Predictably, Leftist Media Ignores Obama’s 60 Minutes Ratings Collapse – Down 69% In One Week

Media Ignores Obama’s 60 Minutes Ratings Collapse; Down 69% In A Week – Gateway Pundit

.

.
The sympathetic news media is avoiding mentioning his name, instead they are blaming the lack of a football intro for the massive collapse in ratings Sunday night for President Barack Obama’s appearance on CBS’ 60 Minutes. Americans turned away from watching Obama even though he was being interviewed about the nation’s new war on ISIS.

For example, Deadline Hollywood didn’t even mention Obama’s 60 Minutes interview when reporting on the drop in viewers.

“With no football lead-in, CBS’ Sunday lineup fell from last week. As expected, the drop was steepest at 7 PM, with 60 Minutes (1.1) off by 69% from last Sunday, when it directly followed the game.”

Also, Variety avoided mentioning Obama on 60 Minutes.

“At CBS, “60 Minutes” (1.1/4 in 18-49, 9.2 million viewers overall) dropped off sharply from last week when it had the end of the Denver-Seattle football game as a lead-in, and was also down about 20% from last year.”

The Los Angeles Times likewise did not name Obama.

“”60 Minutes” didn’t fare as well. With a rating of 1.1 in the key demo, the show was down 69% from last week’s season premiere. About 9.1 million people tuned in.”

Neither did Broadcasting and Cable:

“Newsmagazine 60 Minutes drew a 1.1, down sharply from last week, when it received a big lead-in from football overruns”

TV by the Numbers:

“On CBS, 60 Minutes scored a 1.1, down 69 percent from last week’ s NFL boosted 3.5 adults 18-49 rating.”

The Wrap:

“CBS took fourth place in ratings with a 1.3/4 and third in total viewers with 10.7 million. “60 Minutes” at 7 posted a 1.1/4 with 9.2 million total viewers, while the freshman drama “Madam Secretary” the following hour dropped off 30 percent from last week’s series premiere, posting a 1.4/4 with 12.7 million total viewers.”

Last week CBS sent out a press release bragging on 60 Minutes’ ratings, as reported by the Futon Critic.

There appears to be no reports of 60 Minutes bragging about the ratings for Obama’s 60 Minutes show.

A gold star goes to Hal Boedeker at the Orlando Sentinel for apparently being the only reporter to mentioned Obama in reporting on 60 Minutes’ ratings however he did not mention the huge ratings drop.

“And “60 Minutes” had 9.2 million for an interview with President Barack Obama.”

Change Obama to Bush and one can imagine how the media would have been reporting the 60 Minutes ratings collapse: Americans Tune out Bush as He Drags U.S. in Another War.

.

.

Do you have to be a knuckle-dragging moron to write for a New Jersey editorial board?

Apparently so. In this piece written by the New Jersey Editorial Board, the Collectivist writers call for the “only solution” to “gun violence”

Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won’t end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you’ll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide.

Note the scary statistic they use. Is it accurate, likely not, and if it is it is likely “cooked”. Note, they do not mention how you are more likely to be murdered you are, or even where. What if you have a gun at home but are stabbed, or beaten to death? That is not important, the gun still is to blame. The facts are not important to them. What IS important is that they can use this “scary stat”, that they probably got from some gun control group, and that they probably did not fact check, to demonize guns.

But let’s not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don’t have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates.

They don’t directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven’t overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That’s what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.

Ah yes, lets give the government the power to go door to door and take people’s guns away, that has worked SO WELL throughout history hasn’t it? And never mind that legally owned firearms stop hundreds of thousands of crimes annually. But the real stupidity, and absurdity comes at the end of this piece.

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.

Did they actually write that with straight faces. Are they actually telling us that MANDATORY gun buybacks will show us all how worrying about gun confiscation is silly? Perhaps they ought to buy a dictionary and have someone read the definition of MANDATORY to them? The government forcing you to surrender your guns is gun confiscation, yes, even if they pay you for those weapons. Again, that word MANDATORY is the key here. What these buffoons are calling for is disarming the people. Are they really that stupid? Or, are they just after taking the teeth out of our liberty? Bob Owens answers brilliantly

Almost entirely collectivist in nature, citizen control groups do not trust the individual, and instead trust the hive mind of government. They desire to end the Second Amendment because as an unknown soul correctly noted, “Firearms are liberty’s teeth.” An armed citizenry compliments an honest government and provides it with additional security, while it denies a corrupt government the monopoly of force needed to impose tyranny. One must wonder, then, why they take such interest in disarming the law-abiding citizenry when they know that criminals will not disarm.

The honest answer is that they are not looking to reduce crime.

They’re looking to reduce resistance.

As Professor R.J. Rummel noted in an introduction to his work , “…the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.”

Those who would strip individual liberties from you do so with the belief that they are stripping those power from you and transferring that power to themselves.

These citizen control cultists aren’t remotely non-violent.

They simply want to ensure that when they turn violent and use the forces of government against the people as has happened so often, so recently , that you have no way of stopping them.

You can either be a citizen, or a subject.

Choose wisely.

 

Holder’s DOJ Coordinated With Left-Wing Extremists At Media Matters To Attack Breitbart Reporter

Department Of Justice, Media Matters Coordinate To Attack Reporter – Daily Caller

.

.
Since when does the Department of Justice coordinate with an obviously liberal media organization to go after a conservative reporter? It’s official: At least since 2011.

In email exchanges obtained by The Daily Caller in two separate FOIA requests, a coordinated effort to slam Breitbart News reporter Matthew Boyle emerged. To be sure, Boyle is not a reporter who is beloved by other reporters and he’s been critiqued on any number of matters that include his youthful chipmunk cheeks, his previously questionable Twitter avatar and his TV skills. But his beat was DOJ and Eric Holder and shouldn’t a reporter be commended for going after an enterprising story or two on his beat?

Even Slate‘s Dave Weigel agreed with that sentiment. “I see Media Matters giving Holder a huzzah for calling the Caller out,” he wrote in November 2011. “But calling it out for what? Are news organizations not allowed to enterprise stories by asking people whether they think someone should resign? News organizations do this all the time. The Caller’s ‘sin’ seems to be doing it with no back-up from the rest of the press.”

And yet, all this media scheming from the Department of Justice.

As revealed in the FOIA docs, Media Matters Deputy Research Director Matt Gertz sent a post concerning the NRA’s growing contributions to Holder’s critics to DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, Holder’s top press flack who resigned in March, 2013. She replied, “Thanks, you know boyle has been doing robo calls to top members right? This is campaign mounted by daily caller. He has called 60 offices and gotten to 8 last week.” Gertz replied, “Yeah, that was what my original piece on the story was about.”

At the time of the exchange, Boyle worked for The Daily Caller.

Years later in February, 2013, Boyle wrote a story for Breitbart News about Schmaler’s “colluding” with “far left wing” Media Matters to attack him, lawmakers and other members of the media. Funny enough, Boyle attempted to seek comment from Schmaler on why she resigned. He wrote, “Schmaler has not answered when asked by Breitbart News whether her resignation has anything to do with the coming hearings on DOJ collusion with groups like Media Matters.”

Weirdly, it takes two years (or longer) for DOJ to respond to FOIA requests.

Further perplexing: TheDC FOIA’d the Justice Department for all mentions of Matthew Boyle in agency communications. The specific request was ”All records relating to and about Matthew Boyle.” Carmen Mallon, chief of staff for DOJ, replied in a formal letter saying that no such records existed despite the above exchange between Schmaler and Gertz.

“For your information, neither this Office nor any of these senior leadership offices of the Department typically maintain records on individuals,” she wrote. “As such, this office would not maintain the type of records you are seeking.

“However, in an effort to be of assistance, please be advised that a search has been conducted of the electronic database of the Departmental Executive Secretariat, which is the official records repository for the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General, and no records subject to FOIA were located. A search has also been conducted in the Office of Information Policy and no records subject to the FOIA were located.”

Gee, thanks Carmen. Except that the records concerning DOJ and Boyle were maintained, located and sent.

Please be advised. If you’re the DOJ and want to get some bad press out there on a reporter who may or may not be a thorn in your side, Media Matters is on speed dial.

DOJ-Media Matters Coordination

.

.

.

.

.

Defending Andrea Tarantos- If the truth offends you, that is your problem, get over it!

The Left and the morally retarded, but I repeat myself, are suffering from an outbreak of Offendeditis because some dared tell the truth about Jihadists. And, these poor deluded fools are now demanding that Andrea apologize for “smearing an entire faith” which Andrea never did

As Twitchy reported on Wednesday, the Asian American Journalists Association  is demanding an apology from Andrea Tantaros Fox News for comments made by Tantaros on “Outnumbered.”:

AAJA calls for Tantaros and Fox News to apologize for the irresponsible, inflammatory statements. We also call on Fox News to discourage its journalists from making blanket comments that serve to perpetuate hate and Islamophobia.

Commenting on the brutality of the ISIS terrorists who beheaded journalist James Foley, Tantaros said, “You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. It’s the only thing these people understand.” As we noted in our earlier post, that seems like a reasonably accurate assessment of violent Islamic jihadis.

A defiant Tantaros declared today that she spoke the truth and has no intention of apologizing. Period.

Three words the Left needs to hear, repeatedly. GET OVER IT

NY Slimes apologizes for daring to speak out of turn

They have prostrated themselves before the grievance mongers for writing the truth about “Saint” Michael Brown

The New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan apologized this afternoon for an article published this morning that referred to Michael Brown of being “no angel.”

Those two words “no angel” caused an uproar on the far left.

Oh no! Not an “uproar”. Likely an uproar complete with race baiters with their panties in a bunch. This is what the Left does now though. They attack anyone, and anything that does not meet their approval. This is what happens when freedoms of speech and the press die.

Don Lemon is too smart to be this stupid

Cnn’s Don Lemon has shown his intelligence, he has said some very good things, but, THIS is what happens when raw emotion supplants intelligent debate

Bob Owens weighs in

Lemon doesn’t know the difference between an automatic weapon—a machine gun—and an semi-automatic weapon, which fires one bullet per trigger pull and which have been commonly owned by civilians for more than a century.

Lemon, never willing to concede how stunningly wrong he is, then attempts to argue that the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic is a matter of “semantics.”

Again, Lemon either did zero research, or ignored that which was inconvenient. This is NOT journalism, this is emotionally based rhetoric, that has no place on any credible news outlet. Here are some more facts about automatic weapons

Since the National Firearms Act passed in 1934, automatic weapons have been very tightly regulated. There are roughly 250,000 in the entire nation—half of those are registered to law enforcement agencies—out of 300 million total firearms.

Precisely zero automatic weapons have been manufactured for public consumption in 28 years, since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner Protection Act (FOPA) made the sale of new machine guns to the public illegal, regardless of their qualifications.

Frankly, this is why so many point to media bias. 

Update! Whiny rapper displays typical entitlement attitude, genuine stupidity

This guy is a spoiled child. What a moron, Typical Leftist useful idiot

How to Write About Israel

Some columns are perfect, and this one, by Daniel Greenfield, is one of those. Here is a small part, but please go read it all

It has two types of people; the Israelis who live in posh houses stocked with all the latest appliances and the Arabs who live in crumbling shacks that are always in danger of being bulldozed. The Israelis are fanatical, the Arabs are passionate. The Israelis are hate-filled, while the Arabs are embittered. The Israelis have everything while the Arabs have nothing.

Avoid mentioning all the mansions that you pass on the way to interviewing some Palestinian Authority or Hamas bigwig. When visiting a terrorist prisoner in an Israeli jail, be sure to call him a militant, somewhere in the fifth paragraph, but do not mention the sheer amount of food in the prison, especially if he is on a hunger strike. If you happen to notice that the prisoners live better than most Israelis, that is something you will not refer to. Instead describe them as passionate and embittered. Never ask them how many children they killed or how much they make a month. Ask them what they think the prospects for peace are. Nod knowingly when they say that it’s up to Israel.

Weigh every story one way. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack is rarely a retaliation for anything. When Israeli planes bomb a terrorist hideout, suggest that this latest action only feeds the “Cycle of Violence” and quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations– whether or not there actually are any negotiations to return to.

Center everything around peace negotiations. If Israel has any domestic politics that don’t involve checkpoints and air strikes, do your best to avoid learning about them. Frame all Israeli politics by asking whether a politician is finally willing to make the compromises that you think are necessary for peace. Always sigh regretfully and find them wanting. Assume that all Israelis think the same way. Every vote is a referendum on the peace process. A vote for a conservative party means that Israelis hate peace.

Like I said go read it all