Monthly Archives: July 2022

The corporate media had a collective meltdown this week after realizing that the Republicans they love to bash and smear are no longer giving members of the press the benefit of the doubt. Much to their dismay, some GOPers are even refusing to engage with or acknowledge journos desperate to write hit pieces.

In one New York Magazine Intelligencer article, headlined Why Republicans Stopped Talking to the Press, David Freedlander complains that former President Donald Trump ushered in a new era of media disdain in GOP politics that encourages actively courting the medias scorn while avoiding anything that may be viewed as consorting with the enemy.

One anonymous GOP adviser explained bluntly, We know reporters always disagreed with the Republican Party, and outlets now are just chasing resistance rage-clicks.

Freedlander, however, rejects those valid concerns and suggests that there is really not much Republicans can say after supporting Donald Trump. (Maybe Freedlander and the New York Timess Bret Stephens, who recently penned a disingenuous article further exposing his contempt for Trump supporters, are friends?)

According to Freedlander and his pal New York Times writer Jeremy Peters, Republicans dont want to have to defend Donald Trump and his falsehoods about the election.

Freedlander notes that most top 24 contenders are media-makers in their own right, hosting their own podcasts or, at minimum, building out robust social-media feeds. Instead of acknowledging thats because conservatives have faced endless political censorship from Big Tech and grave dishonesty from the press, Freedlander says thats because Republicans want to find places where they dont have to face any questions about Trumps election integrity concerns.

Vanity Fair published a similar article on Tuesday whining about the Republican Party of Floridas decision to limit which media outlets were allowed to cover their Sunshine Summit, a conference headlined by one of the most skilled media rejectionists, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

GOP politicians are increasingly shirking sit-down interviews, barring journalists from 2022 events, and skipping debatesan aversion to media scrutiny that could upend how the next presidential election cycle is covered, the subheadline warns.

Vanity Fair, which has had no shame in attacking DeSantis and other Republicans before, clearly published the article with the intent to spark fear about the growing distance between the party and the press. Thats why the headline asks, Will Republicans Shut Out The Press in 2024?

I sure hope Republicans shut out the press, especially if that means red legislators will refuse to cede ground to corrupt actors who have no problems meddling in elections to fulfill their political aims.

After all, history proves that the corporate media is hostile toward the GOP and red voters. When journalists bother to try to talk to Republicans, they are more likely than not acting in bad faith. Why should Republicans, who know the corporate media have a clear left-wing bent, buy into the Democrat-informed narratives peddled by media activists?

Even normal people know the media are not to be trusted. Recent polling suggests Americans confidence in media is at an all-time low. Only 16 percent of Americans claimed to have a great deal/quite a lot of confidence in newspapers. That confidence falls even lower to 11 percent for TV news.

As GOP strategist Dave Carney bluntly put it for Freedlander: No one gives a f-ck what the New York Times writes.

And neither should Republican politicians.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continued here:

Republicans Are Finally Done Obsessing Over The Media. Good. - The Federalist

In a New York Times/Sienna College Research Institute poll this month, only 1 percent of participants said that the most important problem facing the country today is climate change. Twenty percent of those polled, the highest percentage, said that the economy (including jobs and the stock market) was the greatest problem, and 15 percent said that inflation and the cost of living were their greatest concern.

Republicans were the demographic most likely to name the economy as their top priority, at 29 percent, with Hispanics right behind them at 28 percent. In comparison, exactly 0 percent of Hispanics said that climate change was at the top of their list of pressing problems. These numbers grow in significance when you consider that major heat waves had just struck much of the country around the time the poll was conducted.

Ten days after finishing the poll, The New York Times commented on these numbers, displaying some confusion at such low numbers of the publics concern for an issue they describe as widespread and catastrophic. Even among voters under 30, the group thought to be most energized by the issue, the Times reported, that figure was 3 percent.

Their only explanation was that people are distracted from significant issues like climate change by the daily economic issues that eat into their pocketbooks. The Times quoted former Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo from South Florida, saying, In healthier economic times, its easier to focus on issues like this [climate change]. Once people get desperate, all that goes out the window.

Despite spending the entire first half of the article outlining a supposed climate crisis occurring throughout the country, the Times quoted Curbelo noting that these crises are not things that most people face every day, while issues like inflation are readily apparent to anyone who pulls up to the gas pump.

Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College where she fondly excuses the excess amount of coffee she drinks as an occupational hazard.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Originally posted here:

As Dems Go All In On Climate, 1% Of Americans Call It Top Fear - The Federalist

Former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin is reportedly the new permanent co-host of ABCs The View. Since Meghan McCains departure from the show, the network has struggled to find someone to fill the conservative seat, apparently searching for someone who claims to hold conservative values but is willing to abandon and even assail those values for the sake of The Narrative. It seems Farah Griffin finally proved to producers she was up to the task.

When Farah Griffin made her first appearance at the Hot Topics table last October, she began by desperately apologizing for serving in the Trump administration and bent the knee with nervous laughter to every insult her co-hosts threw at her.

She attempted to distance herself from Trump by noting that she was initially working under Vice President Pence. Co-host Sunny Hostin shot back, So youre not working for Darth Vader, but youre a stormtrooper.

Corporate media outlets called the exchange embarrassing for Farah Griffin, and it was, but not for the reasons they assume. Whats embarrassing is disowning your own previously held beliefs, convictions, and careers work in exchange for seal claps, media attention, and the approval of Whoopi Goldberg.

In Farah Griffins subsequent appearances on The View, as well as on CNN and MSNBC, she contradicted her own publicly stated opinions on voter fraud, Jan. 6, Hunter Biden, and even former President Trumps Covid response.

Secondhand embarrassment aside, this isnt so much a loss for conservative media representation or even for Farah Griffin herself. The real mistake here is on ABC producers and their failure to understand their audience and their major ratings problem.

Under Meghan McCains reign in the conservative hot seat, The Views ratings skyrocketed. The New York Times lauded it as the Most Important Political TVShowin America, and appearing as a guest on the show became a must for any politician running for office. Yet, the permanent talking heads and producers cant see where that success was derived.

Even while remaining staunchly anti-Trump, McCain was never bullied into submission by her far-left co-hosts. Of course the heated exchanges and must-see-TV catfights drove ratings, but more than that, McCain represented the opinions of millions of American women who do not see their views shared anywhere else on network television. With McCain gone, and a weak-kneed Trump defector filling her place, whats to keep those women tuning in when they can hear the same earful of leftist talking points from literally every other form of corporate media?

Perhaps now that Farah Griffin has earned her permanent spot (and her paycheck), she can grow a spine without worrying so much about nailing the audition, but I wouldnt hold my breath. For people like Farah Griffin, Mediaite headlines and Twitter seal claps are far more rewarding than the affection of women in Middle America.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

More here:

Alyssa Farah Griffin Gets Conservative 'View' Slot By Trashing Conservatism - The Federalist

Nate Silvers FiveThirtyEight website claims to use statistical analysisto tell compelling stories about elections, politics, sports, science and life and attempts to present itself as a moderate voice, alongside its fellow Disney-owned media properties such as ESPN and ABC News, both of which have endured heavy criticism for erroneous and ideologically driven reporting in recent years. FiveThirtyEights recent abortion article, however, goes a long way toward disabusing readers of the notion that it is an empirical or centrist media outlet.

The inaccurate screed argues that the pro-life movement is intrinsically rooted in racism, even though the modern abortion industry is an outgrowth of blatantly racist and eugenicist thought among early 20th-century progressives. Even more bizarrely, it argues the pro-life movement has ties to replacement theory, an oft-quoted idea in corporate media that the left will politically dominate due to a massive influx of immigrants.

The article, How The Fight To Ban Abortion Is Rooted In The Great Replacement Theory, written by Alex Samuels and her colleague Monica Potts, even openly contradicts its own thesis.

In order to make this tenuous assertion, the article invokes the recent racist mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. The authors note that in the shooters 180-page manifesto, he expressedconcern about the declining birth ratesof white people. Thats because the anti-abortion movement, at its core, has always been aboutupholding white supremacy.

However, the shooter never once mentioned the word abortion, and thats probably for a very obvious reason: Racists understand that legal abortion is very helpful for their twisted cause. Abortion rates for black women are about four times that of white women, and abortion advocates routinely oppose laws designed to prevent abortion based on the sex and race of the child being aborted. Planned Parenthood has 62 percent of its abortion centers strategically placed within two miles of concentrated African American populations.

FiveThirtyEight also launches into a very dubious history lesson: Declining white birth rates, along with the rising eugenics movement a now-discredited pseudoscience focused on the genetic fitness of white Americans were connected to the practice of abortion, and this helped bolster flawed, racist arguments for a total ban of the procedure. FiveThirtyEight makes no attempt to explain how opposition to euthanasia and abortion would lead to flawed, racist arguments for a total ban of abortion, since abortion reduces the black population and euthanasia has historically been a means of targeting minorities and those with disabilities.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, spoke to the KKK and was a proponent of euthanasia and birth control, known for her saying, Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit. In 2020, Planned Parenthood took Margaret Sangers name off a New York City facility, and said the move was the first of many organizational shifts to address Sangers legacy and system of institutional racism.

And while it might be understandable that reporting on an issue as polarizing as abortion would cause reporters to rely on ideologically driven sources, FiveThirtyEight resorts to fringe voices such as the co-founder of the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism.

Finally, in a key paragraph, the authors seem to admit that the premise of their own article is contradictory and incoherent:

Even on its own terms, though, the logic of tying the anti-abortion movement to the racist great replacement theory is deeply convoluted and downright inaccurate. For instance,fewer women are seeking abortions, and women of color particularly those who are Black are more likely than white women to seek an abortion.

This idea that they are writing about the nation, that the fight over abortion rights is somehow tied to great replacement theory theres just no evidence for in what theyve written, Dr. James Sherley, stem cell biologist and associate scholar of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told The Federalist. If you look at all of the causes of deaths for African Americans, that rate is still less than all the deaths due to abortions so abortion is the number one killer of black people in America. That just really flies in the face of this article by FiveThirtyEight.

Its just really a terrible article, he added. Its a random assortment of random observations.

Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College. Mollie Hemingway is editor-in-chief of The Federalist.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more here:

FiveThirtyEight Contradicts Its Own Claim That Pro-Life Movement Is Racist - The Federalist

An Arizona mother who works with refugee families is fighting a state agencys decision to place her on a child neglect no-hire list. Represented by attorneys from Pacific Legal Foundation and the Goldwater Institute, she is asking a state court to give her due process before allowing the agency to blacklist her.

According to the stay motion, while Sarra L. was Thanksgiving shopping in 2020, she let her 7-year-old son and his 5-year-old friend play at a park. She knew the park was safe, and a friend of hers was there. While Sarra was in the store, the friend called and said a police officer was talking with the children.

The officers charges against Sarra two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor were ultimately dropped by prosecutors, the motion said, but the Arizona Department of Child Safety investigated the matter and concluded there was probable cause that Sarra neglected her son. DCS recommended putting Sarras name in the Central Registry.

The Central Registry is essentially a no-hire list, Adi Dynar, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and the lead attorney for Sarras case, told The Federalist. If someones name is on the list, no employer can hire them if, as part of their employment, they have to work with children.

He said this would threaten Sarras job, where she works with refugee families from Eastern Europe, including those affected by the Russia-Ukraine war. Shes working with them, getting them situated, getting them the services they need to rebuild their lives and flourish in America, Dynar said.

If her name appears in the list, then her job is in jeopardy, she cant work with refugees, and ultimately we are all impoverished as a result, he added.

Before she could take the case to court, Dynar said Sarra appealed the DCS decision to an administrative law judge and then to the DCS director, a process he said has inherent constitutional problems. There is no jury trial, Dynar said. There is no cross-examination of witnesses. They do not follow any rules of evidence or any specific rules of procedure that we have come to recognize as necessary for complying with the due process clause.

To add insult to injury, he continued, the standard of proof that is used in these cases is probable cause. Probable cause, according to the stay motion, is equivalent to a form of substantiated suspicion. Dynar said the process also violates the separation of powers in Arizonas Constitution, as executive officials exercise judicial power.

Sarras team filed the stay motion on July 15, asking that the court order DCS not to place her name on the registry or to remove it if the agency already has until the case is resolved.

If Sarra wins, this could affect more than just her case. Her attorneys argue the administrative hearing process itself violates the separation of powers as well as Sarras constitutional rights. If we win that argument in the Court of Appeals in Arizona, we would be able to establish favorable precedent, at least in the state, that is critical of administrative adjudication, Dynar said.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continue reading here:

AZ Mom Fights Due-Process Denial That Would Put Her On No-Hire List - The Federalist