Sadly for America but happily for the lamestream media, actual rights aren’t dependent upon merit so we can’t just eradicate the bulk of the MSM. Instead they need to be taught how to do their jobs. A mandatory course in remedial journalism is most definitely in order.

I suppose it would end up having to be the SCOTUS’ decision as to what Americans could do with and to those who in the media who failed remedial journalism – and believe me, I would fully expect a massive failure rate among the first class.

From The Politician’s Mouth To The Press’ Ears

When comes right down to it, in the absence of statesmen, the only benefit that politicians provide to the people is a source of fertilizer and, even then, they spew it so profligately and indiscriminately that they poison far more than they stimulate.

Why is Blackmail a crime, a felony in most or all cases, and “investigative journalism,” which is often better described as “muckraking” and does greater perceived harm to the victim an oft-lauded and protected activity?

The Shamed – Might They Have Preferred Blackmail?

Both blackmail and “investigative journalism” are based upon finding damaging and/or embarrassing details about a victim. The only difference is that a blackmailer gives the victim an alternative to being exposed.

So why is the blackmailer vilified and the reporter oft-times lauded?

It can’t be because blackmail causes greater harm to the victim than the muckraker does. Simple economics require that the price asked of the the victim by the blackmailer be less painful than exposure would be. Blackmail, after all, is a consumer driven industry where the victim sets the price based upon his or perceived pain points.

It can’t be because the blackmailer profits from his activities. Journalists, paparazzi, and random individuals with access to “sensitive” information regularly profit from exposing influential or famous people’s various faults, flaws, failings, and peccadilloes.

Nor can I see where or how it could be that blackmail is a crime against the People or State as opposed to being a crime against a Person. Not all, or even most cases of blackmail have involved politicians or businessmen in the context of their jobs and few of those that we know of have involved extorting them to act in certain manners. In point of fact, the exposées much touted by the media have seemingly had far more impact upon corporations and politics, yet they are legal and societally approved of.

It just doesn’t some to make any logical sense, yet I and all who I know are firm in our convictions that blackmail is wrong and must be a crime, whereas “investigative journalism” – or even “tell all,” unapproved biographies – are to be protected as basic rights necessary to our society.

As these creatures profit from all forms of human misery and have repeatedly shown that when there is not enough of it to pad to their wallets they will actively strive to create that misery by willfully escalating conflicts they have become a force for abject Evil.

I truly do not believe that any man or woman who actively or tacitly supports them in any way, even by the merely failing to strike against them when and as possible, can expect anything other than disapprobation and/or damnation from their God(s).

This is especially true when the solution to the problem of these disgusting scavengers is two-fold yet simple in execution:

1. No government, military, or aid agency should allow the operatives of CNN or any other media outlet access to any situation or theater where people are endangered in any manner until after all needed efforts have been completed. If these filth complain, they should be given one warning. If they ignore this warning or complain a second time, their entire field team should be executed on the spot.
2. No person should ever lend any form of aid or comfort to these media vultures. They should never be provided with food, shelter, transport, or information of any sort. If and when the vermin complain, their equipment should be taken from them or destroyed and they should be driven off, using whatever level of force is required to accomplish this.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing and the God(s) will surely judge each of us by our both are actions and when we chose not to act.

There’s also been discussion about these newspapers moving to “paywall models” for their digital content. Whether or not such schemes will allow any individual newspaper to survive is, I believe, more upon who their target audience is than upon any other factor or or factors.

So who reads which newspapers?

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.
6. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
7. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
8. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
9. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
10. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
11. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could find the time from indoor tanning, teeth whitening, and botox – and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.
12. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped people-of-color feminist gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy — provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

NOTE: Variants of this list / joke have been circulating since at least 2005 but this version came from Fellowship of the Minds.

So which group, if any, do you think will find paying for a digital subscription to their newspaper to be of value? The movers and shakers,the would-be movers and shakers, the Frustrati, or the prurient masses seeking enjoyment through Schadenfreude?

Personally I think the newspaper, such as it is, with by far the best chance of having a salable digital market is The National Enquirer. It has a large consumer base, none of which want to be seen purchasing it!

That’s in the Civilized World. The Muslim World knows little, if anything, about it because they don’t consider such events to be newsworthy.

If one goes to the Liberals’ new darling “news outlet,” Al-Jazeera English and search for any mention of “Lara Logan“, the non-results are stark proof that her vicious attack was not considered something that should be reported upon even to their growing Western audience.  Completely unsurprisingly, their original, Arabic site also has no mention of Lara Logan.

In point of fact, if one searches for “rape” on Al-Jazeera English’s website, one will find many articles about the crime but none of them involve rape committed by Arabs. Their their original, Arabic site seems to be similar, though it includes articles about rapes of female political prisoners within Iran which are tellingly not found on Al-Jazeera English.

The attack upon and brutalization, defilement, and pollution of an attractive, blond-haired, blue-eyed, Western, female reporter by a reeking mob of slavering Muslim apes isn’t news within the Muslim World unless it’s such that they can gloat and crow about it.

Additionally, since the gang rape couldn’t be pinned on Mubarek’s agents or supporters, it didn’t fit the “message” that Al Jazeera’s anti-American propaganda machine, Al-Jazeera English seeks to poison the Civilized World with, they were never going to comment upon it.

So we in the Civilized World should not be shocked by Al-Jazeera’s refusal to cover Lara Logan’s beating and gang rape. Her’s was reportedly not the only sexual assault upon a Western woman by Egyptian males in Tahrir Square that day and such gang rapes, nor are such attacks unusual during larger, emotional gatherings of Muslims in Egypt.

Rape, pedophilia, and disgustingly barbaric levels of abuse of women and girls are all part and parcel of Islam and the Muslim World, hence they’re no more newsworthy there than going to the local market is within the Civilized World so there’s no rational or sane reason to expect any media outlet that caters to Muslims to report upon it.

This holds true for the original, Arabic version of Al-Jazeera which caters to an Arab Muslim audience. Al-Jazeera English is another story and they should be dealt with differently.

The Guardian, got their hands on a leaked police report detailing the sexual assault charges against Assange and published them.

It is reported that Julian Assange and his attorneys are livid over this disclosure of the nature of the claims that have been filed against him with Swedish courts.

In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange’s closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent.”

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. “It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position,” he told a colleague.

“I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing – trying to make Julian look bad.”

Mr Assange is facing criminal allegations in Sweden over claims by two women that he sexually assaulted them while he was in the country earlier this year.

~*~

A spokesman for The Guardian said: “Julian is not a confidential source. The argument that the papers involved with the WikiLeaks cables should not report criticism of him is one all journalists would find ridiculous.”

It’s not really shocking that, now that the shoe in other foot, Assange and the vermin representing him aren’t happy about leaks. Such rank hypocrisy is to be totally expected from such misborn creatures.

Yes, karma can be a stone bitch and she’s chosen to bite Assange in the ass in an incredibly poetic fashion. It couldn’t truly happen to a more deserving vermin, though he and those he’s worked with or who provide him with material support deserve far sterner and final punishment than these charges will provide for.

Most people would learn, especially after being publicly and nationally disgraced and condemned and having ones entire life’s work rendered meaningless. Not Helen Thomas though; she doesn’t seem to have the capacity for learning.

Thomas’ alma mater, Wayne State University has decided to stop awarding it’s Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award due to Thomas’ continued and escalating anti-Semite rantings.

Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists.  No question.

– Helen Thomas
Arab Detroit Workshop, December 2, 2010

The world has heard this sort of thing many, many times in its history. In point of fact, Helen Thomas did little more than parrot an extremely terse and slightly updated synopsis of the Protocols of the Learned Elder of Zion, first published in 1903. Surprisingly, this dessicated and extraneous-to-society Arab sharmuta didn’t also include reference to Blood Libel despite it’s being always a particular favorite among anti-Semite vermin.

Of course it’s slightly different when an Arab such as Helen Thomas mouths such things before a grouping of Muslims who’ve gathered in their preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, and victimology in order to foster compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity. Done within that context, it’s tantamount in all but law to calling for a second Ha-shoah.

It’s is certainly right and proper for WSU to eradicate anything that references Helen Thomas. Any award in her name, especially one for diversity, would be an abomination.

Things aren’t going completely bad for the rabid Arab anti-Semite though. In the wake of her first egregious public display of antisemitism, which led to ignominious end to her career, the Muslim Brotherhoods front-group, CAIR, gave her a lifetime achievement award at their leadership conference last October.

I’m sure that actually means more to her than WSU’s efforts, just as I’m sure that Thomas’ rant in June meant more to CAIR than anything else Thomas had done during her life.

Silencing Olbermann is a great thing for America but I’m not sure this was the way to do it.

The stated reason for NBC’s suspension of the hyper-Liberal Olbermann was that he directly and willfully violated NBC’s Newsroom Policy when he made those donations with the one to Raul Grijalva being made immediately on the same day that Olbermann hosted Grijalva on his show:

Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.

There is no doubt that Keith Olbermann violated NBC’s policy which is based upon the journalistic ethics code called – ironically given the foul and perfidious degeneration of the NY Times – the code of the Grey Lady.

Where doubt, both ethical and logical, arises is in whether or not such standards and policies should be applied to Olbermann.

The ethical question arises from NBC’s policies themselves. Legal or not, is it right to require as terms of continued employment that employees refrain from full participation in the civic process? These employees are private citizens, and there’s an ethical  issue with any employment requirement that impinges upon their freedoms of speech and association.

The logical problem is nothing more than a result of a logical fallacy based upon an utterly false and well-disproven postulate, that Keith Olbermann is a journalist or even an employee of a news agency. MSNBC is not a news agency by a creditable definition of the term and Keith Olbermann doesn’t even attempt to bear any resemblance to journalist.  Applying the code of the Grey Lady to him is patently ridiculous.

So, for what little it’s worth in the grand scheme of things, I’m ambivalent about Olbermann suspension. I’m ecstatic that he’s been, at least temporarily, stopped from further polluting the airwaves with his filth, but I’m not fond of why he was removed.

Press Corps In White House Briefing Room

Many will be tempted to ask if this indicates a thawing of the “relationship” between President Obama and Fox News. Others will choose to see it as President Obama capitulating to Fox News. They would all be wrong since the Obama Regime has little or nothing to do with Fox’s being granted a prime front row seat in the briefing room.

The decision of how the seating would be rearranged in the wake of Helen Thomas’ unlamented departure was solely in the hands of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), an organization represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues and which is made up of reporters and journalists, not necessarily White House flunkies.

The WHCA has a nine-member board of directors, elected annually by correspondents, which addresses access to the POTUS;  press coverage arrangements; reporters’ work space arrangements; logistics and costs for press travel to accompany a president while on the road.

WHCA Officers 2010-2011

• President: David Jackson, USA TODAY
• Vice President: Caren Bohan, Reuters
• Secretary: Steve Scully, C-SPAN
• Treasurer: Doug Mills, New York Times

WHCA Board Members 2010-2011

• Carol Lee, Politico
• Michael Scherer, Time Magazine
• Julie Mason, DC Examiner
• Don Gonyea, NPR
• Ed Henry, CNN

It was the decision of those nine members of WHCA’s Board of Directors to move Fox News to the front row, not that of anyone directly associated with the Obama Regime.

The board of the White House Correspondents Association has agreed, by consensus, to move the Associated Press to the front row, center seat in the James S. Brady Briefing Room.

The board further agreed to move Fox News to the front row seat previously occupied by AP, and relocate NPR into the second row seat previously held by Fox, next to Bloomberg News.

It was a very difficult decision. The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox’s length of service and commitment to the White House television pool.

Fox News being moved to the front row of the briefing room might be construed as slap in President Obama’s face and loss in his war against unsympathetic press coverage. If it is such, however, it is likely just a delayed punishment for President Obama’s failed attempt last October to ban Fox News from the White House press “pool” entirely, an attempt that somewhat surprisingly the WHCA refused to allow to succeed.

On the other – and I think more likely – hand, it could just be that the WHCA actually has some basic standards for such things and could maintain the respect of their membership if they sat those standards aside to Fox’s detriment - even if they might otherwise have wanted to do so.