O’Keefe’s Sophomore Book Sheds Light on Mainstream Media Malpractice

Our writer Gabriella reviews James O’Keefe’s sophomore book on media bias.

Trust placed in media continues to be at an all-time low.

In July 2017, Gallup found that 60% of respondents believe the media reports inaccurately. It doesn’t help that most outspoken members of the Fourth Estate are dishonest about their political orientations, nor does it help when they give preferential coverage to events like the March For Our Lives over the March for Life.

The media doesn’t do itself any favors discounting viewers residing Flyover Country (Middle America), rural counties, or those outside the confines of the Acela Corridor. After the election of President Donald Trump, their biases came to light even more and their disdain for reporting the truth became increasingly clear.

Granted, there are members of the mainstream media like Jake Tapper, Yashar Ali, and others who aren’t necessarily mired by a left-leaning agenda on notable issues. Reporters like Tapper, for instance, tend to constructively criticize both parties regardless of administration. Nevertheless, the few outliers at mainstream sources are sadly outweighed by their more partisan colleagues. This bitter partisanship—compounded by them acting as gatekeepers for the Democrat Party—has drawn parallels between them and the Soviet Union’s Pravda, as encapsulated by investigative reporter and Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s new book.

O’Keefe’s sophomore book American Pravda, which succeeds the 2014 bestseller Breakthrough and as of this writing sits atop #1 spot of Amazon’s bestseller’s in Journalist Biographies, explores how his organization Project Veritas has relentlessly pursued the truth—in the fashion of the self-publishing Soviet-era Samizdat —against the establishment media, which he argues, at times, behaves like Pravda. While many will find this to be an illusory correlation, he’s not entirely wrong.

For context, Pravda was a Soviet news publications weaponized by Soviet dictators like Joseph Stalin to push an agenda. As I wrote here at The Resurgent earlier, here’s what Pravda did per Washington Post:

Stalin used the press, unburdened by facts, to create an enclosed atmosphere where paranoid fantasy had to be accepted as reality. He gaslighted his victims, and an entire nation, besides. There was seemingly no way out. (Pravda means truth in Russian, and the name of the other Soviet leading paper, Izvestia, means news; as the old joke had it, there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.)

The book explores beyond O’Keefe’s direct participation in his investigative work. Over the years, he’s largely shifted from direct participation in undercover videos to overseeing Project Veritas. O’Keefe may have started Project Veritas but it’s not simply about him, the book stresses. It’s about his employees and their overall quest for truth. He’s accrued a team of hardworking, loyal employees and undercover reporters throughout the years. Pravda clues readers into the evolution of O’Keefe’s work, from admitting past mistakes to showing maturation of his conduct and careful attention to detail in executing a mission and effectuating policy changes.

Throughout the book, O’Keefe draws great inspiration for Pravda from the original muckrakers of the early 20th Century who sought to expose corruption. He laments how modern-day journalists have abandoned integrity and fail to learn from their predecessors—simply to protect Democrat nominee for president Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

The various anecdotes he provides give readers an inside look into the success of his and Project Veritas’ work holding the media, politicians, and advocacy groups accountable for their misdeeds. How many other journalistic entities can claim credit for talking down ACORN?

O’Keefe’s undercover videos have received immense scrutiny—though I believe much of it is misplaced. Generally speaking, I’ve been supportive of the majority of James’ work, bearing an exception or two. Though they’ve made a lasting impression on his targets, supporters, and even high levels of the U.S. government, PV doesn’t get the credit it deserves. Recently, undercover reporters for Channel 4 in Great Britain blew the whistle on Cambridge Analytica using the same recording tactics as Project Veritas. Yet the former is heralded as deserving of a Pulitzer Prize, while the latter is simply a tool of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Funny how selective praise is when it comes to exposes.

​I’m convinced American Pravda can even get O’Keefe’s detractors to consider his work from a purely objective lens. The establishment media shouldn’t hold a monopoly on reporting or truth-seeking. The way we communicate and absorb information today is ever-changing, and it’s inevitable to see a change in how news is delivered too from a creative disruptive edge. To those who value truth-seeking, regardless of political orientation, they’ll find value in this timely book. O’Keefe and his fellow creative disruptors have forced corrupt organizations to go out of business, politicians or consultants resign, and laws to change.

Without a doubt James’ work with Project Veritas has been consequential, and for the betterment for our government and culture. Don’t simply take my word for it. Pick up a copy of American Pravda today.

Disclosure: The author is a friend of James O’Keefe’s and had a dossier placed on her.

You Can’t Complain About Liberal Media Bias Again, Ever

Without fail, every day I post about the Russian government’s propaganda campaign to influence voters, I am told:

“There’s no evidence of a single changed vote.”

When I clarify I never claimed a vote was physically altered, they counter:

“There’s no proof of a single voter changing their vote because of it.”

If propaganda and misleading information have no effect on voters, then all political campaigns, dishonest advertising, and even the “liberal media bias” has no effect whatsoever, on anyone. This also means that logically-speaking, all campaign finance laws are moot, since they needlessly try to avoid something that has no effect on voters.

Right?

The featured photo above is beyond ironic, in that case.

So, don’t ever complain about bias again, ever. If you do, I’m going to ask you:

“Is there evidence of a single changed vote?”

When you object to the question, I’m going to clarify:

“There’s no proof of a single voter changing their vote because of ‘fake news.'”

If this is true, what are you worried about then?

Shame Change: Now It’s Halperin the Harasser?

Since the titans of television news fancy themselves as stars in their own right, it only makes sense that they would try to emulate the glitz and glamor of Hollywood.  But the sex scandals?  That’s a bit extreme, if you ask me.  Alas, if what CNN reports is true, then it appears as if there was a good reason that Harvey Weinstein got so chummy with reporters.  Turns out, they’re not so different from him:

Veteran journalist Mark Halperin sexually harassed women while he was in a powerful position at ABC News, according to five women who shared their previously undisclosed accounts with CNN…

Widely considered to be one of the preeminent political journalists, Halperin, 52, has, among other career highlights, been political director at ABC News; co-authored the bestselling book “Game Change,” which was made into an HBO movie starring Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin; and anchored a television show on Bloomberg TV.

But women who spoke to CNN say he also had a dark side not made public until now. The stories of harassment shared with CNN range in nature from propositioning employees for sex to kissing and grabbing one’s breasts against her will. Three of the women who spoke to CNN described Halperin as, without consent, pressing an erection against their bodies while he was clothed.

Sound familiar?  Throw in a bathrobe and a quick massage, and Halperin would be a dead ringer for Harvey.

The first woman told CNN she was invited to visit his office in the early 2000s, when he was political director at ABC News, to have a soda, and said that while she was there with him he forcibly kissed her and pressed his genitals against her body.

“I went up to have a soda and talk and — he just kissed me and grabbed my boobs,” the woman said. “I just froze. I didn’t know what to do.”

Okay, this is getting to be uncanny.  Did Halperin spend a lot of time at Miramax taking notes?  Or maybe he and Harvey went to the same fetish conventions, dressed in matching costumes?

The second woman, another former ABC News employee, described a similar experience in his office during the 2004 campaign cycle.

“The first meeting I ever had with him was in his office and he just came up from behind — I was sitting in a chair from across his desk — and he came up behind me and [while he was clothed] he pressed his body on mine, his penis, on my shoulder,” this woman told CNN.

Eww.  Thank goodness there wasn’t a potted plant nearby, or things might have really gotten ugly.

She also alleged that Halperin propositioned her for sex on the campaign trail.

“He would say, ‘Why don’t you meet me upstairs?’ And I would say, ‘That’s not a good idea.’ And he would push the request further,” the person said. “Eventually I would just ignore him and go about my business.”

Wow.  It sounds like he got his pickup lines from an article in a 1978 issue of Penthouse:  “She Wants You, She Just Doesn’t Know It Yet.”  Personally, I’d like to know if it ever actually worked—because I can’t see any woman falling for it.  Even after five shots of Jaegermeister.

Of course, Halperin is denying that he ever forced himself on anyone, but this one tidbit from the story is telling:

“During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me,” Halperin said in a statement to CNN Wednesday night. “I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain. For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I’m going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation.”

Properly deal is mediaspeak for “consulting my lawyer to see what my options are.”

MSNBC, where Halperin makes frequent appearances on “Morning Joe,” said early Thursday that Halperin would leave his roles at that network and as an analyst at NBC News.

“We find the story and the allegations very troubling,” MSNBC said in a statement. “Mark Halperin is leaving his role as a contributor until the questions around his past conduct are fully understood.”

In other words, there’s enough fire with this smoke for NBC to distance themselves from Halperin. Plus the network is already in dutch for spiking Ronan Farrow’s Weistein expose. They don’t want any more of this kind of stink on them.

But hey, that’s showbiz.

BREAKING: President Threatens FCC License Challenge Over Latest NBC Report

In a constantly-evolving news cycle, the latest target of President Trump’s Twitter account is a favorite of his: NBC. Issuing a lengthy report this morning, they revealed that the comment drawing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s ire in July was Trump’s assertion that we have a tenfold increase in our nuclear stockpile. It was in response to this, and other tense moments that Tillerson is reported to have called the President a “f***ing moron.”

Oh, so that’s why.

The report was written by four journalists, and is backed by three sources who were in the room at the time. According to the piece, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of the State Department were part of a meeting of top military brass, and they were taken aback by the comment from the President. Military leaders told the President that there are legal and practical obstacles to such a buildup, and it was likely unnecessary, because our military position in the world is stronger than in past, when our arsenal was still growing. We have several treaties around the world limiting our expansion of the nuclear stockpile.

But, the report that he asked about an increase clearly got under the President’s skin, as he responded in the last hour – not surprisingly – on Twitter, this time threatening the FCC license of NBC, and comparing them to CNN. He calls them both “fake news” any time they report negative news on the administration.

 

At issue may be semantics, as the officials present were quoted as saying the president’s comments came during a slide presentation on nuclear stockpiles showing we had over 32,000 nuclear warheads in the 1960’s. President Trump said he wanted us to have that many now. The U.S. currently has just under 4,000. The “nearly tenfold” headline is drawn from the simple math between the two numbers.

This is in contrast to then-candidate Trump’s comments in December 2015, when he stated during a CNN interview in Milwaukee, “I don’t want more nuclear weapons.” Although, he’s left military observers in confusion, as he’s suggested “changes” to nuclear non-proliferation treaties before becoming President.

The chain of stories has left the White House in an awkward place. First, the report came out that Sec Tillerson once called the President a “f***ing moron,” to which Trump called it “fake news.” Then, the press continued to expand on the report and while questioning the President about Tillerson’s non-denial denial, Trump said “if it’s true,” he challenges Sec Tillerson to an IQ test match, something Press Sec Sarah Sanders called “a joke.” Now, with this report, we see some of what caused Tillerson to allegedly use the language following the meeting.

For it’s part, NBC is standing it’s ground, and defending it’s report. In the midst of the contentious relationship between the President and the press corps, editors have been making their journalists gather three, sometimes four or more sources on stories before publication. Although, the White House is leaking so much over the last nine months, it hasn’t been that hard to find them.

UPDATE 3:37pm: During Oval Office remarks at a press conference with Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the President went further, saying “disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.”

Yeah, that’s how it works, Mr. President.

The “Fake News” Narrative Is An Old Story

This #FakeNews madness is a headache. The term, coined to describe actual fake news sites that publish not-obvious parody has been co-opted by my fellow conservatives to describe anything perceived to be not conservative. It’s most popular among those for whose deceiving it actually described.

In fact, the last two years social media proliferated with fabricated or purposely exaggerated stories, ironically claiming actual news orgs were fake.  We also now know that the majority of these websites were fabricated, and even promoted at cost by Russian interests. But we ate them up, cuz… “HILLARY!”

It led an entire section of the voting public to believe only subjective truth. It could be said that many of us in the conservative media world became that which we fought: a self-confirming bias that focused on traffic and influence, rather than the truth.

Journalism is a craft. It’s authority is often driven by those most passionate about it. Nearly every journalist you’ll find wants the truth, not their vision of it. Not to say some won’t stray. Some will, and always have. But it’s rare. Real journalists can’t sleep. They ache during the day when they can’t write a story. They hate not having that last piece of information they need to confirm something. They hate being lied to. They’re VERY good BS detectors. Some veterans call it a “disease” you can’t escape.

KNOWING THE HISTORY

First of all, to me there’s a difference between the “press,” and “media.” The “press” means delivering substance, from digging in public information files and conducting boring interviews to sitting in mundane public meetings. The “media” to me has always symbolized the latest foray into sensationalism, and focuses on audience over substance.

The latter pays the bills, so outlets have almost always been some combination of the two. Some focus on one over the other.

In the late 18th and early 19th century, most of the press was consolidated in a few major publications, usually sponsored by political parties. Particularly during campaigns, papers got vicious. Occasionally, they’d flat out lie without much recourse. But even then, the founders insisted first on freedom of the press in the constitution. Since they were mostly political, this clearly involved campaign behavior.

Things changed during the early to mid-1800’s, with the advent of the “penny press,” brought by increases in technology and communication. During this time, democratization of the press resulted in hundreds of publications and various perspectives, along with misinformation. But, still a valuable tool of accountability, and check on power.

Late in the 19th century, and into the middle of the 20th, “yellow journalism” was born, as publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst consolidated these papers again, under their respective umbrellas, for the purpose of harnessing political and economic power. (Yes, ironically, Pulitzer supported dishonest news because it sold well. So did Hearst. “Pulitzer prize” was established by his fortune to reward journalist he would likely have never hired. 😉) Modern “tabloid” media was born, as graphics and eye catching front pages became the driving source of most papers.

This of course was disrupted with new technology again, as radio and television in the early 20th century put strains on the traditional press mechanism. People wanted different and new perspectives. However, consolidation set in again over the next several decades, as these entities became similar to each other. There is some debate about what led to this “virtual consolidation” in mentality. I believe the strong nationalistic vibe after the war, combined with a natural trust that followed in the next couple of decades aided this.

While it has its downsides, this consolidation pattern we’ve begun seeing does eliminate inconsistency of public information. But it also led to negligence in government. (See: Vietnam war, Nixon, corruption schemes)

Enter the next technological revolution in the 1990’s: the internet. It democratized the press even further than the 19th century did, leading to more and more opinion and sensationalism (read: the NEW yellow journalism), and less and less *tradecraft* among journalists. This is where we are in 2017.

However, if history is our guide, we will once again see a consolidation of these various outlets in the years ahead. So, are we at the tail end of this democratization pattern, or still in the middle of it?

Regardless of the patterns, the free flow of information, and public awareness has consistently grown. I think that is a good thing.

Throughout history, public trust in the press has gone back and forth, and often for good reason. But, the journalism trade has stayed consistent. It maintains certain standards that you can bank on. Does bias exist? Sure, among writers AND readers alike. (That means you too!) An editor can omit, exaggerate or even tilt a headline or narrative. But actual “fake news” is very rare among the more established outlets. As long as journalists are human, they will always make mistakes, but they rarely flat out lie. Doing so would end their job. The elements you should look for in deciphering truth is not that it confirms your own bias, but that it employs a few standards that have separated the wheat from the chaff.

Ask yourself:

1. Do they have multiple sources for the story (at least two, most three or more)?
2. Is the narrative informative, or implicative?
3. If the issue presents contrasting sides, does it present a quote – or citation of one – from both/all sides?
4. Was the story rushed, or has it been at least updated since publication?  Almost all news stories evolve/grow over time. 
5. Does the story use pronouns or proper names in telling its story? Or is it informal and colloquial?
6. Do they source the story by hat-tipping other journalistic works or original source documents? Doing so shows confidence in a story. Consistency of a story strengthens its veracity.

Even with these standards, mistakes happen. But it doesn’t make for “fake news.” It makes for imperfect, but necessary news. Because they do the hard work we often can’t.

And as a personal note, do you occasionally find a story irritating to read as I do? That’s usually a good sign that you’re being challenged by a news source.

You should be. Stick with it.

#FakeHate #RealNewsHurts

Combating Fake News: 4 Strategies to Separate Fact from Fiction

AN ESSENTIAL GUIDE FOR NAVIGATING THE POST-TRUTH ERA

This fake-media toolkit was originally published by Stand Up Republic, and has been reprinted by permission. 

The digital revolution has fundamentally changed the way we produce and consume news. Technology has brought about unmistakable progress on many fronts, but it has also introduced new opportunities for exploitation and attack.

It’s fair to say that disinformation has long challenged our ability to discern truth in media. But the 2016 presidential election exposed to the public a new strain of the virus, and it’s one that requires increased vigilance to remedy.

Today’s abundance of “news” invites us to indulge our inherent prejudices on demand, even when facts disprove our feelings. Anonymous social media profiles (including bots) enable the wildest ideas to spread across information networks, even appearing on the @POTUS account at times.

Fake news stories are sometimes funny. They are often benign. But they can also have serious and terrible consequences.

As our society adapts to this new landscape — one the President aggravates by labeling any media that challenges him as “the enemy” or “fake news” — foreign adversaries look to spread their own propaganda. Their disinformation campaigns exploit our free and open media, sowing chaos and eroding democracy in the process.

When consuming media from any source, and in particular online, one must navigate our digital world carefully. Know what to look for, and help your family and friends avoid spreading misinformation too.

Here are four strategies to help you identify fake news.

1. EXAMINE THE SOURCE

First, look at the URL: have you ever heard of breakingnews365.net before? If you haven’t, be wary of the site’s contents.

The Internet’s open and accessible nature means virtually anyone can publish an official-looking website. Someone with basic web skills can have a site up and running in a matter of minutes, with almost no cost.

The producers of fake news have political and financial motives. During the 2016 presidential race, for example, the Denver Guardian — an entirely fake news site — generated between $10,000 and $30,000 a month in ad revenue.

Of course, sites that mix real journalism with distorted (or blatantly false) information blur the line between fact and fiction. Here’s a list of the worst offenders.

2. CHECK YOUR SHOCK LEVEL

Did the article you just read shock you because it’s inconsistent with known facts? Did it seem designed to play on your emotions? If a claim or story seems outrageous, don’t take it at face value. It’s possibly twisted to confirm your worst fears and suspicions, or simply made up altogether.

Why do so many people fall for this trap? Because fake news purveyors — including advertisers — seek clicks and shares of their content, and they know appealing to raw emotion elicits a greater response in our brains.

Bottom line: take a moment to analyze what you just read and ask yourself if it seems too “out there” to be true. If the answer is yes, proceed with caution before internalizing, clicking or sharing.

3. CONSULT GOOGLE (or maybe Bing?)

When something happens, news organizations race to publish. Every bureau chief wants to be the first to post or to secure the next exclusive. So when important national events happen, multiple sources cover it.

Different outlets may, of course, offer their particular analysis of an issue. But at the end of the day, the root facts of an issue — its essential truth — will shine through.

As a rule of thumb, check to see if other outlets are talking about a given subject. If at least three different, well-known publications have reported on the same topic, there’s a good chance its core facts are legitimate.

Example: Fox News, MSNBC and the New York Times each published an article about President Trump and Steve Bannon around August 15, 2017. While each source frames the story differently, it’s probably safe to conclude that this is real news.

4. COMPENSATE FOR MEDIA BIAS

It’s true — media outlets on both sides of the aisle present the news with bias. But, as with Tip #3, we can overcome this by challenging opposing viewpoints.

Where do you gather your news, generally speaking? If it’s largely through TV, consider reading a newspaper. If you typically read Fox News articles online, consider watching CNN.

Too often, we choose to ignore ideas that compete with our preconceived notions. By varying our sources and consuming those with which we disagree, we are more likely to get to the truth than if we only participate in the partisan echo chamber that too often reaffirms false narratives.

 

This link should be bookmarked for future reference!

The Blaze Rebooted

It’s no secret that media personality Glenn Beck is no stranger to reinvention.  A while back, I wrote about his turn away from partisan politics and his own reputation as a conservative firebrand, and his attempts to bridge the left-right divide in the country by trying to find common ground with well-known figures on the left.  I believed in what Glenn was doing, and still do–my only concern was that he partner with people who acted in good faith, not bomb-throwers like Samantha Bee who reverted to form as soon as it suited her.

It was a pretty big risk for Glenn, but hardly the first time he had taken a stand based on principle.  His media company, the Blaze, has also suffered ratings losses over his refusal to support Donald Trump during the 2016 election, and finds itself in an uncertain position–one not unlike the conservative movement itself, which is struggling to find an identity somewhere between the rising tide of Trumpian populism and a feckless GOP that is great at talking about limited government but shows little interest in actually implementing it.  How does a liberty-minded network serve its audience in an environment like that?

To most of the media, the answer has been to keep everyone moving from one outrage to the next, spinning opinion, innuendo and loosely-sourced facts into a noxious mix that doesn’t inform so much as incite. In this relationship, however, the roles are reversed:  the audience actually serves the media, providing them with ratings and clicks as they await their next fix of information.  Never mind that it’s fake news, often packaged by people who have a vested interest in deceiving the public. As long as it gets eyeballs, it’s all good.

To this, Glenn Beck is saying no more:

We begin tomorrow a new experiment. To prove to the media and to ourselves that you can be profitable and tell the truth…

If those of us on the right don’t stop our infighting and figure this out we will fall one by one and google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple will be the portal of all information.

We will not waste your time or our resources one more second on things you can get everywhere else. The Blaze has done too much of it.

Glenn goes on to note that the Blaze will be refocusing its energies on what is working and divert them away from what is not, starting with a refocus on one of its greatest strengths–its radio presence.  But there will also be a pivot in the way that it reports the news:

On September 11, the Blaze news team spends a solid week with me working on a completely different approach to news which we will begin to roll out as MVP, Sept 18.

The world dismisses us and most believe it is too late or will not work. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps you must run click bait, misleading headlines and say outrageous things to be successful.

If this is true, I will shut it all down and find some other way to make a positive impact. Even if it is just to teach my children…

I am not promising anything to you. I cannot promise success, or that we will change the world. I have failed at that too many times.

All I promise to you is what I promise myself and family. That we will give our best work to figure out a way to make sense of the news, expose the lies on all sides, teach our children true history including the worst and then the best of American history and most importantly, do our utmost to help find a way back to each other and the things that made our nation the light of the world in the first place.

I can’t help but think this sounds a lot like the mission statement that Jerry Maguire wrote, after he had the revelation that almost everything he had been doing in his business life was wrong.  Of course, in the movie Jerry ended up taking a big hit–much like the Blaze itself, with the layoffs of 20% of its workforce–but in the end, he had to lose in order to win later.  I hope this is the case with Glenn’s venture.

As to what that new approach with news might be, the standard seems pretty simple:  just tell the truth.  How exactly that will be carried out, though, remains a tantalizing mystery.  Glenn has promised to hire “creative disrupters” to carry out his vision, but beyond that we don’t have many clues.

For what it’s worth, I do have one suggestion.  Perhaps the greatest shortcoming in the news business has been its retreat not only from the rest of America, but also the world.  Newspapers can no longer afford to maintain foreign bureaus, and the big operations based out of New York and Washington rarely get out of their bubbles.  As a result, so much of what the average news consumer sees is actually produced by third parties such as corporate interests and political action committees, with very little effort put into finding out if any of the claims are even true.

But what if the Blaze could harness the power of people who aren’t professional reporters, but who know how to tell stories?  Citizen jouralism has already proved itself to be a potent force in the blogosphere–so why couldn’t that particular model also work for network news?  In a world where everyone has a high-definition video camera in their pockets, literally anyone could be a reporter with just a little training.  All they would need beyond that is strong editorial guidance, which the Blaze could provide.  In short order, they could have a footprint across the country that would rival any network.  More that that, they’d have a perspective that nearly all of its competitors lack.

Like I said, it’s just a suggestion–but with just a little imagination, perhaps the Blaze can change the paradigm.

Here’s hoping that they succeed.

Sean Spicer Is Looking For Work




Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer is being scouted by top outlets for a new TV gig.

Despite a rocky and short tenure under the Trump administration, “Spicey” is a sought-after commodity by major media companies due to his long career in political communications and his high ratings draw. Before entering Trump’s orbit, Spicer served as the communications director for the Republican National Committee from 2011 to 2017.

Spicer met with all the major news networks over the last few days. He held meetings with NBC News president Noah Oppenheim and David Rhodes at CBS. He also met with executives at Fox News regarding potential work. You may have heard about Spicer becoming a contestant on “Dancing With The Stars” – this is very much a possibility. The 45-year-old spent time in Manhattan meeting with ABC executives and was offered a chance to compete on DWTS.

Spicer, who abruptly resigned as press secretary on July 21, was interviewed on Wednesday by MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin at a Manhattan restaurant. The two reportedly “go back a long way.” Spicer has also looked to Halperin, an acclaimed reporter and editor, for book-publishing and career advice.

Spicer is being pursued by top Hollywood agencies such as WME, UTA and CAA. Along with making the television news rounds, he has also met with various agents over a possible book deal and speaking appearances.

Despite being highly coveted by news outlets across the political spectrum, there is one network in particular that he has yet to meet with. Unsurprisingly, Spicer has held no talks with CNN regarding a possible job.

A source with Page Six explains, “Spicer has met with everyone except CNN — for obvious reasons. Everybody wants to get the first interview with him, he’s a huge booking right now — but Sean’s got his own agenda and he’s first looking for a big TV job.”

It’s safe to say there is still bad blood between CNN and Spicey. The Trump administration has been extremely critical of their news coverage in the past months. The contentious relationship hit a breaking point when President Trump tweeted a gif of him body slamming a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head.