CNN Terminates Antisemite and Racist Marc Lamont Hill

Yesterday, antisemite, Nation of Islam fan, and CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map, declaring (using Hamas language) that Palestine should extend "from river to sea" -- from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

In other words: Wipe out those Jews.

After refusing to comment on this matter for more than a day, CNN has just fired Hill, without offering any explanation why, and without denouncing the antisemitism as some (but not all!!!) conservatives demanded.

Let's talk abut that last part -- about how some "conservatives" have been very, very reluctant to demand that CNN comment on its racist, antisemitic contributor.

Here was BaseballCrank, vigorously defending Jake Tapper from any suggestion that he should comment upon his antisemitic colleague Marc Lamont Hill:

First he says that no one at CNN should be expected to comment on Hill, not even CNN's alleged "Media Reporter" Brian Stelter, but then concedes it's arguable that Stelter should comment -- but not Jake Tapper.

Despite the fact that Jake Tapper is forever calling upon Republicans to account for other Republicans' words or actions. Despite the fact that he will generally call out antisemitism -- so long as it doesn't mean compromising his unofficial position as Company Man Spokesperson for CNN:

And note that Jake Tapper will slide into your DMs to accuse you of antisemitism:

The Federalist isn't saying that was Jake Tapper -- but I am. On opinion and belief, that was Jake Tapper.

Who else would it be? Who else at CNN is forever DMing conservatives?

Oh, and as far as Dan McLaughlin claiming that even Brian Stelter, CNN's media "reporter" wasn't even required to denounce antisemitism -- strange. Stelter is given to pronouncements like this:

And one more weird wrinkle about Dan McLaughlin's spirited defense of Tapper -- note that McLaughlin now writes for National Review.

When National Review fired John Derbyshire for a column with racist implications, did National Review handle it "internally"?

No, of course not. They handled it quite externally, quite publicly, with writers willing, maybe even eager, to note John Derbyshire's sins.

National Review would not have been permitted to handle this purely "internally" even had they wished to, of course.

And Dan MacLaughlin is perfectly eager to argue that CNN should be held to a lighter standard that National Review.

Why? It's one thing for the left to always argue for a double standard in their favor -- why are there so many alleged "conservatives" also eager to argue for double standards that favor the left?

Is that because Jake Tapper was up to his usual tricks, DMing weak-sister "Republicans," giving him the CNN Corporate PR side of things, telling him "hold off, it's better to let us handle this internally?"

I can't say yes for certain, but I'm very, very suspicious that exactly that happened here.

Because it always happens when CNN is in trouble -- CNN's own Conservative Whisperer Jake Tapper slides into weak, easy-lay Republicans to get them to relay CNN's/Jake Tapper's view of the world, without attributing it to Jake Tapper or CNN.

Want the reason for my suspicons?

Remember when CNN's Donna Brazille got caught leaking debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Okay, sorry to be indiscreet, and sorry about the collateral damage here, but this Jazz Shaw column is what I'm talking about.

Not So Fast. CNN Probably Didn’t Feed The Flint Debate Question To Donna Brazile After All

JAZZ SHAW
Posted at 10:01 am on November 3, 2016

...

I spoke on background last night and this morning to a source familiar with the charity event referenced above which CNN participated in. It was a group effort to hand out bottled water to residents of the community and, according to this source, Brazile was indeed there. During the event she spoke to a woman with a prominent rash who told her that she would be interested in asking a question on the subject of lead in the water. While it can’t be known without confirmation from Brazile herself, it’s not difficult to posit that Donna was in a position to pass along this woman’s request. After that, she sent the information to the Clinton campaign on the assumption that the woman would be invited, in an effort to help Hillary prepare for the debate.

But here’s the kicker. That woman with the rash wasn't either of the women who wound up asking questions at the debate. It was an entirely different person. It’s also worth noting that unlike the first leaked question from Roland Martin in the earlier debate where his follow-up question (which went unasked) matched the email word for word, the question about lead in the water was sent to the Clinton campaign in very generic terms which didn’t match the exact wording of the questions eventually asked. With all that in mind it's quite plausible that what was discovered in the Podesta email was the fact that Donna Brazile attempted to rig the debate in the same fashion as she’d done before, but she failed because other residents were eventually chosen to ask questions.

You've probably already guessed this, but Jazz Shaw's secret source is Jake Tapper, sliding into his DMs.

And I know that for a fact. How do I know that? Because Jake Tapper slid into my DMs and gave me the same "story."

I didn't print it, of course. I'm not saying it's not true; it might be true.

But I had some questions. Like: If you've confirmed all this, why don't you report it out yourselves, under the CNN imprimatur, instead of trying to get conservatives to secretly carry your water for you?

I mean, if this is true, why don't you say so? Why are you trying to get me to spread your story?

If only CNN had some kind of TV channel or website to get its version of the facts out, and didn't have to rely on second-tier conservative bloggers to use their blogs to do so.

I'm also pretty sure that I asked Tapper for a second source I could contact to confirm his claims, but he didn't provide one.

So this is why you have this endless welter of CNN apologism by "conservatives:" Because Jake Tapper flatters people by DMing them, and gives them the #HotScoop straight from CNN's Corporate Messaging Unit and the conservatives dutifully relay CNN's Tappersplanations to their audiences.

Do I know this happened with MacLaughlin?

No, but ask around. The real conservatives who are no longer on Team Jake 4 Ever can tell you all about Tapper's relentless DMs on behalf of CNN's public relations department, and especially his own public image.

And now, look! CNN has handled this "internally" after all!

With little to no airing of dirty laundry in public!

Another CNN "reporter," Oliver Darcy, tweets about the separation, and tweets out Marc Lamont Hill's defense of himself, but does not state CNN's reasons for the firing.

Weird, huh? I guess they really are handling this internally.

And thanks to Jake Tapper's many "conservative" fanbois, they'll be permitted to keep it entirely internal, with none of that going-on-the-record that Dan McLaughlin's own National Review did when it separated itself from John Derbyshire.

Just a statement that Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract. No explanation as to why. No condemnation of Hill, as Dan MacLaughlin's own magazine publicly offered of the similarly-behaving John Derbyshire.

When the fuck are these Jake Tapper Fanbois going to finally realize they're being played by CNN's notoriously DM-promiscuous Conservativ Whisperer?

Update:

Will CNN be forced to comment on that?

Of course not. Not as long as they have "Solid Conservatives" like Dan McLaughlin and, I'm guessing, Ed Morrissey to Tappersplain to you why CNN shouldn't have to answer questions they demand all conservatives answer.

LOL: Of course. Of course.

Tell me Erick-- has CNN denounced Hill's antisemitism? Or his support of Nation of Islam?

I guess you think a firing without any stating of cause is adequate.

Which is, strangely, not what CNN believes at all, when it comes to others. CNN is always demanding that people denounce this and repudiate that.

Why is CNN immune from its own rules?

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:18 PM

| Access Comments