Posted on 12/09/2024 11:47:01 AM PST by george76
When now President-Elect Donald Trump was convicted, the thrill-kill atmosphere around the courthouse and the country was explosive, but no one was more ecstatic than liberal columnist and former prosecutor Harry Litman. The then L.A. Times columnist told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was a “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” A lawfare advocate, Litman excitedly laid out how Trump could be barred from office, declaring that the raid in Mar-a-Lago was the “whole enchilada” in ending Trump’s political career. Now, Litman has resigned from the L.A. Times because the owner wants more diversity of opinion in the newspaper. Litman went on MSNBC to declare that “this is not a time for balance.”
Those seven words sum up much of what has destroyed American media with millions turning away from the echo chamber created by the Washington Post, L.A. Times, and other publications.
Litman is not alone. Many liberals are dispensing with the pretense of declaring opposing views “disinformation” and are now openly fighting to preserve ideological echo chambers and media silos.
In my new book, The Indispensable Right, I write about the decline of newspapers as part of the “advocacy journalism” movement. Opinion pages became little more than screeds for the left, including legal commentators who have been consistently wrong and misleading on merits of challenges or cases.
Last year, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Litman has been one of the most unabashed lawfare warriors. Even when the Justice Department was seeking to dismiss the Flynn case, Lipman wrote an L.A. Times column advising Judge Emmet Sullivan how to “make trouble” for the administration. Litman admitted there is “very little leeway to reject the government’s decisions to dismiss charges” but encouraged Sullivan to “accomplish what Congress, multiple inspectors general, and a majority of the electorate have not been able to do — hold the president and his allies accountable for their contemptuous disregard for the rule of law.”
On MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, Litman declared to Nicolle Wallace that Trump’s victory is “an absolute five-alarm fire.” He called the effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints as little more than an attempt “to curry favor with Trump.” He then added:
“And I just think this is not a time for balance when you have someone who’s not telling the truth on the other side. And it’s a deep responsibility. And instead, I think they cowered and are worried about their personal holdings and just being threatened by Trump. And that’s a really shameful capitulation, I think. So, I just felt I couldn’t be a part of it and had to resign.”
It was a telling moment. Litman appeared on a network that has lost half of its viewership and is fighting for its existence in an effort by NBCUniversal to unload it. Readers are fleeing to new media after papers like the L.A. Times and the Washington Post literally wrote off half of the country. Yet, these figures would rather lose their jobs and media platforms than their bias.
Whack-a-moles are popping their heads up all over. Whack-em good.
Turley is up there with VDH as lucid informed intelligent must reads.
A nobody becomes nobodier.
How’s George Will these days?
On election night, Nicolle Wallace on msnbc seemed deeply tranquilized if not utterly stoned. For hours. She couldn’t complete sentences, she just droned on and on like Kamala Harris making very little sense; and had a faraway look in her eyes. I have listened to her before (2016 election) and her delivery is normally crisp and animated, though the content is moon-batty.
The only way you can do this, is if like in a court room, you have both sides presenting their case.
The reader or viewer can then consider both sides and make up their mind.
People like this editorial writer that quit are no loss. In fact, it's good they left. These are not people interested in free speech or the truth.
These are arrogant intellectual snobs, a type of elitist, that think they have a monopoly on the truth regarding anything they “feel” is right. People like that, who think they are superior than others are the worst type since they easily rationalize censorship and deception in their own mind. They gravitate towards the most radical and extreme positions but think it's alright since after all, they know they are right and seeing their role as "teaching you right and wrong."
Many twisted angry minds in the media business agents of misinformation propaganda and full on hate.
The waste within them can’t be cured observation is a must to prevent greater dangers.
Good quotes condense complex or elaborate ideas into a few words.
If this is not a time for balance, and before was not a time for balance, then when exactly is the time for balance?
Balanced commentary. The horror, the horror.
Ah, irony is ironic, isn't it?
“Not the time for balance.”
So, he lost his balance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.