals and conservatives are starting to see needs for “restraints” on the media. Not to sound too conspiratorial, but the rise of the “fake news” narrative is designed to get us to not trust ANY media. There has always been fake news. In fact, it’s not any worse today than it was a decade ago. The difference is that we’ve put more of an emphasis on it through social media. We’ve given it a tangible name and defined it as a bogeyman to be feared.

Tearing down the 1st Amendment freedom of the press concept won’t start off as state-run media. It will start as “limits” to what can be reported. It has already started with calls by powerful people in government to rein in their reports by forcing verification before news can be published. This comes in the form of strengthening libel laws that yield consequences if reporters get a story wrong. All of this is being packaged in a way that the people can get behind without realizing that they’re supporting restraints that harm the Constitution itself.

The problems of fake news and liberal bias are real. The battle must be waged by the people, not the government. If we call for the government to take action, the only way they can solve the problem is by taking us several steps closer to the bigger problem of state-run media. Instead, we have the power as Americans to fight it through our voices and our dollars. I would love to help lead this effort, but there’s already too much on my plate. Someone needs to do it. Someone needs to step up and start directing the grassroots to fight the liberal bias and fake news problem without the government getting involved.

Mainstream media outlets must be made aware that if they’re going to be biased, they won’t get our money nor our page-views in the form of clicks. That’s not to say that there’s not room for commentary or op-eds, but those must be clearly delineated. Smaller media sites, particularly those who adhere to neutrality, need our support. As for conservative media, we’re currently outnumbered and outgunned. We need help to be the commentary that opposes our liberal counterparts.

All of this sounds hard. It will be. The alternative is for the government to step in and take action. That is not a valid solution. Once they start, history tells us they cannot help themselves. They’ll take it further and further until the media is a shell of what it once was. To those who say that this would be a good thing, remember that if they’re just a shell, someone will be pulling the strings. I’ll take a left-wing mainstream media over a government-controlled media any day of week. At least bias can be countered through discernment and spreading the word. Once the government gets involved, it quickly turns into oppression. If that’s allowed, it will be almost impossible to reverse.

The only righteous way to tackle the problems we’re seeing in the media is for the people to address it from the grassroots. Calls for media oversight from DC will not end well for Americans. We need a free press to stay free. We need free Americans to change the media’s ways with our voices and our dollars. We do not need anything that will harm the 1st Amendment regardless of how appealing that may seem to some today.

Contrary to popular belief, liberal mainstream media bias is not the same ol’ narrative that conservatives have had to fight since the 1970s. Starting with the Bush administration and as a direct result of the rise of the internet, liberal journalists have dramatically increased their blatant favoritism towards progressive agendas. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

We see a lot of publications like Newsbusters reporting on the bias. This is a good thing, but it’s not enough. As conservative citizens, bloggers, and social media users, we have to do more than point out the bias because most people are already aware that it exists. Sure, there are still pockets of hardcore progressives who claim the media is biased against them rather than the other way around, but we won’t be able to reach those people. Our focus should be on the masses who accept that media bias exists but who still allow themselves to be indoctrinated by it.

This is where fighting “smarter” comes into play. Most have seen examples of or even participated in the insult wars against people who share biased news. I’ve done it many times in the past, often referring to the “sheep” who hang on every declaration on The View or who share Paul Krugman links every time he writes a condemnation of conservative principles. We have to stop. The ball is in our court. We have the opportunity to start real political discourse. It won’t be easy. The passions on the left are heavy and have been stung repeatedly since November. We need patience and intelligence. We need to take the high road.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aggressive with our strategies. One of the easiest arguments to make is calling out hypocrisy. It’s hard to deny when presented the right way, particularly in the current situation. It’s hypocritical of everyone on the left who fought for a smooth transition of power and acceptance of election results until it was their side calling the election results into question. You can’t tell us we need to accept the results if Hillary Clinton won, then decline to accept the results because she lost. This is just one example of the hypocrisy.

As I’ve noted in the past, both the media and liberal politicians are going to go after Trump’s biggest weakness: his thin skin. They know that he’ll respond to attacks, so that’s exactly what they’re going to do. However, it’s in the way they’re going to spin it that the damage can be done. They will attack, then wait for the counter-attack and report mostly on the latter. Today, we see it in the “feud” between Trump and Congressman John Lewis. The Congressman drew first blood by calling the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency into question, for which he was rewarded by the press as being brave and righteous. When Trump attacked back, the media unleashed the hounds to highlight Trump as being racist (Lewis is black), misinformed (Trump called out Lewis as all talk, no action, despite his very real actions during the civil rights movement), and a bully (okay, that one’s accurate).

Trump Tweeted insults at a man who attacked him. How is that bigger news than a respected American politician calling into question the legitimacy of a Presidency based upon an intelligence briefing that admits the actual effects of Russia’s attempts are unclear? Are we supposed to unify behind Barack Obama but revolt against Trump? That’s essentially what Lewis is calling for, but you’d never know that based upon media coverage.

As noted on TNA, conservatives must go on the offensive against the bias:

What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.

This is why we must fight harder. Despite the election results, we are losing this battle. The left is regrouping. The attacks from the media are incessant and increasing in ferocity. It’s up to conservatives to not only highlight when the media reveals their leftist agenda, but to also offer alternatives to those narratives. We have the truth on our side. It’s time for us to make others see it for what it is.

Several stories posted on conservative websites this morning exposed what most conservatives already know: the media will instantly scream at the top of their lungs when hate crimes are perpetrated by “the right” but hold out against hope when they’re perpetrated against “the right.” That’s how it’s perceived, at least, and for the most part it’s true. However, this is a deeper, more sinister problem that deserves a response.

We all know what would happen in a reverse scenario. Had four white people kidnapped and beaten a special needs minority while chanting racial hate and insulting a Democrat, there would be riots. Buildings would be torched, people would get shot, and general havoc would ensue across the nation. The mainstream media would be stumbling over themselves like ravenous wolves to condemn the “atmosphere of bigotry” perpetuated by President-elect Donald Trump.

Instead, we have stories buried as if this wasn’t a big deal. The left is forcing themselves to yawn at this one because to give it attention would mean acknowledging that their narrative just experienced a setback. The vast majority of mainstream media publications are doing their obligatory mention, then moving on and telling the people, “Oh, look at what Trump Tweeted about Toyota!”

As I said, this is much more sinister than we can possibly realize. It’s worse than the fake news epidemic. It’s worse than the media’s obsession with being part of the story. In fact, it’s worse than state-run media. Some say that the media is the Democrats’ Pravda. Technically, that’s not true. The media has become the mouthpiece of the liberal ideology itself. This is much more dangerous than being controlled by the government or a political party because it empowers them to spread their narrative and promote their agenda without the majority of Americans even realizing it.

Let that sink in.

The media knows that if they all say something, it would be considered true. If they all bury a story, it has a chance of going away. To prevent this, two things must happen. First, the outcry from the right must be loud and persistent. In the case of the Chicago hate crime, we did just that. The facts surrounding the story combined with the incessant discussions on social media and conservative publications made the mainstream media push the story back to the top after initially burying it. They’re not at the point that they can dictate what the people want reported. Not yet.

The second thing that can bury a story is another story of substance popping up. It doesn’t have to be bigger, necessarily, but if it’s big enough and new, the media will have a “valid” excuse to bury the bigger story that goes against their narrative. We’ve seen this very recently. The U.N. resolution and subsequent condemnation by John Kerry against Israel had a day in the spotlight before Barack Obama changed the conversation by sanctioning Russia. Like clockwork, mainstream media turned their attention (and America’s attention as a result) away from his heinous acts to focus us on something else. The Russian sanctions will amount to literally nothing while the actions against Israel will affect America and the Middle East for a long time. Thanks to the media’s coverage, many will never know this until it’s too late.

This is a sickness that’s spreading through the media. Liberalism and agenda-building are becoming the primary business of newsrooms across the country.

We’ve seen this progressive ideological sickness in a more advanced form in universities. The media is a step or two behind them, but they’re bridging the gap. In education, it’s advanced beyond the intellectual shift we saw in the 60s and 70s. It’s progressed past the blatant bias we saw up to the turn of the century. In recent years, it’s hit its final manifestation as an accepted concept. Americans no longer have an illusion that their children will be fed anything but a steady diet of liberalism by their professors. The same thing is now happening in the media.

As conservatives, we allowed it to happen in education because we were too busy doing things to notice. They say that the best conservative minds in an industry build companies while the best liberal minds in an industry become professors. That’s how we got to the point we’re at today. It’s imperative that we do not allow the same thing to happen in the media. They’re pushing forward towards public acceptance of their bias. We must draw the line here and start pushing back.

I often write that conservative publications must take the high road. The only thing that upsets me more from a journalistic perspective than liberal media’s growth is when “conservative” media outlets play games. The standards at so many of the most popular conservative websites are low. They use click-bait headlines and skew facts in a way that makes us look just as bad as liberals. This is why I spend so much time writing every day for multiple publications. We have to take the high road. We have to be the counterbalance rather than simply the biased foil against mainstream media’s agenda.

What happened in Chicago needs to be called out for what it is. The media needs to be called out for burying the story. As conservatives, we have to balance our desires to spread the right word with the necessity of keeping the truth on our side. When we play their games, we’re giving fodder to those who want to paint us as “the right,” a label that they’re quickly positioning as being a bad thing.

Media outlets across the country have been buzzing about “fake news” being a problem ever since the Democrats’ plethora of losses on election day. This problem didn’t pop up because of the election. It was rampant well before the first batch of candidates announced they were running in early 2015. In fact, it’s been around since the early days of the internet. The fact that it has such a prominent spotlight on it today is a bitter response by the left to point a finger at anyone other than Hillary Clinton and Democratic leaders.

That’s not to say that the problem isn’t real. As someone who reads every headline from over a hundred sources every day for my conservative news aggregator, I can verify that fake news has been an actual problem for a long time. It comes in different forms, the most prominent being the spinning of minor news into apocalyptic click-bait headline writing by sources desperate for advertising dollars, but the core problem is universal: the only way for smaller publishers to compete with bigger ones is to be very aggressive with their bullhorns and quite loose with the truth.

The biggest problem is that it works. Medium-sized sites like Salon and Conservative Tribune are building little empires from it. Bigger outlets like Buzzfeed and Breitbart are getting rich from it. While I’m personally not crazy about the technique, it’s effective and as a small-government Federalist I will defend their right to present their version of the news any way they wish. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem.

Our society has been conditioned to search for solutions whenever there’s a problem to be solved. That’s natural, but for whatever reason most have missed the obvious one. It shouldn’t require sites like Facebook or Google to censor news from this site or that one, though as private businesses it’s their prerogative to do so if they wish. There’s no need for people to publish blacklists to help “victims” avoid the embarrassment of sharing stories that aren’t completely true. It definitely doesn’t require the government to step in and decide what to consider fake news and what to consider real. That’s a form of censorship that would take us all down a very dark road.

The solution is simple. Just like we should let the business world work out its problems through free market capitalism, we should allow the media to work out its own problems with free speech journalism. Let the media police the media. Let the people make decisions based upon trust and research. Just as someone can choose whether or not to buy at Walmart or Target, they can also choose whether they want to read their news on the New York Times or Infowars.

Sites like Newsbusters and Media Matters work the “truth beat” for their respective ideologies. Newsbusters points out the flaws of mainstream media and leftist media propaganda. Media Matters highlights every conservative perspective and tries to spin it as evil. That’s free speech journalism. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Instead of trying to find solutions to the fake news problem, the media needs to police itself and the people need to be discerning. Just as “caveat emptor” has been a call of prudence for consumers, perhaps “inspectoris discernerem” should be the rallying cry for news consumers to be more careful with what they read and share.

Young journalists covering the Democrat convention listened to a point of view they are unlikely to hear this week in Philadelphia—a conservative one.

As a journalism professor at Temple University, I was invited to speak to a group of 25 students at the School District of Philadelphia, spending about two hours answering questions and talking about the upcoming presidential race.

We calmly discussed many issues, including race relations, immigration and Donald Trump.

You realize that almost no one agreed with you, one student told me later, adding that a teacher did describe the meeting as a turning point in the students’ journalistic training. Of course, I replied, that’s because you’ve almost never heard a conservative point of view.

Harper meets with Philadelphia students reporting on the convention.
Philadelphia students meet a conservative.

These students are among the best and the brightest from Philadelphia’s troubled schools. But their beliefs seem mired in years of leftist education and peer pressure.

One student stated matter-of-factly that Trayvon Martin was murdered. He was killed, I responded, and a jury found George Zimmerman innocent of murder. Accuracy is critical in journalism, I added.

One asked this question: Why can’t everyone come to the United States like we can go to other countries? We can visit, but we can’t live in China, Europe or much of the world, I replied, because Americans, like U.S. immigrants, need residence visas.

Another posed this question: Isn’t it possible Donald Trump would declare martial law? If he did, many conservatives would exercise their rights under the Second Amendment, I said.

I’m not sure I convinced many of them to come around to a conservative viewpoint, but one of the newly minted reporters asked me for an interview after the session. One step at a time, I thought.

Longtime journalist Christopher Harper teaches media law.
Longtime journalist Christopher Harper teaches media law and writes at www.mediamashup.org

A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed Christopher Harper’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Christopher Harper’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Chris’ post is the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

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


Choose a Subscription level



One of the advantages of years and my grey beard is the assumption of wisdom by others. In reality an old person can be just as foolish as a young one however age brings a degree of wisdom that comes from the basic experience of life.

Take interviews I have my own style and it’s perhaps not suited to others but it has served me in good stead. Every CPAC I conduct at least 100 interviews usually 4-5 minutes long or less as you can see from the uploads on my YouTube account, so while I don’t have the years of experience of some I have a volume of experience

Therefore for those who might be curious let me give you some interview do’s and don’t.

Do Know your subject: An interview is different when dealing with an elected official, vs a candidate, vs an organization, vs a member of the general public understand how they deal with people and interview accordingly.

DO Have a clear idea of what you want to talk about: If you have a clear idea of where you want to go your questions will be crisper are more likely to produce an answer.

Do consider time and place: Remember that the subject of an interview is going to be in a different condition at the start of a day, after a full meal or after some exciting event than at the end of the day after a lot of work, plan accordingly and ask accordingly.

Do be considerate: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, if you are considerate with a subject even if it one you disagree with you will not only get a follow-up interview but that subject colleagues will be told that you are “tough but fair”.

Do Remember even your worst political enemy is a person. The Golden rule always applies.

Do understand the goal of an interview: If you go into an interview with a known goal you are more likely to achieve it.

Do Thank the person or their staff for their time: This is particularly important with a sitting pol or a person who stands to gain nothing from your interview. Plus it’s basic courtesy.

and with the Do’s in life there are also some don’t that come to mind, here are a few.

Don’t get full of yourself. A person overconfident at an interview tends to do a sloppy interview.

Don’t get distracted. On occasion an answer will surprise you and try to take you in another direction, if the answer isn’t newsworthy don’t let it take you off your course..

Don’t forget your customers: Your customers are the viewers of the interview (and or the person who paid you to do it) If you forget who you work for you might not work for long.

Don’t be unaware of the costs: An ambush interview can be fun and might generate laughs and pats on the back from friends but unless you are an A-List interviewer it will likely it will likely be the last interview you will get from that subject or the people they work with and their friends.

Don’t fake knowledge you don’t have: People will see right though that.

Don’t be overwhelmed by a mistake: You are human, on occasion you are going to make mistakes, learn from them but don’t let a mistake overwhelm you. Otherwise you will have made two mistakes

Somebody in the GOP was giving opposition research to Fox news on Ted Cruz and Mike Lee is looking for answers:

“I would be very curious. I would love to know who those names are,” Lee said Monday on Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “I found that very disturbing. I found that very surprising.”

A lot of people would agree and the first step to find the answer is to question the relevant people.

The problem is the media has no interest in finding that answer (after all they approve of GOP backstabbing) but what if nobody is asking the questions.

Well now there is an incentive to do so. There is a new site up called BountryQ that incentives reporters and bloggers to ask tough questions such as the following to Hillary Clinton on Benghazi:

Hillary Clinton: Expires in 82d 10h 40m 23s
At precisely what point did you know that you were going to run with the lie about the #CrappyYouTubeGuy causing the massacre at Benghazi?

Here is how it works according to their FAQ.

How does the Bounty Q system work?

Questions to people are submitted with a minimum bounty ($5) by registered users.

Once approved, the race is on! Recruit others to add to the bounty until a journalist somewhere finally asks the question, and gets an answer.

Once answered on video according to our guidelines, the journalist who asked the BountyQ receives half the bounty and the user who first posted the question receives the other (less appx. 10% BountyQ fees).

The question is considered answered when the target of the question is asked ON VIDEO with clear picture and audio. Even if the question is ducked as long as the person hears the question the bounty is paid.

In the long run this has the potential to make elections interesting incentivizing people to ask the tough questions the MSM ducks but there is something more intriguing here right now.

There are over 250 republicans in congress and there is an incentive for both opponents of Ted Cruz to leak that info and even some supporters, after all potential rivals in 2016 might agree with his approach but not want him to do all that well.

I can’t think of a better use of this site than to reward reporters in both the new and old media to ask GOP members the key question: Did you or your staff give that opposition research to Fox News Sunday?

In fact the ball is apparently already rolling:

Boehner

I think that is an excellent question for the speaker not to mention several others in the GOP. I think an answer would be most profitable both figuratively and perhaps literally if people decided it is worth investing in such an answer.

Perhaps this site is exactly what Senator Lee is looking for

One of the pet peeves of my friend Robert Stacy McCain is sloppy journalism.

Having been a reporter for decades long before anyone knew what a blog was he knows how journalism is done, and has done it on the local and national level.

Now this month he has taken on two different journalists that are normally not on his radar. Ginger Gorman of the Australian Broadcasting Company and Monica Hesse of the Washington Post.  I find these two critiques interesting.  Let’s compare the two.  Let’s start with Ms. Gorman

Stacy McCain told us about Ms. Gorman’s piece concerning two men named Mark & Peter 3 years ago Sunday for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation called

Why two dads are better than one Becoming parents was hard work for gay couple … but they’d do it all over again if they had to

You might note the link above doesn’t go to that site, why? Well they took it down when the reason this couple would do it all again was published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation’’. The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network. …

When Stacy McCain became aware of the stories he had some tough questions: emphasis mine

By the time they were featured in that 2010 article by Ginger Gorman of the Australian Broadcasting Company, Truong and Newton had been molesting that boy on video — and pimping out the boy to their friends in the “Boy Lovers Network” — for five years. The fact that these two men were key figures in an international sex-trafficking ring . . . when did the Australian Broadcasting Company learn this information? And how long did they hide from their viewers the fact that these child pornographers were the men Ginger Gorman celebrated in her 2010 feature?

and objected to the promotion of a meme:

Journalists today cannot report about homosexuality, they must only advocate, endorse, praise and celebrate homosexuality. This paradigm reduces reporters to the role of propagandists, whose job is to parrot the publicity of radical gay-rights activists.

So far has this disastrous trend gone, that it never even occurred to Ginger Gorham that there was anything . . . odd about Truong and Newton’s extraordinary efforts to secure custody of an infant boy whom, we now know, they trained to perform as a gay sex toy:

But while Stacy McCain quite rightly takes the Australian Broadcasting Company for not noting they were the couple in their previous piece (I object to them pulling it, they should have updated it instead) and notes Ginger Gorman in the pushing of a meme, didn’t question the motives of these men, there is one thing he does not and indeed CAN not critique her for.

He can’t blame her for knowing they were trouble at the time of the piece,

Indeed he quotes Ms. Gorman directly saying the following:

I felt no sense anything was wrong. For all intents and purposes this appeared to be a loving family and a loving household, and I’ve gone over and over about it in my brain and I did not feel anything was wrong. … I’m profoundly shocked and disgusted by what’s happened. Since then, I just am revolted and I find myself quite despairing about the turn of events.”

Ms. Gorman was likely sent there to do a puff piece on a adopted gay couple.  She had no reason to have any inkling that she was in the midst of a major international crime ring.

It would not surprise me if Ms Gorman goes over her visit over and over again in her mind asking herself if there is anything she could have seen, anything that she might have missed that could have given her a clue, that could have started her on a story that might have broken instead of abetting these men and their ring in their crimes.  It must be a hard thing for her and I do sympathize.

Why, because when it comes down to it her mistakes were of perception and ignorance,  the fact that she was visiting a house of horror presided over by two evil men was not in evidence and she had absolutely no way to know otherwise when she did the piece highlighting the young child and his parents.

Monica Hesse that’s a different story:

Let’s start with the current news, Tetyana Kimberlin and her current boyfriend went to court to seek protective orders from her estranged husband Brett Kimberlin

The estranged wife of progressive activist Brett Kimberlin says he has been “mentally abusive” to her, claiming in a Maryland court that Kimberlin has been “threatening” her and trying to get her fired from her job at a Montgomery County daycare center.

Tetyana Kimberlin, 32, sought a domestic protective order this week, saying her husband had “been going by my work and telling my employer I am going to be arrested,” and that Kimberlin, 59, “had me arrested before on false charges.”

Now certainly a dispute between exes doesn’t come anywhere near the relevance of an international pedophilia ring but there is a bit of a reason why this came might be a tad more newsworthy:

Brett Kimberlin was convicted in 1981 for a weeklong series of Indiana bombings and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison, but served only 17 years.

Hmmm weeklong series of bombing?  That being the case when a woman says something like this

“He told me if I will try to take my kids with me he will hurt me and I will see what will happen to me,” Kimberlin’s Russian-born wife wrote in her petition for a protection order, a case that was heard Tuesday in Silver Spring, Maryland. “He tells my 14-year-old about his plans about me and what he is going to do with me.”

A person just might take notice.  Interestingly enough these seem to be the same tactics used against bloggers by the Kimberlin crowd

But the subject of this piece is about Monica Hesse not Brett Kinberlin and his alleged threats on his ex-wife (although Stacy has a different post on this subject) this is about Monica Hesse’s 2007 piece on Brett Kimberlin and his daughter in the post.  and Stacy McCain’s critique of her.

Let’s compare Ms. Hesse’s situation to Ginger Gorman:

Like Ginger Gorman, Monica Hesse was assigned a feel good story about a child, in this case Kelsie Kimberlin,

Bethesda’s Kelsie Kimberlin, 8, got the nod. The judges of Lego’s first annual Creativity Awards got more than they bargained for.

Like Ginger Gorman some of the newsworthiness of  Monica Hesse’s story comes from pushing a major liberal media meme of the time, namely “Bush Bad War Bad”:

So, a synopsis: “Happy Springtime (Bush Is Over)” is more than five minutes of John ‘n’ Yoko footage, of birds fluttering past a billboard reading “Imagine Peace” and of beautiful children singing, cherubically, “Buuush is ooover!” which, incidentally, is also what their T-shirts say. “Bush Is Over. If You Want It.”

and the promotion of a meme that liberalism loves is always king

there is even a tiny Russian connection in both stories, the child Ginger Gorman reported on was adopted from Russia and Monica’s mother Tetyana is from Russia although that fact about Kelsie’s mother is not a part of the piece.

Finally like Ginger Gorman. Monica Hesse has many positive things to say about this child’s dad, like this:

 The credit for “Springtime” goes to Kelsie’s dad, musician-activist Brett Kimberlin.

and this:

“Springtime” is not the Kimberlins’ only father-daughter collaboration. Brett also enlisted the Harmonic Angels to sing in an antiwar reworking of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall.” (Kelsie and the Angels do not appear in “Exile,” a music video in which Brett underwent waterboarding as an “it’s definitely torture” argument.)

“All of the kids in the choir are very liberal,” says Brett Kimberlin. “They wouldn’t do this if they weren’t in the cause.”

and even when she mentioned that Brett Kimberlin was convicted of a bombing that crippled a Vietnam vet, she spins it

His Quayle revelation came from the clink, where he was serving time for a series of Indiana bombings, one of which wounded a Vietnam veteran. Kimberlin always contended he wasn’t guilty of the bombings and would have been paroled earlier, except for the government machine trying to keep him quiet about Quayle, who said he never had met the man. Championed by “Doonesbury’s” Garry Trudeau and the New Yorker’s Mark Singer, who wrote a 22,000-word article on him, Kimberlin was released in 1993

Well YEAH he was convicted of some bombing but he says he’s innocent and look Doonsbury’s creator likes him so that’s OK

Seriously Monica, SERIOUSLY?

Unlike Ginger Gorman who could have googled Mark Newton & Peter Truong till the cows came home without result,  who, if she did a Lexis/Nexis search on Newton & Truong would have come up empty, if however Monica Hesse did the same search on Brett Kimberlin she have seen this from the Indianapolis Star?

“When Mrs. Scyphers went outside to the garage to show him the items, he slipped a .25-caliber pistol from his black briefcase and shot her once in the back of her head. . . .
“Speedway police were puzzled by the murder. ‘She had no enemies,’ they said.
“But she did. Investigators learned her daughter, Sandra Barton, was a close — very close — friend of Brett C. Kimberlin. The relationship between the pair was complicated by his strange affection for Mrs. Barton’s pre-teen daughter, Debbie.”

or this:

“Kimberlin seemed to be the only one with a possible motive — to distract police attention from the Scyphers murder and delay or halt their quiet investigation of him.”

And maybe she might have dug a little deeper inMark Singer book on Kimberlin

‘We’d see a girl, who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this smile and say, “Hey, what do you think? Isn’t she great?” It made me very uncomfortable.’ Another recalled Kimberlin introducing Jessica as ‘my girlfriend,’ and if irony was intended, it was too subtle to register.

or perhaps the reviews of it:

 Reviewers of Singer’s book describe Kimberlin as “a top-flight con man” (Publisher’s Weekly), “a fairly typical hustler” (Library Journal) and “a man whose idea of the truth is utterly malleable . . . a dangerous smooth talker” (Kirkus Reviews).

Maybe she might have found this article that Stacy McCain did at the city paper

Not all the songs on his album … have political overtones … others, like “Waiting to Meet” and “Teen Dream” (both about having sex with teenage girls) are lacking in subtlety and tend to make one squirm. But this is exactly what Kimberlin wants.
“I say things a lot of people are afraid to say. Yeah, ‘Teen Dream’ is about f–king a teenage girl. Every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it. I’m talking about that lecherous quality that every man, though he won’t act on it, has.”

Stacy McCain Bottom lines it:

Brett Kimberlin was a 41-year-old convict on parole when he recorded those songs “about having sex with teenage girls.” But  Washington Post staff writer Monica Hesse evidently could not be bothered to read that, just like she apparently never read the Indianapolis Star account of Kimberlin’s crimes  or Mark Singer’s book about “a man whose idea of the truth is utterly malleable” or that 1999 Slate article that called Kimberlin an “all-around sociopath.”

And remember all of this doesn’t even include the stuff from the last few years that Stacy calls the Kimberlin files

Maybe it’s just me but considering that feature from the past wouldn’t the current stuff involving Kimberlin, his ex-wife, and what he did or did not say to his daughter be I don’t know, Newsworthy?

 Progressive Activist Brett Kimberlin‘Abusive … Threatening,’ Wife Claims

That headline today is not from the Washington Post, although these shocking claims against a famous activist were made in a Maryland court in the Montgomery County suburbs of our nation’s capital. Any reporter can click here to read the relevant document.   Two or three phone calls, an hour or two of background research — a 500-word story for the Metro section would be an easy day’s work. And yet Brett Kimberlin is now apparently so insignificant and obscure that this case doesn’t even merit a 150-word item in the briefs column.

But that shouldn’t be a surprise, if Brett Kimberlin’s past was not relevant to Ms. Hesse and the Washington Post in 2007 I can’t see why his present would be relevant to them in 2013.

Stacy McCain is a veteran reporter.  He likes to see journalism done right.  He has critiqued both Ginger Gorman and Monica Hesse’s reporting on those standards, but this piece, my piece, is titled:  Ginger Gorman, Mark Newton & Peter Truong vs Monica Hesse & Brett Kimberlin is about comparing the two.

I think there is no comparison.

Why, because I’d bet real money that if Ginger Gorman had done a cursory search of Newton & Truong and saw that kind of stuff, that Monica Hesse could have found on Kimberlin,  alarm bells would have been going off in her head and I get the feeling she might have said to her boss at the ABC:  Maybe we don’t want to use these guys for this piece on Gay Adoption. 

Hesse not only didn’t use the available info on Kimberlin’s past, she had alternatives available.

Could Hess have done a piece of the same length without talking Brett Kimberlin perhaps focusing more on the YouTube angle or on the contests to fill up that piece?  Yes, but she did not.

Could Hesse have done a small piece on young Kelsie Kimberlin’s contest win without the hagiography of her father?  Yes, but she did not.

Could Ms Hesse have done a smaller story to celebrate Kelsie’s accomplishment without spoiling her rightfully proud moment with events that she had absolutely no responsibility for?  Yes, but she did not.

Could Ms. Hesse’s had done a follow-up piece noting not only Mr. Kimberlin’s past but that his foundation just the year before,   had been given grants from such liberal giants as the Tides Foundation , the Heinz Family Foundation and the Barbara Streisand Foundation and others to the tune of over $150,000 dollarsYes, but she did not.

Ms Hesse did not, Ms Gorman could not and that makes all the difference.

 

 

 

 

KIRK: You have to learn why things work on a starship.

Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan 1982

Batman: My mistake was to try to Match is Savagery. To fight like a Young man.

Batman the Dark Night #2 1986

Hot wife in a bikini? #Winning!

Robert Stacy McCain Sept 14th 2012

The AP reports that the Journal News has decided to take down its interactive map of gun owners or rather disable it:

The maps remained online late Friday but could no longer be manipulated to find names and addresses.

The story suggests the reason for the change is the new gun law in. I say BALDERDASH!

When the Journal News published its online map of gun owners and where they live, it produced a firestorm of critique.

Pixels poured out like water. Television and Radio pushed the outrage and the defense of the paper, James O’Keefe skewered them via Project Veritas, threats poured in to the point where the anti-gun paper in a twist of Irony hired armed guards to protect folks on their staff and it became the target of the Blaze and the subject of multiple Drudge stories.

This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

Obviously the interactive map was a web feature alone. It likely took a fair amount of time and effort to put together and such effort is done on an online site for a reason. The reason is to generate hits, and as the AP article notes:

She said the maps had been viewed nearly 1.2 million times since they were published Dec. 23.

Mission Accomplished!

And not those 1.2 million hits were in under 30 days and that number doesn’t include side hits to other stories on the site generated through those views. Bloggers like myself dream of traffic at that level.

The value of an online site and the price of its advertising is directly related to the number of hits the site gets.  The Journal news may claim this map was all about journalistic discretion and advancing the story and discussion, but when it comes down to it, that map was no different than the first two paragraphs of this post from The Other McCain last year:

Traffic to the blog has gotten a slight and unexpected boost the past couple of days because the entire world, it seems, is Googling for nude photos of Kate Middleton or rather topless photos of Kate Middleton. Don’t bother clicking those links, as they are merely a round-trip ticket back to this post, part of Ye Merry Olde Google Bomb Trick.

Donald Douglas has a post cleverly titled “Kate Middleton Topless” and our friendly Evil Blogger Lady offers ”Kate Middleton topless photos? French magazine Closer publishes them. Rule 5 Britannia! Update: Reports of outraged Brits storming French embassy in protest!

As Robert Stacy constantly reminds us,  he writes for money.  The Journal News does the same. That map was a google bomb directed at 2nd Amendment advocates nationwide, a red cloth in front of a bull to make it charge. The Map fuels outrage among gun advocates,  outrage fuels interest, interest creates searches, searches mean clicks, clicks mean traffic, and traffic dictates what the Journal News can charge for the ads that generate the revenue.

That being the case, the map as a successful revenue generator, why take it down? Why are we seeing posts like this:

Glenn Reynolds 9:50 PM January 18th EVEN A FLATWORM IS SMART ENOUGH TO TURN AWAY FROM PAIN: NY newspaper removes handgun permit holder data. Punching the bully in the nose works.

It’s not punching in the nose? You already had armed guards at homes and outraged people who own deadly weapons and that didn’t get the interactive map down. (BTW Guards not withstanding, the willingness to outrage those armed people tell you all you need to know about how much they actually think those people were going to come to seek revenge)

Nearly a month of outrage and debate didn’t pull down the map, if the interactive map going away is the effect, what was the cause?

The answer is a simple cost benefit analysis thus:

Glenn Reynolds 11:31 PM January 17th  I SMELL A LAWSUIT: Burglars steal two guns from home featured on weapons permit map published by newspaper, just days after break-in at another address on the list.

Lawsuits cost money. All the outrage, anger or potential danger for law-abiding citizens in the world was going to move the Journal News. The potential of a lawsuit turning a source of profit into a loss, now That’s punching back twice as hard.

So the interactive map is gone having served it’s purpose, but the raw map will remain, still able to generate hits for years to come and the Journal News will slowly sink back into the level of obscurity it had before…

…until they find another red cloth to wave in front of an internet bull.