Yes, liberal media bias is real, and here's how it affected the CNBC debate

By Timothy P. Carney

Friday, October 30, 2015

Since the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night, there's been plenty of sturm und drang about media bias. Republican candidates and conservative commentators have piled on the CNBC moderators for their questioning.

Many in the major media have responded with odd defenses, some claiming that there is no such thing as media bias, and that the Republican candidates were just upset about tough questioning.

This mainstream response is wrong, and the quicker my colleagues in the press come to terms with this, the better off everyone will be.

So, first a general point about the media's slant, then some specific points about the debate.

Yes, the mainstream media has a clear Leftward slant

It is almost incomprehensible to me and other conservatives that some in the media deny that there is a strong liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Here's CNN's Chris Cuomo dismissing the idea:

The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC — the largest media outlets with the exception of Fox News — all slant clearly left. So do a vast majority of other major newspapers and magazines. I'm not talking about their opinion pages, but about their news operations.

I don't think it's deliberate, or that any collusion, deception, or bad intentions are at play, except in the rarest circumstances. I also think very highly of many of the journalists whose personal views are significantly to the Left of the American political center. Many of them do an excellent job of reporting the news fairly and trying to understand political viewpoints all around the spectrum.

But the vast majority of journalists at these major outlets are generally liberal, and this ends up slanting their coverage. Cuomo is a perfect example.

Cuomo's father was Democratic governor Mario Cuomo. His brother is Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is a daytime host and reporter, not an explicitly liberal host, such as Piers Morgan or MSNBC's evening hosts.

This is the norm in the media: People with distinctively liberal or Democratic pedigrees and resumes are hired as straight news reporters (see Jake Tapper, Nick Confessore, Annie Lowrey, Alex Seitz-Wald, most of whom are excellent and fair journalists). In 2014, the Media Research center counted 30 former reporters as Obama officials. It's far, far rarer to find the opposite.

While Tapper, Confessore, and Lowrey do a very good job of making sure their coverage is fair, the norm in the major media is slanted coverage — slanted to the Left. For instance, Linda Greenhouse was long the Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, and now she's a liberal columnist about the Supreme Court whose factual errors consistently cut against the Right.

Reporters at the major outlets are almost entirely liberal on cultural issues. See the coverage of the gay marriage ruling, where the Supreme Court stretched the language of the Constitution to find that states couldn't limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The country seems to be split evenly on gay marriage, but the major media are nearly unanimous. I don't think this is really a matter of debate. In 2013, the Washington Post's ombudsman basically admitted as much, with even more revealing comments by anonymous Post reporters placing Christian teaching on marriage on the same level as racism.

You see it with abortion, too, where journalists always ask difficult abortion questions of pro-life politicians, and nearly never ask difficult abortion questions of pro-choice politicians.

But it's also true on questions of regulation, government spending and taxation. (I should add the media also has a very strong bias, which is neither liberal nor conservative, towards deficit reduction, which most journalists don't realize is a bias.) I could give a thousand examples, but one good one was from the New York Times reporter, Jonathan Weisman, who spent the most time on the Export-Import Bank at the time, making it clear he was totally unaware about conservatives' and libertarians' economic arguments against export subsidies, while he was well versed in the talking points of industry and the liberals.

I won't belabor the point that the press is biased to the Left, because it seems totally obvious and not really up for debate.

I think the bias stems not from a conspiracy or a desire to tilt the playing field, but from a cloistering effect, and a subsequent unfamiliarity with conservative arguments, which leads us to Wednesday's debate.

CNBC's bad debate

First off, many of the questions from CNBC moderators were appropriately tough and probing. Becky Quick tried to get Ben Carson to explain whether he would cut government enormously in order to make his low-rate flat tax work.

But many of the questions were weirdly hostile in their wording ("You've been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s…" or, "Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?"). This is not unique to a Republican debate — Hillary Clinton was asked a similarly pointless, "Will you say anything to get elected?"

The bias did show up in factual errors, such as Becky Quick premising a question on clearly false "working women in this country still earn just 77 percent of what men earn," that is traditionally waved around by the Left.

But remember, the nature of media's liberal bias is mostly this: they are themselves liberal, and they know very few conservatives, so they find it hard to see things from the conservative perspective.

As a result, the biggest manifestation of bias in the debate: Almost no questions were asked from a conservative perspective.

This is a debate for the Republican nomination. A clear majority of GOP primary voters identify as conservatives (84 percent in Iowa, 53 percent in New Hampshire, and 68 percent in South Carolina, for three examples). Why not ask of the candidates the sort of questions the voters would ask?

They could have asked Kasich: "Why did you increase Medicaid under Obamacare in Ohio?" They could have asked Trump, "How can eminent domain for corporate gain be squared with free-enterprise views?" They could have asked Rubio about sugar subsidies, or Cruz if his "defund Obamacare" fight did any good, or Jeb Bush about his support for more immigration. They could have asked Christie about his liberal court appointments.

They instead asked for price controls and regulations, they asked about the social compact in entitlement spendings, they asked why not to support budget-busting deals. Most questions were either non-ideological, and many were from a liberal perspective. When they asked about marijuana legalization it wasn't from an anti-drug perspective or a libertarian perspective, but a "more government revenue" perspective.

The only questions I could find, across two hours of debate, from even a remotely conservative perspective are these, and I was generous in my reading:

1) Harwood to Paul: "Do you oppose that budget deal because it doesn't cut those programs enough?"

2) Harwood kind of asked Kasich about his subsidies for Ohio companies, but it was really challenging Kasich for not agreeing with Obama on the Export-Import Bank.

3) Harwood asked Rubio about his desire to increase high-skilled labor.

4) Santelli to Carson: Why do you support ethanol subsidies?

5) Quick to Paul: Was Reagan right to oppose Medicaid?

And here was a very telling moment: When Carlos Quintanilla tried to ask a question from a conservative perspective, it was embarrassingly clumsy. Quintanilla pointed out that Carson served on the board of Costco which offered benefits to the same-sex partners of gay employees, and then asked "Why would you serve on a company whose policies seem to run counter to your views on homosexuality?"

He just assumed that someone who personally holds to a Christian idea of marriage and opposed the Supreme Court forcing gay marriage on states would distance himself from any business that chooses to acknowledge same-sex couples.

Conservatives are a foreign species to reporters. Some of the reporters treat conservatives with hostility, but usually, they end up just not getting us. As a result, we have a debate where most of the questions range from silly to irrelevant.

The Viral Videos the Anti-Police Left Won’t Publicize

By David French
Friday, October 30, 2015

Narratives of oppression are simple; life is complicated. After the Internet lit up over video of a South Carolina police officer dragging a high-school student from her desk, tossing her to the ground, and handcuffing her, the Left instinctively began making its “larger points” about the “school-to-prison pipeline,” police brutality, and institutional racism.

It was the launching pad for another “national conversation” on the Left’s terms, about one of the Left’s favorite topics: the big, bad, racist police.

Yet videos from other schools show more complex realities. Campus teachers, administrators, and police officers often do face the real threat of violence — and waiting to intervene until after a fight breaks out can be terribly dangerous.

Consider the incident, this week in Sacramento, where a student slammed a school principal to the ground in a lunchroom brawl:



Or consider the incident, during an after-school fight in Allentown, Pa., yesterday, in which a female officer was dragged to the ground and beaten by at least one person, and four other officers were injured:



And if you think it’s safe to try taking away a student’s cell phone, think again. Blogger Matt Walsh highlighted the video — apparently from earlier this year — of a student slamming his 62-year-old teacher to the ground in a classroom altercation:



In a piece earlier this week, I noted that police officers in schools aren’t symbols of an oppressive state but rather symptoms of a “cultural disease — a crisis of morality and responsibility.” In other words, cops are in schools because we need them in schools, and videos like the three above show us why.

There are very good reasons why prosecutors and juries have generally shown deference to the snap judgments of police officers. Officers have the experience to understand the consequences of failing to keep the peace, they have mere seconds to make crucial decisions, and it is plainly difficult — if not impossible — to use force in any way that looks gentle or respectful. That doesn’t mean cops are always right — no group of human beings is infallible — nor does it mean that we shouldn’t film police encounters. But it does mean that Monday-morning quarterbacking should be done with a great deal of care and humility.

When FBI director James Comey warned that viral videos were causing a “chill wind” to blow through American law enforcement, he wasn’t asking that police evade accountability for lawless behavior. He was saying that he understood the political and cultural opposition today’s cops face, judged by hostile observers who are ignorant of the realities of policing and all too eager to collect their scalps. Comey’s warnings are ominous:

 I spoke to officers privately in one big-city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile-phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, “We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.”

I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video. 

The increasing resistance officers face on the ground is accompanied by decreasing support from their political masters — “leaders” who are happy to toss law enforcement under the bus if it appeases the grievance industry.

This will not end well. If police are neutered in America’s worst neighborhoods and schools, it will be America’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens who suffer, not our cultural aristocrats. Already, angry young kids are learning the worst possible lesson — that they can defy lawful authority and still emerge as heroes. Yet physical resistance is a recipe for more pain, more violence, and more viral videos.

But perhaps that’s the point. Each confrontation drives the narrative, and the narrative both drives the national conversation and builds lucrative careers for grievance-mongers. It guarantees that any possible solutions are lost in an endless search for conflict. And when one spoils for a fight, a fight is never hard to find.

Jeb’s Sad Performance at the Debate Confirms He’s Not the Right Choice for 2016

By Jonah Goldberg

Saturday, October 31, 2015

True story. When I took the SAT (which once was an acronym for “Scholastic Aptitude Test,” then “Scholastic Assessment Test,” but is now simply called the SAT because the gormless quislings of the higher-education establishment are too scared even to defend the idea their test actually measures anything. But that’s a topic for another day) . . .

. . . Where was I? Oh right. True story: When I took the SAT (at Martin Luther King Jr. high school on West 65th street), right before the administrator guy said, “Open your books,” a kid raced into the room and took the chair right in front of me. He was a species of Manhattanite I knew very well: The urban hippie, a close relative of the more dignified bohemian, but a distinct breed. This guy was a cross between Jeff Spiccoli, Shaggy, and maybe a young Lincoln Chafee.

Anyway, the instructor told us all to open our booklets and get started. Almost immediately, the kid started shifting in his seat like maybe he was sitting awkwardly on his roach clip. By the middle of the test’s first section, the urban hippie started muttering in an exasperated whisper: “Oh man.”

With every turn of the page, he’d suck in a lungful of air through clenched teeth and run his fingers through his greasy pre-white-guy-dreadlocks hair, while kicking out his feet in shock. “Aw man, aw man, aw man.” His anguish was matched only by his surprise at how much worse each new page could be the than the one that preceded it.

I thought the whole thing was hilarious, and ended up giggling through most of the test, which probably seemed prickish to kids who thought I was gloating.

I bring this up partly because I had no idea how to begin this “news”letter this morning and partly because I imagined something similar was going on at Bush campaign HQ during the CNBC debate.

The Jeb Test

Full disclosure: I don’t hate Jeb Bush, nor do I scorn him. I respect the guy. I don’t like the way people trash him and act as if no serious conservative could possibly support him. But, as I’ve been saying for a longtime now, I don’t think he’s the right candidate for 2016. While not my first choice by any measure, I think he could be a fine president, and it would be a no-brainer to vote for him over Hillary Clinton. That said, I’ve always thought he’d be a deeply, deeply, flawed nominee. As I’ve written before, in a contest of familiar brands, the more popular one does better — and the Clinton brand is more popular than the Bush brand. In a change election, when the other side has an old and tired brand, the last thing in the world you should do is respond with an older and even more tired brand.

Bush v. Rubio

Of course, politics is about more than branding. It’s also about selling, and Jeb just isn’t a great salesman. It’s almost as if he doesn’t have confidence in the product, which is dismaying given that he is the product.

Let’s revisit the moment when Bush came at Rubio like a census taker going after Hannibal Lecter, over the issue of Rubio’s missed votes.

It was such a sad scene. Jeb was like a gladiator sent into the arena with a Nerf bat and a slingshot full of ping-pong balls.

The thing about being armed with a Nerf bat in a gladiator fight is that it really doesn’t matter if you land the blow. It’s like delivering the cleverest bon mot in the prison yard; it only invites an even more painful response. “That’s exactly what I’d expect from you Bonecrusher, after all you still wear white after Labor Day. [Snicker]. . . Bonecrusher, what are you doing? Put down that cinderblock.”

What made it all so much worse is that it was essentially choreographed. Jeb knows this is a dumb issue and that Rubio would be prepared like a Shaolin monk to respond to it. And if he didn’t know that, he learned it on the debate stage, because Carl Quintanilla had just grabbed the nerf bat and used it himself against Rubio.

Rubio swatted away Quintanilla like Pai Mei would Gary Coleman.

And that’s when Jeb remembered, “Aha! I still have my ping-pong ball slingshot!” Enter Jeb:

    BUSH: Could I — could I bring something up here, because I’m a constituent of the senator and I helped him and I expected that he would do constituent service, which means that he shows up to work. . .

Marco swats away the assault:

    RUBIO: Well, it’s interesting. Over the last few weeks, I’ve listened to Jeb as he walked around the country and said that you’re modeling your campaign after John McCain, that you’re going to launch a furious comeback the way he did, by fighting hard in New Hampshire and places like that, carrying your own bag at the airport. You know how many votes John McCain missed when he was carrying out that furious comeback that you’re now modeling after?

And here’s Bush’s devastating comeback:

    BUSH: He wasn’t my senator.

Really?

First of all, does anyone believe that Jeb has a problem getting “constituent service” help from politicians when he needs it? Is he calling Rubio’s office demanding assistance with a visa to Botswana and just can’t get anyone on the phone? Is he still having trouble getting his noise complaints about the local Hooters attended to? More relevant, Bush conceded that he doesn’t care that McCain missed votes. His complaint is grounded in his parochial interest as a Floridian. So even on its own terms, Bush’s complaint shouldn’t bother anybody but Floridians. Maybe that will help — a little — in the Florida primary, but even Bush implicitly concedes New Hampshire and Iowa voters shouldn’t care.

Final Fantasy

That moment was the most devastating politically, and I put the blame almost entirely on his handlers. They gave him those “weapons” and convinced him to use them.

But the more disappointing moment came later.

Here’s the scene as I imagine it at Bush HQ during Wednesday night’s debate, my comments are in the brackets:

    QUINTANILLA: Governor Bush, daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year. But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that’s out of your control. Isn’t that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?

    BUSH: Well, first of all, I’m 7 and 0 in my fantasy league.

    [Cheers erupt at Bush HQ. Fists pump the air, putting visual exclamation points on shouts of “Nailed it!” and “Yes!” The laughter sounds a bit forced, but it’s really a sign of relief, like when an airline passenger survives a really rough landing and then guffaws when the tray table suddenly comes down.]

    QUINTANILLA: I had a feeling you were going to brag about that.

    BUSH: Gronkowski is still going strong. I have Ryan Tannehill, Marco, as my quarterback, he was 18 for 19 last week. So I’m doing great. But we’re not gambling . . .

    [Only a smattering of cheers this time, but lots of knowing, prideful nods cascade across the room among Bush loyalists. “This is good. This is good,” says one strategist. “He’s proving he didn’t make up that 7-and-0 thing, sounding like a normal guy.” A rookie consultant adds, “And he’s reassuring Evangelicals that he’s not a gambler.”]

    BUSH continues: And I think this has become something that needs to be looked at in terms of regulation.

    [“Crap on a stick!” shouts one staffer in the back of the room, as he drains a glass full of bourbon and Pepto-bismal].

    BUSH continues: Effectively it is day-trading without any regulation at all. And when you have insider information, which apparently has been the case, where people use that information and use big data to try to take advantage of it, there has to be some regulation.

    If they can’t regulate themselves, then the NFL needs to look at just, you know, moving away from them a little bit. And there should be some regulation. I have no clue whether the federal government is the proper place, my instinct is to say, hell no, just about everything about the federal government . . .

    [Then, suddenly, like a rabid polar bear charging in from off screen in My Dinner with André, Chris Christie appears]

    CHRISTIE: Carl, are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football?

    (LAUGHTER)

    We have — wait a second, we have $19 trillion in debt. We have people out of work. We have ISIS and al-Qaeda attacking us. And we’re talking about fantasy football? Can we stop?

    [It’s at this moment that one of the staffers screams, “Damn it! These f***ing windows don’t open!” and looks to see if he can put his head in the microwave oven. Another quietly walks into the next room and calls the Rubio campaign to see if they’re hiring.]

Maybe I’m being a little unfair to Jeb, and he did say his instinct is to say “Hell no” to federal involvement. But the overall takeaway from his response was closer to the reverse. It seemed like his instinct was to say “Hell no” while actually doing the opposite.

The rap on Bush, as Rich Lowry and others have been saying for a very long time, is that he is a pre-Obama, pre-tea-party Republican. I’ve been to quite a few tea-party events. I’ve never heard anyone say, “Restoring the Constitution to its proper role in our Republic is fine, but what are we going to do about regulating fantasy football!?”

Burke v. Bush

Jeb may be right about fantasy football having problems. Frankly, I have no idea. But I am pretty certain that the next president of the United States will have more important issues to deal with.

Edmund Burke once said, “I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.” What he meant by this is the prudent statesmen must allow society to work out its own problems, using the force of government to intervene only when those problems require it.

(He was specifically talking about priests who were sometimes too gung-ho in their priestly duties:

I can allow in clergymen, through all their divisions, some tenaciousness of their own opinion, some overflowings of zeal for its propagation, some predilection to their own state and office, some attachment to the interests of their own corps, some preference to those who listen with docility to their doctrines, beyond those who scorn and deride them. I allow all this, because I am a man who have to deal with men, and who would not, through a violence of toleration, run into the greatest of all intolerance. I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.)

I hate it when people analogize citizens to children and government to parents, but there’s a similar point here. When you’re raising kids, sometimes you’ve got to let them work it out for a while before sticking your nose in. (In fact, the evidence is pouring in that we’re raising a whole generation of kids who don’t know how to work out their problems on their own. But that’s a subject for another “news”letter.)

I’ve knocked Jeb countless times for his inability to follow through on his promise to run “joyfully.” For a year I’ve been saying, in effect: Stop telling me what motivates your character, and start showing it to me. But at this point it’s probably too late. Because even if he somehow managed to seem joyful, Bush has already convinced people he’s not. Indeed, the fact that he says he wants to run joyfully only underscores the depth of his problem: he knows what to do, but can’t bring himself to do it. As Jim Geraghty puts it in that quotation-mark-less newsletter, “He is a man fundamentally at odds with the mood and thinking of his party at this moment.”

That doesn’t mean he’s a bad man or a RINO or a worse alternative to Donald Trump. But it does mean that this is not his time.

The Spooky New Face Of Anti-Semitism

By Melissa Langsam Braunstein

Friday, October 30, 2015

On Wednesday, Pope Francis waded into the ongoing discussion about anti-Semitism. He told a Jewish audience, “To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism.”

What exactly is anti-Semitism? The term has been bandied about so often and in so many different contexts lately, we must consider whether we’re using it correctly. In an effort to understand that, I reached out to Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (where my husband is an unpaid member of the Legal Advisory Board), which combats anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Marcus is also the author of a new book entitled, “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.” We recently spoke by phone about the term and its real-world applications.

Why do we need a book that defines anti-Semitism now?

I spend so much time in the trenches; there’s no end to work to be done on campuses around the country. There’s so much ignorance and confusion about the line between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. There needs to be some clarity. I wrote this to educate people in academia, policy makers, and the general public about what’s happening and where the line is between what’s anti-Semitism and what’s not.

What differentiates “the new anti-Semitism” from traditional anti-Semitism? Is it more dangerous?

Anti-Semitism is continually evolving. At one time, it was primarily religious prejudice. By the nineteenth century, it evolved to more of a racial hatred. Now we also have forms of anti-Semitism that relate more closely to the state of Israel. The new anti-Semitism provides a new guise for the older hatred. They’re equally dangerous; they’re both forms of racism or bigotry.

When was there a transition from one form to the other, and what prompted the change?

The new anti-Semitism can be traced back to the establishment to the state of Israel, but it became more prominent after the Six Day War in 1967. It became far more widespread after the onset of the Second Intifada. That significantly increased hostility toward Jews around the world. At the Durban I United Nations conference, this new anti-Semitism became much more deeply entrenched and pervasive. That was the moment the world took notice of the new anti-Semitism.

Walmart and Amazon are at the center of a social media storm for selling an Israeli soldier costume for kids this Halloween. What’s your take on that?

People could choose an [Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)] costume for all sorts of reasons. For example, some people see IDF soldiers as heroic figures who are courageously defending their people. They might view an IDF uniform in the same way that they would view a Superman or Batman costume—that is to say, it is a hero’s attire. On the other hand, it is clear that some people are viewing the IDF costumes in a very different light, i.e., as being more monstrous, like a vampire. This approach can descend quite quickly into blatant, explicit anti-Semitism.

Walmart is also being attacked for selling a “Fagin nose” to go with a sheik’s costume. What do you make of that?

There is nothing about the “Fagin nose” that isn’t anti-Semitic. The Fagin character was wholly based on anti-Semitic stereotypes. Calling it a “Fagin nose” just reinforces the stereotype. Applying it to a sheik’s costume, as opposed to an IDF soldier’s costume, doesn’t change this. What were they thinking?

Did President Obama trade in anti-Semitic canards while working to pass the Iran deal?

Obama and his administration didn’t help things with the language they used about the opposition to the Iran deal. I don’t see any intentional anti-Semitism in his remarks, but he fed into canards people tell about the “Israel lobby.” Given President Obama’s background in constitutional law, he should be more sensitive to coded forms of bias and the ways in which hostile environments are created by loose uses of coded language.

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson recently landed in hot water by suggesting that the scope of the Holocaust would have been “greatly diminished” if European Jewry had been armed. Was Carson’s comment “dangerous,” as The Forward suggested? Was it anti-Semitic?

Carson’s comment has been interpreted in wildly different ways. I tend to give Dr. Carson the benefit of the doubt and think there was nothing anti-Semitic or dangerous in his intent. Those people who call him “dangerous” are more focused on their own views about gun control and the right to bear arms.

Has it become more socially acceptable to express anti-Semitic views in Europe and the United States? If so, how do you explain the change?

There’s no question that in polite circles, especially among political progressives in Europe and North America, people are finding it more acceptable to say certain things about Jews and the state of Israel than a generation ago. Anti-Israel ideology has often filled the void among progressives who can no longer command support for the old Marxist canards. It increasingly binds left-wing groups behind a common cause.

There are people who say they’re not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel. Is that a legitimate distinction?

It’s a legitimate distinction, but it certainly isn’t always the case. People may say that, but then their words and actions belie that. There is far more anti-Semitism among the anti-Israel movement than they’d admit. Some is unconscious, and some is simply lying. When people join anti-Israel extremism, they are making common cause with the worst kind of bigots.

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters is active in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and most recently made news with his open letter urging Bon Jovi not to perform in Israel. Is Waters’ letter-writing campaign anti-Semitic?

Waters participates in a movement that’s anti-Semitic. Whether he himself is an anti-Semite is immaterial. Regardless of his mental state, he’s joining in a hate campaign that’s based on anti-Semitism. In some circles, the BDS movement has become one of the more fashionable ways to express that you’re a leftist. People feel pressure to join BDS, whether they believe in it or not.

Will the next generation have people like Roseanne Barr and Howard Stern who aren’t religious, but feel a deep and powerful connection to Israel and the Jewish people?

If present trends continue, the current rifts within the Jewish community will widen considerably. There will remain a significant group of Jewish Americans who feel very close to Israel, but they will predominantly be members of the growing Orthodox communities. On the other hand, liberal Jewry is declining both in its size and in its connection to the Jewish state. One can envision a future in which Jewish-American connections to Israel are mostly based on Orthodox religious belief. At that point, the Roseanne Barrs and Howard Sterns of the world would appear to be relics of a vanished age.

Is there anyone who deserves recognition for effectively fighting anti-Semitism, in the United States or elsewhere?

[Former Canadian] Prime Minister Harper’s government has shown strong leadership on fighting anti-Semitism worldwide and deserves kudos for that.

Are there certain individuals or organizations you think are most effective at calling attention to anti-Semitism on social media? And if so, what makes them effective?

Andre Oboler’s Online Hate Prevention Institute, based in Melbourne, is doing a great job, and I am pleased to serve on its International Advisory Board. In the United States, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League, among others, have done good work.

How important is social media to fighting anti-Semitism in the larger world? How about on college campuses?

Social media is critical for reaching people nowadays, especially young people. We use Facebook, Twitter, and other such platforms as key components of our communications strategy. At the same time, there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction, which is why I spend so much time traveling from campus to campus.

What do you think of the Simon Asher character on “Quantico,” who was initially introduced as a gay, Jewish conservative? We just learned that Simon spent time in Gaza while working undercover for the IDF.

It’s an interesting show. I am not quite up to date on my DVR, so I have not yet seen this latest disclosure. One thing I like about the show is the notion that things aren’t always as they appear. I don’t know how this will play out with the Simon Asher character. My hope is that the writers won’t lazily lapse into stereotypes or canards about the Middle East.

Now for the lightning round. I’ll name some recent news items. You tell me whether the incident is anti-Semitic, tasteless, funny, forgettable, or something else altogether. Lena Dunham’s dog or Jewish boyfriend quiz for The New Yorker.

Forgettable. When will Lena Dunham’s 15 minutes be over?

Marco Rubio’s pre-Yom Kippur fundraiser at the home of a Dallas real estate investor who owns a signed copy of “Mein Kampf.”

Much ado about nothing.

On “The Mindy Project,” a pregnant Mindy remarked, “‘I kind of want to raise him [her baby] Jewish,” she says, “so he can get ahead in life.’”

Not funny, but not offensive either.

New “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah’s tweets about Jews.

Tasteless.

Ann Coulter’s tweet about “f*%king Jews” during the Republican debate?

Juvenile, but not as hateful when read in context.

Where can interested readers find your book?

On Amazon.

Parting thoughts?

While anti-Semitism is far worse in the Middle East and Europe, it’s unfortunate that we have a resurgent problem on U.S. campuses. It’s unacceptable, and people should speak out against it. If things are happening on any campus you’re affiliated with, speak out and let your voice be heard. Also let government officials know that firmer actions should be taken against anti-Semitism on American campuses.