Prepping the Media Battlefield (Part Two)

Centuries ago the Brits proved that the nation that ruled the waves ruled the world. Politicians are still at sea, but they who rule the airwaves — television and radio — are likely to rule the United States after January 2009. Only the Democrats and their allies in the politically-activist media are preparing for that battle.

Last year Bill Clinton attacked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, accusing Wallace of setting him up for a bashing. As usual with Clinton, he was — as the shrinks would say — “projecting.” He was accusing Wallace of doing to Clinton what Clinton was doing to Wallace. Clinton moved the moonbat war against Fox into the Dems’ political mainstream. Since then, the campaign against Fox has been expanded to an attack on conservative talk radio as well. (RINO Trent Lott isn’t the only one thinking about shutting up Rush, Laura, Sean and the rest before the campaign is really under way).

The fight to control the media battlefield in 2008 has begun. According to a June 24 New York Observer report, “The New York Times is currently undertaking a major news investigation, led by managing editor Jill Abramson, into News Corp.’s business dealings throughout the world.” News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock, in turn owns the Fox News Channel.

The results of this “investigation” will be a drawn-out campaign by the NY Times to discredit Fox News. Last year, I labeled the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC and NBC the “527 Media” because — like the soft money “527 Groups” — they produce campaign commercials that don’t count as in-kind donations. These liberal media organizations contrive some stories, ignore others, and print and broadcast “news” that is intended only to boost liberals and attack conservatives. (That charge is serious and well-documented in many of my previous columns such as this one.) It’s important for the Dems to disable Fox, the one network that dares to report facts inconsistent with liberal dogma.The New York Times “investigation” of Murdoch and Fox is another major effort to boost the chances for Democrats to win the White House in 2008. It won’t be fair and it won’t be balanced.

The 527 Media have two enormous advantages over Republican candidates. First, they are willing to attack the adversary relentlessly. Republicans never have the courage to shoot back at even the worst contrived nonsense they are hit with. Second, the 527 Media can produce stories on a daily basis including elaborate television segments and specials that – to respond in kind — would cost millions of dollars and take weeks to produce.

Fox and Murdoch now have been given a glimpse of the coming attack. It’s as if Admiral Kimmel had been given Yamamoto’s plans a week before Pearl Harbor. Fox needs a plan of their own. I have a modest proposal.

What if Fox prepared a four-part series of special shows on the New York Times? Not attack pieces, mind you. Just to show the nation the hilarious truths that comprise the facts of life at the Times. It isn’t a news business run by adults: it’s a dysfunctional liberal family of the kind rarely found outside of Hollywood. The Fox series should put all Fox’s greatest assets to work. How about:

Episode One could be titled, “Who are these Guys?” Team Brett Baier and Megyn Kendall to host it. Kendall can describe the real workings of the NYT news room. She can report that publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger — appointing Bill Keller as Executive Editor — forced what one NYT source said was a “shotgun wedding” on Keller, putting the newsroom under control of a troika consisting of Abramson, her best buddy (Times anti-testosterone columnist) Maureen Dowd and Keller. Baier can report Keller’s decision-making is limited by what Jill and MoDo will agree to, and how their friendship is reinforced by ideology (and as the internal NYT newsletter, “TimesTalk” reported in September 2003, their mutual giddiness over romance novel coverboy Fabio). The special can document — from Times reporters who will cooperate off camera — that the control Dowd and Abramson exert is driving real news off the front pages, causing news stories to be rewritten as polemics and taking the Times out of the news business altogether. And they have to save about ten minutes for Mickey Kaus to report his massive findings on NYT chief political reporter Adam Nagourney. Nagourney is such an unsubtle cheerleaders for the Dems, his computer should have blue pom-poms attached to the keyboard.

Episode Two would be, “The Stories they Don’t Report.” This has to be a special “O’Reilly Factor.” The biggest news story today is the crash and burn of the Democratic Congress. The Dems pulled a bait-and-switch worthy of P.T. Barnum in 2006, running hard on the idea that they wouldn’t force a “cut and run” Iraq strategy on the President and then relentlessly pursuing just that from the moment they took control. Why isn’t the Times covering this? If Republicans were such double dealers, the Times’ chief political reporter Adam Nagourney would soon be crippled by carpal tunnell syndrome. And why did they report for weeks on Mark Foley’s involvement with a male page and not report at all the famous National Guard unit in Iraq holding their sign poking fun at John Kerry? Don’t tell me this is “editorial judgment”: it’s politics.

Expose the fact that the Times doesn’t expose Democratic corruption. Why — when corrupt New Jersey Sen.Robert Torricelli was under intense investigation — did Times editors decline to cover it, saying they didn’t want to “pile on”? By not covering Torricelli — and now not covering the corruption that virtually envelops Harry Reid and so many other Dems — the Times lost its honor. Times readers were astounded that they had to search the back pages for the stories of the Fort Dix Six and the Islamist plan to blow up JFK airport. What about Cindy Sheehan’s noisy departure from the Democratic party? Newsbusters reported that though the Times had run 147 stories mentioning Sheehan from August 1, 2005 through May 28, 2007, there was no mention of her quitting the Dems for two days after it happened. It won’t be hard to prove that anything that doesn’t fit into the Times’ hyper-liberal narrative just doesn’t get reported.

Episode Three just has to be Chris Wallace’s show. Title it, “The Dems’ Think Tank.” Face facts: the Dems haven’t had a new idea since the night Bobby Kennedy died. To fill the vacuum, the NYT (and the rest of the 527 Media) think for the Dems. Go back to the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings to the lists of questions the NYT said should be asked. Show the footage of Dianne Feinstein asking the questions verbatim. The relationship between the Times and the Dems — who is leading whom? — should be dissected by media scholars. And don’t forget to mention the Times leadership of the Democrats campaign to prove that the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq, which is an entirely unsupportable charge and directly contrary to the findings of the Robb-Silberman commission.

Episode Four has to be a Neil Cavuto show entitled, “Destroying the Brand.” Neil Cavuto — Fox’s chief business reporter — may be the nicest man on television. (The first time I appeared on Neil’s show, he sent me a handwritten thank you note.) It falls to Neil to dissect the Times’ failing business fortunes since Pinch took the reins. The stock price is less than half of what it was. Why has circulation nosedived? Is it because too many moderate New Yorkers are tired of its in-your-face counterculture coverage? Are New Yorkers — many of them ethnics — offended by the constant pro-abortion, pro-gay rights Times agenda reporting? They are turned off by all that and because the paper doesn’t report: it opines. Pinch has done more damage to the Times brand by imposing his ideology than Martha Stewart did to her company’s brand by going to jail.

Combined, this serier will do more to restore the Republic — not necessarily Republicans — than anything else the media can do. It will be great entertainment, as well as news. And the best part is, it’s all true.


Sign Up