What the despicable New York Times is doing to Tucker Carlson

Tucker responds to intrusive reporting by The New York Times. pic.twitter.com/xj4z69G9cA

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) July 21, 2020

A dose of their own medicine

In the New York Post, Michael Goodwin writes in part,

It’s far worse than I thought. In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.

Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery. She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.

I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha’s family fought for secession.

Adolph Ochs’ own “Southern sympathies” were reflected in the content of the Chattanooga Times, the first newspaper he owned, and then The New York Times. The latter published an editorial in 1900 saying the Democratic Party, which Ochs supported, “may justly insist that the evils of negro suffrage were wantonly inflicted on them.”

Six years later, the Times published a glowing profile of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the 100th anniversary of his birth, calling him “the great Southern leader.”

Ochs reportedly made contributions to rebel memorials, including $1,000 to the enormous Stone Mountain Memorial in Georgia that celebrates Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. He made the donation in 1924 so his mother, who died 16 years earlier, could be on the founders’ roll, adding in a letter that “Robert E. Lee was her idol.”

In the years before his death in 1931, Ochs’ brother George was simultaneously an officer of The New York Times Company and a leader of the New York Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

...Handcuff the cops, tear down the statues, rewrite the textbooks, make America the world’s bad guy — that’s what today’s Times is selling.

Anyone with such an activist agenda better be purer than Caesar’s wife. The Times clearly fails that test and owes its staff, stockholders and readers a full account of the slave holders and Confederates in its past.

My hope is that after taking a dose of their own medicine, the owner and editors will focus their efforts where they belong: on making The New York Times a great newspaper again.

Read more here.

How naive can they get?

The New York Times admits that the Tara Reade allegations about being sexually molested by Joe Biden should not be left "to be investigated by and adjudicated in the media. Mr. Biden is seeking the nation's highest office." Instead, it recommends "The Democratic National Committee should move to investigate the matter swiftly and thoroughly, with the full cooperation of the Biden campaign."

Reactions to this hopelessly naive recommendation: Ace of Spades,

The fox is hereby appointed to investigate the egg thefts from the hen-house, with the full cooperation of the raccoons.

Ace again:

The New York Times Editorial Board Proclaims That The Tara Reade Allegations Are Too Sensitive and Politically Explosive to be Investigated by the Media-- So They Should be Investigated by a Less Partisan Organization, The Democrat National Committee
—Ace
Interesting admission-- the New York Times is conceding they are less reliable and less capable and less unbiased than an actual political coordination committee.

Byron York:

Absolutely astonishing -- New York Times not only rejects role of media, but calls for an investigation done by 'an unbiased, apolitical panel, put together by the DNC

Ted Cruz:

They are Dem hacks, not journalists. Imagine this NYT editorial: “allegations have arisen that President Nixon was behind the break-in at the Watergate. The media cannot investigate. We believe the Committee to Re-Elect the President should launch a ‘thorough’ investigation.”

Read more here.

"Alarm, denial, blame!"

“You literally can’t look at our paper and find anything on the right, or even the center anymore—exactly how a good, unbiased newspaper should be.”

From the Babylon Bee: NEW YORK, NY—The New York Times announced Monday that going forward its papers will be printed only on the far-left side of the page, moving its news, opinions, and commentary from the center as far left as possible.

Subscribers receving a copy of the Times will now receive a mostly blank newspaper, with all the content smashed up against the far-left margin of the paper.

“We want our paper’s format to best represent the slant of our team of writers and editors,” a representative for the Times said. “If we printed in the center of the paper, or even to the center-left, that would be misrepresenting our views. Only the very far-left edge of the paper is worthy of our bizarre, progressive worldview.”

Monday’s edition was the first to utilize the new format, and received “very positive” reception from the Times’ readership, according to the editorial board.

“We’ve received a ton of positive comments praising our objective reporting that is now entirely written in a far-left perspective,” the rep said. “You literally can’t look at our paper and find anything on the right, or even the center anymore—exactly how a good, unbiased newspaper should be.”

How to get a favorable obituary

He really should have just founded an international terror group if he wanted a favorable obituary from the New York Times. https://t.co/ZlXSyJkmP9

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2020

No longer credible

In the New York Post, Michael Goodwin writes,

By ending the commitment to fairness and impartiality, Baquet is destroying the credibility of The New York Times. Standards made it the most trusted news organization in America and by trashing those standards, Baquet has turned the Times into a purely partisan outlet.

It would be tragic enough if his actions had destroyed only the Times. But there is a national crisis of confidence in all media, and the Times no longer offers a solution. It is a major part of the problem.

Read more here.

Shooting itself in the foot

In a comment on the latest Kavanaugh smear, Glenn Reynolds reminds us in Instapundit,

the party that has relied heavily on rule by judiciary is still shooting itself in the foot if it delegitimizes the Supreme Court.

Read more here.

Journalistic malpractice

I was glad to see Ace of Spades address the new New York Times hit piece on Judge Kavanaugh today.

New York Times Runs Yet Another Smear Against Brett Kavanaugh; Alleged Newspaper Forgets to Mention 1, the Alleged Victim Denies Any Memory of This Silly Tale, and 2, The Person Claiming He Remembers Hearing About It Is... A Clinton Lawyer.
—Ace of Spades
What a fusion of common backgrounds, common social circles, and common political agendas.

Read it here.

Ripping the mask off the New York Times

Oregon Muse writes today in the Ace of Spades blog,

"Today, I do not want to mourn the passing of the NY Times, but to jeer at the misshapen thing it has become. Or, perhaps, like so many things in the age of Trump, there is no 'becoming', it always was, and the mask has just been ripped off. They have gone public with who they really are, and they are taking American journalism down with them.
"I am not sorry to see it go. I'm watching with unabated glee while it is slowly being destroyed by its current editors. Presumably, the owners are fine with this, because the editors still have their jobs and are not being thrown out on their ears and replaced with serious journalists.

"Perhaps the death of the Times happened a long time ago. Perhaps it died the day that Times reporter Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up The Holodomor in the 1930s Ukraine, and it wasn't returned when his perfidy became obvious to any serious observer. But with the leaked minutes of the meeting led by executive editor Dean Baquet instructing his staff to switch gears: they basically whiffed on the Russian collusion narrative (even though they didn't really do anything wrong, according to Baquet), so now they're going to concentrate on Trump's alleged racism.

"In other words, the Russian collusion narrative was an abject failure, so let's try another one. But I thought journalism was about reporting the news, not determining in advance what the news is going to be. That's just... dishonest.

"And they don't realize how they're destroying their brand. The NY Times used to be the "newspaper of record" even though it was mostly liberal. You could actually read around the bias and get news that wasn't fake. But no longer. Now, it has degenerated into a parody of itself. It's not even up to the quality of Slate, Salon, or even the Huffington Post. It's nothing more than a left-wing blog now, blue-state clickbait, indistinguishable from the Daily Kos. Only even more obnoxious and shrill. When the history of these crazy years will be written by competent historians, it is not going to treat the NY Times kindly. It will probably be compared to the yellow journalism of the 19th century - and not favorably."

Different times, same anti-Semitism

via PowerLine

"The Democrats have become a party of the elites, and journalism has become a practice of the elite!"

"The FBI, taking the government of America into its own hands, while the New York Times cheers them on! Preparing for the release of the Mueller investigation report, the FBI people are framing their deep state coup attempt as an heroic investigation. They were getting back at him for his firing of Comey. They saw Trump coming on strong and he was not one of them! We have to protect the public! They panicked when Trump won the election and fired Comey.

The New York Times is printing the story as if it were a good thing that the FBI was engaging in a coverup. It's a duel scandal; one, that the FBI took this power unto itself and second, that the New York Times abetted the coverup scandal.

The Democrats have become a party of the elites, and journalism has become a practice of the elite!

"Defamation," "Substantial Liability"

Did you know that Melania Trump sued The Daily Mail, which settled out of court with her by paying her 2.9 million dollars in 2017? The same lawyer who won that lawsuit is now warning the New York Times about the tax story they published yesterday.

Should the Times state or imply that President Trump participated in fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime, it will be exposing itself to substantial liability and damages for defamation.

Read more here.

A cheap trick

Today the New York Times published an op-ed which they said was written by a senior member of the Trump White House. Twitter is on fire with people trying to figure out who wrote it. A clever way for the New York Times to get some clicks. Color me totally unimpressed with the New York Times, a former newspaper.

A different cosmos

In the Weekly Standard, PJ O'Rourke explains why he believes the New York Times and its readers

live in another cosmos—a universe with different physics, different mathematics, different scientific constants, and different laws of nature.

Read the whole thing here.

"We're on the alert — even when we read the New York Times — that somebody's always trying to con us."

Ann Althouse writes at Althouse,

...we're on the alert — even when we read the New York Times — that somebody's always trying to con us.

This editorial is doing the very thing it decries, trying to "confuse and anger people about sensitive issues."

What's the point here? That in the future these people might actually accomplish their nefarious plan to publish more posts?? That's the profound threat to national security?

Ann quotes an editorial in the New York Times,

After the election, they continued to spread confusion and chaos, staging rallies both for and against Mr. Trump, in one case on the same day and in the same city.

Ann writes,

This column is continuing to spread confusion and chaos, but I nevertheless persist in keeping my wits about me. I'm not buying it. Just as I don't believe that Hillary Clinton said "Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom," I don't believe these piddling social media posts and real-world rallies are a profound thread to national security.

So the New York Times is spreading chaos and confusion, just like the Russians?
Read more here.

New York Times: Don't forget our enemies at Fox News!

Emily Steel and Michael S. Schmidt "report" at the New York Times about the Times' enemy, Fox News. The "report" compares the Harvey Weinstein payouts to the Bill O'Reilly payouts.

...Publicly known harassment settlements involving Mr. O’Reilly have totaled about $45 million... The Times reported this month that Mr. Weinstein had reached at least eight settlements with women, most of whom received between $80,000 to $150,000.

...After a few days of negotiation, Mr. O’Reilly and Ms. Wiehl reached a deal, according to a copy of the term sheet for the agreement that was sent anonymously to The Times and confirmed by the people briefed on the settlement. Dated Jan. 7, it called for Ms. Wiehl to be paid over a period of time to ensure her silence. In return, she agreed not to sue Mr. O’Reilly, Fox News or 21st Century Fox. And all photos, text messages and other communications between the two would be destroyed.

...In response to questions about why he sent sexually explicit material to Ms. Wiehl, Mr. O’Reilly said that during his time at the network, he had been sent threatening messages almost every day, including some that had obscene material. To deal with this problem, Mr. O’Reilly said, he set up a system in which the material would be forwarded to his lawyers so they could evaluate whether he needed to take any legal action. Mr. O’Reilly said Ms. Wiehl was among those lawyers.

...On April 13, Mr. Zweifach, the company’s general counsel, notified the Murdochs about a new document request from federal prosecutors investigating the network.

Got that? Obama's federal prosecuters were "investigating the network!"

A day after the meeting with regulators, while Mr. O’Reilly was on vacation in Italy, he was dismissed. He left the network with a $25 million payout.

...In recent weeks Mr. O’Reilly has made several public appearances to promote a new book. He said on the “Today’’ show that he never sent a lewd text or email to a Fox News employee, that his conscience is clear and that “a political and financial hit job” brought him down.

“This is horrible, it’s horrible what I went through, horrible what my family went through,” Mr. O’Reilly said in a raised voice at the end of the interview with The Times. “This is crap, and you know it.”

More here.

Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times for defamation

Peter Hasson reports at The Daily Caller that

Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation, according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday that were obtained by The Daily Caller.

The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man. There is no evidence to support the NYT’s implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting. (RELATED: NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory)

“Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” Palin’s suit states.

“Specifically, on June 14, 2017, The Times Editorial Board, which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times, falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, during which he shot nineteen people, severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.”

The lawsuit states that the paper “published and promoted its Editorial Board’s column despite knowing that the linchpin of its ‘sickening pattern’ of politically-incited shootings was the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited Loughner to murder six people, among them a child and federal judge, and seriously wound numerous others.” (RELATED: NYT Has Been Pushing Palin-Giffords Falsehood For Years)

It goes on to state: “As the public backlash over The Times’ malicious column mounted, it responded by making edits and ‘corrections’ to its fabricated story, along with half-hearted Twitter apologies–none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published. In fact, none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder.”

Palin claims the editorial “exceeded the bounds of legality, decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column.”

Read more here.

"They don't have any blood on their hands, no siree."

Commenting on an article by Frank Bruni in the New York times, Ann Althouse writes,

..."The point is that Hodgkinson's ideas — to the extent that we can learn them from his social media presence — tracked mainstream media. Hodgkinson's actions obviously go beyond what we find in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC."

To which a commenter named Bruce Hayden replies,

The MSM push, push, push, but then when someone actually goes where they have been pushing, and commits the violence that they keep pushing their side to do, they respond that they REALLY didn't mean for their audience to go that far. They don't have any blood on their hands, no siree.

Bruni and his MSM buddies are starting to reap what they have sown, and want to pretend that they are innocent bystanders, merely chronicling history as it is routinely made. But the Internet doesn't forget, so it isn't going to work. Pictures of Kathy Griffin will be forever available with the bloody Trump head in her hand. As will the articles by Bruni and other denizens of the NYT, WaPo, etc.

Enthusiastically wrong!

At the Battle Swarm blog Newt Gingrich socks it to the New York Times because of their biased coverage of Trump.

The New York Times is having a hard time understanding President-elect Donald Trump.

Trumpism is a process and a philosophy of action and leadership so different from the normal Washington systems that the Times just seems incapable of understanding it.

Furthermore, there is an Orwellian quality of deliberation misinformation and disinformation to the Times’ coverage.

President-elect Trump IS different. In fact, he is unique. No other American has won the presidency without serving in elected office or being a general in the military. No other billionaire has been elected to the presidency. No one has ever used social media as effectively. No one has had the scale and frequency of rallies. No one has understood that a 20,000-person rally with every person using his or her smartphone to send out photos and videos creates an audience the size of MSNBC. No one else has been dramatically outspent in both the primaries and the general election and won.

You would think that a person with these achievements would be worthy of a certain respect and of a curiosity about how he thinks and what he is trying to do.

Furthermore, Trumpism IS different. It isn’t traditional conservatism. It is an entrepreneurial, pragmatic, energetic, constantly evolving and constantly learning and improving model.

If The New York Times were a serious newspaper it would start by recognizing that Trump is a remarkable leader and that this is a new phenomenon. Then it would try to explore and understand the differences between the old order and the world Trump is trying to create. Then it could describe the context of the President-elect and educate its readers accurately in an informed, coherent manner.

Unfortunately, The New York Times is trapped within the obsolete establishment mindset which was wrong about Trump throughout the primaries, then was wrong about Trump throughout the general election, then was wrong about who would win. This elite mindset has learned nothing. It is now enthusiastically being wrong about the transition. All of this is great practice for the paper to be wrong about the new administration.