In Response to Boycotts Against Conservative Media, Conservative Groups Target MSNBC, CNN

Fighting fire with fire?

The Media Research Center, led by Brent Bozell are mimicking last weeks actions by liberal group, Media Matters for America, in threatening a boycott of sponsors of shows featured on MSNBC and CNN.

The conservative group launched on Wednesday a campaign to inundate corporate sponsors with complaints whenever top liberal television talk-show host show hosts “go beyond political commentary and engage in smear, hate and political extremism.”

It was Media Matters that led the charge to pressure sponsors to flee Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” and eventually resulted in the firing of the long-running, popular personality, Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly lost around 100 sponsors in the effort.

So successful was it, that Media Matters came back for a second bite at the apple last week. This time, they targeted Sean Hannity’s sponsors over Hannity’s refusal to back away from an internet hoax surrounding the murder of a young Democratic National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington D.C. last year.

An internet huckster and notorious self-promoter floated the idea that Rich was the actual source of the leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and that because of it, the DNC and the Clinton family had Rich murdered.

It’s an absolutely fantastical tale, and has proven to be quite painful for the Rich family.

They pleaded with Fox News to stop perpetuating the smear of their son’s name. Fox, in return, pulled the story from their website and issued a retraction.

Hannity balked at first, but eventually did agree that, out of respect for the Rich family, he would stop promoting that particular hoax.

Unfortunately, he’s picked it back up this week, but for a few days, he was quiet.

In that time, because of pressure from Media Matters, Hannity lost around seven sponsors.

After a counter campaign by his supporters, USAA came back.

“Today we are putting ten shows, and their major corporate sponsors on notice that we are watching their every move,” said MRC president Brent Bozell in a press release.
The 10 programs include six airing on MSNBC and four on CNN.

On MSNBC, the targeted shows are hosted by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Joy Reid. On CNN, the hosts are Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Brian Stelter and Fareed Zakaria.

How successful those efforts will be remains to be seen. Since dropping to a 17-year low in ratings, there may very well be a sense of urgency with Fox News personalities to harness the power of the boycott, and the Media Research Center are happy to help them out.

Cars.Com and USAA Are Easily Pressured

I have avoided the Seth Rich story as I never bought into the conspiracy. It seems you would have to believe the Democratic Party has been working with the Trump run intelligence community and DC police to cover up the murder of an employee and, for once, was able to hide the email trail in order to believe it. It seemed to me, and I think is, another random tragedy in a place with many random tragedies.

My friend Sean Hannity disagreed and thought there was something there. He pursued it for several days on his television and radio show before dropping it.

Regardless, Hannity has been on television and radio for more than a decade. He has a substantial body of work in both. And all of us on the right should be troubled that the left was easily able to badger USAA and to drop Hannity over a few days of television and radio. They did not just pull their advertising while Sean Hannity continued to engage the Seth Rich story, but they pulled their advertising altogether.

What is happening should trouble you whether you agree with Hannity or not if you are right-of-center. This effort by the left is only escalating. They are able to force censorship of conservative ideas by starving those ideas of advertising dollars through harassment. They have tried it with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and now Hannity.

I think the O’Reilly example is an exception because it was behavioral, not show content, that led advertisers to drop him. In the other cases, leftwing ideologues badgered advertisers to leave conservative programming over content. While it is certainly the advertiser’s right to advertise where they want, it is troubling that USAA and could so easily be pushed away.

Here at The Resurgent, we saw this first hand last year with Trump supporters. For a while we used a sponsorship model with just a sole advertiser per week. We had to abandon the effort after organized attacks against our sponsors by Trump supporters. What made it somewhat easy for them in those cases were that it was center-right groups being harassed by purportedly center-right voters. We had to change our revenue model and now have to ask for reader donations more than we had intended.

With USAA and, the situation is more striking. They are not center-right organizations being harassed by center-right voters. They are companies that make themselves available to everyone, but are directing their ad dollars based on the whims of leftwing activists. That becomes dangerous to all of us on the right over time. Each success will further embolden them.

It is worth conservatives making it clear to groups at USAA and that if they are not willing to advertise to conservatives, we are not willing to use their services. If conservatives are not vocal about these incidents, we will soon find ourselves without a voice altogether.

BREAKING NEWS: Roger Ailes, Former Head of Fox News, Has Died

Roger Ailes, who led a cable news revolution when Rupert Murdoch hired him to create the Fox News Channel, has died at the age of 77:

The announcement came in a statement from his wife, Elizabeth Ailes:

I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning.  During a career that stretched over more than five decades, his work in entertainment, in politics, and in news affected the lives of many millions. And so even as we mourn his death, we celebrate his life.

Aisles resigned from Fox News last July, after former anchor Gretchen Carlson filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him and the network.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz Considers a Career Change

Last month, rumors began to fly about Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz, and his future in Congress.

According to reports, Chaffetz was giving up on life in Washington and would not be seeking reelection.

Shortly after that, the rumor mill was further whipped up, as it was revealed that Chaffetz would possibly bail his post before the current term was over.

After a short stint away to have emergency surgery on his foot, Chaffetz came barreling back, but it didn’t take long for the latest bit of news to emerge.

From The Hill:

The Utah Republican, who announced in April he would not seek reelection in 2018, may have plans to take on a “substantial role” on air at Fox News, Washingtonian reported.

The report cited two GOP lawmakers and four senior House Republican aides who have knowledge of Chaffetz’s plans.

The role could start as early as July, according to the publication.

You have to imagine that talking about what goes on in Washington is likely much easier than actually working in Washington.

And the pay has to be better.

“Let’s just say that when Jason told us he was headed to Fox, no one was surprised,” one senior House Republican aide said.

A House Republican member close to Chaffetz said he was “gunning for it.”

“Fox was his first choice once he announced his plans,” the House Republican member said.

“He’s probably one of the most media-capable members in the House,” another senior House Republican aide said, “just based on total time spent on a television camera.”

Rep. Chaffetz has spent quite a bit of time on-camera with Fox News and other outlets.

Will this be the absolute end of Chaffetz in the realm of public service?

Probably not. He has indicated that he may run for office again one day, but that day won’t be in 2018.

“You Were Hoodwinked.” Tucker Carlson Tears Into Congressman Who Supported Iran Deal

It’s nice to see Tucker Carlson playing hardball with Democrats. In light of an investigative report from Politico revealing that the Obama administration lied about the prisoners the United States swapped with Iran over the nuclear deal with that nation. The White House called the prisoners “civilians” and even had some charges dropped against them.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration. Another was serving an eight-year sentence for conspiring to supply Iran with satellite technology and hardware. As part of the deal, U.S. officials even dropped their demand for $10 million that a jury said the aerospace engineer illegally received from Tehran.

And in a series of unpublicized court filings, the Justice Department dropped charges and international arrest warrants against 14 other men, all of them fugitives. The administration didn’t disclose their names or what they were accused of doing, noting only in an unattributed, 152-word statement about the swap that the U.S. “also removed any Interpol red notices and dismissed any charges against 14 Iranians for whom it was assessed that extradition requests were unlikely to be successful.”

Carlson had Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) on his show Tuesday night to discuss the Iran deal in light of Politico’s revelations. Carlson asked Swalwell if he had second thoughts knowing what we know now. The congressman refused to relent, spouting talking points and parroting the line that “we’re all safer now” because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons (yet).

Then Carlson began to ask about specific prisoners, and Swalwell refused to alter his tune one bit.

[Carlson] asked Swalwell about one of the Iranian nationals released by Obama who was charged with fraudulently obtaining Federal Aviation Administration credentials.

“Why would someone like that get FAA credentials illegally? He got more than two years in prison,” Carlson said. “Why would we let a guy like that go?”

“Tucker, you got the wrong guy if you think I’m going to come here and defend Iran,” Swalwell said.

“But you voted for it,” Carlson shot back. “You say it made us safer. Why would letting a guy like that go free make us safer?”

Swalwell, however, continued to say the deal overall made America safer.

“I’m not saying you’re pro-Iran, what I’m saying is: You were hoodwinked,” Carlson said.

Swalwell would not back down from his support of the original deal, even as Carlson repeated the newly revealed truth that Congress was lied to in the course of presenting the deal. The congressman wound up essentially agreeing to disagree with Carlson.

It’s too bad.  Don’t you know how refreshing it would have looked to see him admit that if he had to do it over again, he would have done it differently?

Catch the entire video here:


BREAKING: Fox News Announces New Lineup

With the announcement that 21-year Fox News veteran Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to host his show The O’Reilly Factor, the top-rated cable news network immediately set to work rearranging its weekday programming schedule:

Probably the least surprising move was Tucker Carlson moving to the coveted 8pm time slot.  Ever since he replaced Megyn Kelly last January after her departure for NBC, Carlson’s show has drawn even higher ratings than The Kelly File did, which makes Tucker Carlson Tonight a natural fit to succeed The O’Reilly Factor.  The Five, meanwhile, gets a bump into prime time, where I’m sure Dana Perino will do her best to make sure Greg Gutfeld behaves himself (but not too much, I hope).

The Five will have to soldier on without Eric Bolling, however, since he’ll be anchoring his own show at 5pm.  Martha McCallum will round out the 7pm slot, with Special Report staying in its usual spot at 6pm.

The Kremlin Says Bill O’Reilly Owes Vladimir Putin an Apology, But Does He?

I haven’t watched any Fox News program in full since the election.

With that being said, if Bill O’Reilly will look into the camera and say, “…And people in Hell want Slurpees,” I will be a devoted watcher of “The O’Reilly Factor” for as long as it exists or I have sight. This I promise.

In a Fox News interview with President Trump, O’Reilly attempted to clear the air, as far as Trump’s seeming admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

O’Reilly described Putin as a “killer,” and he pretty much is.

The ex-KGB agent has been linked to the poisoning of political opponents, and some 30-plus journalists who were critical of Putin’s administration have been killed.

Today, the Kremlin is responding, and they are quite indignant.

“We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

I don’t know if they actually expect an apology or if they’re simply trolling.

So far, no word from Fox or O’Reilly, in reference to an apology or Slurpees.

Trump, when commenting on the allegations against Putin in the same interview, questioned how “innocent” the United States itself was, saying it had made a lot of its own mistakes. That irritated some congressional Republicans who said there was no comparison between how Russian and U.S. politicians behaved.

Asked in an interview on Sunday to clarify those comments, Trump told Westwood One Sports Radio: “Well, I don’t have to clarify it. The question was do you respect him — he’s a head of a major country.”

There’s a difference between giving someone the respect due any human being and in drawing a moral equivalence between a brutal despot and the nation you were elected to lead.

I actually don’t believe Trump is oblivious to what has so many citizens, journos, and House Republicans upset about his comments.

He just doesn’t care.

Trump has long harbored a textbook-level man-crush on Putin.

In January last year, after a British judge ruled that Putin had “probably” authorized the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, Trump said he saw no evidence the Russian president was guilty.

“First of all, he says he didn’t do it. Many people say it wasn’t him. So who knows who did it?” Trump said.

His defense of Putin is one of only a handful of things Trump is consistent about.

Don’t cave, O’Reilly. You were right.

CNN Spins Left: Dixville Notch Edition

Two headlines, one spin.

Both are true, except the CNN story ignores the whole truth to spin their truth.

Dixville Notch voted 4-4 tying Clinton…but the “against” was split between Trump (2), Gary Johnson (1) and a write-in for Mitt Romney (1).

But Dixville Notch wasn’t the only community that voted at midnight. New Hampshire allows towns with populations under 100 to ask permission to open their polls at their leisure and close the polls when all registered voters have cast a ballot. In fact, three towns voted: Dixville Notch, Hart’s Location, and Millsfield.

Clinton won more votes in Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location, but Trump was the overwhelming favorite in Millsfield, with a 16-4 advantage.

So the score is 32-25, Trump (56.1 to 43.9 percent).

If Fox News spun like CNN, their headline would read: “Trump takes commanding 12 point lead in N.H. first election day voting.” To their credit, they didn’t. And lest you think CNN simply filed the story before the other communities announced their totals, no–it was updated at 12:48 am, well after the results were published.

CNN buried the Hart’s Location and Millsfield results in paragraph eight. Nice. I know which network I’m not going to watch tonight.

Actually tonight, I won’t watch at all. I’m volunteering with DecisionDeskHQ. Follow their results, because they are better and faster than the AP.