A

fter the McCain camp’s lash-out at the NYT earlier this week over its reporting on campaign manager Rick Davis’ relationship with Freddie Mac, the NYT proved the old adage today about not picking fights with businesses that buy their ink by the barrel:

McCain Aide’s Firm was Paid by Freddie Mac

WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

It goes on for two clicks quoting several anonymous sources … and proves nothing. First, after 17 paragraphs, deep on the second page of the posted story, we see the buried body:

Mr. Davis was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist, the officials said. Davis & Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies but not Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place, NYT? As we all now know, Davis’ firm headed up an outfit called the Homeowners Alliance that advocated – not lobbied – for more homeownership. Here’s a news release about them from the Freddie Mac site:

Cities across the country are taking action to make housing more affordable for American families, according to a report released by The Homeownership Alliance, a coalition of almost 20 organizations committed to ensuring support for the American housing system of which Freddie Mac is a charter member. The report, Affordable Homes: Best Practices for America, is a survey of affordable homeownership programs in the top 20 municipalities nationwide.

Programs in the following cities in the study are highlighted as best practices for increasing affordable homeownership: Atlanta; Baltimore; Chicago; Minneapolis, Minn.; New York; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; Riverside, Calif.; San Diego; Seattle and Washington.

By identifying existing best practices for increasing homeownership opportunities, the Alliance hopes to foster information sharing among state and local housing officials that will encourage widespread, lasting progress on this pressing issue.

Did you notice? The Alliance had 20 nonprofit members; it’s not just Freddie Mac. The National Association of Homebuilders, of which I am a member, was one of them. The NYT article makes it sound like all the payments Davis’ firm received for running the coalition came from Freddie and Fannie. Maybe; but in not mentioning the other members, the NYT is being deceptive.

Immediately, the McCain camp fired back:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times‘ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

But the most telling passage is this:

The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

Then there’s this little fact: While all this was going on, McCain was railing against Freddie and Fannie as risky businesses that required greater oversight. Here’s what he said in the Senate in May 2006, the same time the NYT is focused on in its Davis story:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

How does the NYT deal with this advocacy by the candidate? In the next to the last paragraph, the NYT quietly whispers an admission:

Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other McCain campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, Mr. McCain in the Senate has been an advocate for reforming them.

Stellar placement, eh? It’s one of the best examples ever of my long-held view that objectivity (defined by journalists as “telling both sides,”) has nothing to do with fairness. But that’s hardly the worst of it. Here’s the very last paragraph, tacked on the end where few will see it:

Since his first campaign for the Senate in 2004, Senator Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Senator McCain, over the last decade, has received about $22,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Oh. Help me out here. Are we electing a campaign manager or a president?

2 Comments »

I

n responding to Steve Schmidt’s criticism of the NY Times for being “150 percent in the tank for Obama,” the Obama campaign issued a list of 40 “probing” stories the NYT has published on Obama.

I got a copy of the list from The Page, added live links to all 40 stories and reviewed them.  The long and short of it:  There are four stories among the 40 that qualify as “probing” in a negative sense.  The other 36 pretty much probe into just how wonderful a human being and candidate Barack Obama is.

Did they release the list because they thought no one would look at it?  And they’re supposed to be with it?  Of course the list is going to get scrubbed!  Kind of like this:

In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [1/28/07] – Let’s start of the list of pointed stories with a hero-worship piece, shall we?  His peers call him “a natural leader, an impressive student, and a nice guy.”  Ouch, that hurts.  It may not be pointed, but it does offer up this spoof of Obama from the Harvard Law 1990 Review:

“I was born in Oslo, Norway, the son of a Volvo factory worker and part-time ice fisherman,” a mock self-tribute begins. “My mother was a backup singer for Abba. They were good folks.” In Chicago, “I discovered I was black, and I have remained so ever since.”

So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote For Granted [2/2/07] – This piece was back in the day when, as the NYT had to ask, “So why are some black voters so uneasy about Senator Barack Obama?”  It basically goes on to say they shouldn’t be.

Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [3/3/07] – OMG, that’s so TODAY!

Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [3/6/07] – Talks of black leaders criticizing Obama for disinviting Jeremiah Wright to an event; discussion of what Wright said from the pulpit is not included.

Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In ‘05, Took Same Path as Donors [3/7/07] – Obama “did not know” he had invested in the companies in question.  Don’t we all feel better?

Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [3/8/07] – An actual follow-up piece on the one above.  This must have been before the NYT was all the way to 150% in the tank.

Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama’s Hawaii Childhood [3/17/07] – You can tell from the headline that this one does not exactly rip him a new one.

Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq [3/22/07] – Hint:  The second paragraph, the one after the Clinton alegations that Obama is not all that tough in his opposition to the war, begins with “But:”

But a review of Mr. Obama’s statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ”dumb” and ”rash.” Continue Reading »

8 Comments »

Y

ou can put lipstick on a bunch of biased, hypocritical ideologues, but they’re still the New York Times political reporting staff.

As discussed in Media Bias 2008 #53, the supposedly objective reporters at the NYT don’t want you to confuse for one moment Sarah Palin’s tough-minded determination to successfully push through a natural gas pipeline deal with an actual accomplishment. They helpfully provide this insight:

The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.

Hate to break it to you, boys, but outside the rarefied air of the newsroom, it actually takes more to do big things than merely carry a skinny notebook, tap on a keyboard, and drink vente triple-shot lattes. Fights to achieve real accomplishments often have more than one round; pieces have to come together; people have to work hard toward a goal with vision and determination.

With that in mind, I offer up this story I found today a bit further back in the Gray Lady:

Experts Deny Palin’s Lipstick Claim

By SERGE F. KOVALESKI and MIKE McINTIRE

ANCHORAGE — When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska took center stage at the Republican convention last week, she sought to burnish her “hockey mom” credentials by assuring the audience that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitt bull is lipstick.

While not yet a demographic with the numbers and geographic distribution of soccer moms, hockey moms are a rising force in American politics, and some experts tell the Times that should their support swing strongly toward the McCain/Palin ticket, it may prove decisive in November.

Undeniably, the statement was well received by the Republican faithful in St. Paul and also offered the GOP ticket an added benefit yesterday, as Barack Obama had to deny that his own “lipstick on a pig” statement was a jab at Gov. Palin.

The reality, however, is far from the impression Ms. Palin has left at the convention, an impression she has subsequently reinforced in statements on the campaign trail.

Certainly she proved effective in reaching out to mothers of hockey-playing children, and possibly fathers of hockey-playing children as well – while the possible negative reaction among soccer parents and life partners remains unknown – but scientists and college professors tell the Times that her statement was false.

“Genetically speaking, and therefore anatomically speaking, there are nearly infinite differences between pigs and hockey moms, all of them much more significant than lipstick, which is mere adornment,”‘ said Dr. Ruth Lipshitz of Columbia’s Center for Genetic Studies. “To start with, pigs have 38 chromosomes while humans have 46.”

At the State University of New York’s College of Agriculture in Elmira, pig expert Dr. Hank Straw noted, “Ungulates do have eyes and hearts that are remarkably similar to those of humans, which have made them significant contributors to many advancements in medical research, but there are many more differences than similarities.

“Four legs instead of two, snout instead of nose, curly tail instead of … well, in Gov. Palin’s case, a very nice tail, the differences go on and on.

“But,” he concluded, “it is possible that pigs have contributed to better lipstick through the contributions they have made to advancements in cosmetics research.”

Experts at the American Cosmetics Association speaking anonymously because they are not permitted to talk to the media, confirmed that pigs are sometimes used in research, but refused to specify what role they play in lipstick development, or if pigs are harmed in any way in this research.

So many PETA spokespersons return the Times’ call for comments that telephone services to the newsroom was temporarily disrupted. This story will be subsequently amended with their comments.

Starship Jones, spokesperson of the color white for the Obama campaign, told the Times, “This confirms our earlier statement that Republicans are liars who will bring a repeat of the Bush years, while President … I mean Senator … Obama has shown again and again he stands for a new kind of politics.

“Mr. Obama is change. He will reach across the aisle for compromise, but you can put lipstick on a Republican and he’s still a liar.”

6 Comments »

T

he NY Times, in its frequent role of blind cheerleader to the left, called MSNBC’s radical swing into the depths of blatantly liberal broadcasting “bold,” and back when he decided to move Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to MSNBC’s news chairs, MSNBC president Phil Griffin said “I see no problem” arising from his decision.

But the experiment is over, and it’s generating a lot of words this a.m., with a total of well over 50 news articles and blog posts already showing up at memeorandum.

Before this weekend’s shakeup, while he was still In Denver where Olbermann’s on-camera temper tantrums (here, here, here, here – a lot of tantrums!) attracted much attention, Griffin donned the blinders and told Politico:

“MSNBCdoes not have an ideology. We hire smart people who are passionate about their love of politics and love of news.”

He seems to have forgotten that according to one Phil Griffin [familiar name], MSNBC does have a powerful liberal bias. As he told the NYT last year:

Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News.

“It happened naturally,” Phil Griffin, a senior vice president of NBC News who is the executive in charge of MSNBC, said Friday, referring specifically to the channel’s passion and point of view from 7 to 10 p.m. “There isn’t a dogma we’re putting through. There is a ‘Go for it.’” [...]

But now it has no ideology? Is it just dogma? Going for it? Whatever, we now understand that it was “squabbles” that led to the reassignment of Olbermann and Matthews … even though Matthews wasn’t squabbling.

Announcing the shift today, the NYTimes, bless ‘em, never really comes out and says Olbermann and Matthews are lefties, even though it had carried Griffin’s quote a year earlier. But the network’s media bias is as hard to ignore as GOP delegates chanting “NBC! NBC!” when Sarah Palin talked about media bias.

The question of bias, though, becomes moot when one looks at the convention ratings – and convention ratings are the holy grail of network competition. Despite the change – or more likely because of it – MSNBC remained a distant, distant third in cable convention viewership.

While the liberal swing has helped pick MSNBC’s ratings from the gutter to the curb, it is apparent that Griffin had misunderstood Fox’s formula for success. Fox has become adept at letting its guests broaden the debate and gives them plenty of time to be partisan spokespersons for their cause. The anchors perform the function of giving the guests plenty of line, then jerking them in when they’ve gone too far. The most  hardcore conservative of the hosts, Sean Hannity, is balanced by liberal goofball Alan Colmes.

At MSNBC, Olbermann particularly but Matthews too were running and running without with the line without any counterweight until today, when Griffin decided the “bold” experiment had to end.

Ironically, it ended on the day that former Air America host Rachel Maddow is handed an anchor chair by MSNBC. The station is not done being in the tank for Obama, and its effort to carve out a position as a left-wing network isn’t over. Griffin and company have merely decided that until the election is over, ranting Olbermann and leg-tingling Matthews aren’t going anywhere near an anchor chair.

No Comments yet »

F

ollowing claims by the Obama camp that the recent McCain “celebrity” ad is racist, some media experts say the newest ad from the Obama campaign is ageist – playing on America’s fear of the elderly and worries about older presidents.

Like the lead? I’m the “some media experts” – a trick I learned from the New York Times and other liberal media outlets. Need a source? Create “some experts.” “Many experts” also works well if you’re going for some extra oomph.

Anyway, here’s the ad:

Now I’ll put on my Bob Herbert glasses and ear piece and proceed with my expert analysis.

You guys have seen the ad a number of times I am sure. First thing you see is some kind of piece of equipment with a screen on it, right? Do you remember any other startling images right there at the beginning?

All right. There are some lines going across the screen, like heartbeat lines on a hospital monitor. You look at the beginning of that ad again, and you tell me why those lines are placed right there – POW! – right at the beginning of that ad. I really wish someone would answer the question, I think it’s really important. Why are these heartbeat monitoring lines in this ad run against John McCain?

And as if that’s not enough, as the narrator starts, do you hear something soft in the background?

All right! It’s a heartbeat. Da-DUM, da-DUM, da-DUM, da-DUM and it gets a little faster as the ad progresses, as if the heart that monitor is monitoring is beginning to fibrillate. And somebody please tell me why, right at the end of the ad before it goes to the Obama signature, that heartbeat stops?

The Obama camp is playing the age card, and they’re playing it from the bottom of the deck!

There you have it. Someone should give me an op/ed column in the New York Times.

I’m sure now that C-SM has broken this Very Important Story, dino-media around the world will pick it up and continue my insightful analysis ad nauseum.

No Comments yet »

T

he only way you can make John McCain’s campaign the racists in the recent Britney/Paris ad flap is by being racists. And the NY Times editorial board pulled out all the stops this a.m. to prove the point. Writing about the ad, it said:

The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.

Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’

But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’

The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.

So the first test is “does the ad put black and white people together,” or specifically black men and white women? Sort of like Heidi Klum and Seal, who we regularly see on those racist programs Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood.

Well, the imagery was just a bit different from what I’m showing here. Say out loud, “He’s the biggest celebrity in the world.” That was how long it took the McCain ad to dispense with the images of Obama, Britney and Paris. We see Obama walking onto the stage in Berlin as “He’s” is said, then Brittney flashes by with “the biggest” and Paris with “celebrity,” then back to a waving Obama in Berlin for “in the world.”

The intent was clear: To show that like other famous headline-grabbers, Obama knows how to dazzle an adoring public. Putting him with Britney and Paris was inspired: They are the ultimate paparazzi fodder; they play well to the cameras. The intent of the Harold Ford ad was quite different: To remind voters that Ford had partied at the Playboy mansion, along with some other accusations: He takes money from pornographers, he’s anti-gun, he’s pro-tax.

Watch them both and see if you get “an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006.” First, the Ford ad:

Cheesy and worthy of contempt, for sure. Now let’s turn to the scary black man is gonna rape your wimmin McCain ad:

Sorry, but who are the racists here? Who’s seeing racial overtones and is being judgmental about it? Certainly not the McCain camp.

Next, the NYT says Obama called McCain on the ad “quite rightly.” You’ve heard the quite rightly quote:

“They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name, and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills,’ and they’re going to send out nasty e -mails. And the latest one they got me in an ad with Paris Hilton. You know, never met the woman. But, you know, what they’re going to try to argue is that somehow I’m too risky.”

“Risky” is a substitute for “black,” which Obama used earlier in the dollar bill comparison, but dropped because it is too obviously race-baiting. Obama raised race by saying the GOP was making a point that he’s black, and different, and you know, black. But all McCain played was the celebrity card; there was no race card in sight, so Obama had to manufacture it. The only ones who are buying it are the racists who are always seeing the world in racially charged black and white.

The snip I pulled from the editorial ends by quoting McCain’s campaign manager saying Obama dealt the race card, then calling the McCain camp “contemptible” and “shrewd” for “putting the sin of the attack” on the victim, Obama, not on McCain himself.

What sin of the attack? Showing three celebrities together? Why is that contemptible? Here’s the test: If the McCain ad had shown Beyonce and Halle Barry with Obama instead of Brittney and Paris, we wouldn’t be talking about NYT editorials here today. Lesson: It’s OK to show blacks together, but it’s race-baiting to show blacks and whites together.

I said when the Obama campaign first started getting traction that it would become impossible to criticize him in any way without being called racist. The Times proved me right today, by proving that they are the most contemptible sort of racists themselves.

2 Comments »

I hate it when she does that.

Maureen Dowd wrote one heck of a funny column today with next to no fingernails on the blackboard. Next to; she did say that New Orleans was “the city [Bush] let drown.”

She concludes the piece by channeling Dr. Suess’ “Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now!”

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!”

But she won’t, she won’t go now. No matter how they howl, she won’t go now. Not on a horse, not on a cow. Look at the ruckus they raise! But she just stays and stays and stays!

Leaving Obama with this:

But this is clearly a man who can’t wait to get back to his organic scrambled egg whites. That was made plain with his cri de coeur at the Glider Diner in Scranton when a reporter asked him about Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

“Why” he pleaded, sounding a bit, dare we say, bitter, “can’t I just eat my waffle?”

His subtext was obvious: Why can’t I just be president? Why do I have to keep eating these gooey waffles and answering these gotcha questions and debating this gonzo woman?

Nice. It must be crushing to him that we aren’t just handing him are nation on a platter because he’s so darn special.

No Comments yet »

Unable to sleep, I’ve been reading the Watcher’s Council entries for this week and had to share this hilarious picture of Baghdad Harry with you.

It’s from Wolf Howling’s post, Iraqi Political Progress Leaves Few Places For The Left To Move The Target (Whoa! Long enough title, Wolfie?). At first, the piece appeared to be a rather routine NYT editorial board fisking – and what’s the challenge in that? – but it turned into a thoroughly researched milestone by milestone history of the NYT editorial board’s tilted (careening?), re-shaping, denying approach to Iraq.

I’m not tipping my hat on the entries this week quite yet — I’ve read several other outstanding ones — I’m just sharing a photo, OK?

No Comments yet »

Women’s Wear Daily knows a thing or two about gay men, dahling, so it gaily reported on a story in Out that alluded to a “gay mafia” at the NY Times:

Does a scattershot list of gay Timesmen a mafia make? According to Out magazine’s media-heavy Power 50 list, which ranked several New York Times reporters a collective seventh on the list, it does, even if many of its made men don’t actually know each other. “Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City,” reads the accompanying text

Those outed (I won’t use their names) include the editor of T magazine, an assistant managing editor, a national correspondent, the advertising columnist, a style reporter a theater critic and a restaurant critic.

A theater or restaurant critic doesn’t have much influence over how the gay agenda is presented, but a national reporter, an assistant managing editor and a magazine editor certainly do. Out certainly thinks so:

As for the use of the ‘M’ word related to the assorted journalists, Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out, told WWD: “The Times still has an old-fashioned power that I think the Web has tried to replace but been less successful at. It’s still a cultural arbiter….Should we have used the word mafia? Only inasmuch as mafia is shorthand for people whose combined weight is fearsome.” And according to Out, these Timesmen are “one group you don’t want to run into in a dark alley.”

Agreed on that last point, for sure. Fortunately, Elliot suggests a defense:

“What are we going to do?” wondered Elliot. “Beat them with the Sunday Times?”

So much has been written over the years about gay teachers and their ability to influence (or, more sinisterly, corrupt or even abuse) the next generation, but little has been made of gays in the media, and the potential they have to position the gay agenda as mainstream.

Perhaps we should. Look at who’s who in the top ten of Out’s Power 50. People who worry about Jewish control of the media are whacked; people who ponder gay influence and control have reasons to be concerned. (All copy below is from Out except for my comments in brackets.)

1 David Geffen
What does $4 billion-plus buy for a Hollywood entertainment powerhouse? Your name on UCLA’s medical school; great American art (Pollock, de Kooning, Johns); and headline-making influence over Democratic presidential politics: When Geffen supported and later dissed Hillary earlier this year, the fur flew between the candidates’ camps. “If you’re his enemy, you might as well kill yourself,” Howard Rosenman once told The New York Times. And to think it all began in the William Morris Agency mailroom. [Note: Geffen has not given up on plans to acquire the LA Times.]

2 Anderson Cooper
Anointed an “emo-anchor” by The New York Observer for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the rise of Anderson Cooper heralded the simultaneous demise of the Dan Rather-Tom Brokaw era of dry efficiency. Despite an unfortunate side trip into reality TV in 2001 as host of ABC’s late, unlamented The Mole, his instincts have served him well: His annual salary at CNN was reportedly doubled this year, from $2 million to $4 million.

3 Ellen DeGeneres
With over 2.4 million viewers on a daily basis, The Ellen DeGeneres Show is an essential stop for any celebrity peddling their wares, and her breakthrough gig at the Oscars only elevated her Hollywood stature. The fact that seemingly everyone loves an out-and-proud lesbian makes her powerful—that and the $65 million she’s reportedly worth. [Lately, DeGeneres has played down her sexuality and appears a very different woman than she was in earlier days ... but things can change.]

4 Tim Gill
Gill is the country’s biggest gay political donor and “the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics,” according to a major story in The Atlantic. After founding and making his fortune at publishing software giant Quark, Gill moved on to philanthropy; in January he launched the Gill Action Fund. His guiding strategy: Giving to many key local and state candidates is more cost-effective than large donations to a few national candidates. [Gill has donated over $100 million to LGBT causes, and is a big Dem campaign contributor. The foundation is headed by a former Log Cabin republican, however.]

5 Barney Frank
When the Democrats took over control of the House and Senate this year, the outspoken, popular, and frequently quoted Massachusetts Democratic congressman assumed chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services. [I'm sure Frank is very popular with Out's readers, but I can't say that I share the feeling.]

6 Rosie O’Donnell
The View is much better since O’Donnell took over as moderator last fall. Her opinionated stances and battles with the Donald have fanned a huge ratings rise. Plus, her R Family Vacations have elevated the world of gay travel. [The View is much better? Yeah, and Bush blew up the WTC.]

7 The New York Times Gay Mafia Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliot, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, Eric Wilson
Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City. Style editor Tonchi, style reporter Wilson, assistant managing editor Berke, national correspondent Nagourney, and advertising columnist Elliot can set agendas in their areas of expertise. In the case of restaurant critic Bruni and theater critic Brantley, the fate of fledgling enterprises rests in their hands. This is one group you don’t want to run into in a dark alley.

8 Marc Jacobs
One of the most recognizable names in fashion, Jacobs helms his own label and is also artistic director for Louis Vuitton. His empire extends beyond clothing (including his acclaimed spring shows in New York, London, and Paris) with new fragrances for Coty, home decor for Waterford, and watches. For his opulent holiday ball last December, he arrived disguised as a pigeon. [Wow, a pigeon.]

9 Andrew Tobias
He’s not just a personal finance guru (The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need) and memoirist (The Best Little Boy in the World), he’s the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and a major fund-raiser for the party. [Repeating, the treasurer of the DNC.]

10 Brian Graden
As president of entertainment for MTV Networks’ music channels, Graden oversees the programming on those arbiters of youth culture MTV, CMT, MTV2, and VH1. Since taking the reins at MTV in 1997, MTV has been the number 1 basic-cable network in the advertiser-coveted age 12-24 demographic, and after adding VH1 to his responsibilities in 2002, ratings have risen there an astonishing 95%. He championed the ever-expanding Logo—now in over 26 million homes—and serves as its president as well. [Woe, woe, ye of the next generation!]

Homophobe disclaimer: This article is about the gay agenda, not gays. Some of my best friends are gays. Really. All of these folks have every right to their jobs, but we also have the right to ponder the consequences of having pro-gay agenda powerhouses like these in positions that afford them so much opportunity to move that agenda throughout society.

No Comments yet »

You’ve seen the endless stories about obscene CEO salaries and bonuses, right? Turns out the media — especially the Grand Dame of ‘em all, the NYT — is showing it can do “obscene” quite well, too.

NYT shares lost 11% last year, so if you’re a widow hoping those 1,000 shares you’ve got will do you well, you saw your investment drop by by $3.76 a share. Tough for you, but not tough for the gal in the picture, NYT CEO Janet Robinson, 56, who oversaw the dramatic decline in the NYT’s value.

Robinson got an 11 percent pay raise, including stock awards, to collect $4.4 million , plus she’s squirreled away another $4.13 million in restricted stock. To accomplish this feat, gleefully reports the NYPost,

… directors revised its bottom-line bonus formula to exclude embarrassing write-downs, converting millions in losses into instant profits of $1.58 per share.

As a result, the revisions triggered a payday clause to unleash 75 percent of the cash bonuses targeted for top executives and family members that otherwise would have been lost, filings said.

The man most to blame for the NYT’s diminishing credibility, Chairman Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, 55, was due no bonus because the company didn’t meet his bonus targets, but says the Post, “the board voted anyway to let him collect as much as $3.4 million in bonus and stock awards by using more optimistic cash flows instead of final earnings per share.”

Pinch winced,though, and accepted a mere $560,521 for not making his bonus target.

How do you spell liberal mainstream media? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.

No Comments yet »