Clooney Complains of Being Made a "Scapegoat" for Kamala's Loss; Will "Step Back from Politics"
CNN to Axe HUNDREDS of "Workers," Including Top "Talent"

CNN first:

CNN is planning to wield the axe on some of its high-paid staff after dismal election ratings that cap off a disastrous period for the cable news network.

According to an explosive new report from Puck, network executives will unleash sweeping lay-offs in a bid to save the network's flailing reputation.

It comes after the departure of stalwart Chris Wallace, and amid reports senior stars like Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper have both been denied raises.

Don't get too excited; Jake resigned a three-year contract at his absurd current $7 mil per year salary.

There is no mention of who may be on the chopping block.

The highest paid stars include Anderson Cooper - who rakes in $20million a year - Erin Burnett ($6million) and rising star Kaitlan Collins ($3million).

'In the next few months, I'm told, CNN will implement another round of layoffs that will impact hundreds of employees across the organization,' reporter Dylan Byers wrote Friday, referencing CNN's recent 100-person layoff seen over the summer.

...

Byers wrote: 'Redundant assignments will be nixed, and various divisions will be reduced or even eliminated.

'Some of the on-air talent are also likely to be affected,' he went on to reveal.

George Clooney is sad that people are blaming him for deposing Biden. He wants to go back to being a hero.

George Clooney feels he is being used as a 'scapegoat' in the furious blame game over who could have cost Kamala Harris the election -- and will now take a step back from politics.

The Hollywood star, 63, threw his support behind Harris after penning a blistering op-ed on why Joe Biden would cost the Democrats the win if he didn't abandon his campaign, but it still wasn't enough to prevent an historic victory for Donald Trump.

Clooney has since been criticized by Democrats for his influence during the election, with some claiming Harris' loss was his fault.

The Oscar-winner is 'disheartened' by the backlash, with insiders claiming he did not immediately endorse Harris because he felt the Democrats should have 'taken a step back' to weigh up their options.

'George feels that the backlash he is getting for Kamala losing is not at all warranted,' a source told DailyMail.com exclusively. 'He thinks it is completely unfair to try and make him a scapegoat for her loss.

'He has backed the Democratic Party and invested so much time and money into them, but he is going to take a step back for now. He feels very disheartened.'

They continued: 'When he wrote his op-ed, George did not say "Biden is not fit to be president choose Kamala". The Democrats jumped on Kamala and within days she was the candidate.

'George believes that they should have taken a step back and looked at their options. That is why he did not endorse her right away.'

There is a general skepticism about celebrities' ability to influence elections. Even the leftwing Guardian is asking who really cares about celebrity endorsements.

'George Clooney -- who cares?' Did celebrity endorsements actually harm Kamala Harris?

Charli xcx, Taylor Swift, George Clooney and Beyoncé all voiced their approval for the Democratic candidate. But do these endorsements do more for the stars than for the politician?

Back in July, Charli xcx posted a three-word tweet that some commentators thought might help swing the US election. Arriving the day after Kamala Harris announced her bid for the presidency, Charli's tweet said simply: "Kamala IS Brat."

It was a reference to Charli's latest album, Brat, which had dominated the pop cultural landscape all summer and was loaded with synth-pop bangers, drug references and tales from a life spent getting messy on dancefloors. It wasn't perhaps the most obvious comparison to make with the then 59-year-old US vice-president, but the overall meaning was clear: Kamala was the presidential candidate with the most energy and authenticity -- and had the approval of the pop star of the moment.

The Harris campaign leaned into the endorsement, changing the backdrop of its official X page to the same garish green colour used on the record's sleeve. It helped mark Harris out as a different, more dynamic candidate than her faltering predecessor: Joe Biden may have been many things but he was most certainly not Brat. Yet as the dust settles on an extremely depressing election result, it appears clear that not only did Charli xcx's tweet have no meaningful impact on the election result, nor did the endorsement of any celebrity.

Just look at the list of backers lined up for Harris. Taylor Swift, the world's biggest popstar, came out for her after the September debate, writing that Harris "fights for the rights and causes I believe" and signing off as a "childless cat lady" -- a dig at comments made by Donald Trump's vice-presidential pick JD Vance. Harrison Ford recorded a video, looking grave as he warned voters about what a danger Trump would be to democracy. And then there was Beyoncé, who even appeared at one of Harris's rallies, alongside fellow Destiny's Child member Kelly Rowland.

Speaking from the stage, Beyoncé said she was there "as a mother who cares deeply about a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we're not divided". You can add to these names endorsements from the likes of LeBron James, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Lizzo, J-Lo, Eminem, Arnold Schwarzenegger and countless more. Game, set and match to Harris? Hardly.

So why did their voices have so little impact?

Seth Abramovitch, senior writer at the Hollywood Reporter, says that Harris's nominations were ineffective because they came largely from celebrities who were preaching to the choir: "Oprah, Katy Perry, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Madonna, Ariana Grande -- these are artists whose audiences (black, female, liberal, queer) were already inclined to vote for Kamala." The exception to this, he says, was Swift, whose popularity in the worlds of country music and pop means she appeals to both sides of a divided US. "Yet I'd argue her massive influence does not reach two key demographic groups that helped Trump win this time -- Latinos and black men."

Margaretha Bentley is a professor at Arizona State University whose classes have studied the social importance of Swift. "In the academic literature," she says, "research has shown that, while celebrity endorsements can increase civic engagement and voter registrations, it has not proven to have a direct impact on how people make their voting decisions."

But industry shill paper Variety says we need moar celebrity endorsement, not fewer.

Stop Blaming 'Celebrity Endorsements' for Kamala Harris' Loss: We Need to Hear From Artists Now More Than Ever

Did you know that Bruce Springsteen and Beyoncé lost the election for Kamala Harris? Or at least bear a large part of the responsibility for her party's failure at the polls this year? It's true, you know! -- at least if you listen to some of the punditry coming from conservatives, and even from some Democratic operatives eager to find some celebs to push into the middle of their current circular firing squad. Listening to some of these voices, you'd think that Harris could have won six or seven swing states, if only Beyoncé hadn't shown up to deliver one single four-minute rally speech, or if Taylor Swift hadn't devoted a singular 300-word Instagram post to a Harris endorsement. Imagine the more favorable electoral counts if only some of the most beloved pop-culture figures in the world had kept their dirty traps shut, right?

Here comes the Cope Train:

...

There is good reason to believe the argument that people in the arts and entertainment speaking up does not move the needle a tremendous amount. But concurrent with that argument is the reasonable belief that they can move it at least a tiny amount, in registrations and motivation, if not 180-degree turns.

There is a "reasonable belief" that celebrity endorsements can move public motivation (not opinion) "a tiny amount."

Wow. That's some real power. I now agree, we have to hear from these titans more.

The idea that entertainers and artists' involvement somehow leads to actual voter dissuasion is a fantasy -- bullshit that is happily perpetrated by the "go woke, go broke" crowd, and picked up by columnists who think that picking on limousine liberals never goes out of style. (It really doesn't.)

There's absolutely nothing to this "go woke, go broke" claim. It's just a Right Wing Russian Fantasy.

...

The biggest fallacy is that the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign was somehow lazily "reliant" on stars to get their message across. The Hill quoted an anonymous "Democratic strategist" as saying: "Somehow we think if Beyoncé is on stage, that will solve all our problems." Note to nameless strategist: literally no one thought that.

Are you sure of that? The Kamala camp lied and claimed that Beyonce would show up at the convention, to pull in Beyonce's declining fans. Then they claimed Beyonce would perform -- not merely appear -- at her Houston rally.

Sure seems like Kamala thought that Beyonce was a major key to success.

They also arranged for Taylor Swift to endorse her the day after the debate. They thought that this endorsement would help blunt the impact of a poor debate performance.

Megyn Kelly turns the blue glare of Aryan fury at Joy Reid, saying that there's a "tick-tock" countdown to her firing. (And that she's the most racist person on TV, but that's obvious.)

The late night unfunny clowns are wrestling with their own irrelevance too.

Our AOS Liaison to Democrat Underground reports:

Don't forget Lefties are going to leave X en masse, this time. I'm cereal.

Bluesky adds 700,000 new users in a week...The "majority" of the new users on the decentralized social network are from the US...looking to use a platform that's not owned by Musk or, like Taylor Swift fans, a new platform following an increase in hate speech on X.

I keep checking the social media listings of my city to see if they've dumped Xitter. (So far--no) I could see an argument for emergency departments to keep a Xitter account, but there is no reason for any other nonpartisan government office or department to stay on Xitter.

I'm proud to have signed up! I've followed some of you just now. it's hard to find those I followed on X here though.

I will dip my toes soon, along with dumping my long dormant Twitter accounts. Which I have been saving for a time when dumping them would make a statement. Now certainly seems to qualify as one of those times.

Posted by: Intercepted DU Transmission

CNN to Axe HUNDREDS of "Workers," Including Top "Talent"&bodytext=CNN first: CNN is planning to wield the axe on some of its high-paid staff after dismal election ratings that cap off a disastrous period for the cable news network. According to an explosive new report from Puck, network executives...&topic=world_news"> posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 06:45 PM

| Access Comments