Rachel Maddow, film-flam queen
Let one of the late-night Jimmys make a joke at Donald Trump’s expense and expect to see it referenced on CNN’s website the next morning. Let Chris Cuomo switch away from a guest and see it celebrated the next day as a blow against the empire.
CNN remains the default home page on the low-resolution monitor of Ol’ Sparky, our Eisenhower-era mainframe computer. But not for long.
National Review detailed just one day’s (it was April 30) tendentious headlines on CNN’s home page, which led with “77 lies and falsehoods Mueller called out” and included “William Barr now has to try to defend the indefensible.”
National Review’s critique is headlined, “CNN Is Not a News Network; and Jim Acosta is no reporter.” Writer Charles C.W. Cooke continues:
Even more transparent a player than Acosta is Don Lemon, who is a “news anchor” in the same sense as that in which Nick Saban is a referee. In recent years, Lemon has become famous for refusing to accept when he is wrong … and for his routine inability to control his emotions during interviews.
These days, CNN is a peculiar and unlovely hybrid of progressive propaganda outlet, oleaginous media apologist, sexless cultural scold, and frenzied Donald Trump stalkerblog.
Cooke continues, “it is absolutely true that President Trump, the clear target of the drive, is a habitual liar and an unreconstructed narcissist. The trouble is . . . so is CNN.”
Rachel Maddow, absent for the debunkings
Star anchor Rachel Maddow is another piece of work over at MSNBC. NR reporter Jim Geraghty writes:
Her program includes bits of news and other substances that appear to be like news, but are not — fervent speculation, conjecture, assumptions, theories. If it is too harsh to call it “fake news,” then it is news with artificial flavors and sweeteners, designed to make it more exciting and appealing than it really is.
Adam Schiff should have been on Maddow’s payroll, so often did he repeat the lie that he had evidence of Trump’s supposed Russian collusion. Geraghty quotes Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on the Steele dossier:
At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document. And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.
She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry. ….
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Which is why David Leonhardt’s statement is so ridiculous, that being:
“[T]he overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly.”
What nonsense! Think I’ll swap out CNN as my computer home page in favor of the Babylon Bee.