NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik appeared on the NPR-produced midday show Here and Now on Wednesday to discuss Megyn Kelly’s move from Fox News to NBC. He twice praised her for “cannily” negotiating herself across the media spectrum -- strange new respect which might make a conservative think she’s headed straight to the left. Then came the jaw-dropper: He said she was "desperately hoping to get away from ideology" like....Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters.
After news broke on Tuesday that Fox News host Megyn Kelly would be moving to NBC News, the Today show promptly welcomed Kelly with an online article recalling her six “finest moments” during her tenure at FNC. Strangely, those moments focus exclusively on Kelly taking on Republicans – not a single instance was featured of her going after liberal guests.
In the mid-1990s, when the great Norm Macdonald was kicking off his “Weekend Update” segments of Saturday Night Live with, “And now, the fake news,” pretty much everyone knew what he meant. These days, however, disputes over definitions of “fake news” seem as common as fake news itself. It may be that the lefty writer angriest about fake news is media critic and political blogger Allison Hantschel, who in a Tuesday post at First Draft blamed the problem on both conservative media (for undermining the mainstream media) and the MSM (for not vigorously defending itself until it was too late).
The Hollywood Reporter is touting how its own television wizard advises a media war on all things Trump. The headline is "In Order to Survive, Cable News Should Go Full Anti-Trump: There's one way for cable news to stave off steep declines over the next few years, writes THR's chief TV critic, and it involves embracing and channeling anti-Trump anger."
TV critic Tim Goodman lectured that "if we must have cable news, perhaps it's time for the people who run it to face the facts: Millions of people just proved, definitively, that facts don't matter to them. [Italics his.] For everybody else, they know you didn't or couldn't make facts matter, and so they are out searching for actual journalism..."
Is the Social Network also the Electoral Network? Yes, says Max Read, who suggested in a piece for New York magazine that Mark Zuckerberg had more to do with Donald Trump’s win than did James Comey, Julian Assange, or Bernie Sanders. “It can be clarifying,” Read wrote, “to identify the conditions that allowed access to the highest levels” of politics to Trump, “a dangerous and unpredictable bigot…In this case, the condition was: Facebook.” To Read, “the most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news.”
Editor’s Note: Some readers may be offended by language in this story. The game of politics is a lot easier when you know the results ahead of time. The Clinton campaign has experience at that — predicting in advance whether at least eight separate stories from top news organizations were “positive.” Clinton staff were correct each time.
If there’s ever a Donald Trump-centric TV channel, it’s likely that not all of its big names would be from the populist right, hinted What Liberal Media? author Alterman in his column for The Nation's November 14 issue. Alterman claimed that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough “has made some of the most egregious pro-Trump arguments heard anywhere during this election cycle” and, regarding Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, wrote, “The famous inside-baseballer has bathed himself repeatedly in Trump’s orange glow, posting romantic-style selfies with the nominee from his helicopter and defending his racist arguments about Mexicans and guns, among many other outrages.”
It hurts journalists right to their activist little hearts, so they’re trying like heck to avoid telling you. But the Colin Kaepernick-led national anthem protests really are hurting the NFL’s ratings.
A Media Research Center study of donations at OpenSecrets.org demonstrates a dramatic tilt in campaign donations by employees at some of America’s leading news outlets.
The most dramatic financial favoritism is shown by employees of The New York Times: since January 1, 2008, 68 employees of the Times have donated exclusively to Democrats or Democratic PACs to just three employees who donated to a Republican. Compare that to The Washington Post, whose employees in the same time period broke out as 15 Democratic donors to two who gave to the GOP. A similar breakdown came from putting in the Big Three TV news operations, 32 to 2 overall. Putting these five media outlets together, it’s 115 Democrat donors to 7 who have given to Republicans.
NBC executives had planned to use video of the vulgar discussion between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Billy Bush to influence the election.
TMZ reported on Oct. 12, that NBC executives knew of the existence of this taped conversation before the The Washington Post released it to the public — although they’ve claimed to only know about it for about a week. The actual incident dates back to 2005.
Liberals often allege that the media are too tough on Hillary Clinton and not tough enough on Donald Trump. Taibbi is left of center and anti-Trump, but he thinks the quantity and quality of those complaints are “getting ridiculous,” and that the main problem isn’t bad campaign coverage -- it’s dopey voters. “We are less than two months from the possibility of one of the dumbest people on the planet winning the White House,” wrote Taibbi in a Friday piece, “and it seems that all anyone's talked about this week…is the lung capacity of Hillary Clinton…That sucks. But it's not all the media's fault.”
As expected, the top domestic Spanish-language network newscasts each led with reporting on Hillary Clinton's medical incident while at Sunday's 9/11 commemoration ceremony. However, coverage of the same was divergent in scope and framing. One network echoed the rest of the establishment media's coverage of the story, while the other kept focus on the very aspect that the others tried to bury.