Tag Archives: #NewYorkTimes

Posted on by

Journolism: How can we call the credentialed media actually credentialed these days? They deliberately concealed Joe Biden's descent into dementia because they hate Donald Trump so much

No, that’s not a typo in the headline! The spelling ‘journolism’ or ‘journolist’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity.

Jennifer Rubin is the former ‘neoconservative’ columnist and warmonger for The Washington Post, always agitating for more money and weapons to keep the Russo-Ukrainian War going, and completely infected by #TrumpDerangementSyndrome. On May 19th, she wrote:

President Biden took the media and political world by surprise in challenging Donald Trump to two debates — and then swiftly accepting offers from CNN and ABC. Trump accepted the debates, on June 27 and Sept. 10, but whether he will show up is another matter.

Yup, Mr Trump showed up! Oops!

Trump has done Biden a favor over the past few months by painting the president as an infirm, doddering old man. If Biden appears even remotely sane, alert and engaged at the debates, he will have defied expectations. Moreover, Biden already accomplished an important component of a successful debate. In getting out in front to reach quick agreements with CNN and ABC, the president might have snagged, for the CNN-hosted June 27 debate in Atlanta, two of the most competent moderators available. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The New York Times tells us that “America Has a Free Speech Problem”, without noting that they are part of the problem

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

So, the Times is all for Freedom of Speech and of the Press, right? Friday saw this from the Editorial Board:

    America Has a Free Speech Problem

    by The Editorial Board | Friday, March 18, 2022

    For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

    This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.

    How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.

    Many Americans are understandably confused, then, about what they can say and where they can say it. People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation.

There’s a lot more from the original, but either the Editorial Board have a very short memory, or they are hypocrites.

    Free Speech Is Killing Us

    Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

    By Andrew Marantz[1]Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the … Continue reading | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

    There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

    No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

That the editors of the Times considered this an important article is demonstrated by the title graphic, a bit more ornate than is typical. It was spread full sized across the screen, taking up both the width and depth of my fairly large-sized monitor. This was a can’t-not-notice display, something the editors use to grab your attention.

A couple more paragraphs down, and Mr Marantz said this:

    The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?

Mr Marantz’ article continued with several suggestions, which boiled down to one thing: the government should set up some sort of approved publication space to tell us the truth. What a great idea!

Mr Marantz’s OpEd piece followed, eleven months after, Chad Malloy’s[2]Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’ article claiming that a restriction on speech actually promotes freedom of speech:

    How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

    Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

    by Parker Malloy[3]While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

    In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

    While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

    The final sentence, paired with the fact that the site appeared poised to actually enforce its rules, sent a rumble through certain vocal corners of the internet. To trans people, it represented a recognition that our identity is an accepted fact and that to suggest otherwise is a slur. But to many on the right, it reeked of censorship and “political correctness.”

    Twitter is already putting the policy into effect. Last week, it booted Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs the website Feminist Current. Ms. Murphy hasn’t exactly supported trans people — especially trans women. She regularly calls trans women “he” and “him,” as she did referring to the journalist and trans woman Shon Faye in a 2017 article. In the run-up to her suspension, Ms. Murphy tweeted that “men aren’t women.” While this is a seeming innocuous phrase when considered without context, the “men” she was referring to were trans women.

There’s more at the original.

The policy to which Mr Malloy referred would apply to this site as well, as we do not lie here: males are males and females are females, and the sexes simply cannot be changed.

That, however, is not my point in this article. My point is that the Times very deliberately published OpEd pieces calling freedom of speech sometimes harmful — sometimes meaning when conservative opinions are expressed — and celebrating the silencing of some speech. Were I to submit this article to the Times, or any other organ of the credentialed media, for publication, it would be disallowed because I referred to Mr Malloy as Mr Malloy, while the stylebooks used by almost all organs of the credentialed media insist on using the honorifics, pronouns and names preferred by the ‘transgendered’ rather than doing something really radical and telling the truth.

Back to the editorial first cited:

    However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists and feel its burden. In a new national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

    This poll and other recent surveys from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation reveal a crisis of confidence around one of America’s most basic values. Freedom of speech and expression is vital to human beings’ search for truth and knowledge about our world. A society that values freedom of speech can benefit from the full diversity of its people and their ideas. At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, pursue ideas and express thoughts that others might reject.

    Most important, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democratic self-government. If people feel free to express their views in their communities, the democratic process can respond to and resolve competing ideas. Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.

Also see: William Teach: NY Times Is Suddenly Very Concerned Over Loss Of Free Speech

Really? Tell me more, please! As we previously noted, The Philadelphia Inquirer, in one of its first stories on Will Thomas, the male University of Pennsylvania swimmer who now claims to be female, calls himself “Lia,’ and swims for Penn’s women’s team, deleted all of the comments from readers noting that Mr Thomas is male, not female, documenting some of those deleted comments with screen captures. The Inquirer had previously closed comments on most articles but left them open on sports stories, and Mr Thomas’ swimming victories are sports stories.

Oops! I guess that didn’t work for them!

The Times’ Editorial Board can tell us all they want how they support freedom of speech and of the press, but the truth is that they support their freedom of speech and their freedom of the press. Editors and publishers in general absolutely hate the fact that the rise of the internet took away their ‘gatekeeping’ function, and now anybody can publish whatever he wishes, without having to first be approved by someone else.

References

References
↑1 Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.”
↑2 Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’
↑3 While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York Times’ original Mr Malloy is referred to by his false name.
Posted on by

For The New York Times, some news is just not fit to print!

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

    On August 18, 1896, (Adolph Simon) Ochs acquired control of the financially faltering New York Times, again with borrowed money ($75,000). To set his paper apart from its more sensational competitors, Ochs adopted the slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print” (first used October 25, 1896) and insisted on reportage that lived up to that promise. Despite an early shortage of capital, he refused advertisements that he considered dishonest or in poor taste. In 1898, when sales were low and expenses unusually high, he probably saved The New York Times by cutting its price from three cents to one cent. He thereby attracted many readers who previously had bought the more sensational penny papers, especially the New York World and the Journal. By 1900 Ochs was able to purchase a controlling interest in The New York Times.

In its long and august history, the Times, through many editors and publishers, was our newspaper of record, printing many things that the government opposed, and winning its right to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers, despite the attempt by the Nixon Administration to prohibit such.

But now? The Times reported on the stabbing murder of Columbia University graduate student Davide Giri, but left out a lot of detail.

    Columbia University Student Dies in Stabbing Near Campus

    The graduate student, Davide Giri, was fatally stabbed near the Manhattan campus on Thursday night. A man has been arrested and charged with murder, the police said.

    By Troy Closson and Lola Fadulu | Friday, December 3, 2021

    A graduate student at Columbia University died and another man was wounded after the two were stabbed in Upper Manhattan on Thursday night, the police and college officials said.

    The student, Davide Giri, was traveling home from soccer practice just before 11 p.m. when he was stabbed in the abdomen about two blocks from his apartment building, the police and friends said. He was taken to an area hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

    The police arrested Vincent Pinkney, 25, of Manhattan, in the attacks and charged him on Friday with murder, attempted murder, assault, attempted assault and three counts of criminal possession of a weapon. He had been found in Central Park, and the police said that he had been menacing a third man with a knife.

    In a campuswide letter sent on Friday morning, Lee C. Bollinger, the university’s president, identified Mr. Giri, 30, as a student in the School of Engineering and Applied Science and expressed sadness over his death.

There’s more at the original, telling us about the victim, and noting that a similar killing had occurred just a few blocks away, when Tessa Majors, a student at Bernard College, was killed during a robbery.

What you won’t find in the original are any details about the (alleged) assailant, Vincent Pinkney. For those, you have to go across the pond, to London’s Daily Mail:

    Gang member, 25, charged in fatal Manhattan stabbing spree that killed Columbia student and wounded Italian tourist has been arrested 11 times since 2012 and was on parole for gang attack

    • Alleged killer Vincent Pinkney, 25, has a lengthy rap sheet and 11 arrests on robbery, assault and other charges
    • He is accused of stabbing a Columbia grad student to death and wounding tourist in mad crime spree
    • Davide Giri, 30, a PhD candidate in computer science at Columbia University, was stabbed to death
    • Italian tourist, Robert Malastina, 27, was wounded in Central Park just 15 minutes after the murder
    • Pinkney was arrested after threatening another man, 29, who was walking in the park with his girlfriend
    • Police said Pinkney, who was out on parole, had 11 prior arrests dating back to 2012
    • The fatal stabbing took place just a block from where Bernard College student Tessa Majors was killed in 2019
    • NYC murders have shot up by 42 per cent since 2019, and overall crime this year is up by more than 3 per cent

    By Keith Griffith and Ronny Reyes | Published: 1:00 EST, 4 December 2021 | Updated: 01:29 EST, 4 December 2021

    The suspect accused of killing a Columbia University grad student and stabbing an Italian tourist in a demented Manhattan crime spree is a career criminal who was out on parole for a gang attack, it has been revealed.

    Vincent Pinkney, 25, was escorted into NPYD Central Booking on Friday night, as hundreds gathered on the South Lawn of Columbia in a vigil for Davide Giri, a PhD candidate in computer science.

    Giri, 30, died around 11pm on Thursday after police say he was stabbed in the stomach by Pinkney, who allegedly went on to wound an Italian tourist, Robert Malastina, 27, outside Central Park before ‘menacing’ another man, 29, with a large kitchen knife as the victim strolled the park with his girlfriend.

    Pinkney is a member of Bloods gang off-shoot, Everybody Killas, who has at least 11 prior arrests dating back to 2012 and was out on parole for a 2015 gang assault, police said.

    He was released from prison in June 2018 after serving a four-year sentence for a brutal attack in which he and three accomplices slashed, punched and kicked a victim in an assault that was caught on camera, according to the New York Post.

    On Friday night, Pinkney was transferred from the 26 Precinct to Central Booking, wearing a white Tyvek jumpsuit.

    The five-foot-five, 140-pound suspect was escorted in handcuffs by two burly NYPD detectives.

    Meanwhile, shocked Columbia students gathered on the school’s central quad for a candlelight vigil honoring Giri a sixth-year doctoral student in the School of Engineering and Applied Science.

That video of Mr Pinkney’s arrest tells you all that you need to know about why The New York Times found the details about the (alleged) killer not to be news which is fit to print. For the journolists[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading in the Times’ newsroom, the ones who forced out liberal columnist Bari Weiss because she just wasn’t #woke enough, the fact that a young, black gang member (allegedly) stabbed to death a white PhD candidate in computer science at an Ivy League college just does not fit Teh Narrative. The leftists who decry ‘mass incarceration’ just can’t deal with the fact that Mr Pinkney should not have been able to stab Mr Giri, because he should have still been behind bars on Thursday night.

I’ve said it before: the problem isn’t mass incarceration, but that not enough people have been incarcerated, for not enough time.

As far as Mr Pinkney is concerned, a 5’5″, 140 lb pipsqueak punk, who (allegedly) proved what a big man he is, he’s looking at spending the rest of his miserable life in prison. If he had been treated more strictly by the state of New York for his past offenses, if he had been given longer sentences for past crimes and still been behind bars last Thursday night, he would still be looking forward to getting out of prison at some point in the future. Yeah, he was stupid Thursday night, almost surely is congenitally stupid, and it would not surprise me if we found out that he was drunk or stoned, but I come around to the fact that those who treated him so leniently in the past — remember: he has eleven previous arrests on his rap sheet — did him no favors.

References

References
↑1 The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.
Posted on by

The left blame evil reich wing Republicans for lower vaccination rates, but black Americans are the least vaccine compliant

It’s perhaps telling that Amanda Marcotte’s Twitter photo was taken in a bar.

Whenever I need a good chuckle, I will go to see what new articles Amanda Marcotte has posted on Salon. She wrote, at 1:07 PM EDT on Thursday, August 12th, It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated — they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms. As usual, Miss Marcotte has blamed the evil reich-wing Trump supporters as the problem:

    I really wanted to get back to my spin class. And for a couple of months, I did just that. Exercising at home for the past year was fine, but nothing beats a 45-minute spin class for leaving one red-faced and sopping wet with sweat. But it’s that “sopping wet” part that became a problem this week when the gym sent out a memo bringing back their indoor mask mandate. This isn’t a 5-minute jaunt in a grocery store with a mask. Exercising with a sweat-soaked mask is like being waterboarded. So I canceled my class and sent a polite but angry note to my gym. Philadelphia’s new regulations allow businesses to choose between mask and vaccine mandates, and they chose poorly, penalizing those who did the right thing to coddle those who refuse. Masking the already vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated helps a little, but is a little like trying to cover someone in a rainstorm by holding an index card over their head.

Miss Marcotte is just hopping mad that her rights are being violated! Of course, she wants other people’s rights, their privacy rights — something, as an abortion-up-until-the-final-contraction supporter she otherwise strongly supports — to take a back seat to her being able to go to her spin class. When it comes to other people’s rights, she’s kind of like Dirty Harry. Continue reading →

Posted on by

It only took one line to reveal the reporter’s ignorance and bias

We noted yesterday the hypocrisy of the oh so #woke New York Times. And now we can see how one almost throwaway line exposes the bias and ignorance of Times reporter Jason Horowitz:

Vatican Warns U.S. Bishops: Don’t Deny Biden Communion Over Abortion

Conservative American Catholic bishops are pressing for a debate over whether Catholics who support the right to an abortion should be allowed to take Communion.

by Jason Horowitz | June 14, 2021 | 5:41 PM EDT

ROME — The Vatican has warned conservative American bishops to hit the brakes on their push to deny communion to politicians supportive of abortion rights — including President Biden, a faithful churchgoer and the first Roman Catholic to occupy the Oval Office in 60 years.

But despite the remarkably public stop sign from Rome, the American bishops are pressing ahead anyway and are expected to force a debate on the communion issue at a remote meeting that starts on Wednesday.

But the money line is in the next paragraph:

Some leading bishops, whose priorities clearly aligned with former President Donald J. Trump, now want to reassert the centrality of opposition to abortion in the Catholic faith and lay down a hard line — especially with a liberal Catholic in the Oval Office.

What kind of ignorance is this? The Catholic Church was a vocal opponent of abortion and euthanasia long before Donald Trump burst onto the political scene. The Church has been opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’ and ‘transgenderism’ long before the 2016 election.

But it is also true that the Church has been primarily on the political left on other issues. The Church is very much in favor of greatly eased immigration restrictions, the Church would like to see greatly increased social welfare programs, the Church favors economic changes far more in line with European ‘democratic socialism,’ and the Church is very concerned with environmental issues, especially global warming climate change. None of those policies are exactly Trumpian.

Did Mr Horowitz not know these things, or was he trying to use propaganda to undermine the more conservative bishops?

Posted on by

Surely the #woke New York Times couldn’t be this misogynistic!

Remember how Bari Weiss was forced out by the #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading of The New York Times? Remember how the #woke at the Times decided that the Grey Lady, long a supporter of the First Amendment, no longer thought Freedom of Speech was such a great idea?

Well, I spotted two tweets from the Times this morning, which showed that the very much anti-misogynistic they are:

This is actually a full sized screen capture of a promoted Tweet, promoted meaning that the Times paid Twitter to send it out; if you click on the image, it will take you to the original, at least if the Times doesn’t delete it. The Times is using the naked legs of a a reasonably thin white woman in the shower as clickbait. It was originally sent out at 12:35 PM EDT on May 28, 2021, but it’s paid-for status is evidenced by the fact it appeared on my Twitter feed this morning.

But, it wasn’t the only one:

Same thing: a screencap with the link embedded, in case the Times deletes it, this time using a cute bikinied white girl as the clickbait. The non-misogynistic editors of the Times apparently couldn’t find a picture of a male diver.

Oops, that’s wrong: in the article they had five photos used as illustrations, a male diver, tourists near Cebu Island in the Philippines feeding whale sharks in 2019, tourists hand feeding dolphins in western Australia, tourists photographing loggerhead turtles in Greece, and a video of green turtle’s view of feeding by tourists in the Bahamas.

What isn’t in the article is the photo used in the tweet. Normally, when you use Twitter to link an article, it will pick out one of the photos in the article to use, usually the first one. For this tweet to have the photo of the bikinied diver, it had to have been added manually by someone.

And here I thought that it was us evil-reich wing conservatives who were the sexist pigs! Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the left were trying to fool us?
____________________________
Also published on the American Free News Network.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Pegging the irony meter: The New York Times tells us about someone else’s problems with freedom of speech!

I have, in the past, joked that I have an eidetic memory, but it isn’t true. My memory is pretty good, and I have also joked that, despite my advanced age, I don’t have Old Timer’s Disease. At any rate, I do seem to have a longer term memory than the editors of The New York Times:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis

An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

By Michael Powell | June 6, 2021 | Updated 1:13 p.m. ET

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

The A.C.L.U., America’s high temple of free speech and civil liberties, has emerged as a muscular and richly funded progressive powerhouse in recent years, taking on the Trump administration in more than 400 lawsuits. But the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.

It’s a long article, thousands of words, but, shockingly enough,[1]There should be a sarcasm tag here; I don’t find this shocking in the slightest. nowhere in the article does it mention the Times own opposition to freedom of speech.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

Of course, All the News That’s Fit to Print was to be determined not by the readers, but by the editors!

Well that was then, but it sure isn’t now. On November 29, 2018, the editors of the Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy to claim that a restriction on speech actually promoted freedom of speech:

How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

by Parker Malloy[2]‘Parker’ Malloy is a male, born Chad Malloy, who claims to be female. The Times referred to Mr Malloy as ‘Ms Malloy,’ and the Times went along with that. The First Street … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

Translation: any reference to a ‘transgender’ person’s biological sex or birth name can earn a person a suspension or permanent removal from Twitter. In mocking Twitter’s recent whine about Nigeria blocking all of Twitter within that country, and stating, “Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society”, William Teach noted:

My old account was given time-outs and suspensions many times before being permanently suspended. They never told me why the last. My new account has been given a few timeouts and a 7 day suspension (that one was for scientifically noting that the gender confused have many more mental health issues and a higher percentage of suicidal thoughts and suicide, and it’s a really bad idea to have them around military grade weapons).

Twitter, and, seemingly, The New York Times, will never agree to publish any opposition to the notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls.[3]I asked if Three Dog Night should be canceled because in their song Joy to the World they wished joy to all the boys and girls without including the intersexed, the non-binary, the questioning, etc. Questioning the acceptance of ‘transgenderism’ is simply not to be allowed, but, to Mr Malloy and the editors of the Times disallowing that promotes freedom of speech.

That was hardly all. Ten and a half months later, the Times gave OpEd space to one of its own staffers, Andrew Marantz, to argue against the freedom of speech:

Free Speech Is Killing Us

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

By Andrew Marantz | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

As we noted here, the editors of the Times considered this such an important article that they added a title graphic of a statuette of Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker on fire.

Freedom of Speech, it seems, matter only to the editors of the Times when it is their freedom of speech, and of the press, that is in question. Greg Bensinger, a member of the Times’ Editorial Board, celebrated Facebook’s banning of Donald Trump.

The editors of the Times, and the rest of the credentialed media, have never gotten over the halcyon days in which they were the gatekeepers, the arbiters of what did, and did not, get published. Rush Limbaugh started to break their hold, by attracting a huge audience to his talk radio show, and then the internet destroyed it completely, allowing anyone with a computer to self-publish. On twitter, on Facebook, on blogger.com, people can publish their thoughts for free, and while yes, I do pay for this site, I really don’t pay that much. I guess that it was easier for the editors of the Times to support the freedom of speech and the press when they were the ones who determined just who got to exercise the freedom of the press. The #woke[4]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading got mostly liberal editorial page editor James Bennet fired because he agreed to print an OpEd piece by a sitting United States Senator with which they disagreed, and ran off liberal columnist Bari Weiss because, horrors! she is Jewish and mostly supports Israel.

Freedom of speech, of the press? Not something really allowed at The New York Times!

So, yeah, I was amused when the Times told us of the ACLU’s struggle with freedom of speech, without mentioning their own lack of support for it.
_______________________________
Cross-posted on American Free News Network

References

References
↑1 There should be a sarcasm tag here; I don’t find this shocking in the slightest.
↑2 ‘Parker’ Malloy is a male, born Chad Malloy, who claims to be female. The Times referred to Mr Malloy as ‘Ms Malloy,’ and the Times went along with that. The First Street Journal does not go along with the silliness of transgenderism, and while we do not change other people’s quotes, we always refer to a ‘transgender’ person by his biological sex pronouns, honorifics and his birth name, where known.
↑3 I asked if Three Dog Night should be canceled because in their song Joy to the World they wished joy to all the boys and girls without including the intersexed, the non-binary, the questioning, etc.
↑4

From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Virtue must be signaled!

Robert Aaron Long, 21, a guy with some serious, serious mental problems, shot up three Atlanta metropolitan area ‘massage parlors,’ killing eight people, six of whom were of Asian descent. Four were Korean. Naturally, it’s being called a hate crime by the left, though the details don’t quite match up.

But that doesn’t matter; the Usual Suspects are all over this as a hate crime, as though any deliberate murder isn’t an act of hate. From The New York Times:

Why Some Georgia Lawmakers Want Last Week’s Shootings Labeled Hate Crimes

Violence that left eight dead, including six women of Asian descent, will be the first stress test for a Georgia hate crime law.

By Astead W. Herndon and Stephanie Saul |March 21, 2021

A year ago, Georgia was one of four states that had no hate crime legislation.

But the deadly rampage last week that left eight people dead, six of them women of Asian descent, is now providing a test of a law passed last year — and a window into the way that the state’s increasingly diverse electorate has altered its political and cultural chemistry.

Georgia, after earlier false starts, passed its legislation following the shooting death of a young Black man, Ahmaud Arbery, who was stopped, detained and then shot to death by white residents in a South Georgia suburban neighborhood.

Now last week’s shootings, in which Robert Aaron Long, 21, has been charged with eight counts of murder, are providing a major stress test for when the legislation can be applied, what it can achieve and how it plays into the state’s increasingly polarized politics.

Political leaders, civil rights activists, and national and local elected officials condemned last week’s attack as an act of bigoted terror, drawing a connection between the majority-Asian victims and a recent surge in hate crimes against Asian and Pacific Islander Americans.

Mr Long has already been charges with premeditated murder. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Georgia not only has capital punishment, but carries it out, having executed 76 people since the restoration of capital punishment in 1976. An obvious question is: why bother to charge Mr Long with ‘hate crimes’ if there’s really nothing more they can do to him?

Law enforcement officials and some legal figures have shied away from labeling the killings a hate crime, saying there is insufficient evidence of motivation. Prosecutors in two separate counties are still weighing whether to invoke the hate crimes law.

If the evidence for a hate crime is weak, charging under the hate crime stature becomes problematic. It adds to the length and expense of any trial, and runs a serious risk of acquittal on such charges.

But that has not stopped the shootings from resonating as bias crimes for many in Georgia, a state that has been at the forefront of the demographic changes coursing through the South.

“I don’t want to draw any conclusions, but it’s obvious to me that if six victims were Asian women, that was a target,” said Georgia State Representative Calvin Smyre, a longtime Democratic lawmaker who helped shepherd the hate crimes bill through the General Assembly.

And there it is: it’s just obvious to Representative Smyre that, because women of Asian descent were killed, they must’ve been targeted because they were Asian. But sometimes, just because someone thinks that something is obvious doesn’t make it true.

Eight people are dead, and Mr Long has been charged with their murder. He is facing life in prison without the possibility of parole or perhaps even a capital sentence on those charges. If he is convicted on those, there’s nothing more a hate crimes rider can do to him.

But virtue must be signaled! My question is: if the killings of the six Asian women was so horrible, and must be charged as hate crimes, does that make the deaths of the other two victims somehow less significant, less important? Are the two non-Asian victims somehow less dead than the six Asian ones?

Posted on by

The New York Times and the Ministry of Truth

Anybody who has ever written for a collegiate newspaper, a category which would include me, has had at least a few dreams about being a reporter and writer for The New York Times.[1]Though not a journalism major, I wrote for the Kentucky Kernel for two years while in the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce in the early 1980s.

Of course, to become a writer for the greatest newspaper in the world, you had to be well-educated, and it helped if you went to one of the top schools, such as the Columbia University’s School of Journalism. To have been well-educated, at least as far as a liberal arts degree is concerned, there is virtually no way you could not have read George Orwell’s 1984, the dystopian novel about life in a totalitarian society.

So, one would think that no one could ever suggest, in the pages of the Times, such a thing as Mr Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, where the main character, Winston Smith worked, would ever be a good idea. But if one did think that, one would be wrong.

How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis

These steps, experts say, could prod more people to abandon the scourge of hoaxes and lies.

By Kevin Roose[2]Mr Roose is a technology columnist for The Times, and the host of the “Rabbit Hole” podcast. His column, “The Shift,” examines the intersection of technology, business, and … Continue reading | February 2, 2021 | 11:54 AM EST

Last month, millions of Americans watched as President Biden took the oath of office and, in a high-minded Inaugural Address, called for a new era of American unity.

But plenty of other Americans weren’t paying attention to Mr. Biden’s speech. They were too busy watching YouTube videos alleging that the inauguration was a prerecorded hoax that had been filmed on a Hollywood soundstage.

Quite the statement! Mr Roose seems to believe that if I didn’t watch the inaugural, I must be some evil or deluded conspiracy theorist. As it happens, I did not watch the inaugural, but I did not because I did not wish to see the transition to someone with Joe Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s repugnant policies.

Or they were melting down in QAnon group chats, trying to figure out why former President Donald J. Trump wasn’t interrupting Mr. Biden’s speech to declare martial law and announce the mass arrest of satanic pedophiles.

Or maybe their TVs were tuned to OAN, where an anchor was floating the baseless theory that Mr. Biden “wasn’t actually elected by the people.”

It’s a long article, in which Mr Roose suggests:

  • “Unless the Biden administration treats conspiracy theories and disinformation as the urgent threats they are, our parallel universes will only drift further apart, and the potential for violent unrest and civic dysfunction will only grow.”
  • We must have a “holistic understanding of what the spectrum of violent extremism looks like in the United States, and then allocate resources accordingly.”
  • “The Biden administration could set up a “truth commission,” similar to the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the planning and execution of the Capitol siege on January 6. This effort, (Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy) said, would ideally be led by people with deep knowledge of the many “networked factions” that coordinated and carried out the riot, including white supremacist groups and far-right militias.”
  • Several experts with whom Mr Roose spoke “recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar.'”

Mr Roose graciously granted that this “sounds a little dystopian,” but continued to say that we needed to listen to the arguments for such suggestions, including tapping into the algorithms used by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to ferret out bad, bad, bad messages.

Really? As we noted previously, Twitter already takes sides on the issue of ‘transgenderism,’ and bans ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering,’[3]‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a … Continue reading as though the issue is settled, and no dissent can be tolerated.

Was Mr Roose simply reporting? The Times has already published articles claiming that Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence, and that Twitter’s bans on ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ actually promotes freedom of speech. The Times told us how wonderful it was that Jeff Bezos was able to deplatform Parler, but lamented that some of those who lost their speech on Parler migrated to Gab and Rumble.[4]Full disclosure: I maintained a Parler account, and have a Gab account.

Until the nation reckons with the self-inflicted wounds stemming from an under-regulated, unreformed social media information architecture, President Biden’s calls for healing and national unity won’t produce substantial, lasting results. The new administration needs a long-term plan to confront the escalating threat, as far-right insurgents migrate from one platform to the next.

The Parler hack is the place to start. It indicates that moderation of violent, racist, anti-democratic content will increasingly lead to migration of that same hateful content. For instance, the deplatforming of Parler triggered a virtual stampede to similar forums like Gab and Rumble. Analysts have already documented Parler groups re-forming and spreading evermore hateful content on Telegram and a host of smaller platforms.

When the Times prints OpEd pieces claiming that social media are “under-regulated (and) unreformed,” what are we ro conclude other than the Times, which so jealously and zealously protested that its own Freedom of the Press should not be restricted in New York Times Co v United States, believe that other people’s speech and publications must be more strictly regulated, that those who decline to conform to the Accepted Wisdom — meaning: the wisdom of the left — should simply not be allowed to make their cases or present their views?

If Chad Malloy writes an article claiming that ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ is bad, horrible, and should not be allowed, the Times will publish it, and Twitter will be perfectly happy to allow positive tweets referencing it. If William Teach tweets “Since the gender confused have a much higher chance of having mental issues and suicidal tendencies, let’s put them around military grade weapons for Social Justice, am I right?” he gets suspended by Twitter, and not allowed to express that viewpoint, despite the fact that every point he made is true.[5]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy.

Twitter suspended the account of Catholic World Report for noting that Dr Richard Levine, appointed by President Biden to become Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services is “a biological man identifying as a transgender woman”, despite the fact that the statement is completely accurate.[6]Dr Richard Levine claims that he is female and goes by the name “Rachel.” As noted in our Stylebook, we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their biological sex and given … Continue reading

The Times apparently wants some form of a Ministry of Truth, but, like the one for which Winston Smith worked, its business is making certain that whatever Big Brother says is not contradicted by history or the facts. “Ignorance is Strength” the Party says in the book, and it seems that The New York Times wants everybody to remain ignorant of any information, any views of which the Times disapproves.

The late William F Buckley, Jr, famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” It wasn’t so long ago that the editors of the Times would have shaken their heads at conservative views, but nevertheless simply argued against them, rather than trying to stifle and stamp them out.

Today? All of that has changed! The editors now want a government agency to tell everyone what is true, and stamp out anything they feel is contrary.

References

References
↑1 Though not a journalism major, I wrote for the Kentucky Kernel for two years while in the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce in the early 1980s.
↑2 Mr Roose is a technology columnist for The Times, and the host of the “Rabbit Hole” podcast. His column, “The Shift,” examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture. You can find him on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Instagram. @kevinroose • Facebook
↑3 ‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by sex-specific terms referring to his biological sex rather than the sex he claims to be.
↑4 Full disclosure: I maintained a Parler account, and have a Gab account.
↑5 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy.
↑6 Dr Richard Levine claims that he is female and goes by the name “Rachel.” As noted in our Stylebook, we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their biological sex and given names at birth.