RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/journalists-against-free-speech-john-tierney/

Reprinted from City Journal.

Suppose you’re the editorial-page editor of a college newspaper, contemplating the big news on campus: protesters have silenced an invited speaker and gone on a violent rampage. Should you, as a journalist whose profession depends on the First Amendment, write an editorial reaffirming the right to free speech?

If that seems like a no-brainer, you’re behind the times. The question stumped the staff of the Middlebury Campus after protesters silenced conservative social thinker Charles Murray and injured the professor who’d invited him. The prospect of taking a stand on the First Amendment was so daunting that the paper dispensed with its usual weekly editorial, devoting the space instead to a range of opinions from others—most of whom defended the protesters. When a larger and more violent mob at the University of California at Berkeley prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, students at the Daily Californian did write a forceful editorial—but not in favor of his right to speak. Instead, they reviled Yiannopoulos and denounced those who “invited chaos” by offering a platform to “someone who never belonged here.”

Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about “hate speech”—defined more and more broadly—and they’re breaking long-standing taboos as they bring “cancel culture” into professional newsrooms. They’re not yet in charge, but many of their editors are reacting like beleaguered college presidents, terrified of seeming insufficiently “woke.” Most professional journalists, young and old, still pay lip service to the First Amendment, and they certainly believe that it protects their work, but they’re increasingly eager for others to be “de-platformed” or “no-platformed,” as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and “de-monetized” on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They encourage advertising boycotts designed to put ideological rivals out of business. They’re loath to report forthrightly on left-wing censorship and violence, even when fellow journalists get attacked. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as . . . speech.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/12/new-york-times-says-trump-accusing-it-fake-news-daniel-greenfield/

I might say that the New York Times ought to be ashamed, but the paper clearly doesn’t even understand the concept. After launching a defense of Jeremy Corbyn by attacking the UK’s Chief Rabbi who called the radical leftist out for anti-Semitism, the Times, which covered up the Holocaust while it was going on to provide cover for FDR’s inaction, accuses Trump of having adopted ‘fake news’ from Hitler.

Literally. No shame.

As the historian Timothy Snyder has written in The Times, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came up with the slogan “Lügenpresse” — translated as “lying press” — in order to discredit independent journalism. Now the tactic has been laundered through an American president, Donald Trump, who adopted the term “fake news” as a candidate and has used it hundreds of times in office.

Accusing the press of lying did not originate with Hitler. Trump was not studying Nazi slogans. (Though there are alt-righters who use “lugenpresse” because they’re Nazi fans.) Plenty of American politicians have accused the media of being deceptive and dishonest.

David Brock, the Clinton lapdog, made a specialty of it. He even accused the New York Times of being right-wing.

The New York Times knows it’s spouting obscene nonsense. And it doesn’t care.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/12/01/new-york-times-faulted-for-irredeemable-and-indefensible-coverage-of-british-chief-rabbi/

The New York Times is drawing criticism for its handling of a warning by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis about antisemitism in the British Labour Party.

The Times news article reported that “Rabbi Mirvis leads a body of Orthodox congregations not only in Britain but across the Commonwealth; in Britain, those synagogues account for just over half of total synagogue membership, according to a 2010 report.” The Times went on, “Not all British Jews recognize the chief rabbi as the leader of their communities.”

The Times also reported, “some people warned that Rabbi Mirvis had sidestepped a greater threat posed to Jews and other British minority groups by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has himself been accused of making racist and Islamophobic remarks and energizing parts of the far right similar to those responsible for recent attacks on Jews in the United States.” It attributed this view to “an organization called Jews Against Boris.” The Times didn’t say how many members Jews Against Boris has, or what proportion of British Jews it represents.

It’s a classic Times double standard. When an Orthodox rabbi warns against antisemitism on the left, the Times bends over backwards to undercut his authority. Contrast it to how the Times, in three recent news articles, handled a Reform rabbi’s criticism of decisions by the Israeli and American governments or politicians.

Here is the Times reporting in December 2017 about reaction to President Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: “‘Jerusalem has always been the most delicate issue in every discussion about peace,’ said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism. ‘So we’re very concerned that the announcement will either delay or undermine the very, very important resuming of a serious peace process.’” Nothing from the Times in that article about how many American Jews Rabbi Jacobs does or doesn’t represent or about how not all American Jews recognize his authority.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/newsweek-fires-anti-trump-reporters-who-wrote-inaccurate-story-on-the-presidents-thanksgiving-plans/

Until today, Jessica Kwong was a political reporter for Newsweek. More specifically, it was her job to keep an eye on the Trump administration, the Trump family, and the 2020 race for president. This week, however, she was fired. The reason? On Thanksgiving Day, she published an article in which she claimed that the president and first lady planned to spend the holiday golfing, tweeting, “and more” some such. Sadly for her, President Trump secretly flew to Afghanistan, where he met the troops (and served them turkey).

After President Trump had landed, pro-Trump Twitter users rightfully went after her. One of her fiercest critics was First Son Donald Trump Jr. “The President spends his Thanksgiving with American troops deployed in Afghanistan, including serving them lunch,” he wrote on Twitter. “Meanwhile, over at the Fake News…”…..

That tweet was retweeted over 8,000 times, which was a sure sign that the story about the Newsweek hoax had gone viral.Afterward — and when even Kwong and her Newsweek friends couldn’t deny President Trump’s presence in Afghanistan any longer — the story was updated, as was Kwong’s tweet in which she shared the original article.

It was, she wrote, “an honest mistake.” It wasn’t nice, no, but it could happen to anyone. Or something.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/impeachment-shows-limit-media-power-daniel-greenfield/

After the media went all out to televise the impeachment committee hearings, a majority of independent voters switched from supporting impeachment to opposing impeachment.

In October, 48% of independents supported impeachment while 39% opposed it. Now 49% of independents oppose impeachment while only 39% still support it. The neat, almost perfect reversal, can be credited to the media’s fateful decision to televise the committee hearings across the networks.

The media’s error was entirely predictable.

The Russia investigation looked good in the media frame until the Mueller report came out and then Mueller was dragged in to testify about it. The impeachment bid looked good in the media lens until people actually watched committee hearings and didn’t see any of what the media had been touting.

Live by the lie, die by the lie.

The paradox of impeachment is that the media’s con artists invented it, but stories alone, the commanding heights of communications, can’t actually close the deal. Like every con job, at some point the mark actually wants to see the million dollars that Nigerian prince is offering, the brand-new Tesla for only five grand, and the papers for the Brooklyn Bridge. Individual marks can be strung along indefinitely, but there are limits to how much an entire nation can be conned. Even by the media.

Abe Lincoln had something to say about that. But, then again, he was a Republican.

The media has excelled at creating investigation narratives. Its take on the Russia investigation or the Ukraine investigation convinced a lot of people that President Trump really was guilty. But you can’t impeach someone in the media. Nor can you actually try them on MSNBC. And that’s the problem.

Elections are where the media’s power lies because all it has to do is convince voters to cast a ballot, without ever having to show its work or prove its claims. With impeachment, it has to do both.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/27/british-media-tackles-leftist-anti-semitism-while-american-media-stands-idly-by/

In what can only be deemed a train wreck of an interview, British politician Jeremy Corbyn was grilled by BBC’s Andrew Neil Tuesday night over a variety of topics, including his party’s failure to address anti-Semitism within its ranks.

Despite a mild start, Neil’s interview with the Prime Minister candidate quickly descended into chaos. Nevertheless, Neil should be wholly applauded for calling out the British left for anti-Semitism in a way U.S. mainstream media has never been able to do, despite being given ample incidents by the American Left upon which to comment.

Neil introduced the topic of anti-Semitism by offering Corbyn the opportunity to respond to the Times piece published by the UK’s Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mervis, in which Mervis claims that “a new poison – sanctioned from the top – has taken root in the Labour Party.”

Corbyn responds by stating, “I’m looking forward to having a conversation with [Rabbi Mervis] because I want to hear why he would say such a thing. So far as I’m concerned, anti-Semitism is not acceptable in any form anywhere in our society and obviously certainly not in my party, the Labour Party.” Corbyn then goes on to explain how the party has developed a “much stronger process” for addressing incidents of anti-Semitism committed by Labour members, including the sanctioning and even removal of certain members and candidates.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/27/katie-hill

Katie Hill’s saga encapsulated the establishment media’s descent from news to narrative.  What could have, and should have, been covered for any number of reasons, was ignored for one: It did not fit the establishment media’s prevailing narrative for its issue.  The episode definitively shows that in a conflict between traditional news and prevailing narrative the establishment media will choose the latter.

Not since Fats Domino found his thrill there, has a Hill made more salacious news.  In short order, the former Democrat Representative went from rising star to fallen one.  The crux of the story was clear: Accusations of a sexual relationship with a subordinate.  The story was bolstered by incriminating texts and photos, quickly leading the House Ethics Committee to initiate an investigation.

In the aftermath of the young Democrat’s denouement, “double standard” was bandied about.  Conservatives saw it with the #MeToo Movement, which had nothing to say about the allegations, despite basic elements fitting squarely within its professed purview.  Liberals saw it with Hill’s treatment versus that of men — one Hill herself cited in her final floor speech: “I’m leaving now because of a double standard…” 

If a double standard existed here, it is assuredly one more than the standard that the establishment media had in their coverage.  The establishment media, as evidenced by their lack of coverage of what by any definition used to considered news, is no longer in the news business, but in the narrative one.