Wednesday, 26 September 2007


Ken Berwitz

I talk a lot about how Hillary Clinton is a protected species in mainstream media, not subject to the scrutiny of other candidates -- the ones media have not ascribed a kind of saintly immortality to.

I don't often see a media venue talk about this ludicrous treatment afforded Ms. Clinton, but today is an exception.

Here, courtesy of ABC News is a story describing just how it happens.  I'm giving you the first part, but you can read it all at, and I hope you do:.

For Clinton Camp No Press Is Good Press

Democratic Front-Runner's Press Office Employs Take-No-Prisoners Approach

For the small band of reporters who regularly cover Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, the dirty little secret is this: They rarely -- if ever -- get to speak to the candidate herself.

Clinton, D-N.Y., is running perhaps the most media-controlled -- and media-obsessed -- campaign in presidential history. Her aides carefully screen access to the candidate, generally avoid news conferences on the campaign trail and have been known to throw around the Clintons' considerable weight to block negative stories and influence coverage of the candidate they're protecting and promoting.

Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President Bush during his 2000 campaign and first years in the White House, said the Clinton campaign has taken a hallmark of the Bush White House -- carefully controlled media access -- to another level.

"Hillary is no Bill when it comes to discipline -- she has some," Fleischer said. "But it's more than just discipline." During his 2000 run, "George Bush did press [availabilities] just about every day, and he was always disciplined.

"Hillary is also disciplined," Fleischer continued, "but she keeps her distance from the press probably because she doesn't like them." "She sees all downside in access. As a front-runner with a 20-point margin, the press can hurt her more than help her."

A Window Into the Clinton Campaign

The latest episode to emerge, reported Monday by Politico, offers a window into how the campaign uses perhaps its biggest asset -- former President Bill Clinton -- to protect Sen. Clinton's reputation.

According to Politico, Clinton aides convinced GQ's editors to spike an unflattering piece about the campaign's inner workings by threatening the magazine's access to the former president, who is the subject of a planned cover story.

GQ representatives have confirmed that they killed a planned story on the Clinton campaign, though they refuse to comment on their reasons. Clinton campaign officials declined to comment on the incident, and communications director Howard Wolfson said the campaign would not discuss its overall relationship with the press. .

The article goes on and gives other examples (again, I urge you to click on the link above and read it all), but you get the idea.

The Rudy Giulianis and John McCains and John Edwards' of the world have to answer to the press - sometimes in very painful ways.  Hillary Clinton does not.  She is shielded from this kind of coverage.

And, incredibly, every time she talks about media she tries to work in a whining complaint that she is MISTREATED by them.  As if they go after her more than the others, not less.

It's your vote.  If you buy this, then she's got you.  I wonder which way it will go.



Ken Berwitz

When you are a multi-billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars a year to promote your anti-USA agenda, you probably won't want the light of day to shine on your activities.

This leads us straight to George Soros.

Please read the following piece from Investor's Business Daily, which is becoming more and more invaluable as a source of information about people like this.  The bold print is mine:.

Soros Threat To Democracy


Posted 9/24/2007

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

George Soros & Exclusive Series

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action. .

At this point you may be wondering where in hell the mainstream media are when it comes to George Soros and what he does.  If IBD can find this information, they can too.  But they don't or won't.

Is it because Soros' agenda is such a tight fit with theirs?  You decide.

I yearn for the day that media inform us rather than manipulate us.  Lamentably, that day is not here yet --- and it isn't coming any time soon.

Take O Reilly off the air. He is no better than IMUS.

Barry Sinrod

Group Slams O'Reilly's Race Comments

Posted: 2007-09-25 23:59:31
Filed Under: TV News, Nation News
NEW YORK (Sept. 25) - After eating dinner at a famed Harlem restaurant recently, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly told a radio audience he "couldn't get over the fact" that there was no difference between the black-run Sylvia's and other restaurants.

"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun," he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

O'Reilly said his fellow patrons were tremendously respectful as he ate dinner with civil rights activist Al Sharpton.

The comments were made during O'Reilly 's nationally syndicated radio broadcast last week. The liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America called attention to them by distributing a transcript and audio clip on the Internet.

"This is nothing more than left-wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings," said Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at Fox News Channel. "It's sad."

O'Reilly spoke during a general discussion about racial relations with Fox News analyst Juan Williams. O'Reilly said he believed black Americans were "starting to think more and more for themselves" and backing away from a race -based culture encouraged by Sharpton and Jesse Jackson .

He said he treated Sharpton to dinner to thank him for appearing on his Fox News Channel show.

O'Reilly pointed to the sameness of Sylvia's and other restaurants as a marker of racial progress. "And that's really what this society's all about now here in the USA. There's no difference. There's no difference."

O'Reilly also noted that he went to an Anita Baker concert recently where the audience was evenly mixed between blacks and whites.

"The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans," he said. "They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris  and Snoop Dogg ."

Williams concurred that too many people believe there's little else in black culture beyond profane rap.

"That's right," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, `M.F.-er, I want more iced tea."'

Sharpton said he was taken aback that anyone would be surprised at how blacks acted at Sylvia's and will ask O'Reilly on "The O'Reilly Factor" Wednesday to explain what he meant. Nothing O'Reilly said at the dinner was offensive, said Sharpton spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger.

Karl Frisch, a spokesman for Media Matters, called O'Reilly 's comments "ignorant and racially charged."

See what's new at and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Cavoy AOL using AP's report from the biased,flawed and incomplete story from Media Matters is sickening! AOL NEWS must be as biased as th New York Times and CNN. I am getting rid of this slimey slanted AOL news popping up in my face! (09/26/07)

Russ I see this from another point of view. When you think about who is most likely to be tuned in to O'Reilly's program, for O'Reilly to "inform" them that there is no difference, etc., this is good! 99.9% of those tuned in were not going to experience the Black owned restaurants on their own. Maybe now at least one of them will! But for Barry to say take him off the air is typical of lefties who want to defend the Freedom of Speech only for lefties and shut up everyone else. They are the least tolerant people in the country. (09/26/07)

pnutbutter No one said O'Reilly was racist, his comments were. As for Juan Williams, people in the black community know there is more to us than Twista, etc. White people and "so called - uppity blacks" need to quit watching tv shows that depict only the negatives about our race. I will be glad when the day comes that they don't have to refer to our race at all, i.e., you know that "black lady" on fox!!! (09/26/07)

steve schneider maybe it's just me but i find nothing offensive here. comparing what o'reilly said to imus is apples and oranges. i don't see the point of this.if you're implying that o'reilly is a racist, you failed. (09/26/07)

Ken Berwitz pnutbutter: With all due respect, the most overtly racist comment I see here is not from BIll O'Reilly, it is from you. When you say that "White people and "so called - uppity blacks" need to quit watching tv shows that depict only the negatives about our race." you are generalizing about all members of those population segments.  Isn't that exactly what you are condemning? Assuming you didn't intend your comment to be taken that way, I hope this causes you to think again about what Mr. O'Reilly was trying to convey. (09/26/07)


Ken Berwitz

Now that you have read Barry's regurgitation of a BS "report" from Media Matters, which was joyously picked up and repeated by CNN, I thought you might be interested in the truth.

I'll give you two ways: 

-One is to listen to Juan Williams railing about the "rank dishonesty" of this report, which can be found by going to and clicking on "Dishonesty at CNN".

-A second is to listen to the actual radio broadcast, which - if you listen to it as it was said, not as selected extracts that eliminated context and gave it a completely different meaning - will show you how full of crap Media Matters is.  You can find it by clicking on and going to "CNN moves to the dark side"

Media really DOES matter, folks.  And Media Matters is a hard-left organization dedicated to manipulating it, to create fraudulent accusations;  not only against Bill O'Reilly, whose commentary was selectively cherry-picked to convey a meaning exactly opposite of what he was saying, but others as well.

Ironically, even the no-context extracts they did use do not indicate racism.  What exactly is O'Reilly saying, other than that Whites who don't have a lot of interaction with Blacks get an incomplete and erroneous image of them?    This is RACIST? 

The saddest part of this ridiculous episode is that people like Barry, who hate O'Reilly, and Bush, and Republicans, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (as you can see hate is the key word here), want to believe this.  So when a BS report like the one Media Matters barfed out becomes available, there's no need to check it for accuracy.  Hey, it's what they want to hear, remember?  So why check?  If you find out it's untrue you have one less "reason" for your hatred.

I urge every reader to click on both links.  I'm not Media Matters.  I'm telling the truth and have absolutely nothing to hide.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!