Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

When Journalists Become Speech Police Charles C. W. Cooke

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/11/when-journalists-become-speech-police/

Too many in the media now seek to neuter free expression in the name of saving it.

EXCERPTS

Call it Cooke’s First Law: Whatever the story, however complex its details, members of the American press will react by announcing who must be forbidden to speak going forward.

That is what too many journalists are now — not firefighters, not mediators, not conveyors of vital information, but zealous obscurantists staffing would-be censorship agencies. In comes the news, and, within minutes, out comes the latest justification for shutting everyone up. A mentally ill homeless man attacks Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer? That’s the Republican Party’s fault for running political ads against Pelosi — and it must stop. A disturbed man shoots up a gay club in Colorado Springs, Colo.? That’s the fault of Americans who object to drag shows for kindergartners — and they must be quiet. Elon Musk plans to moderate Twitter with a lighter hand? That will cause “havoc” and put lives at risk — and it must be prevented at all costs.

Worse still is the grotesque tendency for members of the press to cast their transparently self-serving determinations as raw scientific truths. It’s not the opinion of NBC, Axios, or the Washington Post that Twitter would be better left as is; it’s a fact — as determined by the “experts.” That these “experts” have been repeatedly proven to be full of it — remember when the entirely legitimate Hunter Biden laptop story was “a Russian disinformation campaign,” and therefore needed to be suppressed just before the election? — seems not to matter. Nor, indeed, does it seem to matter that a great many of our arbiters of truth are rank hypocrites and contemptible lunatics. The temptation to cast one’s preferences as fact is a remarkably strong one, and, for now at least, many modern journalists seem entirely incapable of resisting it.

How else might one explain the contemporary New York Times, which has gotten into the infuriating habit of simultaneously contributing to, and complaining about, America’s “speech problem”? Earlier this year, the Times’ editorial board complained that “Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” This development, the editors concluded, was the inevitable product of “the political left and the right” being “caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture.”

Which . . . well, would that, by any chance, be the “condemnation and recrimination” of which the Times is routinely guilty itself?

Suspect In Colorado Springs Shooting Claims To Be ‘Non-Binary,’ Uses ‘They/Them’ Pronouns By: Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/23/suspect-in-colorado-springs-shooting-claims-to-be-non-binary-uses-they-them-pronouns/

The suspect in last weekend’s Colorado Springs mass shooting at a gay nightclub isn’t exactly the right-wing Christian boogeyman legacy media immediately painted him as.

According to The New York Times on Tuesday, 22-year-old Anderson Aldrich claims to be “non-binary” and wants other people to refer to him with the plural pronouns “they” and “them.”

“The lawyers refer to their client as Mx. Anderson Aldrich,” reported the paper’s Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs.

Aldrich has been charged with five counts of first-degree murder and five counts of a bias-motivated crime causing bodily injury related to the shooting that left five people dead and at least another 25 injured on Saturday night.

Despite few details about the suspect emerging immediately after the shooting, left-wing talking heads placed blame on conservative media in a knee-jerk fashion. Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, whose Monday night monologue included a condemnation of political violence paired with a reminder of the dangers surrounding transgender medical interventions for minors, became a primary target — despite the fact that these interventions have been shown to raise suicide risks, contrary to the left’s constant fearmongering.

Man calling for ‘voluntary human extinction’ gets glowing New York Times profile NYT compares advocate for end of humanity to ‘gentle’ ‘Mr. Rogers’

https://www.foxnews.com/media/man-calling-voluntary-human-extinction-gets-glowing-new-york-times-profile

As the country celebrates family time on Thanksgiving, The New York Times on Wednesday profiled an environmental activist lobbying for “voluntary human extinction,” comparing the man’s personality to that of the “gentle” children’s host Mr. Rogers. 

The article is headlined “Earth Now Has 8 Billion Humans. This Man Wishes There Were None” and is written by climate reporter Cara Buckley. She highlighted Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement. Their goal is an Earth without people. 

“Beyond advocating for universal access to birth control and opposing what he calls reproductive fascism, or ‘the lack of freedom to not procreate,’ Mr. Knight says that despite our many achievements, humans are a net detriment to the Earth,” Buckley wrote.

In order to avoid confusion about the extinction agenda, “Mr. Knight added the word ‘voluntary’ decades ago to make it clear that adherents do not support mass murder or forced birth control, nor do they encourage suicide.” 

However, the Times journalist broached the negative connotations that could be connected with Voluntary Human Extinction’s goals.

The Most Worshipful Michelle Obama Review Ever? Another New York Times production. by Tim Graham

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-most-worshipful-michelle-obama-review-ever/

Ben Shapiro was blunt on Twitter. He had discovered “the most sycophantic book review ever written.” The book was the second come from multimillionaire author and advice guru Michelle Obama. The review appeared in The New York Times, from the paper’s “Help Desk” columnist Judith Newman. She’s “the help,” all right.

Ed Morrissey tweeted back to Shapiro: “The secret to success in life: Find someone who loves you as unconditionally and fiercely as the mainstream media loves the Obamas.”

Except they’re not “mainstream” at all. These “objective newspapers” are blatantly leftist partisan rags, as they demonstrate daily.

Shapiro quoted this saccharine passage about the Blessed Michelle: “She is on a journey. Through her stories, experiences, and thoughts, we’re finding the light with her. Lucky us.” Obama’s publishers tweeted out this quote, and then Newman retweeted the publisher like they’re all in the business of selling Michelle Obama.

So the people buying (and paying) Obama are lucky, and so are her pals. Newman added, “The fact that she loves ‘lowbrow TV’ and counts the hilarious but racy Ali Wong among her favorite comedians says the world about who Obama is when she gets together with those friends. Lucky them.”

The first line of Newman’s glittery bootlicking review is, “It’s not easy being Michelle Obama. Fabulous, yes. Easy, no.”

Later, she decries the “explosion of divisiveness” under former President Donald Trump, typically ignoring any introspection about the left-wing media endlessly and divisively smearing conservatives.

Did Sam Bankman-Fried’s Millions Buy the Media’s Loyalty? The mainstream coverage of SBF and FTX is more than a little blasé. Robby Soave

https://reason.com/2022/11/21/sam-bankman-fried-journalism-funding-crypto-fraud-media/

The public is only beginning to understand the full extent of alleged crimes committed by Sam Bankman-Fried (better known as SBF), a cryptocurrency entrepreneur who lost billions of dollars after his exchange, FTX, was revealed to be little better than a Ponzi scheme. SBF’s net worth plunged from $10 billion to effectively nothing in the course of a few days. He has declared bankruptcy and was recently questioned by the police of the Bahamas, where he resides.

John Ray III, who was brought in to manage Enron following that company’s self-destruction in 2001, is now the CEO of FTX. In a court filing last week, he said he has never seen such “a complete failure of corporate control,” including at Enron.

“From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented,” he said in a court filing.

SBF engaged in extreme levels of deception to trick people into thinking FTX was worth more than it was. He effectively paid investors, employees, and vendors shares of the company—his token, FTT—and loaned out money to his quantitative investment firm, Alameda Research. It was an elaborate house of cards that apparently fooled investors, celebrity sponsors, and politicians: SBF interviewed former President Bill Clinton and and former Prime Minister Tony Blair at a crypto conference he hosted back in April.

SHOCKER! WaPo Update About Mar-A-Lago Raid Doesn’t Fit the Narrative By Kevin Downey Jr.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/11/16/shocker-wapo-sheepishly-admits-the-fbi-found-no-nuclear-secrets-or-anything-else-in-mar-a-lago-raid-n1646445

There is nothing funnier than watching leftist Punchinellos beclown themselves over the latest “We’ve got Trump NOW!” hijinks.

Remember when the FBI raided Trump’s home supposedly looking for “nuclear secrets” a few months back? Guess how that turned out?

I’ll let the quislings at the Washinton Post spell it out:

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.

In other words, Trump was keeping souvenirs, as everyone else does.

Funny how WaPo sat on that story until after the midterms, right?

But wait, there’s more!

That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

The WaPo also found no evidence that Trump was looking to “leverage, sell or use the government secrets.”

Fake News: What’s with Tucker Carlson, Kanye West, Harley Pasternak and Jew hatred? Diane Bederman

https://dianebederman.com/fake-news-whats-with-tucker-carlson-kanye-west-harley-pasternak-and-jew-hatred/

I have been a fan of Tucker for many years. He often shared a collage of main stream media bites that were exactly the same; as if someone had sent out a news release earlier in the day with “what to say.” He was the go-to-guy for the other side; sharing missing facts. He attacked Fake News.  He ends his broadcast with:

“The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.”

And then came his interview with Kanye West, who has 32 million followers. Tucker described him as a “kind of Christian Evangelist.” He asked, “Is Kanye West crazy? You be the judge.” Ok. But you asked me to judge without telling me the interview was edited to make Kanye look good. Carlson says that the media isn’t in the business of ignoring remarkable things. Yet, that is exactly what he did. It has been proven that Tucker committed the sin he always said he fought – the sin of omission in order to promote a narrative. He edited out portions of the interview that portrayed Kanye in a negative way. Tucker Carlson removed all of Kanye’s nasty Jew hating comments and tropes. He also removed responses that shone a dark light on Kanye’s mental state despite the fact that West “has spoken frequently about living with bipolar disorder and experiencing manic episodes. In 2019, he discussed how he experiences these with David Letterman, telling him:

“When you’re in this state, you’re hyper-paranoid about everything, everyone. This is my experience, other people have different experiences. Everyone now is an actor. Everything’s a conspiracy.”

Tom Friedman – mistaken or disingenuous? Yoram Ettinger

https://bit.ly/3AlEbTL

On November 4, 2022, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman, who reflects the worldview of the State Department’s establishment, lamented that “The Israel we knew is gone.”

Should one rely on T.F.’s assessments concerning the Middle East?

*In September 1993, T.F. welcomed Arafat as a peace-seeking statesman.  He established (an immoral) moral equivalence between a role-model of terrorism, Arafat, and a role-model of counterterrorism, Prime Minister Rabin: “Two hands that had written the battle orders for so many young men, two fists that had been raised in anger at one another so many times in the past, locked together for a fleeting moment of reconciliation.”  T.F. was trapped by Arafat’s strategy of dissimulation (“Taqiyya”), highlighting Arafat’s peaceful English talk, ignoring Arafat’s violent Arabic talk, and playing down Arafat’s unprecedented terroristic walk since the 1993 Oslo Accord.

*In July, 2000, T.F. posed the question: “Who is Arafat? Is he Nelson Mandela or Willie Nelson?” A more realistic question would be: “Who is Arafat? Is he Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler?”

*T.F.’s pro-Palestinian stance dates back to his active involvement, while at Brandeis University, in the pro-Arafat radical-Left “Middle East Peace Group” and “Breira’” organizations.  It intensified during his role as the Associated Press’ and New York Times’ reporter in Lebanon. There he played down Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ rape and plunder of Lebanon, and their collaboration with Latin American, European, African and Asian terrorists, while expressing his appreciation of the PLO’s protection of foreign journalists in Beirut (who responded in kind…).   

Kimmel vs. Laxalt: Jimmy Kimmel’s uninformed ad shows he’s just a partisan Democrat willing to get ugly. By Ramesh Ponnuru

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kimmel-vs-laxalt/

Jimmy Kimmel’s ad attacking Adam Laxalt, the Republican running for Senate in Nevada, is based on the idea that Laxalt is so “unbalanced” that even “his family” is opposing him. “Why? Because they know him.”

Fourteen Laxalt relatives endorsed the incumbent Democrat, Catherine Cortez Masto.

The opposition from some of his relatives isn’t new. In Laxalt’s 2018 race for governor, twelve relatives wrote an op-ed denouncing him. In that op-ed, the twelve said that they hardly knew Laxalt, a fact they tried to spin against him (saying he doesn’t count as a real Nevadan). They noted that they disagreed with him on abortion, same-sex marriage, and federal education funding.

At the time, 22 other relatives wrote an op-ed calling the initial one “vicious and entirely baseless.”

This year’s letter skipped the attacks on Laxalt and instead praised Cortez Masto.

I don’t think dueling op-eds from candidates’ relatives is something that we should encourage. But I’d note that Kimmel is wrong to say Laxalt’s “family” opposes him, to say the opposition is based on knowing him, and to insinuate that its opposition has something to do with the candidate’s being “unbalanced.” I doubt Kimmel has done enough homework to know that he is telling untruths. He’s just a partisan Democrat who’s willing to get ugly.

CNN Refers to ‘Palestine’ as if it Existed When an “error” is gravely serious. by Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/cnn-refers-to-palestine-as-if-it-existed/

CNN has a little nomenclatorial problem when it comes to “Palestine.” A report on its latest error, and how the network was shamed into making a correction, can be found here: “CNN Takes Down ‘Palestine’ Reference Following Watchdog Action,” by Akiva Van Koningsveld, Algemeiner, October 27, 2022:

While Palestinian Authority (PA) chief Mahmoud Abbas might call himself the president of “Palestine,” most mainstream media outlets have rightfully refrained from recognizing Ramallah’s claim of independence. After all, the territory under Abbas’ control currently does not meet the formal criteria for statehood, as outlined in international law. formal criteria for statehood, as outlined in international law.

“Palestine” has no fixed, agreed-upon borders. The Palestinians answer to two separate Arab regimes – Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the P.A.-held parts of the West Bank, neither of which exerts full sovereignty. In the West Bank the Palestinians are not independent, but only exercise varying degrees of autonomy, based on whether they live in Areas A, B, or C, as defined by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Authority has a police force, but no military. At the U.N., “Palestine” has only non-voting “observer” status.

Statehood requires, as set out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention: “a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a sovereign government; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” These qualifications have been used as the basis for statehood by the international community. “Palestine” argues that it has met these requirements and therefore has achieved de facto statehood. However, to be considered a state an entity must function independently of any other authority.