Remember when President Obama’s Department of Justice shut down investigation of the New Black Panther Party in the aftermath of their taped voter intimidation in 2008?  J. Christian Adams, author of the book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and former DOJ attorney, exposed the DOJ’s corruption in dropping the case altogether.  Or how about when the DOJ stonewalled investigations into Fast and Furious, the gunwalking operation that ended with weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels – weapons used to kill American citizens?

Well, the DOJ is on the warpath again.  Not against the New Black Panthers or the Mexican drug cartels – against Rupert Murdoch.  According to Reuters, “U.S. authorities are stepping up investigations, including an FBI criminal inquiry, into possible violations by employees of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire of a U.S. law banning corrupt payments to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement and corporate sources said.”  What’s the evidence on which they’re basing the investigation?  Says Reuters, “U.S. investigators have found little to substantiate allegations of phone hacking inside the United States by Murdoch journalists, the sources added.”

So why, then, is the DOJ so intent on finding wrongdoing about Murdoch?  It couldn’t have something to do with Murdoch’s ownership of Fox News – the same network the Obama White House tried to exclude from inside administration interviews, according to papers uncovered by Judicial Watch – could it?

It’s nothing new for presidents to use the DOJ as their personal vendetta squad.  President Clinton did it on a regular basis.  But President Obama was supposed to be better than this.  The Obama Administration should release any and all evidence that they have against Murdoch that would justify this investigation.  If that evidence isn’t stronger than the evidence they had against the New Black Panthers or the evidence they’re covering up about Fast and Furious, Eric Holder should be forced to resign immediately.  Enough is enough.  Evidence must justify prosecutions, not political expedience.

And so, for the most part, what we’ve seen from the corrupt MSM since the release of “Primetime Propaganda” is Sesame Street, Sesame Street, Sesame Street… Or equally dismissive headlines that snark something along the lines of: “Hollywood Liberals Admit Liberals Run Hollywood.” Pushing a one-sided political agenda over the public airwaves is not a story. Some of the biggest names in television admitting conservatives are belittled and discriminated against … not a story.

Instead…

Two pages about Sesame Street are isolated and mocked — two pages out of a 355 page work that contains literally dozens of explosive interviews with some of television’s biggest names. Here’s the latest example:

—–

Is it just me, or is Martin Bashir a “Saturday Night Live” character who doesn’t know he’s a “Saturday Night Live” character? Did he really say Fox News?

But Bashir is not alone with the nonsense. Here’s a peek at how journOlism works.

When something arrives on the scene that’s inconvenient to the MSM’s worldview — whether it’s “Primetime Propaganda” or Sarah Palin — the MSM seizes control of the narrative by focusing on whatever they can to make this inconvenience sound ridiculous, evil, stupid, racist or worse. Alinsky 101. This way, instead of writing proper headlines about top execs admitting conservatives have a harder time getting work in television based on the kind of open ideological discrimination Big Hollywood’s been calling attention to and documenting for over two years now, they can make it sound as though Shapiro’s book is some crazy right-wing attack on Big Bird.

Not only has Shapiro documented dozens of audio interviews that prove Leftists at every level of scripted television have hijacked the public airwaves for their own political purposes, he also makes a revelatory case that network execs have been lying to advertisers for years about which age-demographic television shows should appeal to. According to Shapiro’s research, it’s not the young, liberal, 18-49 crowd who have the most purchasing power in this country, it’s the older more conservative, retired types. But liberal artists and television execs want to make liberal shows so they flim-flam advertisers into believing their money is best spent attracting young viewers who desire cutting edge, left-leaning programming.

See how that works?

If that’s true, that revelation would not only be one of the biggest entertainment stories of the year, it would be one of the biggest and most successful con-jobs in business history.

But the MSM isn’t interested in whether or not that’s true. In fact, they’re probably afraid that it is. So … Sesame Street.

Finally, I want to congratulate Ben on his superb work and urge you to pick up a copy of “Primetime Propaganda.” You’re also going to be hearing a lot more about it on Big Hollywood in the coming weeks.

It’s not as though we didn’t expect to have to do the MSM’s job for them.

So, the cat’s out of the bag: “Primetime Propaganda” has hit the market, accompanied by exclusive tape of Hollywood insiders admitting to anti-conservative bias in the industry, openly talking about using their shows to propagandize for political purposes, and bashing right-leaning Americans.

The media has jumped all over the story.  Or rather, they’ve jumped all over the wrong story.  When in doubt, attack the messenger.

Rather than focusing on the tape we started to release yesterday through Big Hollywood, Townhall, HotAir, and other websites, the left has focused almost exclusively on a one-and-a-half page section of “Primetime Propaganda”: the Sesame Street section.  They’re claiming that I call Big Bird a pinko (nope), that I say that Sesame Street is a socialist haven (wrong) and that I am deeply upset by Sesame Street’s use of liberal pop culture icons like Katy Perry and Neil Patrick Harris (not so much).

They should probably just read the book.  In the book, I do detail Sesame Street’s historic liberal tilt – the former VP of Children’s Television Workshop, Mike Dann, told me that the show was “underwritten and created primarily for black children, Spanish-speaking children.  It was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class … there’s no written material in a black household.  But there is television.”  This sounds like typical soft bigotry of low expectations material.

In the 1980s, Sesame Street staffers talked about using the show to preach to kids about divorce; after September 11, the show creators decided to tackle peaceful conflict resolution (an odd topic, implying as it does either that we should peacefully resolve our problems with those who want to fly planes into buildings, or that our children need training in not beating up those of different cultures).

Sesame Street’s liberalism is soft and overarching, not intrusive and annoying. The Sesame Street website lectures Americans about their deep, dark cultural biases ordering parents to examine “your own cultural assumptions and biases” as a “good place to begin your anti-bias work.”  The website also tells parents to “try to use gender-neutral language … [use] words such as firefighter, flight attendant, garbage collector, and humankind to replace the use of ‘man’ as a generic noun or ending.”  The goal, of course, is to parrot the feminist line about language’s inherent sexism.  The website also encourages parents to find toys and books with characters “that break stereotypes about men and women, for example, dolls for boys and building toys and puzzles for girls.”  Larry Summers has amply debunked such nonsense – it’s leftist utopian thinking at its finest, fostered with your tax dollars.

Nobody in the media has bothered to examine the actual evidence with regard to Sesame Street.  But that’s no surprise – they’d rather shoot the messenger than listen to the tape.

Sadly for them, this is only the beginning.  We’ll see how long they can ignore the real story.

From Newser:

The writer interviewed dozens of leading industry figures, some of whom “admitted” to presenting a left-wing bias in programing, Shapiro writes, as they seek to “shape America in their own leftist image.” Not very successfully, apparently.

How not very successfully, exactly?  We have abortion virtually on demand, same-sex marriage in an increasing number of states, ObamaCare, massive entitlements, the “hook-up” culture, obsessive environmentalism, Judeo-Christian values are under constant assault, etc. etc. etc.  Hollywood has without a doubt pushed America further left, and Shapiro proves that theory to be fact in his new book.

With media filter’s like Newser running interference for Hollywood, it’s easy to understand why Hollywood has gotten away with so much for so long.

Shapiro’s new book has been well covered thus far… in the international press.  Much of the American “MSM” hasn’t caught on yet.  We sincerely hope they do, but we’ll be prepared to read with a watchful eye.

During the course of that conversation, I asked Mr. Herzog about the network’s decision to censor South Park in April 2006 – in particular, the network shut down a segment that featured a cartoon image of Mohammed.

Here’s the audio:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

SHAPIRO: I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the controversy that surrounded the South Park/Mohammed controversy. How did that come about and what was the real story there?

HERZOG: The real story was the story you know, which is that the guys wanted to depict Mohammed and the network wouldn’t let them. And that was the whole story. And while I think if we had to do it all over again we would do it differently, that was the decision we made at the time. And I regret it somewhat but I’ve made worse decisions in my life.

SHAPIRO: Why did the network make that decision in the first place?

HERZOG: You know, there was concern that it might not be the most prudent thing to do at that time, and people were kind of losing their heads over it, I think wrongly so.

SHAPIRO: Prudent commercially or prudent politically?

HERZOG: I think combination.

END TRANSCRIPT.

In other words, the heads of Comedy Central freaked over the cartoon image of Mohammed because they were worried they would offend radical Muslims, pulled it, and Herzog told me they’d do it differently next time.

Except they didn’t.

This week, Comedy Central again censored South Park – again because they were afraid that a cartoon image of Mohammed would fire up Muslim radicals. Instead of showing Mohammed or lines about Mohammed, Comedy Central bleeped all of it out. “After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, Comedy Central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode,” said a message on Trey Parker and Matt Stone website. “We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show.”

So what about Herzog’s statement that Comedy Central had changed its ways?

Yeah, not so much. The censorship and appeasement continue unabated. So much for Comedy Central’s claims as champions of free speech and speaking truth to power.

I guess attitude and environment really is everything because Max was clearly not ready to switch from confrontational mode to apologist in front of several cameras and dozens of on-fire conservatives in the middle of CPAC 2010.

My parents raised me with to have a “no fear” mindset and carefully select the environments I subject myself to. It has taken lots of trial and error in my life to perfect these skills, but nevertheless, its something worth understanding.

When I was 15 a lot of exciting things happened to me: I got into surfing, I got a car, I had an exciting job and I started home-schooling. (Quick note on the homeschooling thing: it was totally my choice and I had to beg my parents to allow it. Not hard to believe if you’ve done time in the Miami-Dade Public School system.)

These events created a combination of independence, responsibility, diligence, adventure and fun. Previously, I had longed for those things daily, within the confines of my middle and high school gates. This new part of my life was good and things were simple.

That is, until the summer before my freshman year of college when I ended up at a Young America’s Foundation conference in Washington, DC. There my little surf-bunny world was rocked–a part of me loved it and a part of me hated it. I have a competitive nature, and I found I had some catching up to do.

I was surrounded by hundreds of bright, passionate, young conservative adults from across the country who loved life and our nation. They had definite views on freedom and prosperity and were eager to share their knowledge and energy with their peers back home.

It was thoroughly inspiring and I was excited to be amongst such fine company. Prior to that I didn’t know any young conservatives. I did, however, know plenty of young avid “democratic candidate and policy supporters.” I refuse to call them young liberals because I don’t believe they understand what the term means, and thus I decline the opportunity to insult.

Young, truly devoted liberals, who can defend and properly communicate what they believe and formulate their own ideas to help their team are hard to come by. Very hard. Now, it is true, the Left in Washington has a giant stronghold in Hollywood. There are dozens of young actors/comedians/musicians/artists who side with the political left and promote their policies publicly, encouraging the average youth to behave and think as they do.

But what young warriors do the liberals have? I’m not asking about the automated liberal-spewing machines, or the professional foamers in the blogosphere.  Not the kind of public-school-educated robots who grew up obeying Hollywood and defying their parents. I’m talking about leaders, the thinking types.

Ponder this for a moment: currently, names like Aaron Schock, Jason Mattera, James O’Keefe, Evan Baehr, Brendan Steinhauser, Lila Rose and Ben Shapiro are popping up on the public radar. Besides being under 30, this crew is desperately fighting for America on the conservative policy/political side of things, and the scary/really cool thing about it is they have the smarts, creativity, guts, and resolve to do so.

The only young liberal that I would consider in their league is the 25 year-old Ezra Klein of Newsweek. He is extremely intellectual, creative and effective at communicating his ideas to mass audiences. That’s right, his ideas. He doesn’t just parrot what the leftist elites in Washington are saying. And that deserves credit; it is hard to formulate your own thoughts on issuesand devote yourself to ensuring they are communicated accurately and efficiently.

He has earned himself the title, in certain circles, the youngest expert on health-care. It typically takes ages in a university library and a PhD, or ten-plus years of real-world experience with an issue to be considered an expert. Yet Klein has blasted through that stereotype gaining the same respect and admiration that his elders do, if not more, due to his age.

Us young guns have an enthusiastic energy unmatched by other age groups. So when something pumps us up and taps into that passion, it sticks and produces action.

Klein is a highly motivated individual who has definitely turned heads in Washington, and is well on his way to taking over. And he isn’t some malicious power hungry conspirator, working from the bad-guys version of the bat cave. He’s just a dude with a vision, and has the creative diligence to go out and make it real.

Not to mention, he made it on Jezebel’s Top ten sexiest everyday men of 2008 list, and is an avid health-food chef. Mix drive, intelligence, a national platform, looks and cooking skills and the nation has itself a new young liberal leader.

As much as I don’t agree with his political views, I do get where he is coming from. I dig his new media expertise, and actually, I could learn a lot from him since I’m new to the internet news/political world.  Also, once-upon-a-time I wanted be a nutritionist, so the cooking scores extra points with me.

So here’s my challenge to Mr. Klein: how about it, Ezra?  Will you make me dinner one evening?  Let’s put our ideas to the test and see who wins.