Absurd Lies the NY Times is promoting

People got banned from the internet for discussing whether the COVID came from a lab, but this pernicious garbage goes by without notice. https://t.co/FVAdLZNPuM

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) August 21, 2022

The New Kremlinology: Reading the New York Times

 

Matt Taibbi

On Monday, the New York Times ran a story pegged to a new poll, showing Joe Biden dragging a sub-Trumpish 33% approval rating into the midterms. The language was grave:

Widespread concerns about the economy and inflation have helped turn the national mood decidedly dark, both on Mr. Biden and the trajectory of the nation… a pervasive sense of pessimism that spans every corner of the country...

The article followed another from the weekend, “At 79, Biden Is Testing the Boundaries of Age and the Presidency.” That piece, about Biden’s age — code for “cognitive decline” — was full of doom as well:

Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by traditional White House stratagems like staff shake-ups… Some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe.

Biden’s descent was obvious six years ago. Following the candidate in places like Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire, I listened to traveling press joke about his general lack of awareness and discuss new precautions his aides seemed to be taking to prevent him engaging audience members at events.

New York Times reported that Poland invaded Germany in 1939.

 How the New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative.  

The NY Times has twisted the facts to serve a larger narrative, from Hitler to Trump, according to a new book.  

NY Times reported that Poland attacked Germany starting WW2.

Excerpt: 

The paper’s coverage of Adolf Hitler’s Germany in the decade before World War II is an early example of its narrative manipulation, Rindsberg writes. 

So glowing was its picture of the regime that the Nazis regularly included New York Times reports in their own radio programs. “That’s because the Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was a Nazi collaborator,” Rindsberg said. 

Under Enderis, bureau reporters won Pulitzer Prizes as they drew on Hitler’s propaganda to cover the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the 1938 Munich Conference, when Britain and France tried to appease the fuhrer by giving him a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Enderis even parroted the Nazis’ claim that Poland invaded Germany to spark the war in Europe in 1939, not the other way around. ...

The Times lied about the Holodomor because the Times owners supported Communism.  The Times owners knew that Durante was covering up for Stalin and approved. 

 “Duranty was instructed by his higher-ups to cover the Ukraine famine in that way,” Rindsberg said. “At the time, The New York Times was actively pushing for American recognition of the Soviet Union,” he explained. The US business establishment, led by the Chamber of Commerce, was on board, and Soviet rhetoric meshed with the Ochs-Sulzberger family’s leftist politics. 

NYT wouldn't publish her story on the damage done by the Kenosha riots until after the election

Wow. This anecdote from @NellieBowles about how the NYT wouldn't publish her story on the damage done by the Kenosha riots until after the election is really damning. https://t.co/35jG248iya pic.twitter.com/O3nRi6mu9w

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) November 19, 2021

Shaping the news: Did the New York Times stifle lab leak debate?

 Great article on the way that the New York Times tried to destroy the truth about the Wuhan Insitute of Virology as the source of the Covid virus that has killed millions.

Read the whole thing.

But the following comment also deserves reading.  Especially the last part.  

As a result I find myself reading less and less reportage and instead choose to read more opinion pieces, simply because it is explicitly the opinion of the writer, that a reader can judge on its merits,  and not something that purports to be objective reporting whilst only offering half the facts and with a liberal/woke subtext smuggled in.

.Alexander Wood

.. The NYT is an extreme example, but this is happening across most mainstream media outlets to some degree or another. The Guardian and BBC very much to the fore in this country. Any writers and public intellectuals who don’t go along with this liberal Metropolitan worldview are branded heretics – I’m delighted to note this site is still home to many such heretics, and long may that continue!

The Media Produces Derangement: Proof From New York Times Readers

 

You can learn a lot from reading reader comments as Dennis Prager illustrates.  There are lots of people who read the NY Times who firmly believe that Global Warming will destroy the planter in the lifetimes of their grandchildren, so they're not having any.

This past weekend, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd added another column to the myriad irrational and hysterical pieces about the “existential threat” climate change allegedly poses to human life. 

As I do after almost every piece I read on the internet, I read comments submitted by readers.

One provided me with an epiphany.

It was a comment submitted by New York Times reader “Sophia” of Bangor, Maine:

“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”

It is hard to imagine greater proof than that comment of the power of mass media and of the left. That a normal woman would celebrate her daughter’s choice not to be a mother and not to make her a grandmother can only be described as deranged. No normal-thinking human being would think that way. Jews had children during the Holocaust and made sure to have children if they survived the Holocaust.

Prager goes on to cite the fact that fewer and fewer people are actually dying of either heat or cold.  But facts don't get in the way of propaganda.

For more proof of how deranged many New York Times readers — and Washington Post readers, CNN viewers and NPR listeners — are because they rely on these sources for what they believe about the world, here are some replies to Sophia’s comment from other New York Times readers:

B. Rothman, New York City: “I completely agree. I have 6 grandchildren and weep inside for the calamitous life that is ahead for them.”

Ida Martinac, Berkeley, California: “I weep with you, Sophia. Whenever I look my 11 year old daughter in the eyes I feel so many emotions: guilt for bringing her into this dying world.”

Liberal, Texas: “I feel your pain. I have 2 sons. Neither one will have children and their partners agree. I’ll never have grandchildren. But I also realize that their decisions have in some way been molded by me. I am proud of their decision.”

Liz, Portland: “Frankly, as someone who has been concerned about climate change, and observing what is happening over the last ten years with real dread, I do not understand why anyone in the last ten years would voluntarily have a child.”

Read the whole thing, then be grateful that you are not the victim of the Media.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after Jan. 6 riot, examiner says

 The New York Times lied when it printed that Sicknick was struck by a fire extinguisher.  The Democrats in the press later spread this lie widely and is still believed to this day by large numbers of people. 

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after he confronted rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to Washington's top medical examiner.

The chief medical examiner, Francisco Diaz, said Monday that an autopsy of Sicknick found no evidence the 42-year-old suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Diaz ruled the Sicknick, 42, died from "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis."

Just a few of the ways the New York Times lied about the January 6th riot in Washington DC

1. The Times reported that Officer Sicknick died from being struck by a fire extinguisher.  The medical examiner has still not reported on the cause of his death but the one thing that did not cause his death was being hit by any object.
2. 3 months after the NYT & national press corps drowned US discourse over a month with a harrowing but false story about a pro-Trump mob bashing Officer Sicknick's skull in with a fire extinguisher, they still can't say what caused his death on Jan 7:
3. Also, not only have there been no investigations released or facts given about what the DC Medical Examiner is calling the "homicide" of Ashli Bobbitt -- who was unarmed -- they still have not even released the name of the officer who fatally shot her in the neck at close range.

Babylon Bee Defamed by Lying New York Times - Support the Babylon Bee

 

In a just-published article about Facebook's difficulty in dealing with satire, The New York Times points to The Babylon Bee as an example of a "far-right misinformation site" that "sometimes trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire." They said we dishonestly "claim" to be satire to protect our presence on the platform. This is false and defamatory. No other examples of so-called far-right misinformation sites are offered. The Babylon Bee is the only one cited in their article. Notably, the words "trafficked in misinformation" are hyperlinked, presumably to a supportive source. But the link they point to is another NY Times piece that actually refutes the claim that we traffic in misinformation by describing us as a legitimate satire site. The reason they don't link to a supportive source is because they don't have one. What's happening here is incredible, but unsurprising: The New York Times is using deceptive disinformation to smear us as being a source of deceptive disinformation. This is not the first time this has happened. We've had to defend ourselves against such claims before. The ongoing mischaracterization of our site in the liberal media is a blatant attempt to discredit and deplatform us. If they can convince the social networks we're abusing the "satire" label, then they can shut us down. It's that simple. The whole system is rigged to support these efforts, too. Wikipedia, for example, only allows "reliable sources" to determine how a website is characterized. And guess which sources they consider reliable? The New York Times, The Rolling Stone, CNN, etc. The sites that shamelessly mischaracterize us are deemed credible and quotable, whereas sites that appreciate and defend us are dismissed as "unreliable." So what can be done about this? Well, we're talking with our lawyers again about the best path forward. Damaging defamation is serious. But there's a way you can help, too. You're already a paid subscriber—and we sincerely appreciate your support—but would you consider upgrading to the next tier? If the liberal media succeeds in getting us banned for disinformation, we'll need as much financial support as we can get to stay in business. Upgrade today to save satire and make us cancel-proof. Thank you! Seth Dillon CEO

Ignorant Senator Shares New York Times Article Thinking It's Real

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—A U.S. Senator has made what some are calling "an embarrassing mistake" after he shared a New York Times article on Twitter, apparently unaware that The New York Times is a popular fake news site.

The New York Times is a well-known publication that started as a newspaper but has switched to satire in recent years. According to sources, the Senator had been misinformed by some political operatives telling him that the newspaper was a "trustworthy source of news." 

"We all need to do our part to fight the spread of misinformation," said the senator in a statement. "I'm embarrassed to say I was tricked by this headline. I thought the article was real. I quickly took the tweet down after learning that The New York Times is a satire site known for spreading hate and lies. I promise to do better in the future."

Officer Sicknick’s death: the only surprise here is that the NY Times actually issued any sort of retraction at all, even a mild one

 I’ve been writing about the problems with the story about Capitol Police Officer Sicknick’s cause of death since just a few days after it happened. It was clear even then that the report that Officer Sicknick had been hit in the head with a fire extinguisher wielded by rioters and that he died of that injury was shaky from the start, and was contradicted by his family members who had spoken to him after the riot. These difficulties with the reporting could have been easily perceived weeks ago by anyone with a computer and a spirit of curiosity (and see this for a list of links to my posts about it).

But the NY Times couldn’t bother to report on any of this, because there was an anti-Trump narrative to get out and an impeachment to be effected.

Now that the preferred narrative is firmly set in the public’s minds and the impeachment trial is over, the fact that nearly every newspaper in the US and the House managers lied to the nation about Sicknick’s death can be whispered or at least hinted at. Here the “update”, and it’s pretty subtle. Most of America will probably miss the correction, because it’s attached to the original January 8 article that first reported on the fire extinguisher story told by “officials,” and the headline is still intact, “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.”

How did Sicknick die?  We can't be sure, but we can be sure that the story the NY Times told and the story that the House Impeachment managers told was a lie. 

You Almost Feel Sorry for Them

You Don't Say: Half Of NYT Employees Feel They Cannot Speak Freely
https://t.co/XnWONWBAwt

— RedState (@RedState) February 15, 2021

More NY Times Lies

 NY Times claims that Russian intervention favoring Trump was a factor in the 2016 election.

If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes common knowledge and that's how lies become "The truth."

NYT casually asserts Russian intervention was a factor behind Trump winning in 2016. This will be how the history is written, and it’s an absolute farce. But when you casually insert the lie over and over, it becomes “my Truth” for the Ruling Class https://t.co/jYPST4N1Qj pic.twitter.com/H3m3eCapNQ

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) February 15, 2021

New York Times Lies - You Can't Believe What the NY Times Prints

 The New York Times reported that a policeman who died defending the Capitol was killed by being struck by a fire extinguisher.  

That was a lie.  How many of you believe it because the NY Times liars told you.

Was the Lying New York Times - which covered up Stalin's murderous rule - ever a reliable source of information?

It's buried at the bottom of an article over a month after the original lie was printed.

Though law enforcement officials initially said Officer Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, police sources and investigators are at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.

Investigators have found little evidence to back up the attack with the fire extinguisher as the cause of death, the official said. Instead, they increasingly suspect that a factor was Officer Sicknick being sprayed in the face by some sort of irritant, like mace or bear spray, the law enforcement official said.

Though the police consider irritants to be nonlethal deterrents for crowd control, they can cause physical reactions and disorientation that can lead to injury.

Hey ⁦@jack⁩ now that NYT retracted its story about Sicknick’s “murder,” will you flag accounts that repeat the lie or maybe suspend NYT for spreading fake news? https://t.co/Npo5dRG8ne

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 14, 2021

New York Times: Publishers Banning Conservatives Isn't Blacklisting Because They Can Self-Publish

 It figures that this argument would be made by the New York paper that can make or break books in an industry based out of the same city. And that it would be made by Ben Smith, the loathsome Buzzfeed vet who had been previously dispatched to do a hit piece on Andrew Sullivan over false allegations of racism.

The specific topic here is the New York Times unabashedly celebrating Hachette's firing of Kate Hartson at Center Street, a conservative imprint, for publishing... conservatives.

Read the whole thing. 

Slouching Toward Post-Journalism

 In August 2016, as the presidential race ground grimly onward, the New York Times laid down a marker regarding the manner in which it would be covered. The paper declared the prevalence of media opinion to be an irresistible fact, like the weather. Or, as Jim Rutenberg phrased it in a prominent front-page story: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that is potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.” Objectivity was discarded in favor of an “oppositional” stance. This was not an anti-Trump opinion piece. It was an obituary for the values of a lost era. Rutenberg, who covered the media beat, had authored a factual report about the death of factual reporting—the sort of paradox often encountered among the murky categories of post-journalism.

The article touched on the fraught issue of race and racism. Trump opponents take his racism for granted—he stands accused of appealing to the worst instincts of the American public, and those who wish to debate the point immediately fall under suspicion of being racists themselves. The dilemma, therefore, was not whether Trump was racist (that was a fact) or why he flaunted his racist views (he was a dangerous demagogue) but, rather, how to report on his racism under the strictures of commercial journalism. Once objectivity was sacrificed, an immense field of subjective possibilities presented themselves. A vision of the journalist as arbiter of racial justice would soon divide the generations inside the New York Times newsroom.

Rutenberg made his point through hypothetical-rhetorical questions that, at times, verged on satire: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?” Rutenberg assumed that “working journalists” shared the same opinion of Trump—that wasn’t perceived as problematic. A second assumption concerned the intelligence of readers: they couldn’t be trusted to process the facts. The answer to Rutenberg’s loaded question, therefore, could only be to “throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of a half-century” and leap vigorously into advocacy. Trump could not safely be covered; he had to be opposed.

New York Times Says Deadly BLM Riots Were ‘Isolated Instances Of Property Destruction’ That GOP ‘Exaggerated’

 

In an attempt to justify the corporate media and Democrats’ sudden affection for rule of law after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the New York Times published an article on Sunday demonizing Republicans for raising issue with the Black Lives Matter riots.

In the article, the author, using language such as “unrest,” argues that the months of violence, chaos, looting, and damage caused in U.S. cities by rioters in the name of Black Lives Matter were simply “isolated instances of looting and property destruction” that the GOP “often exaggerated” and used for political gain in the November election.

There is a difference between the BLM riots and the riot at the Capitol.  At the Capitol: 

• No large screen TVs were "liberated."
• No building burned.
•  No stores were vandalized.
• No cars were burned.
• The only person shot and killed was shot by the police.
• The press opposed the rioters.

For NY Times, no news is fit to print about Rep. Swalwell and a spy

 The answer is that the NY Times is a Democrat Party organ.

How the Ochs-Sulzberger (which owns the New York Times) family dodges taxes

 

The NY Times has used hundreds of millions in tax losses to reduce its tax bill.

The company reported an annual loss for 2006 of $543 million. The Times 2006 annual report says the company’s “effective income tax rate was 3.0% because the majority of the non-cash impairment charge of $814.4 million at the New England Media Group is non-deductible for tax purposes.”

 It made bad investments and sold them for massive losses

The Times Company bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993, added the Worcester Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999, and sold them both to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry for $70 million in 2013.

It employed family members as a way to get around gift tax limits

 including not only the outgoing chairman’s son A.G. Sulzberger, who was paid $2,075,313, but also James Dryfoos, who earned $285,022; Pamela Dryfoos, who earned $138,750, and David Perpich, who earned $931,338.

Read the whole thing. 

New York Times Manipulates FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea To Hide Real Spygate News

 A New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his role perpetrating the Russia collusion hoax was tasked with framing the news that a former top FBI lawyer was to plead guilty to deliberately fabricating evidence against a Donald Trump campaign affiliate targeted in the Russia probe. The resulting article is a case study in how to write propaganda.

Adam Goldman broke, and cushioned, the news that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was to plead guilty to fabricating evidence in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to spy on Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.

His job was to present the news as something other than an indictment of the FBI’s handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to signal to other media that they should move on from the story as quickly as possible, and to hide his own newspaper’s multi-year participation in the Russia collusion hoax. One intelligence source described it as an “insult” to his intelligence and “beyond Pravda,” a reference to the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Here’s how Goldman did it.