Comprehending the work of a propagandist is nearly impossible. Since their goal is the opposite of trying to enlighten, there’s never any logic behind the words. Instead, the goal is to obscure and deflect in the hopes that The Lie being told is highlighted and can come across as some sort of scholarly conclusion now that it’s been buried in a whole lot of meaningless words. Patrick Goldstein, Hollywood’s chief leftist enforcer at the L.A. Times, has just created yet another perfect example of this (and why the financially troubled newspaper has been reduced to the size of a dinner menu).
Goldstein’s editorial mission — his specialty at the high-profile perch — is poaching from another news outlet any story that disrupts the Leftist Hollywood narrative. If the story makes Hollywood look bad or risks damaging the industry in any way, Goldstein’s job is to twist it around in the hopes of changing the narrative into what Hollywood wants to hear.
If you recall, just this last month, Goldstein did exactly this with a Wall Street Journal profile of musician Jonathan Kahn. Nowhere in the article did Kahn claim his right-of-center politics had ever hurt his career, and yet in an attempt to paint him as a whiner, Goldstein told all of Hollywood he had. Worse, in a conscious effort to portray Kahn as a no-talent has-been, rather than mention Kahn’s long, successful relationship with a Grammy-winning producer (which made up a large part of the WSJ profile), Goldstein ignored it and instead Googled up some old credits of Kahn’s in order to present them as though they were Kahn’s entire resume. (the hard-left film site Movieline soon followed suit.)
The irony was obvious. The very same L.A. Times writer who uses every opportunity to mock the idea of a conservative Hollywood blacklist intentionally participated in the blacklisting of an artist whose politics he disagreed with. Using ridicule and provably dishonest smears, Goldstein’s goal was to make this artist a toxic joke to the whole of the industry that might employ him.
Yesterday, Goldstein pulled the exact same trick. This time it was a Wrap article looking at who in Hollywood is contributing to California’s Senate and Gubernatorial races, that obviously wouldn’t sit well with Goldstein’s Hollywood Masters. And you can understand why. Here’s the opening sentence:
It’s not unusual for Hollywood’s Republicans to hide in the closet as campaigns gear up, but this election year they’ve locked the door behind them.
Now watch what Goldstein does here… In his opening paragraph, he praises the Wrap article.
It’s no surprise to see, thanks to this enterprising story in The Wrap, that California’s liberal senatorial duchess Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has been scooping up tons of money from Hollywood liberals in recent weeks.
This is a smart ploy because it allows Goldstein to pretend they’re both on the same page when his real goal is to change the narrative by reporting the complete opposite. For the next few hundred words or so, Goldstein throws off some chaff and then mentions that Republican candidate Meg Whitman is enjoying support from some famous Hollywood liberals — “and not just from conservatives.”
L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein
Well, who are these conservatives Goldstein speaks of?
Let’s go back to the Wrap article. Could it be that same small group of conservatives the Left always refers to, to prove there’s no blacklist — the same small group who wisely chose to wait until after they were established to fly the Rightie flag?
A number of well-known Hollywood Republicans, like Jerry Bruckheimer, Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, Jon Voigt and Kelsey Grammar have so far kept their distance from Fiorina and Whitman, according to the donor lists.Efforts to reach them were unsuccessful. A spokesperson for Sinise said he would not comment. Representatives for the four others did not respond to requests for comment.
I guess not. Okay, well maybe they’re executives:
But why more Republican executives aren’t donating is another question, he said.
Oh.
Well, damn the facts, full propaganda ahead. Based on all that information, what’s the only conclusion Goldstein can come to? Andrew Breitbart is insane!:
Of course, the always hyper-paranoid Andrew Breitbart, who runs the Big Hollywood conservative website, blames the lack of contributions on — surprise! — paranoia. As he told The Wrap, Hollywood conservatives are petrified to speak their mind or give money to conservative causes because they are “fearful of repercussions on their careers.”
Ah, the old They’re-All-Paranoid ploy. Gee, how original. And insightful. So much easier to hurl names than, you know, commit an act of journalism.
But who’s really the hyper-paranoid here? Check out the only reason Goldstein can drum up to explain why Hollywood conservatives have so far been even less reluctant than usual to pop their heads out of the closet:
I just think conservatives enjoy the cloak and dagger frisson of secret meetings. It makes them feel oh-so-cool. After all, in the 1930s and ’40s, Hollywood communist screenwriters had secret meetings galore, drank lots of booze, drove hot cars and won tons of Oscars. I’m guessing that showbiz conservatives aren’t just paranoid. They’re jealous too.
And with Hollywood’s head progressive goon at the L.A. Times leading the example of how conservatives will be greeted in the media upon arrival — The Jonathan Kahn Treatment — Goldstein should be proud of his contribution to all this “cloak and dagger frission.”
You really should read all of Goldstein’s piece. It’s a fascinating exercise in rhetorical contortion. I’m sure like those kids in that public service commercial about addiction, Little Patrick never said:
“I’m going to grow up to give Hollywood’s rich and powerful tongue baths!”
But over at The L.A. Times, it’s tongue baths all around.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.