Media

Biden Goes Record 100 Days Without Media Interview

On Friday, Democrat President Joe Biden set a new record by going 100 consecutive days without having a sit-down interview with the media – a number not previously reached in the modern history of the presidency. As noted by The Washington Examiner,

More
Joe Biden

Biden Goes Record 100 Days Without Media Interview

On Friday, Democrat President Joe Biden set a new record by going 100 consecutive days without having a sit-down interview with the media – a number not previously reached in the modern history of the presidency.

As noted by The Washington Examiner, the “president was last interviewed by a member of the press on Feb. 10, when NBC’s Lester Holt spoke to him ahead of Super Bowl LVI. Since then, Biden has held press conferences and taken questions from individual reporters but has not conducted any extended interviews.”

According to Republican National Committee spokeswoman Emma Vaughn, the interview avoidance contradicts Biden’s promises to run a transparent administration.

“One hundred days without a press interview underscores how little Biden cares to answer for struggling Americans seeking solutions to the crises he created,” Vaughn said. “This milestone is yet another pitiful mark on Biden’s long list of failures.”

The 100 day gap interviews follows a pattern that Biden began after taking office when he took a record 64 days to conduct his first formal press conference – 2 days away from doubling the previous record of 33 days.

“Biden’s interview frequency falls short of his predecessors, with just 23 conducted since taking office. At this point in their tenures, President Donald Trump had taken part in 95 interviews, while President Barack Obama reached a scorching 187 — more than eight times as many as Biden,” The Washington Examiner reported. “The current president’s pace to date is also well shy of George W. Bush (60 interviews), Bill Clinton (64), George H.W. Bush (70), and Ronald Reagan (78).”

Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity
/

The Importance of Sean Hannity

So here is just one of the headlines on Fox News and talk radio host Sean Hannity from last week, this one from The New York Post:

Sean Hannity just broke this record held by Larry King

The story began:

Sean Hannity has claimed the title of longest-running primetime cable news host in television history, surpassing the late Larry King.

The Fox News host, who has been at the channel since its founding in 1996, has been a key cog in the network’s primetime programming for 25 years, six months, and 15 days, breaking the record held by King.”

Congratulations to Sean, for sure.

But in this corner I would suggest there is infinitely more to the importance of this story, so let’s go there.

The time: July, 1964.

Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater is about to be nominated for president at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. This is big news. Why?

Well beside the fact that this was a man about to be nominated for president, this was big news because Goldwater is the GOP’s “Mr. Conservative.” After decades of the Eastern GOP Establishment nominating what are called today “RINOs” – “Republicans in Name Only” – there has finally been a conservative revolution inside the GOP in 1964, with Goldwater the very embodiment of that revolution, leading the way.

The media of the day, owned and operated lock, stock and barrel by liberals, is apoplectic at Goldwater’s rise. How does this affect their coverage of Goldwater? This way.

As Goldwater prepared to head to San Francisco to clinch the nomination over GOP Establishment favorite Governor William Scranton, a Pennsylvania moderate, CBS reporter Daniel Schorr beamed in to the massive CBS audience of anchor Walter Cronkite from, of all places, Munich, Germany. Schorr reported this:

“It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany’s own right wing.”

Schorr went on:

“Goldwater has accepted an invitation to visit, immediately after the convention, Lieutenant General William Quinn, commander of the Seventh Army, at Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s onetime stamping ground but now an American Army recreational area.

In addition, I learned today, Goldwater has given his tentative agreement to speak next weekend at the annual roundtable of the Evangelical Academy at Tutzing, on Bavaria’s Lake Starnberg, where Chancellor Adenauer spoke last year.

It is now clear that Senator Goldwater’s interview with (the German magazine) Der Spiegel, with its hard line appealing to right-wing elements in Germany, was only the start of a move to link up with his opposite numbers in Germany….

Thus, there are signs that the American and German right wings are joining up, and the election campaign is taking on a news dimension.”

And oh yes. The New York Times also ran with a version of this story.

The story was false – from start to finish. In fact, once nominated, Goldwater went home to Arizona to rest up for the coming campaign.  He had never spoken to Der Spiegel. But the message of all of this directly from CBS and The Times -the heart of the media of the day –  was crystal clear:

The conservative Goldwater, about to be the GOP presidential nominee, was set to travel to Adolph Hitler’s old retreat, and he would speak at the “Evangelical Academy” – the latter presented as a breeding ground of neo-Nazism.

It was, in other words, a lie. A lie that deliberately painted Goldwater – an Army Air Force pilot in World War II who rose to become a Major General – as a Nazi sympathizer.

Now, move ahead 23 years.

It is another July day, July 1st of 1987. There is a new vacancy on the Supreme Court. President Reagan walks into the White House press briefing room and announces that he is nominating D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork to fill the vacant seat. Bork was one of the most distinguished legal minds in the country. He had been, successively, an associate at a blue-chip law firm and a law professor at Yale Law School. (Where Bork’s students included both Bill and Hillary Clinton and a small platoon of future liberal legal stars including New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, future Clarence Thomas antagonist Anita Hill and future California governor Jerry Brown.) He was a distinguished author on anti-trust law, and before his nomination to the DC Circuit had served as the Solicitor General of the United States. Robert Bork was not simply seriously well qualified for the Supreme Court he was a legal star.

And then.

At the time I was serving in the Reagan White House political office, where we were instantly tasked to help get  the Judge confirmed. With his incredible record this seemed at first to be a routine task. Supreme Court nominations at that point had been, as it were, yawners. With a couple exceptions in the Nixon era, they had usually been quiet hearings where lawyers discussed the arcana of American law and legal decisions that were guaranteed to put most observers to sleep.

This changed, suddenly and dramatically, when Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy stood up on the Senate floor to savage what he called “Robert Bork’s America”. Which was supposed to be an America  transformed by Bork. Bork was an “ideological extremist” who was both racist and sexist, favored driving women to back alley abortions and more. In other words, Bork was a serious, imminent threat to America.

The Reagan White House was stunned. Here was one of, if not THE, most respected legal minds in the country. We had thick briefing books of his legal decisions and writings, with not a word that indicated he was even close to the description Kennedy had of Bork. And Kennedy’s speech was only the beginning.

Bork, in his memoirs, wrote this of the media’s coverage of his nomination.

“The media varied, of course, but the reporting in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the three network news programs was almost unrelievedly hostile, as, of course, were the advertisements. The campaign was having its effect. The Center for Media and Public Affairs coded 232 TV news and Washington Post stories and found that of 381 judgments by sources 63 percent were negative and 37 percent positive, and that proportion was almost identical at each of the networks and the Post. Sources discussing my ideas ran four to one negative at the Post and six to one at the networks, with CBS well out in front, at eight to one. Throughout July, August, and September, TV news carried twenty-nine critical statements not one favorable statement.

It was not that so few defenders, or none, were available. Newspapers and television decide whom to ask and whose opinions to carry. According to a journalist, when a reporter wants to express his opinion in a news story, he goes to a source who agrees with him for a statement. In that way, a pretense of objectivity is maintained. The Center also analyzed the tag lines of the television network news stories, because bias is usually manifested there. It reported that my nomination held the record for bias among all issues whose reporting the Center had monitored: 100 percent negative on all three networks. I later heard that polls were much more favorable to me among people who had watched the entire hearings than among those who saw only the nightly news.”

So what do the Goldwater and Bork tales have to do with Sean Hannity, you ask? This.

Both Goldwater and Bork and their supporters in the day were effectively alone when it came to being targeted by the liberal media. The sole conservative outlet in the media in 1964 was William F. Buckley and his National Review magazine. By 1987 that had expanded to include R. Emmett Tyrrell’s The American Spectator magazine.

Had Sean Hannity been on Fox and talk radio in both cases – not to mention had Fox News itself and talk radio existed, along with now, Newsmax, One America News and yes, an Internet that is littered with conservative web sites – the Goldwater and Bork stories may well have ended differently This isn’t to say Goldwater would have been elected – but the election and the presence of an active, highly visible conservative media would surely have made the election closer. And, I suspect, had Hannity been on television and radio 4 hours a week in 1987 Robert Bork may indeed have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. As the Kavanaugh nomination illustrated exactly.

All of which underlines just why the anniversary of Sean’s record-setting years as a Fox host has been vital to America over the decades he has been on air.

Routinely he goes where the liberal media refuses to go. In the beginning, he would take on his late, great co-host, the decidedly liberal Alan Colmes, in debates. When on his own, whether he’s investigating the deep state shenanigans of the Trump haters in the federal government with serious journalists like John Solomon and Sara Carter, or exploring the “terror tunnels” dug underground by Hamas on the Gaza Strip or standing up for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, America and the world are in a different, far better place because Hannity is fearless about taking on the liberal media narratives of the day.

As the saying goes, one way to judge if Hannity is “over the target” are the volumes of attacks directed his way by left-wing media types. Whether online, on CNN or MSNBC, or simply in book form the attacks on Sean rain down on him personally and professionally. There have been repeated efforts to silence him, to bully his sponsors on Fox and his radio show.

And, thankfully, they have all failed. His audience has stuck with him, through thick and thin.

All of which is to say, that is exactly why Sean has been able to celebrate his new record as the “longest-running primetime cable news host in television history.”

So here’s to Sean Hannity. Another 100 years and he can begin to think of semi-retiring.

Barack And Michelle Obama Attend Portrait Unveiling At Nat'l Portrait Gallery
/

Spotify Declines Obamas’ Podcast Renewal

Spotify has declined to renew its exclusive podcast contract with former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama, according to Bloomberg.

The former first family’s production company, Higher Ground, is now in discussions with several companies, including Amazon’s Audible and iHeartMedia, on a deal to replace Spotify when the agreement ends in October 2022.

Spotify declined to make a new offer to the Obamas to replace the original deal that was signed in 2019 over the Obamas’ refusal to stick to an exclusive licensing deal. The Obamas reportedly blamed the exclusive deal for preventing them from reaching a wider audience – despite Spotify being the most popular streaming service for podcasts the year “The Michelle Obama Podcast” was produced.

“Higher Ground is seeking a deal that will allow it to produce several shows and release them on multiple platforms at the same time,” Bloomberg reported. “This could explain iHeart’s interest given that it hasn’t historically relied on an exclusive strategy for its podcasts. This is one reason why some potential bidders, like Spotify, have bowed out — a widely released show will end up on their service anyway. Companies like Spotify and Amazon have pursued exclusive rights to promote their own services.”

Streaming companies also want the Obamas to make more frequent appearances, but they are each only willing to appear in no more than an eight-episode series which some companies do not believe is enough to justify a deal similar to other popular podcasts.

Still, Higher Ground is reportedly hoping to find a new home for the Obamas’ podcasts within the next few weeks.

/

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: Elon Musk Is The ‘Singular Solution’ To Twitter’s Problems

On Monday night, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded to the news that Twitter has agreed to be acquired by Elon Musk for approximately $44 billion, saying that Musk is the “singular solution” he trusts to fix the Twitter’s problems.

“I love Twitter. Twitter is the closest thing we have to a global consciousness,” Dorsey said. “The idea and service is all that matters to me, and I will do whatever it takes to protect both. Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step.”

“In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness,” he continued. “Elon’s goal of creating a platform that is “maximally trusted and broadly inclusive” is the right one. This is also @paraga’s goal, and why I chose him. Thank you both for getting the company out of an impossible situation. This is the right path…I believe it with all my heart.”

On Monday, Twitter’s board of directors unanimously approved the sale of the company to Elon Musk.

“The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon’s proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing,” Twitter’s Independent Board Chair Bret Taylor said in press release. “The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter’s stockholders.”

Musk said that he intends to unlock Twitter’s “tremendous potential” as he explained the importance of free speech and Twitter’s role as the “digital town square.”

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

/

Twitter Agrees To Be Purchased By Elon Musk

On Monday, Twitter agreed to be acquired by Elon Musk for $54.20 per share, or approximately $44 billion.

“The two sides worked through the night to hash out a deal that would be valued at $54.20 a share, or $44 billion,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “Twitter had been expected to rebuff the offer, which Mr. Musk made April 14 without saying how he would pay for it, and put in place a so-called poison pill to block him from increasing his stake. But after [Musk] disclosed that he has $46.5 billion in financing and the stock market swooned, Twitter changed its posture and opened the door to negotiations.”

In a press release, Bret Taylor, Twitter’s Independent Board Chair, said, “The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon’s proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter’s stockholders.”

Twitter’s CEO Parag Agrawal said, “Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important.”

Musk highlighted the importance of free speech as he announced his purchase of the company.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

1 2 3 34