Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign could just as accurately been titled, Shattered: How a Pair of MSM Journalists Inadvertently Destroyed Their Credibility. The reason is that while authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes are now somewhat frank in revealing the faults of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, back when they were reporting on it they acted as cheerleaders for her.
The news media needs to follow the more “rational” and “reasonable” journalism of late night comedians, says Vox writer Carlos Maza, in a video posted Monday afternoon to the left-leaning website.
Do you remember the time not so very long ago when, according to Democrats and liberals, big money in politics was the most evil thing about our political system? Well that was then. Starting most noticeably during the presidential campaign last Fall when Hillary Clinton outspent the Donald Trump campaign by about 2 to 1, Democrats and liberals have developed newfound respect for big money in politics to the extent they now actually brag about it. The latest example is Vox hyping big campaign spending in an article whose very title positively exults that Georgia Dems normally raise $10,000 for this House seat. This April they’ll have $3 million.
This past Tuesday, three prominent left-wing writers examined Paul Ryan’s health-care bill; what they see as the typical Republican attitude toward health insurance; and the modern GOP as a whole. Unsurprisingly, they found all three wanting. For example, Talking Points Memo editor and publisher Josh Marshall contended that on occasions like this that call for wonkery, Republicans are ill-equipped to deliver it, inasmuch as they’ve “spent years since 2008 (actually before but especially since 2008) stoking their base with increasingly fantastical and ridiculous claims.”
CPAC, currently going on just outside the Beltway in National Harbor, Maryland, has changed along with the conservative movement, believes Matthew Yglesias. Old-school CPAC, Yglesias contended in a Wednesday piece, was philosophically driven, populated by the sort of activists who “helped [Ronald] Reagan mount a primary challenge to incumbent President Gerald Ford.” In the past fifteen-plus years, however, it has become “to a substantial extent a live version of the conservative entertainment experience that one could also get on cable or on the radio.” In other words, it's now Donald Trump's CPAC, which “reflect[s] the reality” that conservatives are “older, whiter, and less educated than the population at large and [are] filled with a keen sense of nostalgia for the good old days.”
Talk about a stretch! Or, better, make that a streeeeeeetch. Vox has started a new type of movie review in which they take a film and try to correrelate it to current events. Since Vox, like the rest of the MSM, is absolutely obessed by President Trump, it is no big surprise that they will apply their TDS to the reviews starting with the current movie: "Dr. Strangelove." To read the review by Alissa Wilkinson you would think Stanley Kubrick's classic dark comedy should have been named "Dr. StrangeTrump or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Donald."
Buzzfeed showed its lack of journalistic integrity last week by publishing an unverified dossier accusing President-elect Trump of communicating with Russian operatives. After BuzzFeed published the document on Jan. 10, even liberal news outlets including The Washington Post, the Atlantic and Vox criticized Buzzfeed’s choice. But ProPublica President Richard Tofel sided with Buzzfeed, giving it “kudos” on Twitter.
Besides the electoral setbacks that liberals absorbed in 2016, they also were politically traumatized by quite a few of the year’s celebrity deaths, according to Caroline Framke. In a Friday piece, Framke opined that it was “particularly cruel” that “an entire tier of progressive icons” was passing away at the same time that Donald Trump was “riding a…wave of fury that depends on fear, xenophobia, and a latent desire to return to a world that looks more similar to the one that existed 50 years ago.” By “progressive icons,” Framke doesn’t mean they were lefty activists. For the most part, she’s talking about people like Prince and David Bowie, whose work swayed opinions on sexual and racial matters but whose political views seldom were explicit.
In a Christmas Day post, Digby (also a columnist for Salon) contended that, given the media’s hostility toward Hillary Clinton, that “it’s actually a testament to her rectitude that [the e-mail story] was all they came up with. They had certainly tried over the course of 25 years to come up with something real and they ended up having to make up this ridiculous fake scandal to justify their Javert-like obsession.” To Digby, Hillary was an even more inviting target for the media than her scandal-prone husband: “After all, she was always the uppity one who was asking for it, not good old Bill. They didn't get the indictment they were promised but the FBI did manage to be the instrument of her destruction so it's almost as good.”
Did you know that Donald Trump ruined the new Broadway musical, A Bronx Tale?
How did he do that? Did Trump talk loudly in the audience? Nope. Did Trump pan the musical on Twitter? Nope. According to Vox web culture reporter Aja Romano, Trump ruined A Bronx Tale simply by being elected president. Until then it was quite an enjoyable musical based on the 1993 movie of the same name. Unfortunately, Trump's election totally ruined the musical...if you share Romano's liberal fantasies.
Vox readers and Twitter users were left scratching their heads on Tuesday as an article by Todd VanDerWerff proclaimed that Rogue One: A Star Wars Story represents the first film in the Star Wars cinematic universe “to acknowledge the whole franchise is about war.”
The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal involves no wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, contends Matthew Yglesias. So whose behavior has been scandalous? The media’s. “Emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit,” wrote Yglesias in a Michael Kinsley-esque Friday piece. “The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election -- overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way.”