Firebrand: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the MAGA Revolution

by Matt Gaetz

  Uh-huh. I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what she wished.

  At least she apologized, but the Miami Herald as an institution didn’t. They don’t feel the need to because, ultimately, they hate those they cover who don’t see the world as they do. Sometimes, individual reporters, on rare occasions, have to fall on their swords, but the biased organizations employing them keep on going. Bad as government is, at least when we legislators screw up, we get voted out. Not journalists, unless people get so fed up they stop watching. Then the media company seeks a bailout, as many did during coronavirus. Maybe they should produce a product worth buying?

  Even when journalists have to apologize for being a little too blatant in their bias, it doesn’t seem to change their subsequent behavior. They aren’t really sorry. ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd had to apologize to me in November 2019—after tweeting that the only reason I’m not a “tool” is that “[t]ools are useful”—then had to apologize again to another political figure just two weeks later. He called New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik “a perfect example why just electing someone because they are a woman or a millennial doesn’t necessarily get you the leaders we need,” then deleted the tweet as critics condemned it as sexist.

  Dowd later promised to be “better,” but I’ll believe it when I see it. Be best, as the First Lady says.

  The more Americans think of themselves as a single nation, the more the media strategy of pitting groups against each other fails, which, counterintuitively, helps explain their obsession with Russia. Their goal wasn’t to unite America against a serious foreign threat, as was the case back in the days of the Cold War. The media’s goal, on the contrary, was to convince some Americans that other Americans weren’t really their countrymen, to convince Democrats and moderates that Republicans were dancing on strings pulled by foreign meddlers. Dissent is no longer patriotic if you don’t dissent the way we want you to!

  The Left claimed that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by a Russian disinformation campaign, but what is the U.S. media if not a massive disinformation campaign itself, one plainly aimed—as Zucker’s comments make clear—at certain political outcomes? The irony, of course, is that James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas head who the left-wing media say is not a journalist, makes real news about the fake news. They can’t handle it when O’Keefe turns the camera on them.

  We accept reporters’ official titles, whether bestowed by themselves or the equally self-promoting organizations they work for. But shouldn’t some of them be called public relations officers of the Democratic Party?

  Take Michael Isikoff, who would prefer you call him Yahoo! News’s chief investigative correspondent. Has he really been unearthing buried secrets or is he just an expert mouthpiece for the Democrats’ talking points? Is he a stenographer for power or does he hold power to account? Yahoo is barely a search engine, and Isikoff is barely a journalist.

  Conservative journalist Sara Carter notes that Isikoff announces events as if they are exciting scoops, but they are more like press releases the Left wants disseminated. Isikoff recently filed an “exclusive” about Obama fretting in a “private” conference call about the “rule of law” being at risk if charges against former Trump national security advisor Mike Flynn are dropped. Do we really think Obama was unaware Isikoff would report on Obama’s damning pronouncement? Do we really think Isikoff thought he was exposing Obama’s secrets to the world?

  Flynn, as noted earlier, was entrapped into uttering minor inaccuracies about Russian contacts, then pleaded guilty to misleading the FBI in exchange for other charges against his son being dropped. The anti-Trump crowd would have us believe they were not personally threatened by Flynn’s attempt at reorganizing the intelligence establishment away from its obsession with Russia, but a lot of these people wanted a Cold War with Russia to go on forever because Russia expertise is good for the pocketbooks of the folks in Washington. Chinese is a hard language to learn, man.

  The process of stealthily (and sometimes illegally) leaking the establishment’s point of view out via superficially objective stories is par for the course in what passes for journalism, but it’s less like good reporting and more like a CEO telling his PR flacks what to do. A Democratic politician of Obama’s stature can dispense (implicit) marching orders to the journalist-troops as easily and effortlessly as Zucker does to his CNN staff. This politician-media feedback loop is normal for Washington and stretches back to when the press was willing to uphold military secrets or overlook FDR’s paraplegia and JFK’s philandering.

  Journalists ought to be free to make whatever partisan arguments they wish, but it would be illuminating for the public to see just how connected these media figures are behind the scenes, how they happily lap up “leaks” from the Democrats that then lead, in a circular fashion, to stories the same Democrats can point to as evidence that where there’s smoke there’s fire, which is how the FISA warrants on the Trump campaign/Russia topic were ginned up. It’s not a very fun game of telephone when the government can use wiretaps and leaks.

  And just as journalists should be free to express their opinions about us, so should we enjoy the right to speak freely about them. After all, a free press doesn’t mean a press free from criticism. For an industry built around collecting the scalps of others, they sure seem to have thin skins. It isn’t “attacking the press” to demand that it act responsibly.

  When President Trump criticizes professional eye-roller and amateurish CNN host Don Lemon for his intellect, Lemon responds by playing the race card. How original. Lemon’s CNN colleague Chris Cuomo, upon being confronted as a hypocrite for leaving the house while carrying coronavirus, called the passing citizen who caught him a “fat biker loser.”

  MSNBC host Joy Reid couldn’t explain homophobic posts on her blog, so she blamed hackers without evidence. When even worse comments were found, blaming the U.S. government for conducting the 9/11 attacks, she talked about her subsequent personal growth. I’m glad Joy has grown. But if she were a conservative, she’d be growing off-air. MSNBC awarding her a new nightly show is remarkable only for the double standard it reveals.

  Glenn Greenwald writes for the Intercept and other outlets and is no Trump supporter. Indeed he’s a socialist and often criticizes the U.S.’ supposed imperialism in Latin America. But he sees the way more mainstream media develop a herd mentality, in particular when they go after Trump.

  In a May 18, 2020, piece, he praised New York Times’ media columnist Ben Smith for criticizing another figure usually lauded by the Left, journalist Ronan Farrow (“Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?”). Smith showed how Farrow’s journalistic standards suffered when he went after alleged sexual harassers targeted by the #MeToo movement—that is, when he was concerned with being “good,” his work was slightly less likely to be true, or at the very least he didn’t strive as hard to verify details.

  Smith mentions parallels with Trump’s journalist critics in that piece, and Greenwald seconds the observation:

  What is particularly valuable about Smith’s article is its perfect description of a media sickness born of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology “resistance journalism,” by which he means that journalists are now not only free but encouraged and incentivized to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free, provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues and/or on social media.

  If the cause is deemed just, in short, you can get away with saying almost anything you want, and the higher-ups aren’t going to punish you for it. Sound an off note—something that reveals your reporting is not being done on behalf of the team—and suddenly the media bosses may become very, very skeptical. Smith learned this himself when he published the fake Steele dossier as editor of BuzzFeed. Far from being drummed out of the professi
on, he was rewarded with a plum position at the Times.

  Some figures in the media, on CNN in particular, seem to flourish only because they push the correct anti-Trump buttons. How is it possible that figures directly implicated in Trump-era controversies—and possibly in crimes instigated by the prior administration—are now deployed as impartial analysts telling viewers what to make of the latest Trump-related revelations? Are Jim Comey and Peter Strzok the future of the prime-time CNN lineup? It wouldn’t be that big a stretch.

  Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz to have lied four times, thrice under oath. Shockingly, he has not been indicted. Now he’s a CNN paid contributor. “Facts Matter” is a hard mantra to maintain when lies don’t matter to hiring.

  Former DNI James Clapper lied to Congress about whether the National Security Agency routinely collects information from all Americans’ electronic communications, and he resigned upon Trump’s election. Today, he is a fixture on CNN, which apparently doesn’t worry that this man will lie to viewers. Following the release of Clapper’s testimony from the Intelligence Committee, we learned that he told one story on-air to please his CNN overlords and quite another when under oath.

  Under Oath Clapper in 2017: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election…. I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

  CNN Clapper in May 2019: “The Trump campaign was aiding and abetting the Russians!”

  Clapper’s Obama-era wingman, former CIA director John Brennan, changed his story when he wasn’t accountable for lying. “President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash,” Brennan wrote for a willfully duped New York Times.

  But under oath in 2017, Brennan said, “I don’t know whether or not such collusion—that’s your term—such collusion existed. I don’t know…. I don’t have sufficient information to make a determination whether or not such cooperation or complicity or collusion was taking place.” You didn’t see that version of Brennan on TV. It’s not what Zucker wanted to hear.

  Clapper, Brennan, and McCabe still have paid contributorships. CNN hasn’t apologized to their viewers, as they should. But you can’t shame the shameless.

  Apparently, few things short of ending up in a Miami Beach hotel with a rented male nurse, meth, a disco ball, and erectile dysfunction injections will actually get a pundit kicked off CNN! (Real story—details below!)

  The most charitable view of what CNN is doing may be that they simply enjoy having insiders who have access to a great deal of inside information. When Clapper denounced Trump’s revoking John Brennan’s security clearance and lamented that he wasn’t sure if his own was still intact, he may well have been concerned that their commentator gigs would dry up.

  Such men are not so much journalists as living, springing leaks, but that’s fine with CNN. That’s strategically useful intel, for purposes both journalistic and political. You’ll be forgiven if you can’t tell the difference.

  Another figure who keeps getting airtime because he fills an establishment need—unofficial (and of course unelected) spokesman for the military-industrial complex—is neoconservative commentator William Kristol. Kristol teaches us that you don’t have to be right to get airtime. He’s been wrong on everything for years, from the Iraq War to the motivations and inspirations of today’s politics.

  Kristol should be completely in his element making political horserace predictions, but he keeps getting those wrong, too—while defending the wrong principles. His clout has diminished so much that when he sent a tweet endorsing Cris Dosev, a 2018 Republican primary opponent for my House seat—and called me “one of the worst GOP members”—not only did Dosev get crushed, he reportedly fretted that Kristol’s endorsement would be the kiss of death. I hope he endorses all of my opponents, and for the right price he well may.

  Kristol is not the only pundit who makes terrible predictions. Michael Barone predicted Romney would defeat Obama in 2012 by one hundred electoral votes. New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said the internet would have no significant long-term impact on the economy. Dick Morris has been wrong about virtually everything—though back in 2012, he did foretell Trump making good on his long-gestating plans to run for president.

  The late Roger Ailes, in his final year at Fox News, recognized that there ought to be consequences for pundits who often err but never doubt. Rupert Murdoch fired Ailes over sexual scandals just as Trump ascended as Republican nominee in the summer of 2016. There are rules about staff, Roger! A year later, Ailes passed away. It would have been fun to watch him wield an axe against all the talking heads who got 2016 so wrong. Ailes was ahead of the rest of Fox News and virtually all the pundit class in recognizing that Trump spoke to the Americans conservatives were trying to reach. “Between the Hudson River and the Sierra Nevada Mountains, people love Donald Trump,” Ailes is portrayed saying in The Loudest Voice.

  Fox News continues to benefit from the talent choices made by Ailes. Sean Hannity provided the pivotal platform to deliver the facts, winning nightly ratings during the most critical moments of the Trump presidency. Judge Jeanine drove home key themes weekly. Tucker Carlson mocked the absurd claims of the opposition with biting zest. Laura Ingraham set debate panels that were critical to win nightly. Martha MacCallum offered a newsy chance to get information into the bloodstream. Lou Dobbs attacked Republicans who wandered. Each piece was vital to success in its own way.

  President Trump called the media the “enemy of the people” one month after taking the oath of office. He set off four years of the media pretending to be afraid that Trump would gut the First Amendment and censor any news he didn’t like. Trump didn’t have to censor the press to expose their stupidity. He prefers jousting with them to show just how dumb they can be.

  Some ought to count themselves lucky they don’t get brought up on charges, though, given how deeply enmeshed they are in the possibly criminal political controversies about which they write. They aren’t just bystanders. They facilitate the criminality.

  When Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report came out in December 2019, the press said it was reasonable for the Obama administration to raise questions about whether Trump associates had inappropriate Russia ties. They ignored the report’s conclusion that everything the Obama administration did from that point forward was negligent.

  Andrew McCabe and others green-lit an investigation that they knew had little substance, but even more disturbing is the dishonest role the press played in perpetuating that investigation. McCabe and other deep state operatives would leak items about Trump and his associates, then point to the resulting press reports as “evidence” to justify the continuation of the coup attempt.

  Reporters effectively got bribes, too, with their companies paying Democratic oppo research firm Fusion GPS to get Trump dirt, while GPS in turn paid reporters. Since such payments were made from late 2015 to late 2017, this looks like interference with both the election and the then new Trump administration.

  Pompous, stick-up-their-ass journos were on the take and on the make for the Democratic Party—albeit indirectly—while they lectured us about corruption. This sort of behavior is not an accident. It isn’t just an unconscious bias caused by going to a liberal arts college with mandatory gender identity sensitivity training, or attending too many Resistance rallies. This is conscious, paid-for propaganda. And ultimately, the target isn’t Trump. It’s you. The media want to mislead you. They really are your enemy, and they are armed and very dangerous.

  But if the media hate Trump and an awakened American public, what exactly is it that they love? No matter how rich or powerful the media and their political allies are, they still want to see themselves as champions of equality, as helpers of the “little guy.” Narcissism
is what powers them.

  One weird pattern that emerges, maybe not a very strategically wise one on their part, is that they always try to tear down conservative winners and signal-boost left-wing losers. I say this is strategically unwise because some members of the public start to think that maybe leftists aren’t just heroic underdogs. Maybe they deserve their defeat.

  This pro-loser strategy, for lack of a better label, gives us phenomena, or pseudo-phenomena, such as politicians Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Gillum. All darlings of the Left-liberal media apparatus, all talked about endlessly, all complete losers now known mainly for losing but legends in their own minds and in the minds of MSNBC producers.

  As I write this in mid-2020, Abrams is credibly talked about as a possible vice presidential running mate for Democrat Joe Biden, though her only real claim to fame is losing a run for Georgia governor, not by the tiny and disputable amount the media likes to imply but by over fifty thousand votes—far too many to be the fault of Republican voter suppression as Abrams likes to claim. Yes, history is replete with efforts to suppress votes, particularly the votes of marginalized Southern blacks. But no one has plausibly alleged that such voter suppression efforts made the difference in that 2018 gubernatorial race. In fact, minority turnout was at a record high in that election. And yet Abrams still lost by a handy margin. But who needs evidence when you can blame your own failures on racism?

  It’s more like journalists just want to talk about voter suppression and Stacey Abrams in the same segment, then let viewers draw their own (false) conclusions, which maybe will redound to the Democrats’ benefit in November 2020. Worth a try, by their low standards. The argument is never made, just slyly implied.