WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for the ‘“The Media are the Massage” forum’ Category

Zuckerberg, Facebook, and Fate

In "The Media are the Massage" forum on September 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm

Lionized and feted for decades by every media outlet and establishment personality worth cultivating, Mark Zuckerberg is suddenly on the skids. His spectacular decline surprised us in the WOOF cave. The young tycoon seemed destined to expand his global pursuits, enhance his wealth limitlessly, and age serenely into liberal sainthood, wherefrom he would occasionally favor admirers with an enlightened insight or two, appear now and again to confer benedictions (and substantial cash endowments) upon worthy young activists, and generally remain annoying well into in his dotage.

Zuckerberg’s conventional Ivy-League liberalism made his conformity to elitist mores effortless. Beyond that, his knack for fitting the relevant beau gest to the trendiest social issue, or showering millions of dollars upon whichever starving, uneducated, oppressed, or similarly afflicted group seemed most underprivileged during a particular news cycle, solidified his credentials. He knew, in other words, how to play the game, and he played it better than the average establishment bootlick because unexamined, sophomoric liberalism was one of the few attributes Mark Zuckerberg never needed to fake.

Learning the game….

Wall Street barons, “obscene profiteers,” and corporate bigwigs denounced routinely by thundering Leftists are almost without exception those who haven’t played the game, or haven’t played it well enough. The intuitively satisfying but factually absurd notion that all big-money scalawags are Republican results largely from the media’s reluctance to disparage—or even acknowledge–any blood-sucking capitalist pig smart enough to fund progressive causes and babble the requisite shibboleths. Fat cat capitalists wishing to retain the affection of the liberal establishment long ago realized that redistributing their own wealth (in politically correct and tax-deductible ways) without waiting for a totalitarian state to redistribute it for them, was the key to immunity. Like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ben and Jerry, and every ridiculously wealthy celebrity in Hollywood, Zuckerberg played the game with an almost instinctual acumen. Was he not declared “person of the year” by Time in 2010? Was his name not widely circulated by Democrat strategists as a presidential contender in 2020? And hadn’t mainstream news anchors reacted to such speculation like jiggled bobble-dolls?

Immunized by The Game

The kindness of our hearts

Yes, those were heady times by even Zuckerberg’s standards, but times now rinsed down the memory hole by America’s mavens of misinformation. Suddenly, Mark Zuckerberg finds himself portrayed as an anathema to the people—a pariah so detestable that declaring him an “enemy of the state” seems entirely condign—except that Trump’s appropriation of the phrase rendered it radioactive to liberals.

What antic twist of fate swept Zuckerberg from his vertiginous pedestal? The liberal media will not provide an answer. Doing so would require a review of the timeline, whereas applied lacunar amnesia (a favorite media tactic) prohibits any recollection of the CEO’s previous good standing. In other words, Zuckerberg is currently portrayed by the establishment as a churl who was always a churl, and never anything but a churl. All evidence to the contrary is irretrievable–down the hole. Obviously, then, it falls to WOOF to analyze Mr. Zuckerberg’s riches-to-ridicule collapse; but we are generous by nature, beloved readers—we will not only undertake the analysis but also–solely out of the kindness of our hearts—end this screed by suggesting a way for Mr. Zuckerberg to recapture his former standing…sort of like the surprise at the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box.

Don’t worry, Zuck–help is on the way!

The most fundamental thing…

In March of 2018, Mark Zuckerberg gave an interview to BBC television during which he repeatedly assured viewers that Facebook would never sell any information derived from its users. Fresh-faced, boyish, and brimming with trustworthiness, the earnest CEO went to great lengths underscoring the sacred obligation he felt to protect every user’s information, insisting “This is their information—they own it!” And because “Zuck” was the Left’s most conspicuous superstar (besides Oprah) in the wake of Obama’s inglorious eight years, liberal journalists simply wrote down his remarks and reported them without a thought given their veracity.  When accusations piled up from the FCC, members of Congress, and a cluster of privacy groups, Zuckerberg doubled down, maintaining the  countenance of an angel as he averred, “We do not allow the applications to share personal information, plus, the advertisers can’t have access to it [and] if application runners share it with the advertisers, we disable their functioning on our website, we shut them down. We make sure that people have control over their privacy and it will become the most fundamental thing on the internet.”

Proving there’s fundamental, and then there’s horses’ fundaments.

Media talkers repeated the CEO’s remarks uncritically. After all, if “Zuck” was lying through his teeth, it was no more newsworthy than Obama lying through his, or Hillary or Loretta Lynch, or Susan Rice, or—well, when liars enjoy the establishment’s favor, the trick is simply to  “report” the words verbatim, and call it “the news.”

The Winklevoss Twins–guess how their mom tells them apart!

Of course, Zuck’s difficulties began long before 2016, but the youthful entrepreneur finessed them effortlessly. Early on, critics accused him of building a simple knockoff of his university’s social network, Harvardconnectins.com.  Compounding the issue, the Winklevoss twins (creators of the Harvard site and erstwhile collaborators with Zuckerberg), filed suit claiming Zuck sabotaged their project, made off with their design, and awarded himself sole credit for its development. No big deal, Zuck prevailed and prospered despite the Winklevoss annoyance and a variety of similarly Lilliputian assaults. When an unflattering biopic came to theaters, Zuckerberg upstaged it by appearing on Oprah to announce unprecedented charitable contributions, while complaining to journalists that the filmmakers “just kind of made up a bunch of stuff that I found kind of hurtful.”

Young Mark Zuckerberg, expressing his pain.

Rumblings on the right

Sure, Zuck had problems with conservatives from the beginning, but these amounted to pinpricks. All the truly important people reminded the sultan of social networking that conservatives complain about all sorts of media ad nauseum. Complaints kept coming, nevertheless.

Posts like this one from Gatewaypundit typify conservatives’ paranoid reactions to Facebook’s efforts to thwart fake news and biased commentary!

Brian Amerige , former Facebook technology wiz, called Zuck’s enterprise “a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views.” But it was the rogues all along!

In May 2016, a former employee accused Facebook of cutting conservative topics from its “trending bar.” On June 13, the outspoken anti-jihadist Pamela Geller found two of her pages deleted. Fox hosts Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, as well as the Gateway Pundit site, not to mention hosts of conservatives in private life, complained of similar censorship. The indefatigable Diamond and Silk raised a ruckus when their page was labeled “unsafe,” prompting Facebook to call the labeling “an enforcement error.”  Zuckerberg justified much of what the Right called censorship as Facebook’s effort to cut down on “fake news and conspiracy theories,” which Media Matters helpfully—if ironically–explained “are more prevalent in conservative circles than in others.” Even more hilariously, Zuck dealt with the sudden exodus of rogue employees exposing his censorship of conservatives by claiming that all censorship of conservatives was the work of rogue employees–most of whom seemed to have just quit. The rest, he promised, would be ferreted out and lectured sternly.

Attempting to further smooth the waters, Zuck hosted a meet-and-greet for a dozen influential conservatives, assuring them, “Donald Trump has more fans on Facebook than any other presidential candidate and Fox News drives more interactions on its Facebook page than any other news outlet in the world. It’s not even close.” True, no doubt, but also irrelevant.–the group’s overall concerns were never meaningfully addressed.

Censoring conservatives? Nobody in the mainstream could believe such nonsense.

But no amount of caviling from starboard could seriously threaten the CEO’s status with the in-crowd. That would require a starkly different event–and a frenzy so indiscriminate even a cosseted godlet like young Zuckerberg might be sucked into its vortex.

The New Inquisition


Epidemiologists often observe the speed with which newly imposed bacilli devastate previously unexposed populations. Similarly, the Left succumbed to Russo-phobia—an affliction so novel to that culture, the outbreak remains uncontained to this day. It was Zuckerberg’s bad luck to be caught up, first in the delirium itself, but more significantly by the reaction it spawned.  And just as the plague inspired 14th Century Europe to purge itself of heretics and witches in hopes of placating God, so the Great Liberal Russo-phobia of 2016, (although almost entirely psychotic), inspired an inquest of similar intensity: the New Inquisition, with Robert Mueller in the role of Torquemada, the furious Clintons playing Ferdinand and Isabella, and the uniformly hysteric media as the Holy Office for the Propagation of the Faith.

“Nobody expects The Deep State… to lose an election!”

Zuckerberg’s downfall was occasioned by one of those desultory acts of egalitarianism that dot his career–but not the kind of egalitarianism liberals prefer– like granting the vote to illegal aliens, opening school lavatories to anyone inclined to drop in, or making college educations free for the asking–no, this time Zuckerberg exhibited the wrong kind of egalitarianism. It wasn’t the first time. For instance, he’d once taken a flukish notion to host a fundraiser for Chris Christie back in 2013, but when shrieks from the Left awakened him to his foolishness, he promptly shifted gears, hosting a still-bigger fundraiser for Corey Booker before flying to San Francisco to march in a timely Gay Pride parade.  The stench blew over quickly.

Sure! Almost definitely! So forget about Chris Christie–think about Utopia, and stuff! Right?

Who killed Mark Zuckerberg?  

But magnanimity was about to run dry. Once Team Hillary wrested the nomination from Bernie Sanders by—well—rigging the vote, an almost supernal calm swept over the establishment. The smugness was almost palpable. The elites had seen the future, and it wore a fuchsia Mao jacket and fell down a lot. But something went hideously wrong on the way to the West Wing.

Falling short of expectations….

Without warning, the very election process every liberal panjandrum including President Obama repeatedly touted as unbreachable by any means, and which the self-same panjandrums agreed only a raving ignoramus [read: Donald Trump] would dream of impugning on any basis, lurched incomprehensibly off course.  As of midnight, November 9th, 2016, it became obvious to all the panjandrums that the election process nobody could possibly rig had been riggedso rigged, in fact, that the wrong candidate won.

Armed with such starkly empirical evidence, the liberal panjandrums evolved in unison. They now chorused that presidential elections could not only be rigged, but were so easily rigged that almost anyone could rig one, adding that anyone clueless enough to dispute such an obvious fact was either a raving ignoramus [read: Donald Trump], or worse, duplicitous in rigging the election [read: Donald Trump]. Before long, the lacunar amnesiacs in mainstream media caught up, and the hunt for conspirators began. These events, seemingly absent any connection to Mark Zuckerberg, nonetheless presaged the tech titan’s discomfiture. Any hope of escape vanished once the Clintons, the media, and the leaderships of DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA, agreed on messaging.  The Russians did it!

The Zevon effect

As appalled by Clinton’s defeat as any other card-carrying progressive, Zuckerberg barely had time to blink before the Inquisition revealed irrefutable evidence of his involvement in the plot to usurp the throne. Suddenly the very news networks whose slobbering affinity Zuck always relied upon, united against him. They called him a menace to the democratic process. They accused him of shocking betrayals, none of which made sense objectively, but at CNN, MSNBC, and the dinosaur networks, objectivity was no object.

OMG, the man’s actually visited Moscow–all that’s missing is a dossier!

What on earth had Zuck done? Nothing he hadn’t done many times before in the normal course of helming his media monopoly, but now, everything was upside-down. Citizen Zuckerberg was charged with collusion. Worse, he was charged with colluding with Russians. Worse still, his collusion helped put Trump in the White House.           


Given the blizzard of calumnies, fakeries, nonsense, and false alarms mimicking news in our era, readers may be forgiven for failing to recall the precise nature of Zuckerberg’s offense. Soon, the media won’t be able to recall the details either, so allow us to supply specifics. Zuckerberg made information available to a data-mining organization called Cambridge Analytica. Less sophisticated readers may fail to immediately recognize the stark connection to Russian espionage, as well as the malicious and wanton destruction of the American electoral process, inherent in this revelation (no judgment). Any reasonable person might understandably request additional evidence—but unfortunately for Zuckerberg, it was quickly forthcoming. Cambridge Analytica (wait for it….) worked almost exclusively for Republicans.

Send the Envoy?

To be sure, Cambridge Analytica was a privately-held company, no different at first glance from myriad other firms specializing in data acquisition and analysis. It emerged in 2013 as an offshoot of its British parent company, SCL Group, tasked with serving the financially juicy American political market. In 2014 alone, it served clients in 44 American political races without a single complaint, but never mind! In the zany world of the New Russo-phobia, it only took a quick round of “six-degrees of separation,” and you were, as Warren Zevon once put it (albeit far less absurdly and much more entertainingly), “with the Russians too!”

When Zuckerberg helped Barack Obama’s campaign mine information in 2008, the operation was deemed praiseworthy. Steve Bannon, who is right almost as often as he isn’t, put it succinctly: “In 2008, it was Google and Facebook that went to Barack Obama and met him at San Francisco airport and told him all about the power of this personal data. Yet, the great opposition party — media — never went after the Obama campaign, never went after the progressive left as they’ve been doing this for years.”

Oddly, no one minded a bit when Zuck taught Obama the fine points of political data mining–it was as though Edison and Ford simple brainstormed a bit and everyone benefited!

Actually, Barack found even his cell phone baffling, but he was never short of tech support!


Indeed, Obama’s savvy, 21st century manipulation of cyberspace was gushed over by media pundits professing awe at their hero’s techy sophistication. In other words, the campaign’s use of data mining was depicted as genius—sheer genius.  But eight years later, on some freakishly bipartisan whim, Zuckerberg saw fit to allow Cambridge Analytica  similar access during the 2016 election, (probably for no reason more complicated than the soundness of their coin) but these people worked for Trump.  And nobody would have minded that either, had not vast armies of supremely confident pollsters, politicians, financiers, academicians, and media hacks, awakened on November 9th  to confront Götterdämmerung. Despite all predictions, the clownish boor from Queens somehow defeated the smartest woman in human history. And since that was known to be impossible, Trump obviously stole the election, and since Trump was too stupid to steal the election, it must have been the Russians!

At this point, every factoid, rumor, video byte, or moribund quotation that could be unearthed and weaponized (sorry), in hopes of destroying the president elect was reported as “news” by every reputable (meaning other than Fox) network, newspaper, whispering NPR sophisticate, and late-night comedian.

Breaking news!

As if it weren’t bad enough that Cambridge focused on Republican candidacies (obvious Russian surrogates or “fellow travelers,” as Joe McCarthy used to say in a more enlightened era), the bearers of breaking-news were soon gasping (with that amazing synchrony typical of mainstream reportage), that Steve Bannon founded the company! Of course, that would mean Bannon founded it three years before Trump ran for office, and okay, he didn’t exactly found it, but he was listed on the board, and hadn’t that very same board once received a letter from Rudy Giuliani? Yes! The Washington Post quoted one of its burgeoning population of unnamed sources to the effect that Giuliani’s letter was all about “the participation of Cambridge Analytica,…a foreign corporation…in connection with United States elections for federal, state and local government office.”  Okay, the Post didn’t have the letter, exactly, or even a copy, but they definitely had a source who said he knew someone who’d seen it!

“And some of our new unnamed sources will live on Mars by 2050–and be AI entities, and wear Patagonia jackets!” (The WaPo marches on!)

FILE PHOTO: Steve Bannon creates Cambridge Analytica

Once the fantasy that Bannon conjured Cambridge Analytica during a Black Mass wore thin, the lacunar amnesiacs effortlessly shifted to a new scoop (with that amazing synchrony typical of mainstream reportage). The new scoop correctly identified British subject Alexander Nix as the actual top dog at CA, but before anyone could say “so what?” videos serendipitously emerged featuring Nix blathering about hiring prostitutes to carry out sting operations, and insisting his company “ran all of (Donald Trump’s) digital campaign.” Perhaps so, but it provided almost identical services to Ted Cruz, whose campaign strove to defeat Trump and seize the nomination. Media  commentators ignored such discrepancies, fixating instead on Nix’s use of the words “prostitute,” “sting operation,” and “Donald Trump” in a single sentence. To them, this clearly indicated Nix’s (and therefore Cambridge Analytica’s) connection to Trump’s ensnarement in the Russian honey-trap operation detailed in the infamous “golden showers dossier,” which was everywhere regarded as bombshell news at the time. Then as now, the  dossier’s manifest fraudulence did nothing to reduce the media’s enthusiasm for publicizing it, all the while substituting euphemisms like “yet to be fully authenticated” or “never fully disproven” for the more exact term, “fake.”

Torquemada had his rough days, too!

Robert Mueller ostentatiously demanded a list of Cambridge Analytica’s foreign associations, but just as quickly dropped the subject—probably because the list revealed operations in Kenya, Mexico, and Malta—with Russia conspicuous by its absence. Meanwhile, Time reported Congress was investigating CA “in connection with Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” boldly concluding: “the firm may have coordinated the spread of Russian propaganda.” (Read: “Then again, it may not have, but we don’t care.”)

Unwilling to let Cambridge Analytica off the hook while the media remained adamantly accusatory, Mueller next issued a demand to review all emails sent or received by all the company’s employees who at any point worked on the Trump project, justifying the mass invasion of privacy as necessary to the furtherance of his “investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.” Naturally, Mueller’s demands were headlined with the same panting anticipation accorded each of his investigatory miscues, but no subsequent headlines emerged, meaning nothing pertinent to the story got leaked—meaning, of course,  that nothing even implicitly incriminating was found.

A less sustainable Hiss…

The Left gave Alger the benefit of the doubt long after all doubt had vanished–poor Zuck got nothing but grief–and unlike Hiss, he didn’t even mean to do anything!

And poor Mark Zuckerberg! As if by some cruel whim of the furies, the uber-liberal formerly favored to challenge and unseat Trump in 2020 found himself recast as a modern-day Alger Hiss—except that Hiss was guilty, and except, of course, that Hiss enjoyed the full-throated support of American liberals. It’s not that Zuckerberg hadn’t lied, covered up, excused, or boyishly dissembled scores of more deliberate and far nastier misdeeds over the decades—it just never mattered. Like Hiss before him, the youthful CEO’s status as a progressive wunderkind immunized him against every grievance. But no more! The billionaire’s longstanding writ of fiscal immunity was now also revoked. This meant Zuckerberg was not only culpable of helping Russia manipulate election results—which was suddenly bad–he was also fair game as a heartless fat-cat capitalist pig motivated entirely by greed, which was very very bad!.

Yes, billions! And mostly in rubles, probably! 

Facebook itself was suddenly targeted by legions of former supporters, many of them high-profile liberals with considerable influence—the kind of influence Zuckerberg always relied on to mute his critics and extol his virtues. But now he was the Bizarro Alger Hiss, a traitor, who—for reasons no rational person could presume to identify—sold out to Putin and robbed Hillary of her throne.


Shady pro-Kremlin Russian propaganda!

Robert Mueller, ever shark-like in his knack for sensing wounded quarry, announced that Facebook was “now a central focus of the Justice Department probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Laughable in the extreme, of course, not to say shamelessly fantastic–but suddenly headline news echoed by flabbergasted news anchors across the land. Bloomberg chimed in immediately, reporting that Mueller’s team would be “seeking additional evidence of Facebook’s role in spreading propaganda and fake-news stories.” The next news cycle was barely underway before the special counsel subpoenaed Facebook’s records and pronounced himself aghast by the discovery that Facebook sold “about $100,000 worth of ads” to what Bloomberg rushed to denounce as “a shady pro-Kremlin Russian propaganda company seeking to target U.S. voters” (Yes, they were trying to say, “Cambridge Analytica,” but the oft-confirmed absence of any evidence supporting Bloomberg’s or Muellers’s charges made naming the company too dangerous. After all, even the  staunchest defenders of democracy and our sacred individual franchise prefer to avoid liable suits.) Too, nobody bothered to mention that “about $100,000 worth of ads” was barely lunch money by Facebook standards, which also meant no one was required to explain how Russia orchestrated the biggest intelligence coup since the Rosenbergs handed Moscow the A-bomb –and pulled it all off for chump-change.

In fact, Mueller’s sleuths hadn’t unearthed anything at all. The story was old news, having first surfaced when Zuckerberg was still golden, meaning he had only to assure reporters the charges were “pretty crazy,” and wake up next day to find his dismissal accorded all the solemnity of a Supreme Court ruling.

But that was then. Once Mueller’s crew blundered upon the long-dormant story and pretended they’d dragged it from some quivering informant, the networks dutifully pronounced themselves “shocked” and rebooted the chestnut as yet another “bombshell.” The Daily Beast howled that Kremlin infiltrators “using false identities to create Facebook events” had managed to “inflame partisan divisions over immigration and Islam.” Over immigration and Islam?! Why? Apparently because the last thing Putin wanted was a United States weakened by unchecked mass immigration, slashed defense budgets, higher taxation, chronic recession, a disarmed citizenry and  flourishing crime. Bloomberg added that “multiple agencies including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the F.B.I. [were] racing to prevent future hacking…including potential threats to the 2018 midterm elections.” Obviously, then, any Republican midterm wins would suffice as evidence of continued Russian interference…and all because that rotter Mark Zuckerberg sold Hillary down the river!

The victim

Zuckerberg played the apology card. He didn’t like it much, but apologies never failed him when circumstances precluded options. He’d been wrong, he admitted, in saying Facebook was free of perfidious influences, but he was the victim. And Facebook, Zuck explained, was now awakened and on guard. It would no longer tolerate “advertisements for news outlets publishing misinformation.” [Savor the drollery, gentle readers.] Beyond that, publishers wishing to run ads would now be required to demonstrate an “authentic, established presence on Facebook” as well as proof that “they are who they represent themselves to be, and have had a profile or page on Facebook for at least one month.” And if all that seemed suspiciously irrelevant, Zuckerberg pledged to shut down all “inauthentic accounts” and any pages “believed to be operated out of Russia.” Believed? But there was still more! For extra measure, Facebook would no longer tolerate “fake news,” and Zuckerberg announced new technologies enabling his vigilant analysts to pounce instantly on fake accounts, online harassment, and “false amplifiers,” whatever those were. As adroitly crafted oratory, Zuck’s effort was nothing short of masterful. But in the era of the New Inquisition, it wasn’t enough.

The Wild, Wild West…

In an unprecedented move, CBS anchors took turns on 60 Minutes and elsewhere rehashing montages featuring every one of Zuck’s past apologies all the while making certain to shake their heads ruefully, pantomime disbelief, and even to inject the occasional, ironic chuckle, so craven was the deplorable Zuck.


“You mean, you still don’t love me any more?”

On Capitol Hill, trashing Facebook became the latest bipartisan sport. But never mind those paranoid Republicans, the intelligence committee’s top Democrat, Senator Mark Warner, suddenly realized, “the whole notion of social media and how it is used in political campaigns is the wild, wild west.” Summoning enough quavering solemnity to beggar Dan Rather and Harry Reid combined, Warner added that Zuckerberg’s duplicity “in the immediate aftermath of our elections” raised the obvious question of “what he knew, and when he knew it.” Watergate, get it? Only now, Zuck was Nixon—a casting decision better suited to a skit performed in Bedlam.

At a certain point, Zuck just wanted to be sure there was a door leading out of there.

The Daily Beast, meanwhile, uncovered and exposed  “the political firewall in Washington” that for too long kept Facebook “ensconced in a halo.” Finally! But, lest anyone finger them–or any equally culpable parties–as components of the firewall, the Beast blamed Zuckerberg’s free ride on “consumer goodwill.” Take that, consumerism!

HUAWEI’s logo. Suggested new slogan: “At least we’re not Russians!”

Next, the New York Times blasted Facebook for sharing user data with device manufacturers, confuting Zuckerberg’s prior statements to journalists and congress made back when sharing data with device manufacturers was of no concern to the Left.  Confronted with a phalanx of reporters and politicians who only months before adored him, Zuckerberg glumly confirmed that one of the device makers was Huawei, a Chinese company, which the Times learned “many policymakers in DC think is too cozy with the Chinese government” (as if the Times could find a Chinese company that wasn’t).

Stories of Zuckerberg’s resignation, or impending resignation, flooded Twitter, blogs, and even Facebook pages, provoking an avalanche of speculation across all lines, Fox News and Drudge being no more inclined to salvage Zuckerberg than more recently anathematized outlets like MSNBC and NPR.  It was all fake news, however. Facebook’s board changed  its certificate of incorporation, limiting Zuck’s majority voting control to his term as a company executive—but stopped short of expelling him. Still, the writing was on the wall. Further changes forbade Zuckerberg passing his majority control to his descendants in the event of his death.  Zuck, in other words, remained CEO, but he no longer commanded the awe-smitten fealty of his minions.

The Vengeance of Zuck?

“Hi! I’m–like–Facebook’s global head of news partnerships, and I’m–like–here to revitalize journalism!”

By August, press reports exposed a new face of Facebook—more remindful of Ares than Hermes. Had Zuck been pushed too far? Under headlines like WORK WITH US OR DIE, news accounts claimed Facebook had resorted to strong-arming media firms into working with it. In Australia, Reporter Natasha Clark cited “five confirmed sources” claiming that Facebook’s “global head of news partnerships” harangued roomfuls of media moguls, warning them, “Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care about publishers!”(Gulp!)  Luckily for the publishers, however, Facebook’s global head of news partnerships pronounced herself less unsympathetic. “We are not interested in talking to you about your traffic and referrals anymore,” declared the emissary, “That is the old world and there is no going back!”  But good news was at hand. Those willing to enter the new world with Mark Zuckerberg would prosper. “We will help you revitalize journalism,” quoth the emissary. As for those who remained obdurate?  “… in a few years…looks like I’ll be holding your hands with your dying business–like–in a hospice.”

Untrue and out of context!

And who was this Delphic authority?  Why, Campbell Brown, who, although far from the worst anchor in CNN history, saw her best effort, Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, evaporate because nobody watched it. Granted, low viewership is not a reliable gauge of quality in the news-and-opinion game, but it hardly enhances the resume of a lady promising to “revitalize journalism.” Unsurprisingly, when reports of Brown’s methods burst into print, Facebook denounced them as “untrue and taken out of context.” Obviously, neither rebuttal could obtain without rendering the other invalid, but never mind—Facebook’s spring offensive crashed to a halt just as psychology, qua psychology, (always eager to meet the progressive standard, though habitually slow on the uptake), unleashed a fusillade of peer-reviewed warnings about the newly discovered dangers of —social media!

The medium is the (wrong) message!

As if conjointly inspired by some memo from the collective unconscious, psychologists everywhere rushed to warn the laity about social media, and specifically Facebook. To kick things off, Baroness Susan Greenfield of Oxford University–“one of Britain’s most eminent brain scientists”–declared children particularly at risk. Her data revealed loss of empathy and poor interpersonal communication skills associated with Facebook patronage. “What I predict is that people are going to be like three-year-olds: emotional, risk-taking, poor social skills, weak self-identity and short attention spans,” she warned.

Oxford’s Greenfield–“eminent brain scientist” and obvious clothes horse.

Don’t drink the cortisol!

If only he’d had a Facebook account!

Hadn’t it been only yesterday that Psychology Today asked, “Is there something wrong with people who don’t use Facebook?” Hadn’t a widely cited German study correlated mass murder with the absence of Facebook accounts in the lives of killers like James Holmes, and Norway’s record-breaking Behring Breivik, suggesting the resultant lack of human interaction “could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer…” But wait! Out of nowhere, learned clinicians like Eric Vanman, senior lecturer at the University of Queensland’s School of Psychology, began publishing peer-reviewed studies citing Facebook as a major cause of excessive levels of the hormone cortisol. And too much cortisol not only creates stress and anti-social behavior–it promotes obesity, impaired cognition, decreased thyroid function, and even cardiovascular disease. Vanman and his colleagues made no bones about the solution, stating in the Journal of Social Psychology that “Taking a Facebook break for just 5 days reduces a person’s level of the stress hormone cortisol.” Draw your own conclusions, people!  Facebook not only wouldn’t mollify potential mass murderers– it was practically creating them!

It’s for our children’s brains!

Additional betrayals hit closer to home. Tell-all books? Insider confessions? Diatribes from the fashionably disenchanted? Every establishment luminary knows such misfortunes erupt only on the political Right. But here was Sean Parker, the wiz kid most responsible for transforming Facebook from a collegian fad into a billion-dollar monolith, confessing his role in popularizing a social blight “designed specifically to exploit a vulnerability in human psychology resulting in nothing short of a public addiction!” Worse, in what could pass as an audition for a Mueller interview, Parks named his co-conspirators, including Zuckerberg, telling interviewers they “understood this consciously and…did it anyway,” adding, “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”


“If we save just one child’s brain…”

Zuck Redux?

Poor Zuck—by now we’re feeling pretty sorry for him ourselves! So, in the spirit of Pandora, we decline to abandon this assemblage of glum tidings without appending a note of optimism. Can the Zuck regain his mojo? Despite the chorus of doomsayers, WOOF believes he can and will. And just in case you happen to peruse this screed, Mark, (perhaps in the process of deleting it from this or that Facebook page) we wish to offer some advice. We offer it freely, aware that in doing so we evoke the spirit of Machiavelli—whose name you probably recognize, being a Harvard man. We invite our learned readers to additionally view this evocation in the spirit of Strauss (Leo, not Johann) and Mansfield (Harvey, not Jayne), but you needn’t worry about that at all, Mark—just check out the following list of surefire solutions to your predicament!

Herewith, some advice to the Prince–in the spirit of Harvey, not Jayne!


Choose your enemy wisely!  Cease all counter attacks on the media immediately! Bad idea! You are understandably stung by the establishment’s treachery—but power-diving tactics of the sort Miss Brown employed in Australia will achieve only Pyrrhic victories. Your task is not to retaliate against the media, but rather to impel their renewed support. This is easily accomplished. Fortunately, a fresh burst of criticism erupted last week deploring your continued  suppression of conservative ideas, not only online, but also within your company, Increasingly, your associates and employees are going public about your hypocrisy in preaching diversity while—as one recently charged–maintaining a political “monoculture that is intolerant of different views.” This is marvelous luck. The media will initially report these complaints objectively in their eagerness to further sully your reputation, but they cannot do so for long without realizing they are advancing conservative arguments. At that point, they will hang a screeching one-eighty and return to broadcasting your PR bologna. Hasten this event!

Stop pretending to care about diversity! You’ve announced a new training protocol intended to teach employees respect for different political views. This is your typical application of faux repentance–one of your time-honored specialties, though much diminished by overuse. Let the media report this latest foray into affected contrition, and then drop the act. Instead, go on the offensive. Redouble your oppression! Mercilessly cut away conservative websites, delete pages offering right-of-center materials, and increase your efforts to demote, hamper, censor, or bowdlerize private pages that don’t serve Progressivism. You have nothing to fear. Your problem is not the Right; in fact, the more you abuse us, the more the establishment will defend you and the more accolades you will obtain from the media. They will not pause to recall bygone news cycles—believe us—it’s a simple matter of Pavlovian conditioning. Fit yourself to their template—use phrases like “abolishing hate speech,” “weeding out dog whistle racism,” and “neutralizing Russian interference.” The news talkers will salivate reflexively.

Stand up to Congress! Don’t grovel or equivocate in front of majority-led Republican committees–use a little Maoist lingual revisionism. Make semantical paradox your ally! For instance, play the Ayn Rand protagonist for the moment. (She was an author, by the way–you wouldn’t like her, but that’s not important now.) Remind congress you’re a free citizen answerable only to the free market. Say “free” as much as possible. Highlight their hypocrisy! Denounce their efforts to regulate private enterprise and nationalize your vision. Be sure your public relations people laud your courage under fire; advise anyone willing to speak on your behalf to say “the CEO is speaking truth to power” as often as possible. That one never gets old!

Name the enemy! Obviously, you can’t come out and say Facebook simply refuses to accommodate conservatives. Not yet, anyway. Instead, attack a straw man.  Luckily, the Left has already provided one. Make it all about battling “fascism.” Millennials have no idea what fascism is, but they equate it to anyone less socialist than Bernie Sanders. In fact, nowadays, even plenty of educated liberals believe it’s a synonym for conservatism. You didn’t debauch our language, Mark, but you can profit from the debauchery!

Exploit your monopoly! For the foreseeable future Facebook is the only game in town for anyone seeking the variety of services it provides. Never give away your power! If conservatives try to create alternatives, or libertarians switch to some other platform, let them go! Most will wander back as their efforts collapse from lack of financing, and stigmatization generated by the establishment’s informational hegemony. You are global. You cooperate with China. You cooperate with Islam. Why bother with a handful of neo-con cranks? Call them “Alt Right haters.” Let the media bludgeon them into insignificance as it reflexively rejoins your cause.

Make time your ally! Ignore the recent attacks from your liberal comrades. Sure, they sting, but trust us, they will melt away as your corporate brand increasingly correlates with Trump bashing, gun-grabbing, and a principled stand against right-wing (say “Alt Right”) bigotry and ignorance. Your salvation will come from the Left, Mark. Be sure to include an energetic purging of fundamentalist Christians opposed to LGBTQ-etc.-rights (cite hate speech), teamed with a seemingly paradoxical (but equally vital) defense of first-amendment rights for Muslim subscribers–no matter how noxiously radical. Stress Facebook’s unqualified support for women’s health issues (by which everyone will understand is meant infanticide), social justice (Sharia Law), open borders, and legitimate science (this last mandating removal of all content critical of global warming, Darwin, or the endless mutability of sexual identity). Strike without mercy, Mark!                                                       __________________________________________________

Follow these suggestions and let the proven inability of today’s media to retain anything in mind longer than it serves a specific propagandistic purpose resolve the rest. The establishment will take up your cause and declaim your integrity with greater enthusiasm than ever before. And it will take 90 days, tops.

[No need to thank us, Mark, and absolutely no need to remunerate us financially for salvaging your empire–we here at WOOF believe in the way of give, not get. But if you feel some sort of gesture is warranted, you might consider banning Watchdogs of Our Freedom in some particularly outspoken way—really hold us up to derision—spread it around we’re the worst of the worst. Granted, this may prove difficult since we’ve never had a Facebook account, but you could say we’re so despicable you decided to ban us prophylactically—you know, before we even had a chance to spread our reactionary Billingsgate over your medium.  A few words from you could really put us on the map! But don’t waste any time—we’ve already emailed Robert Mueller telling him we refuse to reveal what we know about peeing prostitutes and Russian collusion in general, and you don’t want to look like a Johnny-come-lately, right?

WHAT THE FOX? (How the Murdoch Brothers Hatched a Plan that ‘FOX over’ FNC Viewers while Saving the Planet and Sparing their Wives Further Embarrassment!)

In "The Media are the Massage" forum on May 22, 2017 at 3:37 pm

There is an old adage, familiar to most, that if something works, one should not attempt to fix it. We have no doubt the vast majority of our readers are conversant with this saying, and alert to its meaning; so much so that to explain it here for the benefit of the culturally illiterate seems pointless; first because it ill-repays everyone else’s kind attention, and second, because that rare reader who requires assistance comprehending so obvious a maxim will doubtless be equally bollixed by any attempt at elucidation. Therefore, we suggest that the apprehending majority proceed to this article’s gravamen, while the uncomprehending minority may also elect to proceed, placing its reliance on context in order to establish insight. Or, some may prefer to click over to, say, Infowars, where chemtrails, Pizza gate, and other sinister phenomena, are discussed in simple, easily comprehended terms.

But before plunging fully into the aforementioned gravamen, allow us to point out that unlike so many familiar aphorisms graven into the American psyche, the idea that something need not be repaired if it functions smoothly is virtually irrefutable. One may hear, “he who hesitates is lost,” for instance, and think ironically of Custer’s Last Stand—or reconsider the sagacity of “slow and steady wins the race,” in light of Jeb Bush’s disastrously phlegmatic bid for the presidency. But almost everybody agrees that a marvelously efficient apparatus need not be overhauled in the moment (continuous quality improvement notwithstanding), and this seems even more apparent when the apparatus is essential to some aspect of the nation’s cultural welfare—as is Fox News.

So, if  ‘he who hesitates is lost’ is wrong, but so is ‘slow and steady wins the race,’ how confusing is that?

We at WOOF gaze with considerable dismay upon the widely reported efforts to dismantle the Fox News Channel, or, put more exactly, to transform it—to reshape its core into something bound to prove anathema to the tastes and expectations of its millions of loyal viewers.

Some predicted Turner’s CNN would counter liberal media bias–but when Ted went hunting with Castro and married Jane Fonda, hope perished.

Not even the liberal media could invent a means of diminishing or obfuscating Fox’s primacy among the 24-hour news contenders. A public trained to think “CNN” when it thought of around-the-clock news broadcasting, came despite itself to an awareness that Fox News dwarfed Ted Turner’s band of whiny propagandists in the ratings…and, put frankly, in news coverage. True, a sizable sub-population of that public remained aloof from FNC’s programming, persuaded by the full force of the Liberal Establishment that Fox comprised little beyond an assortment of thunderously fascistic Cro-Magnons, babbling blond Stepford Anchorwomen (whose vacuous skulls had been filled with GOP talking points), and a supporting cast of Republican Party shills whose main function, the Left insisted, was to tell lies.

Lois of “Family Guy” actually enjoyed a brief career at Fox News Channel.

The mythology of Fox’s reliance on calculated prevarication was soon run threadbare by the progressive hierarchy to the point that it became an object of satire on the cartoon program Family Guy. In one episode, for example, Lois, the cartoon housewife, is seen ranting about Fox’s inveracity when she is challenged by the family dog (who talks). The dog accuses her of hyperbole, but Lois doubles down, snarling, “Everything on Fox News is a lie… even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies!” Certainly, that was the official view of the Obama Administration for eight years. But while the “Fox lies!” mantra busied the tongues of besotted liberals and frightened off, one must assume, legions of the irredeemably naïve, it proved insufficient to thwart FNC’s rise to cable supremacy.

In the beginning…

The late Roger Ailes–looking rightward.

It was February of 1996 when Australian publisher and multimedia mogul Rupert Murdoch hired former GOP strategist-cum-NBC producer Roger Ailes to mastermind the Fox News Channel. Scoffers marveled at the stupidity of “reinventing CNN,” simultaneously pointing out that NBC was launching MSNBC (does anyone know what that actually stands for?) and that a 24-hour news channel run by so hallowed and sacrosanct a broadcasting entity as NBC in combination with the ultra-branded CNN would obviously crush any upstart competitors.

Fox’s refusal to play by the rules of establishment (read: liberal) journalism made it instantly attractive to conservatives among whom Murdoch’s experiment built a swiftly expanding viewership. Moreover, Fox presented liberal viewpoints by a far greater ratio than conservatism appeared elsewhere, thus moderates began to admire the fresh approach too. During the Republican National Convention in 2000, Fox’s ratings handily outpaced all three major (which is to say, hallowed and sacrosanct) news networks, and increased another 300 percent during the American invasion of Iraq.


Hmmm–something’s up.

Further digression into particulars needn’t consume us. Suffice it that Fox climbed from obscurity to the position of America’s number one source for cable news at so dazzling a velocity that establishment progressives were hard pressed to internalize, let alone oppose, the phenomenon. Slowly, in that recalcitrant way in which ponderous beasts react to some peripheral annoyance, the Left began to recognize the magnitude of Murdoch’s heresy. For establishment panjandra, this entailed a more challenging cognitive adjustment than one might suppose. It required stretching the liberal weltanschauung to accommodate three distasteful propositions.

Shattering paradigm (file photo)

First, the guardians of America’s informational orthodoxy were obliged to accept that the major networks, whose news divisions were known to be hallowed and  sacrosanct if only by dint of their ritualistic practice of so describing themselves, had been outclassed in the ratings war by a bunch of conservatives and neocons with no entrée into the progressive guild, and no interest in seeking any. This realization alone was, as the lexicographically slipshod might say, paradigm shattering.

Second, one could not efficiently analyze the success of Fox without acknowledging coinstantaneously that American TV viewers liked Fox’s handling of events more than any competing network’s, and sometimes more than any combination of them, because on a really dark day, FNC would pull higher numbers than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC put together.

The Nielsen ratings– an inconvenient truth.

Third, these facts conduced ineluctably toward one of two available conclusions, neither of which inspired optimism on the Left. Either (a) the American people were more inclined to conservatism than to liberalism, which would disprove longstanding elitist claims to the contrary–or else, (b) vast enclaves of otherwise sensibly progressive citizens were tuning in Fox News every night, beguiled by Roger Ailes’s media sorcery. Once hooked, such viewers apparently surrendered their adjudicative powers and descended ever deeper into the reactionary abyss where they were irretrievably transformed by Murdoch’s dark alchemy. These poor wretches—and there appeared to be millions of them– misperceived themselves as entertained and informed whereas in fact they were merely the former, any semblance of the latter being so interlarded with lies, distortions, and bigotry, as to render it dismissible.

Regarding the above, notice that whether one embraces the first or second alternative, the left-wing perspective relies on the barely concealed subtext that Americans are stupid. (Stupid being the most widely circulated synonym among progressives for ‘not liberal.’) But better they be stupid on account of Roger Ailes’s magical mental manipulations than by mere dictate of nature, and thus the second option of the third proposition carried the day, explaining the second proposition, and maybe even the first. And so was born the “Fox-lies!” mantra, echoed robotically by liberals everywhere, even today. Not only does Fox lie, but in the progressive estimation, Fox lies so skillfully and seductively that Americans prefer it– not only because many of them are stupid (meaning ‘not liberal’), or even because quite a few more are simply stupid, (meaning stupid, in the general sense of acceptation), but mainly because the majority are, in fact, stupefied, which is to say, mesmerized by Rupert Murdoch’s insidious legerdemain. Enter now the progressive passion for “re-education.”

“Just a FOX story!”

For two decades now, Americans have endured a withering barrage of propaganda from every conduit dispensing left-leaning commentary (which is nearly all of them), to the effect that Fox lies, Fox isn’t really a news network (an Obaman favorite), Fox is homophobic, Fox is racist, Fox is Islamophobic, Fox is—well, you get the idea. The enterprising liberal eristic (of which subspecies at least one specimen inevitably winds up at Thanksgiving dinner) will always have an ample supply of politically-correct insertions in mind, whereby the basic anti-Fox template may be adjusted to address almost any conversational variant.

“Ummm…lessee…’Operation Fast and Furious?’ Ummm…I think that’s just a Fox Story.”

The Obama administration made excellent tactical use of this planted axiom. Whenever Fox went to air with details of yet another Obama travesty, Obama or one of his acolytes would smirk and declare, “Well, that’s just a Fox story!” and reporters would snicker, nod, and forget the matter. In fact, the President on such occasions was speaking literal truth, since the near-absolute refusal by establishment networks to spotlight anything unfavorable to the regime meant that any hint of scandal, blunder, or illegality associated with Obama was instantly “spiked,” with the predictable result that Fox would be the only network reporting it. Thus, almost every one of the administration’s miscreancies over eight years of unprecedented contempt for law, truth, and the Constitution, might be accurately described as “just a Fox story!”

As vociferously as the liberal networks promulgate this interpretation of Fox’s appeal, one might reasonably assume some effect would be had—but efforts by the punditry to warn viewers of Fox’s wanton disregard for the higher principles of responsible (read: liberal) reportage made no measurable dent in Fox’s ratings. One reason, obviously, was that no matter how often or how emphatically the liberal networks rehearsed Fox’s infamies, no means existed by which to inform the masses–other than by purchasing advertising space on Fox News, which claimed most of the viewers. For the elites in New York, D.C. and Los Angeles, such ignominy would be unendurable, so the likes of Chris Matthews and Don Lemon found themselves limited to warning their comparatively minuscule audiences that Fox was awful—a belief already shared, presumably, by most of their viewers. Small wonder if the resultant frustration drove certain of these journalistic Titans to the occasional social drink.

Looking on the bright side, Fox’s deliverance from the grip of its fascistic, warmongering, misogynistic former executives may have a salvific effect on Don Lemon’s liver.

Following America’s penultimate attempt at national suicide, (we refer here to the 2008 presidential election), President Obama joined in the effort, lambasting Fox News at every opportunity from the Bully Pulpit, even attempting on one occasion to lock Fox out of a news conference, and whining incessantly to anyone who would listen about the colossal unfairness of Fox’s coverage, which often criticized him, whereas all the other televised news operations waxed giddy at his approach.

In a reckless attempt to boost ratings, Joe Scarborough challenges Barney Frank to an impromptu game of patty-cake.

One might suppose that attacks by the administration combined with the exertions of establishment journalists and manipulations by the entertainment industry (which made Fox the butt of endless jokes inserted into movie and TV scripts, sitcoms, rap recordings, and late-night comedy monologues), would erode FNC’s popularity. Shown the error of their ways, thousands of repentant souls might reasonably be expected to grasp– however belatedly– the importance of watching real news as represented by credible journalists like Joe Scarborough (failed conservative talk radio host), or Van Jones (self-confessed communist subversive and 9/11 conspiracy theorist), Al Sharpton (diction-impaired race hustler and tax cheat), or certainly by old pros like Brian Williams (signer of the Declaration of Independence, first journalist to orbit the moon, Bronze Medal winner in Olympic Mahjong), but no! Despite eight years of unremitting, presidentially approved criticism, Fox News emerged unscathed.

Much of Fox’s success may be attributable to the inadequacies of its competition. Even the ultra-elitist SALON admitted as recently as last November that “Watching MSNBC is pure torture!”

In fact, 2016 found Fox comfortably atop the ratings for basic cable viewers, prime time viewers, and “total day” viewers (a spot formerly ceded to CNN whose “branding” inclined more people to switch it on at some point in any week, however briefly). For emphasis, FNC delivered the best rated quarter for total viewers in the network’s history and spent ten consecutive weeks as the number one channel in total day viewers of all cable networks, bar none.

A series of unfortunate events…

But precisely at this point began what might be termed a series of unfortunate events, none of which, in any direct sense, reflected meddling by the organized Left. To begin with, a sudden flurry of charges was brought against Fox’s resident mastermind, Roger Ailes. Alysyn Camerota, for instance, charged Ailes with sexually harassing her during her stint at FNC following which Gretchen Carlson lodged similar accusations. Camerota’s complaints might be considered suspect by virtue of her subsequent CNN affiliation, while Carlson could reasonably be described as disgruntled, but when Megyn Kelly added her voice to the mix even as the venerable Greta Van Susteren (to whom WOOF invariably grants special dispensation on account of her being Urban Van Susteren’s daughter) switched from defending Ailes to tweeting her regrets that Ailes was “not better supervised,” the charges seemed substantial enough that few on the Right rushed to protest Ailes’s removal. Besides, he had already built the Fox machine—devised its components and imbued the network with its unique pizzazz—so if he was a creep into the bargain, he might be safely set aside while his creation rolled on, or so many assumed.

Carlson and Ailes–never a love match.

But even as the Ailes controversy reached critical mass, the redoubtable Rupert Murdoch announced his retirement, and the elevation of his sons, James and Lachlan, to leadership positions at FNC where they would perform as his de facto successors. A New York Times story entitled “In House of Murdoch, Sons Set About an Elaborate Overhaul,” was accompanied by a splashy portrait of the Murdoch lads gazing determinedly toward a far horizon, faces set confidently in the best tradition of socialist realism. In the background, Rupert appeared to look on with a certain sense of world-weary detachment. The younger Murdochs, the Times explained, were ready to “rid the company of the old-guard culture on which their father built his empire.” And for once, the Times had its facts straight.  Indeed, it transpired that James and Lachlan were instrumental in firing Roger Ailes.

Lachlan, James. and doting parents. They look so harmless when they’re little, don’t they!

Reading the Times piece by Brooks Barnes and Sydney Ember, one would think the Earps had arrived to clean up Tombstone, except that such imagery entails a profound logical fallacy. Students of debate learn three ways to recognize a false analogy, namely that a) it draws a comparison in which the differences outweigh the similarities, or b) the similarities are irrelevant, or c) the two things compared are not similar enough to warrant comparison to begin with. As a quick example, the Earps (at least in legend) were dauntless lawmen who cleaned up Tombstone because it was nihilistically dysfunctional and required rescue. But James and Lachlan are not the Earps—they are lackluster feather merchants stamped with Hollywood social values, besotted with liberal sanctimony, and anxious to retain the good opinion of their toney peers. And Fox isn’t Tombstone—it’s a roaringly successful enterprise that only a pair of callow ninnyhammers handicapped by bossy wives and room-temperature IQs would seek to reinvent.

Left to right: Definitely not Lachlan, definitely not James.

The Times story admits papa Murdoch is less than comfy with the succession, although we are told he “spent decades plotting and re-plotting which of his children would take over his empire.” Obviously, he should have taken longer. Lachlan made a play for the crown as early as ’97, but a scornful Roger Ailes ran him off. Meanwhile, James so badly mismanaged the phone-hacking scandal swirling about the family’s tabloid empire in England that speculation turned to Rupert’s daughter Elisabeth as heir apparent. Elisabeth had experience running Britain’s Sky Network, and might well have righted the ship at Fox without undermining its editorial disposition; but instead, for whatever reason, the brothers were offered the helm.

Elisabeth Murdoch, flanked by her unprepossessing siblings. Where was she when we needed her?

Chickens in the Fox house….

Fox suddenly found itself at the mercy of James, the formerly bleached-blond, facially-pierced hipster, who dropped out of Harvard to found Rawkus Records, a hip-hop label, but converted to natty suits and fashionably thin-rimmed glasses (while sensibly reducing his facial jewelry to a single, tasteful eyebrow stud) before assuming control at FNC. Besides a who’s who of Hollywood celebrities and power players, his pals include Elon Musk and a predictable assortment of Silicon Valley savants.

The preternaturally good-looking Lachlan Murdoch, and his blonder half.

Lachlan, a Princeton graduate whose various tattoos and motorcycles serve as counterpoint to his eastern-liberal establishment upbringing, is breathlessly described by Vanity Fair as blessed with “preternatural good looks,” but the author must have been looking at the Times portraiture…no, even then, it won’t wash. If James resembles the quintessential pajama boy, nerdy, gawky, and probably inclined to exclaim “awesome!” rather too often, Lachlan, at first glance, registers as the runty, insecure junior sibling. He lives in a swank Mandeville Canyon estate near Los Angeles with his wife, Sarah, a former model who twice appeared in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit editions and was the official face of ‘Wonderbra,’” whatever that is, back in 1997. Readers will be unsurprised to learn that (according to the Daily News), Sarah is “progressive minded.” Her several autobiographical contributions to celebrity magazines include such poignant disclosures as “I’m No Superwoman,” and “How I Stay Real.”

James and Kathryn Murdoch–ready to take charge and make Fox awesome! 

Tellingly, James no sooner grabbed the attention of media watchers than he rushed to a National Geographic event where he pledged to render Fox News “scientifically literate,” by which, of course, he meant committed to ruthlessly suppressing the vast stores of evidence demonstrating flaws in the global-warming argument. Nothing “fair and balanced” in the climate-change debate, after all; you’re either apostle or apostate, and apostates, as everybody knows, are persecuted relentlessly by sober-minded advocates of “settled science.”

In tune with the times….

“Thank God the culture at FOX News is changing–maybe now I can get to shore without drowning!”

One such advocate is James’s fashionably-green trophy wife Kathryn, whose “driving interest in environmentalism” (per the Times) is best evinced by her work on behalf of—wait for it—the Clinton Climate Initiative, not to mention the subversive Environmental Defense Fund. Having apparently studied climatology and environmentalism between photo shoots while modeling in Oregon, Kathryn is cited as the chief architect of James’s “pro-environmental” mindset. As far back as 2007, James was urging his father (a long-time “denier”) to adopt initiatives aimed at making the Murdoch empire carbon neutral. “A lot of people are worried about climate change but are waiting for someone else to do something about it,” James explained. “We are showing that you can take action…and… make employees feel good and…win customers by showing that the company’s values are in tune with the times.”

Despite considerable effort, WOOF could not locate any photos of Kathryn reacting to the horrors of election night; we hope this alternative depiction of the former First Lady  will suffice.

The Times piece proceeds to note approvingly that James and his “progressive-minded wife…have long been embarrassed by certain elements of Fox News…” and that James’s and Kathryn’s Twitter feed “shows disdain for President Trump.” (Shocking, we know.) In September, Kathryn (who ardently backed Hillary’s candidacy, as she did Barack Obama’s) tweeted: “A vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” And on election eve, as Trump’s electoral advantage became incontrovertible, Kathryn tweeted, “I can’t believe this is happening. I am so ashamed.” And who can blame her? Obviously, a myopically heedless public somehow managed to miss so many of the cues and prompts so lavishly provided by the journalistic establishment, that the majority of Americans in most states shambled off to their polling places determined to vote in a manner hopelessly out of tune with the times.

Killing Bill….

TRUE FACT: Actress Uma Thurman has never accused Bill O’Reilly of sexually harassing her.

If the organized Left was only marginally involved in Roger Ailes’s removal (the brunt of the opposition comprising former Fox employees and the newly inserted Murdoch sibs), it was nonetheless quick to realize the incident’s potential. Thus, as if conjured by a magician’s wand, rent-a-mobs with pre-printed placards assembled outside Fox’s Manhattan headquarters demanding Bill O’Reilly’s ouster on similar grounds. And as if by Jungian synchronicity, an entire conga line of accusers added their voices to the one or two in O’Reilly’s past. Thin skinned advertisers began jumping ship in droves. O’Reilly, meanwhile, steadfastly maintained his innocence, explaining previous settlements as efforts to shield his family from a media circus.


Certainly, the case against O’Reilly seemed far from compelling. Fox News anchorettes rushing to file charges of sexual misconduct against their network’s marquee player were conspicuous by their absence, while many insiders offered evidence that seemed to contradict charges of sexual coerciveness. Even Megyn Kelly confessed that she had gone her entire career at Fox without being sexually harassed by O’Reilly.  Meanwhile, an email surfaced from Wendy Walsh, O’Reilly’s most vociferous accuser, written long after her alleged victimization, in which she wrote, “Specifically, please convey to ‘the boss’ [O’Reilly] that I am deeply grateful for his professional kindness….His media power is immeasurable and his call to [“The View’s” executive producer] really launched my book tour on a high note. Can’t thank him enough.” We certainly hope Miss Walsh never expresses such immensurate gratitude toward anyone at WOOF.

Oddly, Wendy Walsh remained inexpressibly grateful to Bill O’Reilly long after he allegedly harassed her sexually–in fact, pretty much right up until she filed suit. Apparently the folks at CNN are less  insensitive.

Even the normally subversive Washington Post treated the situation ambivalently, and CNN Money dismissed the defecting advertisers, opining correctly that “Fox and O’Reilly are positioned to weather such defections.” O’Reilly, the CNN report concluded, “resides on an elevated tier with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who, like the Fox host, has endured multiple controversies over the years and ultimately prevailed not too much worse for the wear.”

This is what stupid looks like….

Times writer Brooks Barnes–oddly remindful of James Murdoch, or is it just us?

Anytime the Washington Post and CNN conjoin in a momentary fit of perspicacity, it is worthy of note, but no such notice was taken by the Murdoch sprouts, who canned their network’s (and all of cable’s) number one ratings grabber whilst he vacationed in Italy. Word was given out: Not only was O’Reilly fired, he would not be permitted to return for so much as a farewell telecast. James’s wife Kathryn doesn’t care for Bill O’Reilly, it seems—thus James became the loudest and most insistent of those calling for the host’s termination. Lachlan’s wife, Sarah, also had a role in the decision. According to the Daily Mail, the official face of Wonderbra “convinced an on-the-fence Lachlan that Bill O’Reilly had to be fired.” Of The Factor’s mindless destruction, Times writers Brooks Barnes and Sydney Ember gushed: “This is what generational change at one of the globe’s most powerful media conglomerates looks like.”

Really? Well, if Barnes and Ember were assaying to suggest that generational change at Fox resembles a bunch of morons drilling holes in the bottom of a boat in order to drain the bilges, they got it exactly right.

Anti-politically correct environmentalism for dummies….

Hannity tried to save Fox exec Bill Shine–but the writing was clearly on the wall.

The next head to hit the basket belonged to FNC’s Co-President, Bill Shine. When rumors that the brothers were zeroing in on Shine began to circulate, Sean Hannity tweeted, “…i pray this is NOT true because if it is, that’s the total end of the FNC as we know it. Done.” Obviously, somebody forgot to tell Hannity what generational change looks like. Shine was axed even as Hannity launched his short-lived #Istandwithshine Twitter initiative. “Done.”

Times writer Sydney Ember, who doesn’t resemble James or Lachlan, but whose omission would be sexist, we suspect. 

A newly arrived Martian might assume that Fox was an unmitigated train wreck, its only hope for survival residing in a quick infusion of fresh blood and a radical change of direction. Feeding alacritously into this contrived narrative, Doug Creutz (a media analyst at Cowen and Company) explained that the Murdoch boys are “young enough to see and understand that the company has to change.” Why it has to change, Creutz neglects to say, he being a practitioner of the liberal art of the implicit axiom. But as Barnes and Ember relate in their Times article, Lachlan and James “immediately set about creating a warmer and fuzzier workplace…moving away from an anti-politically correct environment…” and what rational onlooker could object to the Murdoch boys introducing what they describe as “more paid vacation, vastly enhanced reproductive coverage for women and expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues?” But such epic reforms aside, authors Barnes and Ember seem most especially taken with the fact that “the brothers concluded the memo on a jaunty note: ‘Enjoy!’”

Air who…?

Air America’s dismal performance was hardly emended by its choice of the least inspiring logo in promotional history–until, of course, the advent of Hillary’s 2016 “H” design.

Who now remembers the endless accolades and hosannas bestowed upon Air America at its inception? (For that matter, who now remembers Air America?) In recalling this project’s much-ballyhooed injection into the matrix of talk radio, we are offered an instructive instance–one of many in which the Liberal Establishment cast reality aside in deference to unbridled ideological psychosis. Specifically, almost every mechanism of left-wing disinformation—meaning the vast majority of newspapers, every news network (except Fox), every TV program devoted to ephemeral entertainments and personalities, every magazine from People to The Atlantic, and every media commentator who was anybody, breathlessly heralded what was certain to prove the most significant communications development since Guglielmo Marconi stumbled onto the mono-pole antenna.

Rush Limbaugh: endlessly analyzed and criticized by the Left; yet, strangely, almost never listened to.

It is difficult to recall any popular endeavor more richly and unanimously lauded in advance of its debut as was Air America—the liberal answer to conservative talk radio. Given the tone of the advance work, one might reasonably conclude that conservative dominance of the AM dial was a sort of aberration, ascribable mainly to the Left’s failure to notice the problem. Now, however, notice had been taken, and with the advent of Air America, matters would be set right—and Americans would be free to avail themselves of liberals broadcasting in the manner of right-wing talkers, except, of course, without the racism, homophobia, misogyny, and warmongering. Finally, Americans could tune in talk-show hosts seeking to regale them with truth and brilliance, rather than reactionary lies and all that loutish, anti-intellectual invective!

Imagine: truth, brilliance, and good looks into the bargain!

To borrow a wonderfully concise phrase from the feisty moms who maintain the 100 Percent FedUp website, “the cultural upper hand is a mighty one.” But it is far better suited to fashioning perceptions than to vouchsafing outcomes. Were it not thus, Hillary Clinton would be president…and Air America would be a dominant radio presence, having taken the nation by storm as predicted by nearly everybody. But in the event, few tuned in, and most of those who tuned in soon tuned out. Style was a significant problem from day one, the channel’s daily fare comprising a parade of uniformly vituperative dullards whose broadcasting personae were modeled on the likes of Rush Limbaugh, or so they imagined.

...now that the Garofalo’s gone.

But because nobody on the extreme left actually listens to Rush Limbaugh, the prevalent solecism that Limbaugh’s program consists mainly of hate, vitriol and puerile insults (which is what liberals tell one another about Limbaugh’s program) led to Air America overflowing with hate, vitriol, and puerile insults, intended to be Limbaugh-like, only, of course, on the side of the angels. In reality, almost nobody wants to listen to unrelenting streams of hate, vitriol, and puerile insults, thus Air America pioneered new lows in radio discourse even as it bled its financiers. Ultimately even George Soros wearied of maintaining so manifest a turkey on artificial life support and decided to cut his losses. Today, despite all the encomia that preceded its arrival, Air America is as extinct as the Pyrenean Ibex; although the Pyrenean Ibex is, at least, missed.

The Pyongyang impediment

The lesson here is plain, but so deceptive is the power of retaining “the cultural upper hand,” that it is lost on James and Lachlan Murdoch, and would be, even if they were clever. The same lesson was lost on Hillary Clinton, her pollsters, her advisers, and the entire liberal punditry. The lesson is that beyond certain niche markets, liberalism is not something to which most Americans, even today, are particularly attracted. Even large numbers of Americans who earnestly believe themselves to be liberal are not particularly attracted to liberalism, once driven to confront its ramifications. And because this reality is never rehearsed in liberal circles, it never occurs to the denizens of those circles to consider it. Sealed hermetically within his elitist echo chamber, the Brie-and-Chablis leftist is no more aware of the realities that surround him than is the average citizen of Pyongyang…he just enjoys more amenities.

So on this account, we have an almost Dadaist scenario in which James and Lachlan descend on FNC having inherited the most successful venture in the history of televised journalism, and announce their intention to rescue it. Indeed, they solemnly declaim that without immediate and drastic reform, the entire operation teeters on the brink of collapse. Not only that, establishment media pundits of all descriptions and affiliations hasten to agree emphatically, without ever bothering to present evidence that any sort of collapse was either imminent or likely. Are these people insane? No, they are the progressive elite. James and Lachlan aren’t nuts, they are closer to what an author in an earlier decade called Bobos in Paradise —wealthy liberals persuaded by their glittery wives as well as by every journalist, techno-tycoon, Hollywood actress or academic bezonian with whom they exchange banalities, that Fox News must be pulled into conformity with the progressive ethos, or else…well……or else something awful will occur.

Not the brightest beers in the tool shed.

The boys are not deep thinkers—you have probably noticed—and their inability to specify even a logical basis for their escapade denies them the insight necessary to predict its results, no matter how obvious to the rest of us. Friends and associates of the Murdoch lads agree that a more liberal, multicultural, less nativist, more global, more climate-sensitive and unthreateningly metrosexual Fox News is envisioned. But to what end? The brothers Murdoch are, by all reports, agreed that such adjustments will bring greater success to FNC than their father dreamt possible.  Presumably, all their friends and supporters agree. But reality serves a decidedly different demographic, and it is traditionally hard on leftist expectations.

Coals to Newcastle: A business model for the 21st century?

Kelly Ayotte, for example, took the advice of consultants, distanced herself from Trump, embraced liberal causes like climate change, and lost her New Hampshire senate seat to the real Democrat.

Let us pause here to recall those critics who, at Fox’s inception, asked “why reinvent CNN?”  Indeed, who wants or needs Fox to become CNN? And once it becomes CNN, why would viewers prefer it to CNN? Will viewers whose loyalty was built on Fox’s role as an oasis in the vast wasteland of DNC-controlled news sources, suddenly find themselves enthralled by its shifting to precisely that brand of left-leaning poppycock they fled to begin with? For that matter, will dedicated liberals or rank-and-file Democrats accustomed to watching MSNBC or ABC World News Tonight or PBS News, or whatever, rush in droves to watch the same drivel on Fox? Why would they? Even the GOP has lately begun to acknowledge that when one campaigns in ways that make one indistinguishable from Democrats, voters tend to elect actual Democrats. Too, when one shifts from a business model long known to provide maximum returns to one that predictably and repeatedly results in failure, investors–even the most ideologically supportive investors–tend to shop elsewhere.

David Brooks–always available for intellectual balance.

Left to their own devices, the Murdoch cubs will annihilate Fox News, retooling it as a vapid amalgamation of trendy mediocrities—a hint of The View, a tincture of Ronan Farrow—a dash of Colbert with a pinch of Jake Tapper—and lots of settled science linking impending planetary devastation to man-made global warming…and why not replace Bret Baier with David Gregory? Perhaps, too, an occasional word from David Brooks, or some similarly neutered establishment sycophant pretending to represent the “conservative” perspective, could provide the illusion of intellectual balance. The result will be disaster—not only qualitatively, but financially. If they give a damn, the brothers may wind up begging Bill O’Reilly to return. But they won’t give a damn, because in the world of progressive journalism, failure is a badge of distinction.

The Tina Effect

Tina Brown, Lioness of the Left.

Consider Tina Brown, who took over Newsweek, dragged it to the far left, and bankrupted it. Undaunted, she moved on to the Daily Beast where she blew through tens of millions of investors’ dollars to no perceptible gain before she was offered an exit package in exchange for her resignation. Tina nevertheless remains a venerated liberal icon. Even now, Bravo is planning a glossy TV series about her in which, rumor has it, she will be portrayed by Scarlett Johansson (undoubtedly a fan, if by no means a ringer).

Following Brown’s ouster from the Beast, Hamilton Nolan wrote in Gawker that “the Tina Brown NewsBeast era was…a fiasco,” adding that, “Tina Brown is like Keith Olbermann, a media star who has proved by now that they [sic] should probably not be hired, but who always will be hired again, probably at an even more prestigious post.”  Correct!  And if there were a Tina Brown Achievement Award (which may yet manifest itself, for all we know) the Murdoch brothers could be plausibly accused of bucking for it. Long after Fox has withered ignominiously, the Murdoch lads will be lionized in all the right venues by all the right imbeciles for their valiant efforts to guide the masses toward the light—even if said masses proved too benighted to embrace their Promethean benefactions.

Well, he was coming to Current TV–and pretty soon after that he was leaving it because even Al Gore couldn’t stand him. But he’s working again, doing a webcast for GQ.  And pretty soon he won’t be…but that’s probably just us putting the cart before the ass.

Après O’Reilly, le déluge

Maddow, Ascending.

Even without major philosophical changes yet in evidence, the brothers’ earliest policy decisions have wrought havoc. With Ailes recently dead at 77 and O’Reilly truculently exiled, Fox has already plunged to number three in the ratings–an embarrassment undreamt of during Ailes’s tenure. The sudden collapse is mainly traceable to James’s and Lachlan’s first programming decisions.  Available second-tier hosts were rushed from slots in which they performed credibly, to times previously occupied by powerhouses like O’Reilly and Van Susteren.  One tragi-comic result is the meteoric rise of Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. Maddow now finishes first in the hour previously dominated by O’Reilly’s Factor.  True, her ascendancy is partially attributable to the anti-Trump polemics gushing from every conduit of the Dark State’s media complex, but it is predominantly ascribable to the astonishing lack of planning that accompanied the bloodbath at FNC.

Sean Hannity, wearing the perturbed look of a man coming to identify more and more with the proverbial canary in the mineshaft.

If Maddow’s ascendancy reminds us that nature abhors a vacuum, the precipitate descent of Fox’s hastily reshuffled line-up into third place serves as a painful validation of the Peter Principle. And the brothers are only beginning. Once the conservative remnant manning FNC’s battlements is sufficiently thinned and the network’s new role as a sandbox for trendy sociopolitical experimentation better established, it will appeal only to former viewers of Al Gore’s Current TV, of whom there are at least a dozen, the brain-dead glitterati haunting Left-Coast salons, and, of course, Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch.

R.I.P., FNC!

Do not suppose that Lachlan and James will eventually see the light and reinstitute those qualities that made their father’s network a cultural phenomenon. It will never happen. Liberalism’s lodestone is too potent to allow for such practicalities. Just as Milton’s Lucifer preferred ruling in Hell to the supernal alternative, captives of the progressive entrancement prize their status within the liberal milieu too passionately to consider swapping it for success amongst the hoi pollois. Better, in other words, to be toasted by Cher, Babs, Bezos and Buffet than applauded by legions of bitter clingers whose approval comes at the price of finding oneself shunned at 21 Club. Barring some unforeseeable intervention, Fox will continue in decline, even as Lachlan and James continue to bask in unremitting praise from all the right social circles. Finally, when Fox is no more than a fond recollection, the brothers will be extolled for their excellent intentions. And as Billy Jack once said in dramatically dissimilar circumstances, “there’s not a damned thing you’re going to be able to do about it!” Enjoy! 


THE NEW MEDIA MAFIA—ALL IN THE FAMILY! (WOOF Daringly Exposes Incest in Post-journalistic America!)

In "The Media are the Massage" forum on February 19, 2014 at 3:22 pm

media mafia splashIt is difficult nowadays, especially as one casts one’s mind over the nearly endless inventory of impeachable offenses that Barack Obama has committed in office, and casually shrugged aside with the full complicity of the American press, to focus one’s mind on the fact that Richard Milhous Nixon was hounded from power because a group of third tier staffers bungled an effort to bug the Democrat campaign headquarters after which Nixon engaged in an upper tier effort to cover up the “in-house” nature of the operation, and also because he was silly enough to turn the tapes of himself orchestrating the cover-up over to the prosecution. Today, you could ransack America’s institutions of higher learning without discovering a single student capable of describing the follies and sins that culminated in Nixon’s expulsion from office—but they would all tell you he was evil, evil, evil….and because it fits their professors’ template, they all regard him as a conservative, never mind the patent ridiculousness of the label. It is a supreme irony, WOOF submits, that the man “who killed Joe McCarthy” (to borrow William Bragg Ewald’s chillingly ebullient phrase) was ultimately and even more spectacularly destroyed by the same liberal media that previously helped him undermine the Junior Senator.

Dick contemplates  ike's orders to shut down McCarthy--well, the guy IS a nuisance!who got the marching orders to

Dick contemplates
Ike’s orders to shut down McCarthy–well, the guy was a nuisance!

But while the vagaries of Nixon’s collapse can be argued –and have been argued—prolongededly in histories of the era, the most significant aspect of his demise goes generally unremarked—and that is the degree to which Nixon’s resignation inaugurated the epoch within which the radicalism of the late ‘60s began to institutionalize itself, subtly but surely, in the mid ‘70s.  The remarkable thing about the epochal shift that swept American culture was how casually it overcame us. Adult hair became lush, mustaches sprouted, ties became broad, music became puerile (remember “Disco Duck”?) and the economy began to malfunction (in the wake of Nixon’s Bretton Woods miscalculation).  Car companies quavered, Coke surrendered to Pepsi and issued “New Coke,” and a general sense of things Spenglerian filled the air—but nothing really seemed too different…nothing really seemed alarming.  Democrats still reminded us of Jack, Bobby, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Republicans? Well, they were still of the Bob Dole, John Warner, Howard Baker variety with a little bit of Goldwater for sorely-needed color. The evil ones had been expelled–and while President Gerald Ford might have been seen as a  benighted yawp who hailed from Grand Rapids, fell down entertainingly and wore madras trousers with white socks, he was certainly not a villain…except that he pardoned the execrable Nixon,which was ultimately deemed unforgivable…by the press.

But television reporters didn’t seem that different. Not yet, anyway. They had bushier wigs and mustaches and thicker ties and maybe flared trousers and they wore side-zipping boots with big heels instead of shoes, but they just reported the news and the weather and the sports, same as ever. It would have taken a sociologist, and a particularly adept one at that, to accurately perceive the tectonic shift to the Left that locked us in its grip as Nixon gamely flashed his digital V-signs and lifted off aboard the Presidential helicopter for his final flight into ignominy. (Actually, he wrote two good books after that– but that’s not important now.)

As the great Irish poet Yeats once put it,Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; anarchy is loosed upon the world; The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The center, you see, was cowed, confused, and propagandized into a sullen acceptance of its own desuetude in the 1970s, and one of the most vital elements of that center was the original 4th estate,  which, like the academy before it, crumbled like a termite mound in a stampede of wildebeests. When America decided the hip children of the ’60s could teach it more than Burke’s community of souls, the ’70s were a leftwing shoo-in. 


Race guilt writ large on his countenance, Costa seems barely able to stand upright under the cumulative ancestral  guilt of centuries– a sportscaster haunted by his nation’s illicit, immoral existence– won’t somebody–anybody–help the man?

Have you noticed that even sportscasters are left wingers these days? Witness Bob Costa’s sanctimonious sermonizing at half time during a Redskins football game to the effect that the team’s name is “…an insult, a slur.”  How did this come about?  Why, for that matter, is ESPN a consortium of leftwingers? How come Kenny Mayne  can tweet dopey jabs at Sarah Palin with impunity while his colleague Adam Scheffer is free to  twitter wrathfully  against Republicans whom he believes to be attempting “a looming government shutdown,” but when the hapless golf pro Paul Azinger tweeted that President Obama seems to play more golf than he, Azinger, does, ESPN called him on the carpet and warned him to keep his politics to himself.  Yes, WOOF really needs a sports-watcher to keep an eye on the slide of American athletics into the fever swamps of leftist conformity—but for the purposes of this screed, we are willing to view it as part of the larger phenomenon.

It’s a family affair mafia_ii__that__s_amore_by_shadowcat2503-d34rjrr

The problem with the Liberal Establishment Media is far worse than we tend to consider, perhaps because it is qualitatively different from what we assume it to be. That we sense a problem at all is remarkable considering the fact that we are never told by the Liberal Establishment Media how bad the problem has become, or what it amounts to, or even that it exists. As survivors of journalistic epochs in which some news source was always babbling the dirt about one or another politician or political scam while exciting the notice of at least a few other news sources, it remains hard for us to grasp how utterly short-circuited this process is by the Obaman stratagem. A few years ago a New York  Times reporter refused to attend a press conference featuring military personnel, scientists, at least one astronaut and myriad credible witnesses of UFO phenomena from respectable walks of life because, he said, if there were any truth to UFOs, he would have read about it in the Times.  Similarly, during the Cambodian genocide following the collapse of South Vietnam, early refugees from the mass slaughter held a press conference in Washington DC to warn America of Pol Pot’s plans to reduce the Cambodian population by two-thirds and the reporter for the Washington Post walked out, telling folks in the lobby that she wasn’t interested in hearing anymore CIA lies. The Harvard Crimson was quick to back her verdict, declaring that “Stories of a bloodbath, as reported by other news agencies, cannot be verified and there is every indication that these accounts are lies.” [Full asinine story available here]

Caligula and his sister, Drusilla--these things almost never work out!

Caligula and his sister, Drusilla–these things almost never work out!

This, in a larger and more public context, is the mind set that blockades most Americans from grasping how far their trusted news networks have fallen into a mutated reification of what John Kerry, in far less plausible circumstances having to do with far less threatening events, called “a coalition of the bribed, the bought, the coerced and the extorted.” This purposeful and efficient dismantling of the American 4th estate would be the biggest news story in America, bar none, if there were any news operation willing to cover it (except us of course!)  But the biggest aspect of the story as it now stands vis-à-vis the Obama regime, is that an addition to Kerry’s epigram is essential.  Today’s lock-step, liberal news distorters are no longer merely motivated by bribery, coercion and extortion—no—there is now an even seamier element at work.  It can be recognized where the social and vocational cohorts of liberal politics and liberal journalism join hands–where the “second estate’s” Ruling Class and the “fourth estate’s” reportorial elites run toward one another in hoaky slow motion, and melt into one another’s arms as the background score escalates into a salacious crescendo and the two estates become one , locked in shared infatuation; in what Bernie Goldberg indelicately but memorably described as “a slobbering love affair.” The word for this is incest. Yes, it’s a metaphor as thus invoked, but barely. It bespeaks a singleness of purpose between the power elites and their supposed watchdogs in the media that has all but placed the two once disparate interests in the bouncing bed of nuptial unity—and in many instances, as you’ll note,  this is not a metaphor at all!  In fact, the Chicago Outfit that paraded into the White house with unprecedented levels of support from the drooling news media, has joined hands with those supporters and formed a “Family” in the strict Chicago style—although WOOF does not mean to imply any actual Mafia involvement—the Mafia, for one thing, is nowhere near as liberal as the media factions upon whom we bestowed the label by extension—and noticeably less devoted to multiculturalism.

“…worst president ever…”

WOOF's new friend: James Goodale

WOOF’s new friend: James Goodale

James Goodale, the former general counsel of the New York Times during its legendary battle to the death with the Nixon administration said recently that “President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”  Will pass him, James? He left Nixon in his dust during the first six months of the first term! A particularly brave effort has been made by the highly respected Committee to Protect Journalists, typically an organization concerned with abuses of press freedoms in military dictatorships and third-world backwaters, to expose the menace we now confront domestically. The Committee recently issued its first ever warning about American press freedom, authored by no less a hand than former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr. who lamented “the deterioration of journalism in the United States,” powerfully underscoring “just how extreme is the threat to press freedom posed by this administration.”  The report offers a comprehensive survey of the multiple ways that the Obama presidency has clamped down on the free press, instilling a paralyzing climate of fear, concluding that “In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press.”  And nobody reports it!

But George Will went way too far

Will pictured pre-dinner party --obviously conniving how best to convert Reagan to conservatism!

Will pictured pre-dinner party –obviously conniving how best to convert Reagan to conservatism!

Where fear is useful, coziness is often twice as effective. In the early ‘80s there was a tremendous outcry that ABC commentator George Will should be fired or at least severely reprimanded for having the Reagans as his dinner guests at his private home. How, the talking heads clamorously inquired of one another, could one expect to report objectively while supping with the very plutocrats upon whom the criticality of the oppositional media was morally obliged to be focused? Of course, George Will was brought aboard at ABC precisely because he was a well-known conservative whom the network  tasked with offering conservative views as a conservative commentator, the utter novelty of such an inclusion having, ABC reasoned, a certain piquancy so long as the conservative remained outnumbered and assurances obtained that Sam Donaldson would interrupt him a lot whenever he ventured to establish an argument.  The idea that one of the most articulate defenders and purveyors of conservative opinion in America might have his reportage suborned over a glass or two of California Pinot Noir was so laughable that even NBC and CBS could not sustain their faux hysteria beyond a news cycle, and Will remained at his post. But here we are, three decades later, with the entirety of mainstream journalism either hob-nobbing with Obama, overlty supporting him, or directly –or by a very few degrees of separation– employed by him!  Employed by him? The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe has semi-regularly kept tabs on the number of reporters working for Obama’s administration, counting 10 in May 2009, 14 in 2010, and 13 in 2011. The Washington Examiner’s Paul Beddard counted 19 reporters working for “Team Obama” in February 2012. Remember, these reporters have not turned in their press passes for chauffeurs’ uniforms or feather dusters—no, these mavens and mavenettes remain in the business of giving you the news! Nor are these reporters the sort who might otherwise be written off as silly Jimmy Olsen types. Beddard linked them to CBS, ABC, CNN, Time, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times just as a few examples.

Yet none dare call it incest!rose-family-in-nm-c.-92

For that matter. should it worry you that the president of ABC news, Ben Sherwood, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood, a top national security adviser to Our Beloved Leader?  Or that the President of CBS News, one David Rhodes, is the brother of top Obama adviser Benjamin Rhodes? If Ben’s name sounds familiar, that is likely due to his reported role in the editing of the now infamous Benghazi talking points—you remember: The ones that had to be re-written thrice because the first ones made no sense and the second ones were demonstrable lies. Or should it concern us that Tom Nides, who served as Hillary Clinton’s top adviser on security matters is married to Virginia Carpenter Moseley, who happens to be the producer for CBS News in Washington?

Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts (major liberal fatcat) has donated $76,000 to Democrats since 2006, while keeping numerous golf dates with his buddy Barack—he is no stranger at White House meetings about technology and appeared at a number of White House discussions of “business technologies”–you know, stuff like your cell phone, your computer, smart energy and information sharing.  So we could pick out of our hat just any old major presidential crime or misdemeanor, like, oh, maybe leaving our guys to be slaughtered at Benghazi while their Commander in Chief played spades with an aide far from the Situation Room (as we now know him to have distracted himself during the crisis) and okay, now think about this: Hillary can’t be found (and turns out to have bumped her head, or to be lost in preparation for bumping it) leaving Tom Nides at State to oversee the butchering of our forces—but nobody ever quite figured out where he was either, nor did any intrepid reporter ever bother asking, not even his wife who’s in charge of ABC news, remember? CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both have siblings that not only work at the White House under the direct control of Valerie Jarrett (and, titularly, President Obama), but who share ties to the National Security Committee on Foreign Policy Issues, which is in turn tied directly to the Benghazi scandal

Once more, Benhazi on the left, Ben Gazarra on the right. (Another WOOF service for the uniformed voter.)

Once more, Benghazi on the left, Ben Gazzara on the right. (Another WOOF service for the uniformed voter.)

That Valerie Jarrett, the Islamo-radical, Iranian-born Communist, who is. of course, the President’s principle adviser in such matters, saw no cause for action and may well have considered the slaying of Americans in Libya that night an exercise in social justice, is nauseously plausible; but could not Obama have sought a slightly more American point of view on the efficacy of letting Benghazi burn while rescue forces were repeatedly told to stand down? That Jarrett would not permit input from chief advisor Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood, (whose vaunted specialty was her well-orchestrated “Preventative Defense” plans for exactly such regional contingencies) on the night of the 11th seems strange on the surface of it, and stranger still when it transpires that nobody can place Dr. Sherwood in the situation room either. No, Dr. Sherwood’s whereabouts on the night of the eight-hour battle of Benghazi are also a mystery—and any chances she had that night to speed help to our abandoned forces go unrecorded—and do you think it’s strange that the media never looked into this? Maybe you should ask Dr. Sherwood’s proud husband, Ben Sherwood, the president of ABC news.

Only Charlene Lamb, who denied additional protection to the consulate prior to the attacks, admitted monitoring the ensuing battle in real time. She doesn't seem to know where anybody else was during this 8-hr period. She has just been promoted.

Only Charlene Lamb, who denied additional protection to the consulate prior to the attacks, admitted monitoring the ensuing battle in real time. She doesn’t seem to know where anybody else was during this 8-hr period. She has just been promoted.


“So, I;m guessing you boys didn’t enjoy the film, huh?”

How, apart from the cooperation of a large, loving, leftwing news family could anybody get away with what Susan Rice was allowed to blather for a full two weeks following the massacre? Weeks during which she and Hillary (whose bumped-head problem seemed to ebb and flow) spread with equal alacrity the irrational flapdoodle that a massive public uprising replete with rocket launchers and zeroed-in mortar support had suddenly fallen upon our defenseless consulate in Benghazi because of a video. The attack, the White House insisted, occurred only because four months earlier and 7, 120 miles away, an utterly unknown Coptic Christian immigrant named Nakoula Bassesly Nakoula screened an incoherent 13-minute video that purportedly showed Mohammed in a bad light to an audience of no better than nine curiosity seekers in a rented theatre on Vine Street in Hollywood. Armed with this fantasy, Rice trooped doggedly across the sets of every available weekend news program, bemoaning the film’s anti-Muslim tone and fingering it explicitly as the cause of “spontaneous popular uprisings” that overwhelmed the consulate and could not possibly have been anticipated. So utterly ludicrous were Rice’s talking points that the merest cub reporter untethered from the administration or unobligated by purblind ideological conformity to repeat the proffered idiotisms would have seen through them in an instant, but only the dextral blogosphere raised this point initially, and the “professional” newsreaders smiled condescendingly and spoke in charitable tones of the paranoia on the radical right.

What is especially interesting is that three of the White House officials implicated in the Benghazi fiasco are related in some way to mainstream media big shots. Tom Nides was then the number two at State and a close friend and confidant of Hillary’s—and the devoted husband of CNN executive news producer Virginia Moseley. Also at State, top advisor Ben Rhodes (later of the talking points debacle,) and a top security adviser to Barack Obama throughout the Benghazi catastrophe and beyond is the brother of one David Rhodes—you know, the president of CBS News.

Ari and Michael-- where CNN and the Administration hold hands.

Ari and Michael– where NPR and the Administration join hands.

And the there’s Jay Carney, cub press secretary, out there doggedly dodging any stray journalistic interrogatives (nonetheless annoying for their rarity) while mainly just troweling out the tripe du jour for the pabulum besotted Washington Press Corpse. Did you know that Jay has the good fortune to be married to Claire Shipman–veteran reporter and senior national correspondent for ABC?  And you may rest assured that Mrs. Claire Carney Shipman thinks that Jay is doing a superb and utterly professional job on each occasion that he appears at his podium to spread more malarkey. National Public Radio’s Ari Shapiro has been listening to the same malarkey from this white house for four years as his network’s top correspondent assigned to presidential coverage—so how did he miss noticing it? Is it possibly because his “husband,” boyfriend Michael Gottlieb, just finished a 4 year hitch as a Special Assistant to the president and as Associate White House Counsel, specializing in national security?

It’s all in the family!


Well good night, nurse!!

Yes, we’ve come a long way since that thunderstorm of concern in the early ‘80s  that George F. Will might have lost his credibility as a broadcast journalist after an evening’s exposure to the Reagans’ table talk—and we haven’t thought about it much, it seems. The media are left wing, and that’s the way it is in life—in fact, we are confidently informed it is only to be expected inasmuch as liberals are smarter than conservatives, and bright young men and women hanker to become news reporters. The absence of any indications of brightness among the current throng is rarely cited by way of rebuttal—but the illogic of the position would require an honest news media before it were exposed as ridiculous—and there is no expectation that this is about to transpire.  But nothing short of politico-philosophical incest is at work in American journalism, and incest is notorious for spawning deformities of form and intellect–and this is no less so with the progenies of illicit liaisons between our first neo-Constitutional president’s crowd and the current bevy of unnaturally entangled propagandists who pose as objective journalists on our TV screens. It is on America’s TV screens that the fruits of journalistic incest are rotting on public display—but the ones who should be reporting the decay are busy doing the rotting.

The  distraction of myself…rick

It is the critical faculties that perish first in such instances—followed rapidly by the canons of taste. Take Rick Sanchez, ever a stranger to wit and decorum, who was finally let go by CNN after implying that Jews controlled television news. And what of Soledad O’Brien, who never made headlines until she was caught on camera reading from a leftist blog during a confrontational interview with Paul Ryan, while insisting she was holding documents from a Senator’s office. But Soledad persevered, running  CNN’s morning news program Starting Point so far into the weeds that in February, 2013, CNN had to yank her. The network graciously euphemized that O’Brien was leaving to develop her own company, but Soledad missed the cue and raised a stink about being dumped. (She does in fact now helm the Starfish group where her clients include  Al Jazeera America and some sports show on HBO.)

Keith Olbermann, who was originally fired by FOX Sports for being “crazy,” relocated to MSNBC where his melodramatic boil-overs provided consistent evidence for the comedic value of combining sanctimony and witless fustian. His histrionic run was undeniable fun for oglers, but Olbermann eventually got on everyone’s nerves and agreed to take his show on the road—switching to Albert Gore’s pathetic Current TV where he managed to draw an average of 100,000 viewers in the 25-54 age demographic making the program competitive, embarrassingly enough, with CNN.  But even Al Gore pronounced Olbermann unbearable and canned him. Today, of course, Current TV is Al Jazeera …but so far they haven’t hired Keith back.


And what of the British hosts who were imported by the Liberal Media Establishment in the apparent hope that billingsgate, if enunciated with an English accent, would be interpreted as sophisticated commentary by American yokels? Martin Bashir famously opined that Sarah Palin should be required to ingest excrement, which controversy hung in the air through enough news cycles that Bashir was finally called to the office of MSNBC’s network president, after which he announced his resignation, adding “It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.” Meanwhile, Piers Morgan –the fugitive from British justice who replaced Larry King at CNN—continues to lead that network’s ratings into the gutter…albeit with a fetching British accent.

American petions to have British CNN liberal Piers Morgan deported have inspired British petitions refusing him re-entry into England. So far, the British seem to be winning.

American petitions to have British CNN liberal Piers Morgan deported have inspired British petitions refusing him re-entry into England. So far, the British seem to be winning.

Anderson Cooper, who lacks a British accent and may be the least endemically interesting person in television history with the possible exception of Wolf Blitzer, remains relatively unwatched, despite his “courageously” coming out of the closet a while back. His AC 360 Later program (what does that even mean?) is now officially yanked, although Cooper will remain the anchor of CNN’s eight o’clock hour. Variety ascribed AC 360’s departure to “flailing viewership,” which is a frightening image—we sincerely hope they intended to say “failing.” but so far new owner Jeff Zucker hasn’t found anything unfailing to put on the air, and thus might be said to be flailing, should Variety wish to rehabilitate its verb. But expecting the Liberal Establishment Media to fail because it is widely scorned by viewers is a mistake—it prevails andersonbecause it represents a growing interweave of sociopolitical interests that are forming into a single, symbiotically enriching power elite part of which commands sufficient financial support to keep it babbling at us while establishing daily and weekly templates (like global warming, or amnesty for illegal aliens, or whether Ted Cruz is destroying the economy). Stuff, in other words, about which most Americans would never otherwise waste a thought, but stuff about which visiting Martians would assume every man, woman and child in America cares passionately given the din of the news shouters.

berieBut the problem with the Liberal Establishment Media has never been that they are simply run by professionals who haven’t gotten the hint yet—who haven’t gotten around to noticing that a bunch of left-leaning ideologues are slanting their broadcasts in ways that turn off even moderates and the storied “independents.”  The problem isn’t even that the management itself is so stolidly liberal that they would rather march into ratings oblivion than moderate their reportage—although this is a major factor, to be sure. The greatest problem now is that the management and service-delivery classes of “media” have socialized, flirted, necked with, and in many cases inter-married with the very politicians and power drivers upon whom they supposedly report—and nowadays, as we have noted above, the distinction between politician and reporter may be so completely blurred by the travesty of inbreeding as to amount to the creation of a new species: The political reporter who is imbedded not with a military unit, but with an administration—or who is married to someone who is thus embedded. The implications of this are nothing short of horrifying. There is no need for a totalitarian dictatorship to shoot reporters, open fire on TV stations or arrest newspaper owners in order to establish a government-controlled information monopoly if the same thing can be accomplished by fraternization with, and marriage among, a new-journalistic class of pie-eyed sympathizers who were in any case taught beginning with their earliest journalism classes that liberalism’s and journalism’s aims are one and the same.


Should another TV news franchise, just one other, take a libertarian or conservative editorial position in light of FOX’s extraordinary success, the board would be fully in play. Should Beck’s BLAZE venture obtain a more practicable conduit for its message, the playing field would be dramatically readjusted. And why shouldn’t this come to pass? The liberal media are already choking each other for viewers even as their ratings, albeit fitfully, continue to drop.  It is unlikely that any major network could shake so free of its liberal encumbrances as to fill this roll—it will almost certainly come from outside, but it seems an irresistible likelihood that such an endeavor will manifest. His realization of how potent a factor this could prove undoubtedly informed Al Gore’s otherwise unaccountable decision to refuse a higher dollar offer from Glenn Beck, and accept instead a slightly lower sum from Al Jazeera to acquire his failing and hopelessly dull Current TV channel.

"Al" Jazeera!

“Al” Jazeera!

Technological advances have broken the stranglehold of the Left on the business of “news,” and as progress continues, that hold will grow weaker still. Advocates of a free republic and a strong Constitution must make all possible efforts to spread the message of conservatism via the blogosphere, the AM and FM bands, and by all other means available while we await a second televised media outlet to widen our prospects on the boob tube. And it goes without saying, if any ridiculously wealthy benefactors are inclined to lavish funds upon us, WOOF TV could easily lead the way—if we can broadcast from our cave…we don’t know what the technicalities would be exactly, but we’re pretty sure we could overcome them with enough money…

Ready to broadcast!

Ready to broadcast!

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

In 1987 Dan Rather said he was accosted on Park Avenue and beaten up by an assailant who continually demanded, “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?” Unlike many of the stories Dan has reported over the years, this one actually happened. It transpired that Dan’s assailant was a schizophrenic named Tager who believed Rather was bombarding his brain with evil electronic signals, which may well have been the case if Tager owned a television. But Tager may have inadvertently given right-minded broadcasters of vision and courage an interrogative akin to Ayn Rand’s John-Galt riddle—and as we grow in power and scope, we must remember Tager, and his schizophrenic insight, more actual than he could possibly absorb–and we must continue to ask of all the banal, bleating zombies of the mainstream media who bombard us with their agitprop–  What’s the frequency, Kenneth?  What’s the sound of one wing flapping?  And ultimately, all you moral relativists and blown-dry rascals –all you painted up progeny of Axis Sally and Lord Haw Haw, now that televised journalism is deadwhat’s the name of the game?








In "The Media are the Massage" forum on September 12, 2013 at 11:44 pm


Two million Americans vanish!

Now, wayyyy back in the olden days, Woofketeers, a group of motorcyclists who called themselves the “Booze Fighters” rode into the small town of Hollister California and stirred up a bit of a kerfuffle. The town was hosting a motorcycle rally, but some of the Booze Fighters (who were, and remain, aptly denominated) started some fights and caused a bit of damage. Despite the minor nature of the damage and the injuries, the “Hollister riot” became a national press sensation as headlines emphasized “pandemonium” and crazed motorcyclists commandeering a town. The press, in other words, found pay dirt in this virtual non event and hyperbolized it to such an extent that it finally became its own movie, The Wild One with Marlon Brando.  So what’s our point? Well, as Perry Mason always used to say, we intend to show relevance!

Everyone's seen "The Wild One." but did you ever see an actual Booze Fighter from that era? Yeahhh--Brando kinda got lost in translation.

Everyone’s seen “The Wild One.” but did you ever see an actual Booze Fighter from that era? Yeahhh–Brando kinda got lost in translation.

On September 11th, 2013, (yesterday as we post this) no fewer than 900,000 bikers, and perhaps as many as two million, entered the nation’s capital and jammed the streets of Washington DC. Further, they did so despite having been denied a permit, and further, they did so not only to pay homage to the victims of the assault on the World Trade Center, but also to protest the so-called Million Muslim March on DC scheduled for the same day.

The press kept countig and recounting the million Muslims--but they couldn't get much upwards of twenty.

The press kept counting and recounting the million Muslims–but they couldn’t get much upwards of twenty.

Washington DC is still practically immobilized by the legions of Harleys that swarmed into its environs on Wednesday, and the million Muslims? There were about a hundred of them, almost exclusively 9-11 Truthers and anti-Semites come to rave about the complicity of Dick Cheney, Israel and/or the infamous Halliburton weather machine in knocking down the towers and building number 7—only to be drowned out by the dirty thunder (in Hunter Thompson’s memorable phrase) of Harley Davidsons…a sound as American as Rock and Roll, the crack of a bat on a ball, or the report of a 1911 Colt. And did you even know it happened? Well, okay, you wouldn’t be reading WOOF if you weren’t extremely well informed, so you probably did know it happened, but believe us, your neighbors don’t have a clue, because so far as any of the Liberal Establishment Media were concerned, those thousands upon thousands of bikers might as well have convened on the dark side of the moon. The event was so studiously ignored by the dinosaur networks and their cable-news counterparts that people would have scratched their heads in bewilderment had they known what they weren’t allowed to know!

Nine-eleven "Truthers" get all the chicks!

Nine-eleven “Truthers” get all the chicks!

The news in America is no longer a process in which hard-bitten reporters and crusty city editors go after the story no matter where it leads and print the truth no matter whom it affronts—heck no. That’s so 1947!  The news today, especially the televised news, is propaganda spun to make Liberalism look good, and Conservatism look bad. And when events occur that contradict this theme and cannot be reconfigured to fit it, well…those events get “the spike,” which means they just didn’t happen. And that’s what happened to the motorcyclists in Washington DC. They just never happened on the news, because there was no way to give Obama credit for them, or make them look like they were advocating socialism. Are you kidding? Those bikers stood for unmitigated freedom, the Wild West, manifest destiny, the American Dream, and about a dozen other concepts that curdle the blood of the establishment drones that play reporters on television. So they got flushed down the memory hole even while they were clogging the avenues of the nation’s capital, gunning their 74’s and waving Old Glory! So, how did the media news get so treasonably propagandistic? How did the newshounds who turned Hollister into a national phenomenon devolute over a few decades into a credible pantomime of the three blind mice? Well, woofers, that’s what these WHITE PAPER reports are all about!

It was a bit harder to count the influx of patriotic, flag waving bikers as they swamped DC, but that didn't matter much because they were never really there to begin with!

It was a bit harder to count the influx of patriotic, flag waving bikers as they swamped DC, but that didn’t matter much because they were never really there to begin with!

Previously on “Why All the News is Bad”….

In our last self-importantly titled WOOF WHITE PAPER REPORT [view it here] we left you with the end of Dave Garroway’s career on the TODAY program, after explaining that Mr. Garroway’s departure together with the somewhat earlier exit (resulting from unspecified personal concerns) of J. Fred Muggs, the show’s chimpanzee co-host, signaled an end to the golden era of morning television news programming. TODAY was plunged into a dark age of dopiness that began with John Chancellor taking over the program—but sitting woodenly and officiously where Uncle Dave was the epitome of cool-medium sangfroid. Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters followed, and so on down a long chain of entropic embarrassments the worst of whom were undoubtedly the addle pate Jane Pauli and the perpetually tongue-tied Tom Brokaw—but we digress. Readers may rightly wonder that so iconic a figure as Garroway was not more broadly emulated by those who followed in his footsteps, and there are two reasons for this, really. First, Garroway was a natural, and TV producers do not typically look for naturals, they simply happen upon them, so that once such talent departs they are left to hunt for imitators who pretend to be natural—and that’s how you get Jane Pauley—but anyway….the second reason is the more pertinent:  By the time Garroway took his leave at the terminus of the Eisenhower era, the up-and-coming TV newsies had a new hero—one of mythological proportions. Somebody seriously important, seriously grave—seriously serious!

Many TODAY Viewers felt that he transition from Muggs to Brokaw bespoke a certain devolutionary trend--but studies indicate their vocabularies were virtually identical!

Many TODAY Viewers felt that the transition from Muggs to Brokaw bespoke a clear devolutionary trend–but studies indicate their vocabularies were nearly identical!

Even as the ‘50s shambled somnolently, unsuspectingly, toward the ‘60s, a subtle tectonic shift began to slide the American media leftwards, and this movement could never have rallied to genial Uncle Dave and his simian co-anchor—where’s the glory in that? No, while the crew at TODAY (and their imitators at the other two networks) proceeded to market a kind of cope-and-fluff badinage that mimicked only the least substantive aspect of the legendary Garroway, the rest of the go-getters in televised news fixated on that truest of all liberal emotions: Sanctimony. Sanctimony has taken the liberal media everywhere they’ve been—but what were its origins? Where was the journalistic standard for sanctimony established, and by whom? Our gentle readers will not be surprised to learn that WOOF has the answers!

Confronting the great evil… 

Classic Murrow--stand back so's you're not scorched by the righteousness!

Classic Murrow–stand back so’s you’re not scorched by the righteousness!

It was not Garroway whom the young Turks of broadcasting wished to emulate, no indeed. It was Edward R. Murrow. And what does everybody know about Edward R. Murrow? Why he and the CBS news department single-handedly destroyed the most evil man who ever lived—Joseph Raymond McCarthy, right? And along with Joe McCarthy (whom biographer Thomas Reeves went so far as to call “our King John”), Murrow is said to have wiped out that horrendous “ism” that McCarthy engendered, although, sad to say, it rears its noxious head occasionally—like whenever anybody has the poor judgment to notice a communist. It is impossible to go five years without the media complex finding some way to resurrect this legend and re-teach it to the masses, so that even though most of today’s citizens cannot recall Joe McCarthy, he looms in our national psyche like a political version of Keyser Soze from the film The Usual Suspects. To paraphrase Kevin Spacey from that film, McCarthy is now “a spook story CBS tells us kids at night.”

Yikes! Peter Boyle portrayed McCarthy as a cross between Young Frankenstein and Godzilla! Definitely NOT an evening's best bet!

Yikes! Peter Boyle portrayed McCarthy as a cross between Young Frankenstein and Godzilla…definitely NOT an evening’s best bet!

Films like Goodnight and Good Luck add to the mythic significance (while misleading the audience with near hysteric alacrity about, among other things, the Annie Lee Moss case), as do made-for-TV “docudramas” like NBC’s ridiculously fact-challenged Tail Gunner Joe. But what Murrow really deserves credit for is pioneering “bag job” journalism, in which a story is twisted in an overtly propagandistic way to make its subject look especially horrible. Murrow’s carefully and maliciously edited slam job was so egregiously slanted in order to portray McCarthy as demonic that even Joe’s harshest critic, John Cogley of Commonweal, rose to the Senator’s defense, pointing out that ”A totally different selection of film would turn Senator McCarthy into a man on a shining white steed.” Thus it was Cogley who first warned of the amazing power of televised coverage to function as an engine of malignant distortion in the hands of unprincipled broadcasters. Contrary to CBS legend, the blast from Murrow did not end Joe’s career, and his poll numbers remained high—but the “See It Now” broadcast paved the way for his destruction by the Left, with a decisive assist from the Eisenhower administration. (Do you doubt this readers? Grab a copy of William Bragg Ewald’s Who Killed Joe McCarthy for edification!)

The Army/McCarthy hearings, orchestrated by Eisenhower, were more damaging to Joe's status than Murrow's program. Here, Joe enters the hearings and Army attorney Joseph Welch is smitten with one of those anti-anti-communist migraines.

The televised Army/McCarthy hearings, orchestrated by Eisenhower, were more damaging to Joe’s status than Murrow’s program. Here, Joe enters the hearings and Army attorney Joseph Welch is smitten with one of those pesky anti-anti-communist migraines.

But Murrow’s vainglorious posturing (and the equally preposterous pretense that he was virtually taking his life in his hands by broadcasting “truth to power” on his little ol’ national network news show) inscribed the template for the journalism of destruction that became a loaded weapon in the hands of the leftwing media establishment. How do you manage to feel and appear brave?  Take on seethingly demonic powers like McCarthy, or Goldwater, Reagan, or “W” Bush—guys who, in fact, can be criticized with near impunity and to wild applause from the Left—but pretend you are on a virtual suicide mission in so doing while your colleagues play along and ooh and ahhh at your boldness! And how do you manifest gravitas? Just arrange to ooze pietistic indignation while you’re at it—like Mike Wallace or Dan Rather or Keith Olbermann (who took the formula to psychedelic extremes).  Somewhere, through billowing effusions of cigarette smoke, Edward R. Murrow will be smiling–wanly, of course– but smiling nonetheless.

The Camelot Illusion

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley led the news ratings in the Kennedy epoch.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley led the news ratings in the Kennedy epoch.

Dave Garroway left the Today program in 1961, and John Kennedy became president. The same media machine that covered up FDR’s polio and would one day cover up Obama’s treasonable misconduct and embarrassingly un-American past, went to work pretending not to notice JFK’s philandering. But even then there was no hint of the left-slanted news coverage we experience today. Why, Huntley and Brinkley on NBC were famously Republican and Democrat, and led the ratings. Walter Cronkite at CBS was yet to identify himself as a full-blown progressive. He was, instead, on his way to being voted “most trusted man in America.”  And at ABC Ron Cochran was inoffensive enough to be almost totally forgotten. Sorry Ron.

Cronkite stifled a tear as he reported JFK's death--and a nation in shock believed they saw their favorite uncle in his visage.

Cronkite stifled a tear as he reported JFK’s death–and a nation in shock believed they saw their favorite uncle in his visage.

When shots rang out in Dealey Plaza on a sunny afternoon in Dallas, and the country was plunged without notice into the lumbering socialist experiment that was Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” Cronkite was the man to whom the nation turned, and with whom the nation communed during its unprecedented trauma. In times of unbridled distress it is tempting to grasp at straws—and no less so at straw men. We idealized and apotheosized Cronkite—the avuncular national media figure who emerged from that ordeal “the most trusted man in America” and made egregious use of that trust on many counts before he shambled off finally to rave radically from the cultural sidelines.

Morley and Dan and Vietnam!

Morely on the trail of those pyromaniac Leathernecks!

Morely on the trail of those pyromaniac Leathernecks!

Few Americans would believe that Vietnam coverage began with a giddy Walter Cronkite in a helmet and visor, riding backseat on a fighter-bomber mission, yelling “Yahoo! We really got ‘em!” as the two-seater plane’s payload shattered the jungle. Always unintelligent before he was anything else, Cronkite had not yet bought into
(or been much identified with) what would become his legendary iconicism. (But at least he had guts.) Morley Safer of CBS may have kicked Vietnam coverage leftwards with his famous Zippo lighter story in 1965. Morely attached himself to a platoon of Marines who were entering a VC-sympathetic village from which Americans had been receiving hostile fire for days. On this occasion, as ordered, the Marines evacuated the villagers from their huts and set fire to the structures to eliminate weapons caches, tunnel entrances, and covert firing positions. They also did it to firmly impress upon the villagers that enough was enough. Morley had his camera man record the burning of the huts whilst he sermonized liberally, shall we say, about the brutality of it all—and to Americans eating Swanson TV dinners while watching the evening news that August 5th it might as well have been the Japanese rape of Nanking!

Dan the Man in Vietnam! Here, Rather interviews a 175 mm artillery piece.

Dan the Man in Vietnam! Here, Rather interviews a 175 mm artillery piece.

Many Americans believed the military was what they saw on Gomer Pyle, USMC, or at its most brutal, perhaps, like ABC’s Combat! The “Zippo jobs” appeared shocking and brutal. Vic Morrow would never do anything like that on Combat! And Safer made sure to get footage of an old Vietnamese man weeping as his hovel was torched, making equally sure to omit any mention of the fact the village was thoroughly infiltrated by and sympathetic to the Communist guerrillas, or that Marines had been killed in the village, or that vast numbers of booby traps, trenches, tunnels, and munitions stores were discovered in and around the village. The Marines’ after-action report states that 50 structures were reduced—Safer gave the figure as 150. He carefully created an impression of sadistic American soldiers wantonly depriving peaceful villagers of their homes for the hell of it—making no mention of the fact that burning places of suspected enemy refuge was as old as war itself, and that he happened to be traveling with the only military force in history that evacuated the premises first! Back in Washington DC, President Johnson flipped out, but was sandbagged by the inchoately obdurate CBS news bureaucracy. Furious, LBJ ordered the FBI to investigate Safer. “He’s a communist!” Johnson thundered at his staff. But the FBI report stated that Safer was not a communist, he was a Canadian. “Well,”  Johnson spat, “I knew he couldn’t be an American!” (Even LBJ had his moments!)

Another boy from Vietnam who bears mention is that redoubtable newshound, Dan Rather, who also reported abusively from the front, such as it was, clad in sporty bush jackets or shirts with epaulets. Rather never objects, by the way, to being described as or posturing as a former Marine, but that’s balderdash. He flunked boot camp and dropped out. Perhaps this drove him to harangue the guys who didn’t drop out, as he did habitually and in gravely censorious tones (think Ed Murrow!) during his “tour of duty” back in 1966.

The wall within…

cover-Time-19800225-46900But Rather’s greatest moment, his real chef d’oeuvre came long after he’d stepped off the plane home from Southeast Asia, and long before he went into a stoic trance, nightly repeating his certitude that his odiferously-fake George W. Bush memoranda were “unimpeachable.” Yes, Rather’s work on the infamous broadcast, The Wall Within not only typified, but probably epitomized his career as a serially slanderous Pecksniff.  Indeed, the most notable aspect of Wall Within is not that it was a widely and wildly praised documentary that won many plaudits for Rather and his supposedly exhaustive research and gritty reportage—no, the more interesting datum is that  it was just a template, really, to which Rather repaired repeatedly throughout his career.

No matter how depraved or crazed you were, you had a friend in Dan!

No matter how depraved or crazed you were, you had a friend in Dan!

Few, mercifully, now recall CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which aired on June 2, 1988. But WOOF remembers it. Viewers were treated to far greater tales of horror than Zippo lighters could ever provide (eat your heart out Morley Safer)—they were treated to the stark, violently psychotic remembrances of Vietnam vets who had waded through a nightmarish hellscape in Southeast Asia, only to return crazed and dissociated–haunted men, unappreciated by their government, and forgotten by everyone else—everyone but Dan Rather, of course, who was willing to commune with them in studiedly hushed tones, allowing them finally to seek peace in the catharsis of televised confession.

Former Navy SEAL Steve Southards spoke dramatically of his time in “Nam,” spent on secret missions killing untold hundreds of Vietnamese civilians and then tricking up the scenes of slaughter to give the impression that the VC had perpetrated the atrocities. Dan, who had obviously been studying Mike Wallace’s patented “You mean to tell me—“ kinesics, tried his own adaptation, edging closer to Southard and rasping, “You’re telling me that you went into the villages and killed, burned parts of the villages, and then made it appear that the other side had done this?” (This is where Wallace would bug out his eyes and arch his brows, but Rather’s face doesn’t work that way). Anyhow, “Yes!” Steve Southard nodded vigorously, adding in a menacing rasp, “…and I was good at what I did!”

And he "was good at it!"

“And I was good at what I did!”

Rather’s next case was George Grule, who spent his war on the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga, cruising the waters off of Vietnam “on a secret mission” and who described himself as suicidal as a direct result of watching his best friend walk deliberately into the spinning propeller of an AD-6 Skyraider which (of course) pulverized him, spraying his innards all over the helplessly watching Grule. As a result, Grule (like Southard) was unable to return to civil society and lived the life of a mentally tortured recluse. Even aboard ship, the horror of Vietnam took its cruel toll!

Skinned alive!

images pitt 2

We couldn’t find a pic of Bradley, but Brad Pitt’s better looking, and you get the idea, right?

But the show stopper—Dan’s piece de resistance, was the story told by Terry Bradley who spoke at length and in lurid detail about skinning Vietnamese civilians and suspected guerillas, alive. Terry told a stoically composed but compassionately nodding Rather that he had once skinned 50 screaming Vietnamese men, women, and boys, and stacked their bodies like cord wood, all in the space of an hour.  (One thinks here—or at least we do—of Mark Twain’s hilarious essay on “Cooper Indians” wherein the ridiculousness of behaviors ascribed to Indians portrayed in James Fennimore Cooper’s novels is made manifest by careful consideration) “You stack up every way a body could be mangled—an arm, a tit, an eyeball…imagine us over there for a year doing this intensely!” Yes, quite! A lesser man might have been at a loss for words, but not Dan. He looked squarely at Bradley and gently drawled, “you’ve got to be angry about it!”

But nobody was as angry as the Veterans Administration and researcher B. G. Burkett, himself a Vietnam vet. Neither the VA nor Burkett had to do very much digging to realize that Rather’s entire report was less “Wall Within” and more wall-to-wall bull scat. Southards, for instance, the SEAL who mass murdered civilians for the CIA, never actually served in combat. He turned out to have been an equipment repairman stationed safely in the secure rear. Poor George Gruel whose best buddy snapped during a secret mission and hugged a spinning airplane propeller, was never on a secret mission. While a crewman did in fact walk into a propeller (accidentally) during Gruel’s time aboard the Ticonderoga. Gruel had not been on deck to witness the incident, which in any case  occurred off the coast of California, where the carrier did most of her cruising when Gruel was aboard …not during a “secret mission” to Vietnam.

The good ship Ticonderoga--she recovered the crew of Apollo 16 after splashdown, but secret missions off the coast of Vietnam? C'mon, Dan!

The good ship Ticonderoga–she recovered the crew of Apollo 16 after splashdown, but secret missions off the coast of Vietnam? C’mon, Dan!

And what about Terry Bradley, so talented that he could skin 50 wiggling, screaming human beings in 60 minutes and live to tell Dan Rather about it? Well, Terry never saw combat either. In fact, he hardly ever saw the depot where he was supposed to be an ammo handler for the 25th Infantry division because he spent a year of his hitch in the stockade for repeatedly going AWOL. As Anne Morse of the National Review noted years ago, after reporting on Rather’s little exercise in carnographic fiction—all of these vets were easily checkable through a variety of sources. The special operations community is tiny in contrast to the rest of the military establishment, and it was tinier still in Vietnam. Checking to see who had endured basic underwater demolition/SEAL training in a class with Southard would have been simple—and the answer would have been: nobody!

A bright and shining liar…

CBS News President Howard Stringer--picture does not show his pants, which were on fire.

CBS News President Howard Stringer–picture does not show his pants, which were on fire at the time.

Why did Rather simply ignore his responsibility to get his story straight before broadcasting it into millions of American homes? It is too simple to shrug and tell ourselves, well, he’s stupid. That’s only half the story—the other half is, he’s duplicitous. For decades he disguised duplicity as a dutiful, noble thing. He made of it, to borrow John Paul Vann’s unforgettable phrase, a bright and shining lie. But he got caught. It didn’t matter to Dan or his network when The Wall Within was exposed– not at all. Because nobody would report that Rather had been caught—but by 2004 the rules had changed, and Dan hadn’t noticed—that’s the stupid part! Back in the 80’s, Rather refused to comment after his falsifications were exposed, and he had nothing to say either about the scary statistics he’d invented for rates of suicide, homelessness, and mental disturbances among returning Vietnam vets, all bogus. But CBS president Howard Stringer wasn’t struck dumb. When asked why the entire presentation, stem to stern, had been wholesale malarkey, he shrugged and handed out a response that could only have sufficed in a three-network era of monopolized newscasting. “Your criticisms,” he harrumphed, “were not shared by a vast majority of our viewers. CBS News and its affiliates received acclaim from most quarters . . . In sum, this was a broadcast of which we at CBS News and I personally am [sic] proud. There are no apologies to make.” Right! And you know, every word of that statement is true, until you get to the no-apologies-to-make part. Liberals always applaud and reward themselves for their flapdoodle. It’s tradition. And by the time the war in Vietnam concluded, it was solidly entrenched.

How Uncle Walter Ended the War!

Cronkite back in Vietnam, no longer yelling yahoo.

Cronkite back in Vietnam, no longer yelling yahoo.

If Nobel Prizes went to the deserving, Walter Cronkite would have won one for ending the war in Vietnam. Well, he actually threw it, more than ended it, but as his personal relations with LBJ soured for various reasons, Cronkite became ardently critical of U.S. involvement. Now widely hailed as the “most trusted man in America,” Uncle Walter had his way at CBS. Night after night he busied himself shaping the news to the Left, spiking stories that contradicted his favorite talking points, and advancing what by now was a full-blown left wing agenda. Cronkite, more than any other individual in this axial period of media coverage set the standard for what would become the Liberal newscast—carefully crafted propaganda sold to the viewer with an air of avuncular sincerity. He was infinitely better at it than today’s vapid assemblage, and the Tet Offensive in 1968 made his day.

Tet resulted in the destruction of the Viet Cong as a viable force, but it looked bad on film, so the News decided it was Waterloo.

Tet resulted in the destruction of the Viet Cong as a viable force, but it looked bad on film, so the News decided it was Waterloo.

The Tet Offensive produced shock and awe in South Vietnam, combining surprise with the concerted effort to bring violent warfare to the most secure and pacified areas of the country. During an agreed upon cease fire in honor of the Tet New Year, (because it only seemed the civil thing to do, after all) the communists hurled 80,000 troops into 100 towns and cities. The surprise was total, and the impression was that America, despite all its claims, had no control of the situation even in its own rear areas. The offensive was the largest military operation conducted by either side up to that point in the war, partially because Robert McNamara’s moronic policies precluded any American offensives against the North. Even so, Tet was a mammoth failure for the communists. Hanoi underestimated the mobility of the American and South Vietnamese response. The general uprising the North had expected to inspire in the South did not materialize. The poor tactics inherent in attacking so many objectives thinly rather than a few objectives in force led to the communist forces being stopped, isolated, and destroyed piecemeal. Communist General Tran Van Tra admitted, “We did not correctly evaluate the specific balance of forces between ourselves and the enemy, did not fully realize that the enemy still had considerable capabilities, and that our capabilities were limited, and set requirements that were beyond our actual strength.” Oops. Sorry about that, Tran—in fact, the immediate result of Tet was the complete destruction of the Viet Cong infrastructure, but the Reds soon became aware of a different sort of victory—one they admitted later they had never predicted or expected.

imageswcEnter Walter Cronkite, who knew about as much about the science of war as he did about Sumerian pronounal declensions. Walter looked America right in the eyeballs, shook his jowls poignantly, and told us, “we are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory.” Shortly thereafter support for the war dropped from 74 to 54 percent, and continued to erode. The communists in Saigon had been handed a miracle—the total destruction of 80,000 Viet Cong was transformed into an American defeat in Vietnam by trusty Uncle Walter, who later huffed that his newscasts had ended the war. They didn’t, of course, any more than Murrow’s kvetching ended McCarthyism, but they may well have shaped the course that led to our discomfiture and the wanton slaughter of 75,000 of our former allies in the South.

Turns out LBJ bugged Goldwater in more ways than one!

Turns out LBJ bugged Goldwater in more ways than one!

Richard Nixon, for all his flaws, nearly won a just and lasting peace in Southeast Asia by battering the North with B-52 strikes (attacking the enemy’s homeland? Imagine!) and briefly invading Cambodia to wipe out communist supplies and reserve forces. His truce with the North might have held had he himself not been victimized by American journalists bent on removing him from office, and forced to resign. The great sin of Watergate, the offense for which Nixon was savaged by Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein, was that the president’s men, led by the G. Gordon Liddy, had bungled a break-in at the Watergate hotel intended to “bug” the Democratic headquarters during an election year—just as LBJ had bugged Goldwater’s headquarters in 1964. Much, in fact–although nobody discusses this– the way Walter Cronkite bugged the GOP convention in 1952—WOOF is not making this up!

Nor shall we make up an iota of the next thrilling episode of WOOF’s hard-hitting critique of electronic journalism in the age of media-ocrity, Woofketeers! Every word will be true, (or we couldn’t say it on the Internet!) Don’t miss installment three, “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?” coming soon!

images she-ra



In "The Media are the Massage" forum on August 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm

14166914-front-view-of-one-vintage-tv-with-text-news-on-screen-3d-render What do WOOF and Marshall McLuhan have in common? Why, we both spend a lot of time thinking about media, of course. Well, okay, not McLuhan so much anymore, he being dead and all, but we still do. And we would like to share these thoughts with you—but they are, as you might have supposed, agonizingly lengthy—so we decided to share them in portions. These will come in the form of “white paper” reports and will roll in from time to time, under the rubric A WOOF WHITE PAPER REPORT, because that will make them sound important. They will be serialized as installments of “Why All the News is Bad,” and focus on why the American news media today are so hopelessly moronic, yet simultaneously, and dedicatedly, seditious. This will require a bit of a romp through recent history—but let’s begin with some even more recent history, just to make an exordial point.

McLuhan explained media to the world (or "global village") in the '60s, but Breitbart understood it with greater concison: "It's the enemy!"

Marshall McLuhan may have explained media to the world (or “global village”) in the ’60s, but Breitbart understood it with greater concision: “It’s the enemy!”

With Michele in New Hampshire

Bachmann, on the occasion of issuing the faux pas heard 'round the networks, round the news cycle, again, and again, and again....

Bachmann, on the occasion of issuing the faux pas heard ’round the networks, round the news cycle, again, and again, and again….

Remember when the beautiful and talented Michele Bachmann was running for the Republican nomination in 2011—and she committed that horrendous gaffe? No? If you ransack your memory you may recall that while speaking in New Hampshire, Congresswoman Bachmann told an assemblage of citizens that,”You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord.”  Well, not exactly, right? Because the “shot heard ‘round the world” was fired in Massachusetts. (This would be impossible nowadays, of course, because nobody in Massachusetts could own a musket, but we digress.) The point is, the major networks plus CNN and MSNBC jabbered for a complete news cycle about the manifest ineligibility of any Republican female so dunderheaded as to publicly commit so horrendous a blooper! The viewers of this blood frenzy– given that they presumably had mush for brains to begin with as evidenced by their viewing preferences– came away believing that Bachmann was only slightly less ding-batty than Edith Bunker, and a thousandfold more dangerous, because she sought her party’s nomination despite demonstrating such appalling stupidity.  And why are we reviewing this lapsus linguae on the part of the brilliant and beauteous Bachmann? For contrast, dear readers, for contrast! And thus we depart the sublime subject of the congresswoman from Minnesota and trudge into the vastly less enticing but equally necessary realm of Obama’s treatment by these self-same media outlets…let’s restrict ourselves for brevity’s sake to a single instance, however! (Those seeking further instances of presidential folly should click here!)

And now, herrrrrrre’s Barry!


On the night of August 6th, President Barack Obama, our beloved helmsman, appeared in one of his favorite news formats—an entertainment broadcast. He took a seat adjacent Jay Leno on NBC’s Tonight show and did so despite the fact that guests on the Tonight program are not permitted the use of teleprompters—they are, in fact, expected to speak extemporaneously. One might wonder what the president’s handlers were thinking given his established record of waxing incoherent when not reading from the aforementioned device; but why should they have fretted? A virtual avalanche of presidential ludicrosities emanated, as anyone might have predicted, from the president’s ungoverned lips, but the networks seemed oblivious of them—Shall we review? When asked about Benghazi, the president hastily elided into a separate issue, assuring Leno’s audience that, “the odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident,” and then inexplicably adding, “Unfortunately.” But no anchor person at any Liberal Media outlet raised an eyebrow over this baffling adverbial choice–not a one!

Sorry, Vlad! Seventeen years in the KGB and you came out a bottle-cap colonel!

Sorry, Vlad! Seventeen years in the KGB and you came out a bottle-cap colonel!

Next, in an effort to explain Vladimir Putin’s “cold war mentality,” Obama pointed out that the Russian president had, after all, “headed up the KGB.” But this is baloney. Putin was in the foreign intelligence branch of that dastardly organization, but never made it higher than Lieutenant Colonel.  Attending intelligence briefings might have helped clarify this for Barack, but might also have resulted in a missed golf game or two, one supposes. The difference between the summer and winter Olympics also befuddled the leader of the Free World. In lecturing the Russians (in case they were watching Leno, one gathers) on how to run their sports contests in a manner fair to homosexual athletes, the Bamster made recommendations regarding numerous summer games, apparently unaware that the Moscow games will be held in winter.  And then, most embarrassingly, the topic of geography was broached. This is always an unsafe area for the man who thinks we have 58 states and believes that Austrians speak Austrian, but the president held forth bravely, declaring that the Panama Canal was being widened, so we should do likewise because “If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don’t do that, those ships are going to go someplace else.” Obviously, gentle readers, Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville are not Gulf ports. The president seemed to have mislaid the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, the Panama Canal is in fact being widened, but the president could not have meant that the Gulf of Mexico should be widened, could he? The difference between increased depth and increased width eluded him in this regard—but enough of all this! The point is, none of the Liberal Media Establishment touched on any of these gaffes, except, to be fair, the Associated Press, which dutifully doctored the Gulf quote by adding language unspoken by Obama, so that he wouldn’t look like a total nincompoop. (They got caught, however, and looked like total nincompoops, finally issuing a predictably petulant apology in fine print.)

Seen an anti-communist comic book lately? Nahhh---the superheros are all fighting big corporations!

Seen an anti-communist comic book lately? Nahhh—the superheros are all fighting big corporations! (But we digress.)

Look, the president appoints known communists like Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, and David Axelrod (to name a handful) to vital positions within his government, sets up Americans for execution via his domestic drone program, vanishes from duty during an eight-hour battle in Benghazi that burns down his consulate and kills his ambassador, and sets about unilaterally disarming the United States of America while Iran and North Korea are developing ICBMs. He blatantly and routinely lies about anything that seems convenient to lie about, from his health care policy to the economy to his energy program to the daft idea that he shoots skeet “all the time,” and the press cannot bring itself to carefully examine an  iota of this—in fact, it attacks anybody who does—Yet when the President takes Tiger Woods golfing without allowing the press to traipse along lovingly in his footsteps, they howl like jilted lovers, agonizing for the first (and almost certainly the last) time ever over the shocking lack of transparency in the Obama Administration. Are they insane? Were they always like this? Why do we put up with these dolts? Well, that is what these white papers will concern themselves with! Beloved readers, WOOF realizes that many of you are young and cannot fathom a time when television was not crammed with blathering liberals trashing everything and everyone you believe in while waxing orgasmic over every left-of-center cause or radical jackanapes that appears on the scene. Some of you, on the other hand, recall a day long ago in which it was possible to watch the evening news without having to deprogram yourself afterwards– to cleanse your weary brain of the harmful effects of no-holds-barred left-wing propagandizing.

“Yes, and it’s all true, too!”

High on WOOF's out-of-print summer reading list:   Logan Robinson's romp through soviet Russia!

High on WOOF’s out-of-print summer reading list: Logan Robinson’s romp through Soviet Russia!

Back in the ‘80s an American law student named Logan Robinson published an absolutely hilarious bit of travel literature entitled “An American in Leningrad,” Robinson having been an exchange student in the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era. Robinson describes a scene in which he watched a rehearsal for a major speech by Brezhnev in Red Square.  The Soviet Army positioned several rows of soldiers directly behind the Russian Premiere’s podium. Their task was to shout in manly unison, “Yes, and it’s all true, too!” every time Brezhnev asserted a point. Nowadays it is almost impossible to watch the procession of painstakingly coiffured, elegantly attired media mouthpieces spouting exactly identical talking points in the wake of each new Obama-era travesty without bethinking oneself of the that Soviet Army chorus, greeting each of Brezhnev’s prevarications with a shouted reminder of, “Yes, and it’s all true, too,” just in case the masses harbored any doubts. This is precisely the function that the American televised media now serve. It is also descriptive of the vast majority of print media and the Entertainment Industry, but for the sake of brevity we will focus in this particular screed on the TV propagandists who haunt our small screens. Was it always like this? Was it ever this bad in the ‘old days’? Actually, no. It was always in a condition of becoming this way, and it was often nearly this bad—but we are now in an era of absolute, wall to wall, collectivist agitprop, and in order to best understand where we are, it is essential to first examine where we started!

Elvis was a good thing, by the way; the "Hit Parade" was a snore fest!

Elvis was a good thing, by the way; the “Hit Parade” was a snore fest!

As moviegoers who recall the scene from “Contact” are aware, the first ever TV broadcast was propagandistic in nature, starring, as it did, Hitler—making a speech at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. But if he was the first socialist totalitarian to turn the medium to his purpose, he was in no respect the last. In America, following World War II, television began to take hold and grew into a house-to-house phenomenon by the early ‘50s. Americans huddled in front of the flickering shades of grey on their cathode-ray-lit sets yukking it up with “Uncle Milty” or glued to the fights on the “Gillette Cavalcade of Sports,” or getting hep to Patti Page and Snooky Lanson on “Your Hit Parade” before the name Elvis was abroad in the land. And verily, one could watch all the entertainment programming of that era without any fear of being brainwashed by Communists. Brain deadened, perhaps, by cultural pabulum, but washed?—no! And the first newscasts of the day were pretty dull—just recitations of the day’s notable events, (imagine that!) plus sports scores and weather forecasts, all without the benefit of visual aids apart from the weather map and usually emanating from some carefully enunciated gent with a collection of clocks behind him on a soundproofed studio wall with a massive mike in his face bearing the network logo of ABC, CBS, or NBC. Once upon time, young Americans, those were our only choices!  Call it an age of innocence if you like, but whether or not it was too good to last, it certainly didn’t!


Genial Uncle Dave

"Peace!" (It is a sad commentary that NBC's "Today" show was at its best when co-hosted by a chimp!)

“Peace!” (It is a sad commentary that NBC’s “Today” show was at its best when co-hosted by a chimp!)

It will shock the young to discover that once a man named Dave Garroway hosted the NBC Today program, his main assistant a chimpanzee named J. Fred Muggs, but it is true—and equally true that since Dave Garroway left the Today program, it has not been worth looking at. In fact, a quick viewing of Matt Laur and team will suffice to persuade the unbiased observer that Today had more dignity and gravitas when it was co-hosted by a chimpanzee than it possesses nowadays. Dave Garroway finished last in his class at NBC Announcer’s school, and it showed. Instead of sounding like some stentorian stuffed shirt, he came across cool and casual—communicative and human. Heck, J. Fred Muggs seemed more human than the average network announcer of that era. In the ‘70s, this formula for early morning news programming was called “cope,” but when Garroway introduced it, the critics called it terrible and unprofessional, except for TV critic Richard F. Shepard who differed, writing, “He is pleasant, serious, scholarly…and not obtrusively convivial.”


Dave Garroway–big on clocks, bow ties, and keeping cool.

Garroway knew TV was a “cool medium” before communications guru Marshall McLuhan so dubbed it—and he made it work wonderfully. He also closed each show with his palm raised in the cliché Indian “how!” position. These days, white liberals who never met an Indian would call it an insult to “Native Americans” (which presumably means all of us) and make short work of such insensitivity! In those days, hand aloft, Dave always intoned the single syllable, “Peace!” But he was just as relaxed and natural doing a remote from an airborne B-52 on a practice bombing run—and if he had a political; slant, he only told J. Fred Muggs.  So was the Garroway persona widely emulated by up-and-coming TV reporters in 1952? Sadly, no—at least not for long. Because by 1953 a greater call to glory had been sounded, and by most perceptions (at least in New York), a great evil thereby disposed of—and about this we shall say more next time, when WOOF White Papers presents: Confronting the great evil! (Don’t miss it!)

to be continued


BREAD AND CIRCUSES–HOLD THE BREAD! How the Media will fill Recovery Summer #5 with enough hocus pocus to keep Obama in soft focus!

In "The Media are the Massage" forum on June 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm

side show

Summer distractions are going to be bigger and better than ever this year, and we’re already off to a stellar beginning thanks to the Liberal News Media’s anxiety-ridden search for anything Americans can be made to pay attention to other than the totalitarian takeover of our body politic by the most ruthless, mendacious and ego-maniacal President in our nation’s history and his merry band of Marxist functionaries whose mission is to subvert the constitution by any means at their disposal whilst our Beloved Leader scratches his head, and pretends utter bewilderment that such chicanery is afoot. Take the former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, whose tireless efforts to keep the president entirely ignorant of his agency’s metamorphosis into a voter-suppression syndicate and a vile utensil of Leftist coercion and harassment spreading terror among Tea Party groups as well as Christian and Jewish organizations, clearly required an abundance of bureaucratic deceptiveness. No other world leader in history, with the possible exception of King John, has ever been so doggedly attended by his tax collector…and one can only shudder in consideration of what fiendish dissembling may have deluded our young president into presuming all to be well throughout his realm!  In fact, we now learn, Mr. Shulman visited the White House 157 times, which is considerably more than any adviser or cabinet member on the Presidential staff! Obviously keeping the President in the dark about the nefarious exploits of the Internal Revenue Service is a labor-intensive commitment! Well, nobody can fault Mr. Shulman’s dedication, even as we at WOOF persist in marveling at his resemblance to the human constituent of “Wallace and Gromit.”

Shulman and Wallace--just sayin'

Shulman and his above-mentioned doppelganger, Wallace–both sporting feet of clay?


But summer turns our thoughts—to the extent that the televised and printed media still possess the power to steer them into summery latitudes—to less complex and detail-ridden matters—such as murder!  Not to be insensitive or anything, but everybody loves a good murder and the all-news cable channels are always happy to inflate tales of treachery, tawdriness and homicide into national fixations, the better to advance their ratings. That’s okay—that’s free enterprise, although WOOF privately suspects that plenty of important and culturally vicissitudinous murders happen around us fairly often and never elicit a mumble from the Fourth Estate; but we are, admittedly, considered paranoid by many experts. That said, the only murders that seem to make national headlines are the kind with sex and blondes in them, with allowances made for the occasional comely brunette. But until recently these exploitative spasms occurred in a catch-as-catch-can fashion, coming along when they came along. This week, however, the standards of intrigue have been lowered, somewhat, because like we said earlier, the media are desperately seeking distractions, and anything is better than nothing in the crimes-of-passion department, or it so it lately seems.

Case in point: Somewhere in the wilds of Orono, Maine, a guy fell in love with his pretty teenage neighbor, but she spurned his advances. Undaunted, the young man decided to set up a phony Facebook account, use it to befriend the girl and entice her out of her home, stage her kidnapping, hide her in the woods, and then go back and pretend to find her, thus rescuing her (from himself, get it?) and becoming her hero. Foolproof, right? And to assure himself of a broad consensus, the young man told his brother all about the plan, and told his actual girlfriend, too. He then proceeded to lure the unfortunate miss out of her home, and abduct her as planned. He cleverly wore a ski mask to avoid being recognized, and duct-taped the young lady head to toe, tossing her in the back of his pick up truck. Unfortunately, in his haste,  the young man forgot that people need to breathe, and duct-taped the young lady’s mouth and nose, so that she was dead by the time he sought to retrieve her. His plan thus frustrated, the young man dumped the young lady’s body in the woods and went home.

kyle and victim

Kyle Dube, kidnapper and rescuer-manque, and accidental homicide victim, Nichole Cable

Our gentle readers will not be surprised to learn that the young man was subsequently apprehended—recently enough, in fact, that his alleged crimes must be deemed alleged (even though he obviously committed them). But what was surprising is the amount of media attention this story received over the next several days, including the so called “major networks,” which treated this grim incident as though it were the crime of the century—and why?  Well, not because it was a slow news week! No, because nowadays a hot news week is when the distractions must be trotted out, because the more time spent reporting the imbecilic actions of the accidental murderer from Orono, the less time need be devoted to the Holder debacle, the IRS debacle, the AP-emails fiasco or the Benghazi travesty. But this augurs well for followers of true crime reportage, because if this local tragedy was seen by the networks as meriting the levels of coverage heaped upon it, imagine what kind of wall-to-wall devotion will be accorded any authentically intriguing homicides that may arise over the next few months? This summer could easily prove a murder-packed crime fest on cable news!

AP photo of Penobscot County Sheriff Glenn Ross finding himself at a major full-coverage press conference in Bangor, Maine—guess they don’t hold press conferences in Orono.

AP photo of Penobscot County Sheriff Glenn Ross finding himself at a major full-coverage press conference in Bangor, Maine—guess they don’t hold press conferences in Orono.


It’s the Great Terrorist, Charlie Brown!

If you were a DNC strategist charged with pulling the spotlight away from All the President’s Mensheviks, what would you come up with? We thought about it and decided we’d come up with a way to persuade John McCain to involve himself in a high-profile junket to the Middle East, peddled to the press as a super secret mission to Syria—maybe even a “secret” meeting with Syrian rebels, secret meaning in this instance a video-taped event released immediately to the media. This would be simple to accomplish—one would only require to have a few doyens of the inside-the-beltway media convince McCain that they loved him again, and tell him what a coups he would score evincing such bravado juxtaposed to Obama’s limp-wristed response to the crisis. What crisis?

That’s right, McCain failed to notice that those few and flimsy signs of indignation visible after Obama ducked out on his original pledge to take action if the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people—which it then proceeded to do–had been shunted aside by subsequent events and the ever-protective news media, so his surprise visit performed the main function of providing…distraction!  …Just Charlie Brown taking another run at the football with Obama’s media playing Lucy.

Charlie Brown

But if we were advising the Left on how to take even greater advantage of McCain’s visit, even turning it inside out so as to play McCain for a fool and lend credence to the President’s inaction, what else would we do? Why, of course; we would wait for him to get over there and publicize a few of his “secret” meetings and then we would leak to the press that the big dope was meeting with notorious kidnappers from the terrorist Northern Storm movement—men who had only recently kidnapped and slaughtered a busload of innocent Shi’ite pilgrims.  NOW we have a really first class distraction—Charlie Brown gets the football jerked away from him and then Lucy kicks him in the butt! Film at eleven, as they used to say. And McCain’s denial that he met or was photographed with terrorist honcho Mohammad Nour consisted of insisting that none of the people with whom he posed for photos had “identified themselves as Mohammed Nour,” which is one of those gob-smacking idiotisms for which the McCain camp is justly famous. To be fair, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers ultimately composed a perfectly reasonable response to the effect that, “a number of the Syrians who greeted Senator McCain upon his arrival in Syria asked to take pictures with him, and as always, the senator complied. If the individual photographed with Senator McCain is in fact Mohammad Nour, that is regrettable.”  A nicely argued point, to be sure, but a point lost in the distractive howlings of  the ostensibly indignant, since by that time the Shi’ite had hit the fan.

John McCain making new friends among the grass roots.

John McCain making new friends –some of whom may be “regrettable.” 


Of asteroids and lizards on Mars

The headline at Yahoo News reads: “Look now! An asteroid is about to hurl near earth!” This confirms WOOF’s longstanding suspicion that chimps write the headlines at Yahoo—and of course the asteroid is not going to hurl—Yahoo appears to have been attempting to say “hurdle.” Anyway, by the time you read this, earth will have weathered any threat of destruction posed by Asteroid 1998QE2—but for days it has been big news even though it is universally agreed that it is not going to hit us. The 1.7 mile wide space rock is scheduled to pass by Earth Friday afternoon, May 31, buzzing our rooftops at a mere 3.6 million miles of distance, and this is as close as it gets for the next 200 years–

QE2 whizzes by Earth--hope it doesn't hurl!

QE2 whizzes by Earth–hope it doesn’t hurl!

So– why all the ranting in the press? Distraction—from outer space!  This is why you have been watching televised reports about the species-terminating cataclysm that would result from impact—reminding us that not only Asteroid 1998QE2 but indeed any asteroid wider than 0.6 miles, could wipe out human civilization if it hit us. Being missed by asteroids appears equally newsworthy these days, however, thus you may also have read or viewed “background” reports that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was about 6 miles wide, but hey, that was a while ago, wasn’t it? And the whole asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction is only about two and a half decades old, replacing, as it did, the volcanic eruption theory that alternated for a while in popularity with the super-nova- out-in-space-somewhere-cosmic-rays theory. And does anyone ever give poor Immanuel Velikovsky any credit now that the impact theory is in vogue? Nope. Not even a card at Christmas—but we digress….the really dull and dry truth is that 1998 QE2 won’t even do anything as it passes us—no light show, no fiery glow—and perhaps dullest of all, it isn’t even named after Queen Elizabeth, its designation deriving from the alphanumeric scheme that documents when asteroids are discovered.  Boring, but in the news!

"Uh-oh!" Few people realize that the dinosaurs were not made extinct by an asteroids until sometime around the mid-1980s!

“Uh-oh!” Few people realize that the dinosaurs were not made extinct by an asteroid until sometime around the mid-1980s!

Less boring but equally distracting has been the coverage allotted lizards on Mars. A “science” blogger in Japan who shall remain nameless–precisely because he chose to remain nameless–posted claims to the effect that detailed scrutiny of NASA Rover photos from the Martian planetary service had revealed a lizard crawling about, and to back up this claim he helpfully posted a photo of said lizard, included here for your perusal. Now, beloved readers, we maintain here at WOOF a Science & the Paranormal Directorate that monitors news of anomalous, paranormal, and UFO-related phenomena, and we can solemnly assure you that this anonymous blogger’s lizard discovery is hardly on a par with some of the bizarre stuff that goes on around this planet, except that it happened to hit the web when distractions were desperately needed to focus the minds of Earth people on something other than an Administration in need of prosecution under the RICO act.

Martian Lizard captures tremendous media attention--NASA engaged in cover up?

Martian Lizard captures tremendous media attention–NASA engaged in cover up?

The San Francisco Chronicle became so overwrought about the Mars picture that it assigned analysts to investigate. In due course the analysts returned the datum that the lizard, as it appears in the actual NASA photo, is just a rock and does not appear to possess legs and a tail except in the version posted by the anonymous Japanese blogger. Perhaps the ultra-liberal Chronicle, which has not, to date, officially noticed anything askew in the Obama Administration, will proceed to investigate NASA to learn why it is doctoring its pictures of Martian lizards to look like rocks.


Tornadoes, global warming, and presidential shout-outs

The weather has been cruel in recent weeks, and weather is certainly a valid reportorial concern, especially when violent, destructive, and deadly. But the actual disasters of May seemed somehow insufficient to satisfy the media’s appetite for the subject, and so greater distractions were displayed in the form of scientific prophecies from various forecasters. If any of the predictions rushed into print by eager journalists called for relative calm and surcease, WOOF missed the stories.

The Boston Globe, also studiedly unconcerned with Administration scandals, is on the story when in comes to global warming, and recently devoted headlines to major storms and droughts that haven’t happened yet…in fact the Globe reports that that the citizens of Earth should “prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters,” and cites the recent report by an international team of Nobel-Prize-winning climate scientists as evidence. The scientists, uniformly pessimistic, offered prognostications the Globe considered reliable enough to treat as news. And as if any further proof were required that Dick Cheney’s secret Halliburton weather machine is partially to blame for such matters, the report concludes that the most affected countries will be poor undeveloped ones, although it hastens to aver that all regions of the planet remain imperiled.


Secret weather machine? Rumors have long circulated that Halliburton possesses weather-changing technology under the nefarious command of Dick Cheney!

Other news outlets enthusiastically recycled the predictions of meteorologist Jeff Masters who received his Ph.D. in “air pollution meteorology” from the University of Michigan.  Masters’s claim to fame is that he predicted a hurricane would hit New York—and of course, one did. Contrary to what we are led to believe by Global Warmists, the New York storm was not an historic first. New York has been hit by 14 major (deadly) hurricanes since they started counting in the 1800s. The New England Hurricane of 1938 killed more New Yorkers than Sandy did, and several other storms were near rivals.

Jeff Masters, meteorology's prophet of doom.

Jeff Masters, meteorology’s prophet of doom.

So  predicting a hurricane in New York did not require Delphic powers—but Masters founded a meteorological group called “The Weather Underground”—a coy meteorological tip of the topper to the killer clowns of the radical ‘60s–and predicted innumerable additional disasters, allowing himself a thirty year cushion for their occurrence, albeit, which obviously means he can confidently anticipate the eventual manifestation of something resembling substantiation of each prediction as judged by himself, should the Lord see fit to preserve him through the coming maelstroms. The media were not waiting for confirmation however; they splashed Dr. Masters’s predictions all over the news, as if the horrors visited upon Oklahoma might prove insufficiently riveting to retain the attention of the public.

The scientific prediction of weather has never fully established itself as a predictive instrument.

The prediction of weather has never fully established itself as a reliable science.

The President seemed similarly concerned, and sought to allude to the disasters in Oklahoma during his hug fest with Governor Chris Christie on the Jersey Shore. During his speech Our Beloved Helmsman informed the crowd that he wanted to give a shout out to the Tornado ravaged city of Monroe, Oklahoma, and pledged that they could “count on the fact that they won’t be alone.” But as comforting as the citizens of Monroe presumably found this news, they were untouched by any tornadoes and located a comfy 200 miles from the wreckage in Moore, Oklahoma where the tornado actually struck, killing 24 people. President Obama had just come from surveying the damage in Moore, but oh well.

The president tours the soon to be forgotten city of Moore, Oklahoma

The president exhibits telltale signs of disorientation as he tours the soon to be forgotten city of Moore, Oklahoma


And then there’s the possibility that nobody cares!

What ever happened to Baghdad Bob? Why is he denied credit for pioneering contemporary American journalistic stnadards.

What ever happened to Baghdad Bob? Why is he denied credit for pioneering contemporary American journalistic standards?

A thousand additional examples of the media campaign to distract us with a wand while the free hand hides the coin could be recited paragraph upon paragraph, but WOOF is merciful. We cannot, however, close this review without mentioning a brand new tactic appearing in the last few days, and this in the form of meeting the scandals head on, giving them complete recognition, and then shelving them as un-newsworthy, which conclusion is said to derive, as is often the case nowadays, from poll findings, causing it to appear both scientific and curiously disassociated from the reporters who “report” it with such conspicuous approval. This is a variety of reportage never before seen in America—a country in which political scandal has always provoked a feeding frenzy of journalists, even when it was their party in the wringer. No more! The “journalists” of contemporary Obamaland have hit upon the notion that scandal is, well, simply uninteresting, should it be in any way associated with Our Beloved Helmsman. Consider these examples:

There’s a new Quinnipiac poll that purports to have discovered that most Americans think the IRS scandal is more important than the Benghazi scandal—but here’s the big reveal: Most Americans think the economy is more important than any Obama scandal. Now, one might have predicted this finding without fielding the resources of Quinnipiac, mightn’t one?  It seems only obvious that people in general are most upsetdepression by high taxes, low employment, shrinking dollars and the “new normal” recession that never ends than they are by butcheries in distant lands or the IRS’s hi-jinks. The concern about the economy is the necessary result of the damages Obama’s leadership (or any socialist leadership) predictably imposes on citizens. And economic woes of one degree or another continue to affect most Americans—even our liberal friends and neighbors who still think “W” did this to them—This hardly suggests that people aren’t concerned about the other less immediately punitive crises. Indeed, the same poll revealed that three-quarters of Americans now believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and this includes 63% of Democrats. Nevertheless, a superficial interpretation of the poll’s findings caused broadcasters at CNN, MSNBC, and various other localities around the dial to begin cheerfully assuring one another that Dear Leader would be just fine after all because nobody thought his abuses of power were as interesting as losing their homes, jobs or savings.

Next came a CNN poll showing Republicans losing favor, Democrats gaining favor, and President Obama enjoying a surge in popularity, all of which was promptly attributed to how much Americans despise hearing our young president’s reputation sullied by mud-slinging Neanderthals on the Right!

Donny Deutsche, the advertising executive whom liberal news media have repeatedly attempted to transform into a political commentator, appeared on the TODAY program to offer his view of the situation. Donny rambled on with signature incoherence, finally telling Matt Lauer “after a while we get a little bored and turned off.” Donny ought to know, his last CNN show, “Get to the Point,” was cancelled after one week on the air.

Donny's former CNN program--now you see it, now you don't!

Donny Deutsche’s former CNN program–now you see it, now you don’t!  “After a while we get a little bored and turned off.”

Even Lauer remonstrated with Deutsche that the scandals were “serious problems,” but American indifference to Obama’s miscreant presidency was by then the accepted template in the Liberal Establishment Media. The Daily KOS (like, what is with that KOS deal, are they from Kosovo?) explained that, “The American people just don’t think that it’s the worst scandal since Watergate that Obama called the Benghazi consulate attack an ‘act of terror’ as opposed to a  ‘terrorist attack.’” Well, WOOF would like to agree with our ultra-left wing friends from Kosovo. In fact we don’t know anybody who considers what Obama said or didn’t say about the attack to constitute the worst scandal since Watergate. It was the part where the president shot hoops or snoozed or met with “The Pimp with a Limp,” while the Secretary of State sat on her not-insubstantial fundament in the situation room at the White House and declined repeatedly to allow rescue forces to enter the field while four Americans died in an eight-hour battle with Al Qaeda—you know, that part? That’s the part that sort of worries us—along with lying about it for weeks—but hey, people say we’re extremists so perhaps we’re overreacting.

Ambassador Stevens relinquishing his post after 8-hour gun battle wit Al Qaeda.

Ambassador Stevens relinquishing his post after 8-hour gun battle with Al Qaeda.


What dreams may come!

images surf

One thing’s for sure, Gentle Readers, it will be an especially interesting summer as the Liberal Establishment scrambles to find small fascinations with which to divert us from the president’s predicaments…glittery bijous proffered for the masses….divertissements of every nature, novelties for every taste; prepare to be regaled, gentle readers, with tales of treachery, tragedy, villainy, and tomfoolery, all to wean you from our national reality while you let the lazy estival months slip by.

freaks and odditiesHey—did you know that guy—Adam Levine—that guy on NBC’s The Voice—got caught on a hot mic saying, “I hate this country”? Maybe you had no idea there was such a person or such a program, (we had no idea either), but from the coverage you might reasonably suppose that Levine bombed Pearl Harbor. And hey, check out MSNBC’s website—do you know there are political problems in Turkey? Did you know that an asteroid nearly hit us? (Oh yeah, we mentioned that–well, it’s still front page at MSNBC), and never mind the lizards of mars—you can now click on a video tape of a mermaid—see what you think! And by the way, 1 percent of Americans hold 39 percent of our wealth— speaking of whom, Miley Cyrus is currently engaged again to some Australian actor to whom she was also formerly engaged but briefly disengaged from, unless she is no longer engaged again by the time you read this. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, whoever they are, are currently apart, and Kanye West whom we know only because of his drunken insistence that “Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time,” is dating a Cardassian—and we didn’t even think they actually existed! And while we’re discussing space aliens, the latest word from film critics is that Will Smith’s new movie “After Earth” may be the worst movie ever made. Wow! You know, we might actually go to see that!

female cardassian

A female Cardassian–not necessarily the one who caught Kanye’s eye.


In "The Media are the Massage" forum on January 2, 2013 at 7:04 pm

Remembering the GREATEST MEDIA  NON-STORIES  of 2012:

WOOF just can’t say good bye to 2012 without recalling to mind the biggest media-hyped non-events or wrongly reported fiascoes of the year! We arbitrarily decided to discuss 8 of them, because we had to stop someplace, right?

The infamous film maker is led off to political prison!

The infamous film maker is led off to political prison!

FRENZY ONE: WOOF’s man of the year for 2012 is a no-brainer—the choice of the man who sent the media, the Obama administration, the United Nations and the concerned peoples of the globe into the greatest frenzy is definitely Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old ex-con and part-time filmmaker who managed to get a small bit of leader from an anti-Islamic film that nobody has seen even now, up on the Internet and was blamed for the meticulously-planned rocket and mortar attacks conducted by Al

Charles Woods--father of SEAL killed during the Benghazi battle could barely catch a break from the media--maybe if he was as sexy as Cindy Sheehan?

Charles Woods–father of SEAL killed during the Benghazi battle could barely catch a break from the media–maybe if he was as sexy as Cindy Sheehan?

Qaeda against the American consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Egypt, (initially described as flash mobs by the Administration), riots across the Middle East, and Bird Flu. The father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS killed in the consulate assault, was actually assured by Hillary Clinton,  “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did that video.” And Hillary was as good as her word! Nakoula, who was originally said to be an Israeli millionaire named  Sam Bacile, who, it transpires, never existed, was hauled into a Los Angeles federal court where Judge Suzanne H. Segal cited a “lengthy pattern of deception,” which included the virtually unprecedented enormity of “ lying to parole officials.” On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of five minor, non-violent charges and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release because, as Segal firmly asserted,” The court has a lack of trust in the defendant at this time.” Well, there you go! The court also deemed the defendant a flight risk, although why anybody would care remains mysterious.

Nakoula is apparently an Egyptian Coptic Christian who went broke running a gas station, attempted to manufacture meth but was busted before he could fully break bad, and amassed a handful of additional two-bit criminal convictions and a history of using aliases. The only part of his “movie” that anyone seems to have spotted are some trailers he put on the net, and which apparently remain on the net to no one’s evident consternation, because YouTube says they do not violate its standards. Although an actual movie appears to have been financed by a Christian Charity in Los Angeles, where it was also allegedly filmed, nobody seems to have actually screened  “Innocence of Muslims,” much of which was evidently cobbled together from a film initially entitled “Desert Warrior.” The anti-Muslim references and any discussion of the Prophet seem to have been dubbed in subsequently, and many actors, including Actress Cindy Lee Garcia, are suing, claiming they were deceived. One wonders if there was even film in the cameras?

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia seems to be having a WTF moment during the shooting of whatever film she was really in-- and even she isn't sure at this point!

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia seems to be having a WTF moment during the shooting of whatever film she was really in– and even she isn’t sure at this point!

So nice going, Nakoula Nakoula, or Mark Basseley Youseff as you now claim to be named—you made international headlines for doing absolutely nothing that anybody can accurately specify except providing a handy CYA ploy for President Obama, who, for reasons that remain unexplained, preferred to watch his ambassador to Libya and the ambassador’s valiant defenders being slaughtered on his situation-room TV to giving a “shoot” order to a circling AC-130, or sending in the handily available CIA or Marine “Corpse.”

SO…for making the monolithic Obama-obedient media and the administration they serve look like utter nincompoops for at least two weeks, while Ambassador Susan Rice

Ambassador Rice tries her hardest to remember who told her it was all because of Yousef's movie--but it just isn't coming to her...think, Susan, think!

Ambassador Rice tries her hardest to remember who told her it was all because of Nakoula’s movie–but it just isn’t coming to her…think, Susan, think!

blamed him incessantly for the crisis, the battle, and all discontent in the region, and while Secretary of State Clinton vowed vengeance against him, and while President Obama actually made a speech to the UN fingering him as the culprit, and while Al Qaeda presumably laughed its butt off at us, WOOF names Nakoula Nakoula its man of the year…whatever his actual name may be. We will continue to follow his career moves and are currently checking out the rumor that his next film will be entitled “Buddha, You Fat Dork, You Ain’t all That Either!”

FRENZY TWO: Jim Avila, ABC’s consumer crusader, went to war against “Pink Slime” and put 2,000 consumers (who happened to have jobs processing beef products) out of work while costing an estimated half a billion dollars in economic damage and nearly

In 1968, Robert Horton (left)  saved earth from "The Green Slime," but he let us down in 2012!

In 1968, Robert Horton (left) saved earth from “The Green Slime,” but he let us down in 2012!

bankrupting at least two companies who were caught in the act attempting to make hamburgers healthier. Beef Products Inc. is suing ABC for over a million dollars for reporting that ridiculed its popular additive as “pink slime.” Actually, “pink slime” is a media invention, possibly commemorating a ridiculous science-fiction film from the late ’60s, and loosely associated with a process of divesting beef of its excessive fats rendering it 94 to 97 percent lean with a nutritional value comparable to 90 percent lean ground beef. The resultant product is treated with ammonia or citric acid (vitamin C) and flash frozen into cubes that can be used as extenders to increase the girth and nutritional content of your next cheeseburger. “Pink Slime,” in other words, is high in protein, very low in fat, contains iron, zinc and B vitamins, and does NOT contain cow intestines or connective tissue such as tendons, unless those evil corporate types at BPI Inc. are lying to us, in which case we have our hokey, brain-dead, dumb-as-rocks Vendetta masks at the ready!

Most despicably of all, villainous Pink Slime producers may have exported this vile stuff to starving West Africans!

Most despicably of all, villainous Pink Slime producers may have exported this vile stuff to starving West Africans!

FRENZY THREE: Speaking of which, The OCCUPY movement is remarkable for having earned praise and awe from the Obama-obedient media, and from liberal politicians and social commentators generally, while standing for absolutely nothing discernible  and causing incalculable amounts of damage and thugery wherever it assembled its ragged, tweet-responsive  legions. The “movement” was described in hilariously vacuous terms by all who lauded it. The reliably silly Cornel West hailed it as a “democratic awakening,” whatever that means, while the movement described itself as opposing social and economic inequality—which is the same as to say it opposes

Occupiers in the act of occupying-- if they're 99% and the Hells Angels are the 1% then who are we again?

Occupiers in the act of occupying– if they’re 99% and the Hells Angels are the 1% –then who are we again?

reality. Led by paunchy, balding ex-hippies with silver pony-tails proudly a-flutter, the OCCUPIERS consisted mainly of unemployed rabble and bored college brats who called themselves “the 99%” and rioted, inflicted property damage, raped and mugged one another, set fire to cars, ransacked buildings, and produced at least one substantive bomb plot while racking up 8,000 arrests of its peace-loving members. President Obama spoke in support of the movement, as did Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, the Cherokee Princess recently elected to the Senate in Massachusetts. Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the Occupiers, as did Red China, and North Korea. Joe Biden said the movement was “a lot like the Tea Party,” and Rep. Peter

We were going to market these, but some guy named Sonny Barger threatened to sue us!

We were going to market these, but some guy named Sonny Barger threatened to sue us!

Welch of Vermont agreed with him. Welch elaborated, however, attaining dizzying heights of sociopolitical perspicacity when he boldly asserted that,“My strong sense is people who are doing this occupying want their voices to be heard.” Who says Vermont went brain dead in the ‘70s? But the OCCUPY movement, despite the 100% enthusiastic backing of the media propagandists, fell victim to its own insipidity and became a titanic, smelly, litter producing Albatross around the necks of the liberals who tried to love it. Asked what they supported, most Occupiers shouted “socialism!” and asked what they opposed, most occupiers shouted “government!” (Yes, and corporations, of course, we can’t have those things slowing down progress!) Let the epitaph for this flash mob on steroids be spoken by David Weidner of MarketWatch who originally jumped on the bandwagon applauding OCCUPY as “The Tea Party, only with brains!” To his credit, he later wrote, “About a year ago I called Occupy Wall Street a ‘tea party with brains.’ Today, I’m the one who needs his head examined.” Not really, Weidner—it’s your pals on the Left who are too crazy to know they need their heads examined who need their heads examined—but they’re all out protesting global warming, the Koch brothers, and pink slime. Booyeah!

The Tea Party with brains? Go ask... Elizabeth Warren!

The Tea Party with brains? Go ask… Elizabeth Warren!

FRENZY FOUR: Take my wife—please!  Christianity was just about wiped off the map this year, if press reports were to be believed. Allen Pizzy at CBS saw “the very foundation of Christian thinking” stretched to the breaking point when Harvard professor of divinity Karen King discovered a chunk of papyrus about the size of a business card that contained references to Jesus’ wife—and just in case anybody thought Jesus was talking about “the church” in the metaphoric sense of the church being the bride of Christ, well—there was also discovered an additional reference in which Jesus clearly said, in so many words, “I mean Mary!” See? Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, making the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown a valid theological discourse, just as liberals everywhere believed it to be all along! Network TV newscasts and the liberal dailies and news magazines went bonkers with joy, overlooking entirely the odd fact that Karen King had a long-standing devotion to the idea that Christ was married, and her scholarship at Harvard has been a consistent deconstruction of what she calls the “master story” of Christianity—and miracle of miracles (you should forgive the expression) she now just happened to come into possession of the one small fragment of Egyptian Coptic that proved Jesus was not celibate!

Actually, the Mary who washed Jesus' feet remains a matter of theological conjecture--but experts have ruled out the belief that the one in this picture is proposing.

Actually, which Mary in the Bible washed Jesus’ feet remains a matter of theological conjecture–but our experts have ruled out the possibility that the one in this picture is proposing.

In a masterpiece of cyclical reasoning Dr. King asked the Smithsonian Magazine, Why is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived? And all of the texts that showed he had an intimate relationship with Magdalene or is married didn’t survive? Is that 100 percent happenstance? Or is it because of the fact that celibacy becomes the ideal for Christianity?” Well, maybe it’s just that no literature ever said he was married to begin with, huh, Karen?  But the New York Times went straight-up orgasmic over

karen king, it's a boy!

Dr. King enjoying her fifteen minutes. “Yessss, my precious!”

King’s “find,” running an utterly uncritical front page story—and since the dinosaur TV networks check the Times to see what they’re supposed to be reporting (or spiking)    the news anchors went nuts over King’s putative proof of Jesus and Mary as an item. But all good things must end, and darn it all, the Coptic sentences turned out to be badly written, strewn with peculiar typos—and mainly cadged from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. The Vatican newspaper branded King’s scrap of papyrus “an inept forgery” and “a fake” — but that’s what you’d expect from those uptight Catholics, right? Problem being that most of the academic community seemed to feel the same way. Oxford University’s Andrew Bernhard pointed out that a forger appeared to have copied a portion of the Gospel of Thomas that is displayed on the Internet—complete with an egregious typo that omitted the Coptic letter “M.”  Professor Francis Watson of DurhamUniversity in England observed that “all of the sentence fragments found on the papyrus fragment have been copied, sometimes with small alterations, from printed editions of the Gospel of Thomas.” Watson added that he would be “very surprised if it were not a modern forgery.” Indeed, expert after expert chimed in subsequently pointing out the glaring indications of forgery contained in King’s little sample of history—enough that the press backed away and wandered off looking for other icons to mangle. Nobody in the scholarly world, of course, has been so crude as to suggest that Dr. King would be better occupied working on a birth certificate for the president—but it’s safe to say her 15 minutes are up.

Hey! Where's the 'M,' yo?

Hey! Where’s the ‘M,’ yo?

FRENZY FIVE: The Mayan death calendar… well, just as WOOF predicted, we didn’t all die on December 21st, nor were we transported to another dimension, nor were we turned into adoring flower children who would enter the New Age of Teletubbie hugginess and bliss—no, we’re all still here, just as WOOF’s very own Dr. Gootensteiner Johannes Walters  of Zug Switzerland said we would be—and the most wildly hyped end of the world since at least Y2K has come and gone, leaving a lot of doomsayers with a severe case of buyer’s remorse. As we all know by now, The Mayan calendar moves in cycles with the last cycle ending in December 2012. This is what had everyone

Valentines Day in Old Chichen Itza--no time for left over for astronomy?

Celebrating Valentines Day in Old Chichen Itza–no time left for astronomy?

convinced that we were goners. The last day of the Mayan calendar corresponds with the Winter Solstice, which gave the alleged end-time prediction an added occult kick, and had many experts mumbling fatalistically. Simon Martin, co-curator for the “Maya 2012: Lords of Time,” exhibit at the Penn Museum in Philadelphia went on record saying that December would usher in an epochal shift of sorts, “rather like the year 2000 marked a new millennium.” Of course, the new millennium didn’t actually begin until 2001, but nobody really seemed to care. As Martin explained some time ago, regarding the long-count Mayan calendar, “What happens in December of this year is that it changes from the 12th baktun to the 13th baktun, and that’s a cycle that has been running for 400 years. The current sequence of 13 baktuns has been running since 3114 BC or 5,125 years.”  So big deal. The fact is, the Mayans had no more authentic impact on this year’s solstice than did the Venusians—maybe less! And anyone with even the vaguest understanding of Biblical prophecy should have been able to tell we weren’t ready for the apocalypse! First of all—where is the famine? Sure, we may be on the brink of a doozy of a famine, but we aren’t in one yet. Second, where are Gog and Magog in that unholy alliance kind of unification thing? Soon, maybe, but not here yet, right? And the rebuilding of the temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem—what’s holding that up? And we have yet to see Nancy Pelosi spread batlike wings in the halls of congress, declare herself the Whore of Babylon and incinerate two thirds of the assembled lawmakers with fire breath. Okay, we made that one up—but trust us when we tell you, the Mayans didn’t know from squat about when the world would end, and the end is not yet!  Soon, maybe, but definitely not yet…and we here at WOOF will definitely let you know if that changes!

What do we have to do, draw you a picture?

What do we have to do, draw you a picture?

FRENZY SIX: Sci-Fi blockbuster—the Disney picture “John Carter of Mars” was supposed to revolutionize the Science Fiction world—and with a story line involving a civil war soldier who winds up on Mars—how could it fail? Especially since the story was originally by the legendary Edgar Rice Burroughs—and just hiring him must have cost Disney a fortune. Determined, perhaps, to produce a spectacular film about life on an alien planet that was not a Pol-Pot-style paean to anti-Corporate revolution, and was simultaneously not a CGI-altered retelling of “Dances with Wolves,” the folks at Disney sank a cool 250 million into their master work, and spent 100 million more marketing

There are more Martians behind John Carter in this still than earthlings who actually saw the film!

There are more Martians behind John Carter in this still than earthlings who actually saw the film!

it, most of which, apparently, would have been better spent repainting the Peter Pan rides at Disney World and Disneyland and going ahead with the Annette Funicello Monument and Library, as WOOF has long recommended. Anyway, the only epic aspect of the film’s release was its epic failure at the box office where to date it has recouped a paltry 184 million dollars, But experts tell WOOF that John Carter may eventually earn his keep abroad, where foreign audiences prefer American spectaculars because the comparative dearth of dialogue means there are fewer subtitles to keep up with among the explosions, space ship overflights and

Obama's Martian involvement--buried by the liberal media!

Obama’s Martian involvement–buried by the liberal media!

force-field eruptions. There is, of course, another, more sinister reason why Disney may have struck out domestically with what appeared to be a surefire cinematic product, and that is, of course, the subversive Obama administration, the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the Obama/Mars connection under wraps, where it remains fairly well concealed despite WOOF’s fearless expose (see Science and the Paranormal forum).  Just as films like “The Hanoi Hilton” and “The Wind and the Lion” were met with low theatrical exposure and studied negativity from the critical establishment because their right-wing themes were deliberately squelched by the Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy, so the kibosh may have been put on the Disney release simply to keep people’s minds off the crimson planet at a time when Obama’s youthful visits to the Martian surface threaten to break into the news cycle. So – a major motion picture from a surefire studio bombs in the American market, and none dare call it conspiracy? Think about it!


Zuckerberg kicks off the public issue of stock– the media ooh, ahh, and swoon.

FRENZY SEVEN: The Facebook zillionaires!  OMG, have you ever scrolled down somebody’s Facebook page? Perhaps you have some peculiar masochistic bent, gentle reader, that has resolved you even to maintain your own Facebook page?  Why would any rational human being subject himself to the daily bombardment of insipidity that this pursuit entails? Where else can you rely on seeing someone declare that she has just made herself a pastrami sandwich, and 47 people report that they “like” this datum? And the political blather, like, really—are all the least intelligent liberals in America confederated in a concerted effort to flood Facebook’s pages with their most embarrassingly demented observations?  But anyhow…in February the loathsome Los Angeles Times reported with its customary reliability that, “the 8-year-old social networking company has submitted registration documents with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [setting] a preliminary goal of raising $5 billion. Facebook is expected to be valued at $75 billion to $100 billion.” And everyone went nuts predicting the vast proliferation of instant millionaires that would follow fast on the public issuance of Facebook’s stock. The first day Zuckerberg’s stock went on sale it skyrocketed from its opening price of 37 dollars to positively dizzying heights, and then—like the old Navy

The Vanguard Program's only real payload: A lasting metaphor for the overblown media frenzies of our time.

The Vanguard Program’s only real payload: A lasting metaphor for the
overblown media frenzies of our time.

Vanguard rockets, settled back down on its launching pad and blew up, finally closing almost exactly where it opened. From there, it retreated consistently to absolutely dismal levels, and today is trading around 19 bucks per share. Rumor has it that investors remain skittish regarding whether the premiere social network can increase revenue by successfully tapping the growing mobile audience, and then there is the matter of a number of major lawsuits which remain unresolved. In December, Facebook stock fell more than 5% as almost 160 million shares held by early insiders and employees were freed from a lockup period. Now, WOOF doesn’t pretend to know whether you should see Facebook stock as a buying opportunity at this juncture, but we do know that it has fallen to a level at which all the breathless hysteria generated by the media pundits over its release can be counted as one of the years best examples of media flatulence disguised as prescience.

Finally, FRENZY EIGHT—we have the classic example of “Arab Spring,” best examined in detail by clicking on our “Chilly Winds” archive in which the entire fiasco is detailed thoroughly—but where else but in America in this era, when the entire bulk of all the news, opinion, and entertainment to which the average American is subjected comes from an inbred consortium of

Arab Spring in Benghazi--Ambassador Stevens celebrates with locals.

Arab Spring in Benghazi–Ambassador Stevens entertains local celebrants.

mental pigwidgeons on the East and Left coasts who are simultaneously devoted to misrepresenting the news by design, and misrepresenting reality through abject ignorance, could the collapse and descent of the Middle East into Islamic/Fascistic barbarity be so wildly hailed by so many chuckle-headed anchor

Ford Pinto explodes on Network TV--and apparently only on Network TV.

Ford Pinto explodes on Network TV–and apparently only on Network TV.

people and pundits as the greatest moment for human civilization since the Renaissance?  The daily and unanimous assertions that ousting reliable allies or phlegmatically neutral panjandrums from positions of power so that they could be replaced by murderous, genocidal totalitarians bent on the destruction of Israel and Christianity amounted to nothing short of a a golden era for mankind is the sort of thing for which numerous media personalities should simply be flogged in the public square. So much more egregious was this hoopla than Dan Rather’s forgery of the Bush National Guard records, or ABC’s Sylvia Chase airing footage of exploding Ford Pintos without bothering to mention that they’d been rigged to explode—or Newsweek’s riot-provoking fairy tale of Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo—that one wonders at the Obama-era media’s uncanny ability to simply stumble ahead, never saying “oops,” never acknowledging its inaccuracies or its obsession with talking points in diametric opposition to the truth. In this sense, WOOF guesses that Erich Segal had it wrong in his 1970 novel “Love Story.” It turns out that LIBERALISM, not love, is never having to say you’re sorry–  but Ali McGraw never mentioned that, did she! Good thing you have WOOF in your life, huh, America?

Ali McGraw-- definitely easier to look at than the Network News.

Speaking of which, here’s Ali McGraw– definitely easier to look at than the Network News.

%d bloggers like this: