Study: After Relentlessly Mean-Girling Trump, Corrupt Corporate Media Are Trusty Biden Cheerleaders

Corrupt corporate broadcast media organizations have spent the majority of the Biden administration lauding the president and his team with positive coverage after having spent the previous administration attacking former President Donald Trump, according to a new study from the Media Research Center (MRC).

While broadcast news outlets such as ABC, CBS, and NBC spent more than 1,900 minutes of their coverage of Trump’s first few months in office bashing him with 89 percent negative commentary, the same broadcasters offered Biden and his team at least 726 minutes of mostly generous airtime.

When it came to highlighting Biden’s COVID-19 agenda, corporate media outlets spent more than three-fourths of their coverage on praising the White House’s vaccine rollout and approach to mitigating viral spread. More than 86 percent of press time given to Biden’s partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill skewed in favor of his leftist agenda as well. As MRC notes, only 29 seconds of the 120 minutes devoted to the legislation “bothered to mention the exploding federal deficit or national debt.”

Even though networks managed to criticize Biden’s response to the U.S.-Mexico border crisis, spending at least 82 percent of their 115 minutes of coverage on negative aspects of the president’s response, even that negativity wasn’t as great as the 93 percent of critical coverage offered to Trump over his immigration policies during his first three months in office — when there wasn’t a huge surge in unaccompanied minors.

While some networks have shown willingness to criticize Biden, MRC noted that much of the pushback he has received from corporate media outlets came after they were dissatisfied with his lack of progressive decisions, such as refusing to forgive more student loans and not acting soon enough on gun control.

“In fact, one out of six criticisms that viewers heard about President Biden (18 out of 108) involved reporters actually hitting him from the far-left,” the study stated.

The study concluded by noting that 90 percent of the airtime spent on the Biden administration focused on policy, even though corporate media spent just 45 percent of Trump coverage on policy. The study also demonstrated that networks were “delighted in finding controversy in the non-politician President [Trump’s] colorful comments,” but ignored Biden’s blunders such as saying Republicans who reopened their states used “Neanderthal thinking.”

“His encouragement of Major League Baseball to economically punish Georgia by relocating the All-Star game — a first for a President — merited only 45 seconds across all three newscasts. And his wild claim that Georgia’s new voting law was like ‘Jim Crow’ passed by with just 39 seconds of coverage, none of it in any way critical,” the study stated.


Vaccines Will Never Be Enough, So Media Is Conditioning Americans To Live In A Digital Fantasy Land Forever

As of April 13, more than 189 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been administered, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The seven-day moving average for cases sits at 49,409, the lowest since last October. There were 328 COVID-attributed deaths on April 11, the lowest number since early September.

This data, however, does not matter much to fear-mongering corporate media, who have tried to condition the American people into COVID alarmists camping out in their basements watching Trevor Noah until the end of time.

While those aged 18 to 24 have an estimated 0.006 percent probability of dying from the disease, a new YouGov poll shows this subgroup is the most “nervous about the prospect of social interaction.” Even though individuals 55 and older were polled as the least nervous about returning to normal, this subgroup is the most at risk of contracting the disease and dying.

Even though America is being vaccinated in record numbers and death rates are falling, whole swaths of the country remain in lockdown or full-mask modes.

Stay Inside Forever, They Say

The bars remain closed in Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California, many businesses remain shuttered in New Mexico, and Wisconsin still advises residents to remain home, according to the most recent restrictions tracking. If you are a three-year-old child in Illinois, you are mandated to mask. Six-year-olds and up in Kentucky must wear a face covering in public, according to the state’s health department. Take a walk outside in Massachusetts as a five-year-old, and it’s time to mask up as well. Forget science.

Even with a case-fatality rate of 1.8 percent and a 99.8 percent survival rate for those younger than 70 in the United States, we allow ourselves to be led by talking heads who make a profit by pedaling fear porn. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man who has contradicted himself more ridiculously than he can throw a baseball pitch, appeared on MSNBC on Sunday to say Americans still cannot eat indoors after being vaccinated.

Host Mehdi Hasan asked Fauci if it is okay for people to move indoors. Fauci replied, “No, it’s still not. For the simple reason that level of infection, the dynamics of infection in the community are still really disturbingly high.”

“If you are vaccinated, please remember that you still have to be careful and not get involved in crowded situations, particularly indoors where people are not wearing masks,” Fauci added.

Conservatives lost it after this — and for good reason.

At Mar-a-Lago beach club in Palm Beach, Fla. this past weekend, former President Donald Trump joked Fauci would eventually tell Americans to wear “five” masks. “Have you ever seen anybody that is so full of crap?” Trump said.

The message is clear. Even if you receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines, which have efficacy rates as high as 95 percent, you still need to supposedly social distance and live your life in a shell — or so the media says. An article in CNN a year ago said social distancing would continue until 2022 “if no vaccine is quickly found,” but it appears that the left is interested in Americans social distancing even after they receive a COVID vaccine, in addition to fostering endless societal alienation.

In an article in NBC News, Christina Wyman, an adjunct professor at Michigan State University, romanticized how the pandemic has “benefited” Americans, such as herself, by lessening the anxiety of hugging and kissing. “The pandemic has unshackled me from the casual touches that define interpersonal communication for most people,” Wyman wrote.

“While I long for the day that the pandemic will disappear like a thief into the night, I fervently hope that this deeper respect for physical boundaries stays with us,” Wyman wrote.

This is the kind of nonsense that plagues America. People need to be together again, not shuttered away in Zoom cubicles, never touching anyone again. Any romanticizing of the “new normal” in America needs to be rejected. And it will be, as people more and more go out in public and realize the physical world supersedes the artificial one.

Social Distancing Not Required for Social Justice

Back in January, Matthew Conlen, Denise Lu, and Why Vaccines Alone Will Not End the Pandemic,” citing a model and supposedly predictive study by Columbia University.

“The arrival of highly effective vaccines in December lifted hopes that they would eventually slow or stop the spread of the disease through the rest of the population,” the article states. “But vaccines alone are not enough, the model shows.” If vaccines are not enough for Americans to resume their lives, what is? What is acceptable to cease the shifting goalposts?

This question has been answered already. The left wants to shutter our lives until something appealing to the “social justice” cause pops up, like another Black Lives Matter protest turned rogue. The New York Times, which has blared COVID alarmism throughout the pandemic, published a piece this past summer titled “Are Protests Dangerous? What Experts Say May Depend on Who’s Protesting What.”

“Why protests aren’t as dangerous for spreading coronavirus as you might think,” ran a headline in The Guardian. “Black Lives Matter protests haven’t led to COVID-19 spikes. It may be due to people staying home,” MSNBC said, referencing a National Bureau of Economic Research that only referenced data three weeks after the events ensued.

But when Floridians go out in public, or when people flock to the Sunshine State for spring break (which admittedly will get rowdy), it is a COVID-19 super spreader. When Trump has a rally, it’s a super spreader. When Republicans riot for a day at the Capitol, it is a super spreader.

Beyond the reality that everything is only a super spreader to a party intent on politicizing a disease, the left’s intention of keeping Americans in lockdown mode forever and ever is destructive beyond measure. In addition, it is insulting our intelligence while eroding our constitutional rights and societal freedoms.


Wokeness Wrecked ‘The Bachelor’ Only For Matt James To Get Back Together With A ‘Racist’

The latest rumor circulating the Bachelorsphere is that the last “Bachelor” Matt James is back together with his recently-wrapped season’s front-runner Rachael Kirkconnell, whom he dumped in disgrace after internet trolls dug up purportedly racist photos of the sorority girl at an antebellum-themed college party.

“It’s been a while but here’s some news: Matt and Rachael? Yeah, they’re not over. They’re currently in New York together. FYI,” tweeted Reality Steve on Tuesday night after somebody snapped a photo of what is allegedly the pair walking together in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The buzz about Matt and Rachael is truly fascinating as it comes only three weeks after the cringiest episode of “After the Final Rose” in “Bachelor” history, in which romance took a backseat while race issues were front and center. Matt and interim host Emmanuel Acho — who was tapped to host the finale after Chris Harrison got canceled for initially asking for grace for Rachael before folding to the woke bullies — put Rachael through an on-air struggle session. The conversation was egregious, and it ended in Matt telling Rachael that their relationship wouldn’t work because of her “not fully understanding” his “blackness” and Matt refusing to initiate a “final embrace.”

The Matt-Rachael rumor also comes on the heels of news that current casting for another franchise spin-off, “Bachelor in Paradise,” is not going so well, as Bachelor Nation stars are hesitant to jump on board the turbulent train of Hollywood wokeness.

“Casting has begun and some members of Bachelor Nation are apprehensive to sign up,” one “Bachelor” insider told E! News. “Some are wondering what direction the season will take and are curious if it will strictly focus on contestants falling in love.” If the next run of “Bachelor in Paradise” looks anything like the last “Bachelor” season, fans can expect the focus to stray from contestants falling in love to land instead on progressive politics.

“Many people are declining due to the current state of Bachelor Nation. A lot of people are removing themselves from the franchise,” reportedly added another source.

At this point in the franchise’s progressive purge, it seems the options are for the stars to remove themselves or be removed — just ask Chris Harrison, who hosted the show for nearly two decades and then got the boot for saying essentially the same thing as his replacement host before resorting to groveling pathetically to keep his post. It’s hard to blame potential would-be contestants for walking away. Who wants to be the next victim of a rose-strewn struggle session?

Wokeness ruined “The Bachelor.” It watered the franchise down to the worst version of itself and became repulsive even to woke millennials desperate for Instagram fame. Anything the show had going for it in the way of mindless entertainment has now been replaced by insufferable leftist dogma and cancel culture landmines that nobody wants to navigate for fear of blowing up their life and reputation on national television and being remembered as nothing more than the next fill-in-the-blank controversy.

And for what? If the rumors about Matt and Rachael turn out to be true, which many fans of the show have said would not be surprising, the main takeaway will be that the girl at the center of this year’s biggest pop culture racism scandal will ride off into the sunset with her black boyfriend.

You didn’t solve racism, Hollywood. You effectively matchmade the first black bachelor and his prejudiced lover. Was destroying the franchise worth it?


California Democrat Changes Bill That Would Have Prohibited Christians, Conservatives From Serving In Law Enforcement

California State Assemblymember Ash Kalra eliminated language in his proposed bill AB 655, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act, that could have banned conservatives and people of faith from law enforcement. The Democratic lawmaker made the change on Friday.

As reported by The Federalist, the San Jose assemblyman previously sought to define hate speech “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

By this standard, organizations such as the California Family Council, Pacific Justice Institute, and Sacramento Peace Officers Association said the measure would classify a whole swath of Americans as “hateful” for dissenting from the left on views such as abortion, marriage, or gender ideology.

“Under the guise of addressing police gangs, the bill at the same time launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views,” said Pacific Justice Institute Senior Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds a few weeks ago. “Indeed, this is one of the most undisguised and appalling attempts we have ever seen, in more than 20 years of monitoring such legislation, on the freedom of association and freedom to choose minority viewpoints.”

“The definitions of a hate group in particular are so broad that it would encompass all sorts of groups that nobody would say would actually constitute some sort of a problematic hate group,” argued David Levine, a constitutional law professor at the University of California.

The same day The Federalist published an outline of how the measure could effect Christians and conservatives, Kalra doubled-down on the proposed bill in an interview with an NBC News affiliate. “You have a constitutional right to have racist and bigoted views. You don’t have a constitutional right to be a police officer,” Kalra said, clearly insinuating his arbitrary definition of racism ought to determine who can protect and serve communities.

“I think that the end goal is the same, is to try and root out that kind activity and nobody wants to get rid of people who shouldn’t be cops more than agencies and more than good cops,” said Shaun Rundle of The California Peace Officers’ Association. “But there has to be a right way to do it and make sure that the language is clear. And I think that the bill, 655, isn’t quite as clear as it could be.”

Now that Kalra’s legislation has garnered national attention, he appears to be changing course. Speaking to KPIX CBS News on Friday, the San Jose assemblymember said, “We have put in amendments to remove the specificity regarding denial of constitutional rights. Because, you do have the First Amendment right to be part of groups that may differ in opinion.”

Nevertheless, Kalra still has not adequately addressed the persisting ambiguity of the claim that “participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate, as specified, and as those terms are defined” would “disqualify a person from employment.” The ultimate question remains. What will be defined as a hate group in the far-left stronghold?


A Sleepy Joe Biden Hosts The Most Awkward Press Conference Of All Time

I hope you enjoyed your popcorn, folks. 78-year-old President Joe Biden temporarily left the basement, and it sure wasn’t pretty.

On Thursday, Biden delivered the first press conference in all of the 64 days of his presidency. In one hour, the president spoke to a 25 reporter-capped press pool about the ongoing migrant crisis at the southern border, gun control in the wake of the Atlanta and Colorado shootings, relations with China, the filibuster, running for president in 2024, and other topics.

The president side-stepped on nearly every topic, more focused on concluding the presser as soon as possible than providing substantive answers. It was predominantly a Democratic lovefest, with PBS White House reporter Yamiche Alcindor asking Biden at one point if he is too “moral” and “decent.”

The 64-day mark makes Biden the first president since 1932 to not hold a solo press conference in the first 43 days of his presidency. Donald Trump held a conference 27 days in, and Barack Obama did so only 20 days in.

Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared particularly unaware of how historically significant this is. Psaki claimed in January that the administration was “bringing truth and transparency back to the briefing room” and “rebuilding trust with the American people.” Breaking a 100-year precedent was a funny way of doing so.

The president did not call on any conservative reporters. Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy—who frequently questions Psaki—was not provided the opportunity to probe. Reporters from Associated Press, PBS, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, and Univision all got their turn to pander.

On March 19, Biden fell three consecutive times walking up the stairs of Air Force One. It was sad. Truly, one can only feel bad for the elderly and frail man we now have to call the president. Nonetheless, this notable event—along with a whole other swath of topics—such as the bombshell Politico story published on Hunter Biden, or the failed reopening of schools and the country, were not even broached. Biden was not challenged, but caressed and fondled by the morally bankrupt media.

Biden’s fall makes perfect sense in light of his gobbledygook performance in the presser. At one point, the president refused to answer a question from CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins on whether he will eliminate the filibuster.

“I answered your question,” Biden mumbled, after verifiably not doing so, slumping off into an all-too-familiar gaffe. Prior to Collins standing up to ask one of her two questions, Biden said, “that counts as a question,” laughing awkwardly and thus demonstrating he was taking all steps possible to avoid being held accountable.

The president chuckled at uncomfortable questions. “C’mon!” he said to Cecelia Vega of ABC News, smirking when pushed on the surge in minors being held near the border. Biden likewise chuckled when NBC’s Kristen Welker asked about both Biden’s repealing of Trump policies to deter illegal immigration and North Korea’s launching of two ballistic missiles into the sea of Japan.

His voice rose and fell at the drop of a hat. He started talking about “computer chips” when CBS’s Nancy Cordes asked him about his fractured relationship with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—but soon after moved on to rambling about God knows what.

“I have never been particularly poor at calculating how to get things done in the United States Senate. So the best way to get something done, if you, if you hold near and dear to you that you like to be able to, anyway,” Biden sputtered to Yamiche Alcindor on the filibuster.

Biden operated in an awkward hostility all throughout. He seemed shocked that the press—his leftist comrades—would have the nerve to ask him any questions at all, even if they were by no means challenging. They were soft-balls. But for a president in apparent cognitive decline, they did not appear so. The pauses between his answers were only worsened by the fact that the questions were so very straightforward and easy for him if he could only remember what the questions were.

By the end of the cringe-worthy hour, it was time for Biden to pack up ship and be shuttered away in the basement again by his top aides. Psaki eyed him in the corner, taking notes on a pad. Biden checked his $9,650 Rolex near the end to ensure things were wrapping up nicely.


5 Other Totally Bogus Stories Designed To Hurt Trump The Media Got Away With

The correction by The Washington Post concerning false information about a phone call between former President Donald Trump and the Georgia secretary of state’s chief investigator is no anomaly. The neglect of truth and preference for anonymous sources is deeply ingrained in the corrupt left-wing media’s strategy.

You will notice that establishment media errors, omissions, mistakes, and outright lies always slant one way — against me and against Republicans. Meanwhile, stories that hurt Democrats or undermine their narratives are buried, ignored, or delayed until they can do the least harm,” Trump said in a statement Monday in response to widespread corrections from The New York Times, CNN, ABC, and so on. 

The Washington Post correction struck right to the core of why journalism is dying and has been for years, and it served as a reminder of the media’s lack of ethics and standards throughout the Russian collusion scramble. Here are five major Trump-Russia stories the media botched.

CNN: The WikiLeaks Email

CNN relied on anonymous sourcing to falsely conclude the date President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. received an email to access WikiLeaks documents. The outlet claimed the email was leaked and decrypted information that was not yet released to the public.

Senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju and politics reporter Jeremy Herb dated the email Sept. 4, 2016, which would have been more than a week before WikiLeaks released the documents to the public. In reality, the Trumps obtained the email on Sept. 14, a day after the documents were made public. Raju and Herb relied on two separate anonymous sources.

Hours later, CNN corrected its prior article but did not issue a retraction, nor had CBS. Within an hour of CNN publishing the report, Ken Dilanian of MSNBC claimed he had “independently confirmed” the misguided scoop.

“CNN’s initial reporting of the date on an email sent to members of the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks documents, which was confirmed by two sources to CNN, was incorrect,” CNN said in a statement. “We have updated our story to include the correct date, and present the proper context for the timing of email. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.”

After CNN reported on this alleged controversy, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Daily Caller cross-referenced documents and clarified the proper date.

ABC: Michael Flynn’s Russian Relationship

ABC’s chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross stated in a live “special report” on Dec. 1, 2017, that Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn was set to testify that he was ordered by the president to contact Russians about foreign policy while Trump was still a candidate.

[embedded content]

That same day, ABC issued a “clarification” asserting that the directive by Trump to Flynn was while Trump was in office, fundamentally changing the narrative. The erroneous scoop suggested that Trump did in fact interfere in U.S. foreign policy at the same time that then-President Barack Obama unleashed sanctions on Russia.

The next day, ABC announced its four-week suspension for Ross without pay. ABC then officially retracted the story. According to reports, it took longer than usual to issue a retraction because Ross was unable to get in touch with his confidential source until several hours from the time of the clarification.

“The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online,” ABC said in a statement.

Seven months after the retraction, Ross left ABC. Ross’s story made the stock market tank 350 points at one point, showing the extent to which malfeasant journalists with power can pull the levers in society.

“Congratulations to @ABC News for suspending Brian Ross for his horrendously inaccurate and dishonest report on the Russia, Russia, Russia Witch Hunt. More Networks and ‘papers’ should do the same with their Fake News!” Trump tweeted.

NYT: 17 US Intelligence Agencies ‘Agree’

On June 25, 2017, The New York Times published a report that had been debunked nearly a month prior by The Daily Caller. In the article, the Times reasserted the false claim that 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies all concurred that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election.

This lie had been peddled by left-leaning outlets for about six months prior. See here and here, for instance. Four days after the Times ran its article, a White House memo confirmed that only four agencies had actually “approved” of the sweeping assessment.

The Daily Caller report, published June 1, referenced Hillary Clinton’s statement in an interview that week about Russian interference in the election. “Read the declassified report by the Intelligence Community that came out in early January,” Clinton said. “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement — which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get — they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

The report Clinton referenced, however, which was published on Jan. 7, 2017, was supported by the FBI, the CIA, and the National Security Agency — three agencies, not 17. The Times also entirely neglected the fact that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified on May 8 to debunk the proposed number of agencies.

The Times corrected its article four days later. The Associated Press published a “clarification” on June 30 regarding several stories. Other outlets followed suit, although USA Today has yet to issue anything on this false piece from October 2016. Curiously, USA Today issued an edit on the article on Dec. 16, 2016, nearly two months after its publication. The edit has not been clarified.

CNN: Scaramucci and the Russian Direct Investment Fund

In June 2017, CNN reported that then-President Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was linked to the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The story claimed that Senate investigators were monitoring a sum of $10 million in the fund, with which Scaramucci supposedly had activities.

A day later, CNN officially retracted the story, implying that the article was shoddily sourced. “On June 22, 2017, published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund. That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci,” the outlet said in a statement.

Days later, three CNN staffers resigned over the retraction: Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris. Scaramucci called Washington bureau chief Sam Feist and floated the idea of a lawsuit, according to Politico.

Due to this and other editorial blunders relying on anonymous sourcing, CNN claimed it was imposing “stricter standards.” Buzzfeed News obtained an internal memo sent to all staff by CNNMoney executive editor Rich Barbieri. “No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [Farkas],” Barbieri said, referencing CNN Business’s vice president.

Buzzfeed: Trump’s Direction to Lie

In a vague, poorly-sourced story, Buzzfeed News claimed in January 2019 that Trump attorney Michael Cohen informed investigators employed under special counsel Robert Mueller that Trump “directed” him to lie in regard to contact he made with a Russian official.

Shortly after the publishing of the report, Mueller’s office released a statement fully denying it. It was the first time such a statement had been provided in the more than one and a half years of his investigation.

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” said a spokesman for the special counsel in a statement.

The outlet did not use specific dates to back up its claims nor actual quotations from Cohen’s talks with Trump. Buzzfeed has continued to decline to comment on which documents it used to create the report. Upon the report’s publication, Democrats insisted that Trump most certainly was guilty of obstruction of justice or suborned perjury.

“In the interest of protecting … sources, we aren’t going to speak further on the details of who saw what and when, beyond what’s in the reporting,” a Buzzfeed spokesman told The Daily Caller at the time.

In an interview with CNN, Buzzfeed journalist Anthony Cormier admitted he had not even seen the so-called documents he referred to in the article. “I’ve not seen it personally, but the folks that we’ve talked to, the two officials we’ve spoken to, are fully, 100 percent read in to that aspect of the special counsel’s investigation,” Cormier said.

The other journalist, Jason Leopold, flip-flopped several times on who had seen which documents and when. Buzzfeed News still has not clarified.

“We can’t get into, like, the details there,” Cormier said two days later to CNN’s Brian Stelter.

Shortly after Mueller’s statement, The Washington Post said the Buzzfeed report was “almost entirely incorrect.” The New York Times noted that “several reporters who cover the Justice Department said they interpreted the statement” by Mueller “as a full denial of BuzzFeed’s conclusions.”

“It was remarkable what we saw happening for 24 hours in the media, on the basis of the report that appeared in BuzzFeed,” then-Vice President Mike Pence said to Chris Wallace that Sunday. “It’s one of the reasons why people are so frustrated with many in the national media.”

Buzzfeed has not corrected nor retracted this story. There is no indication that it is factual.


‘Bachelor’ Finale Host Emmanuel Acho Said The Same Thing Chris Harrison Got Canceled For

By now, everyone should be up to speed on what’s been described as the Chris Harrison controversy. The only host in the history of “The Bachelor” franchise talked back to cancel culture when it came for one of this season’s contestants over purportedly racist college photos, and he was defamed as a racist himself and canceled. What’s happening now, however, is interesting.

Harrison’s gotten the boot, and former NFL player Emmanuel Acho is here to host in his place for the finale. Obviously, “The Bachelor” producers decided they needed a black man to host, regardless of whether he had any relationship with the franchise. One question nags, however: Why is it that he is allowed to host but Harrison isn’t? — because as it turns out, Acho’s remarks on the Rachael Kirkconnell racial controversy were basically the same as Harrison’s.

“What is the main thing you wanted to get across?” Rachel Lindsay, the former Bachelorette and “Extra TV” host whose infamous interview with Harrison sparked the whole cancel fiasco, asked Acho in a different interview about his upcoming hosting duties and his relationship with Harrison.

Now pay attention to his answer:

Number one is to reconcile. There is so much tension between the photos that have surfaced around Rachael Kirkconnell that’s like, wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension.

[embedded content]

Hold the phone. You might have missed Acho’s answer because instead of harping on it, erupting the internet over it, and hanging this new host out to dry, as she did with Harrison, Lindsay just breezed right past his answer — an answer that was perfectly fine, by the way. But “wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension,” sounds an awful lot like, “I’m not defending it. … [But] this is again where we all need to have a little grace, a little understanding, a little compassion.”

While it might be hard to remember what exactly Harrison’s fireable sin was because the entire situation has been reduced to the “Chris Harrison racism controversy” (a complete misnomer), it was that sentiment. Harrison’s interview segment was much longer than Acho’s one-liner, but the takeaway was the same on that point. Harrison pumped the brakes on what he called the “judge, jury, and executioner thing,” and suddenly he was a racist sympathizer. So when Acho pumps the brakes over the Kirkconnell photo tension — what does that make him?

The whole Harrison debacle has been ridiculous from the outset, but the rules are now clear. It isn’t the message that matters; it’s the messenger, and it seems identity politics decides which messengers are safe and which must burn.

Many critics will tell you “The Bachelor” has a bad track record of racial diversity. Now, however, the franchise has a new racism problem on its hands: ABC now seems to be making its firing decisions solely based on race, as the lack of uproar over Acho’s comments make clear. At “The Bachelor,” job security is a coin flip: heads, black man stays; tails, white man goes. That’s equity, baby.


Identity Politics Will Be Hosting ‘The Bachelor’ Season Finale

Following cancel culture’s unjust victory over longtime host of “The Bachelor” Chris Harrison for the sin of compassion, the franchise has announced who will take his place to host the final episode of this season, which boasts the series’ first black bachelor. The interim host will be former Eagles linebacker Emmanuel Acho.

Harrison, of course, can’t host right now because shortly before filming the season finale, termed “After the Final Rose,” he made the mistake of talking back to cancel culture. When photos surfaced of one of this season’s contestants at an antebellum era-themed party in college, Harrison asked for “a little grace, a little understanding, a little compassion” for her. That was a bridge too far for progressives intent on carrying out vigilante justice on people whose pasts weren’t quite woke enough. Not only did the contestant face backlash online, but so did Harrison, who then offered a self-flagellating apology for his grace that read like a hostage letter and stepped away from hosting indefinitely. Enter Acho.

Acho isn’t a former contestant, nor is he a close friend of the Bachelor Nation franchise. He has never guest-hosted or made a cameo. Acho’s arena isn’t matchmaking, it’s Lincoln Financial Field; he’s an ex-NFL player, not an ex-bachelor. In other words, he isn’t the logical replacement for Harrison following the iconic host’s fall from grace during the infamous interview with the first black bachelorette Rachel Lindsay. So why is Acho hosting?

Well, Lindsay and her husband recommended Acho, who hosts the podcast “Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man,” as a “fantastic” host for the finale. “[He’s] very outspoken about racial injustice, for social justice, and has pretty much been the person who said, ‘I can have these uncomfortable conversations, and people trust it,’” Lindsay said. “Who better to lead it? [He’s] someone who’s not involved with the franchise, no ties, no bias — I think it’d be great.”

Lindsay’s husband agreed, saying: “I echo those sentiments. I think Emmanuel Acho would be the perfect person to have those uncomfortable conversations with the contestants, with [bachelor Matt James] at the end of the day, and I think it would really be a positive step forward.”

Acho, according to the woman who led the outrage mob against Harrison, is the perfect person to host a nonpolitical reality game show about finding love because he’s what? Loud about race issues?

This isn’t the first time ABC has caved to the loudest voices in the room. “Last summer, I was saying that I was going to step away if there wasn’t a lead of color, if changes weren’t made, and then the Bachelor Diversity Campaign came together, which was amazing,” said Lindsay of her former ultimatum. “The Bachelor” Diversity Campaign was the result of an online petition for “anti-racism in the Bachelor franchise,” which featured demands such as racial quotas within the cast and crew, as well as “equitable screen time,” the addition of a “diversity consultant,” and BIPOC “resources” for viewers.

While this might be shocking to ABC writers and producers, many of us fans of Bachelor Nation watch the show not because we were interested in Harrison or Lindsay’s political leanings but because we want to take a break from work, the pandemic, and politics, and instead be entertained. If we wanted to watch someone “outspoken about racial injustice,” we would attend a Black Lives Matter rally or read a Robin DiAngelo book. The only “uncomfortable conversations” many viewers are interested in watching on Monday nights are cringey first impressions and tearful breakups with mean girls.

One of the things that made Harrison so integral to the show was the fact that he was its first and only host. For nearly two decades, Chris Harrison has been synonymous with the series. “Take a moment. Say your goodbyes,” will never sound the same coming out of someone else’s mouth. Lindsay’s plug for Acho, that he’s “not involved with the franchise, no ties, no bias,” shows how out of touch with viewers she really is.

Acho will be hosting the finale not because he’s the best person for the job, but because of his skin color and his voting record. It’s identity politics at its finest, and it’s not why we’re here.

[embedded content]


ABC News Runs Shamefully Unbalanced Special On OnlyFans Porn Platform

ABC News dedicated ample resources to producing its new special report on OnlyFans. Given the porn platform’s massive popularity, ABC was wise to investigate it. The result of the investigation, however, is a journalistic abomination that endorses “sex work” without any serious pushback, framing OnlyFans as a feminist achievement.

Not only is the report a shameless breach of journalistic neutrality, it’s an unqualified endorsement of DIY pornography—and in the midst of a bad economy, helping OnlyFans capitalize on working-class desperation by enabling and encouraging more and more people to prostitute themselves from the comfort of their own homes. The internet is forever, and snap decisions made to pay rent don’t just fade away.

OnlyFans normalizes and proliferates pornography, making it easy for members of the public to create and sell pornographic pictures and videos of themselves. (All of which I think should be perfectly legal, even as it remains immoral.) Many creators, like the young people profiled in ABC’s report, make enough money on the platform to live very comfortably.

As ABC rightly points out, OnlyFans is not just for porn. Some creators use it for different reasons. But, of course, OnlyFans is a hub for people who want to make money by creating their own pornographic content. It gives all of us the ability to prostitute ourselves at the touch of a button.

ABC clearly frames that as empowerment. The featured experts, which include academics and activists and comedian Nikki Glaser, all largely agree on this point. That’s unfortunate not only because it’s a bad perspective, but because plenty of people on both the left and the right have strong counterarguments to offer.

[embedded content]

The only real counterpoint raised in the report is that OnlyFans creators can subject themselves to harassment and that the platform allows privileged celebrities to build their brands at a cost to everyday publishers. One of the creators says he won’t go full nude to avoid losing out on future jobs. There’s really no problem with ABC featuring any of these people, but to do so without also featuring any progressive or conservative voices willing to say OnlyFans (and pornography more broadly) is exploitive and dangerous is just bad journalism.

Speaking of which, one of the OnlyFans creators profiled in the documentary is young mechanic Kirsten Vaughn. Vaughn made headlines last spring after she was fired from Don Ayres Honda in Fort Wayne, Ind. Vaughn claimed she was fired for having an OnlyFans page. A sympathetic Buzzfeed News story at the time buried the relevant detail that Vaughn was fired after taking pictures for OnlyFans in her work uniform and in the company restroom nearly 30 paragraphs deep. ABC’s special didn’t even mention that. The report skeptically quoted a statement from the dealership asserting that Vaughn violated their policies, but totally omitted the obvious way she may have done that.

When I emailed ABC News to ask why they left that information out of their report, the network never responded. Here are the other questions they declined to answer.

2. Why did the program feature zero perspectives against the pornographic work OnlyFans facilitates and monetizes? There are plenty of counter-arguments from both the feminist perspective and the conservative perspective.
3. Why was there little to no discussion of exploitation or the mounting debate over porn addiction?
4. Did the journalists involved in producing this program talk to any former porn stars who regret their work or have suffered physically or psychologically because of it?
5. Why not mention how wealthy tech entrepreneurs are getting rich off the bodies of working class people like Vaughn?
The last question is what makes this story particularly depressing. Wealthy elites love normalizing ostensibly progressive ideas, many of which they would never personally engage in, by wrapping them in intellectual babble. But they have no perspective or regard for how that normalization affects the broader culture, where impressionable kids and disenfranchised people are looking for avenues to make easy money, and don’t have time to navel-gaze on the nature of sexual empowerment or read Judith Butler.
Vaughn and her DIY pornography peers have agency. They are in charge of their own lives. They are capable of making informed decisions. That does not, however, mean those decisions were entirely uninfluenced by the facile secularism promulgated by elites.
ABC News is not Salon. OnlyFans is not uncontroversial, nor a low-stakes issue. Nevertheless, tasked with the job of producing a major report on the platform, ABC’s team presented it sympathetically with virtually no balance at all.


Sunday Political Shows Shift From Coronavirus To Impeachment

Sunday’s signature political talk shows shifted focus this weekend from the novel Wuhan coronavirus to a repeat impeachment for President Donald Trump as calls for removal grow on both sides of the aisle following last week’s capitol unrest.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will again impeach the president just days before the new Democratic government takes office if Trump refuses to resign.

“If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action,” Pelosi wrote to colleagues last week, despite less than two weeks left in office for Trump.

Republican Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski joined Pelosi’s call for Trump’s resignation but stopped shy of endorsing impeachment. Democrats say a House vote on articles could come as soon as this week, with just days to go until Biden takes over.

Despite growing talk of an eleventh-hour second impeachment, which pledges to further divide a polarized nation just as the last one did a year ago, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky warned there’s no time for an adequate trial in the upper chamber before Biden’s inauguration.

Such proceedings, the Senate leader said, would require the consent of all 100 senators to be conducted while Trump remains in power. A multi-week trial could consume the first days of a Biden presidency, impeding progress on cabinet nominations, during which Trump would already be an ex-president.

The Sunday shows reflected how another impeachment is reducing their attention to the coronavirus. While the novel coronavirus brewed into a global pandemic overseas, the U.S. government and corporate media remained distracted by the sham impeachment proceedings throughout the winter.

The same circumstances are now repeating in wake of the most massive vaccination campaign in human history while hysteria over new variants provoke fears of an endemic. New economic numbers, meanwhile, show where the economy is headed as distribution of vaccines lag and jobless numbers rise for the first time since April.

According to transcripts pulled from Grabien, a multimedia subscription service, ABC’s “This Week” mentioned “impeachment” 32 times, as did “Fox News Sunday” 26 times, NBC’s “Meet the Press” 20 times, and CNN’s “State of the Union” 18 times. Each mentioned “coronavirus” fewer than 10.

Pelosi’s pointless impeachment, launched for the sole purpose of banning Trump from ever running for president again, is already beginning to bear its consequences.