Megyn Kelly’s Needlessly Controversial Alex Jones Interview

When it was announced that NBC News’s Megyn Kelly would be interviewing conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, for her Sunday night show, the reaction was swift and surprisingly fierce.

Denouncement seemed to come from every direction. Notable voices from across the ideological spectrum joined Sandy Hook families in censuring Kelly (and calling for the interview not to be aired) for lending a mainstream platform to a man whose untrue and disgusting allegations about the Newtown massacre have worsened the nightmare for those who lost loved ones that day.

The controversy led to JP Morgan Chase pulling its advertising from the show, the NBC affiliate in Hartford refusing to air it, and Kelly being disinvited from hosting an anti-gun violence event put on by an organization founded by Sandy Hook parents. All of this came several days before the television segment had even been completed, let alone aired. Even released portions of the interview, showing Kelly challenging Jones on his reckless claims, didn’t tamp down the notion that NBC was lending Jones legitimacy by giving him airtime.

It didn’t help that a photograph appeared on Jones’s InfoWars website, showing Jones and Kelly sitting in a car in a pose that some interpreted as comfy. Additionally, many on the Right took exception to NBC News, in their marketing of the interview, referring to Jones as a “conservative radio host” — the suggestion being that he was emblematic of a typical conservative.

Five days prior to the segment being aired, Kelly released a public statement qualifying the interview, and making the case that Jones is already part of America’s mainstream culture. It included the following:

“President Trump, by praising and citing [Jones], appearing on his show, and giving him White House press credentials, has helped elevate Jones, to the alarm of many. Our goal in sitting down with him was to shine a light — as journalists are supposed to do — on this influential figure, and yes — to discuss the considerable falsehoods he has promoted with near impunity.”

Despite the public relations turmoil, the interview segment aired as scheduled on NBC last night, and it’s hard to fathom that anyone who watched it came away believing that Jones and his brand were elevated or in any way aided by the exposure.

Kelly thoroughly dismantled Jones, exposing his dishonesty, sleaziness, and his utter disregard for human decency. She and her team had done their homework, supporting Jones’s pattern of making “reckless accusations followed by equivocations and excuses” with unequivocal facts that left Jones stumped and stuttering. Kelly took him apart not only on his Sandy Hook claims, but on other conspiracy theories (including Pizzagate) for which Jones was legally compelled to recant and apologize for spreading falsities.

The Politico’s Jack Shafer summed up the segment pretty well, writing “Short of waterboarding him, I don’t know what more Kelly could have done to expose Jones’ dark methods.”

Of course, a lot of hay is now being made by Jones about the interview being edited (which of course nearly all pre-recorded news interviews are). Jones is claiming to have recorded the entire exchange himself, and is threatening to release it if NBC News doesn’t. Up-and-coming conspiracy theorist, Sean Hannity, concurred on Twitter last night, demanding in all caps that the news organization “release the tapes.”

Personally, I think NBC News should go ahead and post the full interview on their website, not for the sake of Jones and his ilk, but for the public at large. It’s a pretty common practice, after all, for news organizations to do so, in the case of interviews that are edited for television. There are most likely portions of the uncut exchange that don’t portray Jones as negatively, and even if they were removed because of the controversy, there’s not a great excuse to permanently withhold them.

What I believe requires more serious examination, however, is why the mere notion of this interview became so toxic in the first place. Sure, NBC News made mistakes in how they promoted it, but exposing creeps and evil-doers is nothing new in journalism. Even literal murderers are regularly interviewed by news figures, whether they be the run-of-the-mill Dateline types or foreign dictators, and rarely does giving such people a journalistic “platform” receive this level of push-back.

I think the answer has at least as much to do with with Megyn Kelly as it does Alex Jones. In fact, I believe that if Lester Holt had conducted the interview, there wouldn’t have been such an uproar.

In February, I wrote a piece for National Review describing Megyn Kelly Derangement Syndrome, and how the former Fox News host can’t seem to shake it. Many partisans on the Right came to loathe Kelly for regularly challenging Donald Trump’s candidacy throughout the election (including some of her colleagues at FNC who openly smeared her). When she eventually left Fox (in the wake of the Roger Ailes firing) to work for the left-leaning NBC News, a lot of conservatives viewed her as a sell-out and even — yes — a traitor.

Ridiculous, unfair charges? Of course. But political tribalism makes people see things in a strange light.

Case in point, working as a prominent figure on the right-leaning Fox News Channel for all of those years didn’t earn Kelly goodwill from the Left either. She was very effective on her prime-time FNC show at tearing down liberal narratives and dismantling the arguments of social-justice warriors. And for those perceived sins, she has not been forgiven by progressives.

In other words, despite doing her job in a fair and professional manner, she’s an easy target — a magnet for controversy that wouldn’t otherwise exist or be nearly as dramatic. And that’s a shame for those of us who are interested in bold, honest journalism.

And now, a special message from the President of the United States, concerning the release of John A. Daly’s upcoming novel, Broken Slate.

Megyn Kelly Shouldn’t Pay for Trump’s Obsession

Megyn KellyIn 2013, a fascinating story out of Iowa about a dental assistant and her former boss made national headlines. The assistant — a woman named Melissa Nelson — was fired from her job, not because she didn’t perform her duties adequately, but because her male boss no longer felt he could perform his duties around her.

What was his problem? Apparently, the dentist (Dr. James Knight) found Nelson so irresistibly attractive that he couldn’t focus on his work. He thought about her night and day, and even worried that his fixation would end up ruining his marriage.

Nelson, on the other hand, was happily married with children. She never had any romantic interest in her boss, and never led him to believe otherwise. She did her job well. She was a professional. Yet, she lost that job, and her career took a hit, because Dr. Knight simply couldn’t deal with his obsession.

Last night, after four days of demanding unsuccessfully behind closed doors that Fox News remove Megyn Kelly from the moderation table at Thursday night’s GOP debate, Donald Trump’s campaign announced that their candidate will not be appearing at the event.

Many people are aware of Trump’s history with Megyn Kelly, who is one of FNC’s most popular personalities. In early August of last year, Kelly was one of three moderators in the very first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election season.

That night, Kelly asked Mr. Trump an uncomfortable (but perfectly legitimate) question: How would he deal with criticisms surrounding some high-profile, derogatory statements he’d made about women — statements that would most certainly be used against him in the general election by Hillary Clinton?

This was a potential political liability that many observers had been talking about, being that the “War on Women” campaign strategy had worked well for the Democratic Party in recent years. The question may have surprised Trump, but I doubt it surprised Kelly’s regular viewers.

As I said of Kelly in a column back in 2013 (shortly after Fox News had announced that she was getting her own prime-time show), she is “someone who is very much in touch with the concerns of her viewers. She listens to them, and does an excellent job of pinning down guests with the questions people want answers to.”

That’s what she was doing in the debate, not just with the GOP front-runner, but with the other candidates as well.

No one could tell by Trump’s response to Kelly that night just how badly the exchange had rattled him, but it became clear in the days that followed that his ego had suffered a major blow. And as we all know, Donald Trump doesn’t take well to being slighted, even when the slight is a figment of his own imagination.

What began with a suggestion by Trump that Kelly’s menstrual cycle was to blame for her debate conduct has extended into nearly six months of the candidate demonstrating a disturbing fixation (some would call it an obsession) with the Fox News host.

Trump has regularly trashed her on Twitter with hostile rhetoric that has included sexist slurs, the mocking of her personal life, and the encouraging of his supporters to pressure the network into taking disciplinary action against her. All the while, Kelly has soldiered on like a professional, and has continued to offer her nightly news coverage without participating in a tit-for-tat quarrel with Trump.

Trump had likely hoped his wild popularity with the Republican base, and his aggressive efforts to discredit her, would sink Megyn Kelly’s media influence. Instead, the ratings for her show have only grown. She’s as relevant and as credible as ever, and that has to just eat away at him.

While the basis of Trump’s preoccupation with Kelly is quite different than that of the dentist and his assistant (I’m not at all suggesting a physical attraction), its effects are quite similar. In trying to get Kelly tossed off the debate stage, Trump was attempting to do exactly what Dr. Knight did in Iowa — rid himself of a manic distraction that he believed would keep him from delivering a successful performance. Unlike Knight, however, Trump wasn’t the decision-maker. Roger Ailes was.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly's new novel.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly’s new novel.

Trump of course says that Megyn Kelly is biased against him, and that that’s the reason he won’t appear. That rationale, however, is silly. Kelly asked tough questions of a number of candidates at the first debate (none of whom complained of bias afterwards). And while Kelly has indeed criticized Trump on her show, so has a plethora of other national journalists who Trump has happily appeared in front of (sometimes multiple times) to field questions.

No, the problem isn’t Megyn Kelly; she’s no more guilty of wrongdoing than dental assistant Melissa Nelson. The problem is Donald Trump’s ongoing infatuation with Kelly, and his inability to get past whatever internal torment he suffered at her hands back in August. If he truly can’t perform with civility and a clear head in her presence, it’s probably best for everyone that he’s not showing up at the debate.

There are things more important than television ratings. Journalistic integrity should be one of them. Roger Ailes made the right decision.

Trump’s Candidacy a Mix of Richard Pryor and the Twilight Zone

twilightzoneI had a good laugh the other day when a regular visitor to this website wrote that Donald Trump’s campaign conduct reminds her of six-year-old Anthony Fremont from the classic Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.”

The comparison was dead-on.

For those of you who’ve never seen the episode (or its remade version in the Twilight Zone movie from the 1980s), here’s a quick rundown:

Anthony looks like—and exhibits the same level of maturity as—any other boy his age. What makes him very different, however, is that he has godlike mental powers, including the ability to read people’s minds. He uses those powers to keep all of the adults living in his small town (including his parents) from leaving.

The adults tiptoe nervously around the young boy, and lavish him with constant praise to prevent him from getting upset. Because when someone makes Anthony Fremont upset by having negative thoughts of him, they are deemed by the child to be a “bad person” and get wished away to mystical place where they’re never seen or heard from again.

It’s the same complex displayed time after time by Mr. Trump. Whenever someone criticizes him or questions his credibility, his fragile ego compels him to interpret their words as a betrayal, and he lashes out at them in a demonstrably adolescent way. Most of the time, it comes in the form of name-calling or the denigration of one’s career. Other times, it’s much uglier.

When Senator John McCain was a “bad person” for taking a shot at Trump supporters, Donald sneered at the notion that McCain was a war hero, and went as disgustingly far as mocking American POWs for their capture. When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly was a “bad person” for asking tough questions of Trump at the recent GOP primary debate, Donald decided (and implied to CNN) that she must have been on her period.

Though many people would insist this to be part of a persona, I believe this is the real Donald Trump—a man whose butt has been kissed so many times throughout his career that he now views anyone who challenges his greatness as a disrespectful employee that requires a harsh reprimand.

Though the insults and crassness have certainly earned Trump a lot of media attention, such things aren’t what has gained him such a large, loyal base of support. Let’s face it: No one wants an Anthony Fremont in charge of our country’s nuclear arsenal. And even if Trump didn’t routinely say nasty things about people, he would still be topping the GOP polls right now.

Why? The easy answer is the same one that countless pundits have offered up in canned fashion over the past couple of months: Trump’s tapping into an angry electorate that is frustrated with ‘the establishment.’

That explanation certainly has some truth to it, but I would take it a step further and suggest that much of the billionaire’s support represents a portion of the electorate that has essentially given up because of that anger, and is no longer taking the role of the presidency seriously.

For these people, Trump has become the “None of the above” candidate that Richard Pryor represented in the 1980’s comedic movie, Brewster’s Millions.

As you might recall, Pryor’s character in the film runs to be the mayor of New York. He does so not because he wants the office or because he believes he can win, but because he needs to burn through a large sum of money in order to be awarded exponentially more wealth. Recognizing the disillusionment of voters and the phoniness of the establishment politicians offering empty promises, Pryor realizes an opening for him. He throws his hat into the ring and runs as the ultimate protest vote, labeling himself the “None of the above” candidate. He capitalizes on public discontent, and puts forth a platform absent of serious issues and positions, and heavy on elaborate publicity stunts and blunt rhetoric. Voters get caught up in the fun and throw him their support.

Pre-order John Daly's upcoming novel BLOOD TRADE.

Pre-order John Daly’s upcoming novel BLOOD TRADE.

Sound familiar?

While I’m sure the Trump supporters who are reading this will take exception with me categorizing them as unserious, I feel pretty confident in my assessment. I’ve talked with enough of them over the past couple of months to determine that they couldn’t tell you with certainty where Trump stands on any given issue. And furthermore, they don’t really seem to care. They don’t know why his liberal stances don’t bother them (when those of every other Republican candidate do), and they shrug their shoulders at his crushing disapproval numbers within key voting demographics.

What they do like is the spectacle, and that he’s a thumb in the eye of the status quo. Somehow that’s enough. And to me, it’s an unfortunate sign of resignation.

Trump’s motivations for running are different from that of Pryor’s character, of course, but not as much as one might think. While he’s not seeking greater monetary wealth, he is pursuing something I believe he values even more at this point in his life: respect from the national pundits and politicians who have long laughed off the notion of a President Trump. He wants to show them that he can win, which is why he talked about “leverage” in last week’s debate. Actually winning? It’s an afterthought.

This is all about a billionaire’s ego and a desperate need for acceptance…not the betterment of the country. I’d say that I wish Trump’s fans recognized that, but I’m pretty sure (on some level) they already do, which is all the more unsettling.

Personally, I’m ready to cross out of the Twilight Zone and concentrate on defeating an increasingly weak Hillary Clinton. I’m hoping others will join me.

“Dear Pope Francis: Shut the **** UP!” and “Ridiculing the Ridiculous”

I don’t think that most people would disagree with the statement that race relations in America were better before Barack Obama took office. Between him and the race card hustler Eric Holder, the divide hasn’t been this large in decades.

In similar fashion, I believe that Pope Francis has set back Catholic/Jewish relations. Although his recent trip to the Holy Land was trumpeted as ecumenical in nature, in reality it was about as unifying as the blade of a guillotine.

When Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu observed that Jesus spoke Hebrew, school marm Francis piped up: “Aramaic.” To which Netanyahu, the perhaps too polite host, said, “Jesus spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew.”

But as Caroline Glick, the American-born Israeli journalist wrote, “At the time of Jesus, educated Jews wrote and spoke in Aramaic, and Jesus was educated. But the language of the people was Hebrew, and when Jesus preached to them, it would have been in Hebrew.”

Ms. Glick also pointed out that the Palestinians, along with their Islamic and Western sympathizers de-Judaize Jesus and proclaim him Palestinian in order to libel the Jews and criminalize the Jewish state.

The Pope had the usual photo op at the Wailing Wall, but, less publicized in the West was the fact that he referred to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who recently united with the terrorist group known as Hamas, as a “peacekeeper.”

Francis also found the time to meet and embrace the Palestinian mufti, Sheikh Muhammed Hussein, calling him his “dear brother.” Just for the record, the Pope’s dear brother has been condemned by the U.S. and even the E.U. for his constant calls for Israel’s annihilation in the name of Allah, and for his praise of suicide bombers, claiming that their souls “tell us to follow in their path.”

This administration, after every scandal, tells us they’re conducting an investigation in order to make certain it never happens again. Then, after a couple of months, they report that the investigation concluded there was no scandal, and that it was all a pipedream concocted by the Republicans.

Well, I’ve concluded my own investigation of the last two elections, and after careful analysis, I’ve determined that we should never again elect a president for no better reason than to prove we can elect the first something or other– be it a woman, a Jew, a Mormon, an Hispanic, a homosexual, a dwarf or an albino.

In Isla Vista, where I once attended UC Santa Barbara, Elliot Rodger killed several people, not because he couldn’t find a woman to love and marry, but because he couldn’t find one or more with whom to have sex. How is it that nobody, including his movie director father, ever told him about hookers?

Whenever Obama puts America deeper in debt so that he can expand welfare, the Department of Education, the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management, he claims it’s absolutely essential. But he then cuts funding for the military, and insists that he’s providing us with a better, leaner, more efficient, national defense. So how is it that he never thinks to cut spending on all those other items and make them better, leaner and more efficient?

Shouldn’t even Democrats find it the least bit odd that when it comes to Al Qaeda, Obama is always trying to split hairs between what he calls the core group of terrorists and its affiliates, but he, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their robots over at the IRS, somehow managed to lump all conservative groups under the Tea Party umbrella, the better to target the opposition?

I, for one, am constantly amazed that this administration keeps trying to make its scandals disappear by demanding that everyone focus, instead, on fiscal matters. But considering the hash that Obama and his pet monkeys have made of the economy, I would have thought they’d be better off suggesting that everyone stare at the sun. If the Democrats had set out to intentionally destroy America’s wealth, one would finally have reason to say they’re doing a damn fine job.

For instance, everyone knows that if you raise the minimum wage by $3-an-hour, most employers will simply decide they can sweep up the barbershop themselves or mow their own lawns. Even the world of burgers is no longer a refuge for the unskilled. McDonald’s recently announced the purchase of 7,000 automatic cashier machines.

The irony is that it is often simpleminded females who respond most favorably to the Democrats’ unending campaign to keep raising the minimum wage. We all know that some women can’t help falling for liars, cheats and scoundrels. But it’s the Democrats who use this knowledge to their political advantage. The finding of the Congressional Budget Office is that if the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $10.10, it will not only result in the immediate loss of 500,000 jobs, but that 285,000 of those jobs (57%) are jobs held by women. But that won’t prevent millions of them from voting for those compassionate Democrats.

Mexico, as you may have noticed, has once again kept an American in jail on trumped-up charges. He’s an ex-Marine who wound up in Tijuana by mistake because the dummies working for the CA highway department don’t know how to put up signs anyone can read. Be that as it may, Mexico should be grateful that President Prelutsky isn’t in the White House. My attitude would be that if our southern neighbors like Marines so much, they’ll be over the moon when I send down 10,000 more to rescue their buddy and to translate” Semper Fi” into Spanish.


While watching Fox News, I often find myself fast-forwarding through those tiresome cat fights between conservatives and the likes of Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes, but at least I understand the reason behind them. It’s intended to prove that Fox is indeed fair and balanced. However, whenever I see one of those slick-looking creeps from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), I find myself wondering if Fox would have welcomed a propagandist for the American Bund if this were 1943 and we were at war with the Nazis.

Recently, I saw a reasonable Muslim on Megyn Kelly’s show. He’s a doctor with a practice in Phoenix, Arizona, named Zundi Jasser. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He’s worth mentioning for a couple of reasons. For one thing, he speaks honestly about the vile jihadists who populate CAIR and who attempt to put the best face on Islamic terrorism, which is similar to putting lipstick on a pig. At least it would be if little pigs went in for killing American soldiers and abducting Nigerian school girls.

For another thing, Dr. Jasser is living proof that other American Muslims aren’t really in danger of being harmed if they dare speak out against the barbarism of the worldwide Islamic movement. But I have come to believe that those very few Muslims who don’t subscribe to murdering so-called infidels (otherwise known as Christians and Jews); who oppose the oppression and genital mutilation of women; and who don’t favor the suppression of free speech and the bombings of tall buildings, school buses and pizza parlors, are the ones who are aberrant.

That is why if I were a Muslim today, I would seriously consider converting to Christianity. Why not? Here in America, there are millions of people like me who were raised by parents who were devoted to the Democratic Party and who, at least in my case, voted for Democrats until the day came when I could no longer stomach what the Party had become.

Thanks to Karl Rove’s reference to Hillary Clinton’s brain trauma of a while back, some people have begun questioning the state of her health, especially considering that she will be 69-years-old when Election Day, 2016, rolls around. Although I think there are plenty of better reasons to question her qualifications to be the Commander-in-Chief, I find it amusing that NBC decided that Jay Leno, at 64, was too old to host a late night talk show, but they’re pretty darn excited at the prospect of having someone who would be 73 at the end of her first term running the country.

As you have no doubt heard, Obama and Eric Holder have presented Get Out of Jail cards to thousands of illegal aliens who were serving sentences for murder, rape, arson and driving under the influence of drugs or booze. It tells you a lot about the two men that they would let these people loose, no doubt in hopes of garnering the voting loyalty of their friends and relatives, and a lot about Obama’s base that they’d applaud the release of these scumbags.

What I don’t get is why some people who oppose the release would like to see them deported. Deported to Mexico? What’s the point? Their rate of return is probably greater than the rate of recidivism among sex offenders. My own theory is that they let themselves be caught every time they want to visit their friends down south, but prefer to have Uncle Sam pay for the ticket.

Inasmuch as we give Mexico $800 million of our tax dollars every year for reasons I can’t begin to fathom, I would suggest that we start deducting the cost of deporting, schooling, incarcerating and offering medical care to Mexican nationals, from that annual bonanza. I have a feeling that Mexico would finally get around to building a very high wall with machine gun turrets on their side of the border.

A reader, Patrick Miano, like Dr. Jasser, a resident of Phoenix, sent me an email letting me know that Matt Damon’s lousy anti-fracking movie, “Promised Land,” of a couple of years ago was financed byAbu Dhabi Media, the state media company owned by the United Arab Emirates. You think there just might be a financial motive behind their attempt to make fracking look like an evil enterprise?

For that matter, is it possible that it’s not cultural sensitivity, but Arab and Muslim money that helps ensure that the most popular villains in our movies are rarely Arabs or Muslims, although they happen to be the people who are wreaking most of the havoc in the real world?

As a rule, Hollywood prefers to depict villainy as being committed by those who are running the CIA or a successful business or, in some cases, involved with religion. Ideally, when it comes to casting, it’s best if it’s someone who can be passed off as Eurotrash, complete with a snooty English accent like James Fox or Jeremy Irons.

Apparently, according to Leviticus 20:13, the Bible says: “If a man lies with another man, they should be stoned.” That was enough to convince one of my smart-alecky readers to suggest that when the folks in Colorado recently legalized gay marriages and marijuana, they were only following God’s command.

Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at Noon Pacific Time.
Tune in at His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443

©2014 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write

The Mainstream Media Have Made the Conservative Media Prophets

carsonI’ve long thought of conservative-leaning news outlets as being only small counterbalances to the dominant liberal slant that exists in the mainstream media.

Fox News is a perfect example. Though the network fares well against its national news competitors on an individual basis, it is merely a lone conservative voice in an industry that is overwhelmingly liberal. In a country of roughly 300 million people, the highest rated shows on Fox News average around 3 million viewers a night. That number may make for a strong cable rating, but it also demonstrates that the network has relatively little influence on public opinion – directly anyway.

For that reason, I always find it kind of humorous when the Obama administration and other liberals try to blame public opposition to their policies and ideology on the clout of people like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and now Megyn Kelly. As a conservative, I wish that certain Fox News personalities, such as Charles Krauthammer, drove public opinion, but that simply isn’t the case.

There’s no better evidence of this deficit in public influence than the altered behavior we’ve seen within the mainstream media ever since the re-election of their guy, President Obama.

As someone who watches Fox News with some frequency, it is absolutely stunning to witness the rest of the media suddenly reporting on stories, as if they were breaking news items, that Fox had been reporting on for several months, and in some cases, even years.

When ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, earlier this year, began heavily scrutinizing the Obama administration for their handling of the Benghazi attack, he was largely seen by his peers and much of the public as the leading force on the story. The reality, however, is that many journalists at Fox News – perhaps most notably Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard – were uncovering and reporting many of the same facts as far back as the 2012 campaign.

When the mainstream media began reporting on the IRS’s targeted harassment of conservative groups, the story absolutely shocked a lot of people. Not among those were Fox News viewers like myself, who watched a number of representatives from these very groups tell their stories of harassment on several of the network’s shows back in 2012.

There are plenty of examples of this, but the biggest, of course, is how the mainstream media chose to report on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) until just the past couple of months. It is nothing short of breathtaking to watch all of these supposed journalists, who essentially campaigned for the law, suddenly come to the realization that it is a completely illogical system, propped up and marketed to the public on a plethora of lies and painfully naive assumptions.

I listen to liberal media personalities like Dylan Ratigan (a longtime supporter of Obamacare) admit that their own health plans either got dumped or became far more expensive because of Obamacare, and my mind is boggled that this actually took them by surprise. Even Kirsten Powers, a level-headed liberal who actually works at Fox News, was rudely awakened with this revelation.

How was this a surprise to anyone?

Fox News and the rest of the conservative media had been reporting on these inevitable outcomes for years  – outcomes projected by an abundance of legitimate sources based on irrefutable facts, and in some cases, mathematical certainties. Yet, it’s as if reporters and analysts outside of the conservative media just recently realized that two plus two doesn’t equal three, and they’re pretending as if they were somehow duped into believing that it did.

The explanation is far more than just liberal bias. There’s a heck of a lot of stupidity involved as well. And unfortunately, it’s the American public that is being harmed because of that stupidity.

I have to wonder if, to the casual media observer, Fox News is starting to come across like some kind of prophet, blessed with the uncanny ability of being able to identify news stories well before everyone else does.  That’s certainly how the rest of the media are inadvertently portraying the network.

The politically-savvy among us, however, understand that the conservative media are by no means made up of fortunetellers. They much more resemble whistle-blowers, who are exposing truths that their peers just aren’t comfortable with, and often hold them in contempt for revealing.

And that is precisely why Fox News and conservative New Media outlets do play an important role in our society, even with relatively little direct influence on the public. They cover legitimate news stories that the mainstream media don’t want to. They give an open platform to conservative voices that the rest of the media would rather marginalize. They scrutinize the actions of our leaders on the left when the others’ instincts are to trust them with the power they’ve been given. Sure, the conservative media are not infallible. They’ve been known to turn mountains into molehills just like the rest of the media, but they work to provide that desperately needed counterbalance.

Sometimes – just sometimes – the conservative media relentlessly drive home stories so effectively that the mainstream media can no longer ignore them. We’ve seen this with Monica Lewinsky, Rathergate, ACCORN, and more. They mainstream media have to follow suit in order to preserve what little credibility they have left. And when there’s a media consensus, only then is public perception is changed.

Other times, like in the examples I listed above, the warnings of the conservative media go virtually ignored by most people precisely because they’re a lone voice. It’s incredibly frustrating, when this happens, to see hugely consequential facts blown off like the rhetoric of a palm-reader massaging a crystal ball at a carnival, merely because the rest of the media won’t do their jobs.From a Dead Sleep by John A. Daly

Unfortunately, that’s the environment we live in. We’re reliant on a media consensus to take hold before the majority of us pay any attention to a story. And because a majority of the media is content (often deliberate) in holding off on reporting legitimate stories until their time-relevance has already expired, our country suffers greatly.

Such neglect hurts democracy, and we’re very much paying the price for that neglect right now.