Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on the findings of his FISA report. After providing months of wall to wall impeachment coverage, CNN and MSNBC decided not to air the full hearings with Horowitz.
CNN and MSNBC stopped following the IG hearing after about 30 minutes, and both refused to cover the opening statements by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The decision does not align with the recent live hearing coverage standard both networks have held for the last few months, giving endless air time to the impeachment hearings lead by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, and Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Media personalities are noticing this unfair balance.
CNN is not taking the Senate Horowitz hearing live. Unbelievable. A perfect example of how bias works. It’s not just what they cover. It’s what they don’t cover.33K10:28 AM – Dec 11, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy13.9K people are talking about this
CNN and MSNBC refusing to run Senator Lindsey Graham’s opening statement in the Horowitz hearing. The most blatant form of media bias that I have ever seen. RIP, American journalism.37.4K10:39 AM – Dec 11, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy15.8K people are talking about this
After giving their air time COMPLETELY over to Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff for the past few weeks, CNN IS NOT AIRING the start of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Horowitz’s IG report. #StopTheMadness
It’s impossible for CNN to claim they’re *not* a propaganda network after refusing to air the IG report when they aired every second of Nadler, Schiff, and Pelosi pushing for impeachment.
They don’t want their audience to be informed on what’s actually happening.3,77410:43 AM – Dec 11, 2019 · Arlington, VATwitter Ads info and privacy1,801 people are talking about this
Ronna McDaniel, the GOP Chairwoman was also upset over CNN’s omission.
“CNN aired everything Schiff and Nadler had to say. Why aren’t they showing Lindsey Graham? Is it because the facts of how the FBI mistreated Donald Trump contradict their coverage over the last 3 years?” McDaniel tweeted.
CNN aired everything Schiff & Nadler had to say. Why aren’t they showing @LindseyGrahamSC? Is it because the facts of how the FBI mistreated @realDonaldTrump contradict their coverage over the last 3 years? https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1204780316101152768?s=20 …Steve Guest✔@SteveGuestAfter giving their air time COMPLETELY over to Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff for the past few weeks, CNN IS NOT AIRING the start of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Horowitz’s IG report. #StopTheMadness11.2K10:38 AM – Dec 11, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy7,792 people are talking about this
If the IG report proved that the FBI acted perfectly within its boundaries, as the mainstream media claim, then what’s the harm in airing this footage? The truth is, the IG report revealed abuse of power at the highest levels of the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community.
The truth does not fit the CNN and MSNBC agenda, and that is why they refuse to give a platform to it.
The media has for decades been constructing a pretense that an elderly four-time cancer patient who falls asleep on the job and can barely walk is peppy, alert, and capable.
On Sunday, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” did a segment about President Trump’s recent doctor visit that opened with host Brian Stelter questioning, “Trump says he went for a very routine physical because he had extra time, but does it all add up?” Stelter brought on medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta to question the official story of what the chyron called “Trump’s Mystery Hospital Visit.”
“Any time a 73-year-old man with clinical obesity and a history of heart disease goes to the hospital unannounced, obviously medical people are going to ask why, what prompted that?” Gupta said. “And keep in mind, the president going to the hospital is a big deal, no matter what.”
Gupta then tried to read the tea leaves into the hospital not being informed and prepped beforehand of the president’s visit and the fact that a week ago the White House doctor rode with Trump in the car, which he says is unusual. Gupta then worried about the possibility that the doctors were “beholden to the president” and might not tell Trump the truth about his health. Gupta reiterated these concerns in an accompanying 2,100-word CNN article the same day.
While CNN devoted all this to one news story about a top political figure’s unannounced doctor visit, corporate media outlets in general have been busy sending the opposite messaging about a litany of health difficulties for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The 86-year-old Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital on Friday with “chills and fever.” The Supreme Court’s oldest justice went home Sunday, according to CBS’s Jan Crawford.
BREAKING FROM SCOTUS: Justice Ginsburg was hospitalized overnight at Johns Hopkins with chills and fever. Symptoms have abated, expected to be released tomorrow.
Justice Ginsburg released from Johns Hopkins. “She is home and doing well,” Court says in a statement. The justices return to the bench for arguments Dec 2.
The reports on her illness from CNN, USA Today, Bloomberg, and The New York Times were routine writeups of the press statements Crawford posted. Instead of 2,000 words of probing about the “mystery” behind Ginsburg’s series of recent ailments, CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue pointed out evidence of Ginsburg’s vigor, such as her participation the same day she was hospitalized in an “important” Supreme Court conference.
“I have been watching her carefully since the beginning of this term, and she has been such an active participant. She’s often the first one asking questions, and she follows up,” de Vogue commented. De Vogue failed to point out that Ginsburg has been known for the past 13 years to fall asleep during oral arguments, although she did mention that the justice has had cancer four times.
“This is a very strong woman who has had frail health at times,” de Vogue concluded. “But, boy, she’s a strong woman.”
Ginsburg is clearly a strong woman in the personality sense. That is beside the point. If she were not a far-left political actor, Ginsburg’s health record would not be lipsticked. It’s also much worse than Trump’s. She’s 13 years older than Trump, who is 73. She’s been falling asleep in oral arguments since 2006. Ginsburg also fell asleep during two of President Obama’s State of the Union Addresses and Pope Francis’s speech to Congress in 2015.
Ginsburg can barely get herself off the Supreme Court dais, another long-time situation. She is typically extremely hard to hear when she speaks from the bench. Two weeks ago, she missed oral arguments due to a stomach bug. She also missed two weeks of oral arguments in January due to lung cancer surgery. The first two times she was treated for cancer, in 1999 and 2009, she didn’t miss a day of oral arguments.
In August, Ginsburg was treated with three weeks of radiation for a different cancer, pancreatic. Last November, she fell and broke three ribs. Ginsburg is simply and clearly not in good health. The divergence in treatment between her health history and Trump’s was replicated in media dismissal of Hillary Clinton’s fainting spell, the Washington Free Beacon noted.
The opposite-world media coverage is not shocking, because corporate media do free PR for the left, but it is unfair and impedes the American people’s business. The Supreme Court always considers significant cases, and those pending are no exception: whether Trump can undo President Obama’s executive order suspending immigration laws, whether laws against sex discrimination require employers to allow cross-dressing, whether religious schools may participate in state choice programs, to what extent states may regulate abortion, and more.
If Ginsburg is not capable of fully performing her duties in these cases, she should step down. If she is not capable of recognizing whether she should step down, others should guide her to do so.
Working furiously against this needed realization, the media has for decades been constructing a pretense that an elderly four-time cancer patient who falls asleep on the job and can barely walk is peppy, alert, and capable. Back in 2013, the Washington Post published a cutesy profile of Ginsburg’s personal trainer, who got her to peak performance of 20 pushups. That same year, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin claimed she was stronger than younger justices using the same workout equipment.
Stephanie Mencimer described in Mother Jones last year other media efforts in this absurd PR campaign to pep up an elderly justice with a long and serious history of health difficulties:
Details of [Ginsburg’s exercise routine] appear in Notorious RBG, and Ginsburg allowed the RBG documentary makers to film her doing pushups and tossing a medicine ball—proof, the film implies, that she is nowhere near death’s door.
Last year, personal trainer Johnson published The RBG Workout: How She Stays Strong and You Can Too, for which Ginsburg wrote the foreword. In March, Ginsburg helped promote the book by going on TV to work out with Stephen Colbert …Only the most die-hard superfan could call Ginsburg’s Colbert performance anything but cringeworthy—those things she does with Johnson are most definitely not pushups. The episode felt like a desperate attempt to convince the world, and maybe Ginsburg herself, that she didn’t grievously miscalculate in refusing to retire before 2014.
Watch the Colbert clip here: https://youtu.be/0oBodJHX1Vg
If it were Trump who had been a four-time cancer survivor who could barely walk down three steps, we’d be enduring a media thunderstorm demanding he resign rather than watching sunny profiles of him lifting five pounds with help next to a comedian. We’d have the Supreme Court potentially ushering Ginsburg off the bench the same way they ushered out Associate Justice William O. Douglas in 1975 after he suffered a debilitating stroke but still refused to resign. (Read the link — his story is shocking.)
Why would a justice well into the twilight years and by all appearances having a rough time not retire gracefully so her succession could be well-planned for optimal benefit to the nation? Everyone knows the answer: Because the Supreme Court is not a strictly judicial force that applies the laws as they are written. It is a political institution that makes political decisions, not a legal institution that makes legal decisions.
Ginsburg is among the justices notorious for her manipulation of the law. That legal corruption does make her job easier for her age. She doesn’t need to actually analyze the law itself, she just needs to know what would be politically advantageous to the left and rule accordingly, as she has done her entire tenure.
Still, Ginsburg obviously doesn’t want to retire while a Republican has the power to appoint her successor. Along with the entire Democrat-Media Complex, Ginsburg badly miscalculated by assuming Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in 2016 and thus didn’t resign while Obama could appoint her replacement.
So Ginsburg is now stuck in political purgatory, having to sit on the bench as her already delicate health declines even further. For her sake, and the country’s, let’s pray her departure doesn’t look anything like Douglas’s — and that her successor helps undo the court’s overweening importance as an unelected superlegislature in which justices’ personal politics can subvert the law.
For three years many of journalism’s most prestigious news outlets won acclaim for making and repeating claims President Trump and his team had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. No accusation, from secret meetings in Prague to tales of prostitutes peeing on beds, was deemed unfit to print. When they wanted to signal to readers that they were conveying claims instead of facts, their hedge words of choice – “unverified” or “not yet proved” were favorites – strongly suggested that confirmation was on the way.
Call it the Trump Standard.
Now those same news outfits are observing a new standard of proof, at least when it involves former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who enjoyed a lucrative relationship with a Ukrainian gas company. This new norm demands that, absent definitive proof, assertions must be labeled as “without evidence” or said to be supported by “no evidence.”
Call it the Biden Standard.
Journalists have been appropriately skittish about appearing to spread Trump talking points – especially his accusation that while serving as vice president Joe Biden demanded a Ukrainian prosecutor be fired because he was investigating the gas company, Burisma, that was paying his son Hunter tens of thousands of dollars a month.
Trump’s allegation has not been proved. But Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on the Ukraine. His son has said Burisma probably hired him because of who his is father and Joe Biden did demand the prosecutor’s firing – because, he says, the prosecutor wasn’t doing enough to root out corruption. Still, the Burisma probe was dropped.
Normally media would greet such an arrangement skeptically, to say the least. A politician’s son making hay in a business over which his father has some sway? That’s the sort of stuff traditionally met with journalistic lectures not only on the evils of conflicts of interest but on the perils of the mere appearance of such conflicts. Instead, in this instance, reporters and editors have read from the same script to diminish and discredit such concerns.
“There is no evidence to support that claim,” stated CBS News. The Hill newspaper hit the same notes: “There’s no evidence that Joe Biden was acting with his son’s interests in mind.” Esquire declared there is “no evidence Joe Biden made any effort to protect his son’s interests as Vice President.”
Reporting on corruption at Burisma, the Wall Street Journal was quick to assure readers “there is no evidence to suggest they [the Bidens] broke any laws.” As for the allegations that Hunter personally profited from his father’s position, Politico seemed to contradict Hunter himself, casting them as “claims for which there is no evidence.”
But none have outdone the New York Times. As far back as May, the Times pronounced “No evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal.” Last month, the Times declared at least half a dozen times that there was “no evidence” of Biden wrongdoing.
There is ample evidence for key parts of the story. Hunter Biden, for example, has publicly admitted he exhibited “poor judgment” in taking money from Burisma. The Obama administration was concerned enough about Hunter Biden’s employment that Marie Yovanovitch was coached on how to answer questions about it in her Senate confirmation hearing to be ambassador to Ukraine.
For those who might find the repeated assertions that there is “no evidence” of Biden wrongdoing overly generous to Hunter Biden, there are good reasons for even them to embrace it in other contexts. Under the Biden Standard, editors would be encouraged to take out their blue pencils and mark unsubstantiated accusations with the simple and obvious acronym.
Jon Marshall is an assistant professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. He advocates an even-handed standard of proof that is strict by today’s usual practice. “I think for journalists to count something as ‘evidence,’ there needs to be a reliable, verifiable source of information,” he says. “Examples of what I would count as evidence include court documents, government studies or data, scientific reports, business records, and a reporter’s own investigations to name a few.”
To date, Donald Trump has not enjoyed the benefits of the Biden Standard. When the Christopher Steele “dossier” was made public, the media reaction was to believe it – or at least to entertain it – unless and until it was disproven. Instead of demanding evidence to prove the claims, reporters said the allegations were just as yet “unverified.”
Back in January 2017, when the dossier was new on the scene, NPR called it an “explosive — but unverified – document that alleges collusion between Russia and President-elect Donald Trump.” Under the Biden Standard it would have read that the dossier “alleges without evidence collusion. …”
When the Mueller report finally came out, the New York Times allowed “some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false.” And yet the Times was still not prepared to let go of the story of “Mr. Trump’s alleged dalliance with prostitutes” in Moscow, which the Times declared “neither proved nor disproved.” But of course, the “alleged dalliance” could have been proved, and easily: just produce the supposed tape. In the absence of the tape, the Biden Standard should apply. It’s simple: If there isn’t evidence, there isn’t evidence.
Marshall of the Medill School would set the bar even higher: When it comes to the Steele dossier, “I would not have published it, as some news outlets did,” he says, “unless a reliable source substantiated it.”
If it’s important to distinguish true from false allegations about Hunter Biden – and it is – then it is just as important to do so for Donald Trump. That means thinking seriously about what counts as evidence and how to test for counterfeit claims. Most important, it means applying those standards equally.
A case can be made for adopting the Trump Standard or the Biden Standard, but it’s hard to justify switching between the two in what can only be called a double standard.
The Democrats promised the public hearings into the impeachment of President Donald Trump would produce bombshells proving he should be removed from office. Thus far, they’ve failed, making it hard to take the whole thing seriously.
After weeks of closed-door hearings, allegations that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaches witnesses and multiple “key witnesses” trotted out before the cameras in the past few days, the best they seem to be able to come up with is “Heard it from a friend who… Heard it from a friend who… Heard it from another Trump’s been messin’ around.”
They sound like a bad REO Speedwagon cover band, not serious attesters to presidential malfeasance.
In fact, as numerous Republican critics of the process have pointed out, the whole thing stinks. The impeachment train has been warming up since January 20, 2017. The first story in The Washington Post on the possibility appeared online just about 20 minutes after he’d finished taking the oath of office. All the train needed was a destination and, with the allegation that the president withheld crucial military aid to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for corruption, it finally found one.
The problem, as is becoming clear for the Democrats, is the lack of proof there was ever a quid, let alone a pro quo. Which is probably why they’ve stopped talking about things in those terms and are instead throwing around words like “bribery,” saying “hearsay can be much better” than direct evidence and musing about whether the president exceeded his authority by firing the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine (spoiler alert: he didn’t). They’re adding to the sense of wrongdoing without offering, as of yet anyway, definitive proof it occurred because it’s more important, for political purposes, to make the president look guilty than to prove he is.
What we’re witnessing is the extension of politics by other—some might say illegitimate—means. Even if they cannot engineer his removal from office, the Democrats who lead the resistance have been working overtime for the entire length of his presidency to lessen his chances in 2020. They’re using official government resources in Washington and in the states to do opposition research, to blacken his reputation, to create narratives that will remain in the mind of the public and influence their vote the next time around. It’s unseemly—and one does not have to be a supporter of the president to admit that.
What Schiff has done up to this point reminds me of the old cooking shows my grandmother used to watch. They’d show the chef prepare some elaborate dish, put it in the oven and then—after cutting away to commercial—serve it up. The magic of TV made you overlook the fact there wasn’t enough time during the break for the dish to cook. What was served had already been prepared, just like what we’re seeing in the testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The whole business has been baked in advance.
From Schiff’s committee, the investigation will move, at least according to the rules as we now understand them, to the House Judiciary Committee. There, the grounds for removing the president from office will be established and the actual articles of impeachment will be thrashed out. Hopefully, the institution of the presidency will be treated with more respect than Schiff is showing it, but that’s unlikely. The Democrats are on a mission and intend to see it through.
It’s unfortunate the current president is seen by so many Americans as unlikable. It makes it hard to see the line between his personal interests and the nation’s institutional—a division he has admittedly done much to blur all on his own. The precedents being set now by Schiff and company will give future congressional majorities a much bigger club to swing against the president and the presidency unless, as is all too often the case, the people who write about such things with a supposedly critical eye will allow for double-standards to rule the day.
We’ve seen it before. A cover-up without an underlying crime was still a crime when it involved Richard Nixon. When it involved Bill or Hillary Clinton, not such much—at least as far as the majority of the punditocracy was willing to state. The fact they liked they Clintons and didn’t like Nixon had a lot to do with it, just as what is going on now has so very much to do with how many of the media’s elite guard simply cannot stand Trump.
A study conducted by Washington Post reporters uncovered evidence of a gender and racial pay gap at their own newspaper.
A contractual agreement between the Washington Post Newspaper Guild and the Post allowed the union to compile a report detailing how female reporters and editors as a group were paid less than their male counterparts. The analysis, released Wednesday, also found that people of color were paid less than white men even when controlling for age and job description.
“The pay disparity between men and women is most pronounced among journalists under the age of 40,” the union said in a press release. “When adjusting for similar age groups, which in most cases is a good stand-in for years in journalism, it becomes clear that the pay disparity between men and women exists almost exclusively among employees under the age of 40.”
The report also found racial disparities in the paper’s performance evaluation results, which are a key metric for determining compensation.
“The Post tends to give merit raises based on performance evaluation scores, but those who score the highest are overwhelmingly white,” it continues. “But in 85 percent of instances in which a 4 or higher [out of 5] was awarded to a salaried newsroom employee, that employee was white…. On the flip side, 37 percent of scores below 3 were given to employees of color in the newsroom (the newsroom is about 24 percent nonwhite).”
The full report, compiled by a team of dozens of Post reporters and led by Pulitzer Prize-winner Steven Rich, also contained testimonials of pay discrimination in the workplace. One female reporter described how she learned that “the man who previously held her job, a reporter of the same age with more managerial experience but a fraction of her experience at the Post, was making $50,000 more than her.”
Another woman described learning that every single male journalist on her reporting team was paid more than her, “even though she’s been at the Postlonger than all of them and has been working in journalism longer than most of them. One of the men on her team is paid more than $30,000 more than her.”
In one bright spot for the paper, the report found that men and women on the commercial side of the business are paid about the same, though the median pay for employees of color was about 5 percent lower than their white employees. That disparity increases when adjusted for age, “suggesting that employees of color in commercial are paid less than their white peers despite having more experience.”
In a statement to the Free Beacon, the Post said it is “committed to paying employees fairly for the work they perform, and we believe that we do so, taking into account relevant factors like position, years of experience, and performance. It is regrettable that the Guild published a report on pay that does not appear to accurately account for these and other relevant factors, which have nothing to do with race or gender.”
“We believe the report is seriously flawed,” they added. “It is disappointing that the Guild chose to issue it—the Post told the Guild before its release that we had many questions about their methodology.”
President Donald Trump announced the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Sunday morning in an address to the nation after a Saturday night raid in northwest Syria.
“He died like a dog, he died like a coward,” Trump said.
Baghdadi’s death marks the execution of the world’s most dangerous terrorist since Osama Bin Laden’s killing in 2011. Baghdadi, the founder of the Islamic State, otherwise known as “ISIS” or “ISIL,” oversaw the extrajudicial killings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig and Muadh al-Kasasbeh capturing international attention in addition to the slaughtering of hundreds more.
The obituary from the Washington Post however, framed one of the world’s most brutal terrorists as an “austere religious scholar.”
“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48,” read the initial published headline from one of America’s leading newspapers.
The headline published was actually the second headline picked by the paper, which at first read, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48.”
They had it right the first time.
The Washington Post changed the headline on its Al-Baghdadi obituary from “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-Chief” to “austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State.”
The headline has since been changed to “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.”
While the Post eventually made the headline somewhat better, though they were spot-on the first time, the obituary still reads remarkably well-disposed touting the ISIS leader’s academic credentials and career building his vast terrorist empire responsible for torturing countless innocent people.
The Post, after chronicling Baghdadi’s rise to power, waited until the 40th paragraph of the obituary to mention Baghdadi was also a serial rapist for much of the last decade.
“Later, former hostages would reveal that Mr. Baghdadi also kept a number of personal sex slaves during his years as the Islamic State’s leader, including slain American hostage Kayla Mueller and a number of captured Yazidi women. U.S. officials corroborated the accounts,” the Post wrote.
A rare and special joy is watching a left-winger get red-pilled in real-time, in public, right before all our eyes. This seems to be the case with Marianne Williamson.
The term “red-pilling” is often bandied about on social media, frequently by people who have no idea what it means—or take it to mean “red” in the sense of Republican red states. The concept comes from the documentary “The Matrix,” and is defined in my book as “demonstrating to someone that what is presented as fact by the corporate press and entertainment industries is only (at best) a shadow of what is real, that this supposed reality is in fact a carefully constructed narrative intentionally designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power and to keep everyone else tame and submissive.”
Given the overwhelmingly hard-left agenda within corporate media, red-pilling far more frequently occurs on the right hand of the political spectrum. Yet there are plenty of red-pilled leftists as well, voice like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey, who have no problem slamming outlets like The New York Times for what can charitably be described as malfeasance.
A rare and special joy is watching a left-winger get red-pilled in real-time, in public, right before all our eyes. This seems to be the case with quixotic Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.
It’s hard not to like Williamson. She became a social media darling after her debut at the June 27 Democratic debate, where some of her responses seemed like utter non sequiturs.
When the candidates were asked by moderator Chuck Todd, “What is that first issue you are going to push?” as president, Williamson replied: “My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the best place in the world for a child in the world to grow up. And I will tell her, ‘Girlfriend, you are so on, because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up.’”
One can only imagine a jubilant President Williamson slamming down the phone, while in the middle of the night in Wellington a befuddled Prime Minister Ardern stares at the receiver listening to a dial tone: “Hello?…Madame President?…Hello, are you there?…Marianne, was that really you?”
We live in a time where “secular” saints like Greta Thunberg berate us from our televisions, and we are expected to regard the tantrums of hysterical teenagers as not only of interest but as sources of guidance and wisdom: “I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean!” I’m old enough to remember how Willy Wonka handled such Verucas Salt. Yet for every lefty Thunberg, there are many genuine saints among the bleeding hearts of the left, and Williamson appears to be one of those.
Williamson’s “A Politics of Love” was published this past April, and testifies she is a genuinely kind-hearted person interested in bettering lives (or a sociopath who is good at passing). She recounts how one of her students asked her: “Aren’t you just an aging hippie?” and does not seem to shy away from the label. Williamson comes to politics from activism, but an activism based on gathering results rather than social-media attention.
If someone is interested in helping those in need at a local level, a volunteer’s political association falls almost entirely by the wayside. When there are sick people who need food, the questions become “Can you cook?” “Do you have a car to deliver the meals?” “Can you call donors to raise money?” not “Do you think gun laws are inherently unconstitutional?” or “Do you think overseas warmongering lead to blowback here?”
Williamson’s book begins memorializing life and death in the time of AIDS, much like Cynthia Carr did so well in “Fire in the Belly,” her masterpiece biography of artist and activist David Wojnarowicz (1954-92). “I began lecturing on A Course in Miracles, a book of spiritual psychology, in 1983,” she writes. “I remember saying over and over, at lecture after lecture and support group after support group, ‘There doesn’t have to be a cure for AIDS for it to become a chronic, manageable condition. There isn’t a cure for diabetes, but it’s a manageable condition!’ We survived on that hope, articulating it over and over with tears in our eyes.”
Although Williamson constantly mentions “miracles” in her books and interviews, having realistic hope can be wonderfully inspirational. Telling a homeless person he can get to a mansion is an absurdity. Telling him he can get to an apartment with four housemates is a possibility.
During the debates Williamson failed to mention that she founded Project Angel Food 30 years ago. It’s an organization dedicated to feeding, free of charge, people living with AIDS when it was a far more serious and stigmatized condition than it is today. Her reward for this has been animus and vitriol from those who should ostensibly on her side.
The uniquely repellent Samantha “there is no smug liberal problem” Bee publicly called on Williamson to end her presidential campaign. “I am so loving your vibe,” Bee sneered, “so I wanted to invite you over to my show for a very chill, very serious dropout campaign dropout party.”
Williamson’s reaction was to this and other such moments of alleged wit was caught on a hot-mic moment: “What does it say that Fox News is nicer to me than the lefties are?” she mused. “What does it say that the conservatives are nicer to me?…You know, I’m such a lefty. I mean, I’m a serious lefty…I didn’t think the left was as mean as the right, they are.”
Early last week, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard dropped what was essentially a red pill on the Democratic field, explicitly saying, “The 2016 Democratic primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.” Not biased, but rigged. Not “Fox News,” but “corporate media.” Gabbard claimed to be considering boycotting the debate.
Williamson—who did not meet the debate criteria—agreed with Gabbard’s assessment. “I have great respect for Tulsi for saying such inconvenient truth,” Williamson tweeted. “She is absolutely correct.”
One of the ways orthodox progressives get their agenda across is using the corporate press to give the impression that all decent, right-thinking people agree with them. For this to be true, one would have to accept that Williamson is indecent, and the average corporate journalist is. One would have to accept the blue pill.
Back in the old days, it was understood that reporters were supposed to hunt down stories and seek out hidden truths. There was even a name for it. A good reporter was said to have a nose for news.
So what happened? How did we reach the point where journalists presented with a major scandal — an almost self-evident abuse of power — just yawn and turn away?
Obviously, I am not talking about President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. That topic, along with the “whistleblower” complaint filed about it, has turned reporters into hornets hit with a smoke bomb. They instantly flew into an involuntary frenzy and chased after Trump and his supporters with stingers at the ready. We were assured that Trump had used the powers of the presidency to “gather dirt” on his political opponent (Joe Biden) and threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine until prosecutors there had manufactured evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter, who for no doubt entirely innocent reasons was drawing hefty paychecks from a Ukrainian energy company.
The mad cry of “Impeachment!” was shouted in celebratory tones throughout the hallowed halls of D.C. The narrative came together seamlessly within hours, as suddenly the Democrats in Congress and the information gatekeepers in the news media informed us with one voice that this was bad for President Trump. Very bad.
It was almost as though the facts didn’t matter. They certainly didn’t matter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who announced an “impeachment inquiry” before having read either the whistleblower complaint or the actual transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky. Nor did they matter to news anchors, editors and reporters, who somehow all magically became experts on political corruption in the Ukraine, Hunter Biden’s corporate history, and impeachment itself.
Remarkably, the public confession of former Vice President (and soon-to-be former 2020 Democratic front-runner) Joe Biden that he had applied pressure to the former Ukrainian president in order to get a prosecutor fired attracted zero interest from the lethargic newshounds at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Nor did the fact that the actual call between Trump and Zelensky revealed no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demand from Trump other than what you would expect from any president — that the laws be faithfully executed.
Instead of expressing curiosity about why the Bidens had been the subject of a criminal investigation in Ukraine, reporters fell into lockstep with the Democrats’ impeachment narrative. Everywhere you turned for the last two weeks, whenever a reporter was talking about Biden at all, it was to talk about how he was being maligned by Trump, that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing, that the claim that he had gotten a prosecutor fired to protect his son was a “debunked conspiracy theory.”
When you asked who cleared Biden, you got no answer except the news media themselves. When you asked who debunked the claim that Biden had pressured the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor by threatening to withhold aid, you got no response except that other European countries also wanted the prosecutor fired (as if that proved anything). When the president stymied the impeachment narrative by releasing the transcript compiled by national security officials who listened in on the offending phone call, which proved that the whistleblower was actually blowing smoke, the media circled the wagons. The Washington Post created its own conspiracy theory that up to two-thirds of the call between Trump and Zelensky had mysteriously been elided into non-existence. I debunked that far-left conspiracy theory myself, but hardly any mainstream reporter seems interested in looking at the facts.
From ABC News: “Trump is referring to unfounded allegations that as vice president, Biden tried to protect his son by stopping an investigation into the Ukrainian company that his son worked for.”
From NBC News: “There is no evidence either Biden did anything wrong.”
You can find the same dubious claims on channel after channel, but let’s not let supposedly pro-Trump Fox News off the hook. Ed Henry, in an exchange with commentator Mark Levin about the call with the Ukrainian president, asked, “You’re OK with one president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate?”
When challenged by Levin for asking a dishonest question, Henry claimed, “That’s a quote from the transcript, sir.”
Actually, it’s not, but maybe Henry was relying on a transcript of the “fake call” that Rep. Adam Schiff used to punk the president during a congressional hearing about the whistleblower. It’s like a grade-school game of Telephone, where you start with a perfectly innocent conversation between two world leaders talking about political corruption and send it through three levels of hearsay, anonymous sources, and biased reporters, and you wind up at “There are naked pictures of Trump in Vladimir Putin’s safe.” Say what?
If you need irrefutable evidence of the curious lack of curiosity in the mainstream media, you need look no further than Peter Schweizer, the author of “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.” Chapter 4 of that book is titled succinctly “Bidens in Ukraine.”
Schweizer recently sat for an hour-long interview with Levin on “Life, Liberty & Levin,” where he talked about the extensive evidence of corruption against the Bidens. If you want a real whistleblower, Schweizer is your man.
As vice president, Joe Biden had oversight of U.S. relations with just two countries for the Obama administration — Ukraine and China. As we now know, Hunter Biden had lucrative contracts with companies in both of those countries, but let’s just focus on Ukraine and the energy company named Burisma that hired the younger Biden as a consultant, adviser and board member.
“What’s important … to note,” Schweizer told Levin, “is that Hunter Biden has no background in energy, he has no background in Ukraine. He’s being hired to help them with regulatory compliance. I don’t know how he’s going to help them with that, but that’s really not the reason he was hired.”
He was being paid $83,000 a month by Burisma, which Schweizer says is “probably the most corrupt company in Ukraine” and was founded by an oligarch with funds stolen from the Ukrainian government. The rest of the story, as told by Schweizer:
“The point is that Hunter Biden joined forces with a very corrupt oligarch, got a big payday, and he got a payday that he didn’t deserve … because he wasn’t selling his expertise. He had none, and the key question here that no one seems to want to ask in the media is, ‘What was he being paid for?’ He wasn’t being paid for his expertise. What was he being paid for, and what were the Ukrainians expecting to get in return? And I think when you overlay the financial payments with the fact that Joe Biden is point person on Obama administration policy to Ukraine, was steering billions of dollars of Western money to Ukraine, it becomes crystal clear exactly why they were paying him money. They wanted access and they wanted to influence Joe Biden. And Joe Biden’s been around a long time and he had to know exactly why his son was being paid this money.”
Sadly, the Washington press corps has displayed no such awareness. Far be it from them to show the slightest curiosity in the published and unchallenged assertions by Schweizer that our former vice president was a corrupt manipulator who enabled his son to enrich himself and then helped him evade prosecution.
It is important to note that “Secret Empires” was published in March 2018, a year and a half ago. Yet as Levin elicited from Schweizer, the author has not been contacted by a single Democrat chairman in the House to testify, nor by a single Republican chairman in the Senate. The media is no more curious.
“When my book came out, it hit No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list,” said Schweizer. “I got no contact whatsoever from the mainstream media. They don’t want to hear any of it. Part of it is there is a caste system in Washington, D.C., that they protect. Now, I think one of the reasons that there is so much animosity towards Trump … is that he represents a massive disruption to the business model of Washington, D.C., which is you come in, you juice in your family, you juice in your friends, you serve in public service, you come out rich and when you leave office you cash in even further. … [Trump] represents a threat and a challenge to that, and they don’t like it.”
The voters who elected Trump had better wake up before it is too late. The idea was to “Drain the Swamp,” not to protect the swamp critters. As Schweizer concludes, “If it’s not possible to investigate Joe Biden now, then it’s never possible to investigate him.”
We might add: If it’s not possible for the corrupt news media to do their job now, then when will they? Don’t hold your breath.
'I'm just so surprised that candidates are making conclusions here that are impossible to make'
Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough ripped the New York Times‘s decision to run a story about new allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh without including vital context about the story.
The Times published an essay adapted from a forthcoming book about the Kavanaugh confirmation battle in which two Times reporters claimed to have “uncovered a previously unreported story” about alleged sexual misconduct during Kavanaugh’s college years.
“A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student,” the Times reporters wrote. They added that this allegation “echoes” the allegation made by Deborah Ramirez, who alleged Kavanaugh “thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent” during a party in college.
On Sunday night, the Times added a note to the story correcting a factual omission. The reporters excluded that the victim of Stier’s alleged incident “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
“Wait a second, a woman who Stier claims was abused by Kavanaugh, has she denied this? Has she claimed this happened? Why is there this glaring omission in The New York Times story? There were Molly Hemingway and others on Twitter were saying that, in fact, she had no recollection of this happening and her friends were saying the same thing,” Scarborough said.
“And I could not believe The New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it. Are you surprised 24 hours—is it 24 hours went by before they clarified that fact?” he said, adding the article also did not note that Stier was the opposing counsel to Kavanaugh during their work on the Monica Llewinsky scandal.
“I don’t understand why they didn’t put this information in the article. Did that strike you as strange?”
“Yeah, that’s certainly good context being provided here about Stier. We were talking about this yesterday and were puzzled and remain so that if the woman involved is saying that she didn’t remember, that raises questions about the piece,” Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire responded. “Certainly, The New York Times has made their own editorial judgments about what should be included.
Scarborough pointed out each of the major three allegations against Kavanaugh had issues with corroborating witnesses.
“Here we have, again, a New York Times piece where Brett Kavanaugh is accused of something and, again, the very woman who was the alleged victim in this alleged incident is saying she doesn’t recall it happening,” he said.
Brzezinski addressed the political implications of the new allegations. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called on Kavanaugh to resign, along with fellow 2020 candidates Beto O’Rourke (D.), Julian Castro (D.), and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D.). Both former Vice President Joe Biden (D.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) called for further investigation into the allegations.
“There has not been any new statements from any of the candidates since the Times updated the story overnight, that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode,” Brzezinski said, pointing out there are still many unanswered questions.
“I’m just so surprised that candidates are making conclusions here that are impossible to make, again.”
By Fox News•
The New York Times is outraged that a Trump-affiliated group is exposing old bigoted tweets made by a Times staffer.
Members of the media haven’t thought twice about using past words to cancel the careers of anyone outside their own political world.
They’ll use anything that, by today’s standards, looks “problematic.” But it’s hypocrisy.
When the Times unearths a controversial comment, the newspaper calls it “scrutinizing people in positions of power.”
But return the favor by exposing one of its own journalists for anti-Semitic tweets, and you are “seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organization.”
Ha. They pretend their organization hasn’t been in a position of power for a century, using it and abusing it as they see fit, making billions pushing an ideology that holds you in disdain.
Meanwhile, Huffington Post Editor Lydia Polgreen says that outing public statements “should worry anyone who cares about independent journalism.”
But why? Surely journalists should welcome this scrutiny. Or is this the kind of “speaking truth to power” they hate?
Maybe it’s time to give the gander what it’s been doing to the goose by targeting the hall monitors with their own words. The media are being taught a lesson about ruining the lives of others for ideological spite and sport.
And that maybe forgiveness should be applied to all of us, not just those who work for the Times.
Reporters have a responsibility to challenge the assumptions and exaggerations of activists.
Last weekend, the former chairman of psychiatry at Duke University, Dr. Allen Frances, claimed that Donald Trump “may be responsible for many more million deaths” than Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong combined. Frances, author of the fittingly titled “Twilight of American Sanity,” would later clarify by tweeting that he was talking about the “[t]errible damage Trump is doing to world climate at this global warming tipping point may be irreversable/could kill hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades.”
That’s quite the bold statement, considering the hefty death toll the Big Three extracted. But, really, it isn’t that shocking to hear. Frances’ pseudohistoric twaddle comports well with the pseudoscientific twaddle that’s been normalized in political discourse. Every year Democrats ratchet up the doomsday scenarios, so we should expect related political rhetoric to become correspondingly unhinged.
All of this is a manifestation of 50 years of scaremongering on climate change. Paul Ehrlich famously promised that “hundreds of millions of people” would “starve to death,” while in the real world we saw hunger precipitously drop, and the world become increasingly cleaner. Yet, neo-Malthusians keep coming back with fresh iterations of the same hysteria, ignoring mankind’s ability to adapt.
At a 2005 London conference of “concerned climate scientists and politicians” that helped launch contemporary climate rhetoric, attendees warned that the world had as little as 10 years before the Earth reached “the point of no return on global warming.” Humans, they claimed, would soon be grappling with “widespread agricultural failure,” “major droughts,” “increased disease,” “the death of forests,” and the “switching-off of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream,” among many other calamities.
Since then, the Earth has gotten greener. This year, for the first time since we began logging data in 2000, there were no “extreme” or “exceptional” droughts across the contiguous United States—although we’ve come close to zero on numerous occasions over the past decade. Every time there’s a drought anywhere in the world, climate change will be blamed. But world crop yields continue to ensure that fewer people are hungry than ever. I’m not a scientist, but I assume the North Atlantic Gulf Stream is still with us.
It doesn’t matter. Four years after the last point of no return was reached, the noted naturalist David Attenborough warned the world at a United Nations climate change summit that “collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
Climate change is always an extinction-level event. When the Democratic National Committee rejected counterproductive single-issue debates this week (climate change being the most notable), a member complained, “If an asteroid was coming to Earth, there would be no question about having a debate about it, but with this existential crisis facing the world, we all sit and wring our hands.” This is how a lot of Democrats speak. They are never challenged.
And if you truly believe a slight variation in climate is comparable to an asteroid barreling towards the Earth—and if we trust their rhetoric, every Democrat presidential candidate does—why wouldn’t you support the authoritarian policy proposals of the Green New Deal?
And why wouldn’t you accuse those who oppose more solar panel subsidies and tax hikes of being mass murderers? Why wouldn’t you celebrate the death of philanthropists like David Koch? These people are literally “spinning us all toward environmental doom.”
On climate change, you can say virtually anything, and no one will challenge your zealotry.
Recently I noticed that CNN, where Frances accused the president of being the worst mass murderer in history without any pushback, refers to “climate change” as the “climate crisis” in news stories—which is editorializing, not reporting.
If journalists did their jobs, they would contest some of the assumptions and exaggerations that have now congealed as “crisis” in their newsrooms. Not necessarily the science, but the predictive abilities of scientists or the hyperbolic statements of politicians. But how can any reporter be skeptical of anyone when news organizations have already conceded that what they’re covering is a “crisis?” It would be an apostasy. Chuck Todd won’t give any airtime to “deniers,” but he’ll open his show any Chicken Little who can get elected.
Not long ago, candidates and mainstream media outlets like CNN were acting as if floods in the Midwest were an unprecedented environmental disaster. In reality, deaths from extreme weather have dropped somewhere around 99.9 percent since the 1920s. Tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and extreme temperatures can still be killers, but thanks to increasingly affordable fossil-fueled heating and air-conditioning systems, safer buildings, and better warning systems—among other technological advances—the vast majority of Americans will never have to fear weather in any genuine way.
Put it this way: Since 1980, death caused by all natural disasters and heat and cold is well under 0.5 percent of the total.
Yet, never, to my recollection, has a mainstream reporter asked an environmental activist why, if the world is headed towards Armageddon, humans are better off now than they were 50 years ago, or 20 years ago or 10 years ago? Climate change is supposedly in full swing, yet fewer people are hungry, fewer people are displaced, and we have to fight fewer wars over resources. Extreme poverty has steeply dropped over the past 30 years. There is no evidence that this trajectory is about to change.
Worse, instead of conveying this good news, the media keeps cherrypicking problems without any context. They’ve convinced large swaths of young Americans that everything is getting worse, when the opposite is true.
Nearly every day, I read some new chilling climate change story. “Climate Change Is Driving An Increase In A Deadly Flesh-Eating Bacteria And Spreading It To New Areas,” says BuzzFeed. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of reported cases of the “Vibrio” illness has more than tripled since 1997, from 386 to 1,256 in 201. The same day I read about the Deadly Flesh-Eating Bacteria, I read, in far less dramatic terms, about a new pill that researchers believe might be able to prevent a third of all heart attacks and strokes, potentially saving millions of lives.
Or take The Washington Post, which recently offered a beautifully packaged article written by a long-time environmental activist turned “reporter.” It cobbled together stories of suffering under climate change. What it failed to point out is that the vast majority of Americans rely on cheap energy and will never have to alter our lifestyles because of the climate—other than perhaps using air conditioning a few extra days.
We’re going to have to learn to deal with Deadly Flesh-Eating Bacteria, because the billions of people who once lived (and live) in disease-ridden areas in the developing world will want heart pills and cars and air conditioners. No sane nation is going to run its economy on expensive and unproductive energy sources.
Some people will argue that the failure of previous scares to materialize doesn’t mean this one isn’t real. Some people will argue human adaptation doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t happening. Of course not. But adaptation is the point.
The story of humankind is one of acclimatization. We use technological advances and efficiencies to deal with change. We will adapt to organic and anthropogenic changes, as we always do, because it’s a lot cheaper than dismantling modernity. That’s the reality, no matter how hysterical activists get on TV.
The Democrats clearly don’t need to spend a dime on the 2020 presidential election campaign when they have almost the entire mainstream media doing free infomercials for them, and with just about the same level of authenticity and reliability as you would expect from those ads for Miss Cleo’s Psychic Friends Network.
It’s hard to know why the networks and cable news channels don’t have to declare their in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party when it is so obvious that their No. 1 goal is getting Donald Trump out of office. You can’t really blame the First Amendment because neither you nor I can make unlimited donations to the candidate of our choice or else it’s called (cue the scary music here) “daarrrrrrk money.” Our political speech is not protected by the First Amendment, so neither should the blatantly biased political speech of phony journalists who are less interested in reporting facts than expressing outrage.
Take this example from last week on MSNBC:
“If it’s Tuesday: Divide and conquer. The White House offers up a few changes to the famous Statue of Liberty poem about immigrants, putting the spotlight once again on the president’s campaign to stoke racial division.”
No. If it’s Tuesday, it’s Kasie Hunt making up stuff on “MTP Daily” to hurt President Trump because Chuck Todd is too busy stroking his own ego to do the job. There, I fixed it.
And in case you missed the meme, the new libel on President Trump is that he is a racist. This campaign may not have the traction of the Russian treason libel, which was able to last for three years on the basis of a phony dossier paid for by his political opponents in the Democratic Party, but NBC and the rest of the Democrat cheerleaders in the Fake News Media don’t care. They know they just need the public to buy their lie about Trump being a racist for a little over a year, and with their experience in spreading manure — er, I mean propaganda — they are no doubt confident that they can add Trump’s scalp to their closet of Republican trophies.
So back to the deplorable Kasie Hunt (and I mean that in the original sense of someone loathsome) and her campaign of hate against Trump. Here was how she started her program last Tuesday:
“There is no longer any question about what kind of campaign the president is running. He is staking his reelection on stoking racial division — with megaphones and with dog whistles. After just yesterday announcing a plan to penalize legal immigrants who rely on public benefits like Medicaid or food stamps, a top immigration official suggested a rewrite to the poem on the Statue of Liberty.”
Actually, he didn’t. In response to a question by Rachel Martin on NPR, Ken Cuccinelli agreed that the words “Give me your tired, your poor” are part of “the American ethos,” but he pointed out that we expect immigrants to “stand on their own two feet, and … not become a public charge.”
This is hardly a novel idea. In fact, it has been on the books in one form or another since 1882, when the United States government passed its first comprehensive immigration law. The idea is simple, too. Don’t expect to move to the United States if you can’t support yourself. This seems like a pretty reasonable request from a country with a $22.5 trillion national debt.
It also, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It applies to all people without regard to race. If anyone has a campaign “to stoke racial division,” it is MSNBC, which hears a dog whistle every time the wind blows. (By the way, why is it OK to refer to Trump voters as dogs? I never did figure that one out.)
After making her case that President Trump is following a “strategy of stoking racial division” that supposedly worked in 2016, Hunt said, “The question now: Will it work it 2020, and what are Democrats doing to fight against it?”
Cue the all-Democrat infomercial panel to confirm Ms. Hunt’s anti-Trump bias and repeat back to her that Trump is indeed a racist pig, or dog, or some such non-human species. They dutifully responded as expected, but not to be outdone by her guests, Hunt then raised the stakes by stating as a matter of fact that “clearly the president is ready to wage a race war.”
Say what? Did she really just say that? Yep, and if you are like most Americans, this is the point where you turned off MSNBC and asked what planet these people live on! President Trump’s war is against Fake News, not against people of color.
Again, immigration reform has nothing to do with race, and the United States is not obligated to allow entry by everyone who wishes to move here. Indeed, the government has a responsibility to vet those who seek visas and those who seek green cards. To presume otherwise is insane.
When you move to a new country, before you become a citizen you are essentially in the position of a potential tenant hoping to rent a bedroom. That metaphor allows people to see the illogic of the leftist position, which is based on the idea of giving the tenant more power than the homeowner.
If, as a homeowner, you decide to rent out a room in your home, you will commonly ask for references from the prospective tenant, and usually a credit check as well. Why? To make sure that the person can support him- or herself and will not prove to be a drag on you and your family. For peace of mind, it’s also worth checking to see if they’ve ever murdered anyone. That’s called a background check.
To think that the greatest country in the world would do any less to protect the safety and security of its citizens is just plain wrong. Anyone who would invite a stranger into their own home without knowing anything about them is a chump. If you want to pay the stranger’s way, that’s your business — but don’t ask the taxpayers to do it!
There’s no race war, and what’s worse, there’s no outrage at MSNBC for having a host who says there is without evidence. No repercussions, no discipline, no nothing. Crickets. Maybe that’s because everyone already knows that MSNBC isn’t a news organization at all — just a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
A recently released transcript shows just how biased the New York Times really is and how little they want to do to fix it.
This week, Slate released a transcript of a meeting held by New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and his staff. The meeting was apparently called because of reaction to a headline about Donald Trump’s speech in the wake of the El Paso shooting. But much of the meeting was concerned with something else: when and how the paper of record should use the term “racist.”
Before getting to that subject specifically, though, a few general thoughts about the meeting. As a conservative, what leaps off the page is the fact that the staffers actually seem to think the paper skews right, and they want it to skew more progressive. One staffer seemed to call on Baquet to hire radically and aggressively progressive scribe Roxanne Gay as the public editor.
This reminds me of Yankees fans who call into sports radio to say Yanks general manager Brian Cashman is bad at his job because he failed to acquire a middle reliever at the trade deadline. Forget the fact that he’s won championships and has put together a juggernaut this season, he stinks. The overwhelming majority of everything the Times prints skews left. It’s amazing that the staff doesn’t understand this. Even rare examples of conservative ideas are too much for them.
The conversation about the use of the term “racist” was telling in this respect. The underlying subtext was, “Is Donald Trump a racist?” “Are his supporters racist?” On this, all parties seemed to agree that the answer is yes — at least, nobody said no. Baquet’s objection to using the term, for which he was grilled, had less to do with whether the application is accurate than what outcome using the word would have. He worried it could make the term less powerful or turn off certain readers.
When asked specifically what standard the New York Times uses in deciding to use the term racist, Baquet said this:
You know, we actually should have a written standard. I wasn’t expecting two weeks ago — and [associate managing editor for standards] Phil [Corbett] is working with me and the masthead to come up with it. I can think of examples, like, you know, the governor — was it the governor of Virginia with the costume? I mean, it’s hard for me to answer, but yes, I do think there are instances when we would use it. It’s hard for me to articulate an example of it.
To call this vague would be generous, and it’s Ralph Northam, by the way. I recently wrote about how racism is now defined by the old Potter Stewart axiom: I know it when I see it. Well, this is what that looks like. But worse, given his remarks about how the word affects readers, it is clear Baquet is less interested in establishing a clear standard for what racism is than in bringing the paper’s readership in line with his left-leaning worldview.
As it turns out, I have a little personal experience with the New York Times and the issue of racism. Several months ago, after twice having run columns there, I pitched a piece to them about how Americans have two very different and often contradictory views of what constitutes racism. The pitch was accepted, I wrote to it, and I tried, at least, to be fair to both the conservative and progressive definitions. Generally speaking, the former being based in belief and intent, the latter on systems of oppression.
A few days later, the Times rejected the piece — which, pieces get rejected. I just ran it here at The Federalist, instead. But reading this transcript, it is absolutely clear to me that even analysis of the conservative definition would have been seen as unacceptable to at least some on the staff. Take this comment from a staffer:
I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.
What this staffer is suggesting is that in a country where a recent poll showed 51% of Americans think Trump is a racist and 45% don’t, the paper of record should simply ignore the conservative viewpoint and actually do reporting based on the opinion of the 51%.
I’ve had two conversations with high-level people at the Times about conservatism and how they cover it. On both occasions, I heard a sincere desire to do so. But I also heard a woeful lack of understanding about why conservatives are so wary of their coverage. When I brought up the hiring of Sarah Jeong, who had a history of anti-white tweets, and said that obviously such tweets about any other group would bar someone from being hired, I was told “the double standard is hard to defend.”
That’s just not good enough, and though, as I say, I think they were sincere in their desire to present conservative viewpoints, not only do they not seem to grasp them, but their staff seems to be in control of the paper’s politics.
I don’t know that there is any solution to this problem, or that even if there were, most people at the Times would want to fix it. More likely, it is simply time to accept that the New York Times is a progressive newspaper, not that there’s anything wrong with that. In fact, the entire concept of objective news is a rather suspect one.
I read the New York Times, I enjoy it, sometimes I do the crossword, but to the extent I ever did, I can no longer see it as a straight paper with limited bias. This transcript makes that blatantly obvious. So, by all means, read the Times. But make sure you go in with your eyes wide open.
The Wall Street Journal is the latest media outlet to report on what’s driving the border crisis. For most Guatemalans, it’s economic opportunity, not the reported violence and bloodshed.
A report this week in the Wall Street Journal chronicles the border crisis at one of its sources, a city in Guatemala that’s emptying out as families leave for the United States, and leaves little doubt that what’s motivating most of them to leave isn’t violence or persecution, but economic opportunity.
The focus of the story is the mountainous city of Joyabaj, “population 100,000 and falling.” The United States has deported 627 people to Joyabaj in the first six months of this year, more than any other municipality in the country except Guatemala City, population 2.5 million, which saw 643 deportees from the United States over the same period. According to one school official, about 2,000 out of 16,400 first- through ninth-graders in Joyabaj’s public schools have gone north over the past 18 months.
Indeed, Guatemalans now make up the largest nationality of those arrested along the southwest border, with 235,638 Guatemalans apprehended so far this year. Of these, the vast majority are family units or unaccompanied minors. As of June, more than 167,100 family units from Guatemala had been arrested, more than the previous three years combined.
What’s driving the exodus? Grinding poverty at home, the chance to get ahead in America, and a robust smuggling industry. On this last, the Journal report is eye-opening. Radio stations in Joyabaj advertise the services of smugglers with ads that ask, “Tired of so much poverty? Tired of so much humiliation?”
Business is good. One smuggler barrels along roads in a bright yellow Hummer. He doubles as a priest in the Maya religion and is paid handsomely to perform ceremonies to insure a safe journey.
Many Guatemalans use homes and plots of farmland as collateral for high-interest loans to pay smugglers.
A popular YouTube influencer has sophisticated equipment to create videos with such titles as ‘The American Dream,’ and ‘I left for the US looking for a better life.’ Together, they have notched almost three million views. Some of the inspirational videos are, in fact, advertisements for one of the area’s most successful human smugglers.
The Journal isn’t alone in its Guatemala reporting. News organizations that have actually bothered to send people to the country have reported at length on the economic benefits of migration, how Guatemalans who sent a family member to the United States live in large, comfortable houses while those who have not live in shacks with dirt floors.
In April, the New Yorker ran an article titled, “The Dream Homes of Guatemalan Migrants,” about American-style casas de remesa, or remittance houses, “which have become ubiquitous in the country’s western highlands as a way for immigrants to invest their earnings while living abroad.”
All of this reflects what Guatemalans say about why they’re leaving. A 2016 survey by the International Organization for Migration found that more than 90 percent emigrated to the United States for economic reasons. According to the report, “56.8 percent of Guatemalans migrate in search of better employment, 32.9 percent to improve their income, 1.2 percent to buy a home, and 0.1 percent to open businesses.” Only 0.3 percent say they migrate because of violence, and 0.2 percent cite gang problems.
Meanwhile, the entire political class in Washington DC is seemingly content to pretend that none of this is happening. Rather than confront the reality that the vast majority of those crossing the border are economic migrants, media elites tend to repeat, mantra-like, that migrants are fleeing violence and crime.
Few of them ever mentioned that although the Northern Triangle remains a relatively violent place, homicide rates in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have plummeted in recent years. In Honduras, the murder rate has dropped by more than half since 2012; In El Salvador, the rate has fallen for three years in a row; and in Guatemala it has decreased by half since 2009.
Others emphasize poverty in these countries, which is understandable because poverty is rampant in this part of the world. Less emphasized is the fact that the economies of Guatemala and Honduras have grown about 3.5 percent on average in recent years (El Salvador’s GDP growth has been a bit more sluggish, at about 3 percent).
So if violence is decreasing and the economy is growing, why are so many people leaving Guatemala? The answer varies depending on the region of the country, but the common theme is that people are leaving because they are poor and have far better prospects in the United States. Subsistence farmers in the western highlands are facing crop failures due to climate change, so they pack up and leave.
In cities like Joyabaj, cheap cell phones keep people in touch with relatives in the United States, and success stories spread quickly, inspiring others to follow. As one man told the Journal, “If you work in the U.S., you get paid $12 an hour for eight hours, that’s $96 a day. Here you make 40 quetzales [$5.30] a day when there is work. Not enough to live.”
What we’re witnessing is a mass exodus from Central America driven above all by poverty but made possible by a broken asylum and immigration system in the United States. The scale of this exodus is hard to convey. About 17 million people live in Guatemala. Since October of last year, 235,638 Guatemalans have been apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol. That means over the past nine months nearly 1.4 percent of the entire population of Guatemala has been apprehended and processed by U.S. authorities.
It’s time for policymakers and establishment elites to get serious about what’s happening and quit pretending that the vast majority of those now arriving at the southwest border are anything but economic migrants doing what any of us would do in their shoes: exploit a broken U.S. asylum system to forge a better life for ourselves and our children.
Sorry, guys. It looks like the Apollo 11 moon landing is canceled.
Sure, it is neat that humanity in 1969 left Earth to set foot on an astronomical body not its own, marking man’s greatest achievement to date, but did you know the Apollo 11 space program was also overwhelmingly white and male?
This is a real complaint being raised on the 50th anniversary of the moon landing by real people in real newsrooms.
The first of such arguments come from the Washington Post, which published a tweet on July 16, that read: “The culture that put men on the moon was intense, fun, family-unfriendly, and mostly white and male.”
The report itself, authored by style writer Karen Heller, reads, “As NASA worked relentlessly to fulfill John F. Kennedy’s goal of landing a man on the moon by decade’s end, it turned to the nation’s engineers. Many of them were fresh out of school, running the gamut from mechanical to electrical engineers, because that’s mostly what was taught in universities, and almost exclusively to white men.”
“In archival Apollo 11 photos and footage, it’s a ‘Where’s Waldo?’ exercise to spot a woman or person of color,” the report adds.
The article is a fairly interesting long-read about life for the men and women who worked at Cape Canaveral in the late 1960s. The problem is: The most fascinating details are buried almost immediately under the identify politics hyped in the story’s opening as well as in its accompanying tweet.
Then there is the New York Times, which on July 17 published an op-ed written by author Mary Robinette Kowal, headlined “To Make It to the Moon, Women Have to Escape Earth’s Gender Bias.”
“The Apollo program was designed by men, for men. But NASA can learn from its failures as it aims to send women to the moon and beyond,” the subhead reads.
“If we do not acknowledge the gender bias of the early space program, it becomes difficult to move past it,” the article reads, concluding with these lines, “As we look back at the Apollo mission … it is important to examine the gender biases of the early space program for lessons learned. If we want to land the first woman on the moon, let’s make sure she has tools designed with her in mind. Eliminating the legacy of gender bias is just one small step.”
None of this compares to what the New York Times published next.
“America may have put the first man on the moon, but the Soviet Union sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit — all years before the U.S. would follow suit,” read a July 18 tweet published by the New York Times (reminder: The United States won the space race).
The accompanying article, titled “How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality,” is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, especially the kicker, which reads, “Cosmonaut diversity was key for the Soviet message to the rest of the globe: Under socialism, a person of even the humblest origins could make it all the way up.”
This is pro-Soviet Union agitprop.
The real question here is this: For whom are these article being written? It is worth noting that both the Washington Post and the New York Times have also published several articles celebrating the 50th anniversary of the moon landing. But what is the purpose of these “actually, the moon landing was bad” counterpoints?
What audience does this serve? Does such an audience even exist or are these articles merely a cynical manipulation of the hate-click economy?