MSNBC President: 'This Channel Has Never Been the Voice of Obama. Ever.'

In an interview with the Huffington Post, MSNBC president Phil Griffin tries to push back against the notion that his channel has become a mouth-piece for President Barack Obama.

"This channel has never been the voice of Obama. Ever," Griffin tells Michael Calderone of the Huffington Post.  But, Calderone writes, "Griffin acknowledges that his hosts are more likely to agree with Obama on policy matters than with Republicans, but rejects comparisons to Fox News."

"People want to talk about Fox. Fox is the voice of the Republican Party," says Griffin to Calderone.

Griffin does, however, acknowledge to the left-leaningHuffington Post that many folks working at MSNBC have a "progressive sensibility."

"We hire smart people with a progressive sensibility. ... I tell them to go think for themselves. We don't have talking points," says Griffin.

The MSNBC president pledges to make sure Obama keeps "his campaign promises."

"We're going to hold Obama to his campaign promises," says Griffin. "And the fact is, there are many things that some of our hosts support him on. But basically, we have a standard, whether it's the war on terror or getting out of Afghanistan: Is he going to live up to his campaign promises?"

And Griffin compliments his employees for being "really smart" and not going "over the top" during the 2012 presidential campaign.

"What I really believe is we analyzed this election in a really smart way and we didn't go over the top,"Griffin tells Huffington Post. "We weren't just shilling for Obama. We were really smart. And people are responding to that now."

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Morning Jay: Politics and the Gallup Poll

Since about the beginning of President Obama’s tenure, the Gallup poll has generally been one of the least positive polls for the Democratic party. This has prompted outrage and pressure from the left--even from presidential advisor David Axelrod.

Over the summer Mark Blumenthal of Huffington Post wrote a critique of Gallup’s daily presidential job approval poll. The point of which was that Gallup was over-sampling whites and thus understating President Obama’s position in the adult population. I responded by arguing that Blumenthal’s case was underdeveloped and less-than-met-the-eye, and that was basically where things stood.

Until, that is, this week. President Obama enjoyed a bounce in his Gallup job approval number after the Democratic National Convention, as was to be expected, but there was a twist: it did not disappear. And while Gallup on average had found Obama’s job approval around 47 percent with adults through most of 2012, for the last five weeks it has been regularly above 50 percent. Yesterday, it stood at 53 percent, a number we have not really seen since 2009.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

FLASHBACK: JournoList plotted to kill Jeremiah Wright story in 2008

Now that The Daily Caller has uncovered and published video of President Barack Obama’s “other race speech,” liberal media figures are once again trying to quell coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story — just like in 2008.

Records obtained by TheDC in mid-2010 showed that “at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate,” after ABC News’ Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked then-Sen. Obama about his controversial reverend during an April 2008 debate.

“Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage,” TheDC’s Jonathan Strong reported.

Among those who were uncovered to be part of the plan to quell Wright coverage were Richard Kim of the Nation, Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, Thomas Schaller of the Baltimore Sun, Holly Yeager of the Columbia Journalism Review, Slate magazine contributor David Greenberg, columnist Joe Conason, Chris Hayes of the Nation, and Spencer Ackerman — then of the Washington Independent.

Strong reported that Ackerman even once “urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.’”

Before TheDC even released this new video, the Democratic Party tried to discredit it by citing JournoList members like the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and Ben Smith — now the editor of BuzzFeed but formerly of Politico — commenting on the video before they had seen it.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

SECOND 'OCCUPY' WAVE COULD BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE

When the “Occupy” movement began a year ago, many initially dismissed it as a gathering of harmless college students. But the late Andrew Breitbart saw in the movement professional left-wing anarchists and radicals who sought to use the “Occupy” protests to violently overthrow the United States government, then destroy its institutions and the free market system.

Breitbart’s friend, Stephen K. Bannon, was one of those who had initially not taken the “Occupy” movement seriously until he saw occupiers shut down the Brooklyn Bridge. He knew then Breitbart was right, and immediately started a project with Breitbart that would turn into “Occupy Unmasked,” a movie that opened nationwide in theaters this week that systematically dismantled the notion that the Occupy movement was good-natured and peaceful. 

The lessons from the movie “Occupy Unmasked” are important to keep in mind as liberal intellectuals again try to mainstream a radical and violent movement to breathe life into something that, for now, has faded. The movie documents all the violence, filth, rapes, and systemic coordination between left-wing radicals and labor unions like the SEIU that was the real story behind the "Occupy" movement. 

In glorifying the “Occupy” movement and looking ahead to the its future, liberals revealed that a potential second coming of “Occupy” could be even more dangerous and violent than the first. 

Last week, progressive journalist Zeeshan Aleem, writing in The Huffington Post, claimed the Occupy movement “rivaled the Arab Spring” when it started. Though he was being complimentary in his comparison, his analogy may have been more apt than he realized. 

The Arab Spring led to violent radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power in countries like Egypt and heralded a wave of violence throughout North Africa and the Middle East -- attacking U.S. interests and murdering and ambassador in Libya -- as radical Islamists gain more of a foothold. Liberals celebrated these radicals and the “Arab Spring,” which ended up becoming more of an awakening for violent Islamists. 

Similarly, the second phase of Occupy has the same potential for more widespread destruction, chaos, and violence. 

Aleem conceded that for now the second phase of Occupy has not been as successful as the first. He admitted that a recent “Occupy”-style protest attempt on Wall Street “could not be called a success,” mainly because the NYPD was better prepared this time around.

But Aleem disturbingly asks, “What if instead of being fragmented into dozens of free-forming groups, all the Occupiers targeted one bank or one intersection simultaneously?”

These flash mobs, often violent, have popped up throughout the country, with crowds beating up random strangers or stealing merchandise from stores. 

Could these focused, violent flash mobs be in Occupy’s future? 

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...