STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Newsweek Is Back and More Liberal Than Ever
By Daily Bell Staff - July 14, 2016

 Republicans Should Embrace A Hillary Clinton Presidency … Republicans who abandon Trump should admit that a Clinton presidency is hardly apocalyptic. In fact, having Clinton would be a boon to Republicans. – Newsweek

The new Newsweek, complete with a renewed print edition, seems strongly pro-Hillary Clinton and has recently published two eye-opening articles that seem to take journalistic support to a new level.

One can discount Newsweek as a failed magazine but its owners don’t seem to share that perception. Back in 2013, Forbes wrote about the acquisition and pointed out that the new company’s flagship operation, International Business Times was not exactly a “flyspeck.”

As of 2013: “The seven-year-old company has about 200 employees worldwide. By way of comparison, that’s more people than worked for the Huffington Post when AOL bought it in 2011 for $315 million.”

The owners, CEO Etienne Uzac and chief content officer Johnathan Davis told Forbes  they were a  “bootstrapped company.”

Forbes also mentioned speculation that the company had close ties to Korean religious leader David Jang, Olivet University and the World Evangelical Alliance.

While they’ve acknowledged some business connections, Uzac and Davis have repeatedly denied, to me and to other reporters, that anyone but them has an ownership stake in IBT Media.

“We’ve had to focus on being an efficient company, very concentrated on the revenue side as well as on expenses,” says Uzac, explaining what the conspiracy theorists are missing.

On the Internet, however, there are numerous posts about the affiliation. Jang himself is said to have gotten his start at the Unification Church run by Sun Myung Moon. He reportedly then created his own religious organization.

If Jang does have a significant involvement with Newsweek, that would be ironic given that Moon purchased The Washington Times and poured well over $1 billion into it.

The two publications seem polar opposites. The Washington Times can be seen as conservative and free-market oriented. Newsweek in some sense seems hyper-liberal.

Recent editorials that Newsweek has published are notably pro-Hillary. One is entitled, “Republicans Should Embrace a Hillary Clinton Presidency.”

Republicans who abandon Trump should admit that a Clinton presidency is hardly apocalyptic. In fact, having Clinton would be a boon to Republicans.

Another is entitled, “Comey Is Aiding the Smear Campaign Against Hillary Clinton.”

Comey has provided new material for Republican efforts to “Nixonize” Clinton by inventing scandals for their base and the gullible.

This second article is notable because it tries to make the case that the Comey did all he could to prosecute Hillary.

Donald Trump is wrong. The system is not rigged to protect Hillary. Rather, it appears that the FBI was very disappointed they found no criminal case against Hillary … The fact that there was no criminal case has not ended the matter for the FBI, which usually shares this information privately with the Justice Department.

This is a strange suggestion. From what we can tell, Comey wanted nothing to do with the Hillary investigation and its potential impact on the presidential race. Evidence of wrongdoing could certainly have been delivered to the Justice Dept. but he chose not to do it.

The article advocating that Republicans should support a Hillary presidency makes two main points.

The first is that Donald Trump is unpredictable menace that many in the GOP find as off-putting as Democrats. The second is that those in the GOP need to stop “hating” Hillary because of her gender.

Because there was never anything to back up the overheated claims against Hillary Clinton, it has long been obvious that her critics hated her with extra intensity because she was, to be blunt about it, an “uppity” woman.

She was an unapologetic feminist and career-oriented woman who thus represented a social change that many Republicans feared and loathed. She was a convenient target for conservatives’ discomfort with modernity.

This is the fallback position of Hillary supporters. She is disliked because she is a woman.

In fact, the other Hillary article in this DB issue, shows that purely from a policy standpoint, Hillary’s viewpoint is similar to most Republicans. She is an instrument of multinational corporations and the military-industrial complex.

Most Republican legislators are anti-Hillary because that is how you support the two-party system. They need such a system in which to function.

Conclusion: The new Newsweek formula seems more aggressively leftist than the old. How this will serve to resuscitate the publication going forward is unclear. But apparently the new owners intend to try.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Anyone who calls Newsweek liberal needs new glasses.

    It is pro-Hillary but never liberal.

    • It is pro NATO pro Hillary, pro-Israel, anti-Trump and anti-gun. Every box is ticked in the articles posted. And the editorials are especially over-the-top.

      • knifemare69

        “It is pro NATO pro Hillary, pro-Israel, anti-Trump and anti-gun.”

        So essentially it is a NEOCON publication then. Got it!

  • r2bzjudge

    “This is the fallback position of Hillary supporters. She is disliked because she is a woman.”

    It is a vacuous position to take. She isn’t being called crooked Hillary because she is a woman.

  • Praetor

    Globalist rag. Newsweek/DailyBeast. The globalist still need to keep the propaganda going, at all cost. It also seems making a profit of some ventures is of no importance’s. Its beyond comprehension, their willingness to fund bankruptcy. Bloody insane!!!

  • desertspeaks

    just more bs fraudulent propaganda by yet another leftist rag, newsweek..

  • Bruce C.

    I heard Clinton’s blather on Bill O’Reilly’s show tonight about the terrorist attack in Nice, France and it occurred to me that if she continues to associate herself with her/Obama’s administration then she is going to lose to Trump for some of the same reasons Carter lost to Reagan.

    She kept saying “we” in explaining in mind-numbing detail (just like Carter did) why “we” did or didn’t do this or that in wherever and it became obvious that whatever happened didn’t “work”, at least for the sane. It won’t be long before people are going to conclude that more of that same mentality isn’t going to work because things are only escalating. Similar to Carter, people are going to have enough of excuses and long explanations, especially since one has to suspend common sense to even entertain the basic premises.

    Even O’Reilly said on his show that he didn’t think Hillary was going to call in, but she did, and she stepped in the same trap that Carter was in.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.