Posts Tagged ‘media template’

Once upon a time nearly a decade ago in a New England State where Republicans never won national office and whose senior member of congress was considered the liberal Lion of the Senate even though he had run away and left a young lady to die (but nobody talked about that until years after his death because to do so might hurt Democrats) there was a state senator in a Republican district. He was a nice guy a soldier who had a beautiful wife and two lovely daughters. His seat was pretty secure and while he would have liked to have advanced further, the nature of the state made it unlikely he would ever be more than a state senator.

One day the Senator died and there was a special election to fill that seat and the Democrat managed to get into internal squabbles and nominated a candidate even worse than Hillary Clinton.  At the same time Democrats were trying to push through Obamacare and that Senate Seat turned out to be the 60th seat which would allow Democrats to break a filibuster and get any bill that the Democrats in the house and senate could agree on passed.

Well to everybody’s surprise thanks to the special election, the bad democrat nominee and the unpopularity of Obamacare the GOP candidate a state senator nobody had heard of by the name of Scott Brown won the special election and became a US Senator.

While he was a good US Senator and had time even for those who disagreed with him during his re-election campaign his consultant told him that the only way to win re-election, even though he was one of the most popular pols in the state was to run away from the activists who had showed up to vote for him. So he did so doing his best to compromise on issues dear to those tea party activists and when election day came he lost to a Harvard Senator who pretended to be an Indian.

After narrowly losing re-election and getting his pick for GOP chair rammed though the state convention he decided not to run in a 2nd special election made open by the new Senior Senator replacing Hillary Clinton in the Obama Cabinet even though his pick for state chair was picked specifically to help him win.

Instead he began considering running for Senate in New Hampshire.  He thought that his combination of being a “moderate” on social issues would be a good fit for election in the granite state but in addition to his positions on abortion that troubled many activists he took a soft line on Guns being open to gun control measures.

Gun rights activists in the state took notice and even before he announced his candidacy protested his appearances in the state and a blogger who covered the protester (who outnumbered those viewing the speech) in the freezing cold noted:

If you are drawing 300 people standing out in the cold on Dec 19th to protest Scott Brown how many are going to show up when the weather is warmer and they don’t have to stomp down the snow to make room for people to stand.

And that very year when a gun control measure came up for a vote in the state the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature voted against it and the blogger in question noted:

I’m confused:

Didn’t Democrats take the NH in an incredible landslide in 2012 winning over 110 seats from the majority republicans?

Didn’t everyone tell us the state was turning blue permanently and Senators like Kelly Ayotte were doomed unless they changed their tune on guns?

Didn’t Scott Brown himself come to NH and ignore a pro-gun rally of 300 people in the ice and snow emphasizing his support for gun restrictions.

I mean it’s one thing for Wendy Davis to flip on guns but Texas is about as far from NH as you can get, how do you get a totally lopsided victory for the pro 2A forces drawing over 60 democrats to their cause in a state in NE that we are told is turning blue.

The explanation will sound familiar to anyone who read the blog yesterday and saw the votes switch at the last minute.

A source in the state tells me NH Democrats wanted to pass this bill but with an election year that is looking poor they needed members of the house willing to bite the bullet & risk their seats.

And later on when covering Brown at the NLRC event notedNLRC event noted:

Nominating Brown takes the gun issue off the table that the GOP should be able to beat the Democrats over the head with and will put Kelly Ayotte who voted on the right side of the bill on the spot two years before her re-election campaign.

Well the NH party apparatus didn’t listen to those voter and that advice and nominated Scott Brown as their candidate in the US Senate and in a year where GOP senators won all across the country Scott Brown was the exception losing his election and ironically giving the Democrats the extra vote they needed to save Obamacare and Planned Parenthood funding during the early days of the Trump presidency and the former state senator from Massachusetts never held public office again.

Why am I telling the GOP this tale, because of this headline at Drudge:

REPUBLICANS COALESCE AROUND GUN CONTROL

Which links to a NYT story saying that the GOP is considering supporting new gun control laws:

Gun violence has been one of the most divisive and intractable issues in Washington, and even gun control advocates conceded that getting the House bill through the Senate would be a heavy lift. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Monday that he was reviving his background checks bill, which fell to a filibuster in 2013, and that he intended to press Mr. McConnell to bring it up if Republicans were convinced they had the votes.

“I think we need Manchin-Toomey,” Mr. Toomey said, referring to Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, his co-sponsor. “I think it’s overdue. This is a common-sense, very broadly supported measure that would fully respect the rights of law-abiding citizens, fully respect the Second Amendment.”

This has been the siren song of Democrats anxious to disarm their political foes for 40 years and every time the GOP members fall for this nonsense pushed by the left and the MSM it costs them elections, which is exactly why the left is so anxious for the GOP to go along with it.

I urge the GOP not to fall for this nonsense and leave them with this tweet…:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and this warning. If you manage to win a primary when you run on gun control don’t expect 2nd amendment voters to turn up for you in the general election.

Today at Hotair we see that CBS has provided proof that Donald Trump’s assertions about Baltimore

are in fact true

Charm City ended 2018 with a total of 309 murders, according to the Baltimore Police Department. So far in 2019, police report 196 homicides have occurred. Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s July 2018 population estimate for the city of 602,495, Baltimore’s 2018 murder rate is 51.3 murders per 100,000 residents.

The article ends with two simple words. CLAIM: TRUE.

The real significance of this piece is that it is NOT from CBS news, but from CBS Baltimore the local affiliate.

What does this mean, it means DaTechGuy’s 3rd law of Media outrage is at work.

The MSM’s elevation and continued classification of any story as Nationally Newsworthy rather than only of local interest is in direct correlation to said story’s current ability to affirm any current Democrat/Liberal/Media meme/talking point, particularly on the subject of race or sexuality.

Because of the confirmation of the White House assertion is diametrically opposed to the Democrat/Liberal/Media meme/talking points concerning the president they can not be safely reported on the national level.  They can however be safely reported on the local level by CBS Baltimore because the people in Baltimore already know how dangerous their city.

More importantly it allows them CBS to counter any claim they that they are hiding the fact by stating they in fact covered the story, they just did so without raising said coverage to national level, after all there are only so many minutes in a CBS news broadcast you know.

If I was the White House I’d have President Trump shout from the rooftops that CBS has confirmed their claims and if I was his campaign I’d have a bunch of blogs along with a bunch of people on twitter not only tweeting out CBS CONFIRMS WHITE HOUSE ASSERTION ON BALTIMORE, but I’d have a dedicated crew of bloggers searing the local CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS affiliates for stories like this that get burred on the local level.

But that’s just me.

Director Lee Daniels, Oprah Winfrey and Harvey Weinstein at The Los Angeles Premiere of ‘The Butler’ after party, on Monday, August 12, 2013 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Alexandra Wyman/Invision/AP Images.) (via PJ Media)

I’m remembering the coy saying about the French resistance. “If everyone who claimed to be in the resistance really had been, there would have been nobody left to collaborate.”

A few minutes ago I watched Oprah’s speech at the golden globes talking about empowering

women that has the left all a twitter (pun intended) about the possibility of an Oprah run for the presidency.

As nothing is impossible I won’t discount this completely but I want to remind all of you of something.

Oprah has been one of the most richest powerful women in the entertainment world for a very long time.  She is a person who can make or break a book or a film or a career.  All of Hollywood has paid homage to her for many many years.  The entire media complex hangs on her words, and as demonstrated this weekend when she talks about the plight of women, people listen.

And yet during all the years that Harvey Weinstein et/all were on the prowl she never bothered to speak out against him or give a platform for his victims to do so!

If anyone had the power to speak out and break this open it was Oprah.  Her power and influence was enough that Weinstein and the others would not be able to bring her down for talking, and if they had tried the public would have rallied behind her.  All she had to do was speak out and proclaim “Enough!”

She did not.

Oprah speech wasn’t brave, it wasn’t grand, it was designed to change the conversation away from a single basic fact that Glenn Reynolds put very well.

Remember, they’re not making a big deal because they found out what was going on in Hollywood. They always knew. They’re making a big deal because you found out what was going on in Hollywood. https://t.co/fV8YlV5gMk

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) January 8, 2018

These guys were a huge source of cash and power for the left, and to expose them and to protect those women would expose the Hollywood left for what they were.

If Oprah really cared about all these things she talked about in her speech at the golden globes as opposed to being a member of the Harvey Weinstein left, she would have given that speech last year, or the year before or the year before that.

She did not.

Never forget that.

Update: Rose McGowan get it

ROSE McGowan has lashed out at the stars who wore black to the Golden Globes, accusing them of “Hollywood fakery” for failing to take a stand against the sex abuse claims sooner.

The Charmed star claims the famous females who united against the scandal “wouldn’t have lifted a finger” to help if she hadn’t gone public with allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

Hollywood honors Hollywood while disgracing America

BTW, the ancient Greek word for actor is ὑποκριτής (hypokritēs).

Hogewash

I’ve been thinking of the long terms results of the Harvey Weinstein situation and the more I do so the more I conclude that it demonstrates Andrew Breitbart’s argument that politics is downstream from culture

The culture of Hollywood, actors or as they were once called “players” has historically been a libertine one in contrast to the prevailing judeo Christian culture. It existed in two extremes low brow entertainment for rowdy masses as portrayed in this clip from the hilarious picture the Great Race

or high brow entertainment for the elites as hilariously lampooned by the Marx Brothers.

Actors being a small clique were an insignificant influence on said culture and had little influence to change it. However in the 20th century with the advent of movies and entertainment both cheap enough to be affordable to the masses and a distribution method to reach millions (film and radio) theater in general and Hollywood in particular became not only A giant cash cow for those at the top but A huge source of employment for masses of ordinary and technical people involved in the maintenance, operation distribution of same.

That was big but the most significant change was the fact that it suddenly gave “players” exposure, wealth social status and power far beyond their normal utility, not only in terms of performance, but in terms of endorsements from companies wanting to use said celebrity to promote their products and causes.

There were times when this power was put to noble purposes by good people

However said wealth and power didn’t change the nature of players in general, it only empowered them beyond their actual utility to culture, 3rd Rock from the sun Alum Joseph Gordon Levett summed it up perfectly in this quote about Hollywood and actors fame being a bad thing for a culture:

“Actors didn’t use to be celebrities. A hundred years ago, they put the theaters next to the brothels. Actors were poor. Celebrities used to be kings and queens. Then the United States abolished monarchy, and now there’s this coming together of show business and celebrity. I don’t think it’s healthy. I don’t want to sound self-important, but all these celebrity shows and magazines–it comes from us, from Hollywood, from our country. We’re the ones creating it. And I think it works in close step with a lot of other bad things that are happening in the world. It promotes greed, it promotes being selfish and it promotes this ladder, where you’re a better person if you have more money. It’s not at all about the work itself. Don’t get me wrong. I love movies. But this myth of celebrity has nothing to do with movies.”

Thus you have a group of people whose primary ability is make believe and whose moral compass were diametrically opposed to the prevailing judeo christian morality suddenly calling the shots.

Now in the early days the studio system curtailed this power in the sense that it hid the worst of these influences from the public  This allowed the libertine nature and depravities of those who wanted to indulge them to only flourish in private with the occasional scandal (from Fatty Arbuckle to Errol Flynn) leaking out.  But once that system broke down the cat was out of the bag and said folks were free to use their influence to change the culture to openly live and celebrate what they did and to use film to advance the culture that they wished to celebrate and embrace:

Thus Hugh Hefner’s are celebrated and the concepts of marriage, family and morality were torn down and remade in the images of the “players” culture while the film becomes a weapon to be used against those who might push back to wit

Streep has since denounced Weinstein and protested that she was shocked, shocked, to find out that there was gambling going on in Casablanca. Streep’s protest struck me as curious in light of her lead role in the 2008 film Doubt, for which she earned an Oscar nomination. Streep’s character, a Catholic nun, is determined to prove that the priest in her parish is molesting a young boy. She encounters disapproval from the clergy, skepticism from her own fellow sisters, and opposition from the boy’s own mother. But she is indefatigable. It is perhaps the best film treatment of the complexity of sexual abuse. Somehow, after portraying day after day a character with a keen nose for impropriety on the set, Streep, like so many others, apparently could not detect the foul stench around Weinstein.

That’s from Fr. Raymond J De Sousa at the National Post noting the irony of Meryl Streep being one of many in Hollywood to use the Church’s Scandal to pummel it…

…all the while keeping their own mouths shut for the sake of their employment.

And it was not only the hollywood left that kept silence, journalist and media who gained wealth and influence by their association with Hollywood power brokers and shared their political views dived right in:

Addressing a controversy that has been percolating for the past several days in the media ecosystem since The New York Times published its own Weinstein exposé—including questions about whether NBC executives caved to the well-connected Weinstein and his formidable lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies—Maddow brought it to a boiling point by telling Farrow: “NBC says that the story wasn’t publishable, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”

Farrow fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

In fairness to NBC the New Yorker recognized that once the story was already out in the public

Given the confluence of money and celebrity it was natural that Hollywood would become a political influence and boy did it.

The New York Times ran its first exposé on the disgraced Hollywood mogul at the end of a $2.2 million run of personal and bundled political donations, which made Weinstein a very familiar and popular figure among Democrats. Weinstein backed Democrats with significant national profiles, who rushed to embrace his wealth and star power. He put his mark on the DNC with over $300,000 in donations over a quarter-century, hoping to shape the party’s leadership. Weinstein put a special emphasis on the Senate, providing over $193,000 in funds to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) benefited most, with over $36,000 in overall donations, but Weinstein also gave more than $25,000 each to the two current senators from New York: Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Weinstein paid even more special attention to the very top. He donated to both Bill and Hillary Clinton repeatedly during the Clinton presidency, helping to launch the first lady’s political career in her first run for office. 

That’s old friend Ed Morrissey noting the money that has gone to Democrats from Weinstein alone and more importantly where it has gone”

These facts are inescapable. Weinstein was a very real part of the political life of the two families most identified with Democratic Party leadership. The Clintons held social events and fundraisers with the Hollywood executive for years; one bash in June 2016 raised more than $1.8 million for her presidential run. The Obamas sent their daughter Malia to intern for Weinstein’s company last year.

Weinstein had indisputably ingratiated himself into the highest levels of Democratic power.

Or in other words during the period when the Democrat Party embraced the redefinition of marriage, gay culture, transgenderism, radical feminism and extreme libertine culture while rejecting traditional culture, God, the Church and traditional morality, they were being financed heavily by an industry known for its libertine culture in general and by an individual in particularly who used that political power and wealth to enable him to prey on the same women who they claimed to champion.

And the Journalist who have invested completely in said party are also feeling the heat 

“Journalistic integrity is dead,” he declared. “There is no such thing anymore. So everything is about weaponization of information.” Standing behind a mahogany podium in a baggy dark suit, Boyle preached with the confidence of a true believer. In a stuttering staccato, he condemned the nation’s preeminent news outlets as “corrupted institutions,” “built on a lie,” and a criminal “syndicate that needs to be dismantled.” Boyle and his compatriots were laboring to usher in an imminent—and glorious—journalistic apocalypse. “We envision a day when CNN is no longer in business. We envision a day when The New York Timescloses its doors. I think that day is possible.”

This is a defeat in the culture wars for the left on the scale of a Midway or a Stalingrad and worst of all for the left in general and the Democrat / MSM party in particular the Weinstein revelations are coming at the nadir of Democrat and media power and influence and the rise of a populist Donald Trump who is intimately familiar with how the Hollywood, celebrity culture works which is why at least some in the MSM see the coming apocalypse.

The only question left is this, will conservatives be wise enough to “Keep up the Skeer” and prevent them from recovering

Update: Weinstein isn’t going down without a fight and Allahpundit wins the internet today with a line that is both funny and kinda sad at the same time.

The most darkly funny part of this is Weinstein thinking he still has a career to return to. The idea that Hollywood would welcome back a man who’s been credibly accused of abject degeneracy seems … totally plausible, now that I think of it.

Boy do I miss the days of Jimmy Stewart

Update 2:  Sometimes I swear Donald Trump’s enemies are secretly working for him

Porn King Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine is offering $10 million for information leading to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump as president.

Because if I was the Democrat/Never Trump team trying to distance myself from Hollywood and guys going after women in the post Weinstein era is a porn king offering millions leading the anti Trump charge is not the image I want out there.

Seriously you can’t make this stuff up.

Update 3:  Fixed some grammar issues.