Earlier tonight I was reading an article on CNN.com sententiously entitled: Without a free press Democracy dies when I realized there was something familiar about its banality and political correctness. I glanced at the byline and remembered immediately: dizzy Obama State Department drone, Jen Psaki.
She (Psaki) has an anti-fan club of (Russian) haters who consider her not to be very bright—they even invented their own anti-IQ unit called 1 Psaki. One who has 3 Psakis has a brain of a clam. The term ‘psaking’ in Russian political newspeak means to know nothing about the subject while saying something banal and politically correct.
I’m unsure of how many clam brains would be the equivalent of Psaki’s dimly pulsing ganglion. Though the arguments it produces are hardly beyond the wit of mollusks. Those arguments being: 1) A free and functional press is critical to civic hygiene and 2) Obama never excluded certain reporters. The first point is actually a self-indictment, and the second is an outright lie.
I’ll start with the first assertion. Never asked in this presumption is what exactly Chuck Todd, MSNBC, WaPo, and descending shit-shows like Huff Post and Buzzfeed have to do with an impartial, informative, and free press. If that institution is indeed essential, then CNN and Jen Psaki are no more relevant to it than Tilikum.
Media outlets are owned by liberal billionaires and/or multinational conglomerates. Neither of which have a philosophical or pecuniary interest in the objective finding and reporting of facts. They do, however, have a keen interest in driving political agendas and page views. And these goals aren’t at all aided by honest, impartial presentations. Reporters and anchors are thus photogenic factotums serving the political and financial interests of their employers. These interests often being completely at odds with the majority of media consumers.
As a result, trying to cultivate a well-informed, independent decision-capable public is about as high a priority for these people as it is for time-share salesmen. Though in defense of the latter, they typically aren’t trying to shovel a prog narrative down your throat with the maintenance fees.
The not-frequently-enough mentioned point here is that the media make themselves look even more mendacious by claiming the nobility of a service they don’t actually provide. This should be viewed with equal derision as a five-foot 50 year-old pointing to himself while speaking of the need for basketball teams to field a dominant center. Maybe so, but that ain’t you.
Psaki’s second assertion is that Trump’s malevolence is further exemplified by “targeting” specific media outlets for exclusion from his briefings.
Is it typical to target specific media outlets and exclude them from attending a White House briefing? The short answer is no.
It’s not just typical, it’s absolute. Access to the President is an extremely valuable commodity. And one that has always been rationed. If she believes otherwise Psaki should explain why her former boss didn’t give credentials to Steve Sailer, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, or /pol. The short answer is because they were targeted for exclusion. And Trump should do precisely the same to vacuous hacks like her.
America would be better served by an all unpaid blogger White House press corps. The interrogators would be far more pointed and far less puppets. And if we have learned anything from the horrors of last century’s leftist regimes it is that without alt-right bloggers, democracy dies.