We have spent the past several days trying to make clear to you your limited role as a participant in our digital town hall to be streamed on ABC News.com and Facebook. The post on your blog last Friday created a widespread impression that you would be analyzing the election on ABC News. We made it as clear as possible as quickly as possible that you had been invited along with numerous others to participate in our digital town hall. Instead of clarifying your role, you posted a blog on Sunday evening in which you continued to claim a bigger role in our coverage. As we are still unable to agree on your role, we feel it best for you not to participate.

This is yet another obvious attempt to build a narrative that puts the blame on Breitbart when the truth is that this is nothing more than ABC News caving in to and attempting to appease the organized left’s outrage machine that went into full astroturf mode after Breitbart’s ABC News appearance was made public.

As a reminder as to who’s exaggerating, here is exactly how Breitbart’s election night townhall event was described by an ABC News producer to him in an email:

This program will broadcast on the ABC Television Network, abcnews.com, ABC News Now, and ABC News Radio. …

The show will be live on the web and ABC News Now as well as on the network from 4:00pm till 11:00pm MST.

With this in mind and in writing, here is how Big Journalism announced Breitbart’s ABC News appearance:

ABC announced their election night coverage early on and Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch will join the network in studio for 6 p.m. – 2 a.m. election night; Bigs founder and head of the Breitbart empire Andrew Breitbart will be bringing analysis live from Arizona.

Obviously that’s not an exaggeration, but after this announcement posted, the Left exploded in organized outrage and in order to mollify them, ABC News released an official statement walking back their original invitation. In response to this, on Sunday, here is how Breitbart himself went even further to describe his role in the very post Mr. Morse references as the reason for the abrupt cancellation:

I was promised no specific amount of airtime, nor payment for my analysis, but was told that I would be a part of the broadcast coverage in addition to participating in the online event[.]

That fits any possible definition of any possible role ABC News had in mind for Breitbart and yet in order to justify his abrupt cancellation, Mr. Morse refers to that sentence as continuing to “claim a bigger role.”

If that description is unacceptable, then no description is acceptable, and that’s the real point.

By continuing to release these provably false statements, ABC News is attempting to disguise and cover up for the fact that they are giving in to the PC, anti-free speech forces on the Left. Anyone concerned with diversity of opinion and the idea of open, healthy debate should take note of this and the recent firing of Juan Williams from NPR. Major news organizations are caving to those intolerant of the free expression.

This issue is far from over, we are considering any and all options.

More to come…

In the above video, Stewart takes some shots at NPR for firing Williams, but it all feels like an excuse to revisit his Fox News obsession and desire to smear the station as some kind of Big Scary Monster of Right-Wing Intolerance, as though one cable news channel has anywhere near the combined power of CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, oh and, Comedy Central.

The closing skit with the “scary” Muslim man and Black man pretty much calls Williams and Bill O’Reilly a couple of racists for their individual comments that started all of this — what O’Reilly said that caused Joy and Whoopi to cluck-cluck-cluck off the “View” stage and what got Williams fired from NPR.

Here’s the moral of Stewart’s comedy:

“If they’re not going to make a distinction between Muslims and extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent white people and racists?”

It’s all so preciously sensitive and PC it just makes you want to run out and hug a baby seal.

Could there be a bigger disturbance in the satiric-force than when you have supposed comedians assuming the roles of our nation’s PC-Enforcers?  Unless, of course, the target is Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby, then the sensitivity badge is quickly removed and the rubber hose comes out. 

Kinda makes your skin crawl, though, doesn’t it? The only boundaries Stewart and his ilk are pushing anymore are those in the department of sensitivity and the chilling of free speech. You see, it’s not enough that we all know what Bill O’Reilly meant — no, he had better say it or Stewart will call him a racist. Same with Juan Williams for daring to speak his fears out loud.

That sound you hear is Lenny Bruce spinning in his grave.

In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.

There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”

What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?

The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?”  My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.

The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.

The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.

And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.

The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.

“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.

—–

The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.

This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.

But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?

—–

Where are they indeed, Milton.

Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.

For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.

But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it.  It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.

But it isn’t.  So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts.  Sorry, but they gotta go.

Jihadist thugs are now attacking us in the name of Islam. No doubt there are a lot of Islamic believers who don’t support this. But like the Germans in World War II, they are not speaking up… for good reason of course, as there was a good reason back in the days of the Third Reich. But because they aren’t speaking up to oppose what is being done in their name, the world has a Muslim problem. Everybody knows this. Not many public figures dare to say it out loud. Some public figures don’t want to know it, much less say it out loud.

Bill O’Reilly, who has taken great pains in recent years to position himself as a centrist, has now had the courage to say out loud what everybody knows. The predictable cries of outrage have ensued. Juan Williams, a true blue liberal who has no doubt outraged his bosses at NPR for years by appearing on Fox, even if it was to espouse their cause, is now paying the price for O’Reilly. They couldn’t fire him; he doesn’t work for them. Juan does, so out he went.

I used to watch Bernie Goldberg in his early days on Fox trying to retain what he could of his liberal beliefs. As he came to see the savagery of the left he slowly came around to being more conservative. It will be interesting to see the same thing happen to Williams. Both of them were decent liberals who found that the ground moved out from under them.

NPR has made a serious miscalculation. It should have buttoned its lip and shut up. But leftists are not just hateful, they are stupid.

Let’s face it: they didn’t fire Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion that didn’t jibe with theirs. And it was worse, because he did it on Fox News – two words that bring a pained sneer across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.

But, hell, everyone can see NPR’s duplicity. They never police their lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn’t because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he’s black? Or because he’s black and didn’t do what he was told?

Anyway, I’m one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.

Because if we don’t, they go away.

And we can’t have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we can point to it and say, “yeah, we’re letting them live.”

It’s like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for pocket change. It’s more out of pity, than anything.

Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When exposed for her error, she blamed it on an “editing” mistake – and then angrily mocked those who corrected her.

If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above reproach?

But hey – what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11?

(I kid, Rachel – we’ll fix that in edit)

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic, editphobe.

Tonight:

Chris Cotter!

Mary Smith!

Andrew Wilkow

plus not one, but two! gregalogues!

Anyway, it’s all due to comments Juan made on the “The O’Reilly Factor,” last Monday. There Bill asked him to respond to “The cold truth [that] jihad, aided …by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Williams replied, “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot….But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Racist.

He also brought up the Times Square scumbag – who had no problem saying that the war with America is just beginning.

But as Slate points out, the passage quoted by NPR was a spoon-fed clip that dumps out before Williams says his worry reflects the problem of generalizing about groups of people.

I doubt Media Matters will cover that.

But anyway, you could say NPR fired him for being honest. For saying what everyone with a brain is thinking (which eliminates Media Matters).

But I think they fired him for being interesting. That’s a huge rule-breaker on NPR – a substance that makes Ambien feel like Adderall.

But as for the firing, it’s really just another feather in the hypocritical cap called tolerance. Who wears that cap? Well, those on the left who believe everyone is entitled to their views – unless of course, they aren’t their views.

And, of course, this is the same media who avoids anything that might upset Muslims – a group they tell us we shouldn’t fear. Yet, they’re silent about Mohammad cartoons and fatwas on female cartoonists. That’s the real stinker: while Juan explained his nervousness about Islam, he only mentioned what those cowards in the media feels, but denies.

So they canned him.

Which should be a feather in his cap.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic featherphobe.

Tonight, we’ve got:

Diana Falzone!

Bill Hemmer!

Ali Nejad!

a new exclusive animation!

and other stuff!

My second favorite part is Stasi’s statement about how the memo “doesn’t talk about Obama’s health care…”

What a canard. Like the NEA conference calls, there’s no need to force feed fish marked “ObamaCare” to an audience of partisan seals. All you have to do is toss the issue out there. The White House knows this and so, I suspect, does Stasi. In her own circular logic she actually makes that point when arguing ”Old Christine” produced a pro-ObamaCare episode without even being asked. Thank you, Linda — this is exactly why the memo didn’t have to mention “Obama’s health care” specifically… Minions don’t need GPS. Just point.

Patrick Courrielche nails the debate with four simple words: “Show me the memo.”  At that point all Stasi’s left with is to go after Fox and change her defense from it’s all a “conspiracy theory” to everyone’s doing it.

Finally … common ground. Obama really is bringing us all together.