One month before the election, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart holdover correspondent Lewis Black turned up on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah to record a fresh segment of Back in Black. He highlighted how few Americans choose to vote and urged eligible voters to overcome personal distaste for both candidates:
This should actually be fairly simple to keep straight:
Conservatives and other media types are tripping over themselves to point out the absurdity inherent in Chris Christie’s recent endorsement of Donald Trump. And they’re right to do so. Whether he made the move out of spite for Marco Rubio or simply because he is angling for a cabinet position in the seemingly-inevitable Trump administration, Christie clearly has some ulterior motive.
But there’s no need to point to Christie’s past comments on the Donald as evidence for his sincerity deficit. Indeed, to prove his decision to back Trump falls somewhere short of wholehearted, one needn’t look past the Wall Street Journal’s coverage:*
Back when Bernie announced his nascent candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone presciently* wrote that the “question of ‘seriousness’ . . . will dominate coverage of the Sanders campaign.”
*And I presciently put in my two cents.
He was right. Here are just a few headlines from one week in January, around the time that Bernie began to seriously close the gap with Hillary in Iowa:
When Brian Williams was revealed as a fraud, I couldn’t help but wonder about one thing: https://twitter.com/mntreiger/status/563505842100908032 Now that Bill O’Reilly has been similarly exposed, I have precisely the same question — but even more so. Consider this extended excerpt from an article about Media Matters, the organization responsible for discovering several of O’Reilly’s fabrications: Continue reading How impotent has media coverage of O’Reilly’s reporting been?
Back in early October, Stephen Colbert (z”l) reported on the fact that two months into its war against ISIS, the U.S. military had yet to give the operation an official name. Or as he put it, “Nowhere has Obama been weaker than in the realm of strategic nomenclature.”
FOX Business was rightly panned a few weeks ago for airing a report that Super Bowl attendance was expected to decrease this year, and that ticket prices were falling as a result. FOX blamed the lack of interest on the slate of playoff teams (at the time: New England, Indianapolis, Seattle, Green Bay) as well as on people choosing to attend Super Bowl parties instead of the actual Super Bowl.
I don’t need to rehearse all the reasons the segment’s two reporters (as well as its writers, producers, etc.) should be fed to ISIS, but in brief: Super Bowl attendance is purely a function of stadium size, and a smaller stadium likely indicates that ticket prices are expected to be higher, not that fewer people are interested in attending. (Not accidentally, the two teams that made the Super Bowl also happen to boast the highest average ticket prices in the NFL this season.)
Barack Obama just threw a cow’s worth of red meat to his critics (probably not the wisest thing to do in India).
A few weeks ago, his administration explained that the President could not participate in France’s Unity March on such short notice out of of security concerns. Today, he announced an imminent visit to Saudi Arabia in order to “offer his condolences on behalf of the American people”* on the death of dearly-departed King Abdullah.** It would seem there are fewer security concerns in ISIS’ backyard than in Paris; I wonder how much of Riyadh is a no-go zone.
In an effort to deflect attention from the deflated balls his team may or may not have prepared for the AFC Championship Game, Patriots QB Tom Brady declared, “This isn’t ISIS.” Of course not: as Colbert famously noted, that organization’s beheadings are reminiscent of the NFL, but with less head trauma.