Posts Tagged ‘morning joe’

One of the things that has enabled the conservative blogosphere and Fox news has been the refusal of the MSM to cover stories that might portray a democrat in an unfavorable light.

The Monica Lewinsky case made Matt Drudge because Newsweek when given the chance to cover a story with every element that would attract readers; Sex, Power intrigue, declined.

The same thing happened with the John Edwards story. The MSM continued to ignore it until the National Enquirer caught him with the lady in a hotel.

Consider: If Newsweek does it’s job, how much smaller is Matt Drudge? Does he inspire others? Does an Andrew Breitbart who worked with Drudge get his start?

Let’s say you are a hard left person; what would you today give to have neutralized Matt Drudge and all those who would follow him?

And consider 2000. Do you think an incumbent Al Gore would have lost to George Bush? I think not.

Consider myself and the Weiner business. If the MSM reports do I end up with an Op-ed in the NY Post, or the Lars Larson radio and Fox TV gigsWould I even get the Instalanche if the MSM makes the points that I did first?

Which brings me to Joe Scarborough again.

This morning I stated that this was an important show for Joe Scarborough. There is a definite connection between the show and Weiner but Joe Scarborough is very familiar with Twitter and would understand the potential problems with Rep. Weiner’s story.

Yet his own dismissal of Andrew Breitbart and association with people such as Joan Walsh of Salon who railed about the Weiner business being all about conservatives attacking teenage girls, and the Huffington Post who confined the story to the NY section, transformed any confrontation with Weiner from simple reporting to act of courage. It would be standing against the people he hangs with at parties and events. It is the type of thing that would make the “no labels” crowd uncomfortable.

Confronted with this choice, #weinergate was not covered in any segment, and his name was mentioned only in passing about “hacking” in general. It didn’t even make the “news you can’t use” segment. (Can you imagine this happening if the congressman in question was Paul Ryan?). No coverage of the lawyering up, no coverage of the alleged hacker offering to submit to investigations and no coverage of Rep Weiner choosing to not answer questions. Nothing.

Normally there would be no damage as only Fox would cover the story and their niche market would never hear about it. Unfortunately for Joe and Company CNN decided no act in a very atypical way for an MSM network.

Congressman Weiner was, to the surprise of even Andrew Breitbart, confronted by a CNN apparently deciding this was a job they would not outsource to Fox (when you are in 3rd place you apparently try harder). The result was classic TV.

The media stars of the left were since the movie all the president’s men, brought up on drams of such confrontations all their lives. All those dreams involved Republicans, but lo and behold when a democrat is the subject it’s still great TV. CNN reporters will look at this and say: Why not me?

This is a disaster for MSNBC. Any MSNBC host this evening who wants to report on this has to show the CNN clip and the left of center viewers who would refuse to turn to FOX to see the story have no such qualms about watching CNN.

Tomorrow morning when this clip is shown on Morning Joe viewers will be wondering why they didn’t hear about this issue on the show. They will remember how many times Congressman Weiner has appeared on the show and will be amazed that they are hearing about this after the fact.

This is an embarrassment and a self-inflicted wound to the credibility of his show.

Why do I care? Two reasons:

1. Morning Joe is the only show on MSNBC that has the possibility of the entry of conservative opinions into their audience. Its fall would likely cause its replacement with a totally liberal show appealing the MBNBC’s niche Market.

2. I genuinely like these people. I’ve met Willie on one occasion and Mike Barnicle on several, they are nice regular guys. The type you would have a beer with and could talk straight with. I suspect Joe and Mika are too. Any parent who sees how Mika reacts around children or sees how she treats her father on the air can’t help but like her. Plus Joe once paid me a complement that was passed on through a 3rd party that was very important to me at the time and an American of Sicilian origin doesn’t forget a favor.

It is painful to watch them do this to their show. I hope they in the future take these words of Robert Stacy McCain to heart:

This story is what we call “news.” No matter how unseemly or inconsequential the story may superficially appear to be, it is entirely legitimate and potentially significant, and it is therefore a dereliction of journalistic duty to ignore or dismiss it.

My appearance on Fox 25 tomorrow precludes me from seeing tomorrow’s show, I sure hope they take what I said to heart but frankly I’m not sanguine.

Update: Poor Joe & Co. John Stewart was all over this. I’d bet real money the only clip they will play if any is the “it’s too big to be him” stuff.

Because it will be the first regular show since the Anthony Weiner stuff came out.

Why will it be significant? Well as I said a couple of days ago, Joe Scarborough knows and understands Twitter, there is no possibility that he will not understand the significance of Congressman Weiner interesting choices when it comes to people to follow.

Why do I know this, well as an experiment I decided to go through Joe’s follow list. He follows 392 people and of the entire list there is only a single person that seemed out-of-place, and on further observation it appears that person was also followed by several significant people and groups so I’m just assuming I don’t know her.

In other words from his own pattern of following it is clear that Joe follows the normal pattern of famous people. It is inconceivable to me that he would not find the combination of:

1. odd following pattern,

2. Backing off from the “hacking” claim,

3. the “victim” Lawyering up while the alleged “hacker” offers full co-operation and asked for an investigation

…questionable at the very least, and it would be even odder for Mika to pooh pooh this either.

I’m scheduling this post for 5:45 a.m. so it will be up just before Morning Joe begins. Last week we discovered that the Ed Schultz business was not significant on a show concerning women’s empowerment. Today we will see what is stronger on the Morning Joe set; friendship or Journalistic skepticism. Believe it or not, I’m thinking the latter.

Update:
 It’s looking like I’m a sucker, so far. As of 6:38 “hacking” was joked about it passing when talking about other stories (“lots of hacking this weekend”). Apparently when it comes to the MSM this is a pattern:

The Huffington Post has finally posted something about this weekend’s evolving #Weinergate Story – but not on the national page, but buried in the much less read New York section.

Well they are late and put it on the NY page but it’s not like they spiked the story over the weekend or something…oh wait:

HuffPost Could Have Run The Story Two Days Ago & Chose Not To

This is the part that HuffPost won’t be thrilled with but I mention it because I think it proves some real bias going on…

After months of not blogging at Huffington Post because of their treatment of Andrew Breitbart, I decided this story was juicy / big enough that I wanted to get it out to the HuffPost audience. After all, Huffington Post had been great about publishing my John Edwards pieces.

So I submitted an article that I thought was good – my Would Your Spouse Buy It? article with an added introduction paragraph to explain the story…and note the date…

After all why would an online blog that wants to get eyeballs want to cover a story involving a national rising political figure in the democratic party and a possible connection rather young women, doesn’t sound like something that would drive traffic to me, does it?

Meanwhile Joe Scarborough proves me wrong as #weinergate doesn’t even make the “news you can’t use” segment.

Update 2: Morning Joe might have taken a pass but the NY Post has an opinion piece by a fellow who I hear is a big fan of the show.

Watching Morning Joe today. They started with Libya and talk was all about arming the rebels and why Libya and not elsewhere. Listening to the discussion I noticed that there was something missing.

I had my doubts whenever Joe Scarborough’s op-ed, would get the play it normally does. Considering that the opening segment is repeated at 8 a.m. you would think that they would make it a point to bring up the hosts op-ed on the subject of the day first. Instead during Mika’s must read op-eds it was mentioned late as they instead talks of the anniversary of the Reagan Assassination attempt, leaving just enough time to give Joe’s piece two minutes

However Joe’s op-ed points to the phoniness of the president’s supporters on Libya, and I don’t think MSNBC wants to overplay that argument.

Speaking of op-eds here is different one from Anne Applebaum via Legal Insurrection that won’t get any play on MSNBC:

Sarkozy clearly hopes the Libyan adventure will make him popular, too. Nobody finds this surprising. At a conference in Brussels over the weekend, I watched a French participant boast of France’s leading role in the Libyan air campaign. A minute later, he heartily agreed that the war was a ploy to help Sarkozy get re-elected. The two emotions—pride in French leadership and cynicism about Sarkozy’s real motives—were not, it seems, mutually exclusive.

And of course the goal is to have this underwritten by the US while he gets the supposed electoral benefits.

Do not expect the MSM to give Anne’s take any play at all.

You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.

The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.

Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.

And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.

I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.

Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”

Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!

Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.