Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: Blood infatuated media fools no one with barefaced Kavanaugh slander

If it bleeds, it leads.”

According to the Urban Dictionary the saying “basically means that the media loves violence. television, radio, and film will for the most part have much higher ratings if it's about a bunch of people getting murdered rather FBI Kavanaughthan something nice, like somebody saving a cat from a tree. ultimately, it's a statement about America's fascination with violence.”

How about (half of) America’s enthrallment with fantastic unsubstantiated sleaze?

Psychologists spend entire careers researching and writing on human behavior but this simple five-word statement succinctly explains the establishment media’s motivations in today’s very sick American political culture. The tragic circus surrounding the Democrats’ search and destroy mission to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is a perfect example of what the media desperately craves – the more severe the sliming, the greater the character assassination (only for conservatives though) and the deeper the victim’s hurt involved -- the more the media adores the story.

But in a sense it isn’t just the media’s fault – if we “ordinary” people wouldn’t buy the newspapers, read the books or watch the cable news shows then the sensationalism peddling pundits and reporters wouldn’t have nearly as much incentive to wallow in salacious filth.

To demonstrate, the ratings from last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing are in – and the American public was evidently entranced by it. David Bauder of the Associated Press reported, “More than 20 million people watched Thursday’s gripping testimony by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who accused him of a sexual assault that allegedly occurred in the 1980s, Christine Blasey Ford, on six television networks.

“Meanwhile, the political standoff continued, with broadcasters interrupting regular programming for Friday’s last-minute twist: an agreement engineered by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake for the FBI to conduct a one-week investigation of the charges...

“It’s likely that more than the 20.4 million people reported by Nielsen on Friday watched it. The company was counting average viewership on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Figures weren’t immediately available for other networks that showed it, including PBS, C-SPAN and the Fox Business Network. And Nielsen usually has some trouble measuring people who watch in offices.”

Bauder added the audience size was about the equivalent of an NFL playoff game or the annual Hollywood Trump-bashing festival otherwise known as the Academy Awards show. Last week’s viewership numbers might actually be higher – as indicated above Nielsen admits it has difficulty tracking people who tuned-in at work… and how about over livestream? Common sense says lots of folks who weren’t watching TV were nevertheless riveted by the “bleeding” going on in Washington, seeking a fix to satisfy their lowly addiction to political pain.

In seeing the ratings figures it's fascinating to note how the two parties approached the prospect of receiving a day’s worth of “free” programming with an anticipated huge audience. Republicans did their level best to downplay the carnival atmosphere of the circumstances by tasking a rather mundane female prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, with posing the questions to Ford on their behalf. Democrats on the other hand treated their time at the microphone as an hours-long campaign event aimed at turning out the socialist masses on Election Day.

The only thing missing were signs, bumper music and throngs of cheering activists. Add those elements and you’re at the Democrat convention.

While Mitchell did her part to lay a foundation for attacking the gaping holes in Blasey Ford’s credibility, the format was completely inappropriate for such a legalistic and forensic approach. Mitchell properly highlighted numerous inconsistencies in Ford’s tale but everyone knew there’d be no closing argument at the end to consolidate the case. We all kept waiting for the “kill shot” question that never came.

Contrast Mitchell’s dull performance with that of the Democrats, all of whom practically wet themselves over Ford’s “bravery” and supposed lack of personal motive to come forward with her fogged remembrances. With Democrats’ repeated “you’re a hero to women everywhere” rhetoric they clearly hoped to make the woman sob. Ford was constantly on the edge of tears, just a half-compliment away from a waterfall and a self-induced coffee break. Had she realized over 20 million people were hanging on her every word she might’ve had a complete breakdown. The media would’ve loved it!

Every watery eye or quivering lip equaled scored political points for Democrats who couldn’t give a hoot about Ford’s or Kavanaugh’s pain as long as it meant more sympathy votes for their side next month. Witnessing the drama, you’d almost forget all of this was a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nominee.

Democrats appear to care a heck of a lot about a person’s character when it’s a Republican or conservative in shackles before the inquisitors. The higher the body count the better for the minority party – which optimally includes the nominee’s parents, wife, two young daughters, his girls basketball players, female law clerks and any friends who might dare to vouch for Kavanaugh’s integrity.

At the same time Democrats made it much more difficult to satisfy anyone that this was a fair process. They keep coming up with new anti-Kavanaugh stuff to throw at the wall hoping something sticks. Byron York wrote at The Washington Examiner, “[T]he Ford case is quite hard to make. And that is where, for Democrats, Kavanaugh's supposed blackouts come in. With no contemporaneous evidence that the Ford attack happened, Democrats are trying to make the case that it could have happened. What if Kavanaugh got drunk, attacked Ford, and later didn't remember that he did it?

“That is the theory behind some Democratic senators' questioning of Kavanaugh last week. The idea was to get Kavanaugh to admit alcohol-induced memory loss and thus undermine his firm contention that he did not do what Ford alleged. How could he really know? He himself admitted that he sometimes drank so much he couldn't remember what happened the night before. He could have attacked Christine Ford in an alcoholic blackout and never remember that he did it.

“The problem, of course, is that is all anti-Kavanaugh theorizing. There's no evidence to support it, just as there is no evidence beyond Christine Ford's word to support the original attack allegation. But it's what Democrats have to work with right now, and it's why they are trying to change the subject from alleged sexual misconduct to Kavanaugh's teenage drinking.”

If the process is dragged out any further Democrats will undoubtedly dredge up a new farce to prolong the agony – anything that leaves them a smidgen of hope Kavanaugh remains the hot topic of the hour, something they believe (in their own diseased minds) they’re on the right side of. Next week maybe they’ll conjure up a guy who once saw Kavanaugh expectorate on the football field or heard him comment crossly about a former teacher or school administrator.

If Democrats are brazen enough to quiz Kavanaugh about flatulence references in his high school yearbook is there anything that’s off limits? Again, we’re talking here about trying to confirm a justice to the highest court in the land. When Kavanaugh was first introduced as Trump’s nominee in July could anyone fathom we’d see Democrat senators deliberating farts and high school nicknames three months later?

All the while Democrats ignore the damage they’ve inflicted on the already over-strained American political psyche. Even my daughter’s former rec league softball coach made a snide comment about Kavanaugh the other day on her Facebook page. Really? Have we as a society truly slunk so far into crass personal attacks that we have to express our ignorance on social media to everyone who’s a “friend?”

Americans should be raising and discussing these important matters with friends and family but how’s that possible when one side of the equation is so completely unreasonable and closed off to factual reality? If someone earnestly believes the moon is made of green cheese is there any convincing them otherwise, facts be damned?

The left’s launched a coordinated all-out effort to defeat Kavanaugh and the average hearing viewer likely wasn’t even aware of how badly they were manipulated. Take the now infamous open elevator door confrontation between wishy-washy RINO Sen. Jeff Flake and two women who purported to be victims of sexual assault last Friday. It was all a phony setup – it turns out they both work for organizations funded by leftist rabble rouser George Soros.

John Fund wrote at National Review, “Perhaps because the women expressed such raw emotion, few media outlets dug into their political activism. [Ana Maria] Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. [Maggie] Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group...

“I have no doubt that the vast majority of protesters who want to stop Brett Kavanaugh are sincere and are merely exercising their constitutional rights. But imagine if two women had cornered a Democratic senator in an elevator and demanded an investigation of who had leaked to the media Christine Blasey Ford’s letter alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. (Senator Lindsey Graham said today that he planned to investigate the leak.) There would have been sputtering outrage in media circles, and reporters would have breathlessly hunted down any ties between the women and outside groups.

“It’s a sign of media bias that the people from the well-funded groups behind the anti-Kavanaugh protests are described merely as ‘activists’ and that their political motives and origins are largely unexplored.”

It's beyond bias at this point. The “if it bleeds it leads” media is complicit in the Democrats’ get-Kavanaugh smear campaign, spreading unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo, cooperating with leftist activists to present a slanted side of the story and reveling in emotion-based victim culture, all the while granting non-stop coverage to Democrat senator “theories” on the judge’s high school drinking habits and hypothetical memory blackouts.

Mind you no one has come forward to corroborate any of these crackpot hypotheses but thanks to spineless pols like Sen. Flake we’re forced to endure another week of media hype and speculation. No stone lingers unturned in Judge Kavanaugh’s life and it is testimony to his stellar career and family values that no allegations of misconduct concerning his past thirty or so years have been unearthed.

The blood-seeking media completely ignores the scores of people who’ve had positive interactions with Kavanaugh to concentrate all its discourse on unprovable events brought forward by a flakey witness who can’t even keep her story straight from two months ago. As more people probed Blasey Ford’s background, for example, a number of serious red flags emerged.

In our modern politically correct society “believing survivors” is compulsory and then Democrats label them brave heroes for chronicling their tales of victimization without justice -- but shouldn’t Ford’s motives at least be scrutinized in this matter? And why hasn’t her immediate family jumped in to support what she claims?

Robert Stacy McCain wrote at The American Spectator, “… There seems to have been some reason young Miss Blasey wanted to get away from her home in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., and if her allegedly ‘traumatic’ encounter with Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t explain it, what could the reason be? In the Sept. 22 Washington Post article about how she ended up 3,000 miles away in California, there is no mention of any other boyfriends she might have had between the summer of 1982 and 2001, when she met her husband through an online dating site.

“However, for eight years of that time, while at Pepperdine University, she dated a man named Brian Merrick, who told the Wall Street Journal that ‘at no point in their relationship did she mention… any case of sexual assault,’ nor the name of Brett Kavanaugh: ‘It strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship.’ Merrick, however, mentioned that his ex-girlfriend was liberal, while her father was staunchly conservative — a fact apparently corroborated by her husband Russell Ford, who told the Post: ‘She didn’t always get along with her parents because of differing political views.’

“Is this all just about politics? Could some deep-seated resentment toward her conservative family have inspired Christine Blasey Ford to invent a fictional tale of attempted rape in order to destroy a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court?”

We’ll never know unless Kavanaugh’s conservative and Republican supporters insist he receives a full and fair accounting of Ford’s history and possible aims for publicly introducing this bizarre teen vision of a young honor student laughing maniacally while assaulting her in a bedroom somewhere in Montgomery County Maryland. Such things should be exposed after Kavanaugh’s confirmed, however, to wipe this “blood” stain from his reputation.

It's no secret the establishment media delights in reporting on pain and sleaze but the Kavanaugh episode represents a particularly egregious example. Democrats insist Republicans will pay for failing to take Christine Blasey Ford’s side of the story, but Americans see through the ruse.

Share this