When Did The News Become the news?

Maybe it was always thus. Maybe the news media and the news were always Clark Kent and Superman but they at least wore glasses and pretended to be separate and distinct characters. 

Maybe the Cronkites and the Bradlees and the Sulzbergers were not essentially different from their descendants, but they at least pretended to be reporters. Maybe they were just a little more suave, a little more subtle, a little more sophisticated. None of them ever proclaimed, "I am Kal-El and I come from the planet Krypton!" Maybe they were just good at keeping secrets to themselves.

Can we pinpoint when the News became the news? I cannot do so but I can tell you it was a fairly recent phenomenon. If I were pressed to give an immediate answer I would say that holes appeared in the dike during the Reagan Administration and the dam broke in 2008. At any rate, the dam did break and the fourth estate flooded all those other estates as well. 

Sometimes a snap shot tells the story better than a video. The ever-insightful, always profound, always truthful Daniel Greenfield offers a revelation that succinctly captures the state of American news media.

But this time the media wasn’t just manufacturing a messaging consensus through its echo chamber. Instead it was directly involved in a conspiracy that eavesdropped on the political opposition and that is attempting to overturn the results of the 2016 election using not only dirty tricks, but the government.

Media smears are nothing new. Media coups are a whole other thing.

James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, allegedly coordinated with CNN. And then took a job at CNN. Clapper isn’t alone. Obama’s CIA boss, John Brennan, is over at NBC News. Josh Campbell, Comey's assistant, is at CNN. The three arms of the Deep State offer interchangeable employment. Much as Fusion GPS was paying the wifeof a top DOJ official to investigate Trump.

This is what organizational integration looks like. And that’s what a Deep State looks like.

CIA or CNN? Who can tell the difference?

The investigation of the investigation has made it very clear that top CIA and FBI people were coordinating with the media. When CNN knows what’s going on at the FBI, that’s a leak. But when the FBI knows what’s going on at CNN, that’s close coordination.  

Spygate depended on close coordination between Clinton’s people, the media and Obama’s intel folks. But it was the media that lubricated the alliance of the Democrat Deep State behind the coup.

Horowitz And Company Take On CNN And SPLC

Southern Poverty Law Center (What a name! These con artists are swimming in cash.) has compiled a list of over 900 "hate groups." There is an obvious financial incentive to inflate the number of organization who advocate genocide, or apartheid at the very least. The roundup comes at a price, however, and SPLC--and CNN--are about to find out in an expensive way.

SPLC has endangered innocent lives with their indiscriminate branding. CNN has recklessly parroted SPLC's index. The liability should be obvious but fake news proponents sometimes miss the obvious. Now, Freedom Center is threatening legal action.

From Front Page:

Editor's Note: Below is a letter that the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s legal team sent to CNN on August 21, 2017, regarding their publishing of an article, The Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups, on August 17, 2017 (updated on August 18) listing the Freedom Center as an SPLC designated hate group. The SLPC’s “hate map” is a malicious and defamatory attack that deliberately crowds together neo-Nazis with the conservative political organizations it opposes. CNN has attacked freedom of speech and exposed itself to legal consequences by running the SPLC’s smear. And the Freedom Center won’t take it lying down.

*

From Greenwald & Hoffman, LLP, Attorneys at Law, August 21, 2017.
Re: Defamatory statements regarding David Horowitz.

Dear Mr. Zucker, Mr. Vigilante, Mr. Davis, Mr. Andone, and Mr. Mullery:

This firm represents David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (“Freedom Center”) regarding the defamatory claim that CNN has published about David Horowitz and the Freedom Center in the website article by Dakin Andone and map by Will Mullery describing alleged hate groups throughout the United States.  Without critical examination, Mr. Andone’s article refers to and blindly adopts as “widely accepted” the entire list of 917 alleged “hate groups” labeled as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (“SPLC”) website, which maliciously promotes the false accusation that the Freedom Center is a “hate group” and that David Horowitz is “anti-Muslim” and “anti-black”.     

There is not a shred of truth to these false accusations.  Although Mr. Andone and Mr. Mullery define a “hate group” as an organization with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” David Horowitz personally challenges CNN to produce one statement of his or of the Freedom Center that denigrates a group of people based on their identity or immutable characteristics.  Mr. Horowitz has written and published over a million words. There is not a single sentence of his that could qualify as racist or denigrating a group of people based on their identity.  Nor are Mr. Andone, CNN, or the SPLC able to quote any.  Mr. Andone and CNN should have fact-checked SPLC’s false designation of the Freedom Center before publishing it.

CNN and Mr. Andone cite the SPLC website as the source of their defamatory claim, but they have failed to critically examine that source before publishing this defamation. CNN has adopted, without adequate investigation, specious third party claims by the SPLC that Mr. Horowitz and the Freedom Center are “anti-Muslim” and “anti-black.”  If CNN had thoroughly investigated these claims, it would have discovered a variety of articles that seriously undermine the credibility of SPLC’s hate list. For example, on October 30, 2016, Tablet Magazine published on the Internet an article exposing the SPLC’s recent blacklisting of David Horowitz and other writers and intellectuals.  The article, entitled “A New Blacklist From the Southern Poverty Law Center Marks the Demise of a Once-Vital Organization,” is written by Lee Smith, a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.  (See attached article.)  

Smith’s article outlines in detail how the SPLC, which once valiantly fought against violent supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and defended those advocating non-violence, has turned on advocates of non-violence, like Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim who is working within his Muslim community to push back against extremism. Nawaz frequently insists that “Islam is a religion of peace,” but because he is critical of those within his own faith who preach violent resolution of conflicts, the SPLC accuses Nawaz of “blasphemy” (a surprising term for an alleged civil rights organization) and targets him and others on SPLC’s blacklist as being anti-Muslim extremists.  Really?  Who is really the hate group here?  And why is CNN supporting a hate group’s defamation of other groups?  

Instead of defending Nawaz’s advocacy of non-violence and diversity of thought, the SPLC is “now aggressively defending the kind of violent supremacists it had once sought to prosecute, and attacking types like Nawaz it had once defended against violence.” The article explores several reasons for the SPLC’s betrayal of its prior mission, suggesting that the blacklist has nothing to do with real anti-Muslim extremism and is simply being used to smear the SPLC’s political enemies.

Attached is a recent article entitled, “D.C. Shooter A Fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Not only has the SPLC’s hate list been connected to at least two incidents of attempted mass murder, the article quotes Mark Potock, of the SPLC, who admitted in an interview: "Our criteria for a 'hate group,' first of all, have nothing to do with criminality, or violence, or any kind of guess we're making about 'this group could be dangerous.' It's strictly ideological." (Emphasis added.)

In the attached recent article, “A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center Demonizes Respectable Political Opponents as ‘Hate Groups’—And Keeps its Coffers Bulging,” Mark Pulliam catalogues the SPLC’s biased listings and describes how the SPLC unfairly uses a loose definition to smear ideological opponents having no connection to actual hate groups: 

“The SPLC claims that ‘917 Hate Groups are currently operating in the U.S.,’ but offers only vague guidelines for what qualifies: ‘groups hav[ing] beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.’ Despite its insinuations that hate groups are inherently violent, the SPLC casts a much broader net: ‘Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafletting or publishing’ (emphasis added). Indeed, some of the SPLC’s hate ‘groups’ are merely websites or publications—even record labels and religious sects.

“This fluid and subjective definition allows the SPLC to lump together—along with the KKK, neo-Nazis, and racist skinheads—such varied groups as religious-liberty advocates Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel; pro-family groups such as the World Congress of Families; Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy; the David Horowitz Freedom Center and, separately, its Jihad Watch program; Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch; and many immigration-reform groups, including CIS and FAIR.” (See Here.)

Pulliam cites left-leaning lawyers and journalists who are openly critical of the SPLC’s motives and methods: “Atlanta-based civil rights lawyer Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights and longtime lecturer at Yale Law School, declined to accept the [Morris Dees] award in 2007 because he saw Dees as a ‘con man and fraud.’” . . . “’I’ve long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life,’ wrote the late progressive journalist Alexander Cockburn in 2007.” . . . “Even left-leaning Politico has become skeptical; Ben Schreckinger’s recent article “Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?” notes longstanding charges “that the SPLC is overplaying its hand, becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog.” (Ibid.) (Emphasis added.)

Entire Letter:

Must Read: THE MEDIA IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF A FREE PRESS

A free press is open to everyone. The media is a closed cartel. A free press has a diversity of opinions. The media has only one. A free press is a dialogue. The media silences dissent, from individuals to conservative outlets. A free press does not attempt to usurp democracy. That is the entire purpose of the media cartel. It manufactures an artificial consensus through mass communications propaganda.  

Daniel Greenfield at Front Page:

Why We Cannot Negotiate With The Left

It dawned on me a couple of years ago but finally crystallized in 2016 and has been reconfirmed in 2017: The conflict between The Cult of Leftism and the patchwork coalition that opposes the Left is not so much a clash of values but rather, a conflict stemming from incompatible mental processes. 

The Left is anti-rational. That cannot be understated. They might seem unprincipled or ill-informed but they are committed to Leftism and to leaders who will advance The Left. We want a courtroom battle fought under strict and unyielding rules. The Left wants to delay and disrupt proceedings, replace the judge with one of their own, tamper with the jury and rewrite the transcripts. Where is our middle ground?

Daniel Greenfield at Frontpage nails it:

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

 That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Greenfield's analysis is profound. It also disturbing. We are in a cold civil war that could turn hot with every tick of the clock. A genuine flesh and blood civil war might be inevitable. 

We can only negotiate with rational forces who share some common values. The Left's only objective is to conquer America. Brace yourself for what is coming.