Showing posts with label msm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label msm. Show all posts

Monday, January 28, 2019

Mark Shea's Celebration of the Heroic Sanctity of the Leftwing Media

I know, that headline is really over the top, right? But one good hyperbole deserves another, and if "The Feast of the Holy Child Martyrs of Covington" isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is. No parent I know says "I don't mind if people assault, abuse, falsely accuse or threaten my child and his reputation; he's no saint." However I have seven children, none of whom are saints, and my job is to protect them from all these ills. Here's an excerpt from his laughable post:

The MSM got a story wrong and feel bad about it and are trying to atone by providing balance. All the major media have published hand-wringing, soul-searching articles poring over how they got it wrong and the dangers of rash judgment and so forth. The supposedly “smug” liberal media that always allegedly knows they are right and never allegedly listen to anybody outside their effete liberal bubble have spent the last week in minute self-examination and self-flagellation. That’s why the Today Show has Nick Sandmann on (but not Nathan Phillips).

Notice that he provides no links whatsoever. I, too, missed the "trying to atone by providing balance", as did most people I know. But balance is not required in this situation. What is required is complete and utter retraction of the story. You can see repentance in the attitudes of some pieces outside the MSM, such as this one in the Atlantic. But even Julie Zimmerman, while contrite, misses the larger point of this story with the starry-eyed deep-though "the truth is sometimes unknowable." That truism most certainly does not apply to this case.

In fact there is one truth which is dictating many of the main stream media's though processes at this moment, and that truth is the impending libel lawsuits. Here's a rewrite of Shea's MSM paragraph, free of charge, reflecting the way most Catholics and sensible people view the situation with the Main Stream Media with regard to Covington:

The MSM got a story horribly wrong because their initial rush to press was based on the impression that it made Trump supporters look bad. They now are worried that it hurt their credibility and are terrified of law suits. They've pretended to feel sorry for their bias via articles which allegedly represent their hand-wringing and soul-searching — as if they had a soul. When the name of libel expert Attorney L. Lin Wood was initially whispered, the usually smug, effete liberal media began a crash course in minute self-examination and self-flagellation. The Today Show avoided inviting Nathan Phillips on after they realized that providing more exposure of his lies and craziness would hurt rather than help their devastated credibility. But they did have Nick Sandmann on hoping he'd screw up (he's just a kid after all) and hurt his case; alas, he didn't.

Further in Shea's self-embarrassing article, he spews some stuff about David Hogg and his completely different circumstance where he actually put himself forward and used a tragedy for self-promotion. The situations are in fact so dissimilar you can hardly even accuse Shea of "whataboutism", which is what he is seemingly attempting.



Mark Shea being pretty much a hold-out on this clear-cut issue shouldn't be that surprising to anyone. He has been trending this way for three or four years. But it seems like he is still in the stage of his leftism which requires him to prove how loyal he is, so he's sticking to his guns even when they are completely empty. Burning his credibility on this issue is noteworthy and will go "down on his permanent record" so to speak. I can imagine a future scene: Mark will refer to a normal Catholic writer as a Francis-hating, rad-trad, MAGA-cult bully. My reply to the raised eyebrows of someone who has never heard of him will be "He is one of the people who not only believed that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a rapist on discredited evidence, but also believed that the Covington kids were guilty in the face of contrary evidence."

And that's all that needs to be said about him to provide an accurate estimate on the value of his work, unless and until he wakes up and rids himself the writhing hatred for people with different viewpoints. The saints are a minority. But not all minorities are holy. Some are just stubborn, pretentious and silly.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Rosie: Leaving or Fired?

I report, you decide. Either way it's beautiful news that Rosie O'Donnell is going to be off Barbara Walters's popular morning show, "The View". Here's NewsMax's piece. Excerpts:

O'Donnell may have broken the proverbial camel's back this week when she used the F-word and grabbed her crotch when she emceed a gala awards presentation in New York .... According to the New York Post’s Page Six column, Barbara Walters "lowered her head on the dais and covered her face with her hand” when Rosie dropped the F-bomb.

[snip]

O’Donnell ended a rant about Donald Trump by grabbing her crotch and shouting, "Eat me!" .... She also called Trump an "old, bald billionaire” and made a crude reference to his private parts.

Laura Ingraham reported the news on her show this morning with much celebration. She said that during the announcement the token conservative on the show, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, had a huge smile and was silently beaming. Laura speculates that Rosie will pull out all the stops on her verbal atrociousness in her final days. Nevertheless, the departure does seem to be a victory for sensibility and decorum.


Supposedly O'Donnell's presence was good for ratings, but it's being speculated that the recent crescendo in her crude behavior and anti-Catholic, anti-American vitriol is being seen as a liability regardless. My mother-in-law had been a faithful fan of the show but she quit watching it soon after Rosie joined. It was just too offensive for her after the poison contributed to the dialogue by O'Donnell. My opinion is that the show has always celebrated a mindless liberal viewpoint; the little I've seen of it has been enough to verify that.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Pat Buchanan is Right

Speaking of paleocons, here's a must-read from Pitchfork Pat, who is 100% right about the silly, wrong-headed press frenzy about the U.S. Attorney firings. Excerpt:

This is not about the incompetence of the Justice Department of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or about any White House role in the firing of the eight -- whom President Bush had every right to fire.

This is about preserving and protecting the integrity of the institution of the presidency. It is about the right of America's head of state and head of government to receive the candid counsel of his most trusted advisers.

If White House assistants as close to a president as Karl Rove is to George W. Bush can be ordered before congressional partisans, to be interrogated by congressional committees on what he may have told the president on controversial matters, the presidency itself will be damaged and weakened.