RUSH: You want to hear something else funny? Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. Have you heard what the New York Times executive editor has done? His name is Dean Baquet. He has banned — you ready for this? The executive editor of the New York Times has banned all of his reporters from appearing on MSNBC and CNN, specifically Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, and Don Lemon, the smartest man in TV, by the way, on CNN.
And do you know why? He says those programs are too opinionated, and he’s afraid that his reporters, if they appear on those programs, will be assumed to be as biased as the hosts of the programs are. Ha! Is this not great? I’m not making this up!
“The New York Times is said to be cracking down on its reporters appearing on cable news shows it considers to be ‘too partisan.’” Vanity Fair has the details. They published this report which alleged that PMSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell and Don Lemon at CNN have made the New York Times no-go list. No New York Times reporter can appear on those programs.
The magazine, Vanity Fair, began its story “by alleging the Times’ financial editor David Enrich had initially accepted an invitation to appear on The Rachel Maddow Show May 20 to discuss a report involving President Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner’s transactions with Deutsche Bank, but had to ultimately turn down the appearance after he informed the [New York Times] communications department.”
Essentially the PR department at the New York Times, “You’re not going on those shows. You’re not gonna talk about Trump and Jared and Deutsche Bank on those shows because those shows are too partisan and we don’t want people to think that our reporters are partisan.” (laughing) I’ll tell you, though, there is something fascinating about this.
“Sources told the magazine the Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet expressed concerns certain primetime shows are becoming more opinionated and that reporters who appear on their shows would be ‘perceived as being aligned’ with the show’s politics. ‘He thinks it’s a real issue,’ one source said, another adding, “Their view is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.”
Do you know what this means? It means a whole bunch of things. It means, even at the New York Times, they think these programs have long ago gone way overboard and don’t want to have anything to do with it. They want to be able to do their bias without having any questions about their credibility. They believe appearing on Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell and Don Lemon is gonna destroy the credibility of New York Times reporters.
Why would that be? Could it be that there’s no audience to speak of on Don Lemon’s show, and Rachel Maddow is bleeding audience, she has been losing audience since the turn of the year, and especially since the Mueller report came out.
What we’re learning here is that the people that watch MSNBC don’t really have any loyalty to the hosts there. What they had was a vampire’s blood lust for fake news, and the fake news was that Trump was guilty, that Trump colluded, Trump was gonna be hitting the highway.
Mueller was gonna come back, they were promised, MSNBC viewers were promised, they were assured every night multiple times for two years that Trump was toast, and Trump is not toast. So there’s no reason to watch anymore. You can’t get what you need from MSNBC.
If you’re relying on those people to tell you what’s gonna happen and they swear it’s gonna happen and they promise you and they assure you and then it doesn’t happen, those people are in big trouble. The story could be looked at in any number of ways. Rachel Maddow — I don’t want to single her out. That whole network, MSNBC, is totally dependent on fake news.
Now, let’s carry forward ’cause I got the Bill Barr sound bites coming up here in a moment. If multiple investigations, the Barr investigation and the Horowitz inspector general investigation, if those investigations document and establish an attempt by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Department of Justice of trying to fix the 2016 election, of trying to reverse the results of that reelection, of trying to unseat a president by obtaining warrants to spy under false pretenses, then what the hell is gonna happen to MSNBC’s ratings then?
And don’t think this isn’t a factor in the New York Times editor assessing whether or not he wants his reporters on this network. Everybody in that town knows what’s coming. As I said yesterday, we’re in a race against the coup people to get to the bottom of this and to report findings first, and they know it, Mueller’s press conference, he knows it. All these people are very much aware of what’s coming, including in the Drive-By Media.
And if these investigations actually reveal what we’re pretty sure we know happened, then what is going to be left of places like CNN and PMSNBC? They’ve looked like clowns because of these crap conspiracy theories the last two years. And if this is not at least one reason for the New York Times decision, I’d love to know what else it is they are thinking.