All errors should be reported to

Saturday, November 18, 2017

No, Andrea Mitchell, press coverage does not matter

The Trump administration decided to allow the import of African elephant ivory, which the press -- in its ignorance of the issue -- immediately branded the decision as killing off all elephants on that continent.

President Trump pulled back on the permission. Andrea Mitchell of the star-crossed Comcast news operation declared victory.

Tweeted she: "Press coverage matters."

It doesn't.

She is Ralph Wiggum saying, "I helped."

The press has beclowned itself. Too many times it pulled the fire alarm of scandal on President Trump. Now the public tunes her and her kind out.

Oh, to be sure rabid anti-Trump, anti-American individuals are hooked on the cartoon show Mitchell and her buddies at MSNBC play. Their reports have all the depth of an inchworm.

President Trump returned from a two-week triumphant tour of Asia. And what did the press ask about at the first post-trip White House briefing? Roy Moore, Roy Moore, Roy Moore.

Trump has nothing to do with Roy Moore. Trump campaigned for Moore's opponent in the primary.

During the Asia trip, the press falsely accused Trump of dumping food into a koi pond, falsely accused Trump of not knowing Japan builds cars in the USA, and falsely accused Trump of promoting his golf course in a speech at the parliament in Seoul.

The out-of-context quotes, the Mickey Mouse editing of videos, and the constant state of unhinged outrage is symptomatic of group hysteria. The press is like the Puritan girls who accused all those women of witchcraft in Salem three centuries ago.

My guess is lifting the ban would have helped preserve African elephants because I do not see Trump as a buffoon or an idiot. I see him as a very savvy man who does his homework.

In other words, the opposite of Miss Mitchell.


Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.


  1. Right, Don. The way to save the elephant is to make it worth money. About the only good thing done by Robert Mugabe was to sell licenses for big game to foreigners. The money from the sale of the licences goes to support the game wardens who enforce the anti-poaching laws. It becomes worth more money to the governments to keep the species alive for licensed hunting than it is worth to the poacher to take the game for black market trophies and meat, and local villagers are less likely to kill off the animals as threats.

    As an aside, one time an elephant wandered into a village near us at night and knocked over a hut. Everybody ran out of their huts but the only one the elephant could see in the dark was the head man wearing his prize white undershirt. The next morning his entrails could be seen stretched between the treetops where the elephant had slung him around.

    They aren't sweet little Dumbo.

    1. With factual information like this, I was able yesterday to actually educate one of the folks hysterical about "killing these beautiful animals". She found a new way of understanding the situation. First time in a long time that someone was open minded enough to pay attention.

      My sources were, of all things, NPR and National Geographic. I used those on purpose so she might actually read them - and she did! Those articles were reported in previous years, when a different agenda was driving their Leftist editorial schedule, so they presented actual facts, instead of the Anti-Trump babble they would use for lifting the ban.

  2. Absolutely lifting the ban allows better conservation. Its true in Africa, its true here. Letting the local people profit from very large fees to cull certain herds or in certain circumstances helps pay for the cost of conservation programs. The ban actually makes it more likely that people profit from illicit activities.

    You only need to look to Texas to see it in action in a reasonably balanced article, e.g. shows both sides:

    Why would we forbid Africa from what we do here, when it works here?

    In fairness, eco-activists are trying to stop it here too. They would rather see a species go extinct than saved through hunting.

    Which tells you everything you need to know. The true conservationists are the ranchers and hunters, who would have neither without these species and are motivated to preserve them - in my opinion, from both a genuine sense of mission as well as livelihood.

    All the bureaucrats and activists only seek to destroy. Species, livelihoods, etc. Destruction is not progress. But that's what progressives do, they destroy things.

    1. This is a GREAT example. People who grew up in our North Central Texas county, even out in the country, never saw deer because they had all been hunted out by the 1960s. Now, because hunting has become so lucrative, they are worth more alive for hunting leases than the damage they cause. So everyone feeds and allows small ones to grow. Our local food pantry has "The Deer Project" which enables them to give thousands of pounds of donated venison to needy families each month. So nothing goes to waste and there is no downside.

    2. It doesn't necessarily have to be for profit. I spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars mowing, planting and maintaining feeders for a few deer on my property so my relatives can hunt there. No leases. They always get opening weekend. I get satisfaction. They get venison and memories. The state gets license money and game management with a healthier herd.

  3. Libs only claim to support the locals whose lives, homes, and farms may be destroyed by the elephants. It's always hot air from the libs.

  4. May I be so impolite to say that my first cousin is the infamous killer of Cecil The Lion?

    (Hearing many comments of, Huh?)

    Wasn't a fan, but it was all legal. Same thing here. Andrea, your hubbie's about ready for his daily blood replacement. TTYL.

    1. Blood replacement. Heh.
      I remember an article over at Instapundit about older folks can get life extending blood transfusions if the blood is from young folks, like teens.
      Maybe the trips to Pedo Island aren't only for sex with minors. Maybe there's some believed-to-be-life-extending blood transfusions going on, too.

  5. Who made the Progressive Liberal MSM and assorted fellow travelers game wardens to determine the game laws in African countries? If they set legal hunting regulations there we should respect them here. - Elric

  6. How is the press helping efforts to conserve African elephants, by lying? I have now seen several news articles that blame Trump himself for the recent decision by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the import of trophy parts from hunting of elephants. In fact, the decision was made by career officials who are holdovers from the Obama administration. Trump personally reversed that decision by the bureaucrats and placed it on hold. Instead of screaming at Tromp, people should be praising him for taking this step. Instead of portraying the president as a villain, the press should be calling him a conservation hero. Once again, when it comes to their coverage of Trump, the press has been caught in one of their naked lies. They have no credibility. Sad.

  7. How refreshing to come to Don Surber's blog, where people actually have their heads on the right way!

    I have been dismayed that so very few immediately jump to the knee-jerk conclusion, Killing animals is BAD! without ever considering the facts.

    The poor people who live in the USA have the problem of obesity; that usually isn't the problem in Africa.

    African problems are more like, What do we do about this lion that's eating our tribespeople? How do we handle the elephants that ate our crops and trampled our homes into the ground?

    Somehow the #LyingMedia never mentions that one rich Western hunter, on one safari to take one lion, puts many thousands of dollars for that trophy. This money helps the local economy and conservation efforts. It pays for game wardens and anti-poaching inititaves and provides employment for hundreds of people.

    Hunters do a lot more for conserving animals and land than butthurt SJWs crying ever did!