RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/25/demanding-civility-nyt-publishes-fan-fiction-depicting-trumps-assassination/

The New York Times published a fictional essay fantasizing about President Trump getting assassinated the same week that explosive devices were sent to prominent political figures across the country.

After explosive devices were sent to prominent Democrats and liberal political figures — Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, and others — New York Times opinion columnist Charles M. Blow blamed Trump for creating a “toxic environment” that led to these attempted acts of terrorism.

“Trump doesn’t operate on an intellectual plane, but an emotional one, and the emotions he has learned to manipulate in politics are the darker ones,” Blow wrote, adding a summary of Trump’s speech at a rally for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas during which the president said Democrats want to “destroy American communities.”

“This is the rhetorical backdrop as we await an investigation and answers about who sent bombs to Democrats and the CNN offices,” Blow wrote.

Here’s some of the rhetorical backdrop being painted by The New York Times. In a collection of fictional essays published Tuesday, one author fantasized about a Secret Service agent helping the Russians assassinate Trump.

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

he Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

‘Here,’ the agent said politely. ‘Use mine. …’

Should The New York Times, which published Trump-killing fan fiction, be held to the same standard the it expects of the president? Or do they get to paint a rhetorical backdrop of bloodshed and get to be viewed as blameless for the fractured and hostile environment we all find ourselves in?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pipe-bombs-story-why-no-one-trusts-media/

The political Left has been known to orchestrate frame-up attacks designed to make it appear that right-leaning opponents are responsible for violent acts and plots.

If I wrote the paragraph above in the context of reporting or commenting on the pipe bombs that were reportedly sent by an unidentified person or persons to prominent Democrats, many people would react angrily, and rightly so. After all, there is no evidence that the atrocious but thankfully unsuccessful targeting of the Obamas, the Clintons, CNN, George Soros, and Eric Holder (as well as Debbie Wasserman Shultz, whose Florida office was given as the return address on some of the packages) was carried out by political leftists. There is no proof that any Democrat was hoping to cast suspicion on Republican supporters, to suggest to voters, less than two weeks before the midterms, that Trump and GOP rhetoric incites violence. To intimate, in the absence of any proof, that left-wing agitators may be responsible would be a condemnable smear.

That’s why this paragraph, by the usually sensible Will Rashbaum in the New York Times’s report on the apparent attempted bombings, is so infuriating:

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Soros and CNN have all figured prominently in conservative political attacks — many of which have been led by President Trump. He has often referred to major news organizations as “the enemy of the people,” and has had a particular animus for CNN.

The report goes on to say that the CNN bomb package was addressed to former Obama CIA director John Brennan (who is actually a commentator at MSNBC, not CNN). The Times then adds, gratuitously, that Brennan “is a harsh critic of Mr. Trump,” who revoked Brennan’s security clearance “in what was seen as an act of retribution.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/271697/american-journalist-just-died-after-racist-beating-daniel-greenfield

Search for Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi-Turkish Islamist activist who hated Jews and backed Hamas, and the results are legion.

Search for Jerry Wolkowitz, an American Jewish journalist, at the Washington Post and you get zero results.

While the Washington Post weeps and wails over Khashoggi, an anti-Semitic foreign Islamist, it has no interest in the murder of a Jewish journalist in the United States.

Jerry Wolkowitz, a longtime EMT, photojournalist and son of Jewish Holocaust survivors who was the victim of a vicious racially-motivated attack, has died at age 56 after nearly six months on life support.

On May 1, 2018, 25-year-old Jamil Hubbard allegedly approached Wolkowitz from behind and punched him in the head and face. He then allegedly pulled Wolkowitz’s body into the parking lot of his Freehold, New Jersey apartment building and ran him over with his car, leaving him for dead.

Wolkowitz was a freelance journalist and photographer for numerous publications including the Asbury Park Press. He was also an EMT and ambulance driver and volunteer with the Freehold First Aid and Rescue Squad.

There are more details and they’re horrifying.

Jerry Wolkowitz, a longtime EMT and journalist, has died nearly six months after a brutal, allegedly racially motivated beating left him on life support. He was 56.

Wolkowitz, described as an “innocent soul” by younger medics he took under his wing, was walking near his Harding Road apartment on the morning of May 1 when authorities believe 26-year-old Jamil S. Hubbard of Sayreville beat him and dragged him into a parking lot

Wolkowitz was hospitalized for weeks before being taken to a long-term care facility, where he stayed until his kidneys failed, friends said. Family members took turns to visit him each week until he died.

In the months that followed the assault, Wolkowitz’s loved ones remained by his side through infections and organ failures.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/farrakhan-im-not-an-anti-semite-im-anti-termite/

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tweeted out to his 375,000 followers yesterday that he is not an anti-Semite.

Farrakhan helpfully explained that he just hates termites.

BuzzFeed:

The tweet appears to violate Twitter’s proposed new policies around “dehumanizing” tweets, defined in a company blog post as “language that treats others as less than human … Examples can include comparing groups to animals and viruses (animalistic), or reducing groups to a tool for some other purpose (mechanistic).”

However, a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News the rules have not yet taken effect, so Farrakhan’s language is not in violation of any extant policy. The spokesperson did not give a date for when the new rule would go into effect, or if it would at all. He did not address whether Farrakhan’s tweet would be in violation were the policy in effect.

So Farrakhan’s hate on Twitter has essentially been grandfathered in. Apparently, even blatant hate speech was allowed under the “old” rules.

But also not allowed under the “old” rules — anything Twitter says is not allowed.

Stephen Green:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13129/google-censorship-china

If the big social media companies choose what to publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as media organizations.

Google has decided it will not renew a contract with the Pentagon for artificial intelligence work because Google employees were upset that the technology might be used for lethal military purposes. Yet Google is planning to launch a censored search engine in China that will empower a totalitarian “Big Brother is watching you” horror state.

Freedom Watch filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, claiming that they suppress conservative speech online.

A Media Research Center report found that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube stifle conservative speech and that in some instances staffers have admitted that doing so was intentional.

Chinese officials prevented a journalist, Liu Hu, from taking a flight because he had a low “social credit” score. According to China’s Global Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.

The internet, especially social media, has become one of the primary places for people to exchange viewpoints and ideas. Social media is where a considerable part of the current national conversation takes place.

Arguably, big tech companies, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, therefore carry a responsibility to ensure that their platforms are equally accessible to all voices in that national conversation. As private commercial entities, the social media giants are not prima facie legally bound by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and are free to set their own standards and conditions for the use of their platforms. Ideally, those standards should be applied equally to all users, regardless of political or other persuasion. If, however, these companies choose what to publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as media organizations.