Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


A Fox News for the Left?

Left-wing news outlets keep failing

Will require "serious funding" or it won't work

Columbia Journalism Review reports

The lamestream media told you:

Columbia Journalism Review, a formerly highly respected centrist commentator on the state of journalism, and now an integral part of the left-wing media produced at an alt-left college, is incredulous at the inability of leftists to maintain healthy numbers in cable and talk radio, where conservative voices hold sway.

CJR, March, 2017 -- "Between the nation's number one cable news network, a vibrant talk radio circuit led by Rush Limbaugh, and a bevy of websites ranging from the "alt-right" nationalism of Breitbart to the conspiratorial fever-swamp of Infowars, conservative media has found sustained success in ways liberal outlets have consistently failed to match. In a piece co-published by CJR and The Nation, Mark Hertsgaard argues that the left needs to find a response.

[Hertsgaard overlooks the virtual lock liberals maintain on print, broadcast TV and film.]

"It is past time to build a countervailing independent-media infrastructure -- not to mimic Fox and Friends' delivery of propaganda disguised as news or to slavishly carry water for any political party or cause, but rather to bring professional, truth-telling journalism to large numbers of Americans, many of whom trust neither Fox and Friends nor the mainstream media to tell the truth," Hertsgaard writes.

[Hertsgaard overlooks the delivery of propaganda disguised as news from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, or how they slavishly carry water for any political party or cause -- if it's left wing.]

"It's not as though the left hasn't tried (see below), but any attempt to replicate the success of Breitbart, let alone Fox News, requires serious funding and the sort of breakthrough success that has so far eluded liberal outlets."

[Hertsgaard recognizes that serious funding, and not free-market results, is needed.]

CJR summarizes some of the failed almost laughable attempts, which confound the left, including the failure of Air America, with an obituary from the New York Times.

Air America, the long-suffering progressive talk radio network, abruptly shut down on Thursday, bowing to what it called a "very difficult economic environment." NYT 1/21/10 "It would be a shame if the world sees the failure of Air America as representing the failure of progressive talk radio," said Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers Magazine, a talk radio publication. Company's chairman, in an unusual statement for a left winger, said, "our company cannot escape the laws of economics." The broadcaster had a role in the careers of Rachel Maddow and Al Franken, both of whom hosted shows there before it failed.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

CJR and this writer lack even a glimmer of awareness that the left’s continued failure here has something to do with their audience, and its inability to hold up their end of the news bargain, not the content. If you’ve debated with these people, you’ve found they can’t think in a straight line, or at least not for very long, they have trouble connecting dots, change subjects whenever anything gets even slightly uncomfortable, can’t grasp concepts greater than a triangle and sometimes not that.

Listen to the few left-wing outlets out there -- it’s like listening to Bizarro in a Superman comic. The pathetic thing is people who have this mental incapacity tend to congregate together, and you get the heart of that party -- and listenership. Of course it fails. Gather enough and yes you can elect candidates -- to everyone’s detriment -- but run a financially sound, audience-dependent information-based broadcast... different problem.

Savage Attack on The Left from its Ally

Stalwart Hillary supporter tripped up

The lamestream media told you:

They actually gave you the whole story, but with their spin, and context, most folks probably missed the gist.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A deep and insightful description of what's happening to the masses on the left ran front and center recently across most "news" media:

"Many feel left behind, left out, looked down on. Their anger and alienation has proved a fertile ground for false promises and false information. Their economic problems and cultural anxiety must be addressed or they will continue to sign up to be foot soldiers in the ongoing conflict between 'us and them'," this insightful critic observed.

"In the years to come there will be trolls galore, online and in person, eager to tell you that you don't have anything worthwhile to say or anything meaningful to contribute."

The blunt democrat critic said democrats have been flinging charges at the Trump administration, which are concocted and lack factual support. The speaker warned of "an all-out assault on truth" which is "necessary for democracy to survive."

Now, everyone awake already understands the left-wing media abandoned truth and honest reporting a long while ago.

These left-bashing statements and wake-up calls were in the speech delivered by... Hillary Rodham Clinton on May 27, 2017, who appeared unaware of the deplorable underpinning of her remarks. The media missed it too. If you didn’t know better, at times you might swear she was talking about herself and her supporters.

Ms. Rodham-Clinton spoke at the commencement at Wellesley College, an gender-segregated all-girls elite private school, which she attended in her youth. Lamestream reporters noted her prior attendance, but failed to point out that the school bans men from attending, yet has not been charged with discrimination. The all-female graduating class repeatedly cheered Rodham-Clinton's comments. The dim-light hypocrisy was almost late-night humor.

USA Today Publishes Phony "Photo" on Page One

Continuing its long history of blatant deception and hopelessly phony reporting, now popularized as "fake news" by the current president, USA Today ran a cartoon on its cover (June 21, 2017) and made it appear to be a photograph of a planet hundreds of thousands of light years away. The technology for making such an image is not even a pipe dream, no matter what's in their pipes.

The Kepler spacecraft, capable of detecting a wobble in a distant star's orbit, believed to be indicative of a nearby orbiting planet, just sent back data showing it has found 219 new wobbles, called "planets outside our solar system," by Traci Watson, the reporter. No one has ever seen such a planet. She reports, that scientists report, that 10 of these could have the right "qualifications for hosting life," a wildly speculative statement with no scientific basis other than hopeful hope that we on Earth are not alone, and that math "proves" there must be others "out there" because the universe is really big.

The search for life in the universe, while a fascinating pursuit, is an egocentric-driven effort that conveniently attracts billions of dollars on which countless scientists live. TV programs on PBS, National Geo channel, History Channel and elsewhere now almost constantly promote the idea that life must exist elsewhere, disregarding even the most basic principles of scientific investigation, and filling the airwaves with entertaining poppycock.

If other civilizations do exist, the chances they might crush us like ants and take everything this planet has to offer are 50/50. If they're subject to any of the interpersonal forces and politics we experience (e.g., angry, hungry, wicked, stupid), the odds are more like 90/10. Our defense against a race capable of getting here and hurtling large chunks of rock at the planet from space are zero. Our defense against more sophisticated forms of attack are lower.

This is not a photo, it is a drawing.
No such image is possible. The caption is as it appeared on page one.
USA Today presented it as real with no disclaimer or explanation.
That's how they do things.

Proof of Voter Fraud?

Media inconsistent, Congress incontinent

Letter to reporter,


Your well-researched article (5/1/17) on the 100,000 lost-then-found voter registrations did the math for a sampling (43 out of 74) and found the 58,000 people who may have been denied a vote. That's critically important.

The bigger controversy though, or at least equally important, is over fraudulent voting -- it's what the president raised such a fuss about. The article implies 42,000 people attempted to vote fraudulently. That math, simple addition and subtraction I believe should have been included, if not the headline. Did 42,000 people actually register to vote when they are forbidden to do so (assuming the projected math, the same used to estimate the 58K, holds)?

If yes, how about a story on that? If projected out across the country, what sort of affect would that have? If similar numbers apply (and Arizona is a small state comparatively) 42K x 50 states is 2.1 million fraudulent applications to vote. Is that even remotely possible? Why hasn't Congress actually attempted to study this? That alone is a story worth a Pulitzer. No one wants to know the real answer -- but maybe you do?


The reporter replied saying the balance of the forms aren't necessarily fraudulent, they were incomplete or hard matches, the real number is estimated now at closer to 17,000. That may be, but a) why wouldn't the anomalies have shown in the random sample, b) the accuracy arbiter is DMV and those issues are well known, c) the 17K is of eligible voters disenfranchised, an important stat but, d) the question was, are any of these overlooked applications fraudulent, or sufficient to swing an election. Her followup is quite illuminating, well written, an exploration of a slice of the voting system, and I've learned this very item is in the hands of the Trump administration.

She notes, "However, your question is one I had as well, and I am currently digging through a sample of the applicants to see if I can determine any fraudulent ones. Stay tuned!" Yes, indeed.

P.S. There is a reference to 85 denieds out of 130 applicants sampled in a different set, where 85 were citizens, and the rest were "hard matches." Only two categories? That doesn't even pass the sniff test.

USA Today Promotes, Fails to Report

Have to go line by line on this horrific imitation of journalism

USA Today gets worse, if that's possible.

They said:
"What began as a Facebook post by a Hawaii grandmother the day after Hillary Clinton's loss in November's election..."

What we know:
"Substituting a tale about a grandma for hard news, USA Today failed to report that left-wing radical activist billionaire George Soros provided more than $33 million to 50 "progressive" groups to coordinate a staged event in the nation's capital..."

"Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including..."

They said:
"...blossomed into a sweeping protest uniting people of all ages, races and religions who crowded downtown Washington."

What we know:
"...attracted progressives and left wing people, primarily women, LGBTQ1A+s and people of color with disproportionate secular and disgruntled American-hating angry folks."

They said:
"...they fear Congress and Republicans will roll back reproductive, civil and human rights."

What we know:
"They imagine Congress and Republicans will roll back reproductive, civil and human rights. No evidence for these fears was presented."

They said:
"Sister rallies mirror main event, some 670 demonstrations take place, organizers say."

What we know:
The newspaper made no effort to see if the "organizers" number was true, they just repeated it. Who are these "organizers"? No facts were provided. How did they get such a count for the "spontaneous" one-day "event"? The very fact they could even pretend to make such a statement indicates a high degree of pre-planning for the so-called spontaneous demonstration, ripping credibility from the notion this represents concern for the subjects promoted by the organizers and promoted by the "news." It was later grudgingly revealed Soros poured money into making this happen.

As part of the peaceful protest, pop singer Madonna, a keynote speaker, called for blowing up the White House. No arrest was reported. Signs carried by the protesters were the most vicious, vulgar, obscene, profane, pornographic, disgraceful, disgusting, expletive-laced, hysterically funny and unfit for broadcast ever seen in a demonstration, gleefully published by lamestream media and widely available on the web, proving once again that everything the left accuses everyone else of -- is psychological projection of themselves.

USA Today may be USA's nastiest left-wing propagandist

I'm constantly stunned by how unethical USA Today has drifted, dropping virtually any pretense of newsworthiness, in its campaigns to denigrate anything American, and frame a dialog into the democrats dungeons of thought. For example:

USA Today deceptively says on Christmas Day, 12/25/16:
"Russia has developed one of the world's most sophisticated cyberwarfare networks -- one that the CIA says interfered in America's election to help Donald Trump."

Accurately stated, this would read:
"Every major nation on Earth has developed sophisticated cyberwarfare networks that are constantly in use against each other in every imaginable way."

"Unconfirmed leaks exist that Russia and others used its hackers to release criminally damaging information to WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton's corruption and malfeasance throughout her entire operation, which apparently may have hurt her election chances."

We needed various (not just possibly Russian) hackers and WikiLeaks to discover and report that networks and cable "news" stations were working in collusion with the democrats to get their preferred candidate elected.

When we found out, they accused the Russians of throwing the election, which they continue to claim to this day, and will never stop claiming, until they put it in history books for government-school classrooms, which they also (currently) manage.

Although alerted about the ethical problem, USA Today never responds.

NOTE: No one has challenged the accuracy of the information revealed.

How the Clintons, who spent their entire lives in public service, amassed a fortune estimated at more than $200 million, has never been satisfactorily explained. On leaving the White House they were "dead broke," they said.

If democrats had not colluded to defeat their own candidate Bernie Sanders, and had not colluded with the media to corrupt the debates, and had not run an unsecured email server for top secret government business, and had not lied about everything, and did not have a campaign manager who gave the word corruption a new darker meaning, hackers would have little to give to Wikileaks for the public to see. We almost have to thank whoever hacked them for releasing the truth, because the Clintons worked so hard to hide it. Failure to elect a gang that corrupt, because their secrets came out, is hardly a bad thing, except to the people supporting the gang.

I've been informed I have to take it back about USA Today. The entire lamestream media is that way.

It's Not a "Margin of Error"

"News" Media All Knows This

It's just a measure of the sample size

But it sure sounds better to suggest --
there is a measure of accuracy and it's known.

That's a smokescreen.
No, make that, a lie.

Because of the way the science of statistics is done, the size of a sample controls how reliable certain aspects of averaging will be. That's not exactly accurate, but it's close enough for this short description. We're dealing with polls you see in "news" media that pretend to declare their accuracy by stating a margin of error. That's hard core fake news. They don't accept that. They continue unabashed. To unfake it, they would swap in, "This poll had a sample size of 450." But that would serve no purpose. So they stay with the fake.

You can convert the fake into their sample size with this chart, but so what, it gets you nothing. What the poll tells you is 100% dependent on factors they can manipulate to their heart's content to get the result they seek, and you know that -- who they ask, how they ask, when they ask, why they ask. Blatant examples abound. That said, there is a science of polling, and people frequently do want to get a legit handle on what's going on, before it happens, and it can be done with loose certainty. But you already know that a poll run by democrats on abortion will show strong support, and the same poll run by republicans will not.

Fake News

How You Can Tell

If you watch ABC or NBC you C... BS
(They don't know it)

The left and the right are both outraged over what they're calling fake news. They don't agree on what this is and they're searching for a definition -- so they know what to censor. We are on real dangerous ground here folks.

Since the left controls most of the corporate standardized lamestream media, censoring what little is left is a bad idea. On CNN and MSNBC, you can tell the news is false with a simple test -- if their lips are moving it's largely false. If it's about guns it is typically 100% untrue. I've written about this extensively: Just errors of omission cast doubt on their reports -- tons of gun-related crime, virtually zero on all the good that guns do, or economics, science, balance of trade, tax base, jobs, and even sports (it's the #2 participant sport, ahead of golf).

When reporters are interviewing each other, which happens virtually non-stop (reporters are supposed to interview news makers, the people involved in what's actually happening in the world), you can use a simple test. Ask yourself, "Can they actually know what they're saying?" and if you can reply, "You don't know that!" you know it's fake news. Entire CNN broadcasts are filled with you-don't-know-that.

Reasonable concerns have arisen that fake news may have influenced the presidential election, with stories such as, "Pope endorses Trump!"  That appeared on social media, and was simply false, but it circulated widely, and some people, delighted by the report, may have decided it was time to hold their nose and vote Trump. Other reports, like "Space aliens land in Manhattan!" are fake news. But reports like "Trump will never get to 270 electoral votes!" and "Trump will never break the blue wall!" and "People trust Hillary," are as distorted as space alien stories, but presented as real, and the media still doesn't realize those were fake.

I could write a book on this, and have already opened the file. Fake News Is Real.

Media Lies About Sex Remarks

They make things up when reality isn't dark enough

The lamestream media told you:

"Trump talks about being able to 'do anything' to women because he is famous..."
-- trumped up by USA Today, on page one, 10/9/16, by David M. Jackson.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Trump actually said, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything..."
And he went on in greater detail.

The media, completely in the tank for the other candidate, the female who repeatedly attacked other women for complaining about her husband's documented sexual assaults on them, will distort and pour guilt on the world to deny hard reality. So here it is:

Men are pigs and deserve to die.

OK, there it is. Satisfied? Now that's out of the way, let's get down to the truth.

The object of every teenage boy's desire is women's private parts, that's just the way it is. This continues unabated for decades. I have to tell you this? If you're a man, or a woman, you already know this.

The political left promotes this in every communications vehicle that exists. Now it is attempting to destroy America on this very point with unabashed guilt -- they have the core of the republican establishment, and their own party, and the media -- denying this basic biological, social and cultural TRUTH. What a win for their side.

Watch a movie. Or TV. Or the best-seller list. Non-stop objectification of women. Look at the woman supposedly the object of Mr. Trump's remarks -- Nancy O'Dell, who dresses and acts as sexually provocative as she possibly can. Who's kidding who? Her show is obsessed with who's zooming who, it is its raison detre. The attention lavished on Mr. Trump has simply brought this to the table (and floor, and wall, and bathroom, and bushes, and back of the bar).

You focused on her eyes, right?
Nancy O'Dell

Since childhood I have wondered, without answer, why women are dressed in a piece of cloth that deliberately exposes their main private part. The object of rape, incest, lust, adultery, infidelity, passion, romance novels, dirty jokes, leaked bawdy tapes. Whose idea was the dress and the skirt? Why does it persist? Why isn't that part covered, protected? I've been told that's not "ladylike." Say what?

Nightly "news" is drowning in these exposure clothes. Temptation garments. "She's asking for it" rags. The women, dolled up to the nines, bleached blonde, have to sit with their legs crossed -- all of them all of the time -- so they don't expose themselves. This is right? Don't their legs fall asleep? Mine would.

You saw the ultimate example: Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct (I could not have picked a better name). This is no secret. The holier than thou ranting on "news" shows is abject nonsense, total hypocrisy. Starting watching for it. Keep count.

No objectification here

Before I turned off the "news" version, I switched by chance quickly to the movie Horrible Bosses*, in time to see Jason Sudeikis ogle some guy's wife in their wedding photo, and remark, "I'd like to bend her over a barrel and show her the 50 states!" A mild, inconsequential remark like a thousand others to be found non-stop from Hollywood, leading the charge on objectification education of our children and ourselves.

Newscasters should be immune from criticism because they maintain high standards. Hot.

Trump's remarks weren't locker-room talk. They were every-day talk. We all know it despite the denials. In fact, thanks to the denials. And women with their legs out encourage it. Don't play coy. You know it. "I am sickened by what I heard." (House Speaker Paul Ryan). Bull. "I was wrong." (Donald Trump). Everyone knows he was forced to say that. It was a normal remark men make and will continue to make unless the left emasculates us to the nub.

"No woman should ever be described in these terms, ever." (Reince Priebus, party chairman). He doesn't get out much, has been totally manipulated by guilt and the left, who revel in describing women in these terms on the big screen. "No apology can excuse the reprehensible remarks" (Jeb Bush). So he never went to a sports game and saw mostly naked cheerleaders. Have you ever seen Lingerie football?

People are falling over each other to lie and say they never heard of such a thing.

*Jennifer Anniston has a snack in Horrible Bosses. You must
be 17 to see this film (or bring an adult). Anniston, a woman,
has no problem advancing normal objectification stereotypes.

The person currently in the White House
duplicitously attacks a candidate's speech,
while inviting the worst of the worst to visit
the White House -- batches of rappers with
lyrics too gross to repeat, F bombs, bitches,
hoes, murder, degrading demeaning abuse,
elevating them to respectability without caveat.
Artists like Killer Mike with his hits One More Gram,
F*ck You Pay Me, The Next Bitch, and of course Gat Totin'.

His wife calls Beyonce a role model for her girls --
just watch her videos, read her lyrics, see if you think
solid American values are remotely connected.
Yes, the images are gross, sorry, it makes the point.

 "News" media is AWOL.

Wolf Blitzer's Professional Demise

Interview Ends All Doubt

CNN, 9/13/16 -- With a news-like demeanor and a professional tone, Wolf Blitzer actually asked a sitting U.S. Senator, "So why is Donald Trump refusing to release his tax returns?"

And with that seemingly newsworthy inquiry, Blitzer gave up the last shred of pretense that he is a journalist or reporter, and is merely a political partisan in tailored suits. The question was a perfect paradigm of the rest of his broadcast.

That question, which has been posed and addressed thousands of times literally answers itself. The people like Blitzer who ache for the information want to find things they can use to hurt Trump. Trump wants to keep it under wraps to stop them and protect himself. Everyone knows this implicitly. It's been regurgitated ad infinitum. Why even ask -- it only shows you're a partisan.

Trump has replied endlessly (Blitzer of course knows this) he is waiting for the IRA audit of him to complete. Until then, the returns are preliminary, and subject to change. That is so normal, asking the question gets an F in Journalism 101, and a dunce cap. Two dunce caps to the reporters who want the returns to see what Trump is worth -- your tax returns don't reveal that. An imbecile who files returns knows that, a commentary on too many First-Amendment-protected reporters. After the audit, Trump may stall anew, everyone knows this too.

What Blitzer should ask a sitting Senator when he gets one to speak with him, is, for example, what's happening about the $400 million in cash the terrorists in Iran got in cash from us, that's now $1.7 billion in foreign currency? Which bank cobbled together that much dough, in foreign currency? What does "provide material support to terrorists" mean (18 USC §2339A et seq.)?

Or he could ask, "Now that so many counties and states have only one health-care provider going broke and hanging on by a thread under ObamaCare, and customers everywhere have had price increases, is the system truly on the verge of collapse?" "Can it be held off until Obama is out of office?"

Or, what's happening in Chad where terrorist training camps are set up? What is Canada doing with its tar sands oil while we stall around? Or, if a person isn't free to fly, why can they drive? (full story below) How about, How do you justify the Dept. of Education, since it's not authorized by the Constitution? Or my favorite, especially good for candidates but good for politicians too, What's the purpose of government? Need more? Try The Liberty Poll:

Only a reporter would be asking such things. We don't seem to have any left.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!