Monday, November 27, 2017

The media works overtime not to believe the survivor (Ava and C.I.)

Remember, if a woman speaks out regarding harassment or rape, any low life piece of trash can attack them.

That's certainly the message NPR sent last week on MORNING EDITION.

To recap, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, discussing the changing environment regarding harassment, offered that she now believes Bill Clinton should have resigned due to the "allegations."

We need to recap that because liars like Phillipe and MORNING EDITION can't get their facts right.

Introducing last week's segment, NPR's Steve Inskeep insisted, "And she now thinks that Bill Clinton should have resigned when his affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed in the 1990s."

That's not what happened.

Yes, that is how Jennifer Steinhauer and THE NEW YORK TIMES presented it.  But, look at their selling of the Iraq War, who is stupid enough these days to take NYT at its word without checking first?

Go down four paragraphs for the audio of what was said.  The senator is asked specifically about Bill Clinton (whether the country would be in a different place if he had resigned) and the senator responds about the problem -- how harassment is found in every segment of society, how she believes the only answer is for more women to be in positions of leadership -- "it's all about power."

Jennifer Steinhauer: So just to be clear, is it your view that-that President Clinton should have stepped down at that time given the allegations?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: [Long pause]  I would -- Yes, I think that is the appropriate response but uhm -- I think things have changed today and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction  and I think in light of this conversation a very different conversation about President Trump and a very different conversation about allegations against him then is currently -- then what has been had to date and what is currently being had.

For this mild comment, she was attacked.

A working media would ask why the paper of no-record distorted the senator's comments.  That would be a segment worthy of NPR: How a US senator takes harassment and rape seriously and NYT pull quotes for sensationalism.

Here's how the paper opened their report:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who holds Hillary Clinton's former seat, said on Thursday that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after his inappropriate relationship with an intern came to light nearly 20 years ago.
Asked directly if she believed Mr. Clinton should have stepped down at the time, Ms. Gillibrand took a long pause and said, "Yes, I think that is the appropriate response."

Look at how they distorted the exchange.  (And use the audio on the story page because they cut up the raw audio for the podcast that they eventually broadcast.)

It's something the paper does regularly.  It was this site, not THE NEW YORK TIMES, that told you Barack Obama would leave US troops in Iraq if elected president.  We told you that in November of 2007 and we did so using the transcript of the interview NYT did with Barack -- as opposed to the fluff story they published from that interview.

We can already hear Pig Boi Bob Somerby ripping apart the interview Steve Inskeep did.

Not because of what we've just noted but because Steve refers to Monica Lewinsky as an "intern."  Yes, Somerby's still having a fit over Monica being described as an intern -- because she was one when the affair began.  Monica Lewinsky was an intern when she began having sex with Bill Clinton.

It does matter and we'll come back to that issue.

But let's be very clear that the paper was pimping Bill Clinton and that the senator said "allegations" not "allegation."

And Lewinsky isn't an "allegation."

It's known.  As soon as it was news, it was known.

Oh, yes, Bill lied and said he did not have sexual relations with that woman -- but Monica kept her semen stained dress.

Allegations: "multiple women"  came forward (as the podast host notes).  Paula Jones is only one -- but Bill settled with her.

The "power relationship" of Bill and Monica is explored in the podcast with the host and the reporter but not with the senator.  The reporter states she (the reporter) wanted to explore that by the question regarding Clinton.

"I can't tell you whether she came to that conclusion in the course of our conversation," Jennifer Steinhauer says in the podcast.

What homework does NPR do for their programs?

None at all as evidenced by last week's segment.

They booked Philippe Reines?



One of his chief claims?

The lifelong bachelor is perhaps most infamous for, at the age of 39, being Chelsea Clinton's spokesperson.

Second most infamous for?

That's actually why he shouldn't have been brought on NPR to begin with.

There was no reason to bring anyone like him on.  But there was every reason not to bring Philippe himself on.

The late journalist Michael Hastings had a very public e-mail exchange with Philippe in which Hastings wrote at one point, "I now understand what women say about you, too!  Any new complaints against you lately?"

Any new complaints against you lately?

Referencing all the harassment complaints that have followed Philippe for years now.

Why would NPR bring on a man under a cloud of suspicion for harassment on to discuss the harassment of women?

Because in this society, even if you are a man accused of harassment, you're still 'qualified' to speak to the media.

Juanita Broaddrick (who has maintained publicly for decades that Bill Clinton raped her) was brought up in the NPR segment and Philippe slimed her in just the way you'd expect a pompous, fuss-budget New Yorker named "Phillipe" to do.

That keeps happening.

Even though, as many are noting, Juanita's statements are perfectly understandable and reflective of a rape survivor.

It's a point Stank Ass Pig Boi Bob Somerby can't grasp.

Apparently, reality receded for him even more than his hair.

So he runs to his cock-knocking buddy Gene Lyons so they can trash and echo the trash of Juanita Broaddrick.

Bob quotes Gene Limp Lyons insisting that "to accuse a man of a vile crime like rape requires serious evidence."

The real crime, for Lyons, isn't rape, but accusing a man of rape.

And, in his horror, he also misunderstands the law -- there's no "serious evidence" required to accuse anyone of anything.

Gene and his little buddy Bob circle one another on all fours, sniffing each other's ass, convinced that they are the only voices that matter.

It doesn't matter that they show no sympathy for the victims of rape or harassment and tend to refer to any charges of either or both as "panty sniffing."

And when that's all it is, it must be easy for Lyons to justify sliming Juanita Broaddrick -- even going so far as to float that she might be lying to cover up some crimes she committed.

Hey, Genie, where's the "serious evidence" for that musing on your part?

There is none.

Men have long accused women of various crimes.

The problem for the Bobs, and the Genes, and the Philippes is that women are not being ostracized by society any longer.  In other words, the Somersby Scarlet A isn't sticking.

We see that with a certain politician.

Senator Al Franken tried to lay low and hope that his scandal would go away and people would return from the holiday with other things to talk about.

Instead, two more women came forward -- that's four now -- to complain about harassment.

KSTP reports, "In a poll conducted Monday night after allegations from a second woman were made public, only 22 percent of 600 Minnesotans surveyed said he should remain in office. Another 33 percent say he should resign, while 36 percent say he should wait for results of a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent."

Speaking with Diane Rehm, former US Senator Barbara Boxer declared of Al's actions, "I'm sure in his mind, he felt this was a joke.  This is the furthest thing from a joke.  This is improper.  This is harassment.  It is forcing yourself on someone.  I-I'm at a loss."

So were others.

And those needing to defend Al Franken found that lying was the easiest way.

Which is where the likes of the hideous Suze Foss come in:

  1. Nov 21
    Replying to
    When you and your paid performers are in jail, we'll ALL be safer! Look at whose trampanzee's photo was found and now making the rounds!
  2. Nov 21
    We'll, well...what have we here???? Al Franken's ACCUSER!!!

The picture's a fake.  It's supposed to be Leeann Tweedem but it's her face pasted on another woman's body.

Suze Foss knows it's a fake but has refused to delete it or apologize.

When you have no defense, you just lie.

And that's where it stands for Al Franken's supporters today -- they have to lie to 'defend' Al.

Laraine Newman rushed forward to defend Al, for example, but 'forgot' to tell the press that she used to grab his ass (like a basketball, she insisted of it) and he used to grab her ass.  If that detail had been revealed, Laraine's defense would have looked as laughable to the world as it did to those of us who know her.

But maybe the press wouldn't have said a word even if they had known?

After all, they worked overtime to mis-report on an open letter.

For example, Daniel Kreps (ROLLING STONE), "Franken's new statement comes after the senator's former Saturday Night Live female cast mates penned a letter defending him as 'a devoted and dedicated family man, a wonderful comedic performer and an honorable public servant'."

Not true.

The "female cast mates" were Laraine Newman and Jane Curtin.

But the press struggled with that reality and repeatedly misled on it implying that over 30 SNL female cast members had signed it.  Only two did.

And Lorne Michaels rounded up the signers.  He asked everyone to sign.  And all but two SNL actresses refused.

(At THE WASHINGTON POST, Molly Roberts rightly nailed the letter and all that was wrong with it.)

Al issued another apology on Thursday.

Amber Phillips (WASHINGTON POST) explained:

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has waded into the murky waters of trying to apologize for inappropriately touching women — while asserting that he didn't intentionally do anything wrong. And yet Franken hasn't denied any of the accusations against him, leaving the door open to the possibility that he is a serial groper.
[. . .]
If you're confused by what he's trying to say here, you're not the only one. Franken's attempt at clarifying what happened only raises more questions, the central ones being: Did he grab these women's buttocks or not? If he did, how, exactly, was it unintentional? Were the women mistaken?

Keisha Hatchett (TV GUIDE) noted that "his latest apology acknowledges that his actions have repeatedly been perceived as 'inappropriate' by multiple women." TMZ offers, "Senator Al Franken is clearly trying to save his job, but his answer to the various women who have accused him of sexual assault/harassment is sketchy ... he says he just likes to hug a lot."

A hugger.

So many rushed to dismiss his actions.

The hideous Joy Reid (MSNBC) did a show where she justified his actions -- Al targeted women, not children!

Yes, Joy Reid really is that pathetic.

Norman Ornstein (Al's friend of many years, though no one ever feels obligated to disclose that) fretted that punishing Al created the question of "what are you suggest for the really horrible acts of people like [Roy] Moore or [Donald] Trump"?

Uh, all can -- and should -- be punished if they harass.

And harassment?

It's a "really horrible act" even if someone like Norman -- some man -- tries to downplay it.

Benjamin Hart (NEW YORK MAGAZINE) notes Al declared Sunday that he was "embarrassed and ashamed" and that he can't say whether or not more women will be coming forward but he's going to fight to hold onto his Senate seat.

Four women have now accused him.  One had photographic proof.  That was Leeann Tweedem.  He's apologized to her.

Let's note that even with photographic proof, women like Lariane Newman and Jane Curtin rushed to defend Al.

Gene Lyons is horribly insulted that any man would ever be accused of rape -- and he insists that "serious evidence" is required.  But when serious evidence exists -- like the photo of Al groping Tweeden -- it doesn't make a difference.

People like Norman Ornstein will still rush forward to defend and people like Suze Foss will still rush forward to lie.

Notice also that Gloria Steinem has been silent.  Just like she was silent back in the 90s about a boss having an affair with an intern -- and the abuse of power involved in that.

Not everyone has been silent.

Naomi Wolf?  We checked and were glad to see that she didn't choose silence.

What a raw display of patriarchy: sex assault by your own rep. 'Two additional women accuse Franken of groping'

What a raw display of patriarchy: sex assault by your own rep. 'Two additional women accuse Franken of groping'

'I need to be much more careful and sensitive in these situations' and not seize your testicles.

Those are just a few of Naomi's Tweets.

But Gloria can't say a damn word.

That's only surprising if you haven't already read last week's "TV: Men aren't the only ones harming women."

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }