Archive for Journalism

Another Milhous in the White House

Seriously, it’s like 40 years ago, all over again:

In her memoir Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, Attkisson looks back on the final years of her network career. One concludes from her book that Attkisson encountered more difficulty practicing her profession at CBS News during Obama’s tenure than at any other time. She reached an agreement for her departure from CBS News in March 2014, well before her contract was to expire.

The book’s subtitle refers to the difficulties Attkisson encountered in “Obama’s Washington.” The term is in part a euphemism for the Obama administration, but it also reflects the support for the administration within CBS News. The head of CBS News is David Rhodes, brother of Obama national-security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Let’s digest that for a moment. I write a lot about the Democrat-Media Complex, but this is as bad as it gets—tied, I suppose, with Al Sharpton on MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos on ABC, David Axelrod wherever he is, Mr. and Mrs. Jay Carney wherever they are, crony capitalist Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE (parent corporation of the the NBC networks), etc. ad nauseam.

Each of the scandals falls into a larger pattern of scandal management practiced by the Obama White House. (The reader can infer how the IRS scandal fits the pattern precisely to a T.) Her book is invaluable for how it analyzes and exposes this pattern, combining her reportage and her behind-the-scenes work at CBS News.

The pattern begins with blatant denials — bald lies — and stonewalling. Attkisson deftly articulates one of the bona fide occupational qualifications for service as a spokesperson in the Obama administration. Referring specifically to HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters, whom Attkisson had caught lying to her, she writes: “It takes a certain kind of person to be untruthful and then display utter lack of contrition when caught.”

You say Joanne Peters, I hear Haldeman and Erlichman.

Also, rather than responding to straightforward inquiries, administration spokesmen pump reporters for the information they have so they can undermine it. Attkisson calls this technique “pump and mine.” The administration then plants slanted leaks to friendly bloggers and reporters; next, it characterizes any advances in the story as “old news.”

Attkisson also shows how the administration, using a technique she calls “controversialization,” disparages any sources and reporters who move the story forward. As she recounts in the book, Attkisson has extensive personal experience being at the receiving end of this technique.

She singles out Media Matters as the main outlet that moves administration spin into the mainstream media. As Attkisson demonstrates, however, the power of Media Matters derives from the complicity and cooperation of its many allies in the media, i.e., the many Obama allies in the media.

See above.

She writes:

Perhaps the greatest PR coup of all is that the administration’s expert spinners successfully lead the media by the nose down the path of concluding there’s no true controversy unless there’s a paper trail that lays blame directly on the president’s desk. Time and again, with each scandal and each damaging fact, Democrats and the White House read from the script that says, “there’s no evidence President Obama knew” or “there’s no evidence of direct White House involvement.” Anything short of a signed confession from the president is deemed a phony Republican scandal, and those who dare to ask questions are crazies, partisans, or conspiracy theorists. . . .

Under President Obama, the press dutifully regurgitates the line “no evidence of White House involvement,” ignoring the fact that if any proof exists, it would be difficult to come by under an administration that fails to properly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, routinely withholds documents from Congress, and claims executive privilege to keep documents secret.

You say Barack Obama, I hear Richard Nixon.

Attkisson bookends her accounts of the Obama-administration scandals she covered with the story of what she describes as coordinated intrusions into her telephones and computers. She was working on the Benghazi story when a friendly source “connected to a three-letter agency” offered a surprising observation. “The administration is likely monitoring you — based on your reporting,” the source advised her. She had, in fact, been having troubles with her phones and computers, which were behaving oddly.

Three sets of experts — including experts hired by CBS — examined her computers. All reached the same conclusion: She was the victim of computer intrusion and monitoring. One expert found classified government documents secreted in her hard drive, though she had not placed them there and had nothing to do with them. She believes that they were placed there by the intruders for use against her at an appropriate time.

The Department of Justice has issued two statements on Attkisson’s case. In response to Attkisson’s first public mention of her experience, in the course of a radio interview, the Department of Justice said:

To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never “compromised” Ms. Attkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use.

You say Justice Department, I hear Justice Department.

Comments (1)

The Courage of His Convictions

How can we defend your freedom of speech, Jim Clancy, when you won’t defend it yourself?

Senior CNN international correspondent Jim Clancy appears to have deleted his Twitter account following a firestorm over a bizarre anti-Israel tirade last week.

Following the murder of 12 people at the Paris headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, Clancy got into an argument over whether the magazine has actually insulted the founder of Islam Mohammed in its famously provocative cartoons.

But the discussion rapidly deteriorated when Clancy launched a barrage of verbal abuse at several Jewish respondents, attacking them as “pro-Israeli” and accusing some of attempting to promulgate “an anti-Muslim and pro-Israel agenda.”

Several of his followers reacted with shock at his response, with some calling into question his objectivity as a journalist who frequently reports from the Middle East.

Clancy remained unrepentant, however, with a slew of tweets attacking “hasbara” (pro-Israel) activists.

He was also criticized by the head of a disability charity, after he tweeted to one of his critics: “@HumanRights2K Get a grip, junior. It’s my Friday night. You and the Hasbara team need to pick on some cripple on the edge of the herd.”

Jay Ruderman, who heads the Ruderman Family Foundation which advocates for greater integration of people suffering with disabilities, demanded an apology from Clancy, but was promptly blocked.

If CNN reporters are not free to taunt Jews and make fun of the disabled, the terrorists will have won.

Branding the “cripple” comment “appalling,” Ruderman asked how “in this day and age a senior anchor at CNN, a world leader in the media, would use a word such as ‘cripple’, which is a derogatory term for people with disabilities.”

“If a news anchor had hurled a racial epithet, CNN’s response undoubtedly would have been swift,” Ruderman said in a statement. “The disability community expects CNN to extend the same sensitivity to people with disabilities as it does to other minority communities.”

Last year, during the infamous “chickens**t” scandal, Ruderman complained to the White House over alleged comments by an unnamed senior official who referred to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as “Aspergery.”

How come the Left feels comfortable pushing the boundaries of free speech only against Jews? Why not call Al Sharpton chickens**t (when the epithet fits)? Isn’t Valerie Jarrett “Aspergery”? I’d defend their right to free expression if only they’d have the nuts to express themselves.

Comments

Fox News Calls Nancy Pelosi a Lush! [UPDATED]

Correction: Fox News called John Boehner, not Nancy Pelosi, a lush. We regret the error.

Correction II: Boston.com, not Fox news, called John Boehner, not Nancy Pelosi, a lush. We regret the error.

[We’re just trying to get hired by Boston.com]

A Boston.com story that made light of a threat against House Speaker John Boehner has drawn the ire of the Ohio congressman, prompting an apology from the website.

Posted online Tuesday night, the story suggested that Boehner has a drinking problem and asked whether anyone would have noticed if Boehner had been poisoned. That comment was in reference to news that a former bartender at an Ohio country club where Boehner is a member has been arrested for allegedly threatening to kill the congressman.

“Stories about Boehner’s drinking have circulated for years,” wrote Victor Paul Alvarez, one of a handful of associate editors at Boston.com, in a passage that has since been removed from the website. “Had he been poisoned as planned, perhaps his pickled liver could have filtered out the toxins.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, fired back in an e-mail Wednesday.

“I would have thought it would be obvious to any sentient human being that your item mocking the threats against the speaker and his family was completely insensitive and inappropriate,” Steel wrote. “Should you wish to offer an explanation, or – better – an apology, feel free to respond.”

Mike Sheehan, the chief executive of Boston Globe Media Partners LLC, said he spoke with Boehner’s office and sent a note of apology Wednesday afternoon.

“It’s very difficult to hit the epicenter of tasteless, mean-spirited, and humorless in one fell swoop,” Sheehan said in an interview.

In a statement released Wednesday, Boston.com general manager Corey Gottlieb said the Alvarez piece did not reflect the site’s values.

“The original column made references to Speaker Boehner that were off-color and completely inappropriate,” Gottlieb wrote. “We are sorry, and we will do better.”

Boston.com is owned by Boston Globe Media Partners LLC but operates independently from The Boston Globe and BostonGlobe.com.

“There is a really fine line between tongue in cheek . . . and what’s unfair or hurtful,” Gottlieb said, but Alvarez’s story clearly crossed that line. He declined to say whether Alvarez would be disciplined for the story.

Since threatening the life of a Republican is hardly news (until the culprit is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize), you may not have heard:

Last October, Hoyt allegedly told police he was going to kill Boehner, who he claimed was responsible for the spread of Ebola.

Hoyt allegedly said he planned to shoot Boehner and suggested he could poison one of his drinks.

Freedom of the press trumps all to me, so if the snide comment was in an opinion piece, I would defend it from the outside, even if I would have spiked it from the inside. (I run a blog, not a supposedly respectable news site. As editor the latter, I would never have allowed it, even if I might have written something like that here.)

But then, it has to go both ways. You can’t make fun of Boehner’s liver and Sarah Palin’s special needs son, and not let me have a go at Obama’s nicotine addiction, Pelosi’s Botox addiction, and John Kerry’s John Kerry addiction.

UPDATE
The guy got canned.

Comments

Rules For Journalists

Given today’s activist actions in Paris, it is obvious that journalism needs to change. We at BTL are working on code of formal professional ethics to replace the worn-out and seldom used, who, what, when, where and why. We need help on this guys, please add suggestions in the comments section.

1. The purpose of The Profession of Journalism is to support a peaceful, zen-like state among the Stupid People Public. Our goal as professionals is to achieve Perfect Harmony.

2. Any use of language or imagery that detracts from the above goal must be prevented before it is published.

3. Ancillary useful activities that journalists may, and in some cases, should, engage in involve support for political parties, candidates, or groups or individuals that effect a peaceful, zen-like state on the population. Articles should be written in simple, positive language, supporting such groups. Likewise, images should portray the main actors in a positive light. It is sometimes desirable to deviate from “the truth” to achieve the goal of Many Truths.

4. Another worthwhile endeavor of the Professional Journalist would be to castigate groups or individuals who threaten the zen-like state of Perfect Harmony.

5. It is obvious from the goals stated here that journalists should avoid antagonizing any group that is armed or professes an interest in disrupting the Perfect Harmony that we all seek.

Ok, please add or modify as you see fit.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

The Blind Leading the Blind

When one annoyingly smug website critiques another (overusing foul language in an effort to be even more annoyingly smug), there is little to learn.

But much to enjoy:

Vox launched almost nine months ago, pitching the idea that by utilizing constantly updated articles and taking advantage of the internet’s lack of space constraints, they could “explain” the news in an entertaining and informative manner. It was an interesting premise—maybe even a great one—and readers apparently agreed, as Vox’s traffic and revenue numbers are reportedly great. Which is astonishing, because for a site whose foundation is explaining the news, Vox fucks up a breathtaking amount of stories.

Sometimes Vox gets the name of a grocery store or the year a bill was passed wrong, but errors like that—while unfortunate—are inevitable and excusable. What makes Vox unique is not their errors, but the magnitude of those errors. Whether being taken in by blatant hoaxes, showcasing a clear misunderstanding of a study in an article that has no purpose other than explaining that study, or making multiple mistakes in a post that consists of only a graph or a short paragraph, Vox repeatedly crapped the bed in 2014.

From this vantage point, the problems seem systemic, not the kind that can be fixed simply by asking writers to slow down or hiring a few more editors. Vox has hired a number of Bright Young People—and is run by the Brightest Young People—and the house style seems to be, “Write as if you are an expert, in a tone assuming that everything one needs to know about a subject can be found in your article.” These Bright Young People may well be near-experts on one or two subjects, or at least close enough to pass as such online, but Vox publishes at the same rapid pace as the rest of the internet, on an exceptional and ever-growing number of topics, and there’s only so much authoritativeness to go around. It isn’t merely that writers and editors have screwed up—though they have—but that the ingredients for disaster are hardwired into the site’s design.

I think we all know Bright Young People, don’t we?

Even when Vox doesn’t technically make mistakes, their model ensures that, far from explaining the news, they actively misinform readers. Here is Vox’s foreign policy guy laying out an article titled, “Here’s the real reason North Korea hacked Sony. It has nothing to do with The Interview.” Never mind the tone (and headline) of utter certainty in the face of numerous computer security experts who are extremely skeptical of the government’s story that North Korea hacked Sony. […] Vox’s foreign policy guy thinks he can explain the reason the notoriously opaque North Korean regime conducted a hack they may well not have actually conducted!

You can read on if you wish. Let me just whet your appetite with this:

Headline: 11 crucial facts to understand the Israel-Gaza crisis

Correction: An earlier version of this post suggested there was a bridge connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Various plans to do this have been floated, but the bridge was never actually built.

It wasn’t? Are you sure?

Sure looks like it to me.

Comments

Heard On NPR [Update: Apparently The Islamic Terrorist That NPR Didn’t Know About Killed A Couple Folks

I was gobsmacked this morning during drive time when I heard the NPR news report on the Islamist hostage situation in Sydney. The NPR reporter said, approximately, that there was a hostage situation in Sydney and that the Australian PM says it is probably political in motive. That’s all. Every other news source that I checked correctly noted that there was something resembling an ISIS flag in the window, being held up by the hostages. NPR tried to shield its listeners from the unpleasant fact that the Religion of Peace (or a minority thereof) was carrying out a terror attack in Sydney. What in the world does NPR have to gain by covering this up? And no matter what the answer is, why do I have to pay for it?

And here’s the latest, which you can share with your NPR-disabled friends:

Sydney siege live: Loud explosions heard as police storm Lindt cafe
Updated 14 minutes agoMon 15 Dec 2014, 10:38am

Police have stormed the Lindt cafe in Sydney after an intense period of loud explosions or gunshots and flashes of lights.

Several ambulances are on the scene.

Earlier, police identified the man behind the siege as Iranian cleric Man Haron Monis.

Monis has been holding an unknown number of people hostage at the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney’s Martin Place since Monday morning.

Three people emerged from the building about 4:00pm (AEDT) and they were followed by another two an hour later.

Hostages were earlier seen pressing a black flag with Arabic text against the cafe’s windows.

Monis is on bail for a string of violent offences and has a conviction for sending offensive letters to the families of deceased soldiers.

And this is from CNN

Chilling images from Australian media on Monday showed people, believed to be hostages, with their hands pressed against the cafe’s windows. They were holding up a black flag with Arabic writing on it reading, “There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God.”

Sounds like angry Congregationalists to me. Again, why are we spending tax money on NPR? They couldn’t find the news if it was handed to them in a brown paper bag.

Update: Two or three dead.

– Aggie

Comments

Why Isn’t This News?

George Bush and Dick Cheney made headlines for calling NY Times reporter, Adam Clymer, a major league a-hole.

This?

Crickets.

According to retired ABC News journalist Ann Compton, Barack Obama launches into “profanity-laced” tirades against the press in off-the-record meetings with reporters. In a C-SPAN interview, Compton also derided the President for leading “the most opaque” administration of “any I have covered.”

The journalist, who retired in August after a 40-year career, revealed to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb: “I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals.”

She explained, “And I don’t find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell.”

After Lamb wondered if the President had a point, she chided, “We cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don’t take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they reap what they sow.”

Earlier in the hour-long C-SPAN interview, which aired on Sunday night, but was recorded in October, Compton slammed the “opaque” administration:

ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.

She added that it’s fine for the White House to take its own photographs, but “those same elements should not be blocked from the White House press corps.”

Since when does the president get to dictate what is and is not a scandal? And why do these guys cover up for this guy? Especially when he’s such a major league a-hole himself?

Comments (1)

Rape or Rape Rape?

“Hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.

Shouting “I can’t breathe!” means you can.

Whatever happened at University of Virginia, it was nothing like Rolling Stone reported.

Now, Lena Dunham (rather, again Lena Dunham).

I’m starting to believe in the innocence of Bill Cosby:

It has been more than 4 days since Breitbart News published a detailed investigative report debunking Lena Dunham’s claim in her memoir that as an Oberlin college student she had been raped by a mustachioed campus Republican named Barry. Thus far, the reaction from Ms. Dunham and her numerous representatives has been total silence despite inquiries from numerous media outlets.

The afternoon prior to publishing our report, Breitbart News reached out to Dunham and her publisher with a detailed message left for Dunham’s publicist at Random House. We left the same message for the person described as the publicists back-up.

As of yet, no one has responded to those inquiries.

Thursday, the Daily Mail also attempted to reach both Random House and Dunham’s representatives: “Calls to Random House, the publisher of Not That Kind of Girl, and to Dunham’s literary agent by MailOnline were not immediately returned Thursday.” As of Saturday evening, the Daily Mail reports, those calls remain unreturned.

Breitbart News can also confirm that a major entertainment publication has not heard back from the Dunham camp in reference to queries about our investigative report.

It is unusual for Dunham and her representatives to be silent in the wake of negative stories. Recently, Dunham herself publicly lashed out at National Review and Truth Revolt over two separate unflattering stories. In the case of Truth Revolt, within hours of publishing a story about Dunham’s bizarre behavior towards her younger sister, the Website (run by our own Ben Shapiro) received a cease and desist letter and threat of suit from Dunham’s high-powered attorney.

In today’s journalism, fact-checking is denialism. Libel law may be the only check on rampant, unchecked journalistic malpractice.

Dunham received upwards of $3.7 million for Random House for her memoir. According to Saturday’s statement, Barry One, who has a young family, has burned through a large part of his savings due to the legal fees he’s incurred while trying to protect his name.

Barry One is considering filing a libel suit against Dunham.

Lena?

Lena Dunham @lenadunham · 14h
Superpower: she can quickly locate the available Xanax in any foreign country

Looks like you’ll need ‘em, honey. Better Xanax than cake.

God knows why your editor didn’t query your accusation, why Random House’s lawyers didn’t give you the third-degree, why you decided to libel “Barry” in the first place. But it’s going to cost you. We suggest Hostess pastries if you can no longer afford whole cakes.

Comments (1)

Rolling Stone Apologizes For Accusing Frat House Of Rape

This reminds me of the Duke lacrosse scandal.

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

That’s OK, Mr. Dana. This is just another example of journalists being journalists.

– Aggie

Comments

Lifting the Veil on Media Bias

If it’s the right guy, it takes only one:

During the Gaza war this summer, it became clear that one of the most important aspects of the media-saturated conflict between Jews and Arabs is also the least covered: the press itself. The Western press has become less an observer of this conflict than an actor in it, a role with consequences for the millions of people trying to comprehend current events, including policymakers who depend on journalistic accounts to understand a region where they consistently seek, and fail, to productively intervene.

Using staffing numbers, I illustrated the disproportionate media attention devoted to this conflict relative to other stories, and gave examples of editorial decisions that appeared to be driven by ideological considerations rather than journalistic ones. I suggested that the cumulative effect has been to create a grossly oversimplified story—a kind of modern morality play in which the Jews of Israel are displayed more than any other people on earth as examples of moral failure. This is a thought pattern with deep roots in Western civilization.

BOOM!

I should highlight every word. In the media, “the Jews of Israel are displayed more than any other people on earth as examples of moral failure.” Absolute killer.

Here’s one example he gives:

A rally in support of Islamic Jihad at Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem, in November 2013 (Courtesy of Matti Friedman)

The images from the demonstration were, as photo editors like to say, “strong.” The rally had, in other words, all the necessary elements of a powerful news story.

The event took place a short drive from the homes and offices of the hundreds of international journalists who are based in Jerusalem. Journalists were aware of it: The sizable Jerusalem bureau of the Associated Press, for example, which can produce several stories on an average day, was in possession of photos of the event, including the one above, a day later. (The photographs were taken by someone I know who was on campus that day, and I sent them to the bureau myself.) Jerusalem editors decided that the images, and the rally, were not newsworthy, and the demonstration was only mentioned by the AP weeks later when the organization’s Boston bureau reported that Brandeis University had cut ties with Al-Quds over the incident. On the day that the AP decided to ignore the rally, November 6, 2013, the same bureau published a report about a pledge from the U.S. State Department to provide a minor funding increase for the Palestinian Authority; that was newsworthy. This is standard. To offer another illustration, the construction of 100 apartments in a Jewish settlement is always news; the smuggling of 100 rockets into Gaza by Hamas is, with rare exceptions, not news at all.

It’s a long piece—one I haven’t finished myself—but let me leave you with one more taste:

There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere.

Aggie and I have covered this ourselves. We’ve highlighted “Pallywood”, the tendency of Arabs to stage scenes of carnage with healthy people walking around in other images; with people who died elsewhere, their corpses transported for the photo op; even with shots of other victims of other wars relabeled as victims of the Israeli military.

But even we let the press off the hook as merely ignorant and lazy. Complicity in a conspiracy to slander and libel a nation and its people was something we suspected, but lacked the hard evidence to prove.

Not anymore.

Comments

Bring Me the Hard Drive of Sharyl Attkisson

As Barack “Tony Montana” Obama says: You f*ck with me, you f*ckin’ with the best!

From the moment that Sharyl Attkisson met a shadowy source I’ll call Big Mac, she was plunged into a nightmare involving mysterious surveillance of her computers.

They met at a McDonald’s in Northern Virginia at the beginning of 2013, and the source (she dubs him Number One) warned her about the threat of government spying. During their next hamburger rendezvous, Big Mac told Attkisson, then a CBS News reporter constantly at odds with the Obama administration, that he was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” by his examination of her computer and that this was “worse than anything Nixon ever did.”

Just when you think Attkisson’s imagination might be running away with her comes wave after wave of evidence that both her CBS computer and personal iMac were repeatedly hacked and its files accessed, including one on Benghazi. A consultant hired by CBS reached the same conclusion. Further scrutiny of her personal desktop proves that “the interlopers were able to co-opt my iMac and operate it remotely, as if they were sitting in front of it.” And an inspection revealed that an extra fiber-optics line had been installed in Attkisson’s home without her knowledge.

This is chilling stuff.

There is the strong implication that an administration that spied on the Associated Press and Fox News correspondent James Rosen might have been involved.

You take that back! Just because they spied on a Fox News reporter, locked other reporters in broom closets, earned the contempt of the White House press corps for their secrecy (“more dangerous to the press, really, than any administration in American history”), and sicced the IRS on American citizens, doesn’t mean they’re bad people.

Oh wait:

Last month whistleblower and retired ATF Agent Jay Dobyns won a long court battle against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms after the agency retaliated against him for warning about corruption in management and failed to address death threats against his family.

Dobyns, who infiltrated the dangerous and deadly Hells Angels gang as an undercover agent years ago, brought a lawsuit against the Bureau after supervisors ignored death threats to his family, which included plans to murder him either with a bullet or by injecting him with the AIDS virus, kidnapping and torturing his then 15-year-old daughter and kidnapping his wife in order to videotape a gang rape of her. Contracts were solicited between the Hells Angels, the Aryan Brotherhood and the MS-13 gang to carry out these threats, which were laid out in prison letters and confirmed through FBI and ATF interviews of confidential informants inside numerous detention centers. In 2008, his Tucson home was burned to the ground. When the fire was started, his wife and children were inside. Luckily, they escaped. Instead of investigating, ATF supervisors accused Dobyns of being the arsonist.

In his opinion, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis Allegra described ATF officials as demonstrating misfeasance in the case “rooted in the sorry failure of some ATF officials.” Dobyns was awarded $173,000, an insufficient amount considering his family has been nearly bankrupted as a result of ATF’s behavior, not to mention the emotional stress incurred throughout the process.

Now unsatisfied with a loss in court and berating by a federal judge, ATF and the Department of Justice are appealing the ruling.

The decision to appeal no doubt is the continuation of retaliation from the Bureau against Dobyns, proving that nothing has changed since Acting ATF Director B. Todd Jones promised to cleanup the agency.

Oh, he promised! Did he say “if you like your civil liberties, you can keep your civil liberties, period”?

Anyhow, what good is a promise when your boss is the the consigliere of the crime family, Eric Holder?

Comments (1)

How The Left “Thinks”

Yet another example of willful ignorance. Why are we obsessed with the religion of the Ottawa attacker?

Our obsession with the Ottawa shooter’s religion reveals more about us than about him

I kid you not; that is the title of the piece. Why, oh why, should we concern ourselves with his faith?

Yesterday, the media reported that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the man allegedly responsible for a horrifying shooting spree in and around the Canadian parliament, was a convert to Islam. News reports on the shooting then spent much of the day fixated on that unconfirmed fact — even though there is as yet no evidence that his religion was a motivation for his actions. More sensational coverage discussed dubious social-media connections to ISIS.

These reports imply that because Zehaf-Bibeau was Muslim, jihad is the likely motivation for his attack. But at this stage, without any actual evidence, it makes no more sense to come to that conclusion than it would to assume that he was motivated by Quebecois separatism, just because he was from Quebec. At this point, our focus on the Ottawa shooter’s religion says more about our own fears than it does about anything to do with Islamist terrorism.

On some level, of course, this feels like an obvious connection to make. ISIS dominates the news right now and we hear story after story of people from Western countries joining its jihadist campaign. Surely, it seems, Zehaf-Bibeau’s religion must be relevant to the terrible crimes he committed yesterday?

But those assumptions start to break down upon a little closer examination. Is the theory that the only reason a Muslim would kill is in the name of Jihad? Muslims are just like anyone else, for better or worse, which means that just as an act of generosity by a person who is Muslim does not mean that act was motivated by Islam, a murder committed by a Muslim was not necessarily driven by Islamist extremism.

And on it goes… The writer wishes to make herself (and the rest of us) as stupid as possible. This is just breathtaking stupidity. I don’t even have a way to categorize it or a decent simile. It isn’t like asking why we have to eat, or why the sky is blue, because those questions have interesting answers. Instead, it seems to be saying – screaming – LIKE ME BECAUSE I AM SO GOOD!!! What is wrong with this writer????

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »