Trump conspiracy theories have made the New York Times a lot of money. And after its latest scandal, it’s going to… conspiracy theories.
First, a little background. The background is needed because the New York Times buries the topic it’s really talking about deeper than its Communist buddies buried Chernobyl. You have to go a dozen paragraphs into its screed before there’s even a vague reference to this.
A New York Times political editor has a years-long history of antisemitic and racist comments on his Twitter page, a Breitbart News investigation has found.
“I was going to say ‘Crappy Jew Year,’ but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic,” Tom Wright-Piersanti tweeted on Jan. 1, 2010, at 9:35 a.m. “So…. HAPPY Jew Year. You Jews.”
Another one from the evening of Dec. 15, 2009, includes a photograph of a vehicle with what looks like a Menorah–culturally and religiously associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah–on the roof. Wright-Piersanti commented: “Who called the Jew-police?”
According to the New York Times, this is evidence of a Trump conspiracy.
Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House – New York Times
.The evidence for this is so good that Mueller ought to testify about it to the Senate.
“If the @nytimes thinks this settles the matter we can expose a few of their other bigots,” Mr. Schwartz tweeted on Thursday in response to an apologetic tweet from a Times journalist whose anti-Semitic social media posts had just been revealed by the operation. “Lots more where this came from.”
That’s the only piece of evidence of this vast network that the Times conspiratorial rant actually presents. Instead it keeps asserting that there’s a vast secret conspiracy with links to the White House.
Now while you might think that digging up dirt on the media is fair play, the media would like you to know that turnabout is not fair.
But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
That’s umm editorializing. But that ship sailed decades ago.
The media is in a position of power. Scrutinizing its political activists is as fair as the media scrutinizing conservative activists.
The bizarre “well-established role” is just silly.
Is the media’s role legitimate because it’s well-established?
The New York Times, the Washington Post, etc have made little secret of the fact that they want to destroy conservatives, swing elections to the Left, and usher in a hegemony of their political allies.
“If it’s clearly retaliatory, it’s clearly an attack, it’s clearly not journalism,” said Leonard Downie Jr., who was the executive editor of The Post from 1991 to 2008.
Funny how the Washington Post singled out the Freedom Center for a hit piece after our negative coverage of the Post.
Anyway, how does one define retaliation? Is the media’s latest hit piece on its political opponents a retaliation or a provocation?
“It’s one thing for Spiro Agnew to call everyone in the press ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’” he said, referring to the former vice president’s famous critique of how journalists covered President Richard M. Nixon. “And another thing to investigate individuals in order to embarrass them publicly and jeopardize their employment.”
Good thing the media doesn’t go around doxxing anonymous conservatives on the internet while trying to get them fired.
Oh wait. Just ask CNN and the Huffington Post about those toxic little habits.
“They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.”
Or they’re bringing uncomfortable truths to light while you seek to intimidate them.
The Sulzberger clan and the Times are far more of a power than some people on Twitter. Who’s putting a check on their power?
In a statement, a CNN spokesman said that when government officials, “and those working on their behalf, threaten and retaliate against reporters as a means of suppression, it’s a clear abandonment of democracy for something very dangerous.”
The reporter assaulted by April Ryan’s bodyguard could not be reached for comment.
The liberal group Media Matters for America helped pioneer close scrutiny of public statements by conservative media personalities.
The conservative operative James O’Keefe has twisted that concept in ways inconsistent with traditional journalistic ethics, using false identities, elaborate cover stories and undercover videos to entrap journalists and publicize embarrassing statements, often in misleading ways, to undercut the credibility of what he considers news media biased in favor of liberals.
1. Scrutinizing conservative media personalities is journalism. Scrutinizing lefty media personalities is inconsistent with journalism.
2. Also, David Brock accused the New York Times of being part of a right-wing conspiracy against Hillary Clinton.
3. The media has used false identities, cover stories and undercover videos to entrap its targets.
One person involved in the effort said the pro-Trump forces, aware ahead of time about the coverage of Ms. Grisham, were prepared to respond. Early Thursday morning, soon after the profile appeared online, Breitbart News published an article that documented anti-Semitic and racist tweets written a decade ago by Tom Wright-Piersanti, who was in college at the time and has since become an editor on the Times’ politics desk. The Times said it was reviewing the matter and considered the posts “a clear violation of our standards.”
It took a dozen paragraphs for the Times to finally name him. And then to double down on defending media anti-Semitism.
Mr. Schwartz resurfaced anti-Semitic tweets from 2011 by a CNN photo editor. Mr. Schwartz suggested that a CNN reporter who specializes in unearthing problematic archival content should “look into the social media activities of your employees.”
The tweets became the basis for several articles in conservative news outlets and hundreds of tweets from conservatives targeting the photo editor, Mohammed Elshamy, which did not stop even after he resigned under pressure from CNN and apologized.
“It felt like a coordinated attack,” said Mr. Elshamy, who said he had received death threats. “It was overwhelming.”
The Times conveniently neglects to mention what Mohammed had tweeted.
More than 4 jewish pigs killed in #Jerusalem today by the Palestinian bomb explode. #Israel #Gaza,” read one of his tweets after a terrorist attack.
The March 2011 bombing killed a 59-year-old Scottish Christian Bible translator who was studying in Israel and severely injured a 14-year-old Israeli girl, Hodaya Asulin, who succumbed to her injuries six years later.
This is what the New York Times is defending.
It’s a conspiracy alright. A conspiracy to defend media anti-Semitism while silencing its critics.
Leave a Reply