CBS Replaces Sharyl Attkisson w/ an “Obama Original” Propagandist

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


 Barack Obama presents a birthday cake to Bloomberg White House reporter Julianna Goldman as she blows out the candle

Barack Obama presents a birthday cake to Bloomberg White House reporter Julianna Goldman as she blows out the candle

When CBS News replaced Sharyl Attkisson for practicing journalism by investigating Obama scandals such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi, they weren’t taking any chances.

CBS News wanted a sure thing and sure things don’t come any surer than Julianna Goldman.

Goldman’s parents are Obama donors and her mother served as a co-chair for Obama’s team in the 2008 campaign. Her daughter, Julianna, was known as one of the “Obama Originals” for her reporting on the 2008 campaign. She later attended a “reunion” party to celebrate her status.

Julianna Goldman got three interviews with Obama despite her lack of name recognition, including his first post-election interview.

Again unusual since you probably never even heard of her name before this. And this wasn’t the first time that Obama went all out to help out Julianna Goldman.

After keeping the White House press corps waiting for more than 40 minutes in the rain, President Barack Obama finally emerged from the West Wing to hold a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Obama took the first question from Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman, whose parents contributed at least $5,400 to Obama during the last cycle.

Today was not the first time Goldman has received preferential treatment from Obama. Obama personally served birthday cake to Goldman during an Air Force One flight from Afghanistan last May.

Goldman is the ex-wife of MSNBC, Current TV and Al Jazeera bottomfeeding hack David Shuster. Shuster was fired from MSNBC and Goldman divorced him.

Obama’s chats with Julianna Goldman were meant to promote him as pro-business. And meant to promote her. Now CBS News has replaced a reporter who investigated Obama with a propagandist who promoted him.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    How far the network of William S. Paley and Edward R. Murrow has fallen!

    • Pete

      Julianna has about a decade to figure out how the world works. She is wasting time. I do not think she will figure it out in time. She’ll come to bad end of her own making. All we have to do is sit back and share the popcorn, but in reality we’ll be too busy, life is too hard and too interesting to spend much time thinking of her except to make note of her life and record it as a cautionary morality tale.

    • Johnny Palestine

      William Paley and David Sarnoff ( and most likely Walter Krankenhuis ) were all members in the Pilgrim Society.

      The false report by Krankenhuis re; Tet offensive had to have come from above. God knows how much money Sarnoff and Paley and their families made from the Vietnam War.

      • Pete

        When you are not hoping for the destruction of great Britain and all other stuff, what do you do in your spare time?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Probably mushrooms or acid of some kind.

          • Pete

            Johny has a Jewish mother if you believe what he writes. Yet he takes an on-line post name of Johny Palestine.

            He hates Britain like some people hate the U.S.. that should tell you a lot.

            Then there are the Rothschilds. I wonder how long it is before he wears out this “Internet persona”.

      • Christopher Riddle

        By the way,WE(The US)”Kicked-A$$”BigTime during TET!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Richard

      Edward R. Murrow, and even Walter Kronkite are rolling in their graves over the perversion of journalism that we see in this country. It’s amazing how far journalism has fallen, from an honorable profession to a lowly biased propagandistic tabloid. No more gov’t watch dog, instead it became a gov’t lapdog.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        That’s about the size of it.

      • WhiteHunter

        Murrow, certainly. Not so sure about Krankheit. Walter switched from being “The Most Trusted Man in America” to being “the most reliable propagandist for America’s enemies” (including the post-Hubert Humphrey Democrat Party) around the time of Tet, and never looked back from the flying bridge of his yacht on the Vineyard as he descended farther into the madness of hard-core leftwing orthodoxy with each passing year until his own, long-overdue passing.

        • Richard

          thank you, was so young then, watched him on our black and white set, and didn’t realize he was that bad.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I can’t recall watching CBS news or meeting anyone who claims to.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      lots of people in airports

      • Johnny Palestine

        The Pilgrim Society is full of elitists who yearn for an America that is half Cuba and half North Korea.

  • hiernonymous

    So the propagandist-as-journalist paradigm is objectionable.

    Could you explain, what a Shillman Fellow is? I’ve asked before, but you didn’t have an answer.

    • truebearing

      “So the propagandist-as-journalist paradigm is objectionable.”

      People who expose propagandists aren’t propagandists. Your automatic equivalency generator is stuck on false.

      I don’t know the aswer to your question, but based on this fine article, maybe it is a man who is expert at exposing leftist shills. An honorable endeavor if ever there was one. I think they’re also expert at identifying trolls.

      • hiernonymous

        “People who expose propagandists aren’t propagandists.”

        Quite correct. That wasn’t the basis of my comment.

        “Your automatic equivalency generator is stuck on false.”

        A fine demonstration of GIGO.

        “I don’t know the aswer to your question…”

        …but you will answer it anyway.

        • truebearing

          What was the basis of your comment, other than to try to denigrate it? There, I answered my own question.

          Ah. Yet another failure to appreciate a little humor. You are a humorless old crank, aren’t you.

          It really isn’t hard to figure out what a “Shillman Journalism Fellow” is. There are two Hebrew words that explain it, but even if you knew what they were, you still wouldn’t understand.

          • hiernonymous

            “There are two Hebrew words that explain it, but even if you knew what they were, you still wouldn’t understand. It’s way above your spiritual capacity.”

            You’ve run this script before. It was bankrupt then, too. If you have something relevant to say, you are free to say it. If you just wish to pose, well, you’re free to do that, too.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” If you just wish to pose, well, you’re free to do that, too.”

            But then he would be trespassing on your turf

          • hiernonymous

            That didn’t bring us any closer to the mysterious two words, either.

            All thrust, no vector.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Don’t be so hard on yourself. You have a vector. It’s in the direction of Mecca.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m quite hard on myself, though not for the reasons you suggest.

            Still no closer to that mysterious secret. Another bit of Revealed Truth inaccessible to the infidel?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So they wouldn’t even let you into Mecca?

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no, they wouldn’t.

            “There are two Hebrew words that explain it, but even if you knew what they were, you still wouldn’t understand. It’s way above your spiritual capacity.”

            Still no closer to the meaning of that comment. It’s okay if you want to keep dodging that.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Maybe you should try Arabic words?

          • hiernonymous

            Okay. Which Arabic words?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Pick out any you like and go to town.

          • hiernonymous

            You see? I suspected all along that there was no actual mystery behind all the mystery. Just another bit of mysticism to hide foggy thinking.

        • Americana

          There are all sorts of organizations wishing to have more directed advocacy journalism at their service than would be acceptable at news organizations observing the strictest non-partisan journalism standards. Glance around the Pew Research Center and see if you find enough to satisfy you… (I can hear my Weimaraner fluttering on the floor upstairs and, if it’s a seizure, I’ll have to hold her…)

          http://www.pewresearch.org

          • hiernonymous

            “There are all sorts of organizations wishing to have more directed advocacy journalism at their service …”

            No doubt. “Directed advocacy journalism” – that’s an excellent euphemism.

            So one of the functions of “directed advocacy journalists” is to protest when a real journalist shows any evidence of lowering her standards to those of the “directed advocacy journalist?”

            By the way, why are you posting under that name?

          • truebearing

            Define a “real journalist.”

          • hiernonymous

            Look at the post to which I was responding for the necessary context.

          • Pete

            Most people are not going to read surveys or statistics.

            Most people have not taken a statistics course. 30% or so of people go to college. about 1/2 of those or less take stats course. So 15% or less of people have taken a stats course?

            So if a “researcher” does shoddy work in err or on purpose, how will they know? They would have to get into the weeds. Or an expert could call it out and make people aware. But then you are back to people having their favorite “expert” they trust and you get dueling experts and groups of people who while not ignorant are ignorant perhaps of the topic being discussed.

            With surveys you need to know how questions were asked. So threat require people to know psychology through experiences or via education.

            For the somewhat knowledgeable people who have a handle on how survey question are asked, know stats and can see the original data set ( if they need to, form time to tome to keep people honest), what use is it to take surveys of people that are ignorant.

            Should people bow down before a survey were the respondents were ignorant?

            Resorting to FBI statistics when talking about murder rates in a discussion about gun control is good, but I do not think most people will want a news paper filled with it.

            And as Mark Twain say you can lie with statistics.

          • Americana

            That Pew web site link was not posted to force people to read through statistics. That was posted because it’s one of the more important American journalism sites where everyone can poke around and satisfy themselves as to what PUBLIC JOURNALISM is, what ADVOCACY JOURNALISM is, and what STRAIGHT JOURNALISM is. As well as develop an understanding as to what degrees of overt opinion are allowed for each and every type of journalism. Some sites actively encourage their writers to take a highly partisan editorial stance in each and every article they write. They are expected to write to THE MISSION of the ADVOCACY GROUP and look for the angle of the story that best suits their mission.

            hieronymous — My BB handle is because I’m officially a “Ragazza Americana” when I’m in Italy. I’ve always liked the knickname which came from two little old Italian peasants outside Assisi whom I met when they were collecting wild greens and mushrooms. They invited me to dinner. What can I say, it was a great evening w/homemade grappa and regional history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Not fair.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As well as develop an understanding as to what degrees of overt opinion are allowed for each and every type of journalism.”

            Covert bias is what really concerns me.

          • Americana

            You can always detect unjustified bias. There’s really no such thing as covert bias. Either the facts support the reporter’s thesis/story or they don’t. If you read a story you read it for the factual structure first and then you reach for the nuance in the writer’s tone. Do these complement each other? Is there anything that doesn’t ring true? If that’s the case, then you either read more stories on the issue by other writers or you wait for more stories on the issue from the writer whose judgment and presentation you’re questioning.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “You can always detect unjustified bias.”
            No you can’t.
            “Either the facts support the reporter’s thesis/story or they don’t.”

            Most lies are deception through omission. How is the average person going to reliably detect those omissions?
            “If you read a story you read it for the factual structure first and then you reach for the nuance in the writer’s tone. Do these complement each other? Is there anything that doesn’t ring true? If that’s the case, then you either read more stories on the issue by other writers or you wait for more stories on the issue from the writer whose judgment and presentation you’re questioning.”

            The question is not whether I am able to triangulate the salient facts of any story or issue. The question is whether any of these organizations are out to educate viewers and followers with well thought out reporting that puts the highest priorities on objectivity and accuracy?
            No. I do not think so.

          • hiernonymous

            Sorry, I asked because when it first appeared, the name was in grey, and I thought it was one of those posters who had appropriated your nick. It’s now appearing in blue and I see that it’s you.

          • Pete

            I hope you enjoyed th grappa. You lucky person.

            I would not call PEW straight, They have a bias even if they do not realize it. they might not make as many mistakes as say a Dan Rather. In some ways they are more dangerous, because they are blind to their bias.

    • Pete

      Some rich guy named Shillman set aside some funds for some thing he gave 2 sh_ts about. Instead of funding an academic chair in a STEM subject (probably safe) or in the humanities, instead of starting a philanthropic organization to be later taken over by a liberal Howard Prescott, Mr Shillman funded a position in David Horowitz’s organization to counter the bias of the 4th estate.

      Caveat Emptor applies here, the 5th estate, as it would when you read something from an established 4th estate organization. If a person wants to do their due diligence, they follow the links and read the articles from the underlying sources. What this part of the site does is aggregate stories and analyzes them to an extent. Of you do not like the editing process as what is collected, aggregated, you can always go somewhere else.

      • hiernonymous

        Good comments. It’s interesting, as I was just thinking about the comparison between an aggregating site such as Drudge’s, and this which appears to be trying to be more.

        What I’d really be interested in reading or seeing is the marching orders, so to speak, given to fellows. What are their parameters? What are the priorities?

        • Pete

          Is this what you are worried about?

          “Stephen Zunes wrote that “mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

          I use to go to the Boiling Frogs ( http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ ) starting about 2 1/2 years ago but I got sick of it

          “Some blogs focus on a particular subject, such as political blogs, health blogs, travel blogs (also known as travelogs), gardening blogs, house blogs,[33][34] fashion blogs, project blogs, education blogs, niche blogs, classical music blogs, quizzing blogs and legal blogs (often referred to as a blawgs) or dreamlogs.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog#Types

          The Point says it is “”a daily blog by Daniel Greenfield” as such you know you are going to get his take on things and stories he thinks are important.

          Since people who consider themselves Jewish in America vote for 70% Democrat, since liberal Jewish newspapers are not hard to find such as the “The Jewish Daily Forward” and since liberals run most things nonprofit-wise (The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future; no matter how much they say Koch; 30 to 1) that there is an organization that is part of the 5th estate founded by a Jew, which employs Jews (& others) has a conservative view point and makes common cause with the conservative Christians or humanists in the culture wars and other areas really should not get you all lathered up.

          This site did not trick me. It is like Rush Limbaugh said about his listeners. By and large he wasn’t some Svengali. People turned on the radio, heard someone like them and stayed. And it gets the MSM all worked up. We voted with our feet.

          The Left had the money, the air time and the marketing campaign. They created Air America and it failed. Not enough people liked and/or there are too many liberal outlets already. If you are really worried you can look up Talkers 100 and see there are liberal voices on the air. With streaming people can get a liberal host all the time. If they cannot, they are probably lying.

          I am betting you have a new car that has or could have Sirius radio. You can have liberal radio all day every day. You also have a home computer. You can also type in the web address for Alternet. You can also tune your TV to MSNBC. What is your problem?

          Ed Shultz is #8. Thom Hart man would probably be the easiest to find. He is #10. How Thom is #10 and Ed is #8, I do not understand. It fluctuates and Thom will outlast Ed. If you want a screamer, the worst one I eve heard you can listen to Hightower. He is off the air, but you could get some golden oldies. If you want a current screamer you can listen to Randi Rhoades. Or Alan Colmes. Or Al Sharpton (and he is rated higher than Larry Elder; world is not always just).
          Maybe Jim Bohannon is more your style.

          The MSM had more than enough bandwidth and channels. Their messaging was off. My family used to watch 60 minutes every week and then 20/20. I use to read Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report.
          (some of these use to be not liberal pubs and their founder were not. But they drifted after the founder retired). I was the most knowledgeable kid in my HS when it came to world and national events. I know I took a test and I didn’t even answer all the questions and I significantly outscored all the other kids. So I know what I am getting when I read FPM, HuffPo or any other site.

          Do pose as many questions on liberal sites. You certainly do not do so with the postname hiernonymous.

          The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future

          http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Leviathan-Left-Wing-Money-Machine-ebook/dp/B006OHIXK2

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So you feel I’m no better than CBS News then?

      • hiernonymous

        I feel like it would be worth reading your explanation of what a Shillman Fellow is.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I feel like you’re trolling in a circle, but I appreciate that this is the sacred ritual of your people.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s a straightforward question, and it’s topical. You have raised the issue of bias in journalism. From what little I can discover, a Shillman Fellow appears to have been hired, not to try to present news objectively, but to advance a particular ideology. If so, that would make your article a bit disingenuous. However, I’m hesitant to reach a conclusion based on inadequate information, so I thought that a Shillman Fellow would be in the best position to provide the Shillman Fellow perspective of what a Shillman Fellow actually is expected to do.

            Do you find that an uncomfortable question?

          • Pete

            Where is the bias? Are these stories that we should not read about?

            - Another Gay Rights Victory: Sentence for Man Who Exposed Other Man to HIV Thrown Out

            -Ted Cruz Calls for End of Aid to PLO/Hamas Over US Hostage

            - IRS Loses “Targeting Scandal” Emails from Other Employees »

          • hiernonymous

            The most recent example is Daniel Greenfield’s “Hillary CLinton Helped Child Rapist Get Off, Attacked 12-Year-Old Victim.” As I noted elsewhere, news flash: in 1975, Hillary Rodham had the task of defending a man against child rape charges, and did her job competently. Why is this suddenly a story in 2014? Transparently, because the purpose is not to uncover news, but to influence an election. That’s bias. If you find yourself unable to come up with other examples, let me know. On the other hand, if you simply share that bias, and approve of that, that’s okay, but don’t pretend the bias isn’t there.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            Any point of view could be interpreted as bias.
            A writer without a point of view is a bad journalist.
            What you want to do here is show a lack of intellectual integrity or a misrepresentation of facts.

            Otherwise you only waste our time confirming your own bias. Thanks.

          • hiernonymous

            “Following this logic nobody could write anything negative about a political candidate’s career history without being biased as long as they did their “job competently”.
            Hillary could have done her “job competently” for example while at the same time harboring sexist feelings towards her client. Wouldn’t that be worth reporting?”

            I’d suggest that if you are going to drag up a 39 year old incident, there would have to be evidence that the individual had done something significantly wrong to make it an object of legitimate inquiry. Alternatively, if it is part of an examination of a lifelong pattern of behavior, it might be worth looking at. There are grey areas. For example, Democrats made much of an incident of bullying in which Mitt Romney was involved as an undergraduate. I thought that was going a bit far. The justification was that it was one in a series if incidents that showed him to have a bully’s personality, but I never found that convincing.

            “Any point of view could be interpreted as bias.
            A writer without a point of view is a bad journalist.”

            Sure, and there has been debate for years about whether it is more honest to strive for objectivity or to reveal bias and accept it. But that still involves journalistic standards that demand fact checking and completeness, whereas the propagandist leaps on the merest hint of gossip and forwards it, or even enhances it, with relish.

            “Otherwise you only waste time confirming your own bias. ”

            Sure, I have my biases, though they probably aren’t what you assume. I think that the best check against one’s own biases is to spend time reading opposing opinions, become aware of and sensitive to the methods used to disguise and advance bias, and to insist on explicit logic and supporting facts.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “there would have to be evidence that the individual had done something significantly wrong to make it an object of legitimate inquiry.”

            Apparently child rape doesn’t count as significantly wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t think Clinton has been accused of child rape.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Just second hand

          • truebearing

            She’s laughing about depriving a little girl of justice. That is a psychic rape. her defense and the destruction of evidence is a rape of the justice system, but i wouldn’t expect anyone as morally turpid as yourself to see that. You’re too busy doing exactly what Hillary did: putting winning over tuth and justice.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “Apparently child rape doesn’t count as significantly wrong.”

            It depends on who is doing the raping of a 12 yo girl – physically or in a courtroom.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            “object of legitimate inquiry”
            No, this is rubbish. There’s no statute of limitations on character. You don’t get to decide what’s relevant about a political candidate’s life history and then call anybody who doesn’t fall in line biased.

            “still involves journalistic standards that demand fact checking and completeness” –
            Yes, exactly – you haven’t shown deficiencies in any of these areas or a lack of relevancy but you have assumed them fait accompli. A clear sign of bias.

            “become aware of and sensitive to the methods to disguise and advance bias” –
            Yes, indeed a heightened sensitivity to your own unspoken assumptions would help you develop a more nuanced criticism of others.

            Thanks again

          • hiernonymous

            ” You don’t get to decide what’s relevant about a political candidate’s life history and then call anybody who doesn’t fall in line biased.”

            Why not?

            If you disagree with my assessment, you are free to dispute it, but what business would you have trying to prevent me from making that initial assessment?

            As for applying legal standards, that’s nonsense. I’ve noted for comparison’s sake the examination of Mitt Romney’s alleged bullying as an undergrad.

            Too true character matters. Character also develops over a lifetime, and that suggests that the further back you go to dredge up past transgressions, the more significant those transgressions should be before they influence our view of the present individual. I don’t know about you, but I said and did things in my 20s that now make me cringe. I learned from those things. It would be absurd to produce a 30 year old recording and treat it as if I had said those things today. That’s not the legal concept of “statute of limitations,” it’s an acknowledgment that we change and grow though our lives, but technology is increasingly freezing moments for often inappropriate use later.

            And speaking of naive, it seems a bit naive to take much of this handwringing at face value. Truebearing, for example, is aghast at the thought of Clinton chuckling at a recollection of a rape trial, yet a week or so last he was speculating on these boards on how he would like to be able to use a roll of duct tape on one of the female posters. Forgive me if I take the current bout of self righteousness with something of a grain of salt.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            “but what business would you have trying to prevent me from making that initial assessment?” –
            The assessment is yours, asking other people to take it seriously is something else. I have given my reasons as to why I think it shouldn’t be.

            “I’ve noted for comparison’s sake the examination of Mitt Romney’s alleged bullying as an undergrad.” –
            What does this have to do with anything besides showing that you want to apply these standards(legally inspired or otherwise) consistently?
            I wasn’t talking about a direct legal application of the statute of limitations in a strictly technical sense anyway.

            “I said and did things in my 20s that now make me cringe” – that’s fine but your sensitivities are not are the central issue and you’re not running for president.
            Sorry, that job requires a higher level of scrutiny and the public are entitled to whatever facts are legally available.

            Please don’t compare some offhand comment on this site said in anger to the calm and considered response of a defense lawyer in a child rape case in which she played a major part.
            That disconnect is exactly the problem with you.

          • hiernonymous

            “The assessment is yours, asking other people to take it seriously is something else. I have given my reasons as to why I think it shouldn’t be.”

            But that’s not what you said the first go-round. Offering reasons you don’t think the other fellow is right is exactly how it should work.

            “Please don’t compare some offhand comment on this site said in anger to the calm and considered account of a defense lawyer regarding a child rape case in which she played a major part.”

            Why not? You’ve just told us that everything that has been said before is fair game. And this forum is not a live conversation or real-time chat, but an exchange of posts that one can take all the time necessary to craft. Your portrayal actually reverses the situation: Clinton was responding to questions in real time, without time to craft her responses, whereas there is no real-time pressure on the posts here. There’s no reason to assume that Truebearing did not mean exactly what he said.

            You see? You’re already producing excuses, you’re already trying to explain why it’s not fair to take a comment that was offered in one context and use it as evidence in another. Hmmm.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            Huh? Half my response was about why your idea that these things are off limits was nonsense.

            “Why not? You’ve just told us that everything that has been said before is fair game.”
            It would help if you didn’t fastidiously take everything said completely literally. You can make whatever arguments you want but for your own self respect I think you might want to avoid making that comparison.

          • hiernonymous

            “Why not? You’ve just told us that everything that has been said before is fair game.”
            It would also help if you didn’t fastidiously take everything said completely literally in one dimension. You can make whatever arguments you want but for your own self respect I think you might want to avoid making that comparison.

            Can you show how that argument is either wrong or unfair?

            At some point, you may earn enough credibility with me, such that an earnest appeal to my “self-respect” might mean something, but you’re not there yet. Stick to reason.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            I can’t make an earnest appeal to something that obviously doesn’t exist.
            Thanks

          • hiernonymous

            H: “Can you show how that argument is either wrong or unfair?”
            AJ: *crickets*

            H: “At some point, you may earn enough credibility with me, such that an earnest appeal to my “self-respect” might mean something, but you’re not there yet. Stick to reason.”
            AJ: “I can’t make an earnest appeal to something that obviously doesn’t exist.”

            That’s not reason.

            AJ: “Thanks”

            You’re welcome.

          • truebearing

            No, it is to show how ruthless she is and that she will do anything to win, regardless of how morally low she has to sink. See Benghazi.

          • hiernonymous

            “No, it is to show how ruthless she is and that she will do anything to win…”

            Then you should find her a refreshing change from Mr. Obama, who, you appear to think, is not sufficiently ruthless and committed to winning.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If only our enemies were 12-year-old girls or women sexually harassed by her husband, I’m sure Hillary would perform splendidly.

          • truebearing

            No, I think Obama is committed to making the United States lose. It’s the one area he’s where he is actually accomplishing something, unfortunately for America, it is all destructive.

            Obama has lied through his teeth for his entire presidency, and during both of his campaigns, and in his two autobiographies. He was very ruthless. He used communist front groups like ACORN to commit voter fraud. He laundered foreign money to swell his war chest. And his second campaign was worse. Ohio had districts where way over 100% of registered voters voted. Same thing in Florida, and undoubtedly other states.The only thing I can think of where he was honest was in his promise to “totally transform America.” I believed him when he first said it, and I have fought against his agenda in any way I could ever since.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Obama wants to transform America into Eurabia.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Obama was sufficiently ruthless to throw Rev. Wright under the bus – despite their 20 year friendship..

          • hiernonymous

            Well, okay, Mr. Obama is ruthless. To be sure, I can’t imagine anyone who isn’t ruthless getting into the White House.

            Though as I recall – and, to be fair, my memory of this is dim and I don’t feel like digging through old reports on this one – Mr. Obama didn’t throw Rev Wright under the bus until Rev Wright made it necessary. I seem to recall that the good Reverend made a series of provocative statements that more or less forced Mr. Obama to distance himself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point is that they belong under the same bus or with the same fate, whatever that may be.

            I don’t know that Wright forced his hand so much as it was simply decision to deny aspects of his radical past and let the media sing in unison that it all makes perfect sense now. And the way that he did it made Wright look bad.

            I don’t have a lot of respect for Wright but I admire him for coming forward later to at least do something to validate concerns that were raised earlier. At least Wright is somewhat consistent.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yes, your memory is foggy.

            Rev. Wright didn’t make it necessary

            The EXPOSURE of Rev. Wrights “sermons” by the media forced the Obama campaign to decide it was necessary to FINALLY throw Obamas 20 year long, close spiritual adviser under the bus – to send a message to Americans, other than the 95%ers who voted for Obama, that Rev. Wrights views were FINALLY recognized by Obama as hateful – and damaging to the Obama campaign.

            First Obama said that he never heard anti-American rants from Rev. Wright, over their 20 year friendship – that Obama never heard is personally, from a fellow church goer, or from a church newsletter.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes, your memory is foggy.”

            Could be. The matter didn’t make much of an impression on me then.

          • J.B.

            Could be you make excuses for Obama every chance you get.

          • hiernonymous

            That might have sounded better if it had been in response to a post making an excuse for Obama.

          • truebearing

            His memory gets foggy when it is advantageous.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Hillary Rodham had the task of defending a man against child rape charges, and did her job competently.”

            Hillary Clinton chose to defend a man she believed guilty of child rape. She did her job by accusing a 12 year old who had been raped of being mentally ill and asking for it.

            Now she’s running for office as a role model for young girls.

          • hiernonymous

            The accused was entitled to a defense attorney and that defense attorney’s best effort. Clinton was a defense attorney, and she did exactly what she was supposed to do. Had she refused to represent him, or had she given him a half-hearted effort once retained, she would have made ethical choices that would call into question her professionalism.

            Being president means living up to one’s responsibilities even when the job is dirty or tough. A president can’t choose not to represent his or her “clients” in the middle of the job. Seems that Clinton displayed exactly the sort of dedication to duty that you would admire.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s not the issue. The issue is that she apparently relished (or thought it was funny after the fact) in getting the guy off.

            That’s the accusation as I understand it.

          • Americana

            Where is that sourced from? Is there a direct quote somewhere or was that the recollection of someone else in her law firm?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t remember. Did you read the FPM article yourself before asking me?

          • Anukem Jihadi

            Read the article and interview transcript – Hillary found the case fascinating and a real laugh riot to recount.

            “Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.”

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Hillary can use the “what difference does it make” defense.

            If a male attorney did to the 12 yo girl what Hillary did, he would be vilified.

          • truebearing

            Where’s Waldo?

          • hiernonymous

            I didn’t get that, but I’ve not heard the tape. So the issue is whether she took excessive pride in her professional skills? She isn’t sufficiently sensitive?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No. The accusation is that she went beyond her fiduciary duties and thought it was funny to have such an outcome rather than soberly reminding us of the necessity for having the system work the way that it does.

          • hiernonymous

            Have you listened to the interview and come to the honest conclusion that she thought it was funny?

            One of the interesting sad facts about rape prosecution, by the way, is that people who are very upset about something often respond with apparently inappropriate behavior. It’s been discovered that many rapes weren’t properly investigated or prosecuted because the victims would laugh, or giggle, or otherwise behave in a manner that led the (usually male) officer to conclude that nothing serious had happened.

            This seems a clear case of a conclusion in search of a situation on which to hang it.

            I’m no fan of Hillary. Sometimes there is some “there” there, as, for example, her exaggeration of her supposed encounter with sniper fire, which I thought a pointless embellishment. But this one seems silly and a transparent example of that nasty aspect of our political process by which partisans fling accusations in the run up to the campaign in hopes that something sticks. If not, no harm done, there is something else to fling next week.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sometimes there is some “there” there, as, for example, her exaggeration of her supposed encounter with sniper fire, which I thought a pointless embellishment.”

            Right. She often has a strange affect. But I also have concerns about how she’s exploited her past opportunities. I don’t’ trust her. And besides, she’s apparently one of the first “birthers” that you decried not too long ago.

            Now is not the time to reward the DP for their failures. They need to be taken to the woodshed and maybe then they can reform themselves. They’re OK for local and regional pols some times but they are dangerous at a national level right now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This seems a clear case of a conclusion in search of a situation on which to hang it.”

            This isn’t a criminal trial or a challenge to her license to practice law. She’s running for political office (unofficially).

          • hiernonymous

            Sure. And we’ve discovered, to our shock, that she might have giggled inappropriately in an unpublished interview 34 years ago about an incident 39 years ago. As you like to say, “come on, man.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Now a 12 year old girl being raped is an “incident”

            Before long it’s a statistic.

          • hiernonymous

            And in 39 years, it’s a politically exploitable opportunity.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Why not? Hillary’s past, like anyone elses, will be examined to determine whether she has the qualifications and moral integrity to be POTUS.

          • nomoretraitors

            The DNC has 8 years on them. They went back 47 years to a prank Mitt Romney played on a fellow student in high school

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Maybe Hillary should have thought of that before springing a child rapist.

          • hiernonymous

            An interesting admission.

          • truebearing

            Is there an expiration date on truth or facts?

            Character is a major consideration when electing a person who wields as much power as a president. Coldly laughing about a case of child rape and being proud of getting the sick creep off indicates that Hillary cares only about winning, at all costs. That kind of sociopathic mindset is a big problem when the fate of a nation rests in her hands, should she get elected. it strongly suggests she will do anything to win, which could include illegal methods, like the ones the Democratic Party employed in the last presidential election. Combine her sociopathic ruthlessness with her sociopathic ideology, and she is a clear and present danger to free elections.

          • truebearing

            Would a murder be “old news” after 39 years? Where is your line drawn for the expiration date for facts and truth?

          • hiernonymous

            Our system of justice relies on defense attorneys giving the best representation possible to their clients. That’s not “murder.”

          • truebearing

            You dodged my question. I didn’t ask you to explain our system of justice.

          • hiernonymous

            I didn’t explain our system of justice. I explained your false equivalency.

          • truebearing

            It wasn’t a false equivalency. It was a hypothetical question intended to elicit a response that defines when a fact is supposedly irrelevant.

          • truebearing

            It’s “old news.” Truth has an expiration date for the Left. The expiration date is determined by its relation to the need to obscure a particular set of facts. Preparation H is a master obscurantist and reprobate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not shocked. It’s just another tally. It doesn’t especially bother me that some people are talking about it. That doesn’t mean that I’ve lost perspective myself.

            Seems par for the course. But it’s also worth discussing because it might get amplified by some campaign against her.

            No big deal as of right now. But politics is a very dirty game at this level. And I like to pay attention to what’s going on these days.

          • truebearing

            Be careful. Your sociopathic personality is showing, again.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So Hillary was so traumatized by accusing a 12-year-old rape victim of being willing and a liar… that she giggled out of some PTSD.

            That’s the Nidal Hasan defense.

          • hiernonymous

            I haven’t heard the tape. I’d suggest that it’s certainly within the realms of possibility that a young female defense attorney would have encountered so many harsh situations that she might display apparently inappropriate behaviors as something of a defense mechanism. I know that in the military, we dealt with harsh realities with a form of humor that wouldn’t read very well if put into a transcript on a blog decades later.

            I suppose the real takeaway is that you have to decide whether you’re honestly interested in what Clinton said, did, and why, or whether you’re interested in whether there is something politically exploitable in the transcript.

          • bob smith

            “I haven’t heard the tape”…rather than offer a continued and repetitive odumboesque reply, I have attached the link for you to listen so that you can quit admitting that you are essentially arguing for the sake of arguing on a matter that you have admitted you have no basis in thought to do so relative to the matter at hand.

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-clinton-helped-child-rapist-get-off-attacked-12-year-old-victim/

            If, in fact you were an officer in the military of The Republic, it would stand to reason that SNAFU is very obviously alive and well, isn’t that correct 1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder?

            Now, let me explain what you are so wrong about that you comically apply logic to an illogical set of circumstances.

            1. “the tape” was done in the mid 80′s, some 10 years or more after her apparent defense of the rapist. In 10 years, somewhere a mid 20′s aged women is listening to a recount of a war on a female child in tones of colorful laughter.

            2. she was asked by a prosecutor to defend the rapist, not the rapist. YES, she could have said no. (please keep in your small mind that this same POS today espouses herself as both a role model and leader of females worldwide (bring our girls back?)).

            3. the rapist agreed to plea his case out which any half-witted former officer or lawyer would tell you that pleas are admissions of guilt.

            4. She by this time had a well established history of lying and deception. Have a read, this is a scathing indictment of her by her own democratic handlers of the day…

            “As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

            The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

            Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

            Why?

            “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.””

            Last but not least, if you care to get your head out of your aZZ and stop playing as if you are odumbo in that you only learned about it from the news, have a watch of this link…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mYW5nmS9ps

          • hiernonymous

            1. So this is what I heard: she is asked about an old case, she introduces the situation, and when she is talking about the situation and the crime, she calls it terrible and sounds quite somber. She then begins to relate some stories about procedural issues, mistakes by the labs, and reminisces about a fond relationship she had with a judge, and she laughs when she recalls odd or funny moments. It didn’t strike me as terribly odd or inappropriate. No, she’s not recounting a “war on a female child,” she is talking about the details of the handling of a case.

            2. There was a defendant who wanted a female lawyer and the prosecutor asked her to take the case as a favor. He basically begged her to do it. On what grounds would she refuse? She was a defense attorney, that’s what she did for a living. Unless and until you want to argue that defendants aren’t entitled to representation, you can’t fault those who hold up that end of the system.

            3. Half-witted officers of the court may tell you that pleas mean guilt. Those who still retain all of their wits will tell you that many defendants plea down because they are frightened of risking the draconian penalties if they risk conviction. Many others can’t afford a competent defense. Sorry, plea=guilty just isn’t necessarily so.

            4. Lying and deceit, as near as I can tell, aren’t at issue in this particular brouhaha. At issue is the contention that she was insufficiently somber for her detractors’ taste.

            Is she presidential material? I think it’s clear that she could handle the job. I wouldn’t vote for her today if there were a moderate and competent Republican running against her. I can believe that she has a history of deceit, but that’s a digression in this particular matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The bottom line is that she’s a relatively elegant nutjob – as far as nutjobs are concerned.

          • bob smith

            true enough but the greater problem is her blind, deaf and dumb “Tommy” followers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            She’d be just another scumbag lawyer without them.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “I haven’t heard the tape”

            Maybe you should take 2 minutes before penning a few dozen comments denouncing me over it

          • truebearing

            Facts and truth means nothing to H. In his grandiosity, he’s right regardless of the facts. His ability to create plausible deniability is a form of truth, and is far more important to him than the actual truth. it feeds his warped ego and it facilitates his political agenda. As usual, we see evil operating according to the end justifying the means.

          • hiernonymous

            Why, did you think your characterization incomplete or dishonest?

            At any rate, maybe you should have taken 2 minutes to read this before penning a comment denouncing me for not listening to the conversation: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/fp-mag/cbs_replaces_sharyl_attkisson_w_an_8220obama_original8221_propagandist#comment-1441434111

          • truebearing

            You quibbled for many hours before being forced to write that poor attempt at defending yourself, and hillary.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s interesting that you see a discussion about an article based on that article as written as “quibbling.”

          • truebearing

            Poor syntax.

          • truebearing

            “I haven’t heard the tape.”

            Yet you continue to blather on. So the question is why. I guess trolls don’t get paid unless they obfuscate, redirect, and twist beyond the call of truth.

          • truebearing

            You admitted to not listening to the tape, but kept blathering anyway. That narcissism get the better of you? Or is it sociopathy?

          • hiernonymous

            The conversation concerned a written account of the conversation. It’s not my experience that many conversations on this site rely on listening to the source material. That said, the post you’re responding to was obviously written after going to the source material. I think we both understand your real concern here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And the implication is that it’s one thing to accept the role such people play to keep our justice system functioning as designed (sort of) and another thing to wonder if such people are the right ones to lead our nation.

          • hiernonymous

            If you are suggesting that lawyers are not our best choice for leaders, I might agree that there’s some merit there. That raises the interesting question, though, of why so very many of our elected officials have exactly that background.

            I will say this, though. As a retired officer, I think former military make even worse presidents than lawyers. There are politics of a sort in the military, but we don’t need to develop consensus-building skills in the same way the civilian world does.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you are suggesting that lawyers are not our best choice for leaders, I might agree that there’s some merit there. That raises the interesting question, though, of why so very many of our elected officials have exactly that background.”

            Lawyers and every other candidate needs to be carefully scrutinized. They’re good politicians because they’re often paid to put on elaborate partisan performances. We need them in our judicial system but we need to be more cynical when they’re focusing their rap on the public.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you are suggesting that lawyers are not our best choice for leaders, I might agree that there’s some merit there. That raises the interesting question, though, of why so very many of our elected officials have exactly that background.”

            “I will say this, though. As a retired officer, I think former military make even worse presidents than lawyers. There are politics of a sort in the military, but we don’t need to develop consensus-building skills in the same way the civilian world does.”

            We’ve got to find solutions for these internal culture wars or it won’t matter who we elect.

            I think you need people with diverse skills in more than a single realm. A lawyer that becomes a judge and then runs a successful business would probably be idea. Or substitute military success for success in law.

            You have to understand how small and very large organizations work and you have to understand business fundamentals on a small and large scale as well because if you don’t understand that, you won’t be able to make sound organizational or economic decisions and that alone is a big deal that causes finger pointing and increased tendencies to “other.”

            Career politicians are the most dangerous and practicing law (while often a noble pursuit) can be ideal training for career pols.

          • truebearing

            You haven’t heard the tape, yet you are continuing to posture as an expert. Why haven’t you heard the tape? You were arguing with Greenfield about the article four hours before this stupid, dishonest comment? maybe you didn’t want to hear the tape, because it was readily available, or maybe you heard it but decided to lie, which has my vote.

          • hiernonymous

            What are you whinging about now? I offered arguments that were based on the assumption that the characterization of the interview offered in the article was reasonably complete and honest. Are you suggesting that it was not?

            Having subsequently found the conversation, I listened to the entire interview and offered my impression. There still is no “there” there.

            “…or maybe you heard it but decided to lie, which has my vote.”

            An interesting window into your personality. You are apparently ready to lie over quite trivial stakes.

          • truebearing

            You spent nearly 20 hours blathering and accusing Greenfield of journalistic incompetence without listening to the tape. You have no leg to stand on. Hillary was snickering about getting this pervert off. She was bragging about her legal prowess, as if that is more important than the victim or justice. I’m not surprised in the least that you can’t see what is wrong with that. You live in a world devoid of empathy and conscience. With you everything comes down to rationalization.

          • Ignatz

            Hiernonymous [sic] says:

            ” You think she found it funny that the accused got off. I didn’t get that from the recording.”

            In the next message, it says:
            “I didn’t get that, but I’ve not heard the tape.”

            Gotcha, laser-brain.

            (Folks, don’t fight with the Tar Baby.)

          • hiernonymous

            Hiernonymous [sic] says:

            ” You think she found it funny that the accused got off. I didn’t get that from the recording.”

            In the next message, it says:
            “I didn’t get that, but I’ve not heard the tape.”

            Gotcha, laser-brain.

            (Folks, don’t fight with the Tar Baby.)

            You’re struggling with the format here. Let’s look a bit closer:

            hiernonymous WhiteHunter • 3 days ago

            You have two issues here. One is comportment. You think she found it funny that the accused got off. I didn’t get that from the recording

            And then to the next displayed message:

            hiernonymous Daniel Greenfield • 4 days ago

            I haven’t heard the tape

            Notice anything about the time hacks?

            Before triumphantly doing the math, you have to be able to do the math. Subthreads are displayed in a manner that can be confusing to those who aren’t alert to it. I recommend that you become alert to it before your next announcement.

          • hiernonymous

            *crickets*

          • Daniel Greenfield

            A defendant being entitled to a defense attorney and a defense attorney being obligated to defend a child rapist are not the same thing.

            The defendant had a lawyer. He wanted a female lawyer.

            Hillary could have said no.

            she would have made ethical choices that would call into question her professionalism.

            In your world not accusing a 12-year-old girl who had been raped of being a mentally ill liar interested in older men is the unethical choice.

            That’s revealing.

            So would you have done what Hillary did in her place?

          • hiernonymous

            “In your world not accusing a 12-year-old girl who had been raped of being a mentally ill liar interested in older men is the unethical choice.”

            In the world we both inhabit, questioning the credibility of the accuser is a standard defense. It would be unusual not to raise it. You all don’t seem to have a high opinion of the sort of person dedicated to changing the culture behind that ugly truth (truebearing dismissed it as “PC”).

            “So would you have done what Hillary did in her place?”

            The question at hand is whether her actions represented a breach of her professional ethics.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The question is would you have also accused a 12-year-old rape victim of being mentally unstable and out after older men when you knew your client was a child rapist?

            If you believe that is ethical behavior then you would also do it.

            If you don’t believe that it’s ethical behavior, then you wouldn’t.

            The only reason not to answer is because you know it’s wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            “The only reason not to answer is because you know it’s wrong.”

            Well, no. There are several reasons not to answer the question, but the most obvious is to consider the purpose of posing such a question in the first place. It doesn’t add anything substantive to the discussion, which is properly centered on articulating what you think was wrong or right about a given situation and why. By personalizing it, you are transparently preparing to avoid the demands of logic by either claiming that a negative response indicates that one can’t believe that Clinton’s response was ethical, and using a positive response to discredit the opponent by extending the attacks on Clinton’s character to the respondent.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I can answer clearly that I wouldn’t have smeared a 12-year-old rape victim on behalf of her rapist.

            You can’t give that answer.

            Hillary certainly can’t give that answer because she actually did it.

          • hiernonymous

            Zealots and fanatics eliminate grey from their world, then throw their shoulders out of joint patting themselves on their backs for the purity of their vision.

            And I’m not so sure that you wouldn’t have smeared the kid. You’ll stoop to issuing a minority report accusing another poster of future murder because his comments on a discussion board miff you, so you plainly have issues with smearing and boundaries. Weren’t you one who insisted that actions speak louder than words?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There’s gray and there’s deepest darkest black.

            Most people would consider smearing a 12-year-old rape victim to be the latter.

            It’s telling that you consider it the former.

            “You’ll stoop to issuing a minority report accusing another poster of future murder because his comments on a discussion board miff you”

            Not only don’t you have a sense of right and wrong, but you don’t have a sense of humor.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you consider smearing other posters to be funny. And you take issue with Clinton because you claim she finds inappropriate things funny. Telling, indeed.

          • WhiteHunter

            Problem is, Hillary admitted that she knew the rapist was guilty, and giggled as she admitted it. He faced 30 years in prison; by slandering his young victim, she saved him from time in the slammer EVEN THOUGH she knew he was guilty and admitted it.

            The victim, now middle aged, still suffers from the crime; neither the rapist nor his sociopathic lady-lawyer do.

            If Hillary had bargained his 30-year sentence down to 25 years, this wouldn’t be such a problem for her today.

          • hiernonymous

            You have two issues here. One is comportment. You think she found it funny that the accused got off. I didn’t get that from the recording. Both she and the interviewer seemed to laugh at procedural ironies.

            The other issue is the professional responsibility of an attorney. Her duty was not to decide how guilty he was and seek an appropriate sentence. Her duty was to present the best possible defense. Our system may be hard to swallow sometimes, but it developed for reasons, and when we fall into the trap of deciding guilt ahead of time and reaching consensus on the appropriate outcome without any competent officer if the court wholeheartedly advocating for the accused, we risk those liberties we claim to treasure.

          • nomoretraitors

            “The accused was entitled to a defense attorney and that defense attorney’s best effort”
            Fair enough. But the reason it is a story today is a.) she’s a possible presidential candidate b.) it contradicts the narrative of her (and the Democrats) being the great defenders of the female gender against the Republican “war on women.”
            Imagine what the reaction would be if it had been a male attorney who had accused a 12-year-old girl of “asking for it.” The left would be HOWLING, just as they did when some GOP Congressional candidate made a comment about “legitimate rape”

          • truebearing

            “A president can’t choose not to represent his or her “clients” in the middle of the job.”

            You mean like Obama does with his Islamist “clients?”

          • WhiteHunter

            Would you mind reminding “President” Obama that he needs to start “living up to his responsibilities,” including taking care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed? He seems to have forgotten that part of the job description.

          • Pete

            Hillary is running for president already without saying that she is running for president. People are complaining that she is sucking all the oxygen out by putting off a formal announcement thereby making it harder fro other to raise funds.

            Since Hillary is running for President her past actions are germane and can and should be stacked up against her espoused policies and what she says she cares about.

            One of the things she cares about is the children. In the 1990s we always heard that it was for the children. It was a mantra. So that is the point of the article. she says she is for the children and here is a child and look how she “did” the child. True she wasn’t the child’s client, but she does not seem to care about the child.

            The accused seems to be guilty. He did plea out. that is not open and shut that he is guilty but it makes me think that he is. At best what we get from Hillary is nervous laughter on the subject like she is chagrined. At worst it makes her look like a monster.

          • TellingHistory

            Smoked you out. You are as interested in unbiased journalism as Hillary Clinton was in the welfare of a 12 year old rape victim. When she talked about it to a reporter, she laughed. Listen to the audio, hear her heartless laughter with your own ears.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s interesting that you posted this 16 minutes ago, yet are advising me to listen to the tape. I listened to the audio hours ago, and posted this: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/fp-mag/cbs_replaces_sharyl_attkisson_w_an_8220obama_original8221_propagandist#comment-1441434111

          • truebearing

            How would you know what objectivity is when you are so inherently biased by your own self-importance? Just wondering.

          • hiernonymous

            An individual with an excessive sense of self-importance would lack objectivity only where he or she was one of the subjects of discussion.

            It’s interesting that you inject personality issues into the most inappropriate places. Obsession, indeed.

          • truebearing

            No, self-importance taints objectivity at all times especially when that self-importance is fused to a political viewpoint.

            What you subjectively determine to be inappropriate is irrelevant. You don’t get to control my perspective of you unless you make behavioral changes that are consistent and believable.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m commenting on the relevance of personality issues to objectivity. It was “inappropriate” in the sense of having nothing to do with the topic, not in the sense of violating decorum.

            “You don’t get to control my perspective of you…”

            Correct. What a waste of time that would be.

          • truebearing

            Now you are complaining about relevancy to the topic? Excuse me while I laugh. You are constantly going off topic, in fact, you rarely comment on the topic, but instead try to redirect it.

            “Correct. What a waste of time that would be.”

            We finally agree! The end must be near.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Obama has the mainstream media working to control our perspective of him.

          • hiernonymous

            Good thing that there are steely-eyed men of keen intelligence, strong will, and impeccable virtue such as yourself who see through the dastardly plot and serve as Guardians of the Republic. Tip of the hat to you, brave sir.

          • truebearing

            Getting snotty won’t help you. He’s totally correct.

            Flush of the toilet to you, foul knave.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “However, I’m hesitant to reach a conclusion based on inadequate information”

            Really?

            Can you define “hesitant” more specifically?

          • hiernonymous

            Sure. If you have something to offer that I wasn’t aware of or hadn’t considered, I’ll reevaluate my tentative conclusion.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So you’ve already reached a conclusion and the supposed hesitation is just smoke and mirrors.

          • truebearing

            It’s a new, flexible form of objectivity.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            draw the target around the arrow

            it’s how we got Global Warming

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no. “Tentative” wasn’t in my response for rhythm.

            I’m genuinely curious about what your guidelines are – what you were actually hired to do. I don’t know how open you can or are willing to be about the matter, but it would be very interesting to learn just what it is you have as your mission statement and parameters.

            Quite plainly, we constantly evaluate available data and work with what we have, but this is a situation where direct input from you would be invaluable.

          • nomoretraitors

            What “ideology” is he advancing? He’s questioning the wisdom of assigning a journalist to cover an administration whose parents are active supporters and contributors. If you don’t see the problem in that, then you are part of the problem

          • truebearing

            Perfect! :)

        • WhiteHunter

          For starters, a Shillman Fellowship is an honor awarded based on, and in recognition of, earned and demonstrated merit.

          That’s one of several ways it differs from Obama’s Nobel, Bill Clinton’s Rhodes Scholarship, and Al Gore’s Academy Award.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s nice, but it doesn’t answer the question.

      • oldeyes

        Actually, I think you are worse than CBS News. You are not a journalist in any sense of the word. You clearly have an agenda which you pursue without any regard for the truth. Try taking the time to look at both sides of a story. Try taking the time to check your facts independently. At least try to be objective, even if your personal bias gets in the way. Your articles are more emotional than objective. At the very least, don’t portray yourself as a journalist. I doubt you could define the word.

        • 95Theses

          Wow.

          Certainly no one can ever accuse you of bias.

          The problem with liberals – I would call it a pathology – is
          that though they are able to perceive that, say, FOXNews leans to the right (though through their alternate universe lens leftists see that news outlet as rabidly right-wing) they are likewise pathologically unable to see any bias in left-wing news outlets. Worse, the bias of liberal news media is far, more blatant in their complete lack of objectivity in the way they slant the news. That’s the saddest part.

          When I worked for a federal government agency (teeming with dues-paying union parrots) I had more than my share of discussions that consistently bore that fact out so often, the proposition was practically axiomatic.

          When I would ask my coworkers if they thought FOXNews leaned to right, they would fire back that FOXNews was all the way to the right of the spectrum – i.e., as extreme as they could possibly caricaturize FOX.

          But when I asked if CNN or MSNBC or any of the Big Three, the answer – and I mean without fail – was that those media outlets were completely objective.

          Given the uniformity of their answers, I can’t think of any
          other word that applies than pathological. So … if the shoe fits.
          Methinks your ‘old eyes’ have developed cataracts.

        • nomoretraitors

          If you don’t see the problem in assigning a journalist to cover the White House whose parents are Obama donors and whose mother served on his campaign, you are truly obtuse.
          How much is George Soros paying you to post here? Greenfield is a journalist par excellance. You are just a troll.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          So you’re saying I’m exactly like the New York Times then.

          That’s a really harsh accusation.

          • truebearing

            Apparently the Left fears your voice and is assigning more of their best hypocrites to attack you.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Do you seriously think that anyone confuses FPM for a site competing to be a dominant player in breaking news from a completely objective perspective?

      Everyone here that appreciates FPM for what it is knows that it’s focused reporting that attempts to inform people about the salients in the political and cultural wars in America and around the world.

      FPM is a response to bias and to the political battles to try to help contain delusional leftist movements and ideas. It’s a partisan player. Everyone knows that. It’s not trying to pose as anything that it’s not.

      If you were convinced that there was absolute proof of the industrial effects on the “environment” leading to catastrophic “climate risk” you’d be a partisan with respect to people that did not agree with you.

      It’s OK for partisans to lay out the facts and assertions for people to use in objective investigations. I personally consider myself an objective partisan. Because my role is not to mediate as a judge who will perpetually reboot the chances for each side to win no matter what the facts lead to. My role is less formal. I’m entitled. I’m an investigator that also passes judgment as a juror.

      As far as certain big media organizations go, they pretend to be open to all arguments when they’re not. They’re partisans with respect to answering to profits. And some of those profits are won through cronyism rather than free market principals.

      So it’s ugly all over. I’m sorry. That’s just the way the world is. And it’s getting worse because we’re failing to educate our students properly at virtually all levels.

      • truebearing

        He knows full well how corrupt CBS and the Marxist media have become. He’s on a mission of deception, pretending to be objective so his denigration of the Right has seeming validity. Being a relativist, he has no respect for objectivity to begin with. He’s using the moral values of the Right to attack the Right.

        hiero indulges rationality at the expense of truth. To people like him, “truth” is malleable, therefore something that needs to be shaped to fit his formulaic world view. Twisting the truth is yet another way the end justifies the means.

        • Americana

          Just, FYI, no one can indulge rationality at the expense of truth. That’s called fudging the truth if not outright lying. Hieronymous sure doesn’t give the impression that “truth” is “malleable.” Neither does he show me any signs he’s got a “formulaic world view.” (Where is THAT coming from?) It’s very evident to me he expects someone to construct a chain of events and facts that lead to a blatant conclusion if there’s one to be had. If there isn’t, then you don’t point and say there’s the conclusion when there’s not.

          • truebearing

            People rationalize lies all of the time. Yes, it is lying.

            Maybe he doesn’t give that impression to you. Maybe that is because you share the same biases.

      • hiernonymous

        “It’s a partisan player. Everyone knows that.”

        Yes, and I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of an article penned by such an organization complaining that a journalist might be ‘biased.’

        • truebearing

          But he just explained that FPM has openly and honestly taken a partisan position, whereas CBS is partisan but pretends to be unbiased. CBS is purposely being deceptive for the simple reason that they will sway more people if their viewers believe they are truthful. They aren’t.

          You seem incapable of differentiating some rather simple things. Are you feeling ill?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hiero is capable, but unwilling.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          CBS poses as an objective news source. At least they used to.

          • Americana

            CBS is still an objective news source.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh, great. Thanks for the confirmation. Great breaking news right here in the forum!

          • Americana

            Let’s do an experiment. You point out stories to me for the next week, next full month, next three months, heck, next six months, that demonstrate a CBS bias. Or pick a particular show on CBS that is known for investigate journalism and we can compare story notes on that show.

            Tell me what you found objectionable and biased in WHAT CBS reported and HOW they reported it, how frequently they updated their stories to rectify mistakes or add new information, as well as what the overall balance of the news was from right and left of the spectrum. Tell me whether you found the story itself objectionable, i.e., was it written from an obviously Left/Right agenda when it should not have been. Were the individual elements to each story objectionable: so, was the headline accurate and informative, what about the deck description of the story, was that accurate and without bias, and then write down your objections in shorthand about the segments and the news stories.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Sixty Minutes is biased in many of their reports. And they’re supposed to be the most credible AFAIK.

            And they are the most credible. That’s the problem. Some topics just have so much controversy attached that it can take years before an objective reporter is prepared to come to any balanced conclusions.

            Let me take a look at the web site and see if I can come up with something we can pick apart.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/on-split-screen-news-events/

            Left: University students hold a candlelight vigil for the passengers of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in Manila on March 13, 2014.

            Right: Pro-Ukrainian demonstrators march in the streets of Simferopol in support of the Crimean Tatar community, March 14, 2014. TED ALJIBE, FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

            The last time I can remember two such compelling stories competing for our attention was 1997.

            Bill Clinton about to make the first State of the Union speech of his second term when word came that a verdict was coming down in O.J. Simpson’s civil trial.

            The nation was mesmerized by anything and everything O.J., and every TV newsroom confronted one question: What do we do if the verdict comes in the middle of the president’s speech?

            Do we cut away and broadcast the verdict? Do we go to split-screen, with the president on one side and O.J. on the other?

            Fortunately, the verdict came as the president was winding down, so the networks and CNN took a deep breath, stayed with the president, then reported the verdict when the speech ended.

            The plane story is a tragedy of unspeakable proportion for the families, and a compelling mystery for the rest of us, but our fascination with that should not lull us into underestimating the potential danger of what is unfolding in Ukraine, where some untoward, even accidental event could literally plunge the world into war.

            So we’ll keep you posted on both.

          • hiernonymous

            I just wanted to say that I find this exchange very interesting. I don’t have anything to add, and don’t want to intrude, but I think you two are onto a productive approach to this topic and I’ll follow it with interest.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Take your thoughts and stick ‘em where the Sun don’t shine.

          • hiernonymous

            whatever

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            As Nike says, Just Do It.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-hardest-middle-east-questions/

            I am just back from 10 days in Israel. I talked to both Israeli and Palestinian officials, and I’ve been to the region many times.

            But what stays with me this time are the words of a young Israeli farmer and his wife, who live a stone’s throw from the wall that separates their village from the Gaza Strip, where more than a million Palestinians live.

            The farmer tells me how he used to hire hardworking Palestinians from Gaza to tend his tomatoes. But since the escalation of terrorist attacks in recent years, the Palestinians cannot leave Gaza.

            So now, even though unemployment in Gaza is 41 percent, he imports workers from Thailand halfway around the world.

            In his village, no one is more than 15 seconds from a concrete bunker. The farmer’s wife tells me the kids know what the bunkers are for, and how bombs and sniper fire have come from across the wall.

            “They know to run to the playground bunker when they hear the sirens,” she tells me. “But what do I tell the four-year-old when he asks, ‘Why do they want to kill us?’”

            In the Palestinian areas, the children are also asking hard questions.

            I came away from this visit reminded that, of all the questions about the Middle East, the hardest to answer are still the ones the children ask.

          • Americana

            Those questions from little children break my heart, too. I wish the children were the ones to sign the peace agreement. A couple of muddy hands smushed down on the paper… beneath a drawing of how they wanted to be happy in their playing w/their mum and dad watching them. From their perspective, this would be easy to solve.

            Does this tomato farmer grow his plants beneath cover or outside in the open air? Did he experience the rust disease that swept around the world a year or two ago? it killed millions of tomato plants here in the U.S.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            More important questions would probe why the situation seems intractable. They’re going along with the establishment that doesn’t want to ask deeper questions.

            Why is the security wall really needed? Why is the “peace process” no different than any other war zone? By is one side expected to give up unilaterally while the other side continually incites its children through official classroom activities including text books.

            Those are far more relevant questions and angles for reporting. You want to help children, find out the true causes of these situations. It’s not a bunch of greedy Jewish bankers and white racists oppressing everyone.

          • Americana

            I’ve never taken the attitude that it’s the Jewish bankers and white rascists who are the problem, objectivefacts. The security wall is needed for the foreseeable future as far as I can tell. My feeling is that two things need to happen for there to be any forward movement. We ignore everything that’s been an issue in the past. That is something neither side is willing to do. I’m beginning to think the peace talks should be held at a playground where these politicians have to look at their tiny grandchildren tottering around so their commitment to peace becomes real to them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m beginning to think the peace talks should be held at a playground where these politicians have to look at their tiny grandchildren tottering around so their commitment to peace becomes real to them.”

            Do the “Palestinian” grandchildren wear their jihadi training outfits or put on Western clothes for the media photos? Get my drift?

            You can’t detect bias for the simple reason that you haven’t detected the bias. You fit the CBS demographic.

          • Americana

            I haven’t detected the bias? I’m unaware of both sides playing the sympathy card? Are you not paying attention? I’ve been pointing out the bias of both sides refusing to acknowledge that the other side has a point about X or Y or Z. But though I might be sympathetic to each side in different ways, I feel terrible there’s simply no way to solve this that doesn’t involve inequities of various kinds, never mind the strategic risks. But the strategic risks are not going to be improved by pretending that the Palestinians don’t have just cause and that they’re going to be there for the foreseeable future.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But the strategic risks are not going to be improved by pretending that the Palestinians don’t have just cause and that they’re going to be there for the foreseeable future.”

            Their cause is not just. They’re for the most part lying about what their cause is. The cause is not to build a state but to destroy an enemy state.

            There might be some sincere “Palestinian” nationalists but they have no power. They get killed if they open their mouths about jihad.

            There is no Palestinian state. If you want to call it a “state” it’s a failed state before it became viable. Abort the dead state.

            Obviously you’re not as objective as you think you are if you think that the Palestinian “Two State Solution” is sincere.

          • Americana

            That is simply not the case. If destroying Israel were their only aim, what would they be achieving? If they wiped out Israel, they would have retaken possession of their former land and they would then have the ability to declare the Palestinian state. Simply by that accomplishment, the theorem is proved. But I would say that achieving the one — a Palestinian state — might serve to prevent the accomplishment of the other — the elimination of Israel. It doesn’t take King Solomon to see what the Israelis should opt for. Trouble is, Israel doesn’t want to confront the land issue and so there is a constant refusal to pretend that the issues that present the largest danger don’t change all that much if there were to be a peace treaty w/a non-militarized Palestinian state.

            SCREW SOCIALISM, I’m well aware that there is a ridiculous amount of propaganda that’s being aimed at Palestinian children. Would that same amount of vilification be produced if there were a Palestinian state? A demand could be made in peace talks that such propaganda isn’t allowed to be produced and shown nor should there be religious instruction where the imams are inculcating that sort of anti-Semitic bias in Palestinian children.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That is simply not the case. If destroying Israel were their only aim, what would they be achieving? If they wiped out Israel, they would have retaken possession of their former land and they would then have the ability to declare the Palestinian state. Simply by that accomplishment, the theorem is proved.”

            “Would be” proved. Not “is.”

            The strategic objective is to destroy the state of Israel. The tactic is to build organizations that propose a Palestinian state.

            Are ISIS also “nationalists? No. Because they don’t need to use that tactic to fool gullible Westerners.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Trouble is, Israel doesn’t want to confront the land issue and so there is a constant refusal to pretend that the issues that present the largest danger don’t change all that much if there were to be a peace treaty w/a non-militarized Palestinian state.”

            Because leaving Gaza was such a clear success and the “Palestinians” have so consistently established bona fides via the previous agreements they’ve made with Israel.

            What planet are you from?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “SCREW SOCIALISM, I’m well aware that there is a ridiculous amount of propaganda that’s being aimed at Palestinian children. Would that same amount of vilification be produced if there were a Palestinian state?”

            Yes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I haven’t detected the bias? I’m unaware of both sides playing the sympathy card? Are you not paying attention? I’ve been pointing out the bias of both sides refusing to acknowledge that the other side has a point about X or Y or Z.”

            Finding some bias means you’re probably looking. It doesn’t mean you’ve fully succeeded.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            WRONG. Arabs are the ones who are indoctrinating their children that Jews, according to the koran, are the sons of pigs and dogs.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo&list=PL6644A687FC212F81

          • 95Theses

            Yeah … and the same ‘pigs’ and ‘dogs’ (and let’s not forget apes!) also happen to comprise 22% of all Nobel Prize laureates since its inception.

            Jews (.025% of the world’s population) – 22% of Nobel laureates.
            http://judaism.about.com/od/culture/a/nobel.htm

            13.58 million Jews worldwide.
            http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/daily-chart-16

            Muslims (23% of the world’s population – 1.6 billion) – 0.0178% of Nobel laureates. Roughly.
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

            Total number of Nobel Prizes: 561
            Between 1901 and 2013, the Nobel Prizes and the Prize in Economic Sciences were awarded 561 times.
            http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/

            Of these 561 Nobel Prizes, 162 were awarded to Jews.
            Ten were awarded to Muslims.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

            Muslims — .000000000625% of the worldwide population received prizes. And a mere 2 were in the hard sciences (i.e., the sciences which require size-12 brains).

            Jews — 1.1929308% of their worldwide population received prizes. Roughly. And a whopping 116 in the hard sciences!

            In sum, (so to speak) Jews are 19086.892489 times more
            likely to become a Nobel Peace Prize laureate than are Muslims.

            Ah, the Politically-Incorrect Inconvenient-Truths. AKA the PIITS. (Whoops. Was that already taken?)

            Feel free to check my math. I could be wrong … but not by much.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My feeling is that two things need to happen for there to be any forward movement. We ignore everything that’s been an issue in the past.”

            Screw history! What’s an iceberg? Full steam ahead! Forward!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Children in Gaza are being indoctrinated by Arab adults to aspire to die and become martyrs trying to kill Israelis/Zionists/Jews.

            That is CHILD ABUSE and should be condemned by all good people.

            And the constant calls for death to America, death to Israel by Fascist Iran should be denounced by the UN, the UN Human Rights Council – but those organizations have bee co-opted by Islamofascist dictatorships.

          • Americana

            DEMAND that this childhood indoctrination be one of the first things to be STOPPED upon the resumption of peace talks.

            There are a LOT of things that the Palestinians and the Israelis have not done within the context of the peace talks that would help resolve issues just like this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Tell me what you found objectionable and biased in WHAT CBS reported and HOW they reported it, how frequently they updated their stories to rectify mistakes or add new information, as well as what the overall balance of the news was from right and left of the spectrum.”

            I don’t know why you feel the need to defend them. They’re human and their subservient to the culture to a large degree. They’re not leading the vanguard to get the true, unbiased and crucial news to their followers. They’re engaged in an enterprise and they have relatively high standards but there are still biases that go with the momentum of the prevailing cultural currents. Political correctness considerations apply and frankly a truly objective organization would not be commercially successful anywhere in the world right. Maybe never. It’s probably not even possible.

            Better to understand the fallibility of humans and evaluate the biases as best as each of us can.

          • Americana

            I’m not defending CBS. I’m trying to illustrate how news gathering and journalism works. There is not nearly the bias that folks here are attributing to general news coverage. Sure, there are journalists who are more opinion writers, but you know that is their agenda. You have to run a gauntlet to have stories be presented if they are big stories that are still incompletely understood like the bee/neonicotinoid Colony Collapse Disorder.

            Understanding that humans are fallible is one thing, disabusing people of the notion that the news is deliberately twisted is another.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not defending CBS. I’m trying to illustrate how news gathering and journalism works. There is not nearly the bias that folks here are attributing to general news coverage.”

            MMmmmm…well we’re not really finding something specific to disagree over. Not yet anyway so I’m not sure I’m going to judge the bias others are responding to.

            However, I do think that the aggregate effect of all the pandering for viewers is to make people more pliable. And then when “journalists” allow politicians or institutions to issue press releases or statements that go unchallenged while in other stories reporting on the crazy racists that oppose them, that is not balanced at all. And some of those media personalities are just nuts.

            IOW they’re not looking for the best representation of each argument. They report “facts” selectively to fit the agenda of building popularity even if that means allowing a political party to get away with ridiculous things like claiming that emails are lost from the IRS or whatever.

            Actually some seem to finally be waking up…but at this point they don’t suddenly get credit for being “objective” when the token fell some 5 or 6 years too late. And they’re not so much waking up as being forced to acknowledge certain things and show that they’re not brainless puppets of the DP.

          • J.B.

            CBS refuses to admit that the Obama Administration is still lying about Benghazi, and that the IRS is lying about “losing” Lois Lerner’s emails. It refuses to questiorstn thatwhyBe Bzerrorist was captuted now after strolling around free for two years. It refuses to question why Obama is allowing a terrorist army to conquer Iraq. Those are the top stories n the world and CBS is proecting Obama instead of doing investigsative journalism or even acvcurate reporting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/honduran-brothers-describe-harrowing-journey-to-u-s/

            HYATTSVILLE, Md. – On Wednesday, the U.S. Border Patrol will give reporters access to buildings where it’s holding children caught crossing into this country without parents.

            Tens of thousands have entered illegally this year, and more are coming every day.

            We spoke to three boys in their family’s apartment near Washington, D.C. They said they are aged 17, 15 and 12.

            These three boys said their parents paid $9,000 to smugglers to bring them from Honduras to the Texas border.

            CBS NEWS

            They asked us not to use their names. Their family paid smugglers $9,000 to bring them from Honduras to the Texas border. They crossed the Rio Grande alone in January.

            What was the worst part about the journey?

            “Crossing here,” the 12-year-old said, speaking in Spanish. Crossing the river was the worst, he said.

            The boys are from San Pedro Sula, the city with the highest murder rate in the world. They say they had to escape gangs that shot their older brother.

            Were they afraid they would be killed too?

            “Yes. They had already told me that they were going to kill me,” said the eldest.

            They are among a wave of children who have crossed in the United States without their parents. More than 47,000 have come here illegally since last June.

            The boys we met flagged down a Border Patrol agent once they entered the U.S.

            “They took our shoelaces,” the 17-year-old told us, “and they put us in their car.”

            They were taken to a center like this one, where they were able to call their mother, who has been in the U.S. for five years.

            Were they ever afraid when they were traveling?

            “Yes,” the oldest said. “There are people that have come here to die in the desert. You come with fear.”

            The boys spent three months in a Chicago shelter before reuniting with their mother.

            Is it hard to talk about these things?

            “Yes, it’s hard,” the 17-year-old said, tearing up.

            The boys are waiting for a deportation hearing to be scheduled. The Border Patrol expects 40,000 more immigrants like them this year.

            © 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

          • Americana

            Were you going to give me a synopsis of what you thought about this story?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It serves the DP by shifting focus on “the victims” instead of the causes.

            We must do something! Never mind fears that our solution will just make it worse! Do something for the children! Don’t ask questions that might change the narrative about what that solution might do or what the range of options is.

            It’s just pandering. It’s not objective reporting.

          • Americana

            Bear w/me but I find it odd that you think that’s not OBJECTIVE reporting just because the story didn’t go into all the possible political solutions being discussed by Congress. Not all stories are meant to be all-encompassing super stories w/everything in them from soup to nuts and three martinis on the side. That story about POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS is another story entirely. This was entirely a fact-based history of how these kids came to the U.S. and what makes illegal alien kids such a big problem.

            That story gave us many salient facts about those children and the overall enormity of the issue of CHILD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. It said that they left Honduras after gangs killed their oldest brother and threatened them. It said they were 3 of a wave of around 40,000 children who try to become illegals this year in the U.S. It said the mother was already here. It said that they were willing to attempt to do this partly on their own. It gave the role of the Border Patrol and the DNS. It said how long they were incarcerated before facing a deportation hearing.

            Giving the American public those facts about the ILLEGAL CHILDREN issue is telling us what the scope of the issue is and what it costs for us to house them and deport them even without going into the precise costs. It probably should have said what the total cost would be of their per diem for three months and their housing costs and their total deportation costs, but, as is, it suits its purpose. 40,000 illegal alien kids is a HUGE PROBLEM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This was entirely a fact-based history of how these kids came to the U.S. and what makes illegal alien kids such a big problem.”

            First, what I did was go to the web site and grab the first few stories I saw so that I could get your response. So I agree with you in principal that it takes more to build a case of bias.

            But if we continue this ongoing monitoring I am sure I can do it. I wasn’t certain how much effort would be required to illustrate what I’m talking about.

            You’re naivete on “Palestine” does help me a little to know what to expect.

            As I said, most of the problem is editing bias by excluding the parts of the narratives that either challenge the status quo or risk offending popularly held views about…oh, maybe things like Palestine or Islam, or Critical Race Theory based assumptions and so forth.

            And that is also what makes it covert. What they do is good enough for you, it makes shareholders happy most of the time and they have a good relationship with the DP.

          • Americana

            You are assuming naiveté on Palestine when I really have none. I am absolutely intolerant of the worst forms of Palestinian political abuse of their situation. (Slaying settler families in their homes! Boarding buses as suicide bombers. On and on…) But I think we’d have a more realistic comparison between the two peoples’ situations if the Irgun were in the same position as the Palestinian PLO. Say, if the Irgun had been fighting for Israel’s founding and 80 years on it hadn’t gotten anywhere, you think the Irgun would be sitting around doing nothing to achieve statehood? If everything were reversed and the Israelis were the ones behind the walls in tiny enclaves, feeling they had been dispossessed, would they have upped the scope of their military targets? We saw that the Irgun was completely capable of irregular warfare, terrorism.

            The Irgun may never have descended into the viciousness of the Palestinians and may never have gone the route of finding the next ever more dramatic target for their terrorism, but somehow I doubt we’d have had jet planes being brought down in Lockerbie, Scotland if the Palestinians had had a homeland decades ago. So to claim that there WERE and ARE NO LIMITS to Palestinian terrorism is sort of a misnomer. If the reason to pursue terrorism were taken away, would these larger and larger terrorism events ever have occurred? That is one aspect of the terrorism situation that Israelis are loathe to examine — what role the DURATION of the Palestinian statelessness plays in this conflict. When I say that one cannot simply look back because you fail to move forward, that’s what I’m talking about. What’s done is done, we can’t undo the past evens, but we can ensure the future and to do so we’ve got to establish security for Israel first alongside a Palestinian state.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…I think we’d have a more realistic comparison between the two peoples’ situations if the Irgun were in the same position as the Palestinian PLO. Say, if the Irgun had been fighting for Israel’s founding and 80 years on it hadn’t gotten anywhere, you think the Irgun would be sitting around doing nothing to achieve statehood?”

            You’ve come very close to the answer and you leave it to me to fill in the blanks. That’s OK.

            The answer is that of course they would not have. Because building a state is about more than winning battles. Building a state requires a cohesive effort to build the institutions to maintain sovereignty. Without centralized coordination and control, one can’t achieve sovereignty. Without sovereignty there is no state.

            And that’s why even the wishful thinkers that find this guy or that who really want a Palestinian state are wrong. Because the ingredients are not there. And because of the culture and the way that they organize themselves, it’s very unlikely a state would come from the efforts that they are making now. Only AFTER Israel is completely gone is there a possibility of an interim Palestinian state or perhaps at this point ISIS would simply declare it as part of “Greater Syria.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So to claim that there WERE and ARE NO LIMITS to Palestinian terrorism is sort of a misnomer.”

            Dude, look at the entire history of the Middle East. Of course there are limits. For the Israelis it was about building a modern and productive state with the best possible relationships with other states. That was clearly a limit for them. And the “terrorist” organizations were folded in to the state apparatus relatively quickly. Is that what you see from any of the jihadi militia?

            With jihadis…it’s about using Western paradigms for stealth but strategically about something else. And many modern thinkers from within those Muslim cultures will be deceived by the stealth techniques as well. Until you have a stable sovereign at peace with its neighbors, like Egypt is some times…you can’t be sure it’s not just another jihadi state.

            Find out more about that something else.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” If everything were reversed and the Israelis were the ones behind the
            walls in tiny enclaves, feeling they had been dispossessed, would they
            have upped the scope of their military targets?

            Jews lived for over a thousand years in the Muslim world, dispossessed, reduced to second class citizenship, being persecuted, murdered and yes, living behind walls in tiny enclaves.

            They still live that way in parts of the Muslim world like Yemen.

            Muslims aren’t angry because they’re oppressed. They’re angry because they’re supremacists. That’s true in every country.

          • J.B.

            It isn’t objective reporting. It’s a thinly disguised attempt to generate sympathy for illegal aliens and amnesty.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The story takes a particular angle. The most obvious way to tell is see which side of the ‘human interest’ story gets told.

            The side of illegal immigrants or the Americans suffering because of them.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The New York Times is also biased.

          • 95Theses

            Man bites dog!

          • truebearing

            I already pointed one out. The attempt by Dan Rather to smear George Bush with forged memos in 2004. is that your idea of objective journalism?

            Cheryl Attkkison left CBS because they kept blocking her from doing stories that exposed Obama, such as Fast and Furious. Have you been sequestered in a cave somehwere?

          • iluvisrael

            Read “BIAS” written by Bernard Goldberg – you may learn something.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          It’s like a lawyer complaining about a biased judge. The lawyer has a different role and therefore it’s not hypocritical for him to lodge that complaint. Unless a lawyer posed as another judge lodging the complaint.

          Context matters.

          • hiernonymous

            I might agree, if it were the “Shillman Advocacy Fellowship” and not the “Shillman Journalism Fellowship.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It seems like the popular definition of journalism has changed.

          • hiernonymous

            We certainly seem to be trying to blur the line between “journalist” and “propagandist.”

            And you are quite correct, the advent of blogs and writers who reject traditional standards of journalistic standards and ethics certainly is changing the popular definition of journalism.

            Does FPM cross that line? Not always, but I’ve seen it happen. One case in point was an article Daniel wrote, in which he waxed indignant about a story he ran across on the net that he couldn’t even read.. It was in Italian, and he ran with the online machine translation, without bothering to find another source or a translator. Plainly, if he hadn’t done that, he hadn’t done even the most rudimentary fact checking before publishing. That doesn’t square with traditional standards of journalism, so, yes, the definition is changing if this is journalism.

          • Webb

            Wow, what a startling glimpse into the tortured existence and pathology of an OCD troll. I was wondering how in the world there could be 140 comments. Turns out it’s all about Shillman and not about the article. The advent of blogs has given rise to the online stalker.

          • hiernonymous

            Your post isn’t about the article. Just saying.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Someday a team of psychiatrists will study this thread after Hiero kills four people because his carton of dozen eggs only had eleven eggs in it.

          • Americana

            You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs… It’s when you break a stinky egg though, Daniel, and try to pretend that it’s fine to do so that bugs me. Some stories (Shoebat’s story on the Mohammed video stinks to high heaven.) We may not share the same perspective on what undermines one’s cause, but advocacy journalism serves its purpose best when it adheres to the highest standards of interpretation of the facts. When there is skewing of the facts, it should be the OPINION about those facts and NOT THE FACTS THEMSELVES BEING ALTERED.

            That is a very legitimate question about how advocacy journalism works and just what **liberties** are granted someone who’s working in an advocacy capacity. Can you lie outright? Can you lie by sins of omission? Can you lie by commission? To what degree do you obfuscate the facts in order to push your read of a story/situation? Certainly, you can’t continue to push stories when the evidence is going against you if you’ve got any sense of honesty at all.

          • truebearing

            Blah, blah, blah. You haven’t provided any evidence that FPM or Daniel have done what you decry, but I can provide examples of the so-called mainstream media doing all of those things and more, yet you call them “journalists.”

            Dan Rather’s spurious piece on George Bush is a good starting point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Why are you trying to link the Shoebat story to me?

          • Max Modine

            In case you haven’t already discerned Daniel, ‘Americana’ is a paid troll. Robert Spencer at JihadWatch finally banned it after months of trouble making. Don’t waste any more of your time on it. Ban it post haste. Max.

          • hiernonymous

            Now there’s a post that captures the journalistic instincts of Mr. Greenfield as well as anything I’ve seen.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Machine translation usage is standard in many media organizations these days.

          • Americana

            Machine translation of very sensitive material relating to a very sensitive story is not standard however.

          • hiernonymous

            At issue is not its use by “media organizations,” a wonderfully vague phrase, but the journalistic standard to present facts that are accurate and complete.

    • http://DeHavelle.com Keith DeHavelle
  • Libslayer

    CBS just can’t help themselves. People are sick of the Kenyan Klown, and having another condescending elitist obamasucker cheerleading for the America-hating lout is probably not going to boost their low ratings.

  • nomoretraitors

    Another presstitute

  • Christopher Riddle

    Obongo’s”A$$-KISSERS”Not-So-Anonymous??????????????????????????

  • glissando

    THIS WILL DEFINITELY BE A RESUME’ ENHANCEMENT FOR MY GIRL SHARYL. WONDERFUL !!!

  • WhiteHunter

    There’s an old maxim among trial lawyers: “Never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.”

    This is the flip side of that: “Never call on a journalist at a press conference unless you’ve already rehearsed her with the question you want to answer.”

  • revrocky210

    Coming to a theater near you: “WHITE HOUSE-GROWN TERRORISTS” starring Obaba Black Sheep (pulling the wool over our eyes) and Eric Wholedirt (always backed up by Obaba). Surprise ending when they disappear ! (Reviewers are invited to Google “Revealed: The Destroyer of Obama’s Tyranny” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)