hotair--2020-01-06--CNN 'disinformation' reporter goes after Christian satire site Babylon Bee

Yesterday , CNN ’ s Donie O ’ Sullivan , who covers “ disinformation ” for the network , published a thread about the Christian satire site Babylon Bee .
According to O ’ Sullivan , many readers can ’ t figure out that the site is satire because it hides this fact from readers .
In fact , he suggests the Bee might be hiding behind the satire label as a way to avoid being removed from Facebook .
The next tweet is the one in which he suggests “ satire ” is just a clever way to dodge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Sullivan that it ’ s not at all difficult to discover the Babylon Bee is satire .
It ’ s right there in he first paragraph of their About Us page and on their Twitter feed .
And then there are the stories that obviously aren ’ t real , like this one : Is this satire or an attempt to dodge Facebook algorithms ?
Anyone besides Donie O ’ Sullivan can answer that one , I suspect .
Adam Ford who co-founded the Bee was curious if O ’ Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site The Onion .
Here ’ s what he found : In fact , O ’ Sullivan regularly shares article from the Onion : In response to the attacks by O ’ Sullivan , the Bee tweeted out an old bit of satire from 2017 : CNN gets poked a lot by the Babylon Bee .
Just a few days ago it published another mock article about the network : “ CNN : ‘ Trump Voter Shoots Mentally Ill Man In Church ' ” It seems possible that CNN ’ s dislike for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with stories like these that don ’ t put the network in a flattering light .
At a minimum , that explanation is more believable than the conspiracy theory Donie O ’ Sullivan is promoting .

Yesterday, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, who covers “disinformation” for the network, published a thread about the Christian satire site Babylon Bee. According to O’Sullivan, many readers can’t figure out that the site is satire because it hides this fact from readers. In fact, he suggests the Bee might be hiding behind the satire label as a way to avoid being removed from Facebook.
To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week. A lot of people sharing this "satirical" story on Facebook don't know it is satire. https://t.co/HnDjuqw2si — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
The next tweet is the one in which he suggests “satire” is just a clever way to dodge accountability:
The data I pulled on Facebook engagements is from @BuzzSumo btw — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
From last August: Satire or Deceit? Christian Humor Site Feuds With Snopes https://t.co/1eeGP27C07 — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 6, 2020
Several people pointed out to O’Sullivan that it’s not at all difficult to discover the Babylon Bee is satire. It’s right there in he first paragraph of their About Us page and on their Twitter feed. And then there are the stories that obviously aren’t real, like this one:
Anti-Wall Extremist The Kool-Aid Man Leads Campaign Against Trump https://t.co/qEwdKsgPhc — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 6, 2020
And this:
San Francisco Dogs Begin Bagging People Poop https://t.co/kh6BvmRrAC — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 4, 2020
Is this satire or an attempt to dodge Facebook algorithms? Anyone besides Donie O’Sullivan can answer that one, I suspect. Adam Ford who co-founded the Bee was curious if O’Sullivan had ever issued similar complaints about satire site The Onion. Here’s what he found:
There are websites dedicated to chronicling reactions from people who think Onion stories are real. Foreign leaders have famously been fooled by Onion articles. And this guy's bio says he "covers disinformation" for CNN. Surely he has taken the Onion to task as well, yes? 2/3 — Adam Ford (@Adam4d) January 6, 2020
In fact, O’Sullivan regularly shares article from the Onion:
In response to the attacks by O’Sullivan, the Bee tweeted out an old bit of satire from 2017:
CNN To Launch Real News Spinoff Sitehttps://t.co/LExCQdOMXg — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 6, 2020
CNN gets poked a lot by the Babylon Bee. Just a few days ago it published another mock article about the network: “CNN: ‘Trump Voter Shoots Mentally Ill Man In Church'”
CNN: 'Trump Voter Shoots Mentally Ill Man In Church' https://t.co/s4XFcQbuXO — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 3, 2020
It seems possible that CNN’s dislike for the Babylon Bee might have something to do with stories like these that don’t put the network in a flattering light. At a minimum, that explanation is more believable than the conspiracy theory Donie O’Sullivan is promoting.


hotair--2020-01-06--No, it wasn't an "assassination"

No, it wasn't an "assassination"

One of the more depressing aspects of the whole Qassem Soleimani story is the way that so many talking heads in the MSM , along with Democrats , are describing it as an “ assassination.
” Our own Taylor Millard jumped into that debate last night and , disappointingly , decided to adopt the same language .
Interestingly , he based his conclusion on both the standard dictionary definition of the word and Soleimani ’ s alleged position as a legitimate political and military figure in the Iranian government .
Allow me to disagree with both .
But first , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plunge into Merriam-Webster .
If we were doing nothing more than grading high school English papers , this explanation might suffice .
But what it ’ s lacking is a massive amount of context .
The two key words and phrases Taylor leans on are “ murder ” and “ for political reasons.
” Both of these are highly problematic when considering the inhumation of Qassem Soleimani .
First of all , murder has a very specific meaning in legal terms as well as religious beliefs .
And “ murder ” is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor does homicide .
And let us make no mistake about this… Soleimani was engaged in warfare outside the borders of his own country , effecting or abetting the deaths of many people , including Israelis , Syrians , Iraquis and American military troops .
The Quds Force has been designated as a terrorist organization for a dozen years by not only the United States but Canada , Egypt and other nations .
Their violent activities spanned that entire region and across much of the globe .
In short , Soleimani was fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t fighting on the side of the good guys .
When you engage in warfare against the west you run the risk of being killed in combat .
That brings us to the other point being made about Soleimani .
It ’ s the idea that he was somehow a legitimate political and military figure in Iran .
Here ’ s part of what Taylor had to say on that subject .
There are still concerns , particularly due to Soleimani ’ s position within the Iranian government .
He ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no position of state authority when he was killed , or even former ISIS leader Abu al-Baghdadi .
Soleimani was a member of the Iranian government , a government we are not at war with since Congress has never declared war or passed a declaration authorizing the use of military force .
It ’ s akin to the United States deciding to conduct so-called lethal action against a Chinese or Russian general because they happened to be visiting Iraq .
I ’ ve known Taylor for quite a while now and consider him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is simply off base .
And the analogies being drawn here aren ’ t applicable .
Declaring Soleimani to be a political and military figure in Iran may well be true , at least to a certain extent , but only when he was in Iran .
If he was just another general who stayed with his units in the IRGC , that would certainly be the case .
Of course , if that ’ s all he ’ d done , most of us would likely never have heard of him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very expensive drone to take him out .
But that wasn ’ t the case .
In fact , Soleimani was the one actively engaged in the type of activities that Taylor is implicitly accusing the United States of and he ’ d been doing it for years .
The United States didn ’ t extend its reach inside the borders of Iran and take out one of their leaders .
Soleimani is the one who left Iran , leading the Quds Force , a group correctly defined as a separate unit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and ” extraterritorial operations.
” If you need that translated for you , it means that they were entering countries that the nation of Iran was not officially at war with and engaging in unconventional attacks , either directly or by proxy .
In other words… terrorism Trying to compare this situation with a hypothetical mission where the United States kills a Chinese or Russian general who “ happens to be visiting Iraq ” is completely without merit .
Soleimani wasn ’ t “ visiting ” Syria , Jordan or Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and training for others to attack ) groups Iran opposes .
And he got caught out in the open by American intelligence assets and was blown to multiple pieces .
As he should have been .
It ’ s bad enough that we have presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren going around trying to describe Soleimani as a “ high ranking government official ” in Iran .
We don ’ t need to be muddying the waters further with these sorts of complaints .
The monster is dead .
Good riddance .

One of the more depressing aspects of the whole Qassem Soleimani story is the way that so many talking heads in the MSM, along with Democrats, are describing it as an “assassination.” Our own Taylor Millard jumped into that debate last night and, disappointingly, decided to adopt the same language. Interestingly, he based his conclusion on both the standard dictionary definition of the word and Soleimani’s alleged position as a legitimate political and military figure in the Iranian government. Allow me to disagree with both. But first, let’s recall Taylor’s plunge into Merriam-Webster.
Merriam-Webster defines assassination as, “murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons: the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader).” Soleimani’s death fits this description given his role within the Iranian government. This is troublesome since the federal government is not supposed to conduct political assassinations based on multiple executive orders dating back to the Gerald Ford presidency.
If we were doing nothing more than grading high school English papers, this explanation might suffice. But what it’s lacking is a massive amount of context. The two key words and phrases Taylor leans on are “murder” and “for political reasons.” Both of these are highly problematic when considering the inhumation of Qassem Soleimani.
First of all, murder has a very specific meaning in legal terms as well as religious beliefs. And “murder” is not something that happens on the battlefield. Nor does homicide. And let us make no mistake about this… Soleimani was engaged in warfare outside the borders of his own country, effecting or abetting the deaths of many people, including Israelis, Syrians, Iraquis and American military troops. The Quds Force has been designated as a terrorist organization for a dozen years by not only the United States but Canada, Egypt and other nations. Their violent activities spanned that entire region and across much of the globe.
In short, Soleimani was fighting a war. And he wasn’t fighting on the side of the good guys. When you engage in warfare against the west you run the risk of being killed in combat.
That brings us to the other point being made about Soleimani. It’s the idea that he was somehow a legitimate political and military figure in Iran. Here’s part of what Taylor had to say on that subject.
There are still concerns, particularly due to Soleimani’s position within the Iranian government. He’s not Osama bin Laden, who was in no position of state authority when he was killed, or even former ISIS leader Abu al-Baghdadi. Soleimani was a member of the Iranian government, a government we are not at war with since Congress has never declared war or passed a declaration authorizing the use of military force. It’s akin to the United States deciding to conduct so-called lethal action against a Chinese or Russian general because they happened to be visiting Iraq.
I’ve known Taylor for quite a while now and consider him a good friend, but this analysis is simply off base. And the analogies being drawn here aren’t applicable.
Declaring Soleimani to be a political and military figure in Iran may well be true, at least to a certain extent, but only when he was in Iran. If he was just another general who stayed with his units in the IRGC, that would certainly be the case. Of course, if that’s all he’d done, most of us would likely never have heard of him and we wouldn’t have wasted a very expensive drone to take him out.
But that wasn’t the case. In fact, Soleimani was the one actively engaged in the type of activities that Taylor is implicitly accusing the United States of and he’d been doing it for years. The United States didn’t extend its reach inside the borders of Iran and take out one of their leaders. Soleimani is the one who left Iran, leading the Quds Force, a group correctly defined as a separate unit of the IRGC engaging in “unconventional warfare” and ” extraterritorial operations.” If you need that translated for you, it means that they were entering countries that the nation of Iran was not officially at war with and engaging in unconventional attacks, either directly or by proxy. In other words… terrorism
Trying to compare this situation with a hypothetical mission where the United States kills a Chinese or Russian general who “happens to be visiting Iraq” is completely without merit. Soleimani wasn’t “visiting” Syria, Jordan or Afghanistan. He was attacking (or providing funding and training for others to attack) groups Iran opposes. And he got caught out in the open by American intelligence assets and was blown to multiple pieces. As he should have been.
It’s bad enough that we have presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren going around trying to describe Soleimani as a “high ranking government official” in Iran. We don’t need to be muddying the waters further with these sorts of complaints. The monster is dead. Good riddance.


hotair--2020-01-06--AOC: In what universe are Biden and I in the same party?

Er … in the universe where Democrats might still want to win a few elections ?
In a lengthy interview with New York Magazine , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decries the idea that young progressives like herself have to engage with moderates in a Democratic party .
The frosh House member resents her fellow first-termers — the members who gave Ocasio-Cortez an opportunity to legislate — and the necessity of having to account for their own views .
Not addressed : maybe they feel the same way about her and her lectures from a D+29 district ?
Just sayin ’ : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is too acquiescent to the demands of its members in so-called red-to-blue districts — those moderates who flipped Republican seats and gave Pelosi the gavel .
“ For so long , when I first got in , people were like , ‘ Oh , are you going to basically be a tea party of the left ?
’ And what people don ’ t realize is that there is a tea party of the left , but it ’ s on the right edges , the most conservative parts of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a role to play in this problem , and it ’ s like we ’ re not allowed to talk about it .
We ’ re not allowed to talk about anything wrong the Democratic Party does , ” she said .
“ I think I have created more room for dissent , and we ’ re learning to stretch our wings a little bit on the left.
” It ’ s not just that Ocasio-Cortez wants a purity campaign for the Democratic Party .
She also wants one for the progressive movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Ocasio-Cortez isn ’ t the first politician to become a cultural sensation , but she may be the first to do so at the very beginning of her career , when she is occupying the lowest rung of political power .
Her main project going forward may be this : harnessing her immense star power and the legion of young lefties who see her as their avatar , not just to push the Democratic Party away from an obsession with its most moderate members but also to make the stuff of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town halls , into must-see TV .
She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line .
Other caucuses within the Democratic Party in Congress require applications , Ocasio-Cortez pointed out .
But “ they let anybody who the cat dragged in call themselves a progressive .
There ’ s no standard , ” she said .
Don ’ t even get AOC started on the concept of a “ big tent.
” Bigger is not necessarily better , Ocasio-Cortez advises , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral strategy , let ’ s say .
With that in mind , she ’ s hardly excited by her party ’ s clear frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination , wondering how she and Joe Biden could possibly be in the same party : The same goes for the party as a whole : “ Democrats can be too big of a tent.
” It is comments like that that kept Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Democratic Party from reaching any kind of meaningful détente .
I asked her what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of Congress during , for instance , a Joe Biden presidency .
“ Oh God , ” she said with a groan .
“ In any other country , Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party , but in America , we are.
” It ’ s progressive venting such as this that gives me great hope for America .
And not in the way Rep. Ocasio-Cortez imagines , either .
In the first place , Ocasio-Cortez seems blissfully unaware that the US does not have a multi-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we build coalitions before elections within the framework of the two-party system , not after elections in putting together operating majorities .
We don ’ t need such mechanisms because we have an executive elected by separate voting through the Electoral College , with coequal power with Congress .
We could have a multiparty environment , but it ’ s more efficient to settle coalitions within a binary system .
And , of course , Ocasio-Cortez took full advantage of that when she shocked Joe Crowley in the 2018 primary and cinched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t she run as an independent or on a third-party ticket ?
Because it would have ended with her being a bartender , and AOC knows it .
Perhaps the congresswoman just doesn ’ t have enough experience in electoral matters to realize that her D+29 district is not an electoral microcosm of America .
One might think that a little more engagement with other members of her frosh class and a little less scorn might make that clear , but that ’ s not how revolutionaries operate , which is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short period of time .
They aren ’ t interested in strategic alliances , incremental success , or broad consensuses .
They are only interested in imposing the will of a pure minority on what they see as an unworthy majority — which is what makes them both dangerous and usually largely impotent .
Ocasio-Cortez brags about dragging the Democrats to the Left , and in that she may be closer to the truth .
What she doesn ’ t realize is that she ’ s not dragging the rest of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frosh colleagues might enlighten her if she deigned to engage with them , but instead she ’ s busy scorning them and the voters they represent .
Ocasio-Cortez may well succeed in “ purifying ” the party in that manner , but they ’ ll be back to a minority without any legislative power when she does , with enclaves on both coasts and in small academic bastions , with the GOP in control of everywhere else by default .
Unless Republicans screw that up with one of their own purity purges , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a post for a different time .

Er … in the universe where Democrats might still want to win a few elections? In a lengthy interview with New York Magazine, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decries the idea that young progressives like herself have to engage with moderates in a Democratic party. The frosh House member resents her fellow first-termers — the members who gave Ocasio-Cortez an opportunity to legislate — and the necessity of having to account for their own views.
Not addressed: maybe they feel the same way about her and her lectures from a D+29 district? Just sayin’:
The Democratic congressional majority, she told me, is too acquiescent to the demands of its members in so-called red-to-blue districts — those moderates who flipped Republican seats and gave Pelosi the gavel. “For so long, when I first got in, people were like, ‘Oh, are you going to basically be a tea party of the left?’ And what people don’t realize is that there is a tea party of the left, but it’s on the right edges, the most conservative parts of the Democratic Party. So the Democratic Party has a role to play in this problem, and it’s like we’re not allowed to talk about it. We’re not allowed to talk about anything wrong the Democratic Party does,” she said. “I think I have created more room for dissent, and we’re learning to stretch our wings a little bit on the left.”
It’s not just that Ocasio-Cortez wants a purity campaign for the Democratic Party. She also wants one for the progressive movement, starting with the House Progressive Caucus:
Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the first politician to become a cultural sensation, but she may be the first to do so at the very beginning of her career, when she is occupying the lowest rung of political power. Her main project going forward may be this: harnessing her immense star power and the legion of young lefties who see her as their avatar, not just to push the Democratic Party away from an obsession with its most moderate members but also to make the stuff of government, like congressional committee hearings and neighborhood town halls, into must-see TV. She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line. Other caucuses within the Democratic Party in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. But “they let anybody who the cat dragged in call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard,” she said.
Don’t even get AOC started on the concept of a “big tent.” Bigger is not necessarily better, Ocasio-Cortez advises, which is … an interesting view of electoral strategy, let’s say. With that in mind, she’s hardly excited by her party’s clear frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination, wondering how she and Joe Biden could possibly be in the same party:
The same goes for the party as a whole: “Democrats can be too big of a tent.” It is comments like that that kept Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Democratic Party from reaching any kind of meaningful détente. I asked her what she thought her role would be as a member of Congress during, for instance, a Joe Biden presidency. “Oh God,” she said with a groan. “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.”
It’s progressive venting such as this that gives me great hope for America. And not in the way Rep. Ocasio-Cortez imagines, either.
In the first place, Ocasio-Cortez seems blissfully unaware that the US does not have a multi-party parliamentary system. For better or worse, we build coalitions before elections within the framework of the two-party system, not after elections in putting together operating majorities. We don’t need such mechanisms because we have an executive elected by separate voting through the Electoral College, with coequal power with Congress. We could have a multiparty environment, but it’s more efficient to settle coalitions within a binary system. And, of course, Ocasio-Cortez took full advantage of that when she shocked Joe Crowley in the 2018 primary and cinched her election to Congress. Why didn’t she run as an independent or on a third-party ticket? Because it would have ended with her being a bartender, and AOC knows it.
Perhaps the congresswoman just doesn’t have enough experience in electoral matters to realize that her D+29 district is not an electoral microcosm of America. One might think that a little more engagement with other members of her frosh class and a little less scorn might make that clear, but that’s not how revolutionaries operate, which is why they tend to flame out after a short period of time. They aren’t interested in strategic alliances, incremental success, or broad consensuses. They are only interested in imposing the will of a pure minority on what they see as an unworthy majority — which is what makes them both dangerous and usually largely impotent.
Ocasio-Cortez brags about dragging the Democrats to the Left, and in that she may be closer to the truth. What she doesn’t realize is that she’s not dragging the rest of the country along with them. Again, her frosh colleagues might enlighten her if she deigned to engage with them, but instead she’s busy scorning them and the voters they represent. Ocasio-Cortez may well succeed in “purifying” the party in that manner, but they’ll be back to a minority without any legislative power when she does, with enclaves on both coasts and in small academic bastions, with the GOP in control of everywhere else by default.
Unless Republicans screw that up with one of their own purity purges, that is. But that’s a post for a different time.


hotair--2020-01-06--Journalists think journalists are likely to get the middle of the country wrong again in 2020

The Columbia Journalism Review published an interesting piece today titled “ Sleepwalking into 2020.
” The concept is simple .
CJR spoke to a number of reporters and editors about where the media went wrong in 2016 and then asked particular questions about how things would be different in 2020 .
The piece is lengthy and covers a lot of territory but it opens with a section about what went wrong last time .
And here I thought NY Times editor Dean Baquet had a simple but pretty accurate answer : In 2016 I think the media got the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we got Trump .
We didn ’ t understand how much the country was angry at elites , upset about the fallout from the economic crisis .
And I don ’ t think we understood quite how much the country just wanted to shake things up .
We covered it as usual , the way we always cover elections , as a clash of two ideologies , and I think it was much , much deeper .
In another section of the piece on polling , Baquet added , “ All of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump couldn ’ t win .
But he was outside of the paint-by-numbers game we have developed.
” And that leads to an obvious question about 2020 : Can reporters do a better job understanding Trump ’ s voters in the middle of America better than they did in the last election .
On this point , many of the reporters questioned seem quite down on their fellow reporters , particularly the “ parachute mentality ” of some journalists : Sarah Kendzior , author of “ The View from Flyover Country : Dispatches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media is making the same mistakes as in 2016 .
The midwest has become the sort of stand-in region for what the national media think of as the “ forgotten voter.
” What a lot of these coastal outlets are doing is parachuting in here with the narrative pre-written trying to find people who fit their preconceptions of what people in the midwest are like .
None of this authentically captures what ’ s going on , and it really does a disservice to this whole region .
It ’ s diverse demographically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best way they could fix this problem would be to hire people who actually live in these states .
Al Cross , director , University of Kentucky Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues : It ’ s not just boots on the ground .
You can ’ t have a parachute mentality .
You have to have some rural sensibility or an appreciation of rural sensibility .
You deal with them as people and you have an appreciation for how they live their lives , and be respectful of that .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will show that to you .
Kara Swisher , tech journalist and founder of Recode : I think everybody ’ s a regular person .
That ’ s one thing I hate when reporters go , “ we ’ re going to talk to regular people now.
” I ’ m a regular person .
It ’ s weird that that ’ s the way [ journalists ] think of these people , like creatures in a zoo or something .
Olivia Nuzzi , who writes for New York magazine actually had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having more honest conversations : Admit your bias .
Generally speaking , I haven ’ t found there to be much room for changing hearts and minds on the subject of media fairness—from people who are skeptical of the media and distrust the media—if we ’ re defensive about it .
Totally anecdotally , the only times that I ’ ve had any luck talking to people who are skeptical of the media about whether or not they ought to be is when like I ’ ve been honest— ’ Yeah , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are important to voters .
And I would never endeavor to hide that .
But obviously I ’ m not motivated by any kind of partisan objective in my work.
’ That shouldn ’ t be controversial to admit .
And I think most people in newsrooms—by virtue of being from the coast or living on the coast , or coming from elite universities—kind of share a similar world view .
But I feel like when people don ’ t feel like you ’ re like bullshitting them , at least in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve been able to have more honest , less confrontational conversations than when I ’ ve been like , ‘ No , the media ’ s fair !
What are you talking about ?
Everyone ’ s objective !
Nobody ’ s biased !
’ This makes a tremendous amount of sense and yet I don ’ t see it happening very often .
How often do left-wing journalists ( which is nearly all of them if we ’ re talking about journalists in New York and DC ) open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transparent admission of their own contrary perspective ?
That lack of transparency has an impact on their work because you can ’ t expect people across the country to really open up about their political views when you ’ re an Ivy League progressive pretending to be a neutral arbiter .
Trust me on this , the people you ’ re talking to can literally feel the waves of smugness radiating off coastal elites .
It ’ s why so many people on the right laugh at Trump ’ s slaps at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media , with its absurd insistence that it has no bias , has become the butt of the country ’ s biggest joke .
And yes , there ’ s a bit of anger behind that laughter , because the media ’ s refusal to admit ( to self-report ) the most obvious truth about its own inner-workings suggests they think everyone else is an idiot .
The solution to that , if there is one , is something like what Olivia Nuzzi suggests .
If media bias is the elephant in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media ’ s failure in 2016 , then the way out of that is honesty , transparency , and a dash of humility .
Left-wing reporters who can ’ t get real about their own political biases aren ’ t likely to produce good work about other people ’ s political biases in a culture they don ’ t know and clearly despise .
Finally , for editors and publishers who really care about this problem , there ’ s another solution : Hire some conservative reporters .
Diversity of thought matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Having a 90-10 progressive newsroom in a 50-50 country is always going to be a recipe for failure .

The Columbia Journalism Review published an interesting piece today titled “Sleepwalking into 2020.” The concept is simple. CJR spoke to a number of reporters and editors about where the media went wrong in 2016 and then asked particular questions about how things would be different in 2020. The piece is lengthy and covers a lot of territory but it opens with a section about what went wrong last time. And here I thought NY Times editor Dean Baquet had a simple but pretty accurate answer:
In 2016 I think the media got the country wrong. I don’t think we got Trump. We didn’t understand how much the country was angry at elites, upset about the fallout from the economic crisis. And I don’t think we understood quite how much the country just wanted to shake things up. We covered it as usual, the way we always cover elections, as a clash of two ideologies, and I think it was much, much deeper.
In another section of the piece on polling, Baquet added, “All of us in the media were just so convinced Trump couldn’t win. But he was outside of the paint-by-numbers game we have developed.” And that leads to an obvious question about 2020: Can reporters do a better job understanding Trump’s voters in the middle of America better than they did in the last election. On this point, many of the reporters questioned seem quite down on their fellow reporters, particularly the “parachute mentality” of some journalists:
Sarah Kendzior, author of “The View from Flyover Country: Dispatches from the Forgotten America”: National media is making the same mistakes as in 2016. The midwest has become the sort of stand-in region for what the national media think of as the “forgotten voter.” What a lot of these coastal outlets are doing is parachuting in here with the narrative pre-written trying to find people who fit their preconceptions of what people in the midwest are like. None of this authentically captures what’s going on, and it really does a disservice to this whole region. It’s diverse demographically, racially, ideologically. Honestly the best way they could fix this problem would be to hire people who actually live in these states. Al Cross, director, University of Kentucky Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues: It’s not just boots on the ground. You can’t have a parachute mentality. You have to have some rural sensibility or an appreciation of rural sensibility. You deal with them as people and you have an appreciation for how they live their lives, and be respectful of that. And if you show that to them they will show that to you. Kara Swisher, tech journalist and founder of Recode: I think everybody’s a regular person. That’s one thing I hate when reporters go, “we’re going to talk to regular people now.” I’m a regular person. It’s weird that that’s the way [journalists] think of these people, like creatures in a zoo or something.
Olivia Nuzzi, who writes for New York magazine actually had a personal suggestion for how journalists could try having more honest conversations: Admit your bias.
Generally speaking, I haven’t found there to be much room for changing hearts and minds on the subject of media fairness—from people who are skeptical of the media and distrust the media—if we’re defensive about it. Totally anecdotally, the only times that I’ve had any luck talking to people who are skeptical of the media about whether or not they ought to be is when like I’ve been honest—’Yeah, I definitely lean to the left on issues that are important to voters. And I would never endeavor to hide that. But obviously I’m not motivated by any kind of partisan objective in my work.’ That shouldn’t be controversial to admit. And I think most people in newsrooms—by virtue of being from the coast or living on the coast, or coming from elite universities—kind of share a similar world view. But I feel like when people don’t feel like you’re like bullshitting them, at least in my, again, very anecdotal experience, I’ve been able to have more honest, less confrontational conversations than when I’ve been like, ‘No, the media’s fair! What are you talking about? Everyone’s objective! Nobody’s biased!’
This makes a tremendous amount of sense and yet I don’t see it happening very often. How often do left-wing journalists (which is nearly all of them if we’re talking about journalists in New York and DC) open a piece about Trump voters with a transparent admission of their own contrary perspective? That lack of transparency has an impact on their work because you can’t expect people across the country to really open up about their political views when you’re an Ivy League progressive pretending to be a neutral arbiter. Trust me on this, the people you’re talking to can literally feel the waves of smugness radiating off coastal elites. It’s why so many people on the right laugh at Trump’s slaps at the media. For many people, the media, with its absurd insistence that it has no bias, has become the butt of the country’s biggest joke. And yes, there’s a bit of anger behind that laughter, because the media’s refusal to admit (to self-report) the most obvious truth about its own inner-workings suggests they think everyone else is an idiot.
The solution to that, if there is one, is something like what Olivia Nuzzi suggests. If media bias is the elephant in the room and part of the reason for the media’s failure in 2016, then the way out of that is honesty, transparency, and a dash of humility. Left-wing reporters who can’t get real about their own political biases aren’t likely to produce good work about other people’s political biases in a culture they don’t know and clearly despise. Finally, for editors and publishers who really care about this problem, there’s another solution: Hire some conservative reporters. Diversity of thought matters in reporting more than in most jobs. Having a 90-10 progressive newsroom in a 50-50 country is always going to be a recipe for failure.


hotair--2020-01-06--The Klomentum dream is still alive and well

January is going to be her big month at last .
Senator Amy Klobuchar is the sleeper candidate that ’ s just waiting for the optimal moment to peak and start building some serious “ Klomentum ” in her drive toward the 2020 Democratic nomination .
Or at least that ’ s the story we appear to be getting from David Leonhardt at the New York Times .
And even better than that ?
She can beat Donald Trump like a bongo in a conga line .
If you ’ re like a lot of Democrats , you worry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal — or at least that other voters think so .
You ’ re also not buying the Pete Buttigieg hype .
And you get nervous every time Joe Biden opens his mouth .
So where are you supposed to find a comfortably electable , qualified candidate who won ’ t turn 80 while in office ?
Senator Amy Klobuchar has become an answer to that question in the final month before voting begins .
She has outlasted more than a dozen other candidates and has two big strengths : A savvy understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a track record of winning the sorts of swing voters Democrats will likely need this year .
This Klobuchar love letter from Leonhardt is truly something to behold .
He goes on to point out that she “ won ” the last debate ( or was at least one of the winners ) and her fourth-quarter fundraising basically doubled her take in the third quarter .
Of course , that figure was still more than tripled by Bernie Sanders , but who ’ s counting ?
Unnamed “ top Democrats ” tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of beating Donald Trump .
That apparently wasn ’ t enough hyperbole for the peanut gallery , however .
The author goes on from there to compare her to ( and I ’ m not even kidding here ) Harry Truman .
I ’ ll leave it up to you to click through and discover the full explanation as to why .
Klobuchar ’ s path to the nomination ( and then the presidency ) is an uphill one by the author ’ s own admission , but he sees it as doable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then New Hampshire so that she can keep the contributions flowing in while all but three other candidates drop out .
Unfortunately for both Klobuchar and Leonhardt , that ’ s the same path that a dozen other people are counting on .
Now , to be fair , I ’ ve been saying since she first got into the race that she would be a dangerous candidate if she won the nomination .
Back when she first declared , I wrote that she shied away from the crazy socialist stuff quite a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” thing going for her .
She ’ s squarely in the moderate lane and could potentially be thought of like a younger , female version of Joe Biden , minus the inappropriate handsyness and memory lapses .
And now that she ’ s agreed to disclose government UFO information as president ( well… sort of , anyway ) , what ’ s not to like ?
But even for all of that , her potential upside hasn ’ t seemed to catch on with primary voters .
Admittedly , as of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seven percent in Iowa and managed the same level of support in New Hampshire .
But even in those two states , there are at least four candidates ahead of her with several registering up in the twenties .
And the latest RCP numbers for the national race still have her stuck at two percent , even trailing Bloomberg and Yang .
That ’ s a lot of ground to make up no matter how you slice it .
Some of those other dark horse candidates are probably going to be just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long run as she is , if not more so .
And at least a few of them ( like Bloomberg ) will have all the money they need to do so , while Klobuchar will have to continue to rely on small-dollar donors keeping her in the game .
I suppose nothing is impossible in American politics these days , but even if I were a liberal Democrat and a Klobuchar fan , I ’ d find it hard to be anywhere near as optimistic as Leonhardt is .

January is going to be her big month at last. Senator Amy Klobuchar is the sleeper candidate that’s just waiting for the optimal moment to peak and start building some serious “Klomentum” in her drive toward the 2020 Democratic nomination. Or at least that’s the story we appear to be getting from David Leonhardt at the New York Times. And even better than that? She can beat Donald Trump like a bongo in a conga line.
If you’re like a lot of Democrats, you worry that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are too liberal — or at least that other voters think so. You’re also not buying the Pete Buttigieg hype. And you get nervous every time Joe Biden opens his mouth. So where are you supposed to find a comfortably electable, qualified candidate who won’t turn 80 while in office? Senator Amy Klobuchar has become an answer to that question in the final month before voting begins. She has outlasted more than a dozen other candidates and has two big strengths: A savvy understanding of how to campaign against President Trump and a track record of winning the sorts of swing voters Democrats will likely need this year.
This Klobuchar love letter from Leonhardt is truly something to behold. He goes on to point out that she “won” the last debate (or was at least one of the winners) and her fourth-quarter fundraising basically doubled her take in the third quarter. Of course, that figure was still more than tripled by Bernie Sanders, but who’s counting? Unnamed “top Democrats” tell Leonhardt that Klobuchar has the best chance of beating Donald Trump.
That apparently wasn’t enough hyperbole for the peanut gallery, however. The author goes on from there to compare her to (and I’m not even kidding here) Harry Truman. I’ll leave it up to you to click through and discover the full explanation as to why.
Klobuchar’s path to the nomination (and then the presidency) is an uphill one by the author’s own admission, but he sees it as doable. Do well enough in Iowa and then New Hampshire so that she can keep the contributions flowing in while all but three other candidates drop out. Unfortunately for both Klobuchar and Leonhardt, that’s the same path that a dozen other people are counting on.
Now, to be fair, I’ve been saying since she first got into the race that she would be a dangerous candidate if she won the nomination. Back when she first declared, I wrote that she shied away from the crazy socialist stuff quite a bit and had that “Minnesota nice” thing going for her. She’s squarely in the moderate lane and could potentially be thought of like a younger, female version of Joe Biden, minus the inappropriate handsyness and memory lapses. And now that she’s agreed to disclose government UFO information as president (well… sort of, anyway), what’s not to like?
But even for all of that, her potential upside hasn’t seemed to catch on with primary voters. Admittedly, as of this weekend, she has admirably climbed up to seven percent in Iowa and managed the same level of support in New Hampshire. But even in those two states, there are at least four candidates ahead of her with several registering up in the twenties. And the latest RCP numbers for the national race still have her stuck at two percent, even trailing Bloomberg and Yang.
That’s a lot of ground to make up no matter how you slice it. Some of those other dark horse candidates are probably going to be just as determined to stay in for the long run as she is, if not more so. And at least a few of them (like Bloomberg) will have all the money they need to do so, while Klobuchar will have to continue to rely on small-dollar donors keeping her in the game. I suppose nothing is impossible in American politics these days, but even if I were a liberal Democrat and a Klobuchar fan, I’d find it hard to be anywhere near as optimistic as Leonhardt is.


hotair--2020-01-06--60 Minutes: Hey, maybe Epstein didn't really kill himself after all

Didn ’ t this already get settled by the Department of Justice ’ review of Jeffrey Epstein ’ s death ?
“ Still , questions linger , ” 60 Minutes reported last night , raised mainly by forensic pathologist Michael Baden .
While Baden says he ’ s not reaching a final conclusion , he ’ s troubled by the fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage fractures .
“ No one had three fractures ” in forty years of suicides in New York state prisons and jails , Baden claims : Dr. Baden , the forensic pathologist hired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the noose that was sketched and included in the autopsy report doesn ’ t appear to match the wounds on Epstein ’ s neck .
And Baden says , the ligature mark was in the middle of Epstein ’ s neck , not beneath the jawbone , as one would expect in a hanging .
Also puzzling to Baden is that Epstein would make a noose out of a bedsheet when wires and cords were present in his cell , as photographs show .
… Dr. Michael Baden : There were fractures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartilage and the left hyoid bone .
This is an autopsy photo of Epstein ’ s broken hyoid bone , a U-shaped bone that sits under the jaw that part of the tongue attaches to .
The thyroid cartilage sits at the front of the neck .
Dr. Michael Baden : I have never seen three fractures like this in a suicidal hanging .
Sometimes there ’ s a fracture of the hyoid bone or a fracture of the thyroid cartilage .
Sharyn Alfonsi : But not three ?
Dr. Michael Baden : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three .
And going over— over a thousand jail hangings , suicides in the New York City state prisons over the past 40-50 years , no one had three fractures .
One big question raised in this report isn ’ t so much medical as it is mechanical .
Why would Epstein have torn up bedsheets for a noose when he had plenty of electrical cord to use ?
Epstein was allowed to use a CPAP machine , complete with extension cord , shown in photos of the cell in the immediate aftermath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been a lot easier to use those cords rather than fashion ropes out of the fabric found in the cell , or at least it would have been quicker .
And furthermore , Baden argues , the fractures could not have occurred without forward pressure on the larynx , which this noose would not likely have provided .
And … what was with the injection wound on Epstein ’ s arm ?
CBS has not made the full report available , but they have a supplemental report up on YouTube .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ displayed in this clip , so take care in choosing to play it : Baden made an appearance on CBS This Morning to explain his findings so far .
The medical issue of the fractures can ’ t be fully resolved until there is more information about the position of the body , Baden notes , and there is some question as to which noose found in the cell was the one taken off the body .
There was more than one noose found ?
Apparently so : It ’ s important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity pathologist , which doesn ’ t mean he doesn ’ t know what he ’ s talking about — but does mean that his speculation should be taken with a grain of salt .
Both 60 Minutes and CBS This Morning make a point of noting his self-interest in making a case for potential murder , as the Epstein family is paying him to review the case .
There ’ s not much money or notoriety in saying that the coroner got it 100 % correct , after all .
That doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minutes ’ minutes , so to speak , nor does it get you a follow-up on the network ’ s morning show .
So far , too , Baden ’ s not exactly even saying that much ; he just has questions .
Even with a healthy dose of skepticism , however , some of those questions seem pretty legit .
How did Jeffrey Epstein manage to commit the first successful suicide in this facility in the past 14 years ?
Why was his body moved before investigators arrived when operating procedures clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ligature marks have blood on them but the noose apparently does not ?
One official sloughs off these questions by quoting Sigmund Freud : “ Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
” And this might be one of those cases , too , but until someone provides more answers than questions , the suicide conclusion will never fully get past that normal level of public skepticism .

Didn’t this already get settled by the Department of Justice’ review of Jeffrey Epstein’s death? “Still, questions linger,” 60 Minutes reported last night, raised mainly by forensic pathologist Michael Baden. While Baden says he’s not reaching a final conclusion, he’s troubled by the fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage fractures. “No one had three fractures” in forty years of suicides in New York state prisons and jails, Baden claims:
Dr. Baden, the forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s family, says the noose that was sketched and included in the autopsy report doesn’t appear to match the wounds on Epstein’s neck. And Baden says, the ligature mark was in the middle of Epstein’s neck, not beneath the jawbone, as one would expect in a hanging. Also puzzling to Baden is that Epstein would make a noose out of a bedsheet when wires and cords were present in his cell, as photographs show. … Dr. Michael Baden: There were fractures of the left, the right, thyroid cartilage and the left hyoid bone. This is an autopsy photo of Epstein’s broken hyoid bone, a U-shaped bone that sits under the jaw that part of the tongue attaches to. The thyroid cartilage sits at the front of the neck. Dr. Michael Baden: I have never seen three fractures like this in a suicidal hanging. Sometimes there’s a fracture of the hyoid bone or a fracture of the thyroid cartilage. Sharyn Alfonsi: But not three? Dr. Michael Baden: Very unusual to have two and not three. And going over— over a thousand jail hangings, suicides in the New York City state prisons over the past 40-50 years, no one had three fractures.
One big question raised in this report isn’t so much medical as it is mechanical. Why would Epstein have torn up bedsheets for a noose when he had plenty of electrical cord to use? Epstein was allowed to use a CPAP machine, complete with extension cord, shown in photos of the cell in the immediate aftermath of Epstein’s death. It would have been a lot easier to use those cords rather than fashion ropes out of the fabric found in the cell, or at least it would have been quicker. And furthermore, Baden argues, the fractures could not have occurred without forward pressure on the larynx, which this noose would not likely have provided.
And … what was with the injection wound on Epstein’s arm?
CBS has not made the full report available, but they have a supplemental report up on YouTube. Be aware that there are graphic images displayed in this clip, so take care in choosing to play it:
Baden made an appearance on CBS This Morning to explain his findings so far. The medical issue of the fractures can’t be fully resolved until there is more information about the position of the body, Baden notes, and there is some question as to which noose found in the cell was the one taken off the body.
There was more than one noose found? Apparently so:
It’s important to remember that Baden’s a grandstanding celebrity pathologist, which doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about — but does mean that his speculation should be taken with a grain of salt. Both 60 Minutes and CBS This Morning make a point of noting his self-interest in making a case for potential murder, as the Epstein family is paying him to review the case. There’s not much money or notoriety in saying that the coroner got it 100% correct, after all. That doesn’t get you 14 of 60 Minutes’ minutes, so to speak, nor does it get you a follow-up on the network’s morning show. So far, too, Baden’s not exactly even saying that much; he just has questions.
Even with a healthy dose of skepticism, however, some of those questions seem pretty legit. How did Jeffrey Epstein manage to commit the first successful suicide in this facility in the past 14 years? Why was his body moved before investigators arrived when operating procedures clearly prohibit it? Why does Epstein’s ligature marks have blood on them but the noose apparently does not? One official sloughs off these questions by quoting Sigmund Freud: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” And this might be one of those cases, too, but until someone provides more answers than questions, the suicide conclusion will never fully get past that normal level of public skepticism.


hotair--2020-01-06--Hmmm: Julian Castro endorses Elizabeth Warren

Why is this news ?
Because , according to Dave Weigel , of the 15 Democrats who have dropped out of the race , only three so far have endorsed former opponents and two of those ( Mike Gravel and Tim Ryan ) were complete nonfactors .
Castro ’ s is the first potentially meaningful endorsement by an ex-candidate .
It ’ s a surprise at first blush since Warren ’ s the one member of the top tier who ’ s lost meaningful ground in polling over the past few months .
She ’ s tied for third in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , for cripes sake , and is now eight-ish points or so out of the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire according to CBS ’ s latest .
Castro ’ s betting on a horse that seems to be fading — and yet , I think it ’ s a smart longshot play .
Clearly he ’ s angling for the VP slot here and just as clearly he seems to have eyed Warren as the potential nominee who ’ s most likely to choose him , and not just because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout .
He ’ s held his fire against her from the start : Biden/Castro , Sanders/Castro , and Buttigieg/Castro tickets all have an obvious problem in a party that depends heavily on support from women voters and which only three years ago crowned the first major-party woman nominee in American history .
A woman virtually *must* be on the ticket next year , and maybe on every Democratic ticket thereafter .
There ’ s only one woman remaining in the top tier right now , who also happens to be white and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mate who ’ s male and nonwhite for optimum demographic balance .
Enter Julian Castro , who proved at the debates per the tweet above that he ’ s willing and able to play the traditional VP role of attack dog for her against the opposition .
Endorsing Warren early , at a moment when she looks like an also-ran , will doubtless earn respect and gratitude from her and her team , further positioning him for a VP reward next summer if she surges back to win the nomination .
The timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another important way too — Warren ’ s about to be imprisoned in the Senate for weeks while Trump ’ s impeachment trial plays out in Washington .
Until this morning , that meant she ’ d be off the trail in Iowa and New Hampshire and without any prominent surrogates .
As of this morning , she now has a well-known former candidate ready to step in without missing a beat and make the case for Warren 2020 .
Granted , ideally she ’ d have better options than a guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re too white to be hogging the early-state primaries .
But at this point she ’ ll take what she can get .
I ’ m curious to know when , exactly , this endorsement was arranged .
Castro dropped out of the race just four days ago , yet there he is in the clip below at Warren ’ s home enjoying coffee talk at her dining-room table .
She was also quick to lament his departure from the race on Twitter last week : Did they record the ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidacy ’ s been dying for a long time .
It makes sense that they ’ d coordinate to release the news that he was dropping during the slow holiday news cycle , when no one was paying attention , and then come roaring in with the announcement of his endorsement as soon as post-holiday business reopened on Monday morning .
One other virtue of this endorsement for Castro : Backing the lone plausible woman nominee left in the race boosts his woke cred , which he cultivated carefully on the trail this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run for president again someday .
When he does , he ’ ll get the same question every male Democratic presidential contender will get for the foreseeable future , namely , “ Why shouldn ’ t we nominate a woman instead ?
” Castro ’ s answer is now ready-made .
“ I ’ ve always believed in nominating the best candidate regardless of gender , ” he ’ ll say , “ and I proved it when I supported Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary.
” Julian plays the long game @

Why is this news? Because, according to Dave Weigel, of the 15 Democrats who have dropped out of the race, only three so far have endorsed former opponents and two of those (Mike Gravel and Tim Ryan) were complete nonfactors. Castro’s is the first potentially meaningful endorsement by an ex-candidate.
It’s a surprise at first blush since Warren’s the one member of the top tier who’s lost meaningful ground in polling over the past few months. She’s tied for third in a new national survey with Mike farking Bloomberg, for cripes sake, and is now eight-ish points or so out of the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire according to CBS’s latest. Castro’s betting on a horse that seems to be fading — and yet, I think it’s a smart longshot play. Clearly he’s angling for the VP slot here and just as clearly he seems to have eyed Warren as the potential nominee who’s most likely to choose him, and not just because they’ve been friendly on the trail throughout. He’s held his fire against her from the start:
Castro endorsing Warren shouldn't come as a surprise, since he spent time attacking other non-Warren Dems. He went after O'Rourke, Biden and Buttigieg in the Dem debates. And he used his Twitter feed to blast Pete. Castro never once went after Warren. https://t.co/dPCL5O3ruq — Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) January 6, 2020
Biden/Castro, Sanders/Castro, and Buttigieg/Castro tickets all have an obvious problem in a party that depends heavily on support from women voters and which only three years ago crowned the first major-party woman nominee in American history. A woman virtually *must* be on the ticket next year, and maybe on every Democratic ticket thereafter. There’s only one woman remaining in the top tier right now, who also happens to be white and will therefore be looking for a running mate who’s male and nonwhite for optimum demographic balance. Enter Julian Castro, who proved at the debates per the tweet above that he’s willing and able to play the traditional VP role of attack dog for her against the opposition.
Endorsing Warren early, at a moment when she looks like an also-ran, will doubtless earn respect and gratitude from her and her team, further positioning him for a VP reward next summer if she surges back to win the nomination. The timing is good for both of them in another important way too — Warren’s about to be imprisoned in the Senate for weeks while Trump’s impeachment trial plays out in Washington. Until this morning, that meant she’d be off the trail in Iowa and New Hampshire and without any prominent surrogates. As of this morning, she now has a well-known former candidate ready to step in without missing a beat and make the case for Warren 2020.
Granted, ideally she’d have better options than a guy who recently told Iowa and New Hampshire that they’re too white to be hogging the early-state primaries. But at this point she’ll take what she can get.
I’m curious to know when, exactly, this endorsement was arranged. Castro dropped out of the race just four days ago, yet there he is in the clip below at Warren’s home enjoying coffee talk at her dining-room table. She was also quick to lament his departure from the race on Twitter last week:
Thank you @JulianCastro for being a powerful voice, for proposing bold and progressive plans, and for using your campaign to help people who need it now. You made this race stronger—and you will continue to be a leader in our party and our country for many years to come. pic.twitter.com/SWlsDC9HcS — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 2, 2020
Did they record the ad below before he formally withdrew? His candidacy’s been dying for a long time. It makes sense that they’d coordinate to release the news that he was dropping during the slow holiday news cycle, when no one was paying attention, and then come roaring in with the announcement of his endorsement as soon as post-holiday business reopened on Monday morning.
One other virtue of this endorsement for Castro: Backing the lone plausible woman nominee left in the race boosts his woke cred, which he cultivated carefully on the trail this year. He’s obviously planning to run for president again someday. When he does, he’ll get the same question every male Democratic presidential contender will get for the foreseeable future, namely, “Why shouldn’t we nominate a woman instead?” Castro’s answer is now ready-made. “I’ve always believed in nominating the best candidate regardless of gender,” he’ll say, “and I proved it when I supported Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary.” Julian plays the long game.


hotair--2020-01-07--Nearly all the money raised by March for Our Lives Action Fund came from just 36 donors

Remember March for Our Lives ?
That was the big gun control rally fronted by the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School .
Today , the Washington Free Beacon reported that nearly all the money raised to put on the rally came from just a handful of big donors : The March For Our Lives Action Fund , a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) “ social welfare ” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida ’ s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School , is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018 , its first year of operations .
Ninety-five percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $ 100,000 and $ 3,504,717—a grand total of $ 16,922,331 .
The group ’ s 990 tax form shows another 38 donations totaling between $ 5,000 and $ 100,000 , which together accounted for an additional $ 876,114 of revenue .
The remainder , just 0.5 percent of total receipts , came from those giving less than $ 5,000 .
The group isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors but the Free Beacon notes that Marc Benioff and Eli Broad each donated a million dollars .
Influence Watch has a list of some of the other big-name donors including Steven Spielberg and his wife who gave a combined million dollars : All of that doesn ’ t include the largest contribution by far which came from CNN in the form of an endless stream of air time and online promotion for the Parkland kids , culminating in that awful special in which the Parkland kids and Sheriff Scott Israel were pitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The WFB story also includes a rundown of what the money was spent on .
The largest chunk ( nearly $ 8 million ) went to funding the March itself .
Another $ 4 million went to a 24-state tour to register young voters .
The March itself was a huge media spectacle which got top billing from all the networks .
Here ’ s a sample from ABC .
No need to watch all of this but watch the first minute to get a sense of the breathless reporting this generated : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s remarkable that the group was only raising money from a small handful of wealthy progressives .
Is there some other fund collecting money for this group ?
The group does have a separate 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) for education purposes but if you look at the group ’ s website and click on the donate page , you are told you ’ ll be making a donation to ” the March For Our Lives Action Fund !
” I ’ d be very curious to know how much money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the big donors to this group dried up now that they aren ’ t on television every day ?

Remember March for Our Lives? That was the big gun control rally fronted by the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Today, the Washington Free Beacon reported that nearly all the money raised to put on the rally came from just a handful of big donors:
The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. Ninety-five percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331. The group’s 990 tax form shows another 38 donations totaling between $5,000 and $100,000, which together accounted for an additional $876,114 of revenue. The remainder, just 0.5 percent of total receipts, came from those giving less than $5,000.
The group isn’t required to release the names of its donors but the Free Beacon notes that Marc Benioff and Eli Broad each donated a million dollars. Influence Watch has a list of some of the other big-name donors including Steven Spielberg and his wife who gave a combined million dollars:
A number of celebrities gave financial support to the organization: George and Amal Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, and Kate Capshaw each donated $500,000 for the event. The clothing company Gucci donated $500,000 to the movement. Actress Sara Ramirez notably donated $20,000 to the GoFundMe page. Professional basketball player Dwayne Wade also donated $200,000 to the organization.
All of that doesn’t include the largest contribution by far which came from CNN in the form of an endless stream of air time and online promotion for the Parkland kids, culminating in that awful special in which the Parkland kids and Sheriff Scott Israel were pitted against Dana Loesch and Marco Rubio.
The WFB story also includes a rundown of what the money was spent on. The largest chunk (nearly $8 million) went to funding the March itself. Another $4 million went to a 24-state tour to register young voters.
The March itself was a huge media spectacle which got top billing from all the networks. Here’s a sample from ABC. No need to watch all of this but watch the first minute to get a sense of the breathless reporting this generated:
Given all of that, it’s remarkable that the group was only raising money from a small handful of wealthy progressives. Is there some other fund collecting money for this group? The group does have a separate 501(c)(3) for education purposes but if you look at the group’s website and click on the donate page, you are told you’ll be making a donation to ” the March For Our Lives Action Fund!” I’d be very curious to know how much money the fund raised in 2019. Have the big donors to this group dried up now that they aren’t on television every day?


hotair--2020-01-07--<span class='red'>Report: U.S. base in Iraq under attack from Iranian missiles; Update: Multiple bas

The only information I have is what I ’ m seeing on Twitter , so take it with a grain of salt for now .
I wouldn ’ t expect Jennifer Griffin to blow a scoop this big , though .
WaPo has it too : Also this , which I think is referring to the same base as in the last tweet : Does the U.S. strike back tonight or do we wait until tomorrow ?
Update : This is the “ start.
” Noah Rothman notes that Iranian missile attacks aren ’ t new .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Soleimani ’ s killing , in fact : The death of a U.S. contractor in a rocket strike by Iranian-backed militias is what helped convince Trump that it was time to hit back .
The assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad cinched it .
At the moment I ’ m only seeing reports of al-Asad airbase being targeted .
I don ’ t know why Griffin ’ s source believes it ’ s “ all over the country.
” I ’ m going to take that out of the headline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside Iran or by Iranian militias based in Iraq ?
Remember that Khamenei reportedly told his advisors that he wants Iranian fingerprints on the reprisals for Soleimani ’ s death , an unusual move for a country that prefers to use proxies to do its dirty work .
If the missiles were fired from Iran then we ’ re looking at targets inside Iran .
That ’ s real war .
Update : The question five minutes ago : What else is coming ?
The question five minutes later : Is anything else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of token retaliation by Iran with nothing further planned in hopes that the U.S. doesn ’ t retaliate ?
I think Trump will respond no matter what , but American casualties will force his hand .
What if there are no American casualties ?
Update : It ’ s not just al-Asad according to ABC .
And they *are* being fired from Iran itself .
Update : While all this is playing out , bear in mind that Iraq ’ s Iranian-stooge prime minister received that strange “ oops ” letter about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to treat it as a promise .
While the Pentagon insists that a letter regarding the departure of troops was sent in error to the Iraqi government last night , Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said that its contents had been heeded , and withdrawal was now a necessity… Addressing his cabinet in its first meeting since the strike , the prime minister sounded exasperated over the notion that the United States had not intended to officially notify him that a troop withdrawal had begun .
“ They said it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Okay , it ’ s a draft — but we received it .
… If I don ’ t trust you and you don ’ t trust me , how are we supposed to proceed ?
” The U.S. is not withdrawing from Iraq so long as it ’ s under fire from Iran .
Trump , and the Pentagon , would never tolerate such a show of weakness .
Update : The Pentagon is confirming it .
Note the reference to “ missiles , ” not “ rockets , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were launched from Iran , or so says DOD .

Report: U.S. base in Iraq under attack from Iranian missiles; Update: Multiple bases; Update: Launched from Iran, says DOD; Update: Trump to speak? Or not; Update: "All is well!"
The only information I have is what I’m seeing on Twitter, so take it with a grain of salt for now. I wouldn’t expect Jennifer Griffin to blow a scoop this big, though.
From senior US military source in Iraq:
“Under missile attack from Iran. These are either cruise missiles or short range ballistic missiles. All over the country.” — Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) January 7, 2020
I am told from US official these are short range ballistic or cruise missiles being fired from Iranian territory at multiple US bases and targets inside Iraq. https://t.co/xKh2NPiDyz — Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) January 7, 2020
WaPo has it too:
U.S. defense official confirms that Al Asad air base in Iraq's Anbar province has been hit by at least six rockets tonight. Additional details unclear. But very credible source. — Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) January 7, 2020
Also this, which I think is referring to the same base as in the last tweet:
US and Iraqi sources confirmed six rockets landed in Assad base, on the American side, Mahdi Bakhtiari from Iranian tanseem news agency is saying they were Ballistic missile revenge for Soleimani. https://t.co/iuY0RUX0aS — Mustafa Salim (@Mustafa_salimb) January 7, 2020
Does the U.S. strike back tonight or do we wait until tomorrow?
Update: This is the “start.”
Fars News agency in Iran says this is video of a missile attack that has been launched in Al Assad airbase in NW Iraq. Home to Iraqi and U.S. forces. In their own words "Start of Iran's vengeful US retaliation / Moment of Iranian missile firing at US base in Ain al-Assad" https://t.co/5PDU4cNUYP — Doug Dunbar (@cbs11doug) January 7, 2020
Noah Rothman notes that Iranian missile attacks aren’t new. They’re what started the chain reaction that led to Soleimani’s killing, in fact: The death of a U.S. contractor in a rocket strike by Iranian-backed militias is what helped convince Trump that it was time to hit back. The assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad cinched it.
At the moment I’m only seeing reports of al-Asad airbase being targeted. I don’t know why Griffin’s source believes it’s “all over the country.” I’m going to take that out of the headline.
Update: Were these missiles launched from inside Iran or by Iranian militias based in Iraq? Remember that Khamenei reportedly told his advisors that he wants Iranian fingerprints on the reprisals for Soleimani’s death, an unusual move for a country that prefers to use proxies to do its dirty work. If the missiles were fired from Iran then we’re looking at targets inside Iran. That’s real war.
Update: The question five minutes ago: What else is coming? The question five minutes later: Is anything else coming? Or is hitting al-Asad some sort of token retaliation by Iran with nothing further planned in hopes that the U.S. doesn’t retaliate?
BREAKING: Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps warns of more "crushing responses" if U.S. military retaliates – state TV — BNO News (@BNONews) January 7, 2020
I think Trump will respond no matter what, but American casualties will force his hand. What if there are no American casualties?
Rep. Michael Waltz says if Iran is only targeting infrastructure and not US troops, it could be a sign they want to de-escalate pic.twitter.com/yOxbJOIRzx — Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2020
Update: It’s not just al-Asad according to ABC. And they *are* being fired from Iran itself.
“This morning, courageous fighters of the IRGC’s Air Force launched a successful operation called Operation Martyr Soleimani, with the code ‘Oh Zahra’ by firing tens of ground-to-ground missiles at the base of the terrorist and invasive U.S. forces,” the country’s state-run news outlet ISNA reported. A U.S. official confirms to ABC News that ballistic missiles have been fired from inside Iran at multiple U.S. military facilities inside Iraq on Wednesday morning, local time. The facilities include Erbil in northern Iraq and Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq, the official said.
Update: While all this is playing out, bear in mind that Iraq’s Iranian-stooge prime minister received that strange “oops” letter about U.S. withdrawal yesterday and decided that he was going to treat it as a promise.
While the Pentagon insists that a letter regarding the departure of troops was sent in error to the Iraqi government last night, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said that its contents had been heeded, and withdrawal was now a necessity… Addressing his cabinet in its first meeting since the strike, the prime minister sounded exasperated over the notion that the United States had not intended to officially notify him that a troop withdrawal had begun. “They said it’s a draft,” he said. “Okay, it’s a draft — but we received it. … If I don’t trust you and you don’t trust me, how are we supposed to proceed?”
The U.S. is not withdrawing from Iraq so long as it’s under fire from Iran. Trump, and the Pentagon, would never tolerate such a show of weakness.
Update: Yep, it’s a reprisal.
Iranian official tweets flag just after strikes, mirroring move Trump made after Suleimani strike Thursday. https://t.co/8L5v8vGVfu — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) January 8, 2020
Update: The Pentagon is confirming it. Note the reference to “missiles,” not “rockets,” suggesting a more sophisticated and destructive weapon.
Pentagon: "At approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on January 7, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq." — Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) January 8, 2020
"It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil." — Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) January 8, 2020
They were launched from Iran, or so says DOD.
Update: A presidential address is in the works.
Confirmed: The WH is planning for a possible address from President Trump tonight. Plans could change but I’m told aides are working on it. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 8, 2020
If he’s speaking tonight, with America smarting in the first hours after the attack, I’m guessing this isn’t going to be a call for de-escalation.
Update: As of 8:20 ET, there are no reports of U.S. casualties. Did Iran shoot to kill in these attacks or were the missiles deliberately aimed to avoid American troops so as not to prompt a counterattack?
Update: Annnnd now the word is that Trump won’t speak tonight, which is for the best. No need to act in haste, especially if there are no casualties. Think it through.
Update: If this is true — big if — Iran’s offering Trump an exit ramp. A lot depends now on whether Americans were killed or wounded.
Iran saying it will escalate if attacked by US, or per our @aliarouzi , will stop if no US response. — Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) January 8, 2020
Update: Fair chance that there really aren’t any casualties, which would be great news for all sorts of reasons.
No US casualties reported yet, says US official. A total of 15 Iranian missiles hit al Asad and Irbil. 10 struck al Asad and only 1 hit Irbil. 4 blew up in flight. US was tracking the launches and personnel at the bases had advanced warning, giving them time to take cover. — David Cloud (@DavidCloudLAT) January 8, 2020
Update: Between the Iranian foreign minister’s statement tonight and Trump’s new tweet, it sounds like we might be headed for a ceasefire with no further reprisals. Whew.
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 8, 2020
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693


hotair--2020-01-07--"I like to obey the law": Trump says U.S. won't target Iranian cultural sites

Not much to add to last night ’ s post , although I continue to be surprised at how willing he is to seemingly conflate the regime with the Iranian people writ large .
Normally U.S. officials are careful to distinguish the two , treating the latter as hostages of the former .
Trump follows the same playbook — normally : It ’ s an effective way to delegitimize the regime .
Level Iran ’ s cultural sites , though , and you ’ d be telling the people that your animus is towards them and their heritage , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would Trump want to do that ?
I explained why in last night ’ s thread , but I also guessed that he wasn ’ t serious about the threat .
He wasn ’ t : It ’ s not just terrible politics , it ’ s a slam-dunk war crime .
And it ’ s poor tactics .
Imagine wasting a bomb that could be aimed at a platoon of Quds Force troops on some Persian ruin instead .
I don ’ t know what he means either when he says they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
They ’ re “ allowed ” to do only what we allow them to do .
Soleimani is … no longer allowed .
That ’ s the great virtue of Trump ’ s strike last week , showing the regime that its expectations of what America will tolerate in terms of provocations will need to be recalibrated .
In fairness to him , it ’ s a tense , confusing moment inside the White House for a lot of people : When questioned about the purported information that proved Soleimani was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region prior to his death , [ White House press secretary Stephanie ] Grisham noted that she could not go into any details but slammed those who are skeptical of the U.S. intelligence system .
“ I know a lot of people are now questioning the intel , that ’ s really unfortunate , ” she replied .
“ A lot of people are saying [ about the strike ] , ‘ To what benefit ?
’ I would answer that question : The benefit is to that we saved American lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we saved diplomats , and a lot of families from having to welcome their loved ones home in coffins.
” They ’ re really , truly going with the talking point that it ’ s bad to second-guess U.S. intelligence after three years of “ deep-state witch hunt !
” tweets , huh ?
Poor Tucker Carlson is going to end up drinking on the air tonight .
Relatedly , Trump also hinted during this same photo op that we ’ ll have more details tomorrow about the Iranian plot that the strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo is set to brief members of Congress ; no doubt some details will leak afterward .
Stay tuned .
In the meantime , here ’ s SecDef Mark Esper warning Iran that we don ’ t intend to start a war with them but we ’ re certainly prepared to finish one .
To which I say : We are ?
When was the last time we finished one ?

Not much to add to last night’s post, although I continue to be surprised at how willing he is to seemingly conflate the regime with the Iranian people writ large. Normally U.S. officials are careful to distinguish the two, treating the latter as hostages of the former. Trump follows the same playbook — normally:
Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2018
….The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The U.S. has not forgotten Iran’s use of IED’s & EFP’s (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many more… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2019
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1095049346201079808
It’s an effective way to delegitimize the regime. Level Iran’s cultural sites, though, and you’d be telling the people that your animus is towards them and their heritage, not just the regime. Why the hell would Trump want to do that?
I explained why in last night’s thread, but I also guessed that he wasn’t serious about the threat. He wasn’t:
President Trump: "I like to obey the law. But think of it; they kill our people. They blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions? But I'm okay with it. It's okay with me." pic.twitter.com/vFCthzwpWU — CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2020
It’s not just terrible politics, it’s a slam-dunk war crime. And it’s poor tactics. Imagine wasting a bomb that could be aimed at a platoon of Quds Force troops on some Persian ruin instead.
I don’t know what he means either when he says they’re “allowed” to kill Americans. They’re “allowed” to do only what we allow them to do. Soleimani is … no longer allowed. That’s the great virtue of Trump’s strike last week, showing the regime that its expectations of what America will tolerate in terms of provocations will need to be recalibrated.
In fairness to him, it’s a tense, confusing moment inside the White House for a lot of people:
When questioned about the purported information that proved Soleimani was planning major attacks against American forces in the region prior to his death, [White House press secretary Stephanie] Grisham noted that she could not go into any details but slammed those who are skeptical of the U.S. intelligence system. “I know a lot of people are now questioning the intel, that’s really unfortunate,” she replied. “A lot of people are saying [about the strike], ‘To what benefit?’ I would answer that question: The benefit is to that we saved American lives. Saved members of the military, we saved diplomats, and a lot of families from having to welcome their loved ones home in coffins.”
They’re really, truly going with the talking point that it’s bad to second-guess U.S. intelligence after three years of “deep-state witch hunt!” tweets, huh? Poor Tucker Carlson is going to end up drinking on the air tonight.
Relatedly, Trump also hinted during this same photo op that we’ll have more details tomorrow about the Iranian plot that the strike on Soleimani was designed to disrupt. Mike Pompeo is set to brief members of Congress; no doubt some details will leak afterward. Stay tuned. In the meantime, here’s SecDef Mark Esper warning Iran that we don’t intend to start a war with them but we’re certainly prepared to finish one. To which I say: We are? When was the last time we finished one?


hotair--2020-01-07--CNN settles lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann (Update: CNN confirms)

Fox 19 in Ohio is reporting that CNN has reached a settlement with Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann .
Sandmann had filed a $ 275 million defamation lawsuit against CNN last March .
The amount of the settlement hasn ’ t been revealed yet : And on and on it went like that .
There were thousands of similar tweets from progressive randos and blue-checked professionals .
But most of what assumed and then reported about the incident was misleading or simply wrong .
Fortunately , there was video which showed what led up to the standoff between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been harassing the high school group as they waited for a bus on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial .
The students had remained calm and respectful , occasionally chanting school chants in response to some of the offensive thins said to them .
Here ’ s what I wrote at the time : There was plenty of racist , ugly language being tossed around in front of the Lincoln Memorial last Friday but the media botched the story when it assumed it was coming from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was coming from the [ cult members who were apparently there to agitate the Native Americans and only turned on the white kids when that wasn ’ t going well .
In fact , the preacher ’ s question “ Why you not angry at them ?
” pretty much sums up this entire affair .
The boys in the MAGA hats were a soft target .
The cult preacher saw it and so did the media and the left-wing celebrities who went all in on the teens because why not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people wrote good takedowns of the media rush to judgment .
In light of the facts , some of the people who attacked Sandmann and his classmates did later apologize .
Still , it was a very revealing incident about the media ’ s interest in running off with a narrative that it finds appealing on ideological grounds long before it has the facts .
Sandmann has also filed a $ 250 million claim against the Washington Post .
That case was dismissed last summer , however in October the judge partially reversed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandmann ’ s 33 claims could go forward .
I suspect that ’ s partly what brought CNN to the settlement table .
If some portion of the case was likely to go to trial , the network was on the hook to defend itself whether or not they expected to eventually win .
On that point , I ’ ve seen speculation that Sandmann could ultimately lose the case on First Amendment grounds but I wonder if news outlets feel like rolling the dice given what happened to Oberlin College .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed that its behavior should be protected by the First Amendment .
The jury didn ’ t buy it in that case and the payout was substantial .
Maybe CNN didn ’ t want to roll the dice .
So far , CNN ’ s media reporters have been silent about the settlement : Hopefully we ’ ll soon learn how much CNN has agreed to pay and also whether or not they agreed to make a public apology as part of the settlement .
In the meantime , here ’ s Sandmann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit against CNN when it was filed last March : Update : And here ’ s Sandmann ’ s attorney promising he ’ s just getting started :

Fox 19 in Ohio is reporting that CNN has reached a settlement with Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann. Sandmann had filed a $275 million defamation lawsuit against CNN last March. The amount of the settlement hasn’t been revealed yet:
CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit with Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann.
The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington, Kentucky… Attorneys say the money they’re seeking is not designed to compensate Nick, but to “deter the defendants” from doing the same thing (that they’re accused of) in the future.
This really was an egregious incident. For a day or two it seemed the entire media and plenty of individual progressive reporters and commentators on social media were determined to crush a high school kid over his hat and…his smile. In case you’ve forgotten:
Flashback in light of today’s $ settlement https://t.co/HQy3AQIshv — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 7, 2020
The Covington students inspired a lot of passion over the weekend, including this Vulture writer who said he hoped the teenagers and their parents would diehttps://t.co/ljzBYTKFyD pic.twitter.com/82kOvnVF0L — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) January 21, 2019
And on and on it went like that. There were thousands of similar tweets from progressive randos and blue-checked professionals. But most of what assumed and then reported about the incident was misleading or simply wrong. Fortunately, there was video which showed what led up to the standoff between Nathan Phillips and Nick Sandmann. A group of Black Hebrew Israelites had been harassing the high school group as they waited for a bus on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The students had remained calm and respectful, occasionally chanting school chants in response to some of the offensive thins said to them. Here’s what I wrote at the time:
There was plenty of racist, ugly language being tossed around in front of the Lincoln Memorial last Friday but the media botched the story when it assumed it was coming from the high school students. In reality, it was coming from the [cult members who were apparently there to agitate the Native Americans and only turned on the white kids when that wasn’t going well. In fact, the preacher’s question “Why you not angry at them?” pretty much sums up this entire affair. The boys in the MAGA hats were a soft target. The cult preacher saw it and so did the media and the left-wing celebrities who went all in on the teens because why not be angry at them?
Lots of other people wrote good takedowns of the media rush to judgment. In light of the facts, some of the people who attacked Sandmann and his classmates did later apologize. Still, it was a very revealing incident about the media’s interest in running off with a narrative that it finds appealing on ideological grounds long before it has the facts.
Sandmann has also filed a $250 million claim against the Washington Post. That case was dismissed last summer, however in October the judge partially reversed his own decision and said 3 of Sandmann’s 33 claims could go forward. I suspect that’s partly what brought CNN to the settlement table. If some portion of the case was likely to go to trial, the network was on the hook to defend itself whether or not they expected to eventually win.
On that point, I’ve seen speculation that Sandmann could ultimately lose the case on First Amendment grounds but I wonder if news outlets feel like rolling the dice given what happened to Oberlin College. The circumstances are different but Oberlin has also claimed that its behavior should be protected by the First Amendment. The jury didn’t buy it in that case and the payout was substantial. Maybe CNN didn’t want to roll the dice. So far, CNN’s media reporters have been silent about the settlement:
Will this be in the newsletter tonight guys? @brianstelter @oliverdarcy Feels like a super newsy media story. https://t.co/T8FlDVkqEY — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2020
Hopefully we’ll soon learn how much CNN has agreed to pay and also whether or not they agreed to make a public apology as part of the settlement. In the meantime, here’s Sandmann’s attorney Todd McMurtry discussing the lawsuit against CNN when it was filed last March:
Update: CNN has confirmed the settlement exists.
A CNN spokesperson confirmed Tuesday with The Enquirer that a settlement was reached. The network would not comment on the details of the settlement. Nick’s lawyers did not respond to phone calls or emails at the time of this report.
Update: And here’s Sandmann’s attorney promising he’s just getting started:
https://twitter.com/ToddMcMurtry/status/1214665513084837889
Update: Nick Sandmann confirms it.
Yes, We settled with CNN. — Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) January 7, 2020
And from CNN itself:
"CNN has settled a lawsuit with a Kentucky H.S. student who was at the center of a viral video controversy," avoiding a potentially unpredictable trial, @oliverdarcy reports. Neither side is commenting on the settlement terms. https://t.co/XJVcY0izUp — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 7, 2020
There’s not much interesting or new in their story except maybe this line: “The settlement will allow CNN to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial. Sandmann sought $275 million in damages in the lawsuit he filed against CNN last March.” As I suggested above, Oberlin may have lawyers being very cautious. Also, here’s a possibility I hadn’t considered:
CNN didn't settle w/Sandmann b/c they were guaranteed to lose at trial. In fact, given lax U.S. defamation laws (even against non-public figures, which Sandmann was), they still could have won. They settled b/c the discovery process would have been horrifying for them. — Jeff B., who on earth is this guy?? (@EsotericCD) January 7, 2020
Yes, I’m sure finding out that CNN’s anchors were bashing a teenager behind the scenes would be very embarrassing, but I don’t doubt they were.