August 7, 2016

"Journalists Keep Applauding Hillary Clinton's Answers."



A montage posted by National Review.

49 comments:

traditionalguy said...

They are pleasantyly surprised that she remembers the key lies so well. Her circuits are all connecting for that moment. Whooh.

RigelDog said...

I'm thinking that the style of that jacket is more like what she should be wearing instead of the military stuff, although I'm itching to adjust the lapels. Also, the color looks good on her and she has been blessed with great hair. That's what I'm thinking.

rhhardin said...

It's not a scandal. News isn't what it bills itself as being. It's a business, not an information source.

There are two contributing reasons.

1. Men abstract from details, women complicate with details. The former works better in large systems like national government, the latter better in small systems like neighborhoods.

The latter also produces an interest in soap opera.

2. There's no market for hard news. You can't pay the daily bills if you produce hard news. You can however pay the daily bills with soap opera, which means women, so that's what they do.

The only news business that can succeed supplies soap opera.

Conclusion: soap opera reporters are attracted to the news business, hard news reporters are not.

60% of women can deal with hard news, but they won't tune in any more than the men do. It's the 40% of women who produce the news biz dynamic, and it will never change.

The best you can do is to discredit it.

In the meantime, the only stories with legs are soap opera; every other story disappears.

Laslo Spatula said...

On the still-frame for this she looks hungover.

Because Hillary drinks heavily.

When sober she is white knuckle.

Could be worse.

I am Laslo.

AReasonableMan said...

If it were only woman who are attracted to the soap opera aspect of news it would be very difficult to explain sports news. At least 90% of all the useful information about sports is contained in the box scores, yet we have 24/7 coverage of sports, almost all of it devoted to soap operas - will he stay or will he go?

Expat(ish) said...

@arm: perfectly put. Never occurred to me that way.

-XC

rhhardin said...

I don't follow any sports so don't know. I'd imagine they're after women. You can't hold viewers with box scores. They're too fast.

The guys who stay tuned for what X will do this year will stay tuned through soap opera too, and they'll pick up women, so I'd guess that's the strategy.

Expat(ish) said...

@arm: perfectly put. Never occurred to me that way.

-XC

M Jordan said...

Rush Limbaugh said the other day that, even though we've broken the media monolith with talk radio, Fox News, and Drudge, the average person glances at the MSM news and forms their opinions. He said we really haven't changed much.

He's right. The MSM continues on its merry way, unhindered by the need to attempt to be objective. It isn't their applauding that offend me as much as the underlying biases that alter every presentation. My son and I joke that the NBC Olympics announcers are happiest when the USA gets a silver so they can demonstrate their studied lack of jingoism while still pumping the nationalistic pedal a bit.

rhhardin said...

Remember they're after eyeballs, because their business isn't news but eyeballs which they sell to advertisers.

Paco Wové said...

"If it were only woman who are attracted to the soap opera aspect of news it would be very difficult to explain sports news."

Men are attracted to the soap opera aspect of sports, then.

Or maybe not: ESPN Is Starting To Have Real Ratings Problems

rhhardin said...

Look at the gender split in voting patterns. That's the acceptable statement of sex difference.

I'd say that most of the male lefty vote is influenced by the only stories they hear, namely what has legs in the MSM news. So it's vastly overinflated by the soap opera effect that they're not even interested in.

Hence the importance of discrediting the news biz as a news biz.

Fernandinande said...

Laslo Spatula said...
When sober she is white knuckle.


Hitting that sweet spot between nerve wracking sobriety and lying unconscious in a puddle of puke isn't as easy as it sounds.

tim in vermont said...

I'm sure they applaud all of Trump's answers too.

coupe said...

She always sounds like Santa Claus with a big bag of solutions for our greed.

Here's the deal, we are currently pulling in $3.4 Trillion in tax revenue per year, but Congress and the President are spending $3.9 Trillion per year. That means we are spending over $500 Billion for Santa Claus greed.

$500 Billion here, $500 Billion there, and poof! We are looking at $19.4 Trillion in Santa Claus debt.

So the question is, where is Clinton going to budget for her Santa Claus programs?

47% of the debt is owned by foreign countries. Only 21% of the debt is owned by the Federal Reserve. Which means foreign bankers, not US bankers will likely be the source of any Clinton Santa Claus programs.

Giving the country away, one foreign banker at a time. Merry Christmas!

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...

In early summer, CNN/Money went after Trump saying that he wanted to renegotiate debt terms, and they had a chart that included the 22% of all investors into their USA owned total. Thus giving a fantastic figure of 65% of the debt owned by Americans.

This is to say foreigners don't invest in mutual funds and pension funds?

Their point being that Trump was an idiot because he'd have to renegotiate loans with Americans. Who's being the idiot here?

In fact, per the last data available, 47% of our debt is owned by foreign countries, with China and Japan owning 20%.

Obama, thus Clinton's, proposal is to give the Chinese more incentive to invest, by offering them a trade deal to their benefit.

There's no way you can shift the figures to come up with 65% of the debt being owned by Americans. This is a media scandal.

David Begley said...

Sports writers have a saying, No cheering in the press box.

Those clowns know nothing.

AprilApple said...

The press and the democrat party are ONE.

That's why our unprofessional joke of a press is officially - The Hack Press.

AprilApple said...

I cannot listen to her. She is a liar and her voice is from the pit of hell.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The JournoList Conspiracy.

buwaya puti said...

They arent after eyeballs, at least as a matter of earning a living through selling ads. Few of these are viable in that business model. Nearly all require subsidies, sometimes through advertising that is understood to be simply a payoff.
The subsidies are for maintaining a propaganda organ for political purposes.
They are components of a political machine.
As for "soap opera women", well, that is who they are meant to influence.

rhhardin said...

I think the politicians free-ride on the soap opera needs of the news biz, in a sort of business arrangement. We'll give you narratives and you run them. Win/win.

The MSM has the same deal with terrorists. You blow stuff up and we'll run it.

The irony is that the actual evil corporation is the MSM, not the evil corporations it calls out.

rhhardin said...

The importance of the news biz to politicians is that they decide what stories have legs and what stories don't.

The ones that have legs last for weeks.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Earnest Prole said...

This just in: media bias exists.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Stop whining, Professor.

mockturtle said...

@M Jordan t isn't their applauding that offend me as much as the underlying biases that alter every presentation.

I'd say it's gone well beyond 'underlying biases' into full-fledged partisanship. As someone posted yesterday, the MSM consider it their duty to destroy Trump.

mockturtle said...

And, with few exceptions, this includes Fox News.

cubanbob said...

Paco Wové said...
"If it were only woman who are attracted to the soap opera aspect of news it would be very difficult to explain sports news."

Men are attracted to the soap opera aspect of sports, then.

Or maybe not: ESPN Is Starting To Have Real Ratings Problems

8/7/16, 8:37 AM"

I'm not a sports guy but ESPN is starting to learn that people who want to watch sports don't want to watch PC masquerading as sport. Of course if Republican weren't so stupid and also corrupt they could push legislation unbundling cable and advocating antitrust action against the big cable companies. Pity Trumpy the "populist" hasn't figured this out.

cubanbob said...

coupe said...
She always sounds like Santa Claus with a big bag of solutions for our greed.

Here's the deal, we are currently pulling in $3.4 Trillion in tax revenue per year, but Congress and the President are spending $3.9 Trillion per year. That means we are spending over $500 Billion for Santa Claus greed.

$500 Billion here, $500 Billion there, and poof! We are looking at $19.4 Trillion in Santa Claus debt.

So the question is, where is Clinton going to budget for her Santa Claus programs?

47% of the debt is owned by foreign countries. Only 21% of the debt is owned by the Federal Reserve. Which means foreign bankers, not US bankers will likely be the source of any Clinton Santa Claus programs.

Giving the country away, one foreign banker at a time. Merry Christmas!

8/7/16, 8:53 AM"

Neat trick for the Democrats if they can pull it off. However for that to work either the rest of the world will have to be comparatively worse than the US and stay trending that way in which case we become the "safety net" or we becoming a lot better than the rest of the world in which case we become a good investment. Trump in his incoherent way is advocating a higher growth policy which will make the US a better investment. Hillary's proposal relies on buying votes with other people's (foreigners) money and hoping they are relatively desperate. She isn't entirely wrong about that (fear and or caution on the part of foreigners).

If spending were to be adjusted for inflation and population growth to what we had under Bill Clinton we would be running surpluses and paying down the debt. Leave it Hillary to crap on her husband's legacy.

Phil 3:14 said...

Well, to be fair it was only the black and Hispanic journalists applauding.

mockturtle said...

cubanbob, I agree about ESPN. I quit watching when they fired Curt Schilling. They had long ago ceased to be the best sports coverage network and their PC crap just clinched it for me.

rcocean said...

People don't understand ESPN's business model. They get most of their $$ from the Cable company fees. Only a minor part of their revenue comes from advertising. Most of the eyeballs show up when there's a sporting event on, their talk shows - PC or not - draw almost nobody and represents a tiny portion of their income.

So they an put vulgar, PC driven "talkers" on and it doesn't matter, $$$ wise.

rcocean said...

News has always been driven by soap opera - cf: "The yellow press". People like reading about crime, gossip, scandal, diets, sports, Show biz, etc.

In England in the 1950s, the tabloids outdrew the serious papers (Telegraph, Guardian, Times) by 4 or 5 to 1.

Jonathan Graehl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Graehl said...

Emphasis on Hillary's almost certainly precarious mental+physical health begins - naturally this guy is practicing innuendo, but the images are real.

Clyde said...

That's because they're not unbiased umpires, they're sitting in Team Donkey's dugout.

eric said...

This is another excellent illustration of why, if you're on the fence in this election, you should vote for Donald Trump.

Unless you want an adoring, clapping, laughing press to cheer on our President.

I prefer a press that covers the president in an unbiased way. Barring that, I'll go with a hostile press. But the last situation I want is an adoring press.

narciso said...

nothing to see here,


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cotton-clinton-discussed-executed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807

Darrell said...

Jonathan Graehl--

Her "handler" is also a Gree-Gree Doctor from New Orleans. They use Voodoo to reanimate her dead corpse. “I wants yo to ask yo’selfs, what IS de meaning o’life? What do yo’ life mean? Dat is de riddle. And I is comin’ back, agin and agin, and I gwon ask ever’ one o’ yo to answer me when de time come!”

Darrell said...

When Hillary first discussed the Iranian nuclear physicist, his cover was holding. Her stubborn refusal to follow the law lead to his arrest and execution.

Joe said...

"I'm going to work my heart out to help every single person have a better job with a rising income..."

God, I'm sick of politicians of all stripes saying this. It's even more annoying when presidential candidates spew this nonsense. I'm not limiting this to Hillary, but blasting every politician who makes this promise. It's a lie. They all know it's a lie, but say it anyway.

damikesc said...

If it were only woman who are attracted to the soap opera aspect of news it would be very difficult to explain sports news.

Sport "news" --- hell, let's go ahead and call it ESPN --- is targeted at women, who are miniscule part of their audience --- far more than men. They lost 4 million subscribers last year for a good reason.

He's right. The MSM continues on its merry way, unhindered by the need to attempt to be objective. It isn't their applauding that offend me as much as the underlying biases that alter every presentation. My son and I joke that the NBC Olympics announcers are happiest when the USA gets a silver so they can demonstrate their studied lack of jingoism while still pumping the nationalistic pedal a bit.

No joke. My wife watches them and I constantly note "Man, the announcers seem thrilled when the Brazilians did well in men's gymnastics, but seemed to not give two shits when the men's team did well." I EXPECT the US coverage of the event to be pro-US team. Other countries broadcasts can support their team. NBC isn't the GLOBAL coverage of the Games --- the corrupt shit that the Games are.

William Chadwick said...

As Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") often says: It helps to think of them as DNC operatives with press passes.

mikee said...

Stalin had the same reaction when he gave speeches, sometimes a full hour of applause without cessation. Because his NKVD were watching to see who stopped applauding first. Those were sent to the gulag, or killed outright. Enthusiasm for the Great Leader starts out voluntary, and always ends up mandatory.

And the first ones to stop applauding Hillary - what happens to them?

mockturtle said...

And the first ones to stop applauding Hillary - what happens to them?

Maybe they commit 'suicide'.

richardsson said...

By the way, in the clip where HRC says she will raise taxes on the middle class, Warren Buffett sat behind her applauding. Why? Does he really want his secretary to pay more taxes? Or is he going senile? Maybe both of them are.