On Monday's CNN Tonight hosted by Alisyn Camerota, Ben Shapiro of Breitbart"News" launched an outrageous attack on the network's coverage of the the latest flare up in the Israel-Hamas conflict. As wayward as the critique was, there was something weirdly admirable about the sheer ballsiness of going on a major American news network, which almost by definition is pro-Israel, and taking it to task for going soft on a terrorist organization like Hamas.
"There's no question. Hamas is a terrorist group and people going in understood Hamas to be a terrorist group. Israel, thanks to outlets like CNN, has been turned into the villain in this particular scenario and a moral equivalency has been drawn between the two groups. If Hamas could have come up with any sort of outlet that would have created a will to kill more Jewish babies and Palestinian babies, CNN would be it. CNN is a key factor in drawing the same sort of equivalency.
"You should also mention all restrictions that Hamas puts on your reporting in the Gaza Strip. You should also mention all the context with regard to Hamas putting children in harm’s way. You should also routinely mention the fact that Hamas’ charter calls not only for the end of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews across the world, which of course CNN does not.”
Truth be told, I have no interest in defending CNN with examples that clearly contradict Shapiro's claim. But if Shapiro had been watching CNN earlier that day, he would've seen Wolf Blitzer take a Hamas spokesman to task for his "ridiculous" and "awful" words about Jews. If Shapiro had been watching last week, he would've seen the same spokesman being asked a loaded question by Don Lemon about how much longer he -- and not Israel -- was willing to "allow innocent Palestinians to die and suffer."
Shapiro is using the same tactic Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer employed when he also whined about CNN's coverage two weeks ago, only to be fact-checked the next night and refuted with clips of CNN reporting things that Dermer had said they failed to report. Of course, it's doubtful (as demonstrated by the bullshit emanating from the mouths of Shapiro and Dermer) that they actually scoured CNN transcripts before appearing on air to see if their claims of CNN being pro-Hamas or drawing equivalencies had any merit.
That's because facts are immaterial to what Shapiro and Dermer were trying to do. Like a good coach, they were simply working the referees -- in this case CNN -- by whining that too many calls and non-calls have been going to their opponent. Even if the claims have no merit, constantly dogging a ref puts the idea in his idea that he might owe the person who's complaining a make-up call or two.
And if you don't think facts are immaterial for Shapiro, recall his "Friends of Hamas" lie about Chuck Hagel. That beautiful piece of shoddy journalism was born when a New York Daily News reporter joked to someone on Capitol Hill about Hagel giving a speech to "Friends of Hamas" -- a nonexistent organization. At the time, Hagel was being ripped to shreds by conservative media, for daring to rue the incredible influence of the "Jewish lobby" (he later said he meant to say "Israel lobby") in Congress.
The joke eventually made it to Shapiro, who was so giddy at the prospect of nailing Hagel, that he ran with the "story," which of course was exposed as utter garbage. As far as I can tell, neither Shapiro nor Breitbart ever published a retraction.
Of course, that's to be expected from a rabid ideologue like Shapiro, who once advocated that Israel expel the Palestinian population, a la some sort of 21st century Middle East version of the Trail of Tears:
"Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.
To his credit, Shapiro seemed to backtrack from this position 10 years later, but naturally without specifically acknowledging he ever advocated it in the first place.
But beyond this, Shapiro has called Jews who voted for President Obama, "Jews in name only."
Shapiro has also called the Obama administration, "borderline Jew-hating."
So, when he's not grossly misrepresenting media coverage of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, or publishing completely made up stories about a Vietnam veteran associating with "Friends of Hamas," Ben Shapiro likes to call into question the Jewishness of Jews he doesn't agree with politically, and throws around bombs like "Jew-hating" to describe a president who, like his predecessors, supports Israel no matter what.
All of this tells you how seriously Ben Shapiro should be taken, and that's about as seriously as you'd take Shapiro's voice doppelganger: Professor Frink:
h/t: Truth Revolt