MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Yorker Caves to Outrage, Disinvites Steve Bannon. Big Mistake.

Editor David Remnick wanted to scrutinize Trump-era populism, but his liberal peers won't let him.

BannonJonathan Bachman/REUTERS/NewscomThe New Yorker has disinvited Steve Bannon from its annual festival, where the former top aide to President Trump would have been interviewed by David Remnick, the magazine's editor-in-chief.

That's disappointing—running from this fight is a sign of weakness. Disinvitation may cheat Bannon out of a free trip to New York City, but it does little to hurt Bannonism. If anything, it feeds into the far right's victimhood complex and paranoid loathing of the mainstream media.

The decision to cancel Bannon occurred not long after The New York Times first broke the story that Bannon would be making an appearance, which prompted furious outrage from other festival participants, New Yorker staffers, and countless others.

"If Steve Bannon is at the New Yorker festival I am out," tweeted Judd Apatow in a characteristic response to the news. "I will not take part in an event that normalizes hate."

This is naïve. Bannon-style nationalism is already normalized. Bannon does not represent some obscure ideology that will die on its own if we all agree never to talk about it again: His trade and immigration views are shared by millions of Americans, as well as the president of the United States. They are widely discussed on conservative talk radio and cable news, at conspiracy sites like Breitbart and Infowars and Gateway Pundit, and among right-wing social media users. Bannonism is widely available everywhere except liberal enclaves such as prestigious magazine festivals.

I can understand why people would not want to participate in an event where Bannon was celebrated, or even let off lightly. But Remnick seemed committed to scrutinizing him. "I have every intention of asking him difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation," he told The New York Times.

Indeed, Remnick mounted an impressive defense of the decision to include Bannon. In a lengthy Medium post, Remnick explained:

The main argument for not engaging someone like Bannon is that we are giving him a platform and that he will use it, unfiltered, to propel further the "ideas" of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and illiberalism. But to interview Bannon is not to endorse him. By conducting an interview with one of Trumpism's leading creators and organizers, we are hardly pulling him out of obscurity. Ahead of the mid-term elections and with 2020 in sight, we'd be taking the opportunity to question someone who helped assemble Trumpism. Early this year, Michael Lewis interviewed Bannon, who made it plain how he viewed his work in the campaign. "We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall," Bannon said. "This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls." To hear this was valuable, as it revealed something about the nature of the speaker and the campaign he helped to lead.

The point of an interview, a rigorous interview, particularly in a case like this, is to put pressure on the views of the person being questioned.

Remnick noted that he didn't expect to change Bannon's mind about anything, nor did he think Bannon fans would be persuaded—if any were even watching. But the exercise would still be worthwhile, he argued:

The question is whether an interview has value in terms of fact, argument, or even exposure, whether it has value to a reader or an audience. Which is why Dick Cavett, in his time, chose to interview Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Or it's why Oriana Fallaci, in "Interview with History," a series of question-and-answer meetings with Henry Kissinger and Ayatollah Khomeini and others, contributed something to our understanding of those figures. Fallaci hardly changed the minds of her subjects, but she did add something to our understanding of who they were.

As loathsome as Bannon is, he's hardly as evil as Ayatollah Khomeini—or former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was invited to speak at Columbia University in 2007.

Despite having articulated a powerful argument for letting the interview proceed, Remnick ultimately caved. He didn't provide much explanation, noting only that he wished to appease readers and colleagues who had balked at the prospects of Bannon. I guess I can't really blame him: Losing Jim Carrey, Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Fallon, and all the others who had threatened to cancel would have been a steep price to pay for sticking to his guns.

"Our writers have interviewed Steve Bannon for The New Yorker before, and if the opportunity presents itself I'll interview him in a more traditionally journalistic setting as we first discussed, and not on stage," he said.

I hope he does so. It is liberal audiences like The New Yorker's who benefit most from new insights into Trump's worldview. So many in the mainstream media—myself included—failed to see Trump coming, and wrongly believed he could never be elected president. This does not mean that Bannon is smart and everybody else is dumb: Bannon is wrong about a lot of things, even in the arena of politics, where he now seems like something of a one-hit wonder. But even if Bannon's personal star is fading, this does not mean we can't learn something from him, to better prepare ourselves for the ongoing struggle against his still-quite-ascendant worldview.

The New Yorker is a private company and can interview or not interview whoever it wants. But if bad ideas are so contagious that we must greet them with reflexive, unthinking censorship, we are already doomed. On the other hand, if we believe that good ideas can triumph over bad ideas, then we should have nothing to fear from shining a critical spotlight on them.

Photo Credit: Jonathan Bachman/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Nardz||

    "If Steve Bannon is at the New Yorker festival I am out," tweeted Judd Apatow in a characteristic response to the news. "I will not take part in an event that normalizes hate."

    And in this statement, we see the normalization of hate.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You can just feel the love in Apatow's tweet.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The always-charming 'referring to a bigot as a bigot is bigotry' line of reasoning.

    Bigots have rights, but the 'right' not to be called bigots is not among them.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Are hypocrites immune from being called out?

  • Quixote||

    They are certainly immune from being called out with inappropriately deadpan "satire," just like distinguished faculty members here who are alleged to have committed plagiarism, sexual harassment, or other forms of academic misconduct. See the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "parody" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Hank Phillips||

    Was this the perp who wrote an "Open Letter to Jesus Christ"? Serves him right for making fun of the Comstock laws!

  • Quixote||

    Indeed, sir, there is clearly no redeeming social purpose in subjecting one of our department chairmen here at New York University to ridicule and mockery through a series of impertinent "confessions," including, apparently, one in which our distinguished colleague is even portrayed as asserting that he feels like his "beard is on fire." Such an abhorrent disruption of campus tranquility must be denounced, prosecuted, and punished with the full force of the law and under any legal pretext whatsoever that can possibly be found, particularly when religious matters are concerned.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Was this the perp who wrote an "Open Letter to Jesus Christ"? Serves him right for making fun of the Comstock laws!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Yeah, but you have that backwards.

    """I have every intention of asking him difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation," he told The New York Times.""

    David Remnick wanted to call out Bannon, but the liberals pulled the heckler's veto. They usurped Mr. Remnick's right to basically call Bannon a bigot on stage.

  • M.L.||

    Can you link to anything that shows Steven Bannon is a "bigot" and stands for hate and is a white supremacist, etc as all of the Hollywood and media airheads accuse him of being.

    Spoiler Alert: You can't. Because you and your brain damaged Hollywood celebrities are liars.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That probably would have been useful to include in the article itself and not being offered as a given.

  • TLBD||

    This is a Robby Soave article. How he feels is most important.

  • Flinch||

    Nearly predictable outcome: yes, the left might learn something about their opposition, but their risk of damaging some of their favorite myths and sacred cows was likely too big a risk for some to countenance. Oh well. They are set for accepting more inbred polling data and 2018 is shaping up to ring their bell in similar fashion as 2016. At this point 'blue wave' is looking like trash surf not worth waxing a board for.

  • Mark22||

    Bigots have rights, but the 'right' not to be called bigots is not among them.

    True, which is why we call you for what you are, Kirkland: a bigot.

  • MichaelL||

    It is amazing how many people don't realize what the definition of a "bigot" is! To take a negative stand against a group of people is bigotry! So, it is happening on both sides. It seems more prominent on the left than the right!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    One thing that marks bigotry is an inability to debate the other side.

    Carry on, soyboys.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|9.4.18 @ 8:48AM|#
    "Bigots have rights, but the 'right' not to be called bigots is not among them."

    We understand that, asshole bigot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty. You do realize that you are a hateful bigot, right?

    Carry on comrade.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Judd Apatow and his fellow Lefties could get Steve Bannon could have been hauled off to a dissident internment camp, this would not even be an issue.

  • JWatts||

    " hauled off to a dissident internment camp,"

    No, they'd never call it an internment camp.

  • Paulpemb||

    I think Hillary wanted to call them 'Adult Fun Camps'.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I think the established term is "re-education camps".

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I think we call those 'public schools'

  • Conchfritters||

    Get over yourself Judd, you twit. Not surprised you "tweeted" it - - "hey everybody!! Look at me! Check out my outrage over here!"

  • I can't even||

    It's cowardice.

    Whether you agree with him or not. Steve Bannon is a very smart guy and devastating debater. Somewhere deep inside, Apatow knows his ideas are stupid and Bannon would demonstrate that for all the world to see.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The merit of Apatow's beliefs or Bannon's isn't even the issue--like you alluded to, these people are terrified that Bannon might actually sway audience members who don't have the intellectual chops or moral center that someone would need to counter his arguments. All they have are chimpouts.

    It's more an indictment of Jeong-style censorship than it is of Bannon's worldview--shunt "bad thoughts" out of the public square, whether digital or real life, so people won't be exposed to them.

  • MichaelL||

    "Chimp out"Racist term?!...(;-P

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But, MEAN PEOPLE!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    New Yorker Caves to Outrage, Disinvites Steve Bannon. Big Mistake.

    Gives more street cred to the Silent Majority's opinion that the media is packed with a bunch of scared little liars.

    Trump meanwhile 'checks' the media every day.

    #RedTsunami2018
    #RedTitalWave2020
    #RedUberstorm2022

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I cannot wait to remind you of your "red wave" predictions in a couple months, when Democrats regain control of the House.

    #BlueWave

  • JWatts||

    Whoa wait a moment there. Wasn't the #BlueWave prediction that the Democrats would take both the House and Senate? I guess the #BlueWave has petered out.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "that the Democrats would take both the House and Senate?"

    There are 35 Senate seats up for re-election in November, counting 2 special elections. Of those, only 9 are currently held by Republicans.

    I've seen a political analysis that of the 9 Republican seats 5 are safe.

    That same analysis is predicting 44D, 49R, 7 unknown (3 Ds, 4 Rs) . By this analysis, the Democrats will have to run the table on the 7 seats in play in order to take control of the Senate.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pretty much.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    But it will be almost impossible for the Democrats to take control of the Senate.

    #PurpleWave.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Libertarian Moment!™

    #YellowWave

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Let's wait until we actually win something before we pick a color.

    (I'm temporizing because you beat out my upcoming recommendation of #PuceWave)

  • ||

    "...The main argument for not engaging someone like Bannon is that we are giving him a platform and that he will use it, unfiltered, to propel further the "ideas" of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and illiberalism."

    Just to be clear and to be sure.

    The only illiberal force operating in the West (and always has been) is the progressive left.

    As you were.

  • ||

    Should be 'only competent illiberal force'.

    The progressive left hold far more levers of power than the 'paranoid alt-right'.

  • Horny Lizard||

    I get it man. 8 years of Obama. 8 long years. It's all over now sweetheart. There's a new orange clown for you and he's going to make it all better.

  • ||

    Who mentioned Obama?

    And call me sweetheart one more time.

    Ga'head.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We call Horny Lizard sweet cheeks, so....

  • Horny Lizard||

    "Feeds into the victimhood complex"

    Do you really think right-wingers have time to worry about a festival snub when they're being chased by global deepstate Jewish liberal anti-fascist gay atheist Russiaphobic lizard people?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What should be the next snub, Lizard King?

  • Horny Lizard||

    Well even though I haven't shown it yet this morning I came to the realization late last night after regrettably watching drug cartels torturing some poor soul that whatever our disagreements we both basically roughly sorta have the same beliefs and you're not so bad.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you're a Libertarian?

  • Horny Lizard||

    Maybe and sometimes for somethings but mainly I'm just a guy like you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Doesnt seem that way with your posts.

    We got years to find out.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    *sigh*

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As loathsome as Bannon is...

    It's the multiple collared shirts, isn't it?

  • ||

    He doesn't use Pro-Activ.

    That's not acceptable in some circles like The New Yorker.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Loathsome is Soave's assessment of Bannon.

  • I can't even||

    Light the virtue-signal. It wouldn't be a Robby article if we weren't reminded of his pure heart and mind.

  • ||

    "...it feeds into the far right's victimhood complex and paranoid loathing of the mainstream media."

    So you don't think whatever constitutes the media these days, they misrepresent so-called members of the 'alt-right'? Yeah-k Robby. Whatever makes your strawberries taste better.

    Back in the good old gulag days when the Blue caps were sending innocent people to prison camp to essentially 'fuck off and die', one of their shtick was to tell people they were paranoid.

    'What gulags?' /mischevous grin.

    /FF button.

    'What? We don't want your guns. And if you have nothing to hide, you're okay! You're not paranoid, right? You don't mind if we take your guns and censor you, right? You have nothing to hide after all!'

    "...we are already doomed"

    Gee, I wonder why.

  • John||

    Back in the good old gulag days when the Blue caps were sending innocent people to prison camp to essentially 'fuck off and die', one of their shtick was to tell people they were paranoid.

    The secret police in communist countries were famous for doing things like vandalizing dissidents' cars and other things to screw with them and then calling the person crazy and paranoid when they said they were the victim of the government. That sort of shit has always been SOP for the left.

  • Paulpemb||

    "Come on, guys! Every time we form a violent mob to shut down a conservative political rally or speaking event, or put their political candidates under investigation for spurious charges on absolutely no evidence, or deny them a platform to speak in public, it just feeds into their delusion that we are persecuting them!"

  • Ben of Houston||

    Don't forget, people who are doing it genuinely think they are justified in each and every individual action. Convincing them that their actions LOOK like persecution is a lot easier than convincing them that they actually are evil. People are really great at fooling themselves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at Rufus, calling the NKVD soldiers 'blue caps'.

    You Canadians and your cool nick names. :)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, I mean, one thing loathing of the mainstream media isn't, is paranoid. It's perfectly rational.

  • Brendan||

    I wonder what Robby's threshold is for it to no longer be considered a 'complex' or paranoid.

  • Horny Lizard||

    So is it forget and forget because I clearly remember the righty retard nation turning hard on Bannon for saying Trump Jr was a traitor for taking the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian govt and that Trump was a money launderer.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    Ya, admittedly it is fun seeing the tribes get confused.

    Blue team has somehow almost adopted that trash pile Michael Cohen hoping he will be what ends trump, despite spending months trashing him on the MSM. Now all of a sudden they are pretending he is this credible hero. Same with Omarosa. What a winning duo to pick up.

    Red team briefly disavowed Bannon for insulting the fuhrer and might be ready to do the same to Sessions?! Wouldn't have expected he would be on the outs with them ever. And now some of blue team is pulling for Sessions, also didn't think I would be seeing that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump got a few old RINOs out of Congress and into his cabinet to be summarily fired later. Trump could not fire them from Congress. This way, the RINO voluntarily left Congress and then shown to be the pieces of shit they are and then fired by Trump.

    Trump knew that he could control Sessions because Trump is head of the Executive Branch. Sessions is trying to protect other corrupt bureaucrats in the DOJ and FBI but its all coming to a head for the bureaucrats.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tom Price from Georgia was another RINO that Trump 'check mated'.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I look forward to seeing sessions replaced with someone who will rightly prosecute democrats by the hundred. Hell, we could pull all the terrorists out of GitMo, execute them, and then repurpose the facility for the treasonous high level progressives.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As loathsome as Bannon is, he's hardly as evil as Ayatollah Khomeini—or former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was invited to speak at Columbia University in 2007.

    Actually, Drumpf and his supporters are much worse than the Middle Eastern Muslims they hate so much. At least Ahmadinejad is committed to racial justice, as demonstrated by this tweet: The #NFL season will start this week, unfortunately once again @Kaepernick7 is not on a NFL roster. Even though he is one of the best Quarterbacks in the league. #ColinKaepernick #NFL

    It also disappoints me to see a Reason writer automatically pick Muslim names when in need of somebody really evil. That's Islamophobic, and I learned in my sociology class Islamophobia is a form of racism. Does Reason currently have any Muslim contributors? If not, maybe this lack of diversity is something you should address.

    #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia

  • WhatAboutBob||

    You should try adding capital letters to your posts, that would really impress us!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I capitalize the first word of each sentence, proper nouns, and words in hashtags.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    That's a pretty conservative use of the shift key.

  • mpercy||

    Right, in 2015 CK threw for a total of 6 TDs against 5 INT and 1 fumble. QBR of 43.4%. TD to turnover ratio of 1:1.

    In 2016, he played a few more games and threw 16 TDs against 4 INT and 7 fumbles. QBR of 49.5. TD to turnover ratio of about 1.4:1

    Back in 2012, 2013 he was a pretty good QB with QBR over 70 and TD vs turnover ratio of about 2:1.

    His antics are hardly the main thing keeping him off the field. If he was still a top QB, the NFL would put up with virtually anything from him.

  • Libertymike||

    He was 3-16 in his last 19 starts with a sub 60% completion rate.

    What part of he was not very good don't people get?

  • Echospinner||

    I wonder how much Nike is paying him.

    People are out burning their $250 shoes. This proves once again that human stupidity has no limits.

    I think it was a great move by Nike. Then again I like subversive stuff like that.

    It puts them in the spotlight. The boycotts of Target over bathrooms, the whole Chick fil A thing, those companies are booming.

  • Conchfritters||

    Ahmadinejad: "...one of the best quarterbacks in the league." When, in 2012?? Stick with the Iranian cricket and hanging gay kids from construction cranes leagues little man.

  • Libertymike||

    Let me repeat:

    He was 3-16 in his last 19 starts.

    Jimmy G. went 5-0 last season after the 49ers had been dreadful to start the season.

  • Sevo||

    "...one of the best quarterbacks in the league."

    At being a self-righteous asshole, like the rev, here.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I agree with Chelsea Clinton's take on this.

    For anyone who wonders what normalization of bigotry looks like, please look no further than Steve Bannon being invited by both @TheEconomist & @NewYorker to their respective events in #NYC a few weeks apart.

    She's a very impressive young woman. I could see myself supporting Chelsea if she ever runs for office.

    #LibertariansForChelsea

  • El Oso||

    You forgot the 'sarc' tag...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its implied in all his comments.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Please don't misgender me by using he / him / his pronouns. I'm non-binary and my pronouns are they / them / their.

  • Hoofddorp Haarlemmermeer||

    My pronouns are omg/wtf/bbq.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    'It' it is then.

  • Bill||

    they're

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So you're like a Ken Doll down there?

  • Conchfritters||

    Wouldn't.

  • Rockabilly||

    I Resisted Hillary and WON !!!!

    #NeverHIllarytheFuckingBitch !!!!!

  • JWatts||

    Robby those words you write, they aren't internally consistent:

    "If anything, it feeds into the far right's victimhood complex and paranoid loathing of the mainstream media."

    That implies some kind of irrational perspective.

    "Judd Apatow in a characteristic response to the news. "I will not take part in an event that normalizes hate." Losing Jim Carrey, Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Fallon, and all the others who had threatened to cancel would have been a steep price to pay for sticking to his guns. As loathsome as Bannon is, he's hardly as evil as Ayatollah Khomeini"

    It looks like the far right has a point. You, for one, say Bannon is loathsome. So, exactly how is the far rights loathing of the media paranoid, when clearly you reciprocate. Are you paranoid?

  • John||

    It looks like the far right has a point. You, for one, say Bannon is loathsome. So, exactly how is the far rights loathing of the media paranoid, when clearly you reciprocate. Are you paranoid?

    Bingo. And what exactly makes Bannon a member of the "far right". As far as I can tell he is not a white nationalist or white supremacist. He just doesn't believe in open borders and thinks the government should act to protect American industries and workers from foreign competition. Maybe he is wrong about those things. Robby certainly thinks so and that is his right. What is not Robby's right is to slander Bannon by associating whim with views that he as far as I can see does not hold.

    Robby and others think they are being clever here by associating Bannon with white nationalists and other views that are clearly unreasonable and beyond the pale. Robby thinks he is making Bannon's views on immigration and trade illegitimate by associating them with illegitimate views. In fact, he is doing the opposite. By associating reasonable views with unreasonable ones, Robby is giving legitimacy to those unreasonable views. It is an enormous mistake and does the exact opposite of what Robby is claiming to want.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The New Yorker giving Bannon one minute of debate time would show that all the Lefty narratives about Bannon being the leader of all Lefty boogeymen to be false.

    In minute two, Bannon would probably tear all Lefty agenda narratives to shreds.

    That will never happen on Judd Apatow/.../Jim Carrey's watch.

  • mpercy||

    "As loathsome as Bannon is"

    And there it is, classic Soave.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Would you have said he's cuddly and soft?

    He's loathsome.

  • grips||

    Except it defeats the attempt to also paint them as paranoid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Soave: King of the caveats.

  • DiegoF||

    To be fair, Robby's might be a mostly aesthetic disgust. Has he ever called Milo Yiannopoulos or Lauren Southern "loathesome"? Perhaps they are permitted in his Sperry utopia.

  • mpercy||

    "If Steve Bannon is at the New Yorker festival I am out," tweeted Judd Apatow in a characteristic response to the news. "I will not take part in an event that normalizes hate."

    So very tolerant of the liberal, not hateful AT ALL, no....

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Hate is the big trend these day. Can't have that normalized.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Something cant be normalized, alright. My money is on dissent from the Lefty narrative.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    So many in the mainstream media—myself included—failed to see Trump coming, and wrongly believed he could never be elected president.


    Not even DJT believed it, judging by his premature calls to question the results even before a single vote was cast. Not even his own wife believed it, judging by how "quick" the lady took over her new home. No one believed it because he is more despicable and disgusting than Hitlery. You simply didn't consider the possibility that Hitlery was too unappealing to many decent people.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are you actually here legally? I would love to have you investigated. You really don't belong in my country. You are far better suited for a disfunctional shithole like Mexico, or even better, Guatemala.

  • Jerryskids||

    Bannon-style nationalism is already normalized.

    Not among the only people who matter. The peasantry might be infected with this madness but the better sort are still clean and they don't want to risk getting contaminated. It's like the Catholic Church discouraging the reading of the Bible - it's complicated, you wouldn't understand it and liable to get confused, better to just take our word for what it says and what it means. Trust us, we're the experts. And isn't that what faith is all about? Your faith isn't wavering, is it? Just so, the better sort know all they need to know about the barbarians beyond the pale from what they're told by their trusted friends and acquaintances at all the best cocktail parties, no need to go venturing out into the wilderness like some sort of anthropologist or missionary to see these primitive tribes for oneself.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its like they created a new language with all that virtue signalling that goes back and forth.

  • DiegoF||

    Reading Scripture on Sunday has carried a plenary indulgence at least since the declaration to that effect of Pius X, a Traditionalist icon if ever there were one. Catholics are not discouraged from reading the Bible.

  • SIV||

    So many in the mainstream media—myself included—failed to see Trump coming

    cute

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Failed" or 'did not want' to see?

  • SIV||

    My amusement is in a "fringe-right rape apologist" claiming membership in the "mainstream media".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Pulling the invitation was a bad idea.

    Providing the invitation was a bad idea.

    The invitees who indicated they would decline to participate with Mr. Bannon had the right idea.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "The invitees who indicated they would decline to participate with Mr. Bannon had the right idea."

    Damn right! The only way to safely learn anything is by staying inside an echo chamber! Amiright, people?!?!?!?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hello....heeellllloooo....

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What is the New Yorker again?

    Oh yeah, a failing rag that is desperately trying to remain relevant.

  • DiegoF||

    This is why in this case, Soave's very outrage--not just the mealymouthed "to be sure"s that the commentariat normally slams--is his cosmo tell. I doubt many of us give a shit who the fuck the New Yorker invites to their silly little cocktail party.

    Who the fuck is Robby to get on his high horse about this? It's not like these events are some great forum of public debate, or a direct manifestation of the publication's primary journalistic duty. Aren't they just a fundraising fantasy camp they run for their wealthiest readers? Maybe those folks want to hang out with Judd Apatow, and only admit the thinnest façade of intellectualism into their social bubble without hearing anything that will ruin a nice evening with discomforting thoughts. Where did Robby get the idea to demand that it serve a higher purpose? They should tell him to fuck off and take his concern trolling elsewhere.

  • grips||

    No one is surprised that you're a coward.

  • Rockabilly||

    Hey Phony Rev.

    I Resisted Hillary and WON !!!!

    #NeverHIllarytheFuckingBitch !!!!!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The invitees who indicated they would decline to participate with Mr. Bannon had the right idea.

    When the soyboy brigade acts as if they don't have the intellectual muscle to compete with a fat, drunk Irishman on a debate stage, it's time to admit that your tribe is in the throes of decline.

    Maybe you can watch all 72 hours of the McCain funeral proceedings again to try and convince yourself that your ideology is going the way of the Roman empire.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As loathsome as Bannon is, he's hardly as evil as Ayatollah Khomeini—or former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was invited to speak at Columbia University in 2007.

    Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Na-ghee-na-na-jar. Nagheenanajar.
    Michael Bolton: Yeah, well, at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.
    Samir: You know, there's nothing wrong with that name.
    Michael Bolton: There *was* nothing wrong with it... until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
    Samir: Hmm... well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
    Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

    Good thing Michael Bolton is not some guy named Steve Bannon.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know who else had OUTRAGE about something coming out of New York?

  • Hoofddorp Haarlemmermeer||

    The Jersey Shore actors?

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Editor David Remnick wanted to scrutinize Trump-era populism, but his liberal peers won't let him."

    Hey you Editor David Remnick, I shall explain it to you for FREE!!!

    All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

    I fundamentally think that a huge percentage of Trump voters (especially primary voters who bothered to study up in the slightest) voted for a Pussy-Grabber in Chief who would pussy-grab for them, on behalf of them and theirs! If PGC (Pussy-Grabber in Chief) could pussy-grab the people whose loans he defaulted on, people who'd been ripped off by his "school", and illegal humans who'd worked on building his buildings, and on and on, then SURELY the PGC can grab some pussy for us selfish, short-sighted voters! We can pussy-grab our international trade partners, and other nations, races, and creeds in general!

    These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

  • John||

    These people feel like Trump looks out for their interests. They are not looking for someone to make them feel good about themselves or to brag about supporting. They want someone who protects their interests, which Trump largely has since assuming office.

    It is the same reason no one who didn't already hate him gave a shit about Bill Clinton getting blowjobs in the oval office. Why should a voter stop supporting someone who protects their interests and support someone who will harm their interests over shit that in the end doesn't affect them? Did Bill Clinton getting blowjobs make your life any different? It didn't mine. Does Trump once grabbing pussies change your life? It doesn't mine. So, if I feel Trump supports things that do affect my life in a positive way, why on earth would I stop supporting him over shit that doesn't?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Because of karma, because if you shit all over people, they will shit all over you, right back! And now, because too many voters will NOT "grok" this simple fact, we are... '1) In a full-blown trade war, destroying jobs and increasing costs, and '2) We are willy-nilly keeping right on going, robbing our grandchildren so that we can live high on the hog NOW!!!, and '3) We are shitting on our allies over Iran-type deals, and teaching everyone in sight, internationally, that the USA does NOT abide by its agreements!!! ... This kind of crap can lead to stupid REAL wars as well as trade wars!!!

  • John||

    Because of karma, because if you shit all over people, they will shit all over you, right back!

    Leftist have been shitting all over everyone who isn't a leftist since forever. I really don't think they are ever going to like Trump supporters. So, that doesn't mean shit.

    1) In a full-blown trade war, destroying jobs and increasing costs,

    Employment statistics say otherwise. And yes, you disagree with Trump on trade. Good for you. The people who voted for him don't. That is why they voted for him. That has nothing to do with anything other than you don't like Trump.

    2) We are willy-nilly keeping right on going, robbing our grandchildren so that we can live high on the hog NOW!!!,

    The last President ran up more debt than every other President combined. That problem pre-dates Trump and really is much deeper and bigger than him. Moreover, Congress sets the budget not the President.

    3) We are shitting on our allies over Iran-type deals, and teaching everyone in sight, internationally, that the USA does NOT abide by its agreements!!!

    I don't even know what that means. Are we in another war? Not last I looked. Moreover, telling our allies to stop using us as world policeman and learn to defend themselves is likely to keep us out of new wars.

    You really don't seem to have a point here other than you hate Trump

  • SQRLSY One||

    We're not in a shooting war yet? Trump hasn't pulled us out as he said he would. Stanstanstanstanistan etc., you know... Also, they guy who jumped off the 59th floor said the same thing as he passed the 20th floor on the way down... No harm yet. You wait to see what devastation Trump will eventually leave in his wake if no one stops him!

    Study this and the links therein...

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....n-peterson is an excellent list of the mis-doings of Trump, Pence, Arapaio, and other ® people who are totally scummy, but Team Red defends them anyway!!!

    THIS is why anyone who voted for Trump in the primaries, should get their heads examined!!! MUCH of the scumminess of Trump was already known at primary time!

    (Voting for Trump instead of Hillary in the main election, that I can understand).

  • SQRLSY One||

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ls/474726/

    The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

  • John||

    We're not in a shooting war yet? Trump hasn't pulled us out as he said he would. Stanstanstanstanistan etc., you know... Also, they guy who jumped off the 59th floor said the same thing as he passed the 20th floor on the way down... No harm yet. You wait to see what devastation Trump will eventually leave in his wake if no one stops him!

    If and when that happens, we can talk about it. But until it does, your claims of "just wait" really ring pretty hallow. And again, your claim that Trump is "shitting on our allies" runs exactly counter to your claim that he is going to get us in a war. Telling the world we are no longer world policeman is how you avoid war.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....n-peterson is an excellent list of the mis-doings of Trump, Pence, Arapaio, and other ® people who are totally scummy, but Team Red defends them anyway!!!

    And I explained why above. None of that shit matters as much as their actual policies. You continue to not have an answer to that other than that you hate Trump. Again, good for you. Others disagree and have good reason to do so.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Telling the world we are no longer world policeman is how you avoid war."

    I haven't seen Trump doing that... Counter-threatening Kim Ill Dung-Breath with nukes, bombing Syria, staying in Afghanistan (and to a lesser extent, Iraq), arming and supporting the Saudis to wreak havoc in Yemen, and so forth

  • grips||

    Trump's NATO criticism is 'valid,' Europe isn't spending enough on defense, UK ex-minister says
    Holly Ellyatt | @HollyEllyatt
    Published 1:23 AM ET Wed, 11 July 2018 Updated 1:39 AM ET Wed, 11 July 2018
    CNBC.com

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" bombing Syria, staying in Afghanistan (and to a lesser extent, Iraq), arming and supporting the Saudis to wreak havoc in Yemen, and so forth""

    Very little, if any complaints from the left about this when their guy was doing it.

  • Echospinner||

    "We are willy-nilly keeping right on going, robbing our grandchildren so that we can live high on the hog NOW!!!, "

    Yes we are. Which is why I make sure that the little darlings have an unlimited supply of Oscar Mayer Lunchables, mom's used phones and iPads, and some place to ship them off to every day that at least pretends to teach them something. This way they might learn enough to deal with the inevitable apocalypse or at least call me every now and then in my dotage.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!""

    Bill Clinton is already out of office.

  • Brian||

    It's Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back

    A nearly 50-year campaign of vilification, inspired by Fox News's Roger Ailes, has left many Americans distrustful of media outlets. Now, journalists need to speak up for their work.

    Yeah, that's the problem: Fox news ruined what everyone thinks of the media.

    It's funny how these articles read. OK, Mr. Fact Based, where are the facts? How accurate is the media? How clear and concise are they? How even-handed in the face of doubt are they? Let's measure it.

    Oh, wait: never mind: let's talk about how wonderfully noble we all are, how we have the best of intentions, and how completely transparent we are, as if those things are without a doubt across the board and tell you everything we need to know.

    OK. Thank you. Now, moving on to show the media the same skepticism they show everyone else who talks like that...

  • John||

    Everyone hates the press. I am not seeing why the solution to that problem is for the media to ensure that everyone knows the feeling is mutual.

  • Cyto||

    You want numbers... OK, lets get some numbers!!

    A study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that MSNBC had less negative coverage of Obama (14 percent of stories versus 29 percent in the press overall) and more negative stories about Republican presidential candidate John McCain (73 percent of its coverage versus 57 percent in the press overall).

    I ran across this factiod on the MSNBC Wikipedia page. It seems kinda relevant in light of all of the coverage after McCain's death -- seeing as how it is borderline treason to have a disagreement with such a hero.

    Skip over the MSNBC numbers and take a look at the "press overall" numbers. 29% of stories about Obama were negative, and 57% of stories about McCain (the war hero) were negative. Those numbers include Fox News.

    The numbers are similar every presidential election cycle. This has been true at least since McGovern vs Nixon, when we had 3 networks and they all tried to present themselves as unbiased, down-the-middle straight news organizations.

  • BYODB||


    The numbers are similar every presidential election cycle. This has been true at least since McGovern vs Nixon, when we had 3 networks and they all tried to present themselves as unbiased, down-the-middle straight news organizations.

    Which also might help explain the popular vote. I don't know about other people, but I simply assume that most of us primates vote for the person who's name we recognize rather than it having anything to do with the issues. That, or how much do I hate the other guy on the other team.

    Ah, democracy. It's like a race to the bottom while spending other people's dollars.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Oh, I agree completely. The best place to get unfiltered news is from Breitbart.

  • Brian||

    I'm glad you agree, but your final thought isn't what I said. You can read what I actually said above: it's the comment you replied to.

    And that's how we know you're a mendacious twat.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Please, don't misunderstand... I support Trump like you do. I did read your comment about how we should just dismiss all media as biased and opinion-based. Yep, CNN is just like Infowars— a position I wholeheartedly agree with. If I offended I didn't mean to. I'm a Trump-supporting anarcho-capitalist like you so can we join a like-minded affinity group together?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Oh, I agree completely. The best place to get unfiltered news is from Breitbart."

    A hundred tomes more reliable than any progtard run MSM propaganda outfit.

  • Cyto||

    The point of an interview, a rigorous interview, particularly in a case like this, is to put pressure on the views of the person being questioned.

    Amazing that we managed to get through 4 years of Obama preparing to run for President, running for president and then another 8 years of Obama being president without anyone in the White House press corps... or anyone else that got an opportunity to interview him... taking that particularly point of view.

  • Cyto||

    The guy was a constitutional scholar... and yet nobody ever even asked the obvious questions about all of the blatantly unconstitutional things he was doing. Nobody ever asked a follow-up question. Nobody ever questioned a nothing response that contradicted itself... (I particularly remember one paragraph from an early State of the Union address where he said we needed to be like any family and tighten our belts to live within our means... and at the same time we need to invest in the future... wow. Nobody ever mentioned it to him.)

    So no, Mr. New Yorker. You don't get to take the 4th estate high road. You guys built this partisan propaganda-first machine. Don't be surprised when it keeps on running in the direction you pointed it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Given how partisan the MSM is anymore, I would send the IRS amd DoJ after some of them for illegal campaign contributions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just a review on who Steve Bannon really is:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/polit.....ve-bannon/

    Breitbart's genius was that he grasped better than anyone else what the early 20th century press barons understood—that most readers don't approach the news as a clinical exercise in absorbing facts, but experience it viscerally as an ongoing drama, with distinct story lines, heroes, and villains. Breitbart excelled at creating these narratives, an editorial approach that's lived on. "When we do an editorial call, I don't even bring anything I feel like is only a one-off story, even if it'd be the best story on the site," says Alex Marlow, the site's editor in chief. "Our whole mindset is looking for these rolling narratives." He rattles off the most popular ones, which Breitbart News covers intensively from a posture of aggrieved persecution. "The big ones won't surprise you," he says. "Immigration, ISIS, race riots, and what we call 'the collapse of traditional values.' But I'd say Hillary Clinton is tops."

    They literally admit that they will pass over big stories if they don't feed into the narratives that they want to push.

    Steve Bannon is more responsible for Trump than Trump himself. Bannon's propaganda was what stoked all the paranoid nutty fears and anxieties on the right. Bannon is the reason why your typical Republican believes illiterate Mexicans are a greater threat to the Republic than a $20 trillion debt.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Bannon is an obnoxious prick and Breitbart is worthless. No dispute from me. But is he really worse than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Lester Maddox? Really?

  • John||

    So he ran a news outfit that looked for stories that would generate readership. The nerve of that guy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Now John, you know damn well that Bannon did not sub'ot to the progressive hive mind, and he also says scary things that makes him a big meanie to Little Jeffy here.

    I can imagine Little Jeffy, in his footy pajama, cowering under the covers in his bed after reading about that scary old Mr. Bannon.

  • Paulpemb||

    "They literally admit that they will pass over big stories if they don't feed into the narratives that they want to push."

    So...Breitbart is exactly like every other media outlet?

  • grips||

    Bannon - " immigrants are a problem because they contribute to the debt in several obvious ways such as seeking free first world healthcare and overloading the educational system'

    cumstainjefff "YOU IGNORANT RETARD YOU HATE BROWN PEOPLE YOU DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE DEBT!!!!"

    Bannon - "I just did, you clearly know nothing about what I actually say publicly"

    cumstainjeff - "BLAGAGAGAHHAHA WARGARBLLL!!!"

  • Cyto||

    What is amazing about that quote is how revealing it is not only about Breitbart, but how broadly applicable it is to all media.

    How many stories have been roundly ignored by the press while empty shells of stories with shiny headline appeal are pushed endlessly? Sure, we can all have fun denigrating click-bait internet news sites, but take a look on your NBC nightly news. How much time did they spend talking about one-off human interest stories that don't affect anyone - like some little girl getting kidnapped, or some soccer mom getting murdered? Compare that with the amount of time the spend on things like our government spying on its own citizens.

    Or if you want to make it more apples to apples, pick a single human interest story that actually does illustrate a larger societal problem - like this execution of an unarmed guy in his pajamas. Didn't see that on CBS, did you? At least, not much more than a mention. But we all know who Kim Kardashian is making babies with. And we sure do have plenty of people pontificating about how it is racist to say someone is an articulate spokesman for their point of view.

  • Cyto||

    If you think Bannon is any different than Phil Griffin and Andrew Lack, you are just reveling in your blinders. Bannon is personally kinda gross, and his politics seem to be to the stupid side of Pat Buchanon, but as far as philosophy of news and picking stories, he's pretty much right in the mainstream. They just chose to pick story lines that appeal to a right of center, blue collar crowd. Whether that was due to ideology or because they saw a gap in the marketplace is something of an open question.

  • John||

    Pretty much that Cyto. Bannon has an agenda and used the story selection in Britbart to push that agenda. The whole business model behind Britbart was to provide an agenda and stories the big media was not. You can dislike Bannon's agenda and opinion but I don't see how you can say he is any worse than anyone else in the media.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I didnt even know about Breibart until Buttplugger mentioned it. When I checked it out, the stories seemed to match up with stories the MSM were pushing but had a different twist to them.

    I am not a fan of the tabloid news methodology but if you read news from different perspectives, you sometimes get a clearer picture of what the truth might be.

  • Cyto||

    The best ever at that is Drudge. He just links to mainstream stories most of the time, but he writes different headlines that give the story a completely different spin.

    It is pretty brilliant. He gets more traffic than NBC or Fox, and he doesn't even have to do any reporting.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I usually check out Ron Paul News dot Net which is a news aggregator. It links to Drudge too. Also has some weird stuff.
    RonPaulNews dot Net

    I think news aggregators like Drudge are kinda popular because people want to find the news they want to hear about not be told what the news is.

    Tony asked one time how I get my news, so I told him about RonPaulNews and he never said anything more about it. Alternates to MSM scares the shit out of Lefties. They cannot control the propaganda narrative anymore.

  • BYODB||


    And we sure do have plenty of people pontificating about how it is racist to say someone is an articulate spokesman for their point of view.

    You know, it was staggering to hear someone in late night TV make the comment of 'do your black friends want to be described as 'articulate'? Of course not!

    Like, what exactly does that say to you? It says a lot to me, and none of it is good.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    >>>Bannon's propaganda was what stoked all the paranoid nutty fears and anxieties on the right.

    I don't believe that at all, Jeff. I suspect these fears and anxieties were there already. Bannon didn't invent them nor stoke them. He just let people finally talk about them.

    Shouting people down doesn't really work, see. None of the untidy opinions the left didn't want aired went away. They just went quiet, until someone saw a way to increase his own reach by letting them speak.

  • Cyto||

    It is no different that when Al Sharpton comes on and whips up his audience with story lines of "white people hate us". People have fears and suspicions of "others". They always have, and probably always will. And there will always be someone looking to exploit that fact.

    Remember the flood in south Georgia, where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran around accusing the state of flooding out black homes on purpose? They even got the Clinton administration to do criminal investigations into the matter. It was covered endlessly on the national news....

    The resolution to the story didn't get so much coverage. In fact, I couldn't find the relevant photo on google to show you. Anyway, the entire matter was theoretically laid to rest when an areal survey of the dam in question showed that the entire dam was underwater. Not overflowing, or a small breach. The whole thing was completely under water. The flood was higher than the dam - so "diverting water to black neighborhoods" was pretty much impossible.

    Still, I have to say "theoretically put to rest", because I don't think Sharpton and Jackson ever retracted their accusations and apologized. They just moved on.... and the media moved on with them.

  • Cyto||

    Obama was less gross about it, but do you really think his intentions were any different when he said Trayvon Martin could have been his son? Playing on people's fears is like oxygen for politicians. Why do you think they pulled the alt-right to the forefront? Was it to expose the danger that is posed by 200 basement-dwellers?

    Or did they do it to create fear and motivate their base?

    There isn't the slightest difference in Bannon playing on Joe Sixpack's fears and literally the entire press calling the devout Mormon and notorious boy scout Mitt Romney a misogynist, racist, would-be dictator who wanted to take us back to the era of back-alley abortions and Jim Crowe segregation.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Yep. Agreed.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "Playing on people's fears is like oxygen for politicians"

    Very well said, Cyto. I might add "like warm milk from the tit, and like triple-strength Viagra".

  • Cyto||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They fucked up the Star Wars franchise.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Flint water poisoning narrative is still percolating. Detroit just had some lead in their water too which evidently runs off the same water source.

    The Lefties tried to flip this into a racial thing of poisoning black kids.

    Unfortunately, black Democrats have run politics in that area of Michigan for 50+ years. The OUTRAGE died down a bit when there were no white people to blame.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So Bannon is like every other media mogul?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""a greater threat to the Republic than a $20 trillion debt."'

    No one in office cares about 21 Trillion in debt. They just want to raise the debt limit and spend more.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rand Paul and Trump are some of the few.

    Trump does not control the purse strings though. He only controls whether the purse can be worn that particular day.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    He can reject the awful management of the purse by veto. Then if over-ridden he can claim he would not sign off on such a travesty.

    I haven't seen that one yet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is a big negative I have against Trump. He should have vetoed and let Congress override his veto.

    He could have taken the high road and as you say, claimed he would not have signed off on that travesty. He passed on a good fight.

    He will also get another chance every year for the next 6+ years. Trump is well aware of how the media treats those who- push old ladies in wheel chairs over cliffs with no social security money in their bank accounts.

  • BYODB||

    I honestly suspect that if Trump vetoed a spending bill, he would be instantly impeached at this point. They don't even need a reason anymore, they'd opt for a military coup if necessary.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Then it would be time for an uprising and a civil war. Get rid of the deep state and purge the progressives.

  • Rockabilly||

    Man, the Progtards are in full blown manic mode.

    They can't even confront those that they hate.

    Bitter 'til the end.

    Their 'resistance' looks like a teenage girl tantrum cause mommy and daddy won't let them have a cool tattoo.

    So they're gonna cry and pout and lock themselves in their room and play their emo tunes till they cry themselves to sleep

    But at the end of the day, when all is said and done, and the fat lady sings, it'll still come to this = Hillary Clinton will NEVER EVER EVER be president and Bill will never ever be 1st Male 1st Lady = hahahahaha

    I Resisted Hillary and WON !!!!

    #NeverHIllarytheFuckingBitch !!!!!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Hillary will never be president.

    The half-educated, disaffected right-wing bigots who support Trump have lost and will continue to lose the culture war as America continues to improve against conservative wishes.

    I am content.

  • Rockabilly||

    Charlatan - I know you don't know how to handle snakes to get rid of the evil because you are that which is evil.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I hope people like Arty keep pushing g until we have a valid pretext to get rid of them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties get worse each day too.

    They make it so easy to manipulate Lefties into exposing themselves as the violent psychopaths that they are.

  • DiegoF||

    Editor David Remnick wanted to scrutinize Trump-era populism, but his liberal peers won't let him.

    I haven't seen Liberal Peers be this much of a threat since the Parliament Act of 1911.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Hey, check it out, the media is still spending time virtue signalling and cuddling power rather than asking hard questions. Oh, they do ask hard questions, but that's saved for people no one important likes. Safer that way. More lucrative.

    Integrity. How's that spelled again? Never mind. We're perfessional. We're above such trivial concerns.

    Sheezus.

  • TxJack 112||

    Leftists never want to debate anyone who will challenge their ideas or positions because they know under scrutiny, they cannot stand. They pretend they are not big government, anti- Constitution loons but know in a debate the truth is always exposed and they are shown to be what they are, a threat to freedom. The last thing progressives actually support is democracy which they demonstrate every day on any number of left leaning websites. The recent "bans" on "hate speech" is another example of how they cannot accept their ideology to be debated.

  • Number 2||

    "Losing Jim Carrey, Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Fallon, and all the others who had threatened to cancel would have been a steep price to pay for sticking to his guns."

    I agree. No serious publication can afford to lose that amount of intellectual firepower.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And non-threatening Males-in-Name-Only.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I hate Jim Carrey. Was watching Showtime last weekend and was subjected to promos for his new shitshow where he plays some faggoty version of Mr. Rogers.

    Should send his dumb ass back to Canada for god.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "Our writers have interviewed Steve Bannon for The New Yorker before, and if the opportunity presents itself I'll interview him in a more traditionally journalistic setting as we first discussed, and not on stage," he said.

    I hope he does so. It is liberal audiences like The New Yorker's who benefit most from new insights into Trump's worldview.

    I suspect most of The New Yorker's readers will just skip over that article. Partisans aren't generally interested in understanding dissenting viewpoints.

  • Cyto||

    Not if it is a "Bannon is a crazy racist" hit peice expose'. Choirs love being preached to.

    That's why writing for a libertarian publication is so hard. Every choir is filled with people who are certain that only they are singing from the true hymnal. That's why I'm going to write the ultimate libertarian book - "You are the only one who really stands for libertarian principles". Or maybe it should be "Everyone Else is a Mendacious Boob." And I could just put a mirror on the cover... Hold on, I gotta go call my publisher....

  • Page 7||

    Almost as spineless and shameless as the Mark Duplass 'apology' for having the audacity for meeting with and saying nice things about Ben Shapiro.

    The left capitulates to the Twitter mob over just about anything.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, that was a pretty low moment. I don't think he's gonna like what it says about his character when he looks back on this in a few years.

    If you don't trust your own experience with someone who went out of their way to do you a favor with no angle for personal gain on their part and you'll throw them under the bus on someone else's say-so to avoid having people tweet mean things at you, you are not a very high character person.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yeah, that was a pretty low moment. I don't think he's gonna like what it says about his character when he looks back on this in a few years.

    I think you'd be amazed at how mendacious and self-justifying these people actually are. They'll never take responsibility for anything bad that happens to others as a result of their actions.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I guess I can't really blame him: Losing Jim Carrey, Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Fallon, and all the others who had threatened to cancel would have been a steep price to pay for sticking to his guns.

    Can't tell if sarcasm, but assuming this is sarcasm.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But definitely not sarcasm for the typical New Yorker reader.

  • posmoo||

    What makes Bannon so loathsome to Robby? Because he holds the same views on immigration as a majority of Americans? Robby is such a little cunt.

  • BillBrennan||

    Disagreement =Hate.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    God! The fact that Steve Bannon has once again been censored by being disinvited from a private event that the organizers didn't want him at is once again proof of the government's gag order on free speech. All this is the fault of liberals and their tech company elitist billionaire fellow travelers. Why I don't even know if there is any place on the internet where you can't find identitarian politics or right-wingers complaining about media bias. Do you guys know where I can find anything on this increasingly Orwellian internet-thingy? Scary.

  • NoVaNick||

    If the proggies can't even bear the thought of speaking to Bannon, or any Trump supporter, then how the hell do they expect to be able to defeat them, or their ideas? What is it about understanding your enemy?

    Unfortunately, my wife insists on subscribing to the New Yorker, I occasionally flip through it and for the past 10 years at least, almost all their stories seem to be about linking everything bad in the world to the GOP or Koch Brothers. It started long before Trump and its tedious.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "...then how the hell do they expect to be able to defeat them, or their ideas? "

    Violence. The Left cannot defeat most non-Lefty positions via non-violence means.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    then how the hell do they expect to be able to defeat them, or their ideas?

    With reason, tolerance, science, inclusivity, education, liberty, modernity, and progress.

    And by illuminating our society's vestigial backwardness, ignorance, superstition, authoritarianism, insularity, and bigotry.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    So by not running away from a chance to use reason, tolerance, science, ect would be the answer?

    ""And by illuminating our society's vestigial backwardness, ignorance, superstition, authoritarianism, insularity, and bigotry.""

    Why deny someone a platform that would illuminate that?

  • Dillinger||

    put the phones down and speak like men.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Losing Jim Carrey, Patton Oswalt, Jimmy Fallon, and all the others who had threatened to cancel would have been a steep price to pay""

    Lord knows we don't hear enough from (checks notes) ....late night talk-show hosts and hollywood celebrity-activists

    I mean, how can you have a *festival of ideas* without their valued input?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Oh I agree completely with you, fellow Trump supporter. When I go to a festival what I want is less comedy and more old white guys talking about how old white guys don't have it as good as they used to. Vital.

  • Echospinner||

    For some reason when I saw the word "festival" and Bannon together I got this mental picture. People sitting around in a hot dusty field listening to a bunch of bands you kinda liked. Boone's Farm Strawberry wine. Bannon on a blanket holding a smoking object and the guy next to him nudging him to "pass it already".

    More cowbell!!!

    I must have been there but the details are kinda fuzzy.

  • Mark22||

    But if bad ideas are so contagious that we must greet them with reflexive, unthinking censorship, we are already doomed.

    Well, yes, progressives and intellectual elites are indeed doomed. Much of your power derived from the ability to shape public discourse. But the Internet is bringing that to an end. You're still trying to hold on to power a little longer through censorship and personal attacks, but it's not going to work, because the "bad ideas" of populists are, indeed, contagious.

    If anything, it feeds into the far right's victimhood complex

    I'm not defending Bannon on every position, but implying that Bannon is some kind of Nazi undermines your own credibility.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If anything, it feeds into the far right's victimhood complex and paranoid loathing of the mainstream media.

    Remarks like that are a great example of gaslighting. The alt-Right asserts that the mainstream media is full of unpaid propagandists for the left, an invitation to one of its more notorious members to discuss the dramatically changing political landscape is revoked because worthless nerds like Apatow got the vapors over him, and when they point out the hypocrisy, Robby blames the alt-Right for being paranoid.

  • Uncle Jay||

    The New Yorker has a right to disinvite Bannon, just like I have a right to use the New Yorker to wipe my ass with.

  • Mark22||

    and paranoid loathing of the mainstream media.

    Your background is pretty typical for a journalist, Robby, So tell me, Robby, why would I want you to influence my view of the world? What the hell do you know about the world? What have you accomplished in your life other than writing for various publications?

    And the press has always been abused for propaganda and manipulation. Bernays put it quite clearly: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." (If you don't know who Bernays is or what role he played in US history, look him up.) Post WWII, have a look at Operation Mockingbird.

    But, of course, a lot of the propaganda coming from the mainstream media is simply self-serving, intended to maximize profits, since they are, after all, corporations.

    Intelligent people have always loathed the mainstream media, we simply used to consider them a necessary evil. But the simple fact is that journalism and the mainstream media are becoming irrelevant, the same way bookstores, VCR tape rentals, pay phones, phone books, and paper maps have become irrelevant.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'm gonna MISS those guys!

  • SimonP||

    Yeah, you've moved on to the step of understanding what's happening in the world by pure intuition and tweetstorm.

    Journalists are often gullible and unsophisticated, and the writers at Reason demonstrate the media's faults to an extreme. That said, these are people whose profession is to investigate, know, and understand current events to a degree that us commoners just don't have the time to do. How else are you to know how to assess Trump's most recent self-aggrandizing statements, for instance? Do you just... judge his character and decide whether he is trustworthy? Or do you gather information from various sources and try to assess within context?

    I really don't know how you think you're getting better information about what's happening in the world or nation. If it's not "mainstream media," it's likely some kind of secondary media that is totally dependent upon the reporting that others do. Or it's social media that circulates stories that mainstream media has broken. Or something of that nature. To say that mainstream media is irrelevant is just to loudly declare that you believe that ignorance is strength. Not something I would brag about, personally.

  • Kivlor||

    overall a good article Robby. Minus the paranoia jab, which you discredit with your own admission that what is being done is in fact censorship

  • Truthteller1||

    The left embodies every shred of hate they are supposed to be defeating.

  • Truthteller1||

    The left embodies every shred of hate they are supposed to be defeating.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Truth to tell, the energy and gun banning socialists are trying to euchre the other half of the kleptocracy away from the trough with whatevuh woiks--hate, fear, pseudoscience, superstition... Both gangs struggle to pretend they can grab some power and paychecks without copying planks from the Libertarian platform. What parasites clearly hate is working for a living!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one is doing that you stupid shit. Don't know why you keep saying that.

  • Sevo||

    "...paranoid loathing of the mainstream media."

    You misspelled "reality".

  • BruceMajors||

    It hardly matters. The New Yorker, liberals, liberaltarians all irrelevant and doomed. They only question is how soon the government and philanthropist funding that sustains them is cut off. And whether the populism they will be replaced with is libertarian, conservative, or leftist.

  • SimonP||

    As the commenters here so ably demonstrate, inviting Bannon was always going to be a no-win scenario for The New Yorker. Either they lend their patina of credibility and respect to an incompetent fascist, thereby encouraging his followers; or they disinvite him and demonstrate to his followers how intolerant they turn out to be of "ideas" not their own.

    No one ever really asks why Breitbart isn't inviting Hillary to speak at their events, are they?

    None of you numbnuts would give a shit one way or the other how Bannon performed, would you? You would convince yourselves, no matter what, that Bannon "won" any antagonistic exchange with The New Yorker. So what is the point? Who is this really about, in the end?

    The only way to win this game, really, is not to invite Bannon in the first place. But white dudes being white dudes, there is not a single tribal movement motivated by hate they can resist trying to dissect to its pure, rational essence.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Simon, you malignant retard, Bannon was invited, then disinvited. That's the story here.

    Had he never been invited in the first place, it wouldn't be a story.

    Now fuck off.

  • SimonP||

    I perfectly understand that Bannon was invited and then disinvited. And, as the post above elaborates, that's a great scenario for Bannon, as so many commenters here have ably demonstrated. No one here gives a shit what Bannon has to say or might have said at The New Yorker's festival. They only care that his disinvitation confirms everything they vaguely believe, without evidence, about the "mainstream media."

    And had the interview gone on as planned, it would merely have affirmed, to those same supporters, how Bannon was dominating the cultural moment. Again, as the post above demonstrates, by ceding that white nationalism has become a "mainstream" position.

    Heads I win, tails you lose. That's all these appearances are about, and to pretend otherwise is to overlook the way that propagandists like Bannon operate. They're not interested in any good-faith exchange of ideas. Again, same as most of the commenters in this thread, like you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No one here gives a shit what Bannon has to say or might have said at The New Yorker's festival. They only care that his disinvitation confirms everything they vaguely believe, without evidence, about the "mainstream media."

    Again, more shitlib gaslighting--"It's your fault that we act in a manner that confirms basic observations about the left and mainstream media!"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're not interested in any good-faith exchange of ideas.

    Neither, as Apatow demonstrates, is the left. You just don't want to acknowledge that because he's on your team.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    None of you numbnuts would give a shit one way or the other how Bannon performed, would you? You would convince yourselves, no matter what, that Bannon "won" any antagonistic exchange with The New Yorker.

    Someone's projecting their insecurity.

    But white dudes being white dudes, there is not a single tribal movement motivated by hate they can resist trying to dissect to its pure, rational essence.

    Shitlibs being shitlibs, there is not a single tribal movement motivated by hate they can resist trying to dissect to its pure, rational essence.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "The question is whether an interview has value in terms of fact, argument, or even exposure, whether it has value to a reader or an audience. Which is why Dick Cavett, in his time, chose to interview Lester Maddox"

    I'll always remember that interview this way:
    " Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
    With some smart ass New York Jew
    And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
    And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
    Well he may be a fool but he's our fool
    If they think they're better than him they're wrong
    So I went to the park and I took some paper along
    And that's where I made this song
    We talk real funny down here
    We drink too much and we laugh too loud
    We're too dumb to make it in no Northern town
    And we're keepin' the niggers down
    We are rednecks, we're rednecks
    We don't know our ass
    From a hole in the ground
    We're rednecks, we're rednecks
    And we're keeping the niggers down"

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tricky Prickears rides again!

  • Hank Phillips||

    So? Let's test another conclusion. Bannon represents the girl-bullying, warrior-for-the-babies hillbilly, pot-banning, mexican-deporting, black-killing, dog-shooting, country-invading xenophobic wing of what looks, marches and quacks a lot like German nationalsocialism after 1933. Allow for the possibility that the pansy wing of the looter kleptocracy is realizing that Libertarian partisans are different, and that our spoiler votes topple about as many republican as democratic candidates. Instead of conflating the LP (peaceful acid-legalizing purveyors of Roe v Wade decisions) into a blob with the Unione Fascisti Periplaneta Americanus, they might be considering sidling up in order to steal some our votes. Are these Noo Yawkrz welcoming or tar-and-feathering Libertarian participants?

  • Hank Phillips||

    So? Let's test another conclusion. Bannon represents the girl-bullying, warrior-for-the-babies hillbilly, pot-banning, mexican-deporting, black-killing, dog-shooting, country-invading xenophobic wing of what looks, marches and quacks a lot like German nationalsocialism after 1933. Allow for the possibility that the pansy wing of the looter kleptocracy is realizing that Libertarian partisans are different, and that our spoiler votes topple about as many republican as democratic candidates. Instead of conflating the LP (peaceful acid-legalizing purveyors of Roe v Wade decisions) into a blob with the Unione Fascisti Periplaneta Americanus, they might be considering sidling up in order to steal some our votes. Are these Noo Yawkrz welcoming or tar-and-feathering Libertarian participants?

  • JFA||

    David Remnick has lost all credibility as journalist/editor. He has shown he is a coward.

  • Michael Cook||

    I guess Rush Limbaugh has it correct in saying that the events which will tip the election this Fall haven't happened yet. You can base that on the average attention span of today, if nothing else.

    My own stumper of a question is this: if I were a newly-minted NFL owner with a brand new franchise in my pocket and I had to choose from one of three quarterbacks, whom would I select: Kaepernick, Johnny (Canadian) Football, or the guy who is now playing pro baseball?

    I've pondered this inordinately. Finally decided the only move would be to try to trade the franchise for something of real value. Maybe an NBA team, a half-billion in cash, and a new Gulfstream IV. I bet I could get that idiot Mark Cuban to make that deal! Bonus, I would get to live in Texas. (Cuban would take Kaepernick, of course.)

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    MCM Small Rabbit Tambourine Crossbody Bag In White

    Shop www.mcmbackpacksoutletonline.com Cheap MCM Backpacks Outlet Store and Buy MCM Small Rabbit Tambourine Crossbody Bag In White, Save Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Shipping...

    http://www.mcmbackpacksoutleto.....white.html

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online