According to The Atlantic standards The Undefeated is picking up additional theaters because some liberal reporters haven’t watched it yet, while Dave Weigel argues it’s because of the lack of traffic.
I was skimming through “Palin” tweets yesterday for the latest about Sarah Palin and The Undefeated when I came across a funny phenomenon from the left.
David Weigel and others were tweeting with glee that there isn’t traffic in L.A. – hence proof that no one’s heading to see The Undefeated.
@daveweigel daveweigel RT @benschwartzy: LA traffic is great. No one left the house. No crowds anywhere. I wish Palin opened a movie every weekend.It struck me as funny since I’ve always understood and assumed everyone else did as well, that it’s never been the crowds that came to see Obama that causes the terrible traffic that accompanies Obama at every step as the crowds are usually nonexistent. Rather, the closing of many streets due to security.
When Obama treated Michelle to a Broadway show, gridlock hit NYC. Cars were crawling turtle-paced not because of the number of people headed to the movies nor because people wished to see Obama. The honking horns were the direct outcome of the many blocks and highways that were designated for the Obamas while the rest of the city was forced to go without them. When the Obamas head out to eat obesity-free burgers or ice cream creating no-drive zones, does that too symbolize the crowds?
Besides, since when does L.A. get overwhelmed when hundreds or even thousands of people head towards the movies? From their tweets one can think the talk is of a teeny hick town with narrow single-lane roads!
Is it possible that the left in their blind support for Obama are oblivious to the above facts and are convinced the non-existing crowds are the true cause to the traffic jams? Perhaps that's why the media constantly reports the traffic when Obama comes to town, viewing it not as a hindrance and pain to the people, but as the greatness of Obama.
Thus when thousands of people head to movies in cities across America, instead of focusing on the gross per theater or number of tickets sold which indicate success; they turned to the lack of traffic as proof of its failure.
Anyone remember the success of any past movie based on a glance out of the window or a turn to the traffic stations? Or were they based on the amount of tickets sold and attendees?
The Atlantic had an article written by Conor Friedersdorf a day before the official nationwide launching of The Undefeated, who pretended to have gone to interview viewers of the documentary while choosing to go to an unadvertised unknown viewing shown after midnight at the very same time as the release of the heavily advertised and long awaited final chapter of Harry Potter. He then used the empty auditorium as proof of the failure and non-attendance of the entire documentary.
Hmm… for some reason his attempts to portray himself as an open-minded non-biased reporter that simply wanted to hear from the audience directly isn’t very convincing. How did he hear about this unadvertised viewing? Why would a reporter give up a night of sleep to watch a documentary and then write an article throughout the rest of the night? Wouldn’t a true reporter logically attend the advertised viewings the next day which were far from empty?
And why would an innocent reporter find the only sentence worth repeating from the entire documentary is Sarah saying that “in politics you’re either eating well or sleeping well,” followed by a derogatory remark. Besides, he doesn’t mention why or where she said it, clearly taking out of context the one sentence he could make fun of out of a two hour documentary!
If Obama could celebrate his birthday weeks in advance and say it is next week, then the left can announce the failure of a documentary as having no viewers before it has yet been shown and Kyle Smith from the New York Post can give negative critic to an unfinished film.
Conor Friedersdorf received forty nine thousand recommends on his article that he, a reporter, was the only one in sitting in the entire auditorium. If forty nine thousand people fell for Friedersdorf’s piece, then they must assume that the 2.6 million people who bought Palin’s book, the 3 million 192 thousand Palin facebook friends, the 600 thousand Palin twitter followers, and the 88 percent positive Palin approval rating in Alaska are all liberals and reporters that are forced to follow the Palin news.
Otherwise, how else can one believe that the from the entire Los Angeles area Friedersdorf was the only individual interested in viewing The Undefeated?
The Undefeated will be expanding the upcoming weekend to another five cities plus at additional theaters in the original locations. These showings are obviously strictly for Conor Friedersdorf and Dave Weigel, no?
This article was cross-posted at Conservatives 4 Palin.