78 Comments

JVL, babe...you forgot another toxic "Kelly" by the name of Megyn. She seemed fairly "normal" while at Fox Lifestyle, but as soon as she was out of that world, turns out, she was more than a bit of a B. I give her credit--the con job she ran on NBC Universal was MASTERFUL. Turns out that once you got her out of a Fox environment, she was HIGHLY unlikable, although I'm sure her agent said NBC audiences would warm to her. Her weekend interview show flopped because the audience doubted her professional credibility and her morning talk show flopped because no one wants a B in their living room at 9 in the morning--and people can generally spot a B pretty quick. I have heard bits of her Sirius XM program, and she is REALLY leaning into the B nature of her personality...and it really is not cute.

As I said, JVL,,,you forgot one of the toxic Kellys...

Expand full comment

I've never heard of Nikki Finke before, but after reading her story, two words come to mind, Hedda Hopper. Hopper claimed that her Beverly Hills mansion was "the house that fear built." In her time Hollywood careers lived or died at her word. Her most memorable accomplishment in that regard was her advocacy for the creation of a Hollywood blacklist, which provided fodder for the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Expand full comment

You are correct indeed about me not thinking about politics when i wrote that..Nikki would have been very comfortable in the Alex Jones-verse on many levels. Although she had a Trump like need to be powerful and having the most powerful people quaking in terror of her that I think would not have been satisfied by being a mere politicial commentator.

However, when I wrote "real industry" still not sure politcs qualifies as an industry..

Expand full comment
founding

I once had to deal with Nikki Finke as a customer at the car dealership I worked for. Not a nice person.

Expand full comment

Nothing could be more properly karmic than Elon getting taken to the cleaners by some fellow corporate a-holes.

In the end, journalism (without the quotes) runs into two problems:

1) It is a business. That means the primary concern of the people running it is on generating revenue/profit. Nothing wrong with that in the abstract, but it creates problems in practice--the types of stories that you tell and the way you tell them, the fact that you end up (if you want to stay in business) catering to a particular audience (and its preferences). even if everything you publish is 100% true (and nothing is), there are still a lot of games that get played because playing that game will generate more revenue.

2) Journalists are human--as such they have egos and personal desires (even if they have no substantive journalistic bias). Journalism IS a sort of power and is fame--and power and fame tend to be toxic more often than not.

Expand full comment

It’s a good thing that every time the word “journalism” was used in this article, it was put in quotations, accurately signifying that the “journalism” of Hemingway, Bannon, et. al., is anything but. At least Hannity has admitted that he isn’t a journalist (although he could certainly be considered a “journalist”). Of course, Hannity uses that “get-out-of-jail-free” card when he is caught violating some basic tenet of Journalism 101 such as not getting a second source for a story (the Seth Rich conspiracy comes to mind) and doesn’t want to be held accountable for his shoddy “reporting”.

There are certainly bad actors in the left-wing media. But equating them to the right-wing variety is false. First of all, there are so many more right-wing types out there. And, sure, both sides are biased in that they almost exclusively cover stories that make the other side look bad. But the right-wing media goes the extra mile in the way they cover the stories. Some make up the most fantastic lies you can imagine (Sandy Hook). But most don’t outright knowingly lie (although they seem to get a lot more wrong than the left-wing guys do). They are more subtle than that. They employ a technique that I call it the “I’m just sayin’” approach (I think JVL calls it “just asking questions”). They just say something like “isn’t it interesting that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of Capitol security and there was clearly not enough security on January 6”, clearly intending sympathetic ears to believe that Pelosi was somehow involved with the insurrection. It matters not that Pelosi only has a limited role in Capitol security; it only matters that she has some. Since something bad happened on January 6, and Pelosi can be tied to it, however tenuously, that’s good enough. Pelosi is obviously bad. No further thinking required.

Or Carlson can insinuate/speculate that the FBI encouraged people to riot on January 6 because there were undercover FBI agents in the mob.

What they are doing is providing a talking point that will allow those who have already made up their mind to take comfort in the fact that they were right all along (they knew Pelosi was bad; now they have “proof”).

My favorite example of this technique was when Trump went after Judge Curiel because "I heard that he's Mexican". Hannity's defense of Trump went like this:

1 ) He first noted that Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association

2) He said that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the national group, La Raza

3) He then went on a rant about how bad the La Raza group is ("did you know that La Raza means race - that shows how racist they are")

4) He reiterated that he didn't know of any connection between the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and La Raza.

So why would Hannity single out La Raza as being a group not affiliated with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association? After all, there are literally thousands (and maybe millions) of groups having no connection to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, Future Farmers of America, the list is endless.). Why did he choose La Raza for special mention? I'd be willing to bet that he believes that his listeners will hear "La Raza" in both names and believe there must be some connection. They won't hear Hannity's disavowal of any connection between the groups which was, at best, a qualified one ("I don't know of any connection"). Since Hannity has already claimed that La Raza is racist, it then follows that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, and its members, must also be at least somewhat racist. It's then only a small leap to believing that Curiel is racist which is what Trump claimed all along.

When Hannity says that he doesn't know of any connection, the subliminal message is that there might be one; it's just that he doesn't know about it. And he takes advantage of the logical fact that you can’t prove a negative (there’s no way to “prove” the election wasn’t stolen). By repeating this numerous times, he can also go from "there might be a connection" to "there probably is a connection" since, if nothing else, his listeners have heard it so many times.

Right-wing politicians are also adept at this technique. So Steve Scalise can ask “did Nancy Pelosi delay deployment of troops to the Capitol”, and wonder why ”the January 6 Committee won’t investigate this question”. It matters not to Scalise that he already knows the answer. It only matters that the question is out there.

Expand full comment

On the topic of media, the documentary series The Lincoln Project, which follows the group from about 50 days before the election to spring 2021, is fascinating. Lots of big egos and leadership errors, but I credit them for their aggressive tactics and ability to connect with voters the left couldn’t reach.

Expand full comment

And in other news, the DOJ has appealed Cannon's original rulings. Basically saying she had zero right to any of her rulings. From what I've seen on other sites, it's a slam dunk against Cannon and Trump.

Expand full comment
founding

No mystery why Musk says he can no longer afford Starlink for Ukraine. Musk put Starlink in place, reaping all the good-guy vibes; waited till it was inextricably integrated into the Ukrainian military infrastructure; and now will stick the Pentagon (and taxpayers) with the bill for a system Ukraine can't do without. Pure extortion. And Musk has the gall to proclaim that Ukraine should trade away its land for worthless promises from Putin. Musk is nothing but a maga grifter all the way down. I hope he and trump share a table in bankruptcy court.

Expand full comment

Twitter could go away tomorrow and who would really care. After the first read today, anyone and anybody using the power of lies and bullshit to gain fame and notoriety should burn in hell, including and certainly not limited to Elon.

Expand full comment

Musk deserves to go down in a very public flame out. Long live karma.

Expand full comment

"...dream of the awesome power of karma."

In this case it's too beautiful to contemplate.

Expand full comment
founding

Great little piece on Finke. Yet it makes me feel like there should be more said about the utter awfulness of Alex Jones. He terrorized families who had lost their children in a mass shooting … repeatedly and endlessly. He mocks the process holding him accountable. He will tie that process up for years in the byzantine world of bankruptcy law and continue to profit off of his torment of those already tortured. I struggle to find words to describe him. An exploration of why anyone, not to mention millions, would continue to listen to him. Is it willful ignorance, or deep deprivation of character, or both, that opens the door for these people into Jones’ world?

Expand full comment
founding

Yesterday's Pivot podcast with Kara Swisher talked about Musk's upcoming problems with Apollo. They can't wait.

Expand full comment

I loved that bit that Cohan writes about the vultures.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving asshole than Musk.

Pretty please let that happen.

Expand full comment

I’m going to steal this Triad today to talk about Bulwark podcast “The Shield of the Republic” in light of the discussion of Taiwan and China. How did I miss the launch of this cuttingly insightful podcast? I found it by accident when I was trying to take advantage of the no commercial versions of the regular pods.

Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman know their foreign affairs stuff. Yes, really! Eliot taught at the Naval War College and was the director of policy planning for the Defense Dept. Eric talks the talk and walks the walk about nuclear weapons (Thanks, POTUS, for giving me a good scare!) and is a former ambassador. Both of them are what I’d call “in the room at the time” guys.

They speak with authority because they have the authority to speak. Even if you have little interest in our foreign relations or in our military (like me), check them out. Thank you, Bulwark for hosting this podcast. Off to go review them on Apple podcasts now.

Expand full comment