Class Act: David Axelrod Goes On Fox News To Sell His Book, Then Goes On ABC To Bash Fox News

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

david the red axelrod

 

Hat/Tip to Newsmax and Politico.

Ah the impeccable scruples of the left…

Sure! I’d be glad to go onto YOUR network so that I could sell some of MY books!! Then, after you’ve treated me fairly, I’ll go on a “friendly” network and trash YOUR network so I don’t look so bad to all the other “scrupulous” lefties out there that are just like me.

Class act all the way, Axe.

/sarcasm off

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly called Democratic political adviser David Axelrod “two-faced” for using O’Reilly’s show to sell his new book, then insulting Fox News Channel soon afterward.

In O’Reilly’s opening segment on Monday’s “O’Reilly Factor,”  he took on politicians, pundits and left-of-center media who trash Fox News. He said the motivation is simple: Fox News is a threat because it has become the top-rated source of cable news and sets the political agenda.

Knowing that Fox will bring in the most viewers, Axelrod, who has worked for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, asked O’Reilly to give him the first cable interview about his new book, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” O’Reilly said.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

“I told him, sure. We would have a lively, respectful discussion, which we did on February 9th,” O’Reilly said. “Then, to show his gratitude, Axelrod begins trashing Fox News, saying we are not a real news organization.  That was a mistake.”

Seems good old Axe couldn’t help himself when he left Fox News’ HQ and went over to ABC’s Sunday morning talk show, “This Week.” He just HAD to bash Fox, I mean he’d went to the “enemy camp;” he’d crossed over to the other side; he had literally given credence to the enemy by his very presence on their Network, and he HAD to fix that.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”

“I’m not concerned,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” when George Stephanopoulos asked about the back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News.

“Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

“It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.” 

So “they” will appear on Fox News, on their shows; “they” are going to participate, and then run across town to the safe haven of a CNN or ABC or MSNBC and tell people how “bad” Fox News is.

I will be the first to say that Fox doesn’t always represent us out here in “fly-over” country, but they do, at least give a stage to opposing points of view and they don’t try and pretend that their evening shows are news, unlike MSNBC or CNN do.

.

.

.

Share

NY Post: Brian Williams Could Be Fired Under ‘Morals’ Clause In Contract

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 

 photo brian-williams_zps39f54443.jpg
You can’t print these lies about me on the internet! For God sakes man! I helped Al Gore INVENT the internet!

 

Hat/Tip to Drew MacKenzie at Newsmax.

Even though he’s been shot down in not one but TWO helicopters, even though he saw one of his “sisters and brothers” float by in the French Quarter after Katrina, even though he got dysentery from flood waters of Katrina, even though he was pinned down in a 5 star hotel by roving gangs and saved by a police officer that he is friends with to this day, even though he “flew into Baghdad with SEAL Team 6,” even though he was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the Berlin Wall came down and even though he witnessed a suicide in the Super Dome, Brian Williams could be fired by NBC.

I know, right?

Hard to imagine, but it’s true.

Suspended NBC News anchor Brian Williams has a “morality clause” in his contract that means he could be fired by the TV news organization, according to the New York Post.

Williams was given a six-month unpaid suspension after it was revealed that he lied during a news show, and at other times, about his helicopter being shot down during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He later admitted during a news broadcast that he had “conflated” his account.

The morality clause says Williams faces the ax if he offended “a significant portion of the community” or brought himself “public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule.”

NBC executives, including Stephen Burke and Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, will make a decision on whether Williams breached the rule, sources tell the Post, which noted that a “public morals” clause appears in NBC News employees’ contract that includes a dismissal warning.

The actual wording of Williams’ contract with NBC that deals with this area, in other words, “the moral clause” reads like this:

“If artist commits any act or becomes involved in any situation, or occurrence, which brings artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which justifiably shocks, insults or offends a significant portion of the community, or if publicity is given to any such conduct … company shall have the right to terminate.”

.

.

.

Share

MSNBC Does It Again: Reporter Calls Chris Kyle “Racist” Who Went On “Killing Sprees”

Share

msnbc 002

Hat/Tip to John Nolte at Breitbart.com.

The same network who brought you, on Memorial Day weekend, Chris Hayes saying he was troubled by the term “fallen heroes” when speaking about US military personnel killed in the line of duty.

Now we’ve got a reporter named Ayman Mohyeldin who decided to take it upon himself to label Chris Kyle a racist who, instead of serving his country, went on “killing sprees.”

Editor’s Note: What a tool.

Ayman Mohyeldin

Transcript via Newsbusters:

MOHYELDIN: A lot of his stories when he was back home in Texas, a lot of his own personal opinions about what he was doing in Iraq, how he viewed Iraqis. Some of what people have described as his racist tendencies towards Iraqis and Muslims when he was going on some of these, you know, killing sprees in Iraq on assignment. So I think there are issues –

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait. Killing sprees? Chris Kyle was going on killing sprees?

MOHYELDIN: When he was involved in his — on assignments in terms of what he was doing. A lot of the description that has come out from his book and some of the terminology that he has used, people have described as racist. . . .

GEIST: It wasn’t a commentary about the war. It wasn’t about the politics of the war. It was a character study of what this guy went through. And you don’t have to like him and all the comments about him calling Iraqis savages. He was calling the people he was shooting savages. He was calling people who he thought had IEDs, who he thought were going to kill his buddies savages. He didn’t — some people have seized on that term that he thought all Iraqis or everyone in the Middle East is a savage. That’s just not what he said. It’s not what he said. He was talking about the people he was fighting in the theater, calling them savages.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, when we come back, Ayman is going to kick around Santa Claus.


.
.
.

Share

Must See Video: ABC Reporter Retires, Tells Of Obama Cursing Out White House Press Corps

Share

 photo anncomptonofabcnewsretires_zpsa91665b3.jpg

Hat/Tip to C-Span.

In a recent interview with C-Span, retiring ABC News Reporter, Ann Compton has shed some light on the real Obama.

Some quotes from her interview:

“Barack Obama likes campaigning. I am not sure that he is enjoying governing with the same gusto.”

“I have seen, in the last year, Barack Obama really angry, twice. Both were off the record times, one profanity laced.”

“I think most presidents have been more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day.”

“This particular administration had been more opaque than any I had covered.”

 

.

.

.
.
.

Share

Full Interview: Sharyl Attkisson, Former CBS Reporter Says Obama Has An Enemies’ List

Share

 photo SharylAttkisson001_zpsd268ec6c.jpg

Hat/Tip to Paul Bond at The Hollywood Reporter.

Investigative Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson left CBS after her bosses lost their appetite for any story that would hurt, or even show the Obama Administration in a bad light. In this interview, she talks about an unknown government agency hacking into her computer, her bosses choice to bury her stories, their penchant for labeling any analyst they didn’t agree with as Conservative Analysts and all others as just Analysts, the trend from the MSM’s desire to air stories negative to Republican administrations to their fear of doing so to the Obama administration, and finally of the fact that Barack Obama does indeed have an Enemies’ List.

Here is her full interview with THR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THR reached out for a response from CBS News, but the organization declined to comment.

Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?

The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.

Did he believe you?

He appeared to.

Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?

God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.

Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?

I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.

Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?

Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.

So what did you do about it?

It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.

Did they conclude anything yet?

Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.

CBS executives suspect that the government hacked your computer, and CBS computers, but there’s been no accountability? CBS just dropped the matter?

As far as I know, although what they told me was they wanted to heavily pursue it and find out who was responsible. I discovered on my own they have a computer security specialist working for CBS. … But nobody ever questioned me, came to my house, checked the security of my system, asked me for more information, or followed up with me.

Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?

The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.

And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.

So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?

I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.

And who do you suspect is on that list?

Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.

Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?

Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.

You’re being accused of being a partisan right-winger. Have you reported negative stories about conservatives?

Most of my reporting has not been political in nature. Some of the stories that were politicized, I don’t consider political stories, but they were made out to be by people who obviously didn’t want them reported, and I would put Fast and Furious and Benghazi in that category. But other stories include the one I won an investigative Emmy Award for last year, which was a series of stories from the time I went undercover to investigate freshmen Republican fundraising. I also did a story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow complimented in a seven-minute-long segment, exposing Congressman Steven Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, and his possible and allegedly fraudulent charity, which was followed shortly thereafter by his resignation from Congress.

Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?

Not my reporter colleagues.

But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?

Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.

Who were the ones discouraging it?

Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.

You’ve said they did this because of liberal bias?

I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. But I think there was a complex list of reasons why a lot of stories did and didn’t make it on the air the last couple of years. But in a general sense, I noticed a tendency to avoid stories that would draw pushback form people they didn’t want to have pushback from, whether it’s corporations, advertisers or politicians.

Has CBS ever cared about pushback from politicians before, or only under this administration?

I don’t know how these same people would have acted under a different administration. They came in shortly after the Obama administration [began].

Do you think CBS was unlikely to run negative stories about President George W. Bush for fear of pushback?

They might have been just as likely to be fearful of stories that drew controversy or pushback from corporate entities, charities, politicians, whatever the special interest might be.

Since when has CBS ever been afraid to air controversial political stories? It ran those memos claiming Bush was trying to avoid the Vietnam War. That wasn’t controversial?

CBS is hundreds of people, and they’ve changed over the years. It’s not a monolithic organization that has one viewpoint, and that’s why for everything you try to put into a box there are exceptions. For example, they assigned me to cover Benghazi, that wasn’t my idea. And they were very enthusiastic about the story for a period of time. Why they changed on that, I tried to figure out many times and I can’t say; I can only say what my experiences were.

You must have a theory as to why, right?

They simply didn’t want stories on any controversies, whether that involved corporations, advertisers, charities or other special interests. They were not impossible to get on the air, but very difficult. So we just concluded that there was not the same appetite as there had been in the past.

You’re acting like it was a monetary decision on the part of CBS, like it didn’t want to risk its advertising. But these were government stories we’re talking about.

No, I’m trying to explain to you it wasn’t just government stories, although that’s what the media tended to focus on.

OK then, name the corporations that wanted to kill your stories.

I don’t think any corporations killed my stories. I said CBS had a tendency, in the last couple years especially, to appear to want to avoid controversies or stories that they felt would get pushback from certain corporations and politicians and special interests and charities.

Can you tell me the names of these corporations, charities and politicians?

I hate to tick them off because I feel like the story should be told in some context for legal reasons, but I think that you can pull some ideas from the book.

Does CBS go after liberal policies that are failing with as much gusto as they do conservative policies that are failing?

Well, whether something’s failing is a matter of somebody’s opinion. But I would say, as Lisa Myers has observed, as USA Today has observed, the media in general has been less enthusiastic about government accountability under the Obama administration. And I concur with those observations.

Why is that the case?

In my view, trying to avoid the pushback, and the fallout, and the headaches that come with doing stories on whatever the topic may be that the powers-that-be don’t like.

So, in journalism today, it works to bully the reporters and they’ll lay off? “Speak truth to power” — that saying from the 1960s — that doesn’t apply to journalism anymore?

Reporters want to, as you say, “speak truth to power,” but it’s harder to get those types of stories past the gatekeepers.

So what good is CBS News if it’s just going to bow down to the bullies who tell them to shut up?

Those were your words, but I think they do a great job on some controversies and investigations. 60 Minutes still does some great work. So I’m not saying there aren’t very good journalists and work being done, but on the whole, as many other journalists have observed recently and publicly, the media is not as good at holding the powers that be accountable, for whatever reason.

And that reason has nothing to do with political bias?

It’s a complex set of factors involving politics, relationships with corporations and advertisers and, at times, just the idea that they’d rather not have the headache of doing a story that they have to defend.

You seem to be going way out of your way not to label the media biased. But in your book you talk about how one of your bosses insisted on labeling conservative analysts but not labeling the liberal ones, and if they really didn’t like an analyst, they’d label him or her “right-wing.” So if that’s not bias, what is it?

I didn’t say that nobody is ever biased. I’m not trying to be cagey. It’s not one factor at play … I never told CBS when I wanted to leave that I thought anybody was liberally biased. I never argued that point. People kind of drew that conclusion because it served a certain narrative on both sides. It served the narrative of conservatives who were happy to feel like someone was spilling the family secret and it served the narrative of liberals who didn’t like some of my reporting and thought it could be explained away if I were a right-wing conservative. So everybody sort of adopted that line, and that’s something that I never said.

So whose rule was it at CBS that analysts who were conservative be labeled as such and analysts who are liberal not be labeled?

I’m not going to name her. And it was some time ago, but she did say after I brought it up, she’d think about it, and she agreed that what I brought up was a good point and she changed — at least with me — what she’d been doing.

And who at CBS got mad at you for going on Laura Ingraham’s radio show because Ingraham is right wing?

I don’t want to say her name, either.

It sounds like you criticize Obama officials by name but you won’t say names when you’re criticizing CBS. Why the double standard?

I said a lot of names in the book, and I have my reasons why. … I described it in the book as I wished to describe it.

Did anybody at CBS get mad when reporters went on liberal outlets, like MSNBC?

I can only speak for myself. I saw other reporters go on conservative and liberal outlets and I never heard that they received blowback. So I don’t know if it was just me. But in my experience, they did tell me to not go on the Laura Ingraham Show.

Just the Laura Ingraham Show or all conservative shows?

That’s a good question. At the time it was just, “Don’t ever go on her show again.” And then they denied other interview requests on both liberal and conservative outlets after that — a lot, but not all the time.

Are there any celebrities mentioned in your book?

Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. I traveled with them on a trip to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton. They were entertaining the troops. But first lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter were on a work trip and I was there covering it. I mention them briefly in light of the fact that I did the story that exposed that Mrs. Clinton’s account that we’d been fired at by snipers was not true. I mentioned that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were on the plane with us.

Was there any pushback on your Hillary-Bosnia report?

No. That sort of highlights the changes that had occurred because that was a different executive producer who, as far as I know, is actually friendly with the Clintons but nonetheless was very gung-ho on the story because he was — like most journalists — able to get outside of his own friendships and belief systems and just be a newsman.

Who at CBS did you tender your resignation to?

The first time I tried to leave, a year before I left, I had my agent call CBS president David Rhodes.

What was your interaction with David Rhodes like?

Well, for most of my tenure at CBS he was very supportive. We met privately a lot about how he wanted my stories to get exposure.

When did that change?

As I tried to leave, there were some tense times. But it ended up cordial.

Why did you want to leave?

The bottom line is, the last couple of years it was clear for me that there was nothing meaningful left for me to do at CBS, and I just wanted to move on. They had plenty of talented reporters but, for what I did, investigative and original reporting, there was no appetite for that.

What are your politics personally?

I don’t talk about my politics, but I would say I’m like a lot of Americans. I’m mixed. I can honestly see two valid sides of a debate. That’s not to say I don’t have positions and thoughts on things, of course I do, but I don’t let those things get in the way of my work.

The primary issues in your book are Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the alleged green energy scandals and Obamacare. Which of those four needs further reporting?

Wow. There’s a great deal of reporting to be done on all of them. I can’t pick one. At CBS, I would have continued on all of them, if I was able to.

It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?

I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray.

You were accused by some at CBS of agenda-driven news stories against Obama. Has anyone at CBS ever accused a reporter of agenda-driven stories against Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush, or anyone prominent on the right?

When I did stories that clearly were not positive toward Republicans, I was never accused of being a crazy liberal or having an agenda. That only happened when I did stories that were perceived as being negative toward Democrats.

Did your executive producer, Patricia Shevlin, accuse you of not being supportive enough of green energy because of your stories about taxpayer money given to Solyndra before it went bankrupt?

She never told me that — that was her answer to another executive who raised the question: “Shouldn’t we be doing these stories on evening news?”

Why is that anecdote about Shevlin significant?

She is a well-known liberal ideologue who let that get in the way of her decisions and judgment. Whether people will say that to you or not, that was the consensus. That was discussed sometimes daily at CBS.

You also said somebody hacked your TV. How would you know? Why would someone want to hack someone’s TV?

I didn’t say that. What I said was the anomalies that were occurring in my house all seemed to be associated with my FiOS line. … I think that the work that they were doing to get into my computer system may have interfered with the other systems in the house.

The progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America is leading the charge against you, it seems.

Media Matters has acknowledged targeting me, yes. Not with a computer intrusion, just with trying to discredit the stories I did as much as possible.

Do you think they were paid to do so?

They said they weren’t, but the question has certainly crossed my mind.

Do you know of any occasions where Media Matters was given money earmarked to targeting somebody?

David Folkenflik of NPR told me they were paid to target Rush Limbaugh. He may have misspoken on that, because someone told me it may have been Glenn Beck. He gave me two instances in which they were paid to target. He also said that they were paid to target Fox News. I’m not sure if that’s correct. It was just another reporter relaying that information to me.

(David Folkenflik did not respond to a request for comment. Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told THR: “Media Matters has never taken a dime to target Sharyl Attkisson.”).

Do you think Media Matters has libeled you?

That’s a good question. I haven’t had a legal review of what they’ve said. I actually read little to zero of what they write. They have definitely said many, many, false things. But I’m not sure it qualifies as libel under the law.

They’re a media watchdog. They tell the truth about what the media is reporting, right?

I don’t think they have an obligation to, no. Anyone can say they’re a media watchdog and then give their opinions … most people understand it’s a propaganda blog. They are very close to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests.

What does the press think of Media Matters?

Like anybody that reaches out to us, we may take under consideration an idea that they propose. But I never get asked about their conservative counterparts, such as Media Research Center or Accuracy in Media. In my experience, no one ever takes their criticism as if it is something legitimate to be answered, but when Media Matters says something, many people in the media almost treat them as a neutral journalism organization.

Is that biased?

That probably is the result of an unintentional bias.

As we’re talking, I got an email from Media Matters that says a video you released of your computer being hacked is probably just a stuck backspace key.

It’s what I would call a video anecdote, something that happened along the way. It has nothing to do with the forensic evidence and the analysis. It’s just something interesting, a punctuation mark of things that were happening. And, certainly, I expect Media Matters to say that the backspace key was held down.

What story were you working on when your backspace key started operating by itself?

I was preparing questions for my interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering about Benghazi and the Accountability Review Board.

So of all the stories you did that were seen as negative against Obama, Benghazi was the one that really irritated them?

I think green energy got under their skin first, and the remote intrusions into my computer predated Benghazi.

From what you told me thus far, it sounds like you’re accusing CBS of cowardice more than liberal bias. Is that correct?

I haven’t used that word, ever. CBS is hundreds of people. It’s not a monolithic organization. That’s the hard part about trying to make a statement or draw conclusions. I would use the word “fearful,” rather than “cowardice.” Some people in the decision-making process, not necessarily reporters at the ground level, but some of those deciding what goes on television have become very fearful of the sponsors and would just prefer to avoid conflict and controversy, which means you’re not going to do a lot of original investigative reporting.

You mentioned your former boss David Rhodes. His brother is Ben Rhodes, a security adviser to the president. Is there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest there when he’s telling you to lay off Benghazi while his brother works for the president?

David didn’t tell me to lay off Benghazi, and I don’t really have an opinion of his relationship with his brother, and how that might have affected things.

Did anyone tell you to lay off Benghazi, or did they just stop using your stories on TV?

They started not using my stories. I don’t know what goes on in the decision-making process, but in general the shows’ producers and managing editors and so on would be the ones that decide what goes on the broadcasts and what doesn’t. I certainly had people joining me at CBS and pushing for stories to get on television that didn’t get on. And they were stopped, as far as I was concerned, somewhere in New York.

What reasons did they give you for not airing your stories?

They would just say — and they didn’t talk to me personally, this was to senior producers — they would just say things like, “There is no time on the show for it tonight,” “That’s a great story but maybe we’ll get to it tomorrow,” “Not today, but tell us when there are other developments, we’ll consider it again.”

Why would the administration blame the murders in Benghazi on a YouTube video if that was untrue?

Some of the information the administration is withholding from public release involves a meeting or meetings that occurred in which this was presumably discussed. So we can only wonder, but the body of evidence that’s come out in the two years since would lead a reasonable person to conclude they wanted to steer the public’s direction away from the idea that this was definitely an act of terror, technically on U.S. soil if it was U.S. property overseas. It occurred on the president’s watch, very close to an election, at a time when he had claimed Al Qaeda was on the run.

But that reason sounds fairly pathetic and unworthy of such a huge lie. Doesn’t it?

From whose viewpoint? I mean, it’s apparently important enough for them to deflect opinion, and I’m not sure if that is indeed why they did it, that’s just the best reason most of us can come up with, looking at the evidence that has come out since. Maybe there is a better reason why they did it, I don’t know. I have a feeling we won’t ever have the full story.

What news network do you think you’ll land with next?

I certainly haven’t decided I’ll ever work at another network or even necessarily work full-time again. When I decided to leave CBS, the discussion I had with my husband was, I have to be prepared to walk out and not work anywhere ever again, and we were fine with that.

Have you had offers?

Yes, but I don’t want to discuss them.

Media Matters and others say that you’re pushing a media-is-biased narrative to curry favor with conservatives.

Anyone who knows much of anything about me knows that I don’t curry favor with people. Period.

Being targeted, allegedly, by the Obama administration, and your stories allegedly being shunned at CBS — were those ultimately good things for you?

I don’t think those were pleasant things, but where I sit today I would say, “Fine, I’m exactly where I ought to be.” And I will tell you, before all this stuff happened, I did hope to, and thought I would, work the rest of my career at CBS doing as much as I had been doing over most of the last 20 years. It didn’t work out that way, but I’m not sorrowful over it. … I think there is a cultural change in journalism that’s going on — a turn away from the kind of reporting that just holds the powers-that-be accountable. It’s not just a CBS thing.

The major news networks are just afraid of the powerful all of a sudden?

Well, when you put it that way, it makes it sound silly, and that’s what I’ve written about in the book. I don’t think there was a sudden switch.

Nobody was saying that the media was afraid of George W. Bush, now all of a sudden they are afraid of Barack Obama?

There were times when people said that — inside CBS, after Rathergate.

Were there some depressing days for you at CBS toward the end?

I was very disheartened when my producer and I would have great stories, and in some cases, whistleblowers we convinced to go out on a limb and tell their story, only to then have to go back to them and say nobody’s interested. So, we’ve had to do that more times in the past few years than I’ve had to do in the previous 30.

An Obama spokesman called you “unreasonable.” Are you?

I’m probably one of the most reasonable reporters out there. But their definition of unreasonable is when they answer a question, if it doesn’t make sense or if it contradicts other facts, I don’t just accept it and go away.

What haven’t I asked you about that you think is important to mention?

A couple people have told me that CBS News has started a whisper campaign to say that I’m paranoid, crazy and a liar?

Are you paranoid?

I’d like to think not. It’s just a good word they use to discredit and “controversialize” reporters and stories they don’t like.

Assuming this whisper campaign against you is true, who is orchestrating it?

I was told that Chris Isham, the bureau chief in Washington, was a part of it.

.

.

.

Share

Ex-CBS Reporter’s Book Reveals How Liberal Media Protects Obama

Share

Sharyl Attkisson Stonewalled book

Hat/Tip to Kyle Smith at New York Post.

For over 6 years now most Americans have come to understand that the MSM (Main Stream Media) have been more than arbiters of the truth. They have been, in many cases complete shills for the current administration.

From giving Barack Obama softball questions, to gushing at his “greatness”, to actually ditching stories that they thought would hurt him, the MSM has been complicit in the degradation and, yes, socialization of this country.

You can think back to the editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas calling Obama a “God” – “Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

And lest we forget, it was Chris “Tingles” Matthews on CNN, after listening to an Obama speech, famously said of Obama, “The feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama speech, my. I felt this thrill going up my leg. I don’t have that too often.”

Well one reporter is not taking that messianic, worshiping path that presides over the dogma that Barack Hussein Obama can do no wrong.

Sharyl Attkisson was a long time reporter for CBS and she was a damned good one, at that. Not afraid to take on the big boys, step on a few toes or shed any partisan ideology to get to the truth of the story.

The trouble is, her bosses at CBS wouldn’t let her tell the entire scope of the stories, or they’d bury them on their website if they hurt the Obama administration.

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”

That was when Sharyl was being nice.

Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.

And when ideology isn’t the problem, most of the big network news folks are afraid to upset the people who buy advertising on those networks.

In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.

Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).

And despite how bad the image of the MSM is, especially in the minds of those of us on the Right, Attkisson says that the reporters themselves aren’t the problem.

Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

Does anyone remember Solyndra? Obama wanted to be the “Green Energy” President so bad, he squandered billions in hard-earned taxpayer money for what turned out to be a few measly photo ops and public speaking events.

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’?” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”

On ObamaCare, Attkisson says that she’s not the only one who wants to tell the truth about that horrid law.

Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.

“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”

Once again, she says the problem is at the top of the networks – AND – at the top of the Obama White House.

One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”

When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’ brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.

You would think that the black eye CBS News got with Dan Rather’s pushing of poorly forged documents that tried to paint a picture of President George W. Bush as some sort of playboy, AWOL fighter pilot, they might learn a lesson and get back to hard news coverage. But, no.

Attkisson left CBS News in frustration earlier this year. In the book she cites the complete loss of interest in investigative stories at “CBS Evening News” under new host Scott Pelley and new executive producer Shevlin.

She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.

And speaking of those forged documents dredged up by Dan Rather…

Ignoring Attkisson proved damaging to CBS in other ways. When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”

Asked to do a followup story on the documents, she flatly refused, citing an ethics clause in her contract. “And if you make me, I’ll have to call my lawyer,” she said. “Nobody ever said another word” to her about reporting on the documents…

One of her co-workers tried to warn her that she’d better look out for her own career.

After Pelley and Shevlin aired a report that wrongly tarnished reports by Attkisson (and Jonathan Karl of ABC News) on how the administration scrubbed its talking points of references to terrorism after Benghazi, and did so without mentioning that the author of some of the talking points, Ben Rhodes, was the brother of the president of CBS News, she says a colleague told her, “[CBS] is selling you down the river. They’ll gladly sacrifice your reputation to save their own. If you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody will.”

After reading the book, you won’t question whether CBS News or Attkisson is more trustworthy.

Read the full story here.

.

.

Share

State-Run Media Circling the Drain: MSNBC Has Lower Ratings Than Reruns of “Shark Tank”

Share

 photo msnbc-logo_zpsb248e2ac.jpg
 

For the past 3 months reruns of “Shark Tank” beat out every show on MSNBC. Oh, and Fox News is still #1.

shark-tank-s3No one would say the summer of 2014 suffered any shortage of breaking news.

From the crisis in Ferguson, Mo., to the cultural impact of Robin Williams’ and Joan Rivers’ sudden deaths and all the way up to recent round-the-clock coverage of U.S. strikes on ISIS, cable news has been heavily occupied. The last three months have been so big, Fox News Channel just clocked its first quarter with the most-watched prime time across all of cable in more than a decade — even besting USA and ESPN.

The average 1.79 million viewers between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, gave FNC its first quarter atop the dial since the Iraq War broke out in 2003.

CNN’s gains from the comparable quarter last year were modest, but they were still gains. Its 186,000 adults 18-49 in prime time (8-11 p.m.) marked a 4 percent improvement and even outpaced MSNBC — now back in third place. MSNBC, still holding slight second-place edge in total viewers, was down 21 percent in the key demo compared to last year. Pulling just an average 150,000 adults 25-54 in prime time, it meant quarterly lows for Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell in the key demo.

The wondrous anomaly of Shark Tank encores also continues. With the ABC reality competition in heavy off-net rotation on CBNBC, those repeats are outperforming much of cable news and ranking No. 14 in prime time where adults 25-54 are concerned — besting every telecast on MSNBC.

Can you guys hear me laughing? ‘Cause I’m rolling here. The Obamunist preenings of Rachel Madcow & Co. draw fewer viewers than reruns of a show devoted to naked capitalism. That’s gotta hurt.

Then, in a burst of schadenfreude synchronicity, we see that Pinch Sulzberger’s Pravda is sacking another 100 reporters.

The New York Times Co. said Wednesday it plans to cut about 100 newsroom jobs through buyouts, and perhaps layoffs, to cut costs and shift more resources to digital news products.

The company, whose advertising revenue fell 4% year-over-year in the most recent quarter, will offer buyouts to employees at its editorial and business operations. If not enough employees take the offer, it will resort to layoffs.

“The job losses are necessary to control our costs and to allow us to continue to invest in the digital future of The New York Times, but we know that they will be painful both for the individuals affected and for their colleagues,” said newspaper publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and company CEO Mark Thompson in a note to the staff.

Except, their “digital future” isn’t looking too good either.

They also announced that the company will shut down NYT Opinion, a recently launched mobile app for opinion content, because it wasn’t getting enough subscribers.

Folks aren’t willing to pay for Obamunist claptrap emailed to them 24×7? Well sure, it’s available for free on MSNBC, and we’ve already seen how well they’re doing…

If only there was a news outlet that was successful, one the Times could emulate, and maybe cash in on millions of new subscribers. I wonder if Carlos Slim has Rupert Murdoch’s phone number?

.

.

Share

Larry King’s Suggestion to CNN: Hire Spongebob!

Share
Spongebob would increase CNN’s credibility!

Larry King was asked about improving CNN’s fortunes.  His answer, while in jest, says a great deal.  Lisa Graas has the details…

Media Bistro:

“CNN’s got problems,” [Larry King] said. “I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

“Cartoons” he joked as advice for CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker. “Put ‘Spongebob’ on CNN— 24 hours— until a big story breaks. Then we break into ‘Spongebob,’ and go to the hurricane, and then back to ‘Spongebob.’”

Frankly, I think having Spongebob on staff would increase the credibility of CNN immensely.  Of course, even the Teletubbies would do a great deal for MSNBC’s credibility.

Share

What Has Happened To The Once Mighty Peacock?

Share

The executives and powers that be over at 30 Rockefeller Plaza have evidently never heard that old adage, when you find yourself in a hole – STOP DIGGING!! What has happened to the network that brought us such sterling news people as, Hugh Downs, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, David Brinkley, Jessica Savitch, John Chancellor and Stone Phillips?

The list of NBC’s faux pas keeps growing and growing with each passing day, it seems. Let’s recap, shall we? (and these are just the ones this author remembers)

* MSNBC television host Ed Shultz via his radio show –
– calls radio talk show personality, Laura Ingram a slut, live on the air, not once, but twice.
– calls the GOP “anti-American.”
– says of the Republicans, “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are Conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.”
– says “You’re damn right Dick Cheney’s heart is a political football. We oughta rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”
– he continues about Dick Cheney, “Lord take him to the promised land, will ya? See I don’t even wish they guy goes to hell, I just wanna get him the hell outta here.”

* MSNBC host Chris “Thrill Up His Leg” Matthews –
– “I think Sarah Palin proved herself to be – I think she’s proven herself to be profoundly stupid.”
– mocked Rep. Michele Bachmann as being hypnotized for the answers she gave him, then called her a balloon head because she stated that the Founding Fathers were against slavery.
– called people who believe in God, “troglodytes.”
– on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show he said, “…everybody in the GOP pushes the birther conspiracy…”

* Martin Bashir called for defecation and urination into the mouth of Sarah Palin. (He later resigned.)

* Melissa Harris Perry –
– She and her entire panel made fun of Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandson.
– said, “…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

And now we come to NBC’s latest transgression. During their New Year’s Eve show, Carson Daly tried to speak about the Pearl Harbor Day tweet by SpaghettiOs which showed their mascot holding an American flag and saying, “Take a moment to remember #PearlHarbor with us.” Following is a transcript of the exchange:

CARSON DALY, HOST: SpaghettiOs on Pearl Harbor Day, they sent out a tweet featuring their mascot holding an American flag asking people to quote “take a moment to remember #PearlHarbor with us.” It offended a lot of people, corporations glomming on to, you know, sentimental American historic traditions, seemingly looking for people in business. It wasn’t good. But you were offended for another reason.
JANE LYNCH: I’m offended because they were referring to SpaghettiOs as pasta.
NATASHA LEGGERO: I mean, it sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew. It’s just sad.
Carson Daly’s face betrayed his emotions. You could tell he thought the remark was out of line, but he went along with the “joke” anyway. The rest of the ensemble laughed heartily about it, with B-list character actor, Anthony Anderson cackling like it was the funniest thing he’d ever heard.

What is it with NBC? They allow their on-air personalities to disparage, mock and denigrate anyone and everyone on the right, and as if that wasn’t egregious enough, they turn their sights on survivors of the second worst terrorist attack on American soil?
One can only wonder how many years must pass by before NBC begins to mock the survivors of 9/11.

Share

Liberal Talk Failing and Self Destructing in Major Liberal Markets

Share

What does it say when liberal talk stations in major liberal markets are converting to other formats?  Besides the obvious schadenfreude, it means that liberal ideas are perhaps not as popular as advertised?  Truth Revolt has the details…

2014 will mark the beginning of a massive change for liberal talk radio across the country. In New York, WWRL 1600 AM will flip to Spanish-language music and talk, throwing Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and Alan Colmes off the air. In Los Angeles, KTLK 1150 will be dumping Stephanie Miller, Rhodes, Bill Press and David Cruz off the air in favor of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. In San Francisco, KNEW 960 will leave Miller, Hartmann, and Mike Malloy without a radio home in the market.

All the stations mentioned in the article, had almost unmeasurable low ratings, but these freaks are the “voice of the people?”  I guess that’s a pitfall to pandering to low information voters-not only are they low information, they don’t bother to tune in to their liberal handlers.  I mean, seriously, one liberal talker is converting to a Spanish music and news station?  That is sad.

http://cryandhowl.com/2013/12/23/steves-monday-afternoon-rant/

Share

Want to see How Much the MSM Lied About ObamaCare? Plus, Extra Oral Spewage™ from Ed Schultz

Share

Losing_share

Obama lied about his crowning achievement; ObamaCare.  This is so very well documented as to be unassailable.  However, we cannot neglect to mention that not only did Obama lie, but prominent democrats did as well.  In fact, some of them are still lying, and looking incredibly foolish in the process.  But, we cannot neglect the propaganda wing of our would-be regressive overlords-the MSM.  They have “carried the ball” for Obama, and all of his lies, including ObamaCare.  No discussion of the lies surrounding Obama’s chief “accomplishment” without discussing the MSM, and their lies in support of Obama’s lies.

The Media Research Center has a sampling of lies told by the MSM, I will show only one, you can go there for the rest.

I picked Ed Schultz because he is the “blogger’s dream topic.” To discredit Ed Schultz, all one has to do is quote Ed Schultz. Just wait for him to open his mouth, and he does all the work for you.   It’s almost like an infomercial!

(A blogger sits at his computer, looking dejected)

Blogger: If only I had something to write about, I only have a few minutes!

(Announcer appears as if from no where)

Announcer:  Don’t worry Mr. Blogger, we have a cure to your problem.  It’s Ed Schultz!

Blogger:  You mean, Ed Schultz, the guy that was demoted on the network that no one watches?

Announcer:  That’s the one, Ed Schultz is  the cure to your “blogging with no time” woes!

Blogger (looks skeptical): Now wait a minute, how can that lying, bombastic, wind bag Ed Schultz help me?

Announcer:  That’s a fair question.  You see, it’s all in how Ed Schultz combines lying, yelling, and pure 100%  non-logic into Oral Spewage™ !  Ed Schultz does all of your work for you!

Blogger:  OK, I can hear all of that Oral Spewage™, but what can Oral Spewage™ do for my blog?

Announcer:  You see, Oral Spewage™ is 100% self-discrediting.  To discredit Ed Schultz, all you have to do is quote Ed Schultz!  His proprietary blend of Oral Spewage™ means that all you have to do is quote Ed Schultz, and simply add a brief sentence after the quote to drive home the point!  Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells  will get it!

Blogger:  Well, it looks like I’m going to be using Ed Schultz’s Oral Spewage™ to create witty and effective blog posts with just a few words!

Announcer:  That’s right, you’ve got it!  Oral Spewage™ does it again!

Please note that Ed Schultz was not harmed in the writing of this post. 

Share

Al Jazeera Ratings Makes MSNBC Look Like a Juggernaut: Yes, it’s THAT Bad

Share

If you recall, Glenn Beck wanted to buy Current TV, Al Gore’s failed TV Network, but was told that it didn’t match their values.  However, selling it to a Muslim network, Al Jazeera, was just fine.  And, what has Al Jazeera done?  Almost worse than nothing, if ratings are going to be your judge…

Al Jazeera America, which had hoped to challenge the major cable news networks, is falling on its face, based on last week’s ratings, in which some shows didn’t record a single viewer in the key 25-54 demographic.

The network, which was purchased from Al Gore in January for $500 million, is suffering from low distribution and poor content.

Consider This, a show on the new network hosted by Antonio Mora, had the distinction of averaging just 9,000 viewers for the week and 3,000 in the demo. Last Thursday night, according to Nielsen, the show racked up a zero in the demo. Compare that to the major cable news networks—which regularly average well over 200,000 in the demo—and you can see just how bad things are.

And we thought that MSNBC was poison to viewers?  This takes the cake.  Of course, many outlets have dropped Al Jazeera due to it’s questionable connections, and advertisers have avoided it due to the fact that no one watches it.

I bet Glenn Beck would have actual viewers, advertisers, and good content, but he didn’t match the values of team Gore.  Al Jazeera did.  What does that say about Gore, and Al Jazeera?

Share

SooperMexican to the Rescue: Forcing the MSM to Correct a False McDonald’s Story

Share

Losing_share

What happens when the MSM spreads a very false story regarding Mcdonald’s, their wages, and their prices?

SooperMexican happens, that’s what.

SooperMexican has waged a Twitter war on MSM outlets that have continued a false story that McDonald’s could double the pay for it’s workers while only increasing their prices by 17%.  It was, of course, a lie.

Get over to SooperMexican’s place to see how he has extracted retractions from several sources! 

Share

MSNBC Talking Head, Melissa Harris-Perry, States Islam Had Nothing to do Muslim Bombers

Share

Losing_share

OK, the lefties wanted the Boston Marathon Bombers to be white, so they could use it as an example of racism and “privilege.”  Then, so they thought, they could use it to push their agenda.  In other words, they wanted to use a crime to smear all white people, and justify a massive federal power grab.  But, when the perpetrators turned out to be Muslims, race and religion are suddenly not relevant?  That’s the case, according the Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC.  The fact that they were Muslims, and that they older, deceased brother reportedly visited a radical imam SIX TIMES LAST YEAR has nothing to do with the crime!  Gateway Pundit has the video…

Of course, this is the same statist windbag that suggested that the government owns our children.
And, to agree with MSNBC, you have simply have to deny reality!

Yep, keep it up, Melissa Harris-Perry and the rest of MSNBC.

They apparently still haven’t figured out why no one is watching.


You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchase, at no additional expense to yourself!

Share

Media Bias: Media Never Reported That Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped by Armed Citizen

Share

While the country was in a state of shock over the events at the Sandy Hook school shooting, the MSM was crying for gun control   In fact, they were doing so when even the earliest reports of that shooting were coming out.  However, they had an earlier shooting that very week, at an Clackamas, Oregon shopping mall.  However the MSM left an important aspect of that shooting out- that the shooting was stopped after an armed citizen pulled his weapon on the shooter.  Here is the video…

Isn’t it interesting that the MSM left this out of their coverage?  Or, was it just that the reality of the situation didn’t fit the  narrative, so reality had to go?  I think we know the answer to that.

H/T: The Lonely Conservative

Share