► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘John Nolte’

The disappearing anti-war liberals

by Mojambo ( 242 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Hipsters, Political Correctness, Progressives, Syria at September 8th, 2013 - 6:59 pm

Of course Obama gets a pass based on his race.

by John Nolte

If you are wondering where anti-war Hollywood has been as Obama proves he’s not Bush, but only by rushing into a Middle East war with no international coalition and United Nations backing, Ed Asner has the explanation: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” Asner explained to the Hollywood Reporter.

Apparently, like many of us,  the Hollywood Reporter’s Paul Bond was curious about the screaming silence we are hearing from the Hollywood left as our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president pushes America towards a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Syria. Absolutely no one in the Hollywood community has, as of yet, taken it to the streets to speak truth to power. Nothing from Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, or even Janeane Garofalo.

Could it be that rather than being anti-war they are just anti-Bush?

Well, according to Hollywood leftist Ed Asner, there are all kinds of excuses for this screaming silence, but among them is this: no one wants to be seen as anti-black should they criticize America’s first black president:

[……..]

“It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized,” Asner said. “This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.”

Also, said Asner, unsuccessful efforts to prevent war in Iraq led to complacency among left-wing activists.

“We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?” asks Asner. “We’ve been so God-damned stung in this country by false wars, repeatedly, that, how can you believe in any just war with the history we have had?”

Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.

Other  than the fear of being branded a racist, none of Asner’s excuses make a lick of sense. This is not the either/or dilemma he pretends it is. Hollywood does not have the choice of either mobilizing and organizing “millions” or staying silent.

As they have proven time and again, celebrities need not mobilize or organize an entire community to spout off an opinion. Through social media or any number of willing media outlets, if any one of those listed above had the moral courage to speak out against Obama’s unilateral rush to war, they could — and loudly.

Read the rest – Ed Asner: Hollywood not criticizing Obama on Syria because he is’black’.

Bob Woodward v. Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Ditch”

by Mojambo ( 209 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism, Media, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at March 15th, 2013 - 7:00 am

It is hard for me to believe that 10 years ago my first two reads when I turned my computer on in the morning when I got to the office was Charles Johnson’s “Little Green Footballs” and Andrew Sullivan’s “The Daily Dish” (now referred to by many on the Right as “The Daily Ditch”). This article just shows you how the political Left will turn on their own when their “own” shows some intellectual and professional integrity. (Although to be fair I never thought of Bob Woodward as being on the hard Left.) Tina Brown not firing Andrew Sullivan from The Daily Beast because of all those vicious smears about Trig Palin’s parentage shows us as Mr. Nolte points out that as long as you target the “right” people, any smears no matter how  vicious and preposterous will be tolerated.

hat tip – Powerline

by John Nolte

A couple weeks ago, the last living legend in journalism, Bob Woodward — the man who took down a corrupt president and for the last forty years has remained at the top of his profession — made the biggest mistake of his career.

Woodward was caught red-handed using his own exhaustive reporting to expose President Obama as a liar for trying to tie ownership of sequester to the tail of congressional Republicans.  Afterwards, based on his own opinion, Woodward was then busted for saying he was uncomfortable with a top White House official telling him he would “regret” reporting that Obama had moved the negotiating goal posts with respect to sequester tax increases.

Unlike so many others in his profession, Woodward wasn’t caught lying or manufacturing facts. [……] His sin was only daring to step off the Narrative Plantation at the expense of President Obama. And for that sin, the recriminations from his so-called colleagues came fast and furious.

In other words, the media-collective was all geared up to deliver Obama a major sequester victory before Woodward came along and rained a bunch of facts down on their parade. And now, as payback, they are raining hell down on him with derision and ridicule that has lasted straight through to today. Throughout the Web, Woodward is now getting hammered via Slate (an outlet owned by his employer, The Washington Post) over his reporting in “Wired,” a 1984 biography of the late John Belushi.

What’s notable is that all of this is occurring in a media environment in whicg Eliot Spitzer is given two primetime cable news shows, Al Sharpton is an NBC News star, Dave Weigel has his own Slate blog, Ezra Klein’s (of journoList fame) and Ben Smith’s stars are ever on the rise, Dan Rather is treated as an elder statesman, Brian Ross remains an ABC big shot, and the Internet’s number-one smear-merchant, Andrew Sullivan, is treated like the media’s favorite uncle.

For those of you who don’t know, Sullivan spent years manufacturing a vicious conspiracy around the parentage of Trig Palin, Governor Sarah Palin’s youngest son. Currently, Sullivan is spreading smears about Pope Benedict and the Catholic Cardinals. [……..] And yet, the media not only helps to aggregate these partisan smear campaigns; they treat Sullivan with respect and deference.

Earlier this year, after Sullivan was dumped by the Daily Beast, everyone from the New York Times to Politico to NPR came to his rescue with the affection and attention needed to ensure his new venture would be a success. All this for a man who launched a nasty “birther” style conspiracy against a Down Syndrome child and his mother.

Can you imagine the same media doing anything close to the same for someone who put a tenth as much effort into questioning Obama’s birthplace or the parentage of one of Obama’s daughters?

It’s a revealing and very troubling fact that, even though Sullivan’s unfounded rumor-mongering and character assassination passes nothing close to a journalistic standard and goes a long way towards defining his online identity, the media still embrace him. [……..] Because Sullivan is savvy enough to engage in the “correct” kind of unfounded rumor-mongering and character assassination.

You see, although Andrew Sullivan violates every rule of ethical journalism, the media still love and promote him, because he targets the “right” people. That was true with Palin and it’s true today.

Since going independent, Sullivan’s latest unfounded smear campaign is aimed directly at the Catholic Church.  Without any evidence, he has accused the Holy Father of having a secret homosexual relationship. Later, Sullivan upped the ante by claiming “many” of the Catholic Cardinals are gay.

Other than a few media tsk-tsks, though, over the years, Sullivan has paid zero price for any of this behavior. In fact, these deliberate smear campaigns have likely helped to up his media profile and endear him to a left-wing media that secretly loves this behavior. [……..]

But who is having his career relentlessly undermined right now? Bob Woodward, for doing nothing more than reporting the truth and his opinion.

So, as you can see, the message from the media is abundantly clear: You can hurl all the unfounded claims and filth at the right without ever having to fear any kind of recrimination from your “journalist” peers. But should you report a truth about Barack Obama that derails his political goals, your peers will relentlessly destroy you and your legacy — even if it means going all the way back to 1984.

Read the rest – How Woodward’s truths and Sullivan’s smears expose our corrupt media

The Daily Beast dumps Andrew “Trig truther” Sullivan

by Mojambo ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Media at January 15th, 2013 - 2:30 pm

Andrew Sullivan (obsessed by Sarah Palin’s uterus while becoming a rabid anti-Semite)  is so demented that I would not even think that the Stalinist rag “The Nation” would touch him. In his descent into madness he has mirrored a certain heavy set, double chinned, unemployed jazz guitarist who has dabbled in blogging with varying degrees of success.

by John Nolte

According to a credible source with inside knowledge of the matter, the actual  reason Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Beast are parting ways at the end of this month has nothing to do with some high-falutin’ “duty to try and see if we could help break some new ground” and “pioneer” a “solid future for web journalism.” According to this source, who spoke exclusively with Breitbart News, the powers that be at the Daily Beast decided the traffic Sullivan’s Daily Dish delivered just wasn’t worth the price of holding on to him for another year.

In other words, the Daily Beast did not renew Andrew Sullivan’s contract, and he was let go.

Though Sullivan never came out and said directly that it was his choice to leave the Beast, the carefully worded  January 2 post announcing the move most certainly left the impression that the reason for the separation didn’t involve him being dumped. Rather, that this was all about Sullivan and his editorial staff making a scary/brave decision to embark on a new adventure involving a completely independent, subscription-based blog:

And so, as we contemplated the end of our contract with the Beast at the end of 2012, we faced a decision. …

The only completely clear and transparent way to do this, we concluded, was to become totally independent of other media entities and rely entirely on you for our salaries, health insurance, and legal, technological and accounting expenses. …

So, as of February 1, we will revert to our old URL – www.andrewsullivan.com. All previous URLs will automatically redirect, so don’t worry about losing us. Until then, the Beast has generously agreed to keep us on so we can organize ourselves in time for the launch. In fact, Tina and Barry have been fully supportive of this decision once we made it, although we’re all sad to part ways.

The impression is so strong, that David Carr of The New York Times linked to the post Friday and wrote,  “On Wednesday, Andrew Sullivan, one of the pioneers of the blogging Web, decided to end his relationship with The Daily Beast[.]”

Except, according to our source, it wasn’t Sullivan’s decision.

[…….]

There’s no question Sullivan is a popular blogger. The question, though, is among whom and how many? Obviously, the elite media adores Sarah Palin’s Primary Womb Detective, as do enough people, apparently, to get Sully Telethon 2013 over the $300,000 mark in a little over 24 hours. But a look at some other data points might help to make sense of the Daily Beast’s decision to cut its losses.

For a blogger with a media profile as big as Sullivan’s, the fact that he has fewer than 75,000 Twitter followers is a bit surprising. By comparison, Ben Smith has over 125,000, Dave Weigel over 98,000, and Michelle Malkin (who Sullivan has named an unflattering award after) has more than the three of them combined.

Furthermore, a quick scan of the Daily Dish front page, which holds around 40 individual posts, reveals that (as of this writing Friday afternoon) only one post has received more than a hundred Facebooks “Likes,” and 24 have fewer than ten. [……..]

Another mystery our source may have cleared up is why Beast proprietor, Tina Brown, would allow Sullivan to stay on a full month after announcing a decision to leave. Allowing Sullivan a full month’s perch on her site to raise money for his own operation makes more sense in a situation where it was her decision to part ways, not his.

You can’t blame Sullivan for putting the best face possible on the situation. But he’s also someone who frequently writes about the special relationship he has with his readers.  [……]

Read the rest – Exclusive: Sullivan unceremoniously dumped by Daily Beast